Thursday, June 11, 2015

Is BDS hypocritical? האם בי.די.אס צבועה?

There’s been lots of talk about boycotts lately, particularly BDS. The predictable response to BDS on the right is, “How come they don’t talk about other human rights violations, but only Israel’s?” So I’ve made a convenient table listing the human rights violators usually cited in such discourse (“Top Violators”), and how BDS can be expected to react:

Action >
Violator
Boycott
Divest
Sanction
North Korea
1. Do they have anything we want?
2. Do you know of any Western academics who seek to collaborate with any North Korean academics?
3. Is Roger Waters scheduled to perform there?
Do you know of universities, churches, or other institutions invested in any North Korean companies?
Aren’t we already doing this?
Islamic State
1. Do they have anything we want?
2. Do you know of any Western academics who seek to collaborate with any ISIS academics? Are there ISIS academics?
3. Is Roger Waters scheduled to perform there?
n/a
Have you heard anyone express anything other than condemnation? I mean, who’s not already there?
Putin
1. Does he have anything we want?
2. Do you know of any Western academics who seek to collaborate with any Russian academics?
3. Is Roger Waters scheduled to perform there?
OK. Then you may call for a boycott.
Do you know of universities, churches, or other institutions invested in any Russian companies?
Thought we already were.
Iran
1. Yes, they have oil.
2. Do you know of any Western academics who seek to collaborate with any Iranian academics?
3.Is Roger Waters scheduled to perform there? OK. Then you may call for a boycott.
Do you know of universities, churches, or other institutions invested in any Iranian companies?
TBD

There. That was easy, wasn’t it? But for the sake of transparency, we must discuss one more human rights violator: Saudia. If you look at the table, the big difference between Saudia and the other Top Violators is: Petroleum. Anyone who wants to boycott petroleum had better be energy independent. Ironically, who’s more dependent upon Saudi oil: Israel, or any other Western country? Unless shipments are coming in the back door unmarked, I‘d venture to say that barrel for barrel, Israel is the more energy independent country. Yay, us.


But you know what’s even more important? We should aspire to be a respected member of the family of nations. I should hope that irrespective of BDS, we hold ourselves to a higher standard than do the Top Human Rights Violators. Do we really want to be “Best of the Loser States”?

Sunday, May 31, 2015

Who cares if Israel offends the majority of Jews? למי אכפת אם ישראל פוגעת ברוב היהודים?

עברית מופיעה למטה

It is with a heavy heart that I read Rabbi Julie Schonfeld’s plea, Israel, don’t forget the majority of Jews, precisely because for a while now, even before the last elections, but certainly since, it’s been fair to say that those in power here simply do not give a you-know-what about the very majority that Rabbi Schonfeld represents.

That’s right: If push came to shove, our current leadership would forfeit its relationship with non-Orthodox Jewry in favor of the Orthodox, who -- with a few Beinart-like exceptions -- it can count on to support its policies unconditionally. After all, they don’t even consider half of you to even be Jewish, and the half that are Jewish they have no use for: Not only do its ranks refuse to support Israel blindly, and rightly criticize it (otherwise known as “hang out our dirty laundry for the goyim to see”), but they’re not voting with their feet, i.e., donating millions to our leaders’ pet enterprise – the settlements – and they’re certainly not making aliya.

Unfortunately, our leadership couldn’t care less about your outrage at the cancelled bar mitzvah in Rehovot, or “Rabbi” Rabinowitz’s tyranny over the Kotel, or the treatment of non-Orthodox converts or immigrants who seek a marriage license.

Also unfortunately, I don’t have an answer. A non-Orthodox boycott of Israel? Our leadership would be only too happy not to have to deal with you any longer; you’d be playing straight into their hands. Even withholding donations wouldn’t make them blink; no worries: They’ve got the likes of Sheldon Adelson and Irving Moscowitz on their team.

The only fix I can come up with is a massive influx of non-Orthodox Jews into our population, which doesn’t look promising. One thing I do know is that editorials – written in English – warning our leadership that they are antagonizing you, isn’t having the desired effect. I’m both afraid and deeply sorry.

למי אכפת אם ישראל פוגעת ברוב היהודים?

