Teachers in Israel have apparently chosen a dangerous profession. Both Haaretz and Ynet are reporting incidents in which students are suspected of attacking students.
Ynet reports that students in the Golan Heights are suspected of setting fire to their teacher's vehicle. The Haaretz story is about a teacher who is believed to have suffered a stroke after being hit by a water balloon thrown by students. The victim, who has 25 years of teaching experience, collapsed afterward and claims the students gloated over her and prevented paramedics from evacuating her to a hospital.
While I can't help but wonder if the teachers could be exaggerating the extent of their injuries in the hope of getting greater financial compensation (I wouldn't put such tactics past the Teachers Union here), I suspect there is something behind the incidents.
Israeli kids tend to lack discipline and can be extremely unruly. I'm not sure what this comes from, although I believe it's part of a general attitude of Israeli parents to let their kids get away with just about anything.
I remember a couple of years ago when my parents were visiting and we went to an Italian restaurant in Tel Aviv. Shortly after the food arrived, a small football thrown by an Israeli boy, probably around 6-8 years old, landed in my father's spaghetti. He handled the situation well. His reaction was one of shock mroe than anger. But it was telling when the child's father did virtually nothing to let his child know that this was unacceptable behavior.
Friday, October 22, 2004
Love Parade - take two
The annual Love Parade is taking place this afternoon just two blocks from my apartment in Tel Aviv. Police have sealed off streets between Kerem Hatemanim and the beach. It was supposed to be held a few weeks ago, but it was postponed due to the Sinai terror attacks.
I noticed that uniformed police are wearing fluorescent yellow stickers with "police" written in black Hebrew letters, so I asked why because their uniform makes it clear they are police. An officer told me it's to prevent terrorists disguised as police from infiltrating the event.
Personally I've never really understood the Love Parade. Don't get me wrong. I'm no prude and I have no moral opposition to women flashing their breasts to onlookers as they ride atop floats down the parade route... Wait a second... Now that I think about it, I finally do understand the Love Parade.
I noticed that uniformed police are wearing fluorescent yellow stickers with "police" written in black Hebrew letters, so I asked why because their uniform makes it clear they are police. An officer told me it's to prevent terrorists disguised as police from infiltrating the event.
Personally I've never really understood the Love Parade. Don't get me wrong. I'm no prude and I have no moral opposition to women flashing their breasts to onlookers as they ride atop floats down the parade route... Wait a second... Now that I think about it, I finally do understand the Love Parade.
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Blogs and insanity / Old man Ovadia on Arabs
One of the problems with blogging is that it's easy to fall in the trap of ranting and losing one's santity. Perhaps it's because I'm sitting here, talking to myself, but I'm imagining that I'm debating someone diametrically opposed to my views, and he is really pissing me off. So if I have been ranting the last two posts, I do apologize. I'll try to regain a bit of my sanity.
Today on my way to work I noticed a row of 5-6 large billboards, one beside the other on Moses Street in Tel Aviv, and all but one was about the disengagement plan.
I didn't write the text down verbatim, but one said: "Sharon is splitting the country" while another said something about how the minority opposed to disengagement shouldn't dictate Israeli policy. I had seen variations of these themes before, but a new one on the billboards warned residents of the center of Israel that the Qassam rockets are on the way. It's just another example of the right wing relying on scare tactics because they lack any good reason for us to stay in Gaza. They can feel their power slipping away, like water in their cupped hands.
And today Shas spiritual leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef met with leaders opposed to the disengagement plan. Here's a select quote the wise sage made a few years back:
"Why are you bringing them (Palestinians) close to us? You bring snakes next to us. How can you make peace with a snake? Those evildoers, the Arabs, it says in the Gemara religious texts that God is sorry he ever created those sons of Ishmael."
And remember, yesterday Defense Minister Mofaz met with old man Ovadia in a bid to get support for the disengagement plan.
Today on my way to work I noticed a row of 5-6 large billboards, one beside the other on Moses Street in Tel Aviv, and all but one was about the disengagement plan.
