fbpx

GET HOME DELIVERY! CLICK HERE »

ADVERTISE
pick up locations
HOME DELIVERY
donate

Jewish Journal

Connect. Inform. Inspire.

October 25, 2024

The African Dip

Commentary, Opinion /

From: ARITHMETIC ON THE FRONTIER:

No proposition Euclid wrote

No formulae the textbooks know

Will turn the bullet from your coat

Onward the tulwar’s downward blow

***

A scrimmage at a border station

A canter down some dark defile

Two thousand pounds of education

Drops to a ten-rupee jezail.

– Kipling

No, O Best Beloved, a tulwar is an Arabian saber, and a jezail a cheap, handmade rifle, and now you know. Also, you might know that the Ten Plagues were actually visited not on the Egyptians, but on the Jews.

Why? As the Jews had been slaves for so long, they got used to it. Moses told God that he had insufficient skills to free the Jews from Egypt. God said, just deliver the message to Pharaoh, and I will free the Jews. And he did. God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, such that whenever he promised his slaves Freedom, he reneged. They, however, accepted his promises.

As they allowed them to explain to themselves why they stayed in slavery.

The plagues increased in severity, until the End. The Bible says that God promised to strike dead the first born of the Egyptians. But I say the Jews stayed until confronted with the final proposition: that it was they who were killing their children, by accepting slavery.

You students in once-prestigious universities can complete the simile.

Back in the 50s our great Chicago amusement park was Riverview. The rides were dangerous, and the midway featured attractions which would be considered loathsome today.

In The African Dip a black man sat in a cage on a shelf above a large tub of water. The spectators paid to throw baseballs at a target in the cage. When they hit the bullseye the shelf tipped and the man fell in the tub.

Today, the United Nations, and the current American Government, its patron, offers denunciation of the State of Israel exactly as the Riverview promoters hawked The African Dip: As an entertainment. Leftists, Marxists, and Biden-Harris Democrats are offered licensed hatred, in return for a vote.

The same interchange is taking place on your campuses. Universities, once sweetened the pitch through offering football. Their pandering progressed through abolition of grades, credit for “life experience,” courses of no more applicability or use than “exploration of gender,” and so on.

The Universities’ abandonment of Jewish students begun in cowardice, is now accepted as good business practice. They are selling the right to terrorize Jews.

GET OUT OF SCHOOL. If a friend was in an abusive relationship, cajoled and threatened, and frightened, you would advise her: GET OUT. Get out of the school which sells antisemitism. You’re paying them and the municipalities which house them, to afford you the basic human right of self-protection. There is no upside in your presence equal to 1) your risk at such a school; 2) your support of the school, which will put other Jewish students in danger. The thugs want you to strike back and defend yourselves, at which point the schools and the police will prosecute YOU.

What facts are hidden from you? You cannot “change” the universities, they’re dead. You may be reluctant to get out as you can’t imagine alternatives. You won’t be able to until you decide to get out.

In 1882 Leon Pinsker, a Russian Jew, wrote the pamphlet which inspired the Zionist movement. It’s called “AUTO-EMANCIPATION.”

With all best wishes,

Dave Mamet

THE AFRICAN DIP

for UnHerd

by David Mamet

copyright (c) 2024 by D. Mamet

The African Dip Read More »

Wikipedia Editors Place a Near Total Ban on Calling Gaza Health Ministry “Hamas-Run”

News, United States /

Wikipedia editors have decided to impose a near total ban on the use of the “Hamas-run” qualifier in articles citing the Gaza Health Ministry’s numbers.

A formal discussion known as a Request for Comment (RfC) was launched in July; in RfCs, editors put in their “!votes” supporting their stated position on a contested issue and a closer (an uninvolved Wikipedian in good standing) renders a verdict based on the numbers and strength of the arguments in regards to site policy. Because Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect what reliable sources say, editors sparred over whether or not sources use such a qualifier when citing the ministry’s numbers and if sources view the ministry’s numbers as reliable.