בלב כבד אני קוראת את תחינתה של הרבה ג'ולי שונפלד, הקוראת לישראל לא לשכוח את רוב היהודים, בדיוק מכיוון שמזה זמן כבר, אפילו לפני הבחירות האחרונות אך בעיקר לאחריהן, ניתן לומר בכנות שגורמי השלטון כיום פשוט לא שמים קצוץ על אותו רוב שאותו הרבה שונפלד מייצגת.

אכן כן: אם תועמד בפני הברירה, תוותר ההנהגה הנוכחית שלנו על יחסיה עם היהדות הלא-אורתודוקסית לטובת האורתודוסים שעליהם –  למעט יוצאים-מן-הכלל בודדים דוגמת ביינרט –  היא יכולה לסמוך שייתמכו במדיניותה ללא סייגים. שהרי אין המנהיגים הנ"ל מחשיבים מחצית מכם כיהודים, ובמחצית השניה, שהם כן יהודים, אין להם צורך: לא רק שהיהודים הללו מסרבים לתמוך בישראל באופן עיוור, ובצדק אפילו מותחים עליה ביקורת (מה שנקרא בחוגים מסויימים "לתלות את הכביסה המלוכלכת מול פני הגויים"), אלא שהם גם אינם "מצביעים ברגליהם", כלומר, לא תורמים מליונים להתנחלויות האהובות על מנהיגינו, ובהחלט לא עולים לישראל.

למרבה הצער, זעמכם על טקס הבר-מצווה שבוטל ברחובות, או על רודנותו של "רב הכותל" רבינוביץ, או על היחס למי שעברו גיור לא-אותודוקסי ולמהגרים המגישים בקשות לתעודת נישואים, אינו מטריד כהוא-זה את מנוחתם של מנהיגינו.

יתרה מכך, לצערי, אין לי שום עצה עבורכם מה לעשות. שהלא-אורתוקסים יטילו חרם על ישראל? ההנהגה שלנו רק תשמח אם לא תצטרך להתעסק אתכם יותר; כך רק תשחקו ישר לידיהם. גם עצירת תרומותיכם לא תגרום להם למצמץ: עם שלדון אדלסון, אירווינג מוסקוביץ ודומיהם בקבוצה שלהם, אין להם מה לדאוג.

הפיתרון היחידי העולה על דעתי, קרי השתלבות המונית של לא-אורתודוקסים באוכלוסיה שלנו, לא סביר שיתרחש. לדאבוני חוששני כי מה שאני כן יודעת הוא שמאמרים באנגלית, המזהירים את מנהיגינו מפני פגיעה בכם, אינם מסוגלים ליצור את ההשפעה המקווה.