I didn't write the text down verbatim, but one said: "Sharon is splitting the country" while another said something about how the minority opposed to disengagement shouldn't dictate Israeli policy. I had seen variations of these themes before, but a new one on the billboards warned residents of the center of Israel that the Qassam rockets are on the way. It's just another example of the right wing relying on scare tactics because they lack any good reason for us to stay in Gaza. They can feel their power slipping away, like water in their cupped hands.
And today Shas spiritual leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef met with leaders opposed to the disengagement plan. Here's a select quote the wise sage made a few years back:
"Why are you bringing them (Palestinians) close to us? You bring snakes next to us. How can you make peace with a snake? Those evildoers, the Arabs, it says in the Gemara religious texts that God is sorry he ever created those sons of Ishmael."
And remember, yesterday Defense Minister Mofaz met with old man Ovadia in a bid to get support for the disengagement plan.
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Morality vs. morality
In my previous post I said that as a reservist who refuses to serve in the territories, I cannot debate the right of soldiers to refuse to evacuate settlements. But I believe there are crucial differences in the reasoning to do so.
I refuse to serve in the territories because I cannot, in good conscience, be part of the immoral oppression of the Palestinian people as expressed by the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip that began in 1967. Now, for the sake of argument, if Israel annexed these areas and granted the Palestinians the right to vote, my basis for refusal would no longer exist. But for a variety of reasons too extensive to discuss here, this did not happen.
As naive as this may sound, I see the Palestinians as human beings. Some of them are terrorists and want to kill me and other Jews, and there is little we can do to change this, but this hatred is not sufficient to justify the means Israel uses to continue holding the lands in dispute.
Build the wall and make it tall! The separation fence, security barrier or whatever you want to call it certainly seems to be working in the areas where construction has been completed. But the end of terror means the end of the reason the right-wing sells to the rest of Israel for the need to keep the territories.
On the other hand, the very basis of the right's refusal is that the Palestinians are not equal to Jews. Right-wing rabbis and others cite the Torah as the authority forbidding the evacuating of Jews from this land. However, very conveniently the Torah is silent on the issue of evicting non-Jews, such as Palestinians, from their lands so that Jews may take it.
In other places in the world such reasoning is called religious fanaticism. But in Israel it's accepted as just part of life here.
The right values land more than it does human life, and I mean Jewish and Palestinian life. The wall is making it more difficult for the terrorists to carry out attacks, but its completion would mean the end of the religious fanatics' dream of a Greater Israel.
It would also mean the end of their power over the rest of Israel. This, and not the Palestinian threat, is the right-wing's greatest fear, for it is the very basis of their existence.
But I'm just a secular infidel who thinks that some parts of the Torah - and not just the bits about pork and shrimp - should not govern Israeli policy or be twisted to suit the amoral agenda of the religious right.
I refuse to serve in the territories because I cannot, in good conscience, be part of the immoral oppression of the Palestinian people as expressed by the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip that began in 1967. Now, for the sake of argument, if Israel annexed these areas and granted the Palestinians the right to vote, my basis for refusal would no longer exist. But for a variety of reasons too extensive to discuss here, this did not happen.
As naive as this may sound, I see the Palestinians as human beings. Some of them are terrorists and want to kill me and other Jews, and there is little we can do to change this, but this hatred is not sufficient to justify the means Israel uses to continue holding the lands in dispute.
Build the wall and make it tall! The separation fence, security barrier or whatever you want to call it certainly seems to be working in the areas where construction has been completed. But the end of terror means the end of the reason the right-wing sells to the rest of Israel for the need to keep the territories.
On the other hand, the very basis of the right's refusal is that the Palestinians are not equal to Jews. Right-wing rabbis and others cite the Torah as the authority forbidding the evacuating of Jews from this land. However, very conveniently the Torah is silent on the issue of evicting non-Jews, such as Palestinians, from their lands so that Jews may take it.
In other places in the world such reasoning is called religious fanaticism. But in Israel it's accepted as just part of life here.
The right values land more than it does human life, and I mean Jewish and Palestinian life. The wall is making it more difficult for the terrorists to carry out attacks, but its completion would mean the end of the religious fanatics' dream of a Greater Israel.
