This blog is for a class assignment, but wasn't really followed properly - it was supposed to be spread out over a semester, but I ended up taking news from over a very short time span. That method, actually, was incredibly fascinating. It was a snapshot of Israel from so many different angles: science and art, politics and economics. There were stories that depressed me and stories that elated me. I think I found out so much about the country in this one long bout of research.
The class was designed to help us understand Israel better, which I think it fully accomplished. I now better understand the professor's desire for us to keep up on current news as well. So much of this I never would have heard in my country's media. I was able to see both the failings and the incredible successes of the country. I hope, and plan to make a genuine effort, to keep up the project of reading and pondering Israeli news. These posts are for the class, but I think I'll respond to certain articles on my regular blog, to encourage discussion from my peers. The experience was ultimately rewarding and informational.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
15th Thought
The article I will be discussing, from the Jerusalem Post:
Here
This article is over Parashat Emor by Shlomo Riskin. Riskin asks why such attention is paid in the passage to the Israelite son of a mixed marriage who is stoned for his blasphemy. Why would a Jew blaspheme G-d who has just delivered them from Egypt, committing a transgression from which he derives no pleasure? From where does his anger and rebellion come from? Riskin cites Rashi's midrash, who argued that this Israelite never felt like a full Jew but was seen by the others as an outsider due to his mixed parentage. "This young man, certainly an Israelite from a halachic legal perspective, yearned for acceptance; instead he was rejected."
The concluding paragraph by Riskin is of such beauty that it deserves a full quote:
"The primary message of our redemption from Egypt is that we must "love the stranger [the other]" because we were strangers in Egypt. Hence this biblical passage emphasizes that the stranger must be treated as a full citizen, and that rejecting any human being is tantamount to smiting his soul. Only when we truly accept the stranger will God truly accept us as His redeemed people! "
This passage brings up two important points. One is the idea of who counts, under halachic, as a true Jew. This is a fraught issue anyone, but especially for Israel, given the Law of Return. I personally think the tent should be as large as possible. This story certainly illustrates the dangers of tying the tent door down. Why should any Jew who yearns for acceptance be rejected? Because they're conversion isn't recognized by another branch, because they're gay or transgendered, because they're female? Isn't that "smiting their soul"?
This is the other point, the love for not just the neighbor, but the stranger. I didn't grow up in a practicing household, and neither did my mother. Our family ties to our heritage were solely in recipies and Yiddish jokes. I really stumbled back into Judaism on accident, researching our family history for a school project. But I fell instantly in love with it, and one of the main reasons (amongst so many) was its ultimate respect for every human being as a shard of the Divine Light. The sentance "only when we truly accept the stranger will God truly accept us as His redeemed people!" makes my heart sing. I wanted to end on this article because I think it really sums up my attitude on Israel. Israel is important, because it protects the Jew who is always the stranger. And Israel must continue to grow and recognize other strangers currently cast out. This is a burden that we all share, while we support each other through our failings. May we reach this goal, may G-d accept us as His redeemed people!
Here
This article is over Parashat Emor by Shlomo Riskin. Riskin asks why such attention is paid in the passage to the Israelite son of a mixed marriage who is stoned for his blasphemy. Why would a Jew blaspheme G-d who has just delivered them from Egypt, committing a transgression from which he derives no pleasure? From where does his anger and rebellion come from? Riskin cites Rashi's midrash, who argued that this Israelite never felt like a full Jew but was seen by the others as an outsider due to his mixed parentage. "This young man, certainly an Israelite from a halachic legal perspective, yearned for acceptance; instead he was rejected."
The concluding paragraph by Riskin is of such beauty that it deserves a full quote:
"The primary message of our redemption from Egypt is that we must "love the stranger [the other]" because we were strangers in Egypt. Hence this biblical passage emphasizes that the stranger must be treated as a full citizen, and that rejecting any human being is tantamount to smiting his soul. Only when we truly accept the stranger will God truly accept us as His redeemed people! "
This passage brings up two important points. One is the idea of who counts, under halachic, as a true Jew. This is a fraught issue anyone, but especially for Israel, given the Law of Return. I personally think the tent should be as large as possible. This story certainly illustrates the dangers of tying the tent door down. Why should any Jew who yearns for acceptance be rejected? Because they're conversion isn't recognized by another branch, because they're gay or transgendered, because they're female? Isn't that "smiting their soul"?
This is the other point, the love for not just the neighbor, but the stranger. I didn't grow up in a practicing household, and neither did my mother. Our family ties to our heritage were solely in recipies and Yiddish jokes. I really stumbled back into Judaism on accident, researching our family history for a school project. But I fell instantly in love with it, and one of the main reasons (amongst so many) was its ultimate respect for every human being as a shard of the Divine Light. The sentance "only when we truly accept the stranger will God truly accept us as His redeemed people!" makes my heart sing. I wanted to end on this article because I think it really sums up my attitude on Israel. Israel is important, because it protects the Jew who is always the stranger. And Israel must continue to grow and recognize other strangers currently cast out. This is a burden that we all share, while we support each other through our failings. May we reach this goal, may G-d accept us as His redeemed people!
14th Thought
The article I will be discussing, from the Jerusalem Post:
Here
The Davka Corporation has put together a software program called the "Torah Notebook", a collection of over 1,200 divrei Torah in English and Hebrew. The program sounds absolutely incredible. The article notes, "they are presented in either Israeli Sephardi or haredi Ashkenazi pronunciation and taken from both classical and modern sources from folk sayings and tales to the midrash, Talmud, Hassidism and even Yemenite and Yiddish sayings. There are more than 100 sources from Abarbanel to the Zohar and many hundreds of subjects from Aaron the Priest to zealotry." You can even compose and add your own divrei Torah. There's a feature to "lock" the original entry, thus perserving it and keeping your own additions clear, or unlocking it to change the entry permenantly. "The disk, which is almost like having a rabbi at your disposal, also boasts the Hebrew and English texts of the full Bible and the Hebrew text of the the Ethics of the Fathers"
I'm impressed by the range of material offered, as well as just the mechanics of the project. I can't imagine the work that went into it! It's good to see both Sephardi and Ashkenazi traditions honored. I also like the idea of having Pirkei Avot right on my desktop, it'd sure save me a lot of Googling. The article does not mention the source of the modern divrei. I would hope they include all ways of practice, from Orthodox to Reform epistemologies. The broad nature of the project leads me to believe this must be true, but I would like that confirmed.
The price is a bit high ($40) but probably worth it. I'm disappointed that it's a Windows-only program, as I'd love to at least try it out. Perhaps they'll have a Mac version in the future.
I think this would be a great source for composing family discussions, easily accesible and full of information. There's just something so appealing to me about mixing modern technology with age-old tradition; I'm learning Hebrew partly through podcasts to read scrolls written thousands of years ago. I think this would encourage participation and education, and would be a good resource for schools.
