In the wake of last summer’s cost-of-living protests, Haaretz ran a weekly feature on its business page wherein the reporter would pick a consumer product — I recall chewing gum, mouthwash, and ketchup — and calculate how many hours an Israeli, a Brit, and an American have to work to earn enough to pay for said item. The highest number of hours was always worked by Israelis.
The reasons therefore were always the same, regardless of the product: shipping costs, the fact that Israel is a relatively small market, occasionally extra labeling or kashrut requirements. What’s the takeaway? Get ready: Israel is more costly to live in than the US or Europe. Get outta town! As if I hadn’t noticed, and it took an intrepid reporter to give me the wakeup call.
Am I incensed at this disparity? Indignant at having to pay more for chewing gum? Not at all. I actually have no grievance with the reasons given for the extra expense. I came here with my eyes wide open. I knew that my standard of living would go down, and I didn’t mind the sacrifice; I didn’t come here to get rich.
What’s galling isn’t the price of mouthwash; it’s when I read about the shortage of facilities for at-risk youth due to lack of funds; or the 1,000-bed shortage in neonatal care units; yet strangely, $17 billion is somehow available for the settlements.
Do the social protest activists not see the direct line that leads from Judaea and Samaria to Rothschild Avenue? It’s a zero-sum game, folks. There’s a finite level of resources, and as bad as I am at arithmetic, somehow I connect the dots.
Why do they believe that they can keep the protest apolitical? And why should we want to? Because the minute we point an accusing finger at the settlements, we lose momentum, or support, or whatever vagaries they think they can’t do without?
The non-settling public needs to hear the truth: Their anger at the manufacturers and retailers, while legitimate, is misplaced. I want the faucet that irrigates the settlements turned off, not so the price of peanut butter will go down (it won’t), but so that at-risk teens won’t have to be held in police lockups and preemies won’t be released from the hospital appallingly early. That’s social justice, not some wrong-headed goal of “including everyone inside the tent”.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Why are these victims different from all others? מה נשתה הנפגע הזה
As I wrote nearly a year ago, while Israelis won’t touch the word “political” with a ten-foot pole, curiously they have no problem politicizing issues that should remain outside the political arena. Or perhaps I should say “co-opting” or “exploiting for cynical purposes”. I’m referring to the myriad non-profits (seven are listed here not including One Family; another five here) whose stated purpose is serving the surviving family members of Israelis who have been killed in terror attacks. I have two problems — or shall I say discomforts — with these organizations:
The first is that I notice that the vast majority of the children they serve (you see them on organized outings and weekends) appear to be Orthodox, which prompts me to ask: What? Non-Orthodox aren’t killed in terror attacks? Or is there something else going on?
The second is that, while my experience with loss and bereavement is fortunately and admittedly scant, I don’t understand why children who lose parents in a terror attack are in a category separate from those who, say, lose parents in a traffic collision, God forbid, or to the Versailles [wedding hall] collapse. Do the former’s needs differ from the latter’s? Or is it possible that the former is “sexier” in terms of keeping the fans of bigotry flamed and / or eliciting sympathy for what is termed the “pro-Israel cause”?
Out of curiosity, I wrote to two such organizations: One Family, and another whose name I can’t recall, as they never replied. I wrote: Do your services extend to Arab victims of terror, such as the victims of Eden Natan Zada in 2005? Or the families of those gunned down in the Cave of the Patriarchs mosque in 1994?
Yehuda Poch of One Family was kind enough to reply courteously: “Shalom Yam:
Our services extend to all victims of anti-Israel terror since September 2000.
That includes Druze, Beduin, Israeli Arabs, and foreign residents/citizens.
Eden Natan-Zada's attack, while horrible, was not an attack against Israel.”
To which I replied: "Interesting. So if one of Zada's victims happened to have been Jewish? And who determines who's Jewish? My friend is the child of an Arab father and Jewish mother. She could easily have been riding a bus in Shfar'am. How do you determine an individual's eligibility for your services?"
Poch’s reply: “Hi, Miriam: Eligibility for our services has nothing to do with the ethnicity of the victim – or of the attacker. It has to do with the nature of the attack. If the attack is an anti-Israel terror attack, then the victims are eligible for assistance.