It would also mean the end of their power over the rest of Israel. This, and not the Palestinian threat, is the right-wing's greatest fear, for it is the very basis of their existence.
But I'm just a secular infidel who thinks that some parts of the Torah - and not just the bits about pork and shrimp - should not govern Israeli policy or be twisted to suit the amoral agenda of the religious right.
I'm back: Confessions of a refuser
I'm back. I stopped blogging because I felt as I was wasting time and energy debating the Caroline Glicks of journalism here in Israel. But my recent experience guest blogging on The View From Here has rejuvenated me. (Thanks, Harry.) So with that...
I'm a refuser. Yes, I'm one of those radical left-wingers who refuses to do reserve duty in the territories. I understand if you disagree with me. That's fine. But keep in mind that unlike the majority of Israelis (and certainly American Jews), I did serve as a combat soldier and I did reserve duty in the territories. So if you haven't worked at a checkpoint in the West Bank or Gaza Strip, I don't give a damn what you think.
Now, time for a few points regarding the possibility that soldiers on the right could refuse to evacuate settlements. I support their right to refuse. While I certainly disagree with their reasons, I believe that they have the right to do so if the mission they are asked to perform goes against their conscience. For this reason I would hope that the IDF makes an effort not to put such soldiers in a position where they must decide whether to refuse or evacuate a settlement.
But there are two points I want to make on this issue.
First, politicans who say the phenomenon of refusing could destroy the fabric of Israeli society have no shame. If they hadn't the settler minority to dictate foreign policy in the country for so long and if they had dealt with the difficult questions regarding the fate of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, there wouldn't be refusal. Refusal, on left and right, is a response to the abdication of political responsibility of our so-called leaders. Instead leaders used the issues to their political advantage, as a means of getting elected. The territories have been a divisive issue for decades, but what we are facing today could have been avoided had the politicans led rather than kiss settler ass. And I'm referring to politicans on the left and right.
The true danger to Zionism is not refual, as IDF Chief of Staff Ya'alon claims, but rather the conditions that left people on the left and right who truly care about the future of the country (each in their own way) with no other recourse. It has come to this because Israeli leaders lacked the political courage to tackle the controversial problem head on.
(I wonder if Ariel Sharon today regrets having been such a strong supporter of the settlement movement. But what changed his position? When he was in the opposition, apparently he was less concerned with what was good for all of Israel than with what was good for his settler constituents. But I digress.)
Addressing the status of the territories decades ago, even just 10 years ago, would have required tough decisions, but isn't that why we elected them in the first place? Apparently not, because unfortunately Israeli politicans are much better at using tax money to buy off the religious parties than actually leading the country.
Second, Roman Bronfman (Yahad) is the sole Knesset member to express support for the left-wing refusers. Mainstream Israeli leaders, committed to democracy, understand the danger of refusing. And in my opinion, that's a good thing.
But in contrast there are plenty of religious figures issuing alleged halakhik rulings supporting a soldier's right to refuse evacuating settlements. Where the hell do I live? Iran? Who are these religious leaders?
(With that said, I should single out the religious kibbutz movement for announcing its opposition to soldiers refusing to evacuate settlements.)
I have a confession. I'm not sure I would refuse if we, the leftist refusers, weren't a small minority in the country. I grappled with the consequences of my actions for Israeli democracy. I don't brag about my decision to refuse. But if I truly felt that I was endangering the state, I might decide differently.
But do the extremist rabbis supporting right-wing refusers grapple with such questions? Mind you, I'm talking about the repercussions of their actions for democratic society, and not the "Land of Israel."
I believe the answer is no, because democracy for them is subservant to religious law. If you don't believe me, just take a look at the rantings of Ellen at Arutz Sheva. (She's a painter and political commentator. She must be American.)
Finally, the ultimate absurdity is that today, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz groveled before Shas spiritual leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef in a bid to get his support for the disengagement plan. This says it all. The ultra-Orthodox Shas Party, which wants draft exemptions for its yeshiva boys, should have no say on such matters until start serving in the army. The photos in the newspapers of Mofaz and old man Ovadia leaning over maps of the Gaza Strip are embarassing. But you know what will determine if Shas supports the decision to leave Gaza? If they get enough money for their schools and corrupt movement.