Here
The Davka Corporation has put together a software program called the "Torah Notebook", a collection of over 1,200 divrei Torah in English and Hebrew. The program sounds absolutely incredible. The article notes, "they are presented in either Israeli Sephardi or haredi Ashkenazi pronunciation and taken from both classical and modern sources from folk sayings and tales to the midrash, Talmud, Hassidism and even Yemenite and Yiddish sayings. There are more than 100 sources from Abarbanel to the Zohar and many hundreds of subjects from Aaron the Priest to zealotry." You can even compose and add your own divrei Torah. There's a feature to "lock" the original entry, thus perserving it and keeping your own additions clear, or unlocking it to change the entry permenantly. "The disk, which is almost like having a rabbi at your disposal, also boasts the Hebrew and English texts of the full Bible and the Hebrew text of the the Ethics of the Fathers"
I'm impressed by the range of material offered, as well as just the mechanics of the project. I can't imagine the work that went into it! It's good to see both Sephardi and Ashkenazi traditions honored. I also like the idea of having Pirkei Avot right on my desktop, it'd sure save me a lot of Googling. The article does not mention the source of the modern divrei. I would hope they include all ways of practice, from Orthodox to Reform epistemologies. The broad nature of the project leads me to believe this must be true, but I would like that confirmed.
The price is a bit high ($40) but probably worth it. I'm disappointed that it's a Windows-only program, as I'd love to at least try it out. Perhaps they'll have a Mac version in the future.
I think this would be a great source for composing family discussions, easily accesible and full of information. There's just something so appealing to me about mixing modern technology with age-old tradition; I'm learning Hebrew partly through podcasts to read scrolls written thousands of years ago. I think this would encourage participation and education, and would be a good resource for schools.
13th Thought
The article I will be discussing, from the Jerusalem Post:
Here
This article is about David Ben-Gurion's blog.
Ilan Ben-Yaacov is the ghost writer, who uses the Ben-Gurion Heritage Institute's online archive of the Prime Minister's letters and thoughts. Ben-Yaacov said, "He is a modern thinker, and I think he designed many of the values and things we believe in today in the Israeli state." The blog has a twofold purpose: to give the audience a better understanding of Ben-Gurion, and to use his ideas to comment on modern events. For instance, a letter he wrote about polio is used to discuss current media coverage of the swine flu.
There were concerns that the project could be construed as disrespectful. The article notes, ""When I suggested the blog, Edna was afraid about the conservatives saying it's rude and it's not appropriate for his memory," Ben-Yaacov recalled. "I think we've done it right. We don't want to hurt his heritage; we want to spread it out."" I see also the potential problem of putting words into his mouth; he can't exactly protest how the discussions are framed, after all. But I think Ben-Yaacov's point is a good one. The blog will surely introduce many young google-searchers, Israeli or no, to his writings and ideas.
The internet is a powerful new media. We've seen in these travels through Israeli news how it can be used to spread anti-Semitism, yet also providing a new way for Jews to connect and discuss their lives. I think this blog idea is a fascinating one. It definitely appeals to my age-group as an audience; as Ben-Yaacov notes, "The dream I have is that everyone who will search google for terms like leadership, Israel, Zionism or Negev and other subjects will get to the blog and find that Ben-Gurion had something to say about things happening right now." I've learned about Ben-Gurion through this course, but there's a lot more to find out about, and I think this blog is a good way of doing so. The project is an encouraging one, both for Israeli history, and as a fun idea for other historical figures!
His blog can be read here. I plan to do so in the future.
Here
This article is about David Ben-Gurion's blog.
Ilan Ben-Yaacov is the ghost writer, who uses the Ben-Gurion Heritage Institute's online archive of the Prime Minister's letters and thoughts. Ben-Yaacov said, "He is a modern thinker, and I think he designed many of the values and things we believe in today in the Israeli state." The blog has a twofold purpose: to give the audience a better understanding of Ben-Gurion, and to use his ideas to comment on modern events. For instance, a letter he wrote about polio is used to discuss current media coverage of the swine flu.
There were concerns that the project could be construed as disrespectful. The article notes, ""When I suggested the blog, Edna was afraid about the conservatives saying it's rude and it's not appropriate for his memory," Ben-Yaacov recalled. "I think we've done it right. We don't want to hurt his heritage; we want to spread it out."" I see also the potential problem of putting words into his mouth; he can't exactly protest how the discussions are framed, after all. But I think Ben-Yaacov's point is a good one. The blog will surely introduce many young google-searchers, Israeli or no, to his writings and ideas.
The internet is a powerful new media. We've seen in these travels through Israeli news how it can be used to spread anti-Semitism, yet also providing a new way for Jews to connect and discuss their lives. I think this blog idea is a fascinating one. It definitely appeals to my age-group as an audience; as Ben-Yaacov notes, "The dream I have is that everyone who will search google for terms like leadership, Israel, Zionism or Negev and other subjects will get to the blog and find that Ben-Gurion had something to say about things happening right now." I've learned about Ben-Gurion through this course, but there's a lot more to find out about, and I think this blog is a good way of doing so. The project is an encouraging one, both for Israeli history, and as a fun idea for other historical figures!
His blog can be read here. I plan to do so in the future.
12th Thought
The article I will be discussing, from the Jerusalem Post:
Here
The article discusses Tourism Minister Stas Misezhnikov views on his profession. Due to the threat of violence and economic pressures, tourism has dropped 25% this year. It's evidently a big part of Israeli economy; each 100,000 tourists brings in 200 million and 4,000 jobs. ""We have to invest in the engines of growth in the economy - which tourism is - to get out of the recession and spur jobs and growth," he says. "Tourism brings us both.""
Misezhnikov argues that the way to bring in more tourism is by 'marketing the Holy Land'. Evangelical Christians and Catholics, he states, are untapped markets. These groups have a huge religious interest in exploring Jerusalem and other holy sites, like Bethelhem. The Pope's visit, for instance, brought in thousands of pilgrims. He hopes to meet with key Christian leaders to encourage this method, focusing especially on Russia and Brazil. "Misezhnikov is essentially courting faith-based tourism," the article concludes.
Any aid to Israeli commerece is beneficial - perhaps this can end the budget cuts of the last post. Still, there seems something a little odd about this plan. Why just Christians - are Muslims and Jews already a tapped market? I'm sure Misezhnikov's idea is sound, but it seems a little strange to sell a holy visit. Surely the places exist to be studied and prayed at, not to be commercialized and marketed.
The targeting of the Evangelical market specifically makes me a bit nervous. Of course, I would encourage Christian visitation to any place they deem sacred. However, there seems to be an attitude among many conservative Evangelicals that is deeply anti-Jewish. The brilliant Christian Fred Clarke deconstructs this attitude in his slacktivist blog; Daniel Rodesh's Rapture Ready book is good, as is Chris Hedges' American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. What I've surmized from these texts is the Christian belief (in these branches) that they need Israel to exist in order to bring about the Apocalypse. This will entail the suffering and death of all Jews save for a few who convert in time. Clarke describes how this means that while the sect supports Israel, it also desires violence in the Middle East. Only an attack on Israel will invoke the events of Revelations, so its safety and peace are not desired. Jesus will then come to earth and bring all Christians to Jerusalem, who are its rightful owerns. Given this attitude, it strikes me as dubious to encourage a feeling of ownership.
