Blogosphere, I am going to be away for two weeks and am taking a vacation from blogging.

See you on the other side…

Glad it wasn't like this for URJ biennial!

You might not be aware (and ‘you’ would definitely not be living in Toronto if this is the case) that the G20 begins this coming weekend.  All of downtown Toronto has been transformed into a security zone, it seems.  Last night I was lucky enough to go to the Rogers Centre for the Jays v. Cardinals and downtown was deserted except for the groups of cops.  (What do you call a group of cops standing around?  A gaggle is geese…)  The protests are apparently under way.  People who work downtown are being advised to stay away or to come to work in street clothes.

Apparently over 1 billion has been spent to keep everyone safe.  We should expect highways to be closed down for up to 45 minutes at a time.  I live well north of the area where all of this is happening and have no plans to go downtown or anywhere near downtown.  I’ll stick to the suburbs until this is over.

And because I had to look it up, therefore it is probably worthwhile knowledge to share.  The G20 is composed of…

The Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors (known as the G-20 and also the G20 or Group of Twenty) is a group of finance ministers and central bank governors from 20 economies: 19 countries plus the European Union. Recently summits meeting at level of Heads of government have been introduced. The 2010 chair country of the G-20 is South Korea.

Countries included are: South Africa, Mexico, Canada, USA, Argentina, Brazil, China, Japan, South Korea, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, EU, France, Germany, Russia, Italy, UK, Turkey and Australia.

This list is oddly similar to the World Cup qualifying teams… hmmm.

Here’s a map to show the security zone. 

They’re projecting that the downtown businesses will lost $1 billion in revenue though this will not be measurable or be recovered at any point.

If anyone wanted my opinion on how to spend $1 billion, well, I can think of lots of ways and places.  It definitely wouldn’t be on security for a bunch of people in Toronto.

And by Venice I mean Italy not California.  An easy thing to confuse.

When I was a first-year student at Brandeis I took this awesome class called, “Merchants, Moneylenders and the Ghetti of Venice” taught by Dr. Benjamin Ravid who is an expert in this field.  Needless to say the class was fascinating though I was totally ill-equipped in my first semester at university for such an intensive, seminar style course.  Fortunately, I had opportunity to travel to Venice after my senior year, though only for one day, and tour the Jewish Quarter.

I am resisting every urge to go into a lengthy history lesson about Venice and the pivotal role of this community in post-inquisition Europe (Venice is one of the first stops on the way to the Levant/Ottoman Empire where many Jews continued on).

So, instead, I will just encourage you to read this article.  If you have opportunity to get to Venice, definitely stop in the Jewish quarter (and then have some gelato for me anywhere in Italy).  It is nice that there is a Chabad presence in Venice and I, or course encourage any liberal Jewish visitor to seek out the appropriate organizations that will meet her/his needs.  Regardless, there is very important history and culture of our people in Venice!  Go and see and learn.

With the World Cup on in the background, I just read of the passing of Manute Bol.  You can read an obituary, here.  I don’t know much about Bol beyond the basketball court but it seems after his career in the NBA ended his real work began.  Hailing from Sudan, he did lots of work to bring peace to the region torn apart in horrendous armed conflict.

I wonder where this type of hero is?  With the world’s attention on the pitch in South Africa are there players who are planning on making the world better when their professional career comes to an end?  I hear lots of people around me idealizing hockey stars, I do live in Canada after all.  Are there organizations they support that go beyond the rink?  How about in addition to listing stats relevant to the game we could also learn about the work people are doing so that we can idolize the talents not just in the professional sporting arena?

I don’t mind when professional athletes have flaws, they are human after all.  I do not condone their behavior when they do things that are illegal or are things we do not want our children to know about.  What about the player who makes the most assists and doesn’t score all the goals or points?

I guess in the end I’m still holding out for a hero.