Perhaps this is the true danger to Zionism. Or has it become the true meaning of Zionsim?
I'm a refuser. Yes, I'm one of those radical left-wingers who refuses to do reserve duty in the territories. I understand if you disagree with me. That's fine. But keep in mind that unlike the majority of Israelis (and certainly American Jews), I did serve as a combat soldier and I did reserve duty in the territories. So if you haven't worked at a checkpoint in the West Bank or Gaza Strip, I don't give a damn what you think.
Now, time for a few points regarding the possibility that soldiers on the right could refuse to evacuate settlements. I support their right to refuse. While I certainly disagree with their reasons, I believe that they have the right to do so if the mission they are asked to perform goes against their conscience. For this reason I would hope that the IDF makes an effort not to put such soldiers in a position where they must decide whether to refuse or evacuate a settlement.
But there are two points I want to make on this issue.
First, politicans who say the phenomenon of refusing could destroy the fabric of Israeli society have no shame. If they hadn't the settler minority to dictate foreign policy in the country for so long and if they had dealt with the difficult questions regarding the fate of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, there wouldn't be refusal. Refusal, on left and right, is a response to the abdication of political responsibility of our so-called leaders. Instead leaders used the issues to their political advantage, as a means of getting elected. The territories have been a divisive issue for decades, but what we are facing today could have been avoided had the politicans led rather than kiss settler ass. And I'm referring to politicans on the left and right.
The true danger to Zionism is not refual, as IDF Chief of Staff Ya'alon claims, but rather the conditions that left people on the left and right who truly care about the future of the country (each in their own way) with no other recourse. It has come to this because Israeli leaders lacked the political courage to tackle the controversial problem head on.
(I wonder if Ariel Sharon today regrets having been such a strong supporter of the settlement movement. But what changed his position? When he was in the opposition, apparently he was less concerned with what was good for all of Israel than with what was good for his settler constituents. But I digress.)
Addressing the status of the territories decades ago, even just 10 years ago, would have required tough decisions, but isn't that why we elected them in the first place? Apparently not, because unfortunately Israeli politicans are much better at using tax money to buy off the religious parties than actually leading the country.
Second, Roman Bronfman (Yahad) is the sole Knesset member to express support for the left-wing refusers. Mainstream Israeli leaders, committed to democracy, understand the danger of refusing. And in my opinion, that's a good thing.
But in contrast there are plenty of religious figures issuing alleged halakhik rulings supporting a soldier's right to refuse evacuating settlements. Where the hell do I live? Iran? Who are these religious leaders?
(With that said, I should single out the religious kibbutz movement for announcing its opposition to soldiers refusing to evacuate settlements.)
I have a confession. I'm not sure I would refuse if we, the leftist refusers, weren't a small minority in the country. I grappled with the consequences of my actions for Israeli democracy. I don't brag about my decision to refuse. But if I truly felt that I was endangering the state, I might decide differently.
But do the extremist rabbis supporting right-wing refusers grapple with such questions? Mind you, I'm talking about the repercussions of their actions for democratic society, and not the "Land of Israel."
I believe the answer is no, because democracy for them is subservant to religious law. If you don't believe me, just take a look at the rantings of Ellen at Arutz Sheva. (She's a painter and political commentator. She must be American.)
Finally, the ultimate absurdity is that today, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz groveled before Shas spiritual leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef in a bid to get his support for the disengagement plan. This says it all. The ultra-Orthodox Shas Party, which wants draft exemptions for its yeshiva boys, should have no say on such matters until start serving in the army. The photos in the newspapers of Mofaz and old man Ovadia leaning over maps of the Gaza Strip are embarassing. But you know what will determine if Shas supports the decision to leave Gaza? If they get enough money for their schools and corrupt movement.
Perhaps this is the true danger to Zionism. Or has it become the true meaning of Zionsim?
Monday, August 09, 2004
Stop the presses!!!
