Current Events: Israel in the Media

I was trying not to do two current event items back to back, and was originally going to shelve this topic for a later date, but given the recent bombing in Israel, I changed my mind.

The following opinion column is from the Wall Street Journal. Since they have recently gone to a pay subscription only service, I reprint the article text here for your convenience:

BRET STEPHENS: A family of five slaughtered in their beds. Some Palestinians call it ‘natural.’
March 15th, 2011

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...el_opinion

Are Israeli Settlers Human?

A few years ago, British poet and Oxford don Tom Paulin offered a view on what should be done to certain Jewish settlers. “[They] should be shot dead,” he told Al-Ahram Weekly. “I think they are Nazis, racists. I feel nothing but hatred for them.” As for Israel itself, it was, he said, “an historical obscenity.”

Last Friday, apparently one or more members of the Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade, the terrorist wing of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’s “moderate” Fatah party, broke into the West Bank home of Udi and Ruth Fogel. The Jewish couple were stabbed to death along with their 11-year-old son Yoav, their 4-year-old son Elad and their 3-month-old daughter Hadas. Photographs taken after the murders and posted online show a literal bloodbath. Is Mr. Paulin satisfied now?

Unquestionably pleased are residents of the Palestinian town of Rafah in the Gaza Strip, who “hit the streets Saturday to celebrate the terror attack” and “handed out candy and sweets,” according to the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth. The paper quoted one Rafah resident saying the massacre was “a natural response to the harm settlers inflict on the Palestinian residents in the West Bank.” Just what kind of society thinks it’s “natural” to slit the throats of children in their beds?

The answer: The same society that has named summer camps, soccer tournaments and a public square in Ramallah after Dalal Mughrabi, a Palestinian woman who in March 1978 killed an American photographer and hijacked a pair of Israeli buses, leading to the slaughter of 37 Israeli civilians, 13 children among them.

I have a feeling that years from now Palestinians will look back and wonder: How did we allow ourselves to become that? If and when that happens—though not until that happens—Palestinians and Israelis will at long last be able to live alongside each other in genuine peace and security.

But I also wonder whether a similar question will ever occur to the Palestinian movement’s legion of fellow travelers in the West. To wit, how did they become so infatuated with a cause that they were willing to ignore its crimes—or, if not quite ignore them, treat them as no more than a function of the supposedly infinitely greater crime of Israeli occupation?

That’s an important question because it forms part of the same pattern in which significant segments of Western opinion cheered Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro and Robert Mugabe and even Pol Pot. The cheering lasted just as long as was required to see the cause through to some iconic moment of triumph, and then it was on to the next struggle. It was left to others to pick up the pieces or take to the boats or die choking in their own blood.

Whether similar tragedies would unfold for Palestinians in the wake of their own “liberation” remains to be seen, though the portents—the experience of the postcolonial world generally and of the Gaza Strip specifically—aren’t good.

Even worse is that Palestinians have grown accustomed to the waiver the rest of the world has consistently granted them over the years no matter what they do. Palestinians ought to have expectations of themselves if they mean to build a viable state. But their chances of doing so are considerably diminished if the world expects nothing of them and forgives them everything.

It is precisely in this sense that the frenzied international condemnation of Israeli settlements and settlers does the most harm. Having been accorded the part of George Orwell’s Emmanuel Goldstein—perpetual target of the proverbial two minutes of hate—they have drained whatever capacity there was to hold Palestinian actions to moral account, to say nothing of our ability to understand the nature of a conflict that is more than simply territorial. The demonization of the settlers has made the world not only coarse but blind.

I write these words as one who has long entertained doubts about the wisdom and viability of much of the settlement enterprise, though I’ve never considered it the core issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—a point well borne out by the example of Gaza following Israel’s withdrawal.

Now I find myself cheering Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for announcing, in the wake of the Fogel family massacre, the construction of hundreds of additional homes in the settlements. Israel’s consistent mistake since the peace process began nearly 18 years ago was to suppose that conspicuous displays of reasonableness and moderation would beget likewise on the other side. The reality has been closer to the opposite.

For 60 years, no nation has been held to such stringent moral account, or such ceaseless international hectoring, as Israel. And no people has been held to so slight an account as the Palestinians. Redressing that imbalance is the essential first step in finding a solution to the conflict. The grotesque murders of the Fogels and their little children demands nothing less.