Recently, I came across this article.  Conversions in Israel are a major issue not only for the Jews living there, for the entire Jewish people.  At the time of the founding of the State of Israel, David Ben-Gurion made an agreement with the Orthodox rabbinate that they could run the affairs of state.  (I’m summarizing greatly).  Now, 62 years later it is time for the government of Israel to eliminate the control of the Orthodox rabbinate.  A summary of how we got to this place is here.

Cantor Katie Oringel and Farmer Daniel Hoffman

What would bring multiple generations of community together, embed Jewish values, and enable social justice values in one place?  Food, food access, healthy food choices, and the environment are clear issues in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA).  Temple Sinai is located in the middle of what some call, the doughnut of poverty.  I like to think of it as a bagel of poverty, myself.  There seemed to be opportunity knowing this.
Through meeting with various community groups members of the Social Action Committee (SAC) and I met Daniel Hoffman.  Daniel is a social worker by training and started an organization called The Cutting Veg.
The Cutting Veg runs Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) programs and it seemed this would meet several of Temple Sinai’s goals.  Daniel describes a CSA as, “a mutually beneficial partnership in which individuals or families receive fresh, local, organically grown produce weekly, while supporting our local farmers and sustainable growing practices.”

The best asparagus I have ever tasted.

The SAC gathered together and with the help of Daniel, started to recruit members for our CSA.  We tabled during religious school, went to various committees including the Board of Trustees, created a facebook group and used our regular temple publications to recruit.  The CSA selected the name Pri Adamah, fruits of the earth.  I spoke about Pri Adamah, our CSA, on the first morning of Passover as well.  Our goal was to have a minimum of 50 families by the middle of the farming season.
Some of the reasons we like The Cutting Veg as a congregation is because of a special Tzedakah component.  The Cutting Veg makes a commitment to tzedakah and any member of Pri Adamah is also able to donate any produce that is not picked up to a local youth shelter.  There, the food is used in cooking classes.  We’re also hoping that the connection between Temple Sinai and the youth shelter will reap many benefits.  Three weeks in we are already seeing a partnership emerging.
Our CSA works on a point system.  A large share is 18 points per week, a regular share is 13 points per week.  Each individual (or if a shareholder is two households and splitting) gets to pick their own produce based upon the point values.  The entire enterprise is run on the honor system and works quite well.
The Cutting Veg asks for members of CSAs to think about volunteering on the farm.  In addition, we have access to the farm and our nursery school and young families group are planning trips in the fall.  During the CSA pickup times we need volunteers and already we’re finding that share members are sticking around the tent on temple property to share recipes, learn one anothers’ names and create community.

Selections from our first week

I’m happy to report that at the end of business on the first day, Pri Adamah had 54 shareholders.  Many came from the congregation, others are people in the neighborhood interested in organic, local produce.  We’ve had two successful weeks of Pri Adamah.  Already I’ve feasted on spinach, green garlic, green onion, snap peas, asparagus, apples, rhubarb, peppermint, potatoes, and kale (also available where radishes, turnips, bok choy, asian mix greens, salad greens and herbs).  Members have posted demonstration videos of recipes.  Several have mentioned that they noticed they were eating at home and cooking more.

Going forward there is still a lot to be done.  As mentioned above, we’re already seeing an emerging partnership with the youth shelter.  There are other things that they need and we are looking to coordinate drives through temple.  The SAC is considering printing CSA bags with our logo as a means of marketing.  We are also hoping to engage even more community members, perhaps people who are growing things on their own.  We have launched a blog which we invite you to visit and comment or ask us questions.  The plan is to highlight CSA members and gardeners as well as lots of Jewish content.

If you have more questions about how to start a CSA of your own, there are a lot of great resources out there and I’m happy to help point you in the right direction.  If you’re in the Toronto area you are welcome to join Pri Adamah!  You can download a registration form or come on Tuesday from 2:30-6:30 to Temple Sinai with your checkbook in hand.

I love Pri Adamah because it enables me and all of the shareholders to live our values while nourishing our bodies.  I hope you think about joining a CSA or starting your own.

Betay’avon!