For instance, an Arab bus driver driving a bus that was bombed would be classified as a victim of an anti-Israel terror attack, and would be eligible for our assistance (as in fact has happened in more than one instance).
If one of Zada's victims happened to have been Jewish, such as your friend's child, s/he would have been eligible for the same government assistance provided to all the Arab victims, if there was any. But they would not have been classified as victims of anti-Israel terror, either by the government or by us.”
Me: “How is ‘a terror act against Israel’ determined? If an Arab enters a mall and starts randomly shooting people, is it assumed to have a nationalistic motive? Who / which agency(s) determine whether a random act of violence is terror?”
Poch: “That decision is left up to the police and/or military authorities. In general, while a case such as you describe would almost automatically be ruled a terror attack, there are cases that are far less cut-and-dried.
For instance, a few years ago an eight-year-old was raped and murdered in Beit Shemesh, by an Arab. That case was never ruled a terror attack. There have been others.
There was even a case about four years ago of a Kassam attack in Sderot wherein a boy was killed in the explosion, and he was never ruled a victim of terror because he was ill and the authorities ruled that he died of a reaction of his illness.
There are cases that are contested, and cases that are not. We, as an organization, are limited to helping only those recognized as terror victims by the State authorities.”
Fair enough, and while Poch deserves credit for taking my queries seriously and responding to them thoughtfully, the two discomforts I have with these organizations remain*. If anyone has any insight thereto, I’d be pleased to hear it.
* No critique of Poch here; I did not address my discomforts with him.
The first is that I notice that the vast majority of the children they serve (you see them on organized outings and weekends) appear to be Orthodox, which prompts me to ask: What? Non-Orthodox aren’t killed in terror attacks? Or is there something else going on?
The second is that, while my experience with loss and bereavement is fortunately and admittedly scant, I don’t understand why children who lose parents in a terror attack are in a category separate from those who, say, lose parents in a traffic collision, God forbid, or to the Versailles [wedding hall] collapse. Do the former’s needs differ from the latter’s? Or is it possible that the former is “sexier” in terms of keeping the fans of bigotry flamed and / or eliciting sympathy for what is termed the “pro-Israel cause”?
Out of curiosity, I wrote to two such organizations: One Family, and another whose name I can’t recall, as they never replied. I wrote: Do your services extend to Arab victims of terror, such as the victims of Eden Natan Zada in 2005? Or the families of those gunned down in the Cave of the Patriarchs mosque in 1994?
Yehuda Poch of One Family was kind enough to reply courteously: “Shalom Yam:
Our services extend to all victims of anti-Israel terror since September 2000.
That includes Druze, Beduin, Israeli Arabs, and foreign residents/citizens.
Eden Natan-Zada's attack, while horrible, was not an attack against Israel.”
To which I replied: "Interesting. So if one of Zada's victims happened to have been Jewish? And who determines who's Jewish? My friend is the child of an Arab father and Jewish mother. She could easily have been riding a bus in Shfar'am. How do you determine an individual's eligibility for your services?"
Poch’s reply: “Hi, Miriam: Eligibility for our services has nothing to do with the ethnicity of the victim – or of the attacker. It has to do with the nature of the attack. If the attack is an anti-Israel terror attack, then the victims are eligible for assistance.
For instance, an Arab bus driver driving a bus that was bombed would be classified as a victim of an anti-Israel terror attack, and would be eligible for our assistance (as in fact has happened in more than one instance).
If one of Zada's victims happened to have been Jewish, such as your friend's child, s/he would have been eligible for the same government assistance provided to all the Arab victims, if there was any. But they would not have been classified as victims of anti-Israel terror, either by the government or by us.”
Me: “How is ‘a terror act against Israel’ determined? If an Arab enters a mall and starts randomly shooting people, is it assumed to have a nationalistic motive? Who / which agency(s) determine whether a random act of violence is terror?”
Poch: “That decision is left up to the police and/or military authorities. In general, while a case such as you describe would almost automatically be ruled a terror attack, there are cases that are far less cut-and-dried.