תרגם באדיבות: עמי ארגמן

Friday, March 27, 2015

No apologies for being privileged בבועה ולא מתנצלת


Here’s how Ari Shavit described me and my ilk in yesterday’s Haaretz:
“Many of them [“sushi eaters”] don’t know a single Likud voter. Many of them have never heard the music of Amir Benayoun.
The economy of high-tech, natural gas, and business mergers has allowed some two million Israelis to live a very good life in a closed world, whose values are those of California. The prosperous liberal colony that they founded on the Mediterranean allowed them to live in an illusory incubator of advanced technology, totally disconnected from reality, the state, and the land.
Between Florentine and Arsuf, and between Ra’anana and the Peres Center for Peace, they launched startups, watched Channel 10, and didn’t know where they were living. They had no direct contact with Jews of Middle Eastern origin, traditional Jews, struggling Russian-speakers, Haredim, or Arabs (though they talked about them a lot).”
Well. I had no idea I was being awarded a Diversity Score on Shavit’s Divers-o-meter, or I would’ve made sure to listen to Amir Benayoun and make friends with some Likudniks. While I don’t reside in the area bordered by Florentine - Arsuf - Ranaana - PCP, and I don’t eat sushi when I can avoid it, I certainly count myself in the demographic that Shavit so witheringly describes. But I refuse to feel ashamed of belonging to that demographic.
I plead guilty to having friends who believe as I do, with whose politics I feel comfortable. I plead guilty to having chosen an address where I feel comfortable as a woman, as a non-Orthodox Jew, and yes, as a leftist. But if I’m guilty, so are the rest of Earth’s inhabitants, most of whom live in enclaves, whether they be liberal, conservative, religious, or ethnic. So no, I don’t count any Arabs, ultra-Orthodox, or Russians among my friends, and don’t interact on a regular basis with Mizrahim or those of low income, but I do strive to treat every individual with whom I interact with courtesy and kindness.
It is precisely having grown up as a minority member that informs my leftist views. Granted, growing up as a Jew in North America, I was able to blend, and rarely if ever encountered anti-Semitism. But that didn’t mean that I wasn’t keenly aware, practically every moment, of not being part of the dominant group. I brought that awareness with me when I made aliya, which is why the first thing I ask when encountering any policy or social phenomenon is “Where are the Arabs?” / “How will Arabs feel about that?” This, besides setting an example for my children by (multiple) attempts to learn spoken Arabic and (laboriously) teaching myself to read Arabic, which I’ve advocated be a required subject in all schools from 3rd grade (to little avail).
So I don’t have any Arab friends. Does that mean I can’t still act upon and speak out for the principles of equal rights and against segregation? Is socializing with minority members a requirement for voting Meretz? I’m Ashkenazi, comfortably middle class, and have a post-secondary education. I can’t erase any of those blessings, nor do I want to. And those data do not preclude me from “talking about” Arabs, or ultra-Orthodox, or any other group. In fact, we should be talking about them, and keeping their issues on the agenda, as I want mine on the agenda as well.
I’m annoyed with the self-flaggelation of the Left. I’m tired of it. I don’t need to refine or redefine – or whatever it is the pundits say we need to do – my vision. My vision has been the same since I hit these shores in 1981. Like Zahava Gal-On, I’m an avowed leftist and secular, a fighter for human rights, an opponent of the occupation, and a supporter of social justice who opposes religious coercion  the struggle for social justice also as a fight against the occupation, against the violation of Palestinian human rights, against continued illegal construction in the territories and excessive budgetary allotments to the ultra-Orthodox.
And what’s new as far as voter behavior? What we just saw happen here in Israel has been true in the US for decades: The poor continue to vote against their own interests; newcomers, especially if they’re people of color, naturally migrate to slums, where, predictably, they’re abhored by longtime residents and are believed to steal the latter’s livelihoods (while actually doing lowly work that nobody else – rich or poor – is willing to do). Right-wing politicians play on the poor’s fears and perceived weakness, and – surprise! – look at the results, in both countries.

I take issue with the critique of Meretz that it doesn’t appeal enough or target itself to the Mizrachim. This claim actually insults Mizrachis’ intelligence. What? They don’t have access to the same media as whites? They’re not targeted the same as the rest of us? If parity and leveling the playing field; if channeling funds away from settlements and toward the populations in need; if separating church and state don’t appeal to underserved people, then playing Amir Benayoun in the background of campaign ads certainly won’t convince.

Don’t get me wrong: I was stunned and grieving last Wednesday morning. But I’m a glass-half-full kind of gal: Left-wing parties have historically sat in the opposition. Meretz winning five seats – one owing entirely to soldiers – is great. This Knesset has more women and more Arabs than any previous one: also great. And the Left certainly gave the Right a run for its money. Plus, the game’s not over: We will sit in the opposition and continue to speak out against injustice and in favor of democracy.

Sitting in Hot Mobile last week being helped by an agent, the customer next to me, a woman who looked about my age, announced she was expecting her 10th grandchild. I wished her beSha’ah tová. Then she said something about never dividing Jerusalem. I surprised myself by speaking up (reminding everyone that this is Eilat). I said, “Let ‘em divide it already!” to which she replied, “Divide it? You don’t divide your home!” To which I replied, “It’s already divided.” After all, who knows? Maybe it's she who lives in a bubble. Maybe she needs her assumptions challenged that everyone in a random public place at a given moment agrees with her views.

Ten or even five years ago, I would’ve been too timid to speak my mind like that in public. But somehow – age? “Tenure”? Feeling like we’ve got nothing to lose at this point? – I’m less inhibited about my views. Knowing that those five MKs are there, speaking for me – purely and without dithering – keeps me strong. No one will silence us.

