December 2005

Check out Sam Freedman’s review of Munich in the JPost–it is the best one I’ve read till now. Here is a snippet:

Spielberg and Kushner never miss an opportunity to depict the hit team, and by extension the Israeli enterprise, as anathema to Jewishness. Of the five members of the revenge unit, Munich offers its greatest empathy to those with the gravest doubts about the morality of the mission. One of them, Carl, vividly embodies the cosmopolitan Jew with his pipe and cardigan sweaters, his cover occupation dealing antiques. Robert, an erstwhile toymaker who moonlights as a bomb-maker, declares at one point, “We’re Jews. Jews don’t do wrong because our enemies do wrong…We’re supposed to be righteous.”

Read the whole thing.

And, if you want to see a movie about the Middle East that isn’t anti-Zionist, says David Twersky, see Syriana. He writes:

What puts the film at the top of my own Zionist Academy Award list is what’s missing from “Syriana”: Israel and Jews don’t merit a mention.

Read that whole review too–it makes a good point: not all the problems in the Middle East have to do with Israel, and thinking they do–well, that’s anti-Zionist at the least.

A line in an article about the new Palestinian ambassador to Washington D.C. in the Forward caught my eye:

During a 45-minute interview at his Washington office, which unlike any diplomatic mission in the nation’s capital has absolutely no security measures in place, Safieh merrily performed intellectual acrobatics

I’m very happy Mr. Safieh can perform his intellectual acrobatics in the peace and quiet of his diplomatic mission. But doesn’t it strike you odd that at a time when almost every other diplomat is cowering behind more defensive measures than one can count, Mr. Safieh feels justified to tell others what they are doing wrong instead of trying to provide the same peace and quiet he enjoys to others?

Or, in other words, instead of speaking about the Separation Fence/Wall and how it is unjust, it could be nice if Mr. Safieh would denounce the violence raging amongst his own population and call on his people–and people who speak in the name of his people–to stop threatening foreign diplomats with violence. For some reason I have the feeling that when diplomats (and democratic populations) are no-longer threatened by terrorist violence they might be willing to trust other countries more, and tear down the walls that stand between populations.

The New York Jewish Week published this week an article by Gabrielle Birkner on Hipster Judaism that seems to have gotten a few people’s panties in a bunch.

I personally think it is a good article (and not just because I was quoted in it) because it raises an important question that the Jewish community has not faced: if these aesthetic ventures are so popular, why aren’t they self-sufficient? From what I can gather, Mobius from Jewschool argues that the Hipster projects (Heeb, Jewcy, etc.) are making it popular to be Jewish, and that in-and-of-itself is good. But if so, they would be able to pull their own weight after a start-up period. That’s what market-based, demand-driven businesses do. That’s what JDUB does, from what I gather, and why I don’t group JDUB with the rest of them.

I buy Heeb. I like reading it. It’s entertainment for me–but I’m a committed Jew and Zionist. If there were many other committed Jews like me (and there are, as Sharon Brous pointed out at the GA), Heeb would be (and might already be or is planning to be at the least) supported by consumers who like their product. Donors shouldn’t have to support something over time that is delivering what the population wants. This isn’t healthcare–public spending isn’t needed.

On the other hand, content is usually always investment heavy. Content isn’t sexy. You can’t sell it in bulk. And yet it is critical for any community built on ideas. Which is why Gabi’s article was so good–it raised some important questions on what are we funding and why. If the Jewish community wants already committed Jews to enjoy being Jewish, fine. If the Jewish community is interested in explorations of commonality or values or ethics or community boundaries–content-driven ventures that take on serious issues and delve deeper than the aesthetic–then the philanthropists should start funding something else. Junk food is fun to eat, but you don’t hand it out at a soup-kitchen.

For the past few weeks there has been an interesting debate between the Reform movement and the Republican Jewish Coalition over the war in Iraq.