For instance, a few years ago an eight-year-old was raped and murdered in Beit Shemesh, by an Arab. That case was never ruled a terror attack. There have been others.
There was even a case about four years ago of a Kassam attack in Sderot wherein a boy was killed in the explosion, and he was never ruled a victim of terror because he was ill and the authorities ruled that he died of a reaction of his illness.
There are cases that are contested, and cases that are not. We, as an organization, are limited to helping only those recognized as terror victims by the State authorities.”
Fair enough, and while Poch deserves credit for taking my queries seriously and responding to them thoughtfully, the two discomforts I have with these organizations remain*. If anyone has any insight thereto, I’d be pleased to hear it.
* No critique of Poch here; I did not address my discomforts with him.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Who is a Jew Goes Diaspora מיהו יהודי לא רק שואלים פה
Two recent articles, both from the Forward, bolster my claim that it is impossible to prove an individual’s Jewishness. The first, by David A.M. Wilensky, tells of his rabbi’s reaction when Wilensky, a patrilineal Jew (now converted) stopped accepting aliyot at the congregation he attended in his pre-conversion incarnation: “She asked why I was telling her about my situation: She never would have known, she said.” Precisely. Since anyone can slip in under the radar, ergo, anyone who identifies as a Jew is in practice if not in “fact”, Jewish.
The second article, by Naomi Zeveloff*, tells about non-Jewish inmates requesting kosher food. Now we have a situation wherein Corrections Department officials in 35 US states are “rightly hesitant to set themselves up to say who is Jewish and who is not, … often leav[ing] the decision in the hands of chaplains, Jewish or otherwise.”
When my dad was explaining to me that the local Jewish assisted living facility and JCC “provide for all Jewish cases", I kept asking him, “But how does the institution decide whether the applicant is Jewish?” After all, gone are the days when all the Jews knew each other. He finally had to concede that it’s based on the honor system, i.e., no individual Jew or admissions committee really has a way to prove or disprove a given individual’s claim to Jewish identity.
What it all comes down to is that where for centuries there was no advantage to being Jewish, we now have non-Jewish inmates looking at Jews’ plates and wanting to have what appears to be superior food; and non-Jews from countries as disparate as the former USSR and Eritrea, Sudan, and Nigeria looking to Israel as the nearest place of refuge from hunger and strife, i.e., being Jewish has become not simply fashionable (as in the 1970s) but downright appealing.
Of course our grandparents could not in their wildest dreams have imagined such a scenario, but here it is, our new reality, and it is incumbent upon us not to resist it, but rather to embrace it and let the chips fall where they may.
*Let’s hope she changes her surname if she ever moves to Israel.
The second article, by Naomi Zeveloff*, tells about non-Jewish inmates requesting kosher food. Now we have a situation wherein Corrections Department officials in 35 US states are “rightly hesitant to set themselves up to say who is Jewish and who is not, … often leav[ing] the decision in the hands of chaplains, Jewish or otherwise.”
When my dad was explaining to me that the local Jewish assisted living facility and JCC “provide for all Jewish cases", I kept asking him, “But how does the institution decide whether the applicant is Jewish?” After all, gone are the days when all the Jews knew each other. He finally had to concede that it’s based on the honor system, i.e., no individual Jew or admissions committee really has a way to prove or disprove a given individual’s claim to Jewish identity.
What it all comes down to is that where for centuries there was no advantage to being Jewish, we now have non-Jewish inmates looking at Jews’ plates and wanting to have what appears to be superior food; and non-Jews from countries as disparate as the former USSR and Eritrea, Sudan, and Nigeria looking to Israel as the nearest place of refuge from hunger and strife, i.e., being Jewish has become not simply fashionable (as in the 1970s) but downright appealing.
Of course our grandparents could not in their wildest dreams have imagined such a scenario, but here it is, our new reality, and it is incumbent upon us not to resist it, but rather to embrace it and let the chips fall where they may.