Last week I was completely inspired to write a sermon after watching Magic & Bird, an incredible documentary that traces the rivalry between these two players from their earliest days playing against one another in the NCAA finals.  These two phenomenal players, both leaders in their own unique way changed the NBA forever.  I had this great idea to use Bird and Magic as different types of leaders and Aaron and the selection of the Cohenim.

But I digress.

I am a Lakers fan through and through.  I remember the rivalry and through the magic of memory only recall the Lakers being victorious.  I know the starting five.  Magic, Kareem, James Worthy, AC Green, and Byron Scott.  Michael Cooper was brought in whenever a three-point shot was required (or as the shooting guard).  I know that these players had personal faults and flaws.  As a young kid, it didn’t matter.  They flew through the air and seemed to make baskets from nowhere.

In fairness, I remember plenty of the Celtics players, too.  Bird, Ainge, Parish, McHale and someone else.  Four of five isn’t bad.

I highly recommend that you see Magic & Bird.  It is an inspiring story of two players who got to the top of their game through practice and even found friendship when the spotlights were turned off and it was just Larry and Earvin.  If you’re not convinced yet, just watch it and then talk to me.

Oh and GO LAKERS!

——

Speaking of a Lakers v. Celtics rivalry…  I think the Celtics have a new littlest fan who was born on Friday to Rabbi T.  and Dr. America.  All are healthy!

Though it isn’t as big of a deal in North America as pretty much anywhere else, it is world cup time!  The US team isn’t a favorite and the Canadian team didn’t even qualify.  Here are 2 interesting articles from Slate about the games and the differences between the US and I think Canada and the rest of the world.  I definitely plan on watching soccer and I don’t have a favorite team.  Do you?

The Loneliness of the American Soccer FanThe world’s most popular sport is on the rise in the United States—and my neighbors still couldn’t care less about the World Cup.

By Daniel GrossPosted Thursday, June 10, 2010, at 12:38 PM ETBeing a soccer fan at World Cup time in America is a little like being Jewish in December in a small town in the Midwest. You sense that something big is going on around you, but you’re not really a part of it. And the thing you’re celebrating and enjoying is either ignored or misunderstood by your friends, peers, and neighbors. It can be a lonely time. But the World Cup is much bigger than Christmas. After all, only a couple of billion people in the world celebrate Christmas; the World Cup is likely to garner the attention of a much larger audience. Yet in the world’s largest and most important sports competition, the American team, and the American audience, is a marginal, bit player. And for those of us who love the game of soccer and the World Cup, and for the few of us who followed the ups and downs of Landon Donovan’s career, these next couple weeks are likely to be bittersweet.

Of course, it’s getting less lonely. The United States has a growing soccer culture, thanks in part to the rise and growth of MLS. The atmosphere at games in Seattle and Toronto is quasi-European, with crowded stadiums and singing fans holding up scarves. A huge, partisan crowd showed up for the U.S. national team’s final send-off game against Turkey in Philadelphia. But as a rule, the world game remains a niche product here. Television ratings for MLS and U.S. national team games are minuscule. When Team USA plays World Cup qualifiers at home, it’s common for American fans to be outnumbered and outshouted by Costa Ricans, Mexicans, Guatemalans, Hondurans, whoever. Truth be told, there hasn’t been all that much to cheer for. In the 2002 World Cup, the United States made it out of its four-team round-robin group and whacked archrival Mexico in an exhilarating 2-0 game before going out to Germany in the quarterfinals. But the 2006 World Cup campaign essentially ended before it began, with the United States falling behind the Czech Republic in the fifth minute in the first game.

Because of the nation’s historical incompetence at international soccer, Americans generally look at the World Cup the same way they look at other foreign phenomena like sovereign wealth funds, Bollywood, and China—as a potential marketing bonanza. The Wall Street Journal and other organs of the financial press have been filled with articles about the opportunities for consumer products, brands, and media. The international soccer community, likewise, sees America less as a budding soccer power than as a potential financial bonanza—why else would FIFA consider giving the United States the World Cup for a second time?