This week there was the bus stop bombing in Israel, and the continued shelling of Israeli civilians from points in Gaza. As members of the Jewish community, we hear about these things through multiple sources. Anyone outside of the Jewish community however, would be hard pressed to find mention of these events. If your local newspaper is like the bulk of American newspapers, these stories did not appear on any front pages, or even second or third pages... Instead they were buried in the back pages of the international section, if they appeared in the newspaper at all.

What kinds of media representation of Israel have you seen?

Do you think that Israel is treated fairly in the media?

Do you agree with Bret Stephens, that the Palestinians get a "pass", while Israel is unfairly condemned?


I am hoping that the resulting discussion of this topic will become a launching point for futher discussion about Israel and current events, so please comment everyone!

Current Events: Government Hearings on Muslim Extremism

Please visit the following JTA news article:

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/03/...nt-reasons

Don't worry, take your time reading, I'll wait...

Here's a salient quote:

Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.), perhaps the most passionately pro-Israel lawmaker in Congress, said in a statement that King’s tone mitigated against a sober assessment of domestic Muslim extremism.

“Instead of singling out this particular community for investigation, our focus should remain on the many sources of terrorism and violence that threaten our nation and its residents,” she said, noting her concerns about the “tone and substance” of the hearings.

“I ask,” she said, “if this hearing were focused on the Jewish community, Japanese community or the African-American community, or any other community, would we not be justifiably outraged?”

This week, my post is a simple question to you - From a Jewish perspective, what do you think about this?

The Two Faces of Vashti

So, I am a part of my synagogue's purim shpiel this year. Our script is awesome. There is this hilarious sing-down during the first scene where Achashverosh is asking Vashti to dance for him and his male party friends by singing "It's getting hot in here, so take off all your clothes...", and Vashti responds with "We don't have to take our clothes off, to have a good time, oh no"...

Well, maybe it's not as funny in text...

In any case, this particular scene got me to thinking... (a dangerous pastime, I know... )

These days, at least in my shul, Vashti is portrayed as something of a minor feminist heroine. A tragic victim of her husband's drunkeness. Here Vashti is summoned before the king, her husband, and his many male party guests, all quite intoxicated, and she is told to come to his party wearing only her royal crown. Vashti refuses, obviously shocked at the violation of her integrity and personhood. Achashverosh, in his drunken state, flies into a rage, and orders her executed (or exiled if we're presenting to the kinder). After he sobers up he realizes the folly of what he has done, and we all know how the story continues.

This is a Vashti that any girl could be proud to portray in costume on Purim. But, there's another side to Vashti...

When I was growing up and attending my local Hebrew day school, we were taught that Vashti was a wicked queen, who was vain and cruel to her servants (often Hebrew women). This Vashti was in the regular practice of dancing nude in front of her husband and his court, showing off her many assets, as she was considered the most beautiful woman in all of Persia, and proud of it. The reason set forth for why she refused to respond to the king's summons was that she had suddenly come down with a case of a disfiguring skin ailment - sometimes said to be boils, and sometimes tzaraat (leprosy). Vashti was obviously embarassed to be seen in this state, and to lose her status as the most beautiful woman in the realm.

This is a very different Vashti - certainly one that is not at all sympathetic. She seems to deserve what she gets, and is definitely not anyone a young female would want to portray during Purim (unless you like playing the villian).

So - why are there two completely different takes on Vashti? And why are they so very different?

The text doesn't give us a lot to go on - it simply says that the King sent for Vashti, saying she should come to him dressed only in the royal crown, and she refused. There's no description of what anyone was thinking or feeling about the subject. There's no further description of how Vashti refused; how her response was worded might give us some insight into her frame of mind, but there is no comment on that.

We must rely on midrash and the interpretations passed down to us over time.

So - why these two opposing viewpoints? Has there been a change over time since I was a child that we now interpret Vashti differently? Which interpretation makes more sense to you? Which do you prefer?


Yet again - I have a response - but I'd like to hear your take on this first.
Have at it!

You're Never Fully Dressed Without A Smile

Hey Dapper Dan, Hey Gentleman, you've both got your style, but brother, you're never fully dressed, without a smile...