*Let’s hope she changes her surname if she ever moves to Israel.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
3 things whose time has passed & more 3 דברים שעליהם העולם כבר לא עומד
1. Will someone please tell the airlines to just print luggage tags like this?
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
Mobile ____________________________________
Landline ___________________________________
In other words, the first line is self-explanatory; we no longer need to be instructed that our luggage is supposed to bear our names, addresses, cities, states, and ZIPs. Removal of these superfluous “field labels” would then leave us plenty of room to actually print our entire names, addresses, and cities without having to squeeze them in between the words “Name”, “Address”, and “City”. So that those of us with mile-long names, addresses, and / or cities can actually write them comfortably. Whereas the last two lines are not only necessary nowadays, but they actually do need distinguishing, hence labels. Does anyone reading this have an in with the airlines?
2. Request to all humanity: Please record short voice greetings. The time has long passed when you need to explain: "You have reached the home / voice mailbox of the Almoni family: Ploni, Roni, Bubu, Poopsy, and Snookers. We can't come to the phone right now [really?], but be assured your call is important to us. Please leave your name and phone number [what other number would I leave? Social Security?] after the tone [really? is that what I'm supposed to do when I hear that beep?], and we'll return your call just as soon as we can!"
By which time I'm exasperated. News flash: We all know what to do when we hear a voice recording. A simple "You have reached the Almonys. Please leave a message [beep]" will do it, and we'll all use our time for better pursuits than listening for a [bleeping] beep.
3. Does anyone really enjoy those Rock Stars Sing Children’s Songs albums? Seems to me they go right over the kids’ heads. Do your kids really groove to Ziggy Marley singing Itsy Bitsy Spider? Do you? Wouldn’t you just as soon listen to him sing actual Ziggy Marley music? This hybrid just seems to me like the worst of both worlds. I’ll take Rafi any day.
And we now return to our regular programming:
· I find it interesting how many women feel the need to explain why they retain their birth names. And the most common explanation is "professional reasons". So, we don't question a woman retaining her name if she's a published author, or physician, or attorney, or famous; but supposing a cleaning woman wants to retain her name “for professional reasons”? Memo: It’s 2012: Anyone who 1) earns a living and 2) has a business card -- which includes just about everyone over the age of 21 -- is a professional. But furthermore, why do we women feel we need to explain this decision at all? Does anyone expect a man to explain his decision to retain his birth name? What's wrong with "Why should I do otherwise?"
· It's not that it’s wrong for Jack to like football or for Jill to cook and sew. What's wrong is to fall asleep at the wheel as a parent and just say, "Gender will take care of itself." It is up to us parents to fight gender stereotypes actively. No one will do it for us. The corporate and social forces are out there, and make no mistake about it, they are powerful: McDonald's, Disney, and Toys R Us are all counting on you to fall asleep at the parenting wheel. The only entity that's going to challenge them is you and I. Otherwise -- they win: Pink aisles and blue aisles in the store (would we tolerate White aisles and Colored aisles?). Boxing our children in. With nowhere to go if they're outside the box. So whose side are you on? The corporations'? Or your child's?
· Employers should be obligated to subsidize their employees’ birth control…only upon the employee’s signing a pledge to use it consistently and correctly!
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
Mobile ____________________________________
Landline ___________________________________
In other words, the first line is self-explanatory; we no longer need to be instructed that our luggage is supposed to bear our names, addresses, cities, states, and ZIPs. Removal of these superfluous “field labels” would then leave us plenty of room to actually print our entire names, addresses, and cities without having to squeeze them in between the words “Name”, “Address”, and “City”. So that those of us with mile-long names, addresses, and / or cities can actually write them comfortably. Whereas the last two lines are not only necessary nowadays, but they actually do need distinguishing, hence labels. Does anyone reading this have an in with the airlines?
2. Request to all humanity: Please record short voice greetings. The time has long passed when you need to explain: "You have reached the home / voice mailbox of the Almoni family: Ploni, Roni, Bubu, Poopsy, and Snookers. We can't come to the phone right now [really?], but be assured your call is important to us. Please leave your name and phone number [what other number would I leave? Social Security?] after the tone [really? is that what I'm supposed to do when I hear that beep?], and we'll return your call just as soon as we can!"