Editors also argued over if it would be a violation of Wikipedia’s neutral point of view (NPOV) policy to include the qualifier, with those against the use of the qualifier contending that doing so would violate NPOV because it would suggest that Hamas directly influences the numbers and casts doubt over the numbers when the ministry is widely viewed as reliable. Editors in favor of the qualifier contended that it would be more neutral to include the qualifier on first mention because Hamas is a belligerent to the conflict and has been designated as a terror organization by several Western countries. There was also a question of redundancy, as editors against the qualifier opined that it’s implied that Hamas runs Gaza and noted that Wikipedia doesn’t refer to the Israel Defense Force (IDF) as the “Israel-run” or “Netanyahu-run” IDF or the State Department as the “Democrat-run State Department.” Those in favor of the qualifier contended that Wikipedians should not assume that the readers knows that Hamas, a terror organization, runs Gaza.

The bulk of the RfC occurred during a short timeframe in July; a closer did not render a verdict on the discussion until Sept. 24.

“This discussion resulted in a consensus that the name of the Gaza Health Ministry should not be qualified with ‘Hamas-run’ or similar, unless the connection is otherwise discussed and relevant,” the closer ruled. “The numbers are pretty clear on this (about 3:1). Evaluating the arguments provided, there is no policy basis to assess the consensus differently; those in favor of using the qualifier mainly rely on a numerical argument about sources, but this has been criticized on several points and is far from overriding enough to carry the RFC, considering the numerous well-reasoned [opposition].”

One editor told me that they believe that “the Hamas-run qualifier” should be used “anytime the Gaza Health Ministry numbers were used and I’m not even sure the Gaza Health Ministry numbers should ever really be considered reliable at all given the concerns that some third parties have had about their accuracy, and the multiple revisions they’ve gone through, and the way that combatants vs non-combatants are counted.” However, the editor acknowledged that given how lopsided the numbers were against the use of the qualifier, such a close is “hard to overturn.” The editor added that they believe sources “generally do refer to it as the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry” and that “the qualifier should be used for NPOV. A terrorist group shouldn’t be treated as equal to a real country.”

“I’m not even sure the Gaza Health Ministry numbers should ever really be considered reliable at all given the concerns that some third parties have had about their accuracy.” – Wikipedia editor

An editor who grew disillusioned with Wikipedia after making thousands of edits told me that it is “simply false” for editors to argue that sources don’t use the qualifier. “I see sources using it all the time,” the editor said. “The BBC, just to give one example, uses it every single day.”

So do the majority of sources actually use the qualifier? “It depends on what you’re looking in,” Middle East historian Asaf Romirowsky, who heads Scholars for Peace in the Middle East and the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa, told me. “The New York Times, even the [Biden] administration has adopted some of the ‘Hamas-ministry of health’ stuff at the beginning of the war and then they stepped it back, so there’s been a lot of back-and-forth … it all fits into the Hamas propaganda narrative by aggrandizing casualties … this is all part of the playbook.”

During the RfC, an editor pointed to several German-language sources that use the qualifier, but was dismissed because editors opposed to the qualifier said that because they’re on the English Wikipedia (In addition to English, Wikipedia is available in over 100 different languages), English sources are preferred and that German press is very one-sided in favor of Israel. One editor told me that under Wikipedia policy, such non-English sources “are reliable but might be swapped out for English language if those exist. I doubt that German sources are more Israeli-biased. That seems silly and wrong.” Another editor said that “English sources are preferred but others can be used. Saying they’re ‘too pro-Israel’ is not a policy-based argument. Biased sources are used all the time.”

Romirowsky said that German sources’ editorial stances on Israel “varies from outlet to outlet” depending on if the outlet is on the left or right. He added that “the Germans are very cognizant and very sensitive to what goes on when it comes to Israel as a result of the fact that there’s been a growing Muslim population inside of Germany and there are many Hezbollah neighborhoods inside of Germany that caused Germany to crack down on some of these issues … I think Germans do understand the military added value of what Israel is doing and they’re obviously very sensitive in general when it comes to issues regarding [the] Holocaust … [denying the Holocaust, antisemitic language] …those things you will get arrested for in Germany … so you’ve got to contextualize that.” Romirowsky added that Germany has banned protests with Hamas and Hezbollah flags, but protests regarding Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) flags, “it depends.”

Additionally, while the part of the close that states “unless the connection is otherwise discussed and relevant” could provide “some wiggle room … I expect the pro-Hamas editors to simply ignore that,” an editor said. Another editor agreed that the anti-Israel editors would ignore that part of the close because it’s “window dressing” and “vague.”