As a result, if you’re interested in the game, and particularly interested in the U.S. team, you really don’t have that many people talk to. At a recent soccer practice, one of the other dads noted that his son wanted a jersey for some guy whose name he couldn’t remember but who might play for a Spanish team. “Lionel Messi?” I asked. From the lack of recognition on his face, I realized I may as well have said “Lionel Trilling?” I wanted to shout: “You know, the best player in the world? The mite from Argentina who moves faster with the ball than without it, whose low center of gravity lets him ride off tackles from much larger defenders, who schools the opposition the way Michael Jordan used to, who in April scored four goals against Arsenal—against ARSENAL, for god’s sakes!—in a Champions League game, who plays for Barcelona, possibly the most awesome and elegant club in the world, a team that gives its shirt sponsorship to UNICEF rather than selling it to some awful corporation? You mean that guy?” But what was the point? Talking with my neighbors about Lionel Messi would be like trying to engage a group of Amish farmers in a discussion about the merits of the 2011 Porsche Carrera.

Oh, sure, you can find other enthusiasts. A few Slate colleagues pass around YouTube links to the latest sick goal. Urban hipsters are obliged to show some interest the game, the same way they do in CSAs, and facial hair (for men) and yoga (for women). On the Internet, there’s the high-brow crew over at the New Republic, (which features an ad for a book from Cornell University press on Spartak Moscow), the fine blogs No Short Corners and Yanks Abroad, and a rising volume of press coverage. But there’s nothing like the volume and sophistication of stuff our frères at Slate.fr are doing. If you want to follow the game, wince with every missed shot, and question coach Bob Bradley’s personnel choices, you’ll have to venture into the fever swamps of BigSoccer.com. There you will find some people who live and die with status updates of defender Oguchi Onyewu’s knee. But they’re only avatars.

Following the U.S. national team in the World Cup is a somewhat solitary endeavor in part because the scheduling doesn’t lend itself to social or family watching. Unlike the Olympics, the World Cup is not scheduled or televised according to U.S. preferences—the last time the quadrennial tournament was staged in the Western hemisphere was 1994. To watch the United States’ opening game in the 2002 World Cup, I had to go to the Irish pub across from my New York apartment at 4 a.m. This year the schedule is only slightly better: this Saturday against England at 2:30 p.m. ET, Friday, June 18, against Slovenia at 10 a.m. ET, then Wednesday, June 23, at 10 a.m. ET, against Algeria. Yes, pubs and sports bars will be showing the games. But how many people will leave work, or take the day off, or skip the Little League game or pool party, to sit indoors and watch a soccer match? My guess is that when the U.S. plays England, the bars in New York and Los Angeles will be like Condé Nast in the 1990s—overrun with Brits.

I won’t be there. On Saturday afternoon, I’ll be at a family gathering, one at which I’m confident nobody will be checking scores or talking about the potentially epic matchup with England. I’ll have to tape it and watch it later, most likely alone. At least I’m confident none of my close friends or family members will call, e-mail, or text me with scores or updates, and that I can safely listen to the radio without the result intruding. On the other hand, I might have to shut off my Twitter feed. I follow a few foreigners.

——

The True Story of American SoccerFrom The Thinking Fan’s Guide to the World Cup.

By Dave EggersUpdated Thursday, June 10, 2010, at 6:55 AM ETThe 2010 World Cup marks the U.S.’s sixth consecutive appearance in the world’s pre-eminent soccer tournament. Four years ago, Dave Eggers asked why the game hasn’t quite captured America’s imagination, examining soccer’s history and status in this country through his own experiences following and playing the sport. The original article is reprinted below.

A German goal at the World CupWhen children in the United States are very young, they believe that soccer is the most popular sport in the world. They believe this because every single child in America plays soccer. It is a rule that they play, a rule set forth in the same hoary document, displayed in every state capital, that insists that 6-year-olds also pledge allegiance to the flag—a practice which is terrifying to watch, by the way, good lord—and that once a year, they dress as tiny pilgrims with beards fashioned from cotton.