By which time I'm exasperated. News flash: We all know what to do when we hear a voice recording. A simple "You have reached the Almonys. Please leave a message [beep]" will do it, and we'll all use our time for better pursuits than listening for a [bleeping] beep.
3. Does anyone really enjoy those Rock Stars Sing Children’s Songs albums? Seems to me they go right over the kids’ heads. Do your kids really groove to Ziggy Marley singing Itsy Bitsy Spider? Do you? Wouldn’t you just as soon listen to him sing actual Ziggy Marley music? This hybrid just seems to me like the worst of both worlds. I’ll take Rafi any day.
And we now return to our regular programming:
· I find it interesting how many women feel the need to explain why they retain their birth names. And the most common explanation is "professional reasons". So, we don't question a woman retaining her name if she's a published author, or physician, or attorney, or famous; but supposing a cleaning woman wants to retain her name “for professional reasons”? Memo: It’s 2012: Anyone who 1) earns a living and 2) has a business card -- which includes just about everyone over the age of 21 -- is a professional. But furthermore, why do we women feel we need to explain this decision at all? Does anyone expect a man to explain his decision to retain his birth name? What's wrong with "Why should I do otherwise?"
· It's not that it’s wrong for Jack to like football or for Jill to cook and sew. What's wrong is to fall asleep at the wheel as a parent and just say, "Gender will take care of itself." It is up to us parents to fight gender stereotypes actively. No one will do it for us. The corporate and social forces are out there, and make no mistake about it, they are powerful: McDonald's, Disney, and Toys R Us are all counting on you to fall asleep at the parenting wheel. The only entity that's going to challenge them is you and I. Otherwise -- they win: Pink aisles and blue aisles in the store (would we tolerate White aisles and Colored aisles?). Boxing our children in. With nowhere to go if they're outside the box. So whose side are you on? The corporations'? Or your child's?
· Employers should be obligated to subsidize their employees’ birth control…only upon the employee’s signing a pledge to use it consistently and correctly!
Thursday, March 15, 2012
When Fancy U. blinds us כשהאוניברסיטה הטובה מסנוורת
The other night I attended a Hebrew production of Mother of Him [האמא שלו] by Evan Placey, a play about the mother of a young man (Jewish - yes, it’s relevant) who’s been accused of rape, and what she’s experiencing during his house arrest leading up to his trial.
In the opening scene, we learn that the press has managed to talk to everyone who’s ever met the accused, and the latest interview was with a teacher at his school, where, when he was in ninth grade, “his mother bought him porn.” What actually happened is that he was caught viewing subscriber porn and was on the verge of getting suspended from school, when his mom rescued him by coming forward with her credit card statement proving that it was actually she who had purchased the porn, not her son. Saved by the mom. She explains: “If he’d been suspended, it would’ve been on his record, and it would’ve killed his chances of getting into a good college.”
The rest of the play aside, which was excellent, this scene says it all for me: North American Jewish parents so paralyzed by the chances of their kids not getting into The College of Their Choice that they cover for them to the point of eclipsing all reasonable (and moral) behavior. What message does going to such lengths send the kids? It’s a short distance from “Anything’s excusable when the stakes are college” to “Anything’s excusable.” Whether or not viewing porn led to committing rape, what happened to “You broke the rules; you pay the price”?
When will Jewish parents unclench their white-knuckled fists, stop hovering over their application-happy offspring, and accept that public institutions of higher learning are acceptable post-secondary holding tanks for their snowflakes? That the sky doesn’t fall if you graduate from State U.? Oh. And spending some time with our kids apart from handing them the latest digital gadgets wouldn’t hurt either.
In the opening scene, we learn that the press has managed to talk to everyone who’s ever met the accused, and the latest interview was with a teacher at his school, where, when he was in ninth grade, “his mother bought him porn.” What actually happened is that he was caught viewing subscriber porn and was on the verge of getting suspended from school, when his mom rescued him by coming forward with her credit card statement proving that it was actually she who had purchased the porn, not her son. Saved by the mom. She explains: “If he’d been suspended, it would’ve been on his record, and it would’ve killed his chances of getting into a good college.”