All that said, though, tourism is an important business. And while the commerical aspects are not ones I'm really comfortable with, I hope everyone who desires to gets the chance to visit the sacred places in the Holy Land.
Here
The article discusses Tourism Minister Stas Misezhnikov views on his profession. Due to the threat of violence and economic pressures, tourism has dropped 25% this year. It's evidently a big part of Israeli economy; each 100,000 tourists brings in 200 million and 4,000 jobs. ""We have to invest in the engines of growth in the economy - which tourism is - to get out of the recession and spur jobs and growth," he says. "Tourism brings us both.""
Misezhnikov argues that the way to bring in more tourism is by 'marketing the Holy Land'. Evangelical Christians and Catholics, he states, are untapped markets. These groups have a huge religious interest in exploring Jerusalem and other holy sites, like Bethelhem. The Pope's visit, for instance, brought in thousands of pilgrims. He hopes to meet with key Christian leaders to encourage this method, focusing especially on Russia and Brazil. "Misezhnikov is essentially courting faith-based tourism," the article concludes.
Any aid to Israeli commerece is beneficial - perhaps this can end the budget cuts of the last post. Still, there seems something a little odd about this plan. Why just Christians - are Muslims and Jews already a tapped market? I'm sure Misezhnikov's idea is sound, but it seems a little strange to sell a holy visit. Surely the places exist to be studied and prayed at, not to be commercialized and marketed.
The targeting of the Evangelical market specifically makes me a bit nervous. Of course, I would encourage Christian visitation to any place they deem sacred. However, there seems to be an attitude among many conservative Evangelicals that is deeply anti-Jewish. The brilliant Christian Fred Clarke deconstructs this attitude in his slacktivist blog; Daniel Rodesh's Rapture Ready book is good, as is Chris Hedges' American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. What I've surmized from these texts is the Christian belief (in these branches) that they need Israel to exist in order to bring about the Apocalypse. This will entail the suffering and death of all Jews save for a few who convert in time. Clarke describes how this means that while the sect supports Israel, it also desires violence in the Middle East. Only an attack on Israel will invoke the events of Revelations, so its safety and peace are not desired. Jesus will then come to earth and bring all Christians to Jerusalem, who are its rightful owerns. Given this attitude, it strikes me as dubious to encourage a feeling of ownership.
All that said, though, tourism is an important business. And while the commerical aspects are not ones I'm really comfortable with, I hope everyone who desires to gets the chance to visit the sacred places in the Holy Land.
11th Thought
The article I will be discussing, from the Jerusalem Post:
Here
This article describes student protests taking place over a reduction of funding to the tune of 75o million. Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar stated that "at "times like these Israel should be investing in education." He added that cuts would mean teachers would inevitably be fired."
Currently all governments are facing economic difficulties. Something has to be cut, of course, but education seems like a terrible choice. It's so important for a country to be well educated. It improves the economy, raises its standing in the world, and instills a moral bedrock in its students. In Israel's case, history (especially Jewish history) is so fundamental to its well-being that I can't imagine arguing for tuition hikes and the firing of teachers.
Education is incredibly important in Judaism, which is one of the things I admire most about my religion. Despite this decision by the government, that value certainly seems to have held. I really can't imagine a bunch of American teachers and students vocally protesting a cut in the budget. I'm impressed that Israeli citizens felt that empowered and dedicated to do so. It's nice, too, that they rearranged exams to give room to the protest.
Hopefully, the importance and power of education will continue to be recognized, and the budget redone. That's such a massive cut, but Sa'ar did note that Netanyahu "wants to help on education." That desire should be carried through. I also hope the students do well on their exams; I have three finals coming up and appreciate their pain.
America, we should care this much about our schools too.
Here
This article describes student protests taking place over a reduction of funding to the tune of 75o million. Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar stated that "at "times like these Israel should be investing in education." He added that cuts would mean teachers would inevitably be fired."
Currently all governments are facing economic difficulties. Something has to be cut, of course, but education seems like a terrible choice. It's so important for a country to be well educated. It improves the economy, raises its standing in the world, and instills a moral bedrock in its students. In Israel's case, history (especially Jewish history) is so fundamental to its well-being that I can't imagine arguing for tuition hikes and the firing of teachers.
Education is incredibly important in Judaism, which is one of the things I admire most about my religion. Despite this decision by the government, that value certainly seems to have held. I really can't imagine a bunch of American teachers and students vocally protesting a cut in the budget. I'm impressed that Israeli citizens felt that empowered and dedicated to do so. It's nice, too, that they rearranged exams to give room to the protest.
Hopefully, the importance and power of education will continue to be recognized, and the budget redone. That's such a massive cut, but Sa'ar did note that Netanyahu "wants to help on education." That desire should be carried through. I also hope the students do well on their exams; I have three finals coming up and appreciate their pain.
America, we should care this much about our schools too.
10th Thought
The article I will be discussing, from the Jerusalem Post:
Here
I proudly voted for Obama in my first ever Presidential election. So far I haven't been disappointed. I was thus delighted by the article, which described Pres. Obama's decision to declare May Jewish American Heritage Month. How exciting! Next May will be the first with our imminent baby, I'll have to think of activities to plan around this idea. (Okay, maybe not next May when he's still learning to crawl, but soon.)
Jewish American history is a really fascinating topic, given how the country offered more freedom and opportunities than most others. Obama detailed this history in his proclamation, citing the specific contributions American Jews have made. What I found most interesting was this statement:
"Among the greatest contributions of the Jewish American community, however, is the example they have set for all Americans. They have demonstrated that Americans can choose to maintain cultural traditions while honoring the principles and beliefs that bind them together as Americans. Jewish American history demonstrates how America's diversity enriches and strengthens us all. "
I think this is such an important idea. On the one hand, we are called to participate in our day and age, changing our views based on new evidence and new freedoms. On the other hand, we are called to participate in the walk of our ancestors, based on tradition and study. The balance between being a Jew and being a person out in a secular country can be a dificult one; I'm not always sure I do it right. (I'll be driving all over town this Sabbath because that's the day we graduate, but in modest dress.) The important thing is too keep striving to that goal.
I also liked his comment on diversity. It's a powerful thing to have a black President (with a kippot on!), and I hope it heralds the coming of the day when everyone is equally free to fully participate in all ways of life. Perhaps the mesmerizing diversity within Jewish culture, coexisting peacefully with a recognition of community, is one way we can be a light to the nations.
Here
I proudly voted for Obama in my first ever Presidential election. So far I haven't been disappointed. I was thus delighted by the article, which described Pres. Obama's decision to declare May Jewish American Heritage Month. How exciting! Next May will be the first with our imminent baby, I'll have to think of activities to plan around this idea. (Okay, maybe not next May when he's still learning to crawl, but soon.)