The longtime editor who runs “The Wikipedia Flood” blog told me that the RfC is reflective of how Wikipedia is “a numbers game … The numbers are against Israel in any given situation. I doubt that most so-called ‘!voters’ read the discussion. They come in with their minds made up.”

“I’m just disgusted,” an editor told me. “What’s the point of participating when you’re always outnumbered and will always be crushed by the pro-Hamas juggernaut? Only anti-Israel editors derive any satisfaction from editing articles on the conflict. For everyone else it’s a frustrating exercise in futility, trying to find ‘consensus’ with people who would celebrate your violent death.”

Wikipedia Editors Place a Near Total Ban on Calling Gaza Health Ministry “Hamas-Run” Read More »

Israel Stands for Something the West Can’t Stand: A Jewish Victory Over Evil

Editor's Note /

Over the years, I’ve shared a thought experiment with friends from the left and right: If you give a random member of Hamas or Hezbollah a button that can instantly kill every Jew in Israel, would they press it?

No one has said no; almost everyone says yes. Even among the left, independent of any grievances against Israel, there is grudging recognition that the desire to eliminate the Jewish state is the dominant truth among Israel’s sworn enemies.

That raw truth can get blurred, however, when one considers high-minded concepts such as liberalism and democracy. Fighting evil is brutal; asserting liberal ideals is sophisticated, even Jewish.

The result is often a clash of equally valid truths.

Smart commentators like Ezra Klein of The New York Times will reflexively focus on high-minded liberal truths and Israel’s failure to honor them; while the typical Israeli whose existence is dependent on fighting evil will focus more on how many seconds it takes to reach the nearest bomb shelter.

Inevitably, there are times when one truth comes to dominate.

In times of relative stability, Israel can afford to exert itself in its liberal aspirations. We saw that in the 10 months preceding Oct. 7, when enormous crowds of Israelis demonstrated week after week to protest what they saw as a gutting of the Supreme Court.

Oct. 7 changed everything. Stability turned instantly into existential dread.

The highbrow Klein himself called that darkest of days “one of the true acts of barbarism in modern history.” If I shared my thought experiment with him, I’m guessing he’d also say that any of those Hamas murderers would press the imaginary button to kill every Jew in Israel.

If an unprecedented “barbarism” is how Klein perceives Oct. 7 from the comfort of America, imagine how an Israeli who faces this barbarism every day might perceive it.

And yet, none of this reality seems to have swayed Klein from his familiar rebuking of the Jewish state for failing to meet liberal ideals.

“I think about my children growing up and being Jewish in a world where the Jewish state is a pariah state, a symbol of oppression, immorality and illiberalism, and what that means for their Judaism,” Klein said in a recent interview in Haaretz.

Such a glib and narrow focus on values that ignores harsh realities on the ground betrays, at the very least, a lack of complexity. It also betrays a certain intellectual laziness to so casually embrace the charge that Israel is a symbol of “oppression, immorality and illiberalism.”

One need not be a Zionist apologist to offer context that at least puts Israel’s liberal deficiencies in perspective. Nor does one need to be a pro-Israel activist to highlight the blatant double standards when judging Israel, notoriously prevalent in international circles. Yes, that kind of context should also be part of educating Jewish kids; and giving them a fuller picture of Israel’s predicament can also “mean a lot for their Judaism.”

Klein jumps immediately to Israel as a symbol of what he abhors. But what about the Israel that symbolizes grit and resilience? Or the Israel that symbolizes cultural vibrancy despite being under siege by genocidal enemies? Or even the Israel that symbolizes complexity?

Beyond that predictable and glaring lack of context is an even more urgent truth Klein and his ilk seem to have missed: the recent mood change in Israel. Oct. 7 was not just the scariest day in Israel’s history; it was also the day Israel’s enemies stopped fearing the Jewish state– the day when the goal of eliminating Israel never felt more real.

The long, exhausting and costly war in Gaza went only so far in regaining Israel’s deterrence. Israelis have long known that their more dangerous foe is Hezbollah in the north. With its huge arsenal of precision-guided missiles that can overwhelm Israeli defenses and shut down major infrastructure, Hezbollah is infinitely more threatening than Hamas and has been the perennial dark cloud hanging over the Jewish state.