Haaretz ticker today:
10:55 Technion researcher identifies cause of sesame allergy, believes may increase world consumption of sesame (Haaretz)
10:55 Technion researcher identifies cause of sesame allergy, believes may increase world consumption of sesame (Haaretz)
War games in Gush Katif
This is the main photo on Yediot Aharonot's front page today: Three boys, around 12-14 years old I would guess, wearing camouflage and flak jackets and carrying paint guns, as they go to play war games in the Gaza Strip settlement bloc of Gush Katif.
And we wonder what's wrong with Israeli youth today?
TAPD
The other day I saw two separate Tel Aviv police cars parked on Allenby street, just south of Sheinkin, as officers were writing jaywalking tickets to Israelis pleading their innocence. One police car was parked in front of a store famous for selling pirated CDs, DVDs and videos. I guess it would be too complicated for the cops to actually go after the store owner, and jaywalking tickets is more profitable for the city.
Thursday, August 05, 2004
Leak aimed at Peres
Shimon Peres to Abu Ala: "When I'm appointed foriegn minister we'll open secret negotiations"
This was the main headline on Thursday's front page of the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot. According to the story by Shimon Shiffer, a secret document given the previous day to "senior decision-makers in Israel" says that the dialogue between Peres and the Palestinian prime minister has intensified as of late, and that Peres made this promise to Abu Ala, even though negotiations to bring Labor into the government haven't been finalized.
The story says that senior Palestinian officials told diplomats in Ramallah that Israel is close to renewing political talks via a "back channel" after PM Sharon finishes rearranging his cabinet.
In a story such as this, it's important to consider who benefits from the release of this information at this particular time. Obviously, this includes Likud members opposed to Labor joining the government, and most specifically Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, who would likely lose his post if Peres joins the government.
(In my opinion, Sharon should have fired Shalom some time ago because the foreign minister is vocally opposed to the PM's disengagement plan. How can a head of state accept such a situation?)
It's also important to remember that Shalom's wife, Judy Nir Moses Shalom, is from the Moses family that owns Yediot Aharonot.
This was the main headline on Thursday's front page of the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot. According to the story by Shimon Shiffer, a secret document given the previous day to "senior decision-makers in Israel" says that the dialogue between Peres and the Palestinian prime minister has intensified as of late, and that Peres made this promise to Abu Ala, even though negotiations to bring Labor into the government haven't been finalized.
The story says that senior Palestinian officials told diplomats in Ramallah that Israel is close to renewing political talks via a "back channel" after PM Sharon finishes rearranging his cabinet.
In a story such as this, it's important to consider who benefits from the release of this information at this particular time. Obviously, this includes Likud members opposed to Labor joining the government, and most specifically Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, who would likely lose his post if Peres joins the government.
(In my opinion, Sharon should have fired Shalom some time ago because the foreign minister is vocally opposed to the PM's disengagement plan. How can a head of state accept such a situation?)
It's also important to remember that Shalom's wife, Judy Nir Moses Shalom, is from the Moses family that owns Yediot Aharonot.
Sharon picking Kerry?
It looks as if Ariel Sharon is picking John Kerry to win the November elections. The timing of the Israeli government's decision to approve construction of more housing in the West Bank settlement of Maaleh Adumim is a slap in the face to U.S. policy in the Middle East. Sharon certainly knows that President Bush can't afford to take Israel to task on the decision because it would mean risk alienating Jewish voters in an election year. And if anything the move could indirectly help the Kerry campaign, because it makes it look as if Sharon is pushing Bush around and making a mockery of U.S. efforts in the region.
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
The Lapid question
In a dramatic political about-face, Tommy Lapid, leader of the anti-Haredi Shinui party, is apparently willing to sit in a government that includes an ultra-Orthodox party, which in this case is United Torah Judaism.
It's still unclear if it will happen, but Lapid's move raises some important issues.
It's still unclear if it will happen, but Lapid's move raises some important issues.
Lapid seems willing to sit with UTJ, an ultra-Orthodox party primarily composed of Ashkenazi Jews. Would he be willing to do the same if we were talking about Shas, which has its main support base in the Sephardi community? Probably not.