Jewish American history is a really fascinating topic, given how the country offered more freedom and opportunities than most others. Obama detailed this history in his proclamation, citing the specific contributions American Jews have made. What I found most interesting was this statement:
"Among the greatest contributions of the Jewish American community, however, is the example they have set for all Americans. They have demonstrated that Americans can choose to maintain cultural traditions while honoring the principles and beliefs that bind them together as Americans. Jewish American history demonstrates how America's diversity enriches and strengthens us all. "
I think this is such an important idea. On the one hand, we are called to participate in our day and age, changing our views based on new evidence and new freedoms. On the other hand, we are called to participate in the walk of our ancestors, based on tradition and study. The balance between being a Jew and being a person out in a secular country can be a dificult one; I'm not always sure I do it right. (I'll be driving all over town this Sabbath because that's the day we graduate, but in modest dress.) The important thing is too keep striving to that goal.
I also liked his comment on diversity. It's a powerful thing to have a black President (with a kippot on!), and I hope it heralds the coming of the day when everyone is equally free to fully participate in all ways of life. Perhaps the mesmerizing diversity within Jewish culture, coexisting peacefully with a recognition of community, is one way we can be a light to the nations.
9th Thought
The article I will be discussing, from the Jerusalem Post:
Here
Two Israeli Arabs were sentenced to four and a half years in prison for torching a yeshiva. The article doesn't mention if anyone was hurt; I hope that means everyone was okay. The punishment carries with it a monetary compensation (presumably to help rebuild the yeshiva, which was damaged by the Molotov cocktail). Another resident was charged with being an accomplice and sentenced to community service. These are pretty fair punishments, considering. I hope the prison term has a rehabilitation program, and that the compensation doesn't put undue stress on their families.
The article stated that the three were arrested claiming "that they attempted to burn the yeshiva down for nationalistic reasons". I couldn't think of how burning down a religious school would possibly serve any nationalist desires. It seemed an act of violence, period.
And it is, which I condemn. But a brief bit of research about Acre brought up the fact that "schools for Arab citizens have been underfunded, and by 2000 there was only one Arab elementary school in the area." This is really depressing; I hope things have changed for the better in the last nine years. It doesn't at all excuse their actions, but I think it provides a possible motivation. They have only one school in the entire city; therefore a school is a logical thing to attack. It saddens me that we've failed to provide a proper education, in both schools and in moral action, that could lead to such a brutal attack.
I pray for a swift recovery of the yeshiva and the safety of its students. I also pray for new schools and crayons and security for the Arab Israeli population, so that no one has to suffer this kind of violence again.
Nationalism. What a terrible reason to burn down a place of learning. "The world only exists because of the breath of children learning Torah in school" - Bavli Shabbat 119b
Here
Two Israeli Arabs were sentenced to four and a half years in prison for torching a yeshiva. The article doesn't mention if anyone was hurt; I hope that means everyone was okay. The punishment carries with it a monetary compensation (presumably to help rebuild the yeshiva, which was damaged by the Molotov cocktail). Another resident was charged with being an accomplice and sentenced to community service. These are pretty fair punishments, considering. I hope the prison term has a rehabilitation program, and that the compensation doesn't put undue stress on their families.
The article stated that the three were arrested claiming "that they attempted to burn the yeshiva down for nationalistic reasons". I couldn't think of how burning down a religious school would possibly serve any nationalist desires. It seemed an act of violence, period.
And it is, which I condemn. But a brief bit of research about Acre brought up the fact that "schools for Arab citizens have been underfunded, and by 2000 there was only one Arab elementary school in the area." This is really depressing; I hope things have changed for the better in the last nine years. It doesn't at all excuse their actions, but I think it provides a possible motivation. They have only one school in the entire city; therefore a school is a logical thing to attack. It saddens me that we've failed to provide a proper education, in both schools and in moral action, that could lead to such a brutal attack.
I pray for a swift recovery of the yeshiva and the safety of its students. I also pray for new schools and crayons and security for the Arab Israeli population, so that no one has to suffer this kind of violence again.
Nationalism. What a terrible reason to burn down a place of learning. "The world only exists because of the breath of children learning Torah in school" - Bavli Shabbat 119b
8th Thought
The article I will be discussing, from the Jerusalem Post:
Here
Like many people my age, I have a Facebook account. I'm a member of several groups, including a protest against the Prussian Blue band, 600,000 Jews, and a pro-Israel group. The existence of anti-Israel groups thus caught my eye.
I thought at first they might be groups that are just critical - I belong to a group that jokingly suggests America should be a British colony again, for example. But the article noted that they were deeply anti-Semitic as well: they "call for the destruction of Israel and death to Jews, advocate violence and deny the Holocaust (or else ask why Hitler did not finish his work)." David, a spokesman for the Jewish Internet Defense Force who are trying to get these groups removed, has recieved death threats.
This is extremely troubling. I hear people often complain that "any criticism of Israel is accused of anti-Semitism". Well, here's why. David notes that there is room for criticism, and I myself don't agree with every single policy they enact - as if it's possible for there to be a country I did completely agree with. Sometimes I, too, am frustrated with what seems like a blind-eye attitude towards Palestine. But when any critique of Israel can have an anti-Semitic origin, it's no surprise there's going to be that suspicion. Good grief, there are Hitler supporters joining these groups.
It really shows the continued dangers Jews and Israel still face. And the blind-eye attitude toward that; the article notes that while these groups violate Facebook's Terms of Use, they're often left alone. There are more than 150 groups with names like "I hate Israel". The JIDL singled out twenty especially terrible ones, but only six of those have been removed.
Of course, it is difficult to moniter websites. David notes, "It [is] for people to act when they saw intolerant material on-line, since otherwise hateful messages could spread. If people don't speak out against it, silence is a sin," he said." I know the ADL can be contacted for this purpose; I've done so on account of an anti-Semitic cartoon printed in our city's newspaper. However, I haven't done anything about these groups on Facebook. I didn't know about them, but now that my ignorance has been corrected, I'll be sure to report any I come across. Silence is indeed a sin. It makes me think of the famous poem by Pastor Marin Niemoller:
"Als sie die Juden holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Jude.
Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte."
Here
Like many people my age, I have a Facebook account. I'm a member of several groups, including a protest against the Prussian Blue band, 600,000 Jews, and a pro-Israel group. The existence of anti-Israel groups thus caught my eye.
I thought at first they might be groups that are just critical - I belong to a group that jokingly suggests America should be a British colony again, for example. But the article noted that they were deeply anti-Semitic as well: they "call for the destruction of Israel and death to Jews, advocate violence and deny the Holocaust (or else ask why Hitler did not finish his work)." David, a spokesman for the Jewish Internet Defense Force who are trying to get these groups removed, has recieved death threats.