Thursday, March 19, 2015

My daughter chose her dad's surname...and I'm fine with it בתי בחרה בשם משפחתו של אביה...ואני שלמה עם זה


When my daughter announced that she had requested that the emcee announce her name as “Hedy Slott” at her culminating show of her school’s fashion design major, she seemed ready for me to blow a gasket. Instead, to her surprise, I was and am fine with it. I believe that what made it a non-issue for me is the very fact that she’s been an unambigous Erez-Slott for 18 years, so to me it felt like a genuine choice on her part. In fact, I’m pleased that she was brave enough to make this move, knowing how strongly I feel about names and their implications. What better proof that she thinks for herself and doesn’t simply go along with others’ expectations? Hedy Slott, welcome to the planet!

Thursday, February 26, 2015

My 'poo-free life החיים ללא תחפיף


Time to once again deviate from my usual fare, to report that I have joined the No 'Poo movement, i.e., I've quit using shampoo. I was inspired to try this about 15 years ago in response to skimming one of those guides for curlyheads. I don't recall the instructions exactly – it may have advocated not even wetting your head – but I recall that I lasted four days.

Fast forward to 2015. What changed? you ask. Two things: I'm older, and so's my hair. It's just gotten drier and more hag-like 'til finally it was downright atrocious: Hated how it looked, hated how it felt. Second thing that changed: Now there's Internet. As is my wont, I visited around half a dozen sites that talk about going shampoo free, and aggregated the information therein. The consensus seems to be that hair care can consist of daily (or less frequent) wetting and using crème rinse (I refuse to call it conditioner); and a more or less weekly baking soda scalp scrub and apple cider vinegar rinse. All the sites also warned of a transitional period wherein your hair will be greasy.

OK, so here I went: I already use a crème rinse that I absolutely love: Hawaii Oil Intense. So I just went on using that. The thing you have to know about crème rinse is that it does one thing, and one thing only: It's a detangler with a grownup name. It doesn't "condition", it doesn't alter your hair in any way, nor does it change the properties of the follicle or cuticle. Ads notwithstanding, it won't make your hair shiny, or lustrous, or any other adjective. All it does is allow you to comb wet hair out comfortably. So use whatever crème rinse you love, just don't have any expectations that it will do anything but that.

After a week of daily wetting my hair and applying crème rinse (I comb it through before rinsing out), and my hair looking and feeling fine, and having zero scent, my scalp began feeling kinda gritty. Time for baking soda + vinegar! Following instructions I'd read online, I made two solutions: 1 cup water  + 2 Tbs. (plain, white) vinegar (hadn't yet made it to the store to buy apple cider vinegar) in a schpritz / spray bottle; and 2 Tbs. baking soda mixed with 1 cup boiling water (let cool!).

When that was all ready, I poured the baking soda solution on my hair. Despite my having used boiling water and mixed thoroughly, it still separated. More on that later. Anyway, I poured it all on the crown of my head and used my fingers to scrub it into my scalp all around. Then I left it on while I did my usual showering routine, rinsed it out thoroughly, and then schpritzed the vinegar solution all over my hair, on top and underneath. I rinsed that out thoroughly too, and then dried off. I combed it out as usual; no odor remained.

I kept up this regime for a few weeks. Although I don't believe anyone else noticed, I felt my hair looked and felt better: less frizz, more curl, soft to the touch, a little shine. Don't know if I'd go as far as to say silky, but improved. Far less hag-like. Then today, after a heavy-duty outdoor cleaning job, I felt absolutely gross. I caved and shampooed, and followed with vinegar. Before it had even dried, I saw the difference immediately: My hair was flyaway even while still wet. So I'm a convert, but a Reform convert: Perhaps I'll shampoo once a month.

Meanwhile, two observations: Since the baking soda solution separates no matter what, I tried just sprinkling the baking soda on my head and then dripping water onto it from a mineral water bottle with a drip spout. Didn't work well: My hair ended up a giant baking soda snarl, and the baking soda didn't distribute over my scalp.