If you couldn't guess, I'm a musical theater brat. I grew up listening to broadway records and going to local theater productions of, well, just about every musical that came through town. And, when I was old enough, I performed in those shows. Annie was one of my high school productions, and I played one of the Boylan Sisters, who sang in that number.

So, what does Annie have to do with Judaism? Well, actually, there are a lot of things we could link between the show and our religious traditions, but I'm going to stick with the link between this week's Torah portion and that song.

Burt Healy said "you're never fully dressed without a smile", and this week, God insists to Aaron the high priest, that he's not fully dressed without a whole host of items. The high priest's "uniform" was a linen tunic and breeches, covered in a colorful robe which had woven pomegranates and gold bells hanging from the hem. He then would wear an ephod (breastplate) with a belt and shoulder pieces, containing 12 gemstones on the front, and one each on the shoulders. On his head, he would wear a linen turban with a gold head-plate engraved with the words "Holy to God".

Why do you think God wanted Aaron to wear all this? What kind of message do these clothes send to the Israelites? To Aaron himself?

The message of "you're never fully dressed without a smile" seems simpler to answer. The setting of Annie is during the Great Depression,
and the song was meant to inspire a little bit of happiness in the world. If someone sees you smiling, they will feel better, and will probably smile too, and that smile will spread to others. As a result, people will feel happier, even with all of the negativity surrounding them (a timely message if I ever heard one!). Even the orphans get into the spirit of smiling!

But what is God saying by telling Aaron that he's never fully dressed without a whole set of complicated and impressive-looking clothing?

Certainly "impressive" is one reason - the clothing inspires respect. The message of "Holy to God" on the headpiece is certainly a reminder to the Israelites, and Aaron himself, that the role of the high priest is a holy one, and that God is "watching". Of course, in Jewish terms, Aaron's clothes conform to the requirements of tzniut - modesty. And there are probably a number of other reasons you've come up with as well.

My point is not to belabor what Aaron is wearing. What I want to do is discuss what messages our own clothing sends to others.

I am sitting here typing this while wearing a t-shirt and jeans. My t-shirt happens to say "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!". What are my clothes saying about me? Well, certainly the shirt tells you that I went to New York City to see Mary Poppins on Broadway (once a musical theater brat, always a musical theater brat). The t-shirt and jeans combo says I'm being casual and comfortable.

Would I wear this outfit to teach? No way.

Why not? Because in a school setting, this outfit is sending the message that I don't take the school and my teaching seriously. That my comfort in a t-shirt and jeans is more important than my role as a teacher.

I shouldn't have to explain further about clothing and roles. I'm sure you're all used to the concept of wearing business attire at work, suits to interviews, tuxedoes and gowns to a black tie affair, and pajamas to sleep. Everyone is familiar with the long list of occupations and organizations that require uniforms of its members, and why.

But, here's the question. Why do we have all of these messages (both Jewish and secular) that tell us that it is important to be careful of what we wear, but then at the same time, tell people not to judge others by appearances?

Even Shakespeare covers this in Polonius' advice to Laertes in Hamlet:

"Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy, But not express’d in fancy; rich, not gaudy; For the apparel oft proclaims the man..."

"...This above all: to thine ownself be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man."

How can one be true to themselves, and yet at the same time adhere to society's structure on how to dress, lest he be judged poorly by others?

Say a college student arrives to an 8am class wearing his or her pajamas. If I were the professor, do I think that this student doesn't
care about my class? Or should I think that the student woke up late, and rather than be late to class, came dressed as is?

The first reflects poorly on the attitude of the student, the second assumes that class is important to the student and gives him/her the benefit of the doubt.

The easy out to this question is to say that both are correct. That Judaism instructs us to be vigilant with our own demeanor and dress, but to easily forgive the faux-pas of others.

But, I'm not content with that answer, because it doesn't answer the question of how to be true to myself while satisfying social expectations.

If being true to myself means being the most genuine "me" I can be, doesn't that mean I should always wear clothing that expresses my personal style? If I am most comfortable wearing t-shirts and jeans, why shouldn't they be acceptable at work?

I have an answer, but now that we've had a few weeks together with most of you simply reading, I want to hear your answers first.

So - go ahead - what do you think?