This is extremely troubling. I hear people often complain that "any criticism of Israel is accused of anti-Semitism". Well, here's why. David notes that there is room for criticism, and I myself don't agree with every single policy they enact - as if it's possible for there to be a country I did completely agree with. Sometimes I, too, am frustrated with what seems like a blind-eye attitude towards Palestine. But when any critique of Israel can have an anti-Semitic origin, it's no surprise there's going to be that suspicion. Good grief, there are Hitler supporters joining these groups.
It really shows the continued dangers Jews and Israel still face. And the blind-eye attitude toward that; the article notes that while these groups violate Facebook's Terms of Use, they're often left alone. There are more than 150 groups with names like "I hate Israel". The JIDL singled out twenty especially terrible ones, but only six of those have been removed.
Of course, it is difficult to moniter websites. David notes, "It [is] for people to act when they saw intolerant material on-line, since otherwise hateful messages could spread. If people don't speak out against it, silence is a sin," he said." I know the ADL can be contacted for this purpose; I've done so on account of an anti-Semitic cartoon printed in our city's newspaper. However, I haven't done anything about these groups on Facebook. I didn't know about them, but now that my ignorance has been corrected, I'll be sure to report any I come across. Silence is indeed a sin. It makes me think of the famous poem by Pastor Marin Niemoller:
"Als sie die Juden holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Jude.
Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte."
7th Thought
The article I will be discussing, from the Jerusalem Post:
Here
I am a supporter of Israel. Therefore, I am also a supporter of the two-state solution; Palestinians need a place to live. I was thus impressed with the Pope's comments during his visit to Bethleham. He protested both the Wall in Gaza and Palestinian violence against Israel. One comment especially stuck out to me: "Palestinians, like any other people, have a natural right to marry, to raise families, and to have access to work, education and health care." Currently the Israeli government is making those rights tenuous, economic pressures making them more something to attain than to have.
Maybe it's not fair, but I want to hold Israel to a high standard. I think the Jewish system of ethics is one of the most complete, liberal, humane epistemes in the world. Right now, the government isn't meeting that standard. I don't know enough to offer answers, of course, nor do I know the constant fear of terrorism. But I agree with the Pope (huh, that's unusual to type) that, "Just and peaceful coexistence among the peoples of the Middle East can only be achieved through a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect, in which the rights and dignity of all are acknowledged and upheld."
There was a comment from President Mahmoud Abbas that I disagreed with. He "accused Israel of working to drive Christians and Muslims out of the country so that it could turn the holy places into archeological sites for tourism."
I remember reading in Martin Gilbert's Israel: A History that in fact, Jewish ownership of holy areas (like the Caves) ensured they were open and safe for all. This would encourage religious visitation and archeological study. There also seems to be the suggestion that they places aren't holy for Jews themselves, only "sites for tourism". Each religion, of course, has individual locations they considered sacred, but many of them do overlap. This comment seems to deny that Jews hold them sacred, which I find very troubling.
Overall, though, I thought the visit and comments were significant. It's my understanding that the two-state system will allievate Palestinian suffering and increase Israeli safety. These are certainly worthy goals, and I think in the abscence of a better proposal (which I'm quite willing to hear) it should be followed up along. Hopefully the next time Christians and Jews and Muslims gather, it will be to celebrate their common humanity, not fight over a wall.
Here
I am a supporter of Israel. Therefore, I am also a supporter of the two-state solution; Palestinians need a place to live. I was thus impressed with the Pope's comments during his visit to Bethleham. He protested both the Wall in Gaza and Palestinian violence against Israel. One comment especially stuck out to me: "Palestinians, like any other people, have a natural right to marry, to raise families, and to have access to work, education and health care." Currently the Israeli government is making those rights tenuous, economic pressures making them more something to attain than to have.
Maybe it's not fair, but I want to hold Israel to a high standard. I think the Jewish system of ethics is one of the most complete, liberal, humane epistemes in the world. Right now, the government isn't meeting that standard. I don't know enough to offer answers, of course, nor do I know the constant fear of terrorism. But I agree with the Pope (huh, that's unusual to type) that, "Just and peaceful coexistence among the peoples of the Middle East can only be achieved through a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect, in which the rights and dignity of all are acknowledged and upheld."
There was a comment from President Mahmoud Abbas that I disagreed with. He "accused Israel of working to drive Christians and Muslims out of the country so that it could turn the holy places into archeological sites for tourism."
I remember reading in Martin Gilbert's Israel: A History that in fact, Jewish ownership of holy areas (like the Caves) ensured they were open and safe for all. This would encourage religious visitation and archeological study. There also seems to be the suggestion that they places aren't holy for Jews themselves, only "sites for tourism". Each religion, of course, has individual locations they considered sacred, but many of them do overlap. This comment seems to deny that Jews hold them sacred, which I find very troubling.
Overall, though, I thought the visit and comments were significant. It's my understanding that the two-state system will allievate Palestinian suffering and increase Israeli safety. These are certainly worthy goals, and I think in the abscence of a better proposal (which I'm quite willing to hear) it should be followed up along. Hopefully the next time Christians and Jews and Muslims gather, it will be to celebrate their common humanity, not fight over a wall.
6th Thought
The article I will discuss from the Jerusalem Post:
Here
On Israel Memorial Day, a group gathered at the Martyrs' Forest to honor activist William Cooper. He was an Aboriginal who worked hard in the Australian community to bring attention to the rights of the indigenous. And he recognized all forms of suffering; he and his follow clansmen protested the horror of Kristallnacht at the German consulate in Melbourn.
I find it so Cooper's actions so impressive, especially given the voicelessness and oppression of his own people that must have made speaking up difficult. It's wonderful that Israel was able to recognize him and his work; it really attests the power of transformation borne when one subaltern is able to speak out for another. I hope Israel can continue to reach out to the oppressed: the Jew, the Native, the lesbian, the Palestinian.
I also find the Martyrs' Forest as a whole so inspiring. The Milgram experiments illustrates the propensity for violence we all carry in our yetzer hara; the Forest shows the the equal ability for care and sacrifice in the yetzer tov. The idea of planting trees, rather than concrete - something real, something permenant and living - is so beautiful. It's truly a memorial built "of good deeds".
They brought "brought water from the Mari River and soil from Yorta Yorta country" to mix with the dirt and water of Israel in planting more trees. A great grandson of Cooper stated on this, "in some miraculous way, being here in Israel is like coming back home for many of us."
I hope Israel can be a home to all people, that trees will continue to be planted, but that never again will their be a need for monuments to the dead - from the oppression of Natives or of Jews. Grahame Leonard, incoming JNF Australia Federal President, made a vital point: "Education is a very important for me: it guarantees the bond between Israel and future generations." Having done this assignment, I've realized just how many facets there are to Israeli life. I never would have heard such a beautiful story otherwise. Education is vital, to lift up the subaltern, encourage compassion, and keep Israel safe. Even after the rest of these 15 posts, I hope to keep reading Israeli news. I think there's a tendency in America to dismiss it as too complicated or depressing to bother with, which is really very dangerous.