The rest of the play aside, which was excellent, this scene says it all for me: North American Jewish parents so paralyzed by the chances of their kids not getting into The College of Their Choice that they cover for them to the point of eclipsing all reasonable (and moral) behavior. What message does going to such lengths send the kids? It’s a short distance from “Anything’s excusable when the stakes are college” to “Anything’s excusable.” Whether or not viewing porn led to committing rape, what happened to “You broke the rules; you pay the price”?
When will Jewish parents unclench their white-knuckled fists, stop hovering over their application-happy offspring, and accept that public institutions of higher learning are acceptable post-secondary holding tanks for their snowflakes? That the sky doesn’t fall if you graduate from State U.? Oh. And spending some time with our kids apart from handing them the latest digital gadgets wouldn’t hurt either.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Kony 2012: Feel-good activism? ג'וזף קוני: פעלתניות ריקנית
Sitting here after having clicked Buy to purchase a Joseph Kony bracelet on Kony2012.com, feeling foolish, but I'm not certain how foolish. I've always prided myself on questioning trends and fads. Even at age 12, when a fellow seventh grader was selling POW / MIA bracelets ('member those?), I recall asking her, "So how does this help the POWs?" She was visibly stumped, and replied, "Well, uh…the money goes to, uh, send them packages?" I bucked that trend and never bought one.
And the effort does take money: He never said that money would capture Kony or stop the LRA; he said that the goal is to plaster Kony's name and image all over the globe, which will hopefully lead to his capture. Well, all that plastering is undoubtedly fueled by money, and if I can keep the engine going from my comfortable home in the Southern Arava, then yeah, I'll contribute a small sum.
Another critique was of the use of the director's son as a heartstring ploy. Yes, I did notice the use of the cute, Caucasian, blond Gavin, but excused it because Gavin's dad (what's his name, anyway?) is right: If Gavin were abducted for even one night, it would be on the cover of Newsweek. And I don't suppose they can really help Gavin's being cute, Caucasian, and blond, can they? Would it have been better for him to look like some kid out of a Roald Dahl story?
Most of the other critiques were variations on "It's more complicateג than that" and of feel-good, one-click "activism" in general. Regarding the latter, it's pretty obvious that this campaign's appeal lies in the hungering among Americans for something we can all get behind: an evil we can all oppose, regardless of where we sit on today's polarized circus we call American politics: They even created a special logo depicting the elephant and the donkey joining together to fight Kony. In fact, I have to admire these guys: They thought of every trick in the book. They really used the media — and their heads — to their full potential.
Regarding "It's more complicated than that" and "northern Ugandans themselves claim they're enjoying the longest period of quiet since 1986", well, I have some experience with claims of this genre: I live in Israel (which doesn't need a bracelet, thank you), and it disturbs me to hear Jews say in response to critiques of our wrongheaded policies, "Well it's more complex than that." No, it's not: Occupation is wrong. Subjugating 1.5 Palis is wrong. And regardless of how slickly it's sold, so is abducting 30,000 children and forcing them into slavery, no matter the "justice" of the cause. I'd gladly wear a bracelet emblazoned with that on it. So, call me a sucker if you like; my Kony 2012 bracelet will just have to serve as shorthand for all of the above.
This just in: I received my order confirmation today, and the letter says: "100% of the money from your purchase goes to the area of greatest need, including our protection and rehabilitation work in Central Africa...It allows us to be certain that we will be able to help children recover from their experiences with the LRA long after the LRA has been disarmed." This answers another concern I had, that of rehabbing these poor kids after their (hoped-for) liberation.
So here I sit, 40 years later, my daughter having persuaded me to watch the Invisible Children film, and I admit it: I bought right into it, down to ordering the bracelet, during which the thought did pass through my mind: "What if this is a scam?" I was considering searching for "joseph kony debunk" or "invisible children debunk" when I just clicked Buy. My simultaneous thought as a Jew: "Suppose these voices and this technology had been available against Hitler?"
So, after buying the bracelet, I did search for debunking (better late than never), and read a few articles not actually debunking IC's effort, but critiquing it. One of the critiques was that the three directors of IC / JK 2012 earn salaries of $90,000 a year each. While certainly comfortable, I don't find that sum unconscionable. It sounds to me like a middle-class income, which is certainly reasonable for full-time activists, at least as deserved as the salaries of pro athletes and Hollywood stars.
