Brad Hirschfield: July 2009 Archives

The Rogatka, a trendy Tel Aviv bar named for the Russian word describing the slingshots made famous in the first Intifada, refuses to seat soldiers in uniform. Whatever one's political views are, this strikes me as a case of shooting the messenger because one doesn't like the message - never a good move.

Calling itself an "anarchist collective" the bar has a policy of not buying produce grown in Jewish settlements and they also ban weapons of any kind on the premises. Good or bad, those decisions do not strike me as the same as refusing service to young men and women in uniform, especially as they may not have the option to be out of uniform when they want to get a bite to eat.

I am just barely old enough to know that Americans vented their anger about the Viet Nam war on returning veterans and lived to regret that behavior.

A response to Norwegian Shooter who commented on yesterday's post as follows:

When I returned to your blog to see if you responded to my comment on the previous post, I was quite surprised to see you posted your comment to Shoshanna (the hypocritical one) as its own entry. So I feel the need to ask again, do you think your post on Harris and Kilinghoffer treated them with as much love and respect as possible?

I must say that I checked out some other posts and believe you seem to practice your what you preach in general. However, your criticism of Jimmy Carter and Steven Waldman was based on misunderstanding, as was yesterday's post. To respect their views, you have to understand them.

Carter was not "equating his own understanding of religion with the will of" major religious figures. He said the practice of some current religious groups violates the teachings of these major figures. Do you disagree with that?

Waldman's quip against the Rabbis was in support of the separation of church and state, which is more obvious in his second Cronkite post, not the authenticity of their faith. Then you weirdly take a few words Waldman used in describing good journalism and say the Rabbinate would use the same words to defend their church and state as one position. Yeah, so?

Norwegian Shooter,

I generally don't debate commenters, especially when they make accusations about hypocrisy or use personal attack. I responded to Shoshanna simply to head off a fight which I have no intention of joining. There are already too many fights in the world, don't you think?

I will however suggest that you may be confusing understanding with agreement. You insist that I don't understand simly because we disagree. And my guess is that those post about which you say nice things, are ones with which you share my beliefs.

I happen to think I do understand the words upon which I comment and the fact that we disagree about their meaning, does not mean that I do not. For me, big issues can be properly understood by different people reaching very different conclusions.

That is exactly what people like Jimmy Carter fail to understand. People lile Moses, Paul, Jesus and Muhammad said many things and they can be interpreted in many ways. In fact the durability (inspired queality, if one is a believer) of their teaching lies in its ability to invite ongoing interpretation, including ones which you, Jimmy Carter or I may not like.

As to Steven's post about Cronkite, do you find it odd that you criticize my failing to respond to a second post that had not been written when I commented on the first? Not to mention that my oposition is to virtually all absolute cliams about intelletual and spiritual authenticity -- they do so much more harm than good.

Again, and I am only guessing here, you are probably a fan of Cronkite's and not Israel's chief rabbinate. Could this be another one of those agreement/understanding moments?

On Tisha B'av, a day when Jews recall tragedies, many of which were caused by how people comminicated with each other, I hope these are questions we all take a moment to think about.

Responding to yesterday's post about the consternation provoked in both the savagely secular and rabidly religious camps, Shoshanna commented:

mazel tov, Rabbi, on finally joining the fray against the Christophole nudnick (and most recently, as a recent reader post on this blog noted, cyberstalker!) Klinghoffer. It is long overdue, given the potshots he has taken in the past at you and the thoughtfulness and refined common sense which you stand for.

While I appreciate the blessing and encouragement, I do not want to "join the fray against" anybody, at least not anybody writing on Beliefnet, and especially the day before Tisha B'av. Let's all remember that many of the day's terrible events were sparked by people telling the truth, but in harmful ways. That's actually a really useful definition of Lashon Ha'Rah - best translated as trash-talking.

David has, and I assume will, continue to take shots at me. That's his problem. It's only anybody else's if they busy themselves reading what he writes. And if people do so, then they cannot simply blame him for writing it. If people stopped reading it, he would probably stop writing it, and it certainly would have little significance.

While in philosophy class we can still debate whether a tree falling in a forest makes a sound if no one is there to hear it, but in the real world, the answer is 'no, it does not'.

Francis Collins, President Obama's pick to be the new head of NIH, strikes me as the perfect nominee. How can I, a non-scientist, make this claim? Do I really have the ability to evaluate the life work of this accomplished scientist? Can I make a reasonable conclusion about the implications of his appointment over the nation's largest science-related budget? Of course not! But neither can individuals like Sam Harris or David Kilinghoffer, and that hasn't stopped them. In fact, their fear-mongering and ranting on the subject suggest that we have much to celebrate about the President's choice.

The appropriateness of Dr. Collins' nomination to lead NIH can be measured by the degree of consternation it causes ideologues from both the savagely secular and rabidly religious camps, including Mr. Harris and Mr. Klinghoffer, respectively.

Yesterday's post about Five New York and New Jersey rabbis being arrested in connection with a money laundering scheme, and the Star-Ledger's coverage of the story drew many heated comments including one from "DK" who wrote:

"Now is not a good time to whine about anti-Semitism". (Ital. mine)

It's never a good time to whine, DK, and I wasn't. I was simply raising questions about the underlying resentments against Syrian Jews in particular, which may have inappropriately shaped the coverage of the story. And other comments on that post more than justify those concerns. The concerns of yesterday though, in no way excuse the self-serving apologetics being offered up by members of the community.

I appreciate that this is a painful and embarrassing moment for the community, but when leaders like David G. Greenfield tells us that he is "shocked" because the actions of those arrested "go against every value and teaching the community holds dear", you have to wonder.

The sense that this community is a law unto itself has been an issue for decades. In fact, that problem is reflected in one of the most famous rulings of its previous chief rabbi, Jacob S. Kassin, father of the now arrested chief rabbi, Saul J. Kassin.