Here
On Israel Memorial Day, a group gathered at the Martyrs' Forest to honor activist William Cooper. He was an Aboriginal who worked hard in the Australian community to bring attention to the rights of the indigenous. And he recognized all forms of suffering; he and his follow clansmen protested the horror of Kristallnacht at the German consulate in Melbourn.
I find it so Cooper's actions so impressive, especially given the voicelessness and oppression of his own people that must have made speaking up difficult. It's wonderful that Israel was able to recognize him and his work; it really attests the power of transformation borne when one subaltern is able to speak out for another. I hope Israel can continue to reach out to the oppressed: the Jew, the Native, the lesbian, the Palestinian.
I also find the Martyrs' Forest as a whole so inspiring. The Milgram experiments illustrates the propensity for violence we all carry in our yetzer hara; the Forest shows the the equal ability for care and sacrifice in the yetzer tov. The idea of planting trees, rather than concrete - something real, something permenant and living - is so beautiful. It's truly a memorial built "of good deeds".
They brought "brought water from the Mari River and soil from Yorta Yorta country" to mix with the dirt and water of Israel in planting more trees. A great grandson of Cooper stated on this, "in some miraculous way, being here in Israel is like coming back home for many of us."
I hope Israel can be a home to all people, that trees will continue to be planted, but that never again will their be a need for monuments to the dead - from the oppression of Natives or of Jews. Grahame Leonard, incoming JNF Australia Federal President, made a vital point: "Education is a very important for me: it guarantees the bond between Israel and future generations." Having done this assignment, I've realized just how many facets there are to Israeli life. I never would have heard such a beautiful story otherwise. Education is vital, to lift up the subaltern, encourage compassion, and keep Israel safe. Even after the rest of these 15 posts, I hope to keep reading Israeli news. I think there's a tendency in America to dismiss it as too complicated or depressing to bother with, which is really very dangerous.
5th Thought
The article I will be discussing, from the Jerusalem Post:
Here
Noam Levy was accidentally shot and killed by his commanding officer. The officer has been discharged. Levy's family responded by saying, ""We do not want the officer, who is 21 years old and is doing a tough job, to be blamed in the headlines."
My heart goes out to his family. I can't imagine dealing with a tragedy of that magnitude.
As I said in a previous post, my partner served in our military. We're expecting a baby boy in just a couple of weeks. I have no idea what his path will be in life; I do know that I'd be worried sick if he followed his father's. In this country we have the luxury of choice. I wonder what it's like to live in Israel, knowing that you or your partner or you children will serve and can be killed? It's impressive, really, that so many are willing to take on that burden for our homeland.
A character in a beloved novel of mine notes that it's not just their willingness to die that we so highly value, but their willingness to kill, to take that blood upon them. Honestly, I'd be terrible in the military. And a lot of that has to do with my reluctance to kill, even in self-defense.
I feel terrible not just for Levy, and for his family, but for the office who has such a grevious burden on his palms. For all of their sakes, I offer up Isaiah: "Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore".
Hopefully the IDF will not have to carry this weight much longer. I look to the day when a military is no longer necessary, when this doesn't have to be a "recognized risk".
Here
Noam Levy was accidentally shot and killed by his commanding officer. The officer has been discharged. Levy's family responded by saying, ""We do not want the officer, who is 21 years old and is doing a tough job, to be blamed in the headlines."
My heart goes out to his family. I can't imagine dealing with a tragedy of that magnitude.
As I said in a previous post, my partner served in our military. We're expecting a baby boy in just a couple of weeks. I have no idea what his path will be in life; I do know that I'd be worried sick if he followed his father's. In this country we have the luxury of choice. I wonder what it's like to live in Israel, knowing that you or your partner or you children will serve and can be killed? It's impressive, really, that so many are willing to take on that burden for our homeland.
A character in a beloved novel of mine notes that it's not just their willingness to die that we so highly value, but their willingness to kill, to take that blood upon them. Honestly, I'd be terrible in the military. And a lot of that has to do with my reluctance to kill, even in self-defense.
I feel terrible not just for Levy, and for his family, but for the office who has such a grevious burden on his palms. For all of their sakes, I offer up Isaiah: "Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore".
Hopefully the IDF will not have to carry this weight much longer. I look to the day when a military is no longer necessary, when this doesn't have to be a "recognized risk".
4th Thought
The article I'll be discussing, from the Jerusalem Post:
Here
This is an opinion article which has as its title, "What's wrong with school prayer?"
Well, I'd respond, the fact that students may not want to pray?
Benkof begins by noting the importance with prayer, and with that I agree with him completely. I think conversations with G-d are a pretty significant part of a person's life - if they so chose. The issue is that there is no prayer that encompasses all belief and non-belief. Even a blanket, simple "G-d" excludes those who are polytheistic or atheistic. Exclusion isn't something we want in our schools - it's a motivating factor, I think, in the bullying problem he decries. If, when, and where a student prayers should be left entirely up to her. It should not be a matter of the school.
Benkof argues that there is no "slippery slope" from having a prayer time recognized to prayer time for Christians. I think this is, frankly, a little naive. Students are already overwhelmed by peer pressure; having to carve out a space for your religion in a hegemony is difficult. Surely some students wouldn't want to pray at different times, or require certain artifacts, or not just want to pray at all. We need to respect their needs - not doing so IS an invitation to hegemony, which yes, often offers the dominant discourse ample space.
His other argument is that the "seperation between church and state wasn't handed down from Moses at Sinai". This is true. Neither were speeding limits, so it has baloney all to do with American law. This seperation - which has been getting disturbingly weak - PROTECTS Jewish students. It protects other students as well. We have an obligation to preserve that protection. We have an obligation to continue prayer in our hearts, while keeping it out of locker airwaves, because that's, honestly, an imposition on others.
I don't want to rail against the author, though. He did bring up a very important factor which I, honestly, don't know much about. What are Israeli laws concerning seperation of shul and state? How does a Jewish state respect its Jews and its secular needs? This is a really important matter. I'm not sure where to research, but clearly it needs to be done.
Here
This is an opinion article which has as its title, "What's wrong with school prayer?"
Well, I'd respond, the fact that students may not want to pray?
Benkof begins by noting the importance with prayer, and with that I agree with him completely. I think conversations with G-d are a pretty significant part of a person's life - if they so chose. The issue is that there is no prayer that encompasses all belief and non-belief. Even a blanket, simple "G-d" excludes those who are polytheistic or atheistic. Exclusion isn't something we want in our schools - it's a motivating factor, I think, in the bullying problem he decries. If, when, and where a student prayers should be left entirely up to her. It should not be a matter of the school.
Benkof argues that there is no "slippery slope" from having a prayer time recognized to prayer time for Christians. I think this is, frankly, a little naive. Students are already overwhelmed by peer pressure; having to carve out a space for your religion in a hegemony is difficult. Surely some students wouldn't want to pray at different times, or require certain artifacts, or not just want to pray at all. We need to respect their needs - not doing so IS an invitation to hegemony, which yes, often offers the dominant discourse ample space.