So, after buying the bracelet, I did search for debunking (better late than never), and read a few articles not actually debunking IC's effort, but critiquing it. One of the critiques was that the three directors of IC / JK 2012 earn salaries of $90,000 a year each. While certainly comfortable, I don't find that sum unconscionable. It sounds to me like a middle-class income, which is certainly reasonable for full-time activists, at least as deserved as the salaries of pro athletes and Hollywood stars.
And the effort does take money: He never said that money would capture Kony or stop the LRA; he said that the goal is to plaster Kony's name and image all over the globe, which will hopefully lead to his capture. Well, all that plastering is undoubtedly fueled by money, and if I can keep the engine going from my comfortable home in the Southern Arava, then yeah, I'll contribute a small sum.
Another critique was of the use of the director's son as a heartstring ploy. Yes, I did notice the use of the cute, Caucasian, blond Gavin, but excused it because Gavin's dad (what's his name, anyway?) is right: If Gavin were abducted for even one night, it would be on the cover of Newsweek. And I don't suppose they can really help Gavin's being cute, Caucasian, and blond, can they? Would it have been better for him to look like some kid out of a Roald Dahl story?
Most of the other critiques were variations on "It's more complicateג than that" and of feel-good, one-click "activism" in general. Regarding the latter, it's pretty obvious that this campaign's appeal lies in the hungering among Americans for something we can all get behind: an evil we can all oppose, regardless of where we sit on today's polarized circus we call American politics: They even created a special logo depicting the elephant and the donkey joining together to fight Kony. In fact, I have to admire these guys: They thought of every trick in the book. They really used the media — and their heads — to their full potential.
Regarding "It's more complicated than that" and "northern Ugandans themselves claim they're enjoying the longest period of quiet since 1986", well, I have some experience with claims of this genre: I live in Israel (which doesn't need a bracelet, thank you), and it disturbs me to hear Jews say in response to critiques of our wrongheaded policies, "Well it's more complex than that." No, it's not: Occupation is wrong. Subjugating 1.5 Palis is wrong. And regardless of how slickly it's sold, so is abducting 30,000 children and forcing them into slavery, no matter the "justice" of the cause. I'd gladly wear a bracelet emblazoned with that on it. So, call me a sucker if you like; my Kony 2012 bracelet will just have to serve as shorthand for all of the above.
This just in: I received my order confirmation today, and the letter says: "100% of the money from your purchase goes to the area of greatest need, including our protection and rehabilitation work in Central Africa...It allows us to be certain that we will be able to help children recover from their experiences with the LRA long after the LRA has been disarmed." This answers another concern I had, that of rehabbing these poor kids after their (hoped-for) liberation.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Blue Laws אכיפת חוקי שבת
The headline reads:
Tel Aviv continues to fine store owners open on Shabbat in mostly non-Jewish areas
First of all, it should have read:
Tel Aviv continues to fine stores open on Jewish Sabbath in mostly non-Jewish areas
This is a classic example of the absurdity of blue laws. First of all, they assume — once again — that we can define who is a Jew. Do the city inspectors ask all the males in the ‘hood to show them their circumcisions? What about females? Just for the record, when I made aliya, I was never asked to provide “proof” of my Jewishness. Mom’s ketuba? Suppose Mom was never married. And by the way, I'm still dying to know if, when an ultra-Orthodox couple goes to the rabbinate to register, are they asked for their mothers' ketubas? Hard to believe, but if anyone knows the answer, do tell.
Let's just admit it: There is no way of proving an individual’s Judaism. Hard as it is after centuries of it going unchallenged, it is incumbent upon us to make a paradigmal shift: Anyone who feels herself to be and identifies as Jewish — is Jewish. And axiomatically: Anyone who wants to relocate to Israel should be subject to immigration regulations that do not relate to religion. It’s not that our current arrangement is racist, as some claim it is; it’s that it's simply illogical and untenable.