Everything started at the Union for Reform Judaism’s (URJ) Biennial convention in Houston this past November. At the Biennial, the General Assembly, comprised of professional and volunteer leaders of its member synagogues, passed a Resolution about the war. You can see the resolution talks about the issues in a comprehensive and articulate way and does not advocate anything very rash in terms of Iraq. This was followed by a letter from the President and Chairman of the URJ to President Bush addressing the resolution which can be found with other documents from the URJ here .

The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) took issue with these statements. They put out an ad in major newspapers, both Jewish ones and others such as the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. The ad is signed by some major Jewish comunity figures as well as some Reform Jews. There are more articles from the RJC here

There was also a response by Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center, the Washington Office of the URJ which advocates the Reform Movement’s positions on a variety of issues. Here is the response to Saperstein’s letter from Matt Brooks, Executive Director of the RJC and a member of a Reform synagogue.

There are a few issues I can see here. The first of course is the issue of the war itself. I was for the war in the beginning and I still support the US’s actions there. I won’t discuss my reasons because that is not why I brought this issue to BoZ.

The issue which many people have taken with the resolution and the position taken by the URJ, is the fact that many people, exemplified by the RJC’s action, do not feel that the URJ speaks for all of American Jewry. For that matter, does any organization speak for the entire American Jewish community?

Rabbi Isaiah Zeldin, Senior Rabbi at the Stephen E. Wise Temple in Los Angeles said about the URJ….. “They surely don’t represent me, nor do they represent my congregation.” Many other Reform Rabbis have taken similar positions Personally, I agree with Rabbi Zeldin’s comments. I don’t feel that any one organization speaks for all of American Jewry with our many, many varied opinions. Rabbi Eric Yoffie, the President of the URJ countered by saying that the resolution and his letters and writing on this topic represented the opinions of the decision-making bodies of the Reform Movement.

No organization, including the URJ speaks for all American Jews. We all have our own personal opinions on these issues and others, no one group can speak for all of us.

Disclaimer: I am a member of a Reform Synagogue and I grew up in the URJ’s youth movement NFTY where I was a regional officer. I have attended and worked at various URJ camps around the country throughout my life. I also was a participant on its high school in Israel semester program in the spring of 2004. Additionally, last year I worked for the URJ as an intern for four months at the Association of Reform Zionists of America. I am also a fully paid member of the Republican Jewish Coalition.

Around 23,000 total. For a breakdown see the article.

Globes has a fact filled piece on how the Israeli government chose to spend its unused cash for the year of 2005. Among the expenditures were subsidies for Egged, road construction, building in Arab communities, and paying off debt to the Jewish Agency. But the most surprising revelation is that the government purchased the famous Hashomer HaTzair Kibbutz, Kibbutz Shomriya, for Gush Katif evacuees from Atzmona. Go figure that one out.

That’s what I’m thinking about lately…and hoping to put together a long, edited post about soon, fighting my immediate reaction to write a lot about Hellenization being the globalization of yester-century, and the idea of self-determination being true then and now.

Especially since the Hasmoneans Hellenized very shortly after winning a State. Which means that they might have had the fight in them–since the masses intuitively got it that living under the Selucids just wasn’t cool–but didn’t have enough of the intellectual foundation to keep autonomy alive.

So, my question is: What can we learn from Hanukah, and how is Hanukah relevant to present-day Israel and the Zionist idea? Any suggestions?

Now you can now learn about the likes of Ussishkin, Jabotinsky, and Nordau by slipping in a few compact discs! Check out the leaders of secular Zionism now out.

Haaretz reports on this years numbers and on the satisfaction rate. They are both on the rise. If you read between the article’s lines you’ll discover the competition that lies under the cooperation between the Jewish Agency and Nefesh B’Nefesh. Now while it probably is no competition at all, it’s the type of race where you can happily root for both sides.

Update: Just to round out the picture, see this Jpost article on the rise of Israeli returnees as well as N. American Olim.

The Revolution has begun…

There are two things you can choose to do about it:

You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.

You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.

Remember — all I am offering is the truth, nothing more.

The choice is yours - but before you decide - WATCH THIS.

If you like the message behind this film, then post it on your site, so it will gain maximum exposure.

To learn more about this flash film, created by KUMAH, click here.
{file id=58}

— Next Page »