His other argument is that the "seperation between church and state wasn't handed down from Moses at Sinai". This is true. Neither were speeding limits, so it has baloney all to do with American law. This seperation - which has been getting disturbingly weak - PROTECTS Jewish students. It protects other students as well. We have an obligation to preserve that protection. We have an obligation to continue prayer in our hearts, while keeping it out of locker airwaves, because that's, honestly, an imposition on others.
I don't want to rail against the author, though. He did bring up a very important factor which I, honestly, don't know much about. What are Israeli laws concerning seperation of shul and state? How does a Jewish state respect its Jews and its secular needs? This is a really important matter. I'm not sure where to research, but clearly it needs to be done.
3rd Thought
The article I will be discussion, from the Jerusalem Post:
Here
This article deals with a new program by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem to train physicians for the IDF. The program sounds intense but fascinating; the wide range of injuries to be covered (recovery from a nuclear attack - I hope to G-d that's knowledge that never has to be used) is impressive.
I'm very interested in the intersection between military and medicine; the conflict between violence and health. This is because my partner was a medic in Special Forces, and has shared many stories, about battle and about peace-keeping. I can't imagine an environment that teaches you how to shoot a bullet and then repair the wound. Isn't that such a paradoxical environment? He understands my confusion (with a wry smile): he signed up for the humanitarian missions, and was only in combat because our ex-President decided to invade some countries. I imagine that in the IDF, this paradox is even more intense. It's pretty likely you'll see action. The wounds you'll be repairing might not only be your comrades', but the person who was just shooting at you.
This odd intersection, I think, is a powerful metaphor for Israel's existence. There is, on the one hand, a free education offered to those who learn to heal. But it is contingent on the fact that they then serve for five years in the army. We may want to beat our swords into plowshares, but at the moment those swords are pretty necessary. How does Israel balance violence with peace? The need for safety against the commandment not to kill?
I think it'd be a very powerful thing if some of those physicians were being trained to provide medical care in the refugee camps.
Here
This article deals with a new program by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem to train physicians for the IDF. The program sounds intense but fascinating; the wide range of injuries to be covered (recovery from a nuclear attack - I hope to G-d that's knowledge that never has to be used) is impressive.
I'm very interested in the intersection between military and medicine; the conflict between violence and health. This is because my partner was a medic in Special Forces, and has shared many stories, about battle and about peace-keeping. I can't imagine an environment that teaches you how to shoot a bullet and then repair the wound. Isn't that such a paradoxical environment? He understands my confusion (with a wry smile): he signed up for the humanitarian missions, and was only in combat because our ex-President decided to invade some countries. I imagine that in the IDF, this paradox is even more intense. It's pretty likely you'll see action. The wounds you'll be repairing might not only be your comrades', but the person who was just shooting at you.
This odd intersection, I think, is a powerful metaphor for Israel's existence. There is, on the one hand, a free education offered to those who learn to heal. But it is contingent on the fact that they then serve for five years in the army. We may want to beat our swords into plowshares, but at the moment those swords are pretty necessary. How does Israel balance violence with peace? The need for safety against the commandment not to kill?
I think it'd be a very powerful thing if some of those physicians were being trained to provide medical care in the refugee camps.
2nd Thought
The article which I'll be discussing, from the Jerusalem Post:
Here
Thomas Cahill (A Christian) in "The Gift of the Jews" writes that Christian anti-Semitism often configures the Jew in the same way it configures the "Old Testament" G-d. Therefore, he says, perhaps it comes not just from a hatred of Jews, but a hatred of G-d. I found that argument quite startling. The history of Christian anti-Semitism plays an odd role with Israel. On the one hand, many have argued that the Shoah prompted the West into supporting Israel's existance. On the other hand, many die-hard support in America stems from a branch of Christianity that only wants to see Israel exist so she can be destroyed in a fiery Apocolypse. (Daniel Radosh's "Rapture Ready" has a good analysis of this phenomenon.) This isn't the most pro-Jewish epistemology, really.
So this article in the Post about Pope Benedict really surprised me. I had heard that some of his views were pre-Vatican II, especially in sexual matters. This made me wonder if that same judgement extended to his views on Judaism. I thought my suspicion had been confirmed when I read about Richard Williamson. A Bishop of the Society of Saint Pius X, he was excommunicated by the last Pope for his anti-Semitic views - Holocaust denial among them. Benedict lifted that ban.
However, that does not mean Williamson is being reinstated. (Note: I'm not well-educated in what excommunication versus reinstation ectera all mean, so I'm not sure what the justification for lifting the ban is.) Benedict's statements on the matter really impressed me. While I still disagree with the Church's views on homosexuality and women, I do think that just in the category of Jewish relations they're taking a huge step forward.
His history as Pope has included many welcoming gestures. I was especially impressed with this comment from 'The Heritage of Abraham: The Gift of Christmas" published in L'Osservatore Romano:
"Abraham, father of the people of Israel, father of faith, has become the source of blessing, for in him 'all the families of the earth shall call themselves blessed.' The task of the Chosen People is therefore to make a gift of their God - the one true God - to every other people. In reality, as Christians we are the inheritors of their faith in the one God. Our gratitude therefore must be extended to our Jewish brothers and sisters who, despite the hardships of their own history, have held on to faith in this God right up to the present and who witness to it..."
Williamson is being required to affirm the teachings of Vatican II before he can be reinstated. On the subject of the Shoah (and I'm also impressed that he used that term), Benedict wrote:
"Even if the most recent loathsome experience of the Shoah was perpetuated in the name of an anti-Christian ideology which tried to strike the Christian faith at its Abrahamic roots in the people of Israel, it cannot be denied that a certain insufficient resistance to this atrocity on the part of Christians can be explained by an inherited anti-Judaism present in the hearts of not a few Christians."
I really think this signifies that even within a very conservative environment, major relationship building is occuring. The idea of a Pope visiting a Jewish homeland and apologizing for anti-Semitism would have been mind-blowing to my Grandmother. Today, it's one article amongst many. This gives me hope.
Here
Thomas Cahill (A Christian) in "The Gift of the Jews" writes that Christian anti-Semitism often configures the Jew in the same way it configures the "Old Testament" G-d. Therefore, he says, perhaps it comes not just from a hatred of Jews, but a hatred of G-d. I found that argument quite startling. The history of Christian anti-Semitism plays an odd role with Israel. On the one hand, many have argued that the Shoah prompted the West into supporting Israel's existance. On the other hand, many die-hard support in America stems from a branch of Christianity that only wants to see Israel exist so she can be destroyed in a fiery Apocolypse. (Daniel Radosh's "Rapture Ready" has a good analysis of this phenomenon.) This isn't the most pro-Jewish epistemology, really.