"No one is as corrupt as Shas," a colleague who voted for Shinui told me when I posed this question to him. While this may be true, Lapid's new found willingness to sit with "white" Jews, but not the "dark" ones lends credence to the charges that this is a man with some racist tendencies.
I do recall one occasion a year or so ago when Lapid made some disparaging remarks about Mizrahi music. If I remember correctly, he said something about hearing it and thinking he was in Ramallah, or some other West Bank city.
Lapid is a Holocaust survivor and certainly a proud Jew, but there's something almost anti-Semitic (Yes, I dared to say it) about his message. I'm not anti-Shinui. I might have voted for the party myself if it had a more leftist peace platform. But I get the feeling that there's some kind of hatred of religious Judaism and not just corruption, among some Shinui voters, not unlike the immigrants who disavowed their religious backgrounds in Europe to come to Israel with a new secular socialist brand of Judaism, not like the weak religious Judaism they felt fueled anti-Semitism and contributed to the Holocaust.
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
Want to avoid reserve duty? Date a Knesset member
In wake of yesterday's report about Effi Etiam (see yesterday's blog entry) Yediot Aharonot reports today that Likud MK Inbal Gavrieli contacted military officials in an attempt to get her boyfriend out of reserve duty. According to the report, she rejected a proposal to transfer him to another unit.
"I want one day a year," she's quoted as saying. Gavrieli denies the story.
Her boyfriend is Liran Strauber, goalie for Israel's national soccer team. A related story tells how Strauber didn't report for reserve duty, and that he actually attempted to get a medical release!!! So he'd like us to believe that he's physically unfit for military service, but is fit enough to be on the soccer field. Army doctors refused his request.
I'd like to say that it's just the right-wingers, but I'm sure the lefties are also doing it. I don't have any inside information, but don't be surprised to see a similar story involving a Labor or Meretz MK in the coming days.
"I want one day a year," she's quoted as saying. Gavrieli denies the story.
Her boyfriend is Liran Strauber, goalie for Israel's national soccer team. A related story tells how Strauber didn't report for reserve duty, and that he actually attempted to get a medical release!!! So he'd like us to believe that he's physically unfit for military service, but is fit enough to be on the soccer field. Army doctors refused his request.
I'd like to say that it's just the right-wingers, but I'm sure the lefties are also doing it. I don't have any inside information, but don't be surprised to see a similar story involving a Labor or Meretz MK in the coming days.
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
Eitam and Son: Escape from Gaza
Great story in today's Yediot Aharonot. Turns out while he was minister, MK Effi Eitam (National Religious Party) requested from senior Israel Defense Forces officials that his son Amitzur be transferred from a reserve unit attached to the Gaza Strip to a unit in the Golan Heights. True, this would have brought Amitsur closer to his parents' home in the Golan, but MK Eitam has been among the most vocal opponents to Ariel Sharon's disengagement plan, which would include a complete withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.
How many other reservists can have their dad call senior military officials with such a request. (George W. Bush notwithstanding.) The Yediot report also says that members of Eitam's ministerial staff made calls to the army with the same request. Think they would be willing to do the same for me?
And kudos to Yediot for a great headline (inside, not front page) for the story:
Effi Eitam wanted to disengage his son from Gaza
How many other reservists can have their dad call senior military officials with such a request. (George W. Bush notwithstanding.) The Yediot report also says that members of Eitam's ministerial staff made calls to the army with the same request. Think they would be willing to do the same for me?
And kudos to Yediot for a great headline (inside, not front page) for the story:
Effi Eitam wanted to disengage his son from Gaza
Friday, June 18, 2004
What did Arafat really tell Haaretz?
It's worth noting that the Haaretz interview of Yasser Arafat was done by veteran correspondent Akiva Eldar and new Haaretz Editor-in-Chief David Landau. The reason is because a few years back, during the current intifada, Eldar had an exclusive interview with the Palestinian leader which suggested that Arafat was ready and willing to end the violence and make peace.