So I decided to make up a paste and used that. The paste seems the most efficient. I poured the baking soda into a small plastic bowl and dripped water onto it ‘til I got a mixture the consistency of yogurt. Poured that onto the crown of my head. At first it seems like it won’t distribute onto your scalp, but keep scrubbing / massaging it in, all over. Eventually it distributes.

Second observation: What's special about apple cider vinegar? I finally got hold of a bottle and not only does it not smell like apples as I'd expected, it has an even more pungent odor than does white vinegar, and its effect was identical. So no more apple cider vinegar for me: I'm going with plain white vinegar, whose price is about a fourth of that of ACV. Either way the cost is negligible; two cups of solution looks like it's gonna last me for months, if not an entire year. Good thing vinegar doesn't go bad.

Speaking of cost, many sites cite the savings in not buying shampoo. However, I notice that I use much more crème rinse now (see March update below). I don’t really understand this; it seems counterintuitive: If shampoo dries our hair out, shouldn’t not using it mean we need less crème rinse? But for some reason it’s the opposite. So as far as saving money, it’s a wash: Save on shampoo, but use more crème rinse. Oh well.

March update: My comb was collecting gunk, which I surmise was creme rinse residue. Yuck. So decided to quit creme rinse and just use vinegar, which does the same thing minus gunk. Then I tried using nothing, i.e., just rinsing and scrubbing scalp with water. Combed out no problem. So now I'm down to water only, with vinegar if tangled. I did "break down" again this week when the temperature rose and things got sweaty, and shampooed. But the results were less flyaway this time. I see a cycle shaping up: shampoo every few weeks, water + vinegar in the interim.

April update: Shampooed just before Seder, followed by vinegar. Basically we're talking a shampoo bi-weekly regime. My hair's fine but I'm thinking of looking for a laureth sulfate-free shampoo. I heard they exist for a price. I do like the sudsiness of shampooing. Stay tuned.

May update: Tried two sulfate-free shampoos: Avalon Organics Lemon something, which was fine but didn't blow me away. It lathered up only slightly less than sulfate-containing shampoos, and left my hair "regular"; and Ogx Tea Tree Oil, which -- wait for it -- dried out my hair! Worse than conventional shampoos! Indeed, I've always been suspicious of a plant called "tea tree", so I looked it up: Indeed, it's not even a tree and is applied to no less than five different shrubs.

OK, I'm starting to call bullsh_t on this entire business. For the sake of argument, let's say that shampoo -- both sulfate-containing and sulfate-free -- dries out our hair. If so, then duh -- just shampoo less frequently. You know? Like the sixties, when we all shampooed weekly? 

What's certain is that no one needs to "repeat" after lathering and rinsing. Does anyone still do this? If so, just realize that the only people it benefits are the kids of the shampoo makers, whom you're helping to send to college. Now, would anyone out there like a nearly-unused bottle of "tea tree oil" [rolling eyes] shampoo?

Monday, January 26, 2015

Overthrow ad cubes השמידו את קוביות החוצות



While many have observed that the boundary in Israel between public and private space is far thinner than in the rest of the West – in some cases non-existent – I believe that I may be the first to point out its manifestation in the form of – wait for it – street signage. To illustrate, let’s first look at this unencumbered street sign in Brisbane:

Couldn’t be clearer where you are, right? Now before we look at some street signs in Israel’s two major cities, recall that street signs are 1) a tax-funded utility aimed at the citizens’ welfare and 2) meant to convey important navigational information to locals and visitors (hey Tourism Ministry, that means you) alike. With those two purposes in mind, let’s see how we’re doing:



Recall that motor travel through cities takes place at speeds of 50-90 kph. A driver or navigator at those speeds is therefore not just not served by these travesties of street signs, but may actually be in danger of causing a collision while trying to figure out where the h_ll s/he is. Not to mention that many of our street signs are broken and / or illegible
, or simply incorrect:

But apparently the cities of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem so badly need the revenue from the ad cubes that block or obstruct street "signs" that they sell ad space at the expense of the citizenry. In other words, that’s your municipal taxes funding broken, incorrect, and obstructed street "signs"!