On Saturdays, every flat green space in the continental United States is covered with tiny people in shiny uniforms, chasing the patchwork ball up and down the field, to the delight and consternation of their parents, most of whom have no idea what is happening. The primary force behind all of this is the American Youth Soccer Organization, or AYSO. In the 1970s, AYSO was formed to popularize soccer among the youth of America, and they did this with startling efficiency. Within a few years, soccer was the sport of choice for parents everywhere, particularly those who harbored suspicions that their children had no athletic ability whatsoever.

The beauty of soccer for very young people is that, to create a simulacrum of the game, it requires very little skill. There is no other sport that can bear such incompetence. With soccer, 22 kids can be running around, most of them aimlessly, or picking weeds by the sidelines, or crying for no apparent reason, and yet the game can have the general appearance of an actual soccer match. If there are three or four coordinated kids among the 22 flailing bodies, there will actually be dribbling, a few legal throw-ins, and a couple of times when the ball stretches the back of the net. It will be soccer, more or less.

Because they all play, most of America’s children assume that soccer will always be a part of their lives. When I was 8, playing center midfielder for the undefeated Strikers (coached by the unparalleled Mr. Cooper), I harbored no life expectations other than that I would continue playing center midfielder until such time as I died. It never occurred to me that any of this would change.

Advertisement

//

But at about age 10, something happens to the children of the United States. Soccer is dropped, quickly and unceremoniously, by approximately 88 percent of all young people. The same kids who played at 5, 6, 7, move on to baseball, football, basketball, hockey, field hockey, and, sadly, golf. Shortly thereafter, they stop playing these sports, too, and begin watching these sports on television, including, sadly, golf.

The abandonment of soccer is attributable, in part, to the fact that people of influence in America long believed that soccer was the chosen sport of Communists. When I was 13—this was 1983, long before glasnost, let alone the fall of the wall—I had a gym teacher, who for now we’ll call Moron McCheeby, who made a very compelling link between soccer and the architects of the Iron Curtain. I remember once asking him why there were no days of soccer in his gym units. His face darkened. He took me aside. He explained with quivering, barely mastered rage, that he preferred decent, honest American sports where you used your hands. Sports where one’s hands were not used, he said, were commie sports played by Russians, Poles, Germans, and other commies. To use one’s hands in sports was American, to use one’s feet was the purview of the followers of Marx and Lenin. I believe McCheeby went on to lecture widely on the subject.

It was, by most accounts, 1986 when the residents of the United States became aware of the thing called the World Cup. Isolated reports came from foreign correspondents, and we were frightened by these reports, worried about domino effects, and wondered aloud if the trend was something we could stop by placing a certain number of military advisers in Cologne or Marseilles. Then, in 1990, we realized that the World Cup might happen every four years, with or without us.

At the same time, high-school soccer was booming in the suburbs of Chicago, due in large part to an influx of foreign exchange students.

My own high-school team was ridiculously good by the standards of the day, stacked as it was with extraordinary players from other places. I can still remember the name of the forward who came from, I think, Rome: Alessandro Dazza. He was the best on the team, just ahead of Carlos Gutierrez (not his real name), who hailed from Spain and played midfield. Our best defender was a Vietnamese-American student named Tuan, and there was also Paul Beaupre, who was actually from our own WASP-filled town, but whose name sounded French. We were expected to win State, but we did not come very close. Homewood-Flossmoor, we heard, had a pair of twins from Brazil.

These are the words of Yehudah haLevi and these days I confess I am thinking even more about Israel and reminiscing (I’ve quoted the poem at the end of this post). Then I saw this editorial in the NYT.

Israel Without Clichés

By TONY JUDT

Published: June 9, 2010

THE Israeli raid on the Free Gaza flotilla has generated an outpouring of clichés from the usual suspects. It is almost impossible to discuss the Middle East without resorting to tired accusations and ritual defenses: perhaps a little house cleaning is in order.