But the Haaretz staffperson who transcribed that taped interview for the Haaretz English edition felt that Arafat's comments on the tape - some of which were omitted from Eldar's report - were not nearly as optimistic regarding peace as Eldar made them out to be. Upon mentioning this to a very senior member of the Haaretz English edition, it became clear that some at Haaretz feel Eldar, among other Haaretz reporters, allows his leftist political views to obstruct his objectivity as a reporter.
Maybe that's why Eldar wasn't allowed to visit the Muqata alone this time.
But the Haaretz staffperson who transcribed that taped interview for the Haaretz English edition felt that Arafat's comments on the tape - some of which were omitted from Eldar's report - were not nearly as optimistic regarding peace as Eldar made them out to be. Upon mentioning this to a very senior member of the Haaretz English edition, it became clear that some at Haaretz feel Eldar, among other Haaretz reporters, allows his leftist political views to obstruct his objectivity as a reporter.
Maybe that's why Eldar wasn't allowed to visit the Muqata alone this time.
What's Bret talking about?
Can anyone tell me what today's column by Jerusalem Post Editor in Chief Bret Stephens has to do with Israel? I get the feeling that he's recycling an old university paper he wrote because he clearly doesn't understand what's going on Israel. Of course, if would be unfair to expect him to - he's doesn't speak Hebrew.
Deadly dog finds a home - in the IDF
An Amstaff dog who on Thursday killed a four-year-old girl from the Tel Aviv family that owned it is to be adopted by the Israel Defense Forces. If I was the father I would kill the dog myself, so it makes me wonder why the dog is still alive.
Wednesday, June 09, 2004
An open letter to rabbis at weddings
Where do rabbis get the completley inappropriate material they use at weddings? I'm currently in the U.S., where I attended a wedding on the east coast, and am still trying to figure out why the rabbi at the wedding thought his comments were appropriate. I imagine a group of old rabbis getting together, encouraging one another to use material that simply doesn't work for Jews of my generation. (I can hardly believe that it would work for any generation.) They must get no feedback from the congregation.
Below are some of the comments - as best as I can remember them - that the rabbi made during the ceremony, which took place in a tent outside in a light drizzle:
"There's a saying that when it rains at a wedding, don't take the bride to the bakery, because she's a nosher." [My friends and I were scratching our heads trying to figure this one out. ]
"There's another saying that when it rains at a wedding, it means that the bride is fertile."
"Judaism is a man's religion."
"This ketuba (wedding contract) will be among the cheaper gifts the groom will buy the bride."
Unfortunately I don't recall more of his comments, but I wasn't the only one among the attendees feeling uncomfortable and thinking that my good friend, the groom, deserved a rabbi with a little more sense. And the Jewish community in North America wonders why it's having trouble keeping my generation interested.
Below are some of the comments - as best as I can remember them - that the rabbi made during the ceremony, which took place in a tent outside in a light drizzle:
"There's a saying that when it rains at a wedding, don't take the bride to the bakery, because she's a nosher." [My friends and I were scratching our heads trying to figure this one out. ]
"There's another saying that when it rains at a wedding, it means that the bride is fertile."
"Judaism is a man's religion."
"This ketuba (wedding contract) will be among the cheaper gifts the groom will buy the bride."
Unfortunately I don't recall more of his comments, but I wasn't the only one among the attendees feeling uncomfortable and thinking that my good friend, the groom, deserved a rabbi with a little more sense. And the Jewish community in North America wonders why it's having trouble keeping my generation interested.
Monday, June 07, 2004
On vacation
I apologize to my faithful readers (do I have any?) for my recent absence, but I'm currently outside of Israel. I'll try to find time to write soon.
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
Sharon plotting his next move
Yoel Marcus from Haaretz writes that reports of Sharon's demise are premature and a government shakeup is imminent in wake of cabinet opposition, especially in Sharon's own Likue party, to the PM's disengagement plan.
"The Big Bang is on its way. It's not going to be the same government anymore," Marcus quotes "someone in the know" as saying.
"The Big Bang is on its way. It's not going to be the same government anymore," Marcus quotes "someone in the know" as saying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)