So this article in the Post about Pope Benedict really surprised me. I had heard that some of his views were pre-Vatican II, especially in sexual matters. This made me wonder if that same judgement extended to his views on Judaism. I thought my suspicion had been confirmed when I read about Richard Williamson. A Bishop of the Society of Saint Pius X, he was excommunicated by the last Pope for his anti-Semitic views - Holocaust denial among them. Benedict lifted that ban.
However, that does not mean Williamson is being reinstated. (Note: I'm not well-educated in what excommunication versus reinstation ectera all mean, so I'm not sure what the justification for lifting the ban is.) Benedict's statements on the matter really impressed me. While I still disagree with the Church's views on homosexuality and women, I do think that just in the category of Jewish relations they're taking a huge step forward.
His history as Pope has included many welcoming gestures. I was especially impressed with this comment from 'The Heritage of Abraham: The Gift of Christmas" published in L'Osservatore Romano:
"Abraham, father of the people of Israel, father of faith, has become the source of blessing, for in him 'all the families of the earth shall call themselves blessed.' The task of the Chosen People is therefore to make a gift of their God - the one true God - to every other people. In reality, as Christians we are the inheritors of their faith in the one God. Our gratitude therefore must be extended to our Jewish brothers and sisters who, despite the hardships of their own history, have held on to faith in this God right up to the present and who witness to it..."
Williamson is being required to affirm the teachings of Vatican II before he can be reinstated. On the subject of the Shoah (and I'm also impressed that he used that term), Benedict wrote:
"Even if the most recent loathsome experience of the Shoah was perpetuated in the name of an anti-Christian ideology which tried to strike the Christian faith at its Abrahamic roots in the people of Israel, it cannot be denied that a certain insufficient resistance to this atrocity on the part of Christians can be explained by an inherited anti-Judaism present in the hearts of not a few Christians."
I really think this signifies that even within a very conservative environment, major relationship building is occuring. The idea of a Pope visiting a Jewish homeland and apologizing for anti-Semitism would have been mind-blowing to my Grandmother. Today, it's one article amongst many. This gives me hope.
1st Thought
A link to the article I'm discussing, in the Jerusalem Post:
Here
A family of Jews in Austria were refused boarding at a Bed and Breakfast simply because they were Jewish. The Chairman of the Tourist Board offered this as a response: "However, in our opinion, unfortunately formulated, it is not by any means to be interpreted as anti-Semitism."
I actually laughed when I read that, because it's such a ridiculous excuse. It calls to mind Aaron: "really, I just threw the gold in and poof, there was a calf." "Really, I just denied them lodging because they were Jews but poof, there's no anti-Semitism." I can't imagine a way in which this WASN'T anti-Semitic; note that the owner asked if they were Jewish because of their name. Note also that it's not an isolated incident with the business.
It's yet another anti-Jewish sentiment among many; the ADL had documented a rise in such concurrent with economic instability. The need for a safe Jewish home is one of the main reasons I continue to support Israel, despite our disagreements on their treatment of Palestine. (Not that I'm always happy with what the U.S. government does either.)
It also raises interesting questions about right-of-refusal, however. How far does the right to refuse service go? The owner argued that she had a right to refuse service to anyone. I would argue that she does, but only to an extent. If she kicked out a family because they were noisy and disturbing the other guests, I would support her. If she kicked out a family because they were proselytizing beyond a polite boundary, I'd likewise support her. But there are limits in who you can refuse service to. I think the handy tool to use in judging these cases is "what are the REASONS you're refusing service?" These are easier to argue over whether or not their fair - more easy than arguing about the legality of the issue, since I don't know much about property rights. While a good tool would also be anti-discrimination clauses, these vary so wildly that certain classes might not be protected in different places.
So if a Jewish woman was refused service because she brought in a crazy-loud boombox, that's a good reason to kick someone out. If a Jewish woman was refused service because she was Jewish... how is that anything other than discrimination? There is no logical reason to exclude her. She is not harming the establishment or others.
And discrimination can ripple out to still waters. She can put away a boombox, she can't (and shouldn't have to) stop being Jewish. It might be easy to say, well, here is one isolated incident. The family will have to alter their travel plans. But if this kind of behavior is excused, it stops being isolated. Getting turned away from one B&B is one thing (a terrible thing, don't get me wrong). It's another to be turned out everywhere - to lack safe lodging and medical care and food because the owners of a store have the right to refuse you because of your race or gender or religion.
State-sponsered discrimination of this sort - whether deliberate or merely allowed - is a constant danger to so many. I applaud Israel as a safe spot from one sort. I hope she can widen that group to more, to many, to all, as a light to the nations.
Here
A family of Jews in Austria were refused boarding at a Bed and Breakfast simply because they were Jewish. The Chairman of the Tourist Board offered this as a response: "However, in our opinion, unfortunately formulated, it is not by any means to be interpreted as anti-Semitism."
I actually laughed when I read that, because it's such a ridiculous excuse. It calls to mind Aaron: "really, I just threw the gold in and poof, there was a calf." "Really, I just denied them lodging because they were Jews but poof, there's no anti-Semitism." I can't imagine a way in which this WASN'T anti-Semitic; note that the owner asked if they were Jewish because of their name. Note also that it's not an isolated incident with the business.
It's yet another anti-Jewish sentiment among many; the ADL had documented a rise in such concurrent with economic instability. The need for a safe Jewish home is one of the main reasons I continue to support Israel, despite our disagreements on their treatment of Palestine. (Not that I'm always happy with what the U.S. government does either.)
It also raises interesting questions about right-of-refusal, however. How far does the right to refuse service go? The owner argued that she had a right to refuse service to anyone. I would argue that she does, but only to an extent. If she kicked out a family because they were noisy and disturbing the other guests, I would support her. If she kicked out a family because they were proselytizing beyond a polite boundary, I'd likewise support her. But there are limits in who you can refuse service to. I think the handy tool to use in judging these cases is "what are the REASONS you're refusing service?" These are easier to argue over whether or not their fair - more easy than arguing about the legality of the issue, since I don't know much about property rights. While a good tool would also be anti-discrimination clauses, these vary so wildly that certain classes might not be protected in different places.
So if a Jewish woman was refused service because she brought in a crazy-loud boombox, that's a good reason to kick someone out. If a Jewish woman was refused service because she was Jewish... how is that anything other than discrimination? There is no logical reason to exclude her. She is not harming the establishment or others.
And discrimination can ripple out to still waters. She can put away a boombox, she can't (and shouldn't have to) stop being Jewish. It might be easy to say, well, here is one isolated incident. The family will have to alter their travel plans. But if this kind of behavior is excused, it stops being isolated. Getting turned away from one B&B is one thing (a terrible thing, don't get me wrong). It's another to be turned out everywhere - to lack safe lodging and medical care and food because the owners of a store have the right to refuse you because of your race or gender or religion.
State-sponsered discrimination of this sort - whether deliberate or merely allowed - is a constant danger to so many. I applaud Israel as a safe spot from one sort. I hope she can widen that group to more, to many, to all, as a light to the nations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)