Yossi Lemel

No. 1: Israel is being/should be delegitimized

Israel is a state like any other, long-established and internationally recognized. The bad behavior of its governments does not “delegitimize” it, any more than the bad behavior of the rulers of North Korea, Sudan — or, indeed, the United States — “delegitimizes” them. When Israel breaks international law, it should be pressed to desist; but it is precisely because it is a state under international law that we have that leverage.

Some critics of Israel are motivated by a wish that it did not exist — that it would just somehow go away. But this is the politics of the ostrich: Flemish nationalists feel the same way about Belgium, Basque separatists about Spain. Israel is not going away, nor should it. As for the official Israeli public relations campaign to discredit any criticism as an exercise in “de-legitimization,” it is uniquely self-defeating. Every time Jerusalem responds this way, it highlights its own isolation.

No. 2: Israel is/is not a democracy

Perhaps the most common defense of Israel outside the country is that it is “the only democracy in the Middle East.” This is largely true: the country has a constitution, an independent judiciary and free elections, though it also discriminates against non-Jews in ways that distinguish it from most other democracies today. The expression of strong dissent from official policy is increasingly discouraged.

But the point is irrelevant. “Democracy” is no guarantee of good behavior: most countries today are formally democratic — remember Eastern Europe’s “popular democracies.” Israel belies the comfortable American cliché that “democracies don’t make war.” It is a democracy dominated and often governed by former professional soldiers: this alone distinguishes it from other advanced countries. And we should not forget that Gaza is another “democracy” in the Middle East: it was precisely because Hamas won free elections there in 2005 that both the Palestinian Authority and Israel reacted with such vehemence.

No. 3: Israel is/is not to blame

Israel is not responsible for the fact that many of its near neighbors long denied its right to exist. The sense of siege should not be underestimated when we try to understand the delusional quality of many Israeli pronouncements.

Unsurprisingly, the state has acquired pathological habits. Of these, the most damaging is its habitual resort to force. Because this worked for so long — the easy victories of the country’s early years are ingrained in folk memory — Israel finds it difficult to conceive of other ways to respond. And the failure of the negotiations of 2000 at Camp David reinforced the belief that “there is no one to talk to.”

But there is. As American officials privately acknowledge, sooner or later Israel (or someone) will have to talk to Hamas. From French Algeria through South Africa to the Provisional I.R.A., the story repeats itself: the dominant power denies the legitimacy of the “terrorists,” thereby strengthening their hand; then it secretly negotiates with them; finally, it concedes power, independence or a place at the table. Israel will negotiate with Hamas: the only question is why not now.

No. 4: The Palestinians are/are not to blame

Abba Eban, the former Israeli foreign minister, claimed that Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. He was not wholly wrong. The “negationist” stance of Palestinian resistance movements from 1948 through the early 1980s did them little good. And Hamas, firmly in that tradition though far more genuinely popular than its predecessors, will have to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist.

But since 1967 it has been Israel that has missed most opportunities: a 40-year occupation (against the advice of its own elder statesmen); three catastrophic invasions of Lebanon; an invasion and blockade of Gaza in the teeth of world opinion; and now a botched attack on civilians in international waters. Palestinians would be hard put to match such cumulative blunders.

Terrorism is the weapon of the weak — bombing civilian targets was not invented by Arabs (nor by the Jews who engaged in it before 1948). Morally indefensible, it has characterized resistance movements of all colors for at least a century. Israelis are right to insist that any talks or settlements will depend upon Hamas’s foreswearing it.

But Palestinians face the same conundrum as every other oppressed people: all they have with which to oppose an established state with a monopoly of power is rejection and protest. If they pre-concede every Israeli demand — abjurance of violence, acceptance of Israel, acknowledgment of all their losses — what do they bring to the negotiating table? Israel has the initiative: it should exercise it.