Moreover, if it were such a crucial revenue stream for the cities, how come multiple image searches for “street-level advertising” found not a single instance in any other city in the world? You’re telling me this revenue stream is efficacious in only two world cities?

And by the way, the atrocious ad cubes are not part of some neoliberal plot to divert all the middle class’s hard-earned money to the tycoons: The ad cubes have been there as long as I can remember (1976), if not decades before. So what’s the deal? Why are we taking this sitting down? Has it not occurred to a single other Israeli that the cubes ride roughshod over our rights?

If so, why aren’t the citizens pressuring the cities to remove them? Why aren’t tour guides and others in the tourism industry pressuring the Visitors’ Bureaus, Chambers of Commerce, and the Tourism Ministry to get rid of them? Where are Rotary and other civic groups?

I propose a solution that serves everyone: Leave the cubes in place and convert them into street signs! They’re ideally situated and highly visible, thereby expediting the flow of traffic and everyone’s travels. Each side of the cube could be divided into two vertically: The top half would tell you what street you’re now on; the bottom half would indicate the cross street, thusly:
שנקין

Shenkin
_________________________________________________________________________


(יונתן) הסנדלר
[العربية]                                                 
(Yonatán) haSandlár
OK, so you see that I’m neither a semiologist nor a graphic artist (tried multiple times to get the triangle arrows situated alongside the text), but you get the idea. Just lose the word רח' [“street”]. It’s superfluous: We all know we’re on a street. It’s simple, clear, and conveys much more, and much more useful information than do the present “signs”.

Cities still want ad revenue? Mount solar-powered, slowly rotating cubes atop bus shelters, each side bearing a different ad. There: quadruple bang for your buck, no one’s vision is obstructed, win win. I hereby appeal to everyone reading this, especially if you’re a Tel Avivian, Jerusalemite, or work in tourism, to get the ball rolling. Time to take back the street signs!

Sunday, December 14, 2014

Hebron Hills goes artsy אמנות בדרום הר חברון?

The article on the Hebron Hills art exhibit at Tel Aviv University was garbled, to say the least. This is precisely because our society is confused about its terms. Two terms, specifically: “apolitical”, and “neutral”. We Israelis are terrified of being political. Artists, institutions, and non-profits rush to proclaim themselves “apolitical”. What they mean, of course, is that they are non-partisan, i.e., not affiliated with a political party. But what everyone is missing is that very few things are truly apolitical, nor should they be. As we’ve learned – or not – from the feminist movement, “The personal is political”. This is particularly true of the settlers, which is why Nurit Gazit, organizer of Hebron Hills Faces Tel Aviv, is being disingenuous about the benignness of her exhibit: If you’re a settler, everything you do, every breath you take – every brush stroke, in Gazit’s case – is political. If you’re not willing to admit this, you shouldn’t be there.

But Gazit isn’t the only one missing the point here: Tel Aviv University told Haaretz: “The application to mount the exhibition contained only the artistic and location aspect without including or mentioning politics. The library lobby serves as a platform for a variety of exhibitions,” prompting me to ask: Why is a university, of all places, and an artist, of all people, hiding from politics? Historically universities and artists have acted as platforms for causes — ordinarily progressive causes, but in this specific case, a right-wing cause. And that’s OK. What’s not OK is to deny it and claim to be apolitical, which in our case is a euphemism, code for “neutral when it comes to the territories”.

It is probably a good idea for certain entities to remain neutral, examples being Magen David Adom and organizations that advocate for the disabled. Those are the only examples I can think of offhand. Everyone else should have an opinion and stand behind it, whether or not I agree with it. In the case at hand, if the university were truly neutral, it would have turned Gazit’s application down unless the exhibit included works by non-Jewish Hebron Hills artists, rendering it balanced and worthy of discourse. As it stands, a university that gives a platform to the right only and calls its choice neutral (“apolitical”, as we like to say) fools no one, not even the artists themselves.


Nurit Gazit, I throw down the gauntlet: I challenge you to mount a genuine Hebron Hills artists’ exhibit that contains artistic works by settlers alongside works by Palestinian Hebron Hills residents. When you do so, and when the university hosts such an exhibit, then I’ll believe in claims of balance and neutrality. Until then, this is as political as it gets.