But for argument’s sake, let’s suppose that there were some way to definitively define — and identify — who is a Jew. It assumes some sort of universal database (managed by whom?), which in turn assumes some sort of ID carried on one’s person (biometric?), but just humor me here. How do we determine that a given neighborhood is “mostly Jewish”? By resident? By household? Because members of the same household might not all be Jewish. So, as soon as the 51st Jewish resident / household moves in (monitored by whom?), an alarm goes off at City Hall and the inspectors come to fine the store owner?
This is one area where market forces should be allowed free play. If someone is foolish enough to try to open a store on Saturday in an ultra-Orthodox neighborhood, they will be open about five minutes, or the time it takes for the neighbors to organize to 1) slash the store owner’s tires 2) shatter the display window and 3) trash the place. Ergo, no one will agree to even insure the automobile or place of business of such an individual. Problem solved.
Any other (read: sane) locale should be open game, as long as ordinances are adhered to with regard to noise and parking, which they should be on all other days as well, no? And by the way: Whose taxes go to pay these city inspectors? Bingo: Yours and mine. Certainly not ultra-Orthodox citizens, who pay negative taxes. Nope. It’s the rest of us funding this circus. So let’s congratulate ourselves once again for allowing ourselves to be exploited by the Haredim.
A neighbor recently remarked to me about the Tal Law: “…but there should be room [in our society] for [full-time Torah study].” No problem. Plenty of room: tucked away in a yeshiva somewhere, financed by your father or father-in-law, or Sheldon Adelson. Not by me! Not by us.
Tel Aviv continues to fine store owners open on Shabbat in mostly non-Jewish areas
First of all, it should have read:
Tel Aviv continues to fine stores open on Jewish Sabbath in mostly non-Jewish areas
This is a classic example of the absurdity of blue laws. First of all, they assume — once again — that we can define who is a Jew. Do the city inspectors ask all the males in the ‘hood to show them their circumcisions? What about females? Just for the record, when I made aliya, I was never asked to provide “proof” of my Jewishness. Mom’s ketuba? Suppose Mom was never married. And by the way, I'm still dying to know if, when an ultra-Orthodox couple goes to the rabbinate to register, are they asked for their mothers' ketubas? Hard to believe, but if anyone knows the answer, do tell.
Let's just admit it: There is no way of proving an individual’s Judaism. Hard as it is after centuries of it going unchallenged, it is incumbent upon us to make a paradigmal shift: Anyone who feels herself to be and identifies as Jewish — is Jewish. And axiomatically: Anyone who wants to relocate to Israel should be subject to immigration regulations that do not relate to religion. It’s not that our current arrangement is racist, as some claim it is; it’s that it's simply illogical and untenable.
But for argument’s sake, let’s suppose that there were some way to definitively define — and identify — who is a Jew. It assumes some sort of universal database (managed by whom?), which in turn assumes some sort of ID carried on one’s person (biometric?), but just humor me here. How do we determine that a given neighborhood is “mostly Jewish”? By resident? By household? Because members of the same household might not all be Jewish. So, as soon as the 51st Jewish resident / household moves in (monitored by whom?), an alarm goes off at City Hall and the inspectors come to fine the store owner?
This is one area where market forces should be allowed free play. If someone is foolish enough to try to open a store on Saturday in an ultra-Orthodox neighborhood, they will be open about five minutes, or the time it takes for the neighbors to organize to 1) slash the store owner’s tires 2) shatter the display window and 3) trash the place. Ergo, no one will agree to even insure the automobile or place of business of such an individual. Problem solved.
Any other (read: sane) locale should be open game, as long as ordinances are adhered to with regard to noise and parking, which they should be on all other days as well, no? And by the way: Whose taxes go to pay these city inspectors? Bingo: Yours and mine. Certainly not ultra-Orthodox citizens, who pay negative taxes. Nope. It’s the rest of us funding this circus. So let’s congratulate ourselves once again for allowing ourselves to be exploited by the Haredim.
A neighbor recently remarked to me about the Tal Law: “…but there should be room [in our society] for [full-time Torah study].” No problem. Plenty of room: tucked away in a yeshiva somewhere, financed by your father or father-in-law, or Sheldon Adelson. Not by me! Not by us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