No. 5: The Israel lobby is/is not to blame

There is an Israel lobby in Washington and it does a very good job — that’s what lobbies are for. Those who claim that the Israel lobby is unfairly painted as “too influential” (with the subtext of excessive Jewish influence behind the scenes) have a point: the gun lobby, the oil lobby and the banking lobby have all done far more damage to the health of this country.

But the Israel lobby is disproportionately influential. Why else do an overwhelming majority of congressmen roll over for every pro-Israel motion? No more than a handful show consistent interest in the subject. It is one thing to denounce the excessive leverage of a lobby, quite another to accuse Jews of “running the country.” We must not censor ourselves lest people conflate the two. In Arthur Koestler’s words, “This fear of finding oneself in bad company is not an expression of political purity; it is an expression of a lack of self-confidence.”

No. 6: Criticism of Israel is/is not linked to anti-Semitism

Anti-Semitism is hatred of Jews, and Israel is a Jewish state, so of course some criticism of it is malevolently motivated. There have been occasions in the recent past (notably in the Soviet Union and its satellites) when “anti-Zionism” was a convenient surrogate for official anti-Semitism. Understandably, many Jews and Israelis have not forgotten this.

But criticism of Israel, increasingly from non-Israeli Jews, is not predominantly motivated by anti-Semitism. The same is true of contemporary anti-Zionism: Zionism itself has moved a long way from the ideology of its “founding fathers” — today it presses territorial claims, religious exclusivity and political extremism. One can acknowledge Israel’s right to exist and still be an anti-Zionist (or “post-Zionist”). Indeed, given the emphasis in Zionism on the need for the Jews to establish a “normal state” for themselves, today’s insistence on Israel’s right to act in “abnormal” ways because it is a Jewish state suggests that Zionism has failed.

We should beware the excessive invocation of “anti-Semitism.” A younger generation in the United States, not to mention worldwide, is growing skeptical. “If criticism of the Israeli blockade of Gaza is potentially ‘anti-Semitic,’ why take seriously other instances of the prejudice?” they ask, and “What if the Holocaust has become just another excuse for Israeli bad behavior?” The risks that Jews run by encouraging this conflation should not be dismissed.

Along with the oil sheikdoms, Israel is now America’s greatest strategic liability in the Middle East and Central Asia. Thanks to Israel, we are in serious danger of “losing” Turkey: a Muslim democracy, offended at its treatment by the European Union, that is the pivotal actor in Near-Eastern and Central Asian affairs. Without Turkey, the United States will achieve few of its regional objectives — whether in Iran, Afghanistan or the Arab world. The time has come to cut through the clichés surrounding it, treat Israel like a “normal” state and sever the umbilical cord.

Tony Judt is the director of the Remarque Institute at New York University and the author, most recently, of “Ill Fares the Land.”

There is so much media coverage about Israel these days.  I like this editorial because it goes straight through the narishkeit and reminds the reader of what is really going on here.  One correction of course, Israel doesn’t have a constitution.  It does have a declaration of independence.

Here’s the poem.

My heart is in the East – Yehuda haLevi

My heart is in the East, and I am at the ends of the West;

How can I taste what I eat and how could it be pleasing to me?

How shall I render my vows and my bonds, while yet

Zion lies beneath the fetter of Edom, and I am in the chains of Arabia?

It would be easy for me to leave all the bounty of Spain —

As it is precious for me to behold the dust of the desolate sanctuary.

Because it might make you regurgitate.

Israeli Women’s Prayers Hit Reactionary Wall

By Michele Chabin

WeNews correspondent

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

A woman wearing tefillin touches the Western Wall. Women in Israel are prohibited from wearing tefillin and prayer shawls at the Western Wall.

Women’s rights activists say extremists in the haredi community are forcing their fervent brand of religiosity on the Israeli public and that one of their tactics is to marginalize women.

“In any patriarchy, when you want to embrace power you must make someone feel inferior,” said Naomi Ragen, a best-selling American-Israeli novelist whose books (“The Saturday Wife,” “The Covenant”) feature strong Jewish women fighting for equality in the Orthodox world.

Several haredi leaders have succeeded in banning female performers from many municipal and national events. Due to their influence, a police station in the coastal town of Ashdod no longer employs female workers and the same is true for a handful of Jerusalem health maintenance organizations and a post office.

Ragen said haredi extremists have succeeded in segregating many public buses by gender.

Ragen, who co-petitioned the High Court to ban segregated bus lines after she was harassed for refusing to sit at the back of a bus, said she recently encountered a haredi man with a small child on a very crowded bus.

“The child sat next to him. When an elderly woman boarded he refused to place the child on his lap. He didn’t want a woman to sit next to him,” she said.

It’s not that he didn’t care about the woman, the author emphasized. “It’s that he wanted to be a holy person. In the process, he and others are overriding the Torah’s precepts of being decent to people.”

Religious Extremists Emboldened

Seth Farber is a modern-Orthodox rabbi and the director of ITIM, a Jerusalem organization that helps people navigate the bureaucracy of the Orthodox Rabbinate and other government institutions. He believes that the clout ultra-Orthodox political parties first obtained in the late 1980s by joining successive governments has gradually emboldened religious extremists.

“They feel greater confidence to impose their social norms on the general population. The women’s issue is just one facet,” Farber said.

Ragen, also modern-Orthodox, said she felt equally “infuriated” when, earlier this year, she heard that Frankel and Hoffman had been detained.

“On the one hand the Kotel [Wall] is a synagogue and does have its own rules. But because it’s the center and heart of the Jewish religion, everyone should have access to it,” she said. “Whatever the women are doing can’t be worse than someone throwing chairs. When this happens, who is really disrespecting the Kotel?”

It is time, Ragen said, “for people to take back this religion.”

However, not everyone believes that a woman’s right to wear prayer shawls at the Wall is part of the battle against religious fanaticism,

Einat Ramon, the first Israeli-born female rabbi, said that her Masorti (Conservative) stream of Judaism agreed to honor the High Court’s 2003 ruling which, in addition to banning prayer shawls, ordered the government to develop Robinson’s Arch, a secluded section of the Western Wall for use by non-Orthodox Jews.

“Sending our daughters to be wrapped in tallit at the section of the Wall that is run according to Orthodox interpretations of Jewish law is a violation…of our agreement with the State of Israel,” Ramon said. “It violates the moral-legal principle of minhag makom: respect for the customs of a certain place and for the rabbi and community that adheres to him.”

Hoffman counters that on the men’s side of the Wall custom undergoes constant innovation. “Someone brings in a drummer to perform at a bar-mitzvah and men find meaningful new ways to celebrate. It’s only the women who must stick to ‘minhag makom,'” she said.

“The Women of the Wall have been praying there for 20 years,” Hoffman added. “If that’s not a custom by now, I don’t know what is.”

Michele Chabin is the Israel correspondent for the New York Jewish Week, Religion News Service and the National Catholic Register. She has been reporting from Israel for more than 20 years.

It should be no shock to any of you, dear readers, that I am completely disgusted.  I think Einat Ramon’s comments, though not here in full are moving us backwards instead of ceasing an opportunity to propel women’s rights forward.  Naomi Ragen seems to be fighting for an important cause here (I do not agree with other things that she says/does) and she is doing so with the Israel Religious Action Center, a group that each of us need to help!

Rosh Chodesh is coming (on Sunday).  This means that the Women of the Wall will again gather with the threat of violence from the Haredi establishment looming.

After the past week Israel still needs our support.  Whether or not we like or agree with the actions of the military is irrelevant.  We must give our support to the organizations and the people who are doing the work on behalf of the liberal Jewish world so that we can have equal rights in Israel.

Rabbi Tarfon once said, “It is not up to you to finish the work, yet you are not free to avoid it,” (Avot 2.16).

———-

I also have a new background and theme.  Any thoughts or feedback?