All that started to turn on Sept. 17, when thousands of pagers exploded in the hands of Hezbollah terrorists. When Israel followed that daring feat with the elimination of Hezbollah leadership and the destruction of military infrastructure in south Lebanon, the paradigm of war shifted.

Suddenly, Israelis smelled the return of the Israel that its enemies would fear, which means, simply, a safer Israel. The Gaza war may have decimated Hamas, but decimating Hezbollah would be a game changer. Israelis started smelling victory over an enemy committed to its annihilation and with the means to accomplish it.

After the collective trauma of Oct. 7, most Israelis are in no mood to stop, not when their enemies are now on the run. If anything, they’re seeing the logic of pressing their military advantage to go after the biggest threat of all, Iran. Indeed that has already started. As reported on JPost, “The Israel Air Force struck a dozen targets in Iran that were used to produce solid fuel for long-range ballistic missiles as part of its retaliatory military action against the Islamic Republic, severely harming Tehran’s ability to replenish its inventory.”

This kind of bold military action won’t win Israel much applause in the West or among the progressive set. Sophisticated thinkers like Klein have a hard time relating to things like “pressing a military advantage.” In their mind, there’s never a wrong time to call for a ceasefire or instill liberal values or work on not being a “pariah” state. The word “victory” has been crushed by cliches like “we must avoid escalation” and “we need a day after plan.” A world where a military victory could be a good thing is too ugly for them.

Unless, of course, we’re talking about a military victory for Ukraine, when the bad guy is a powerful white Russian. The West doesn’t mind a victory over evil as long as it gets to choose the evil– and who gets to fight it.

It’s a separate set of rules for the Jewish state and its terrorist neighbors. Israel can only go so far in its fight against existential threats. For liberal preachers like Klein, Jews shouldn’t be too tough or powerful; it’s not a good look. Much better to be a shining light of liberalism so that progressive Jews in America will stop being shamed by the “pariah” Zionist nation.

These high-minded rebukes of the Jewish state have little impact on Israelis fighting for their lives. But for those terrorists who would push that imaginary button to kill every Jew in Israel, it must surely be music to their ears.

Israel Stands for Something the West Can’t Stand: A Jewish Victory Over Evil Read More »

How the Torah Came to be Written – A Conjecture – Comment on Torah Portion B’reishit

Seeking the Good /

 

Comments on Torah Portion B’reishit  2024 (adapted from previous versions)

How the Bible Came to be Written – A Conjecture

“How did things get this way?” is probably one of the first things that ancient human beings asked. Not most of them, for sure. Like today, most people have enough to do trying to figure out and deal with what is happening right now. There has always been some subset of people, however, that asked “how” and “why” and “what for”.  How did the universe get here?  Why was the universe created? For what purpose?  These questions ultimately come down to: why am I here? And what is my purpose?

I imagine some ancient person sat very quietly one day, looking at the sky and the ground and sea, and all the denizens thereof, and asked a fundamental question:  Has it always been this way? If not, how did this come about?

This mythical ancient human being that I have conjured up had already heard other theories:  “Primordial gods at war with each other” or some other complex story. That was all hearsay. No one saw it.

My original ancient philosopher had Occam’s instinct, probably before anything like a razor had been crafted. William of Occam (or Ockham, 1287-1347), you will recall, was an English philosopher and theologian. As a philosopher, he, like many others before him and after him, liked the rule of parsimony: the fewer questions, the better. Only one, tiny angel dances eternally on the head of a pin.

John Punch, a later philosopher, probably said it best:  “Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.” Some philosophers, like William of Occam and John Punch, enjoyed giving philosophical arguments a nice, close shave (hence, “Occam’s Razor”).

My ancient philosopher contemplated reality, considered the mythical stories, and rejected them. This philosopher concluded: It all comes from one source. Why suppose many gods when one can suppose one God as the origin of existence?

This ancient, prehistoric philosopher that I am imagining had the great fortune of having a friend, less philosophic, more mystical. The philosopher inferred a singular origin. The mystic intuited the nature of this Singular Origin of All Reality. “The Oneness permeates all,” the mystic said, “and this Oneness is alive in depths of the human being.”

The philosopher and mystic then went over to a sympathetic poet and shared their findings. This poet, fortunately, was not mesmerized by ancient myths of origins. Maybe this poet was a proto–Leonard Cohen; a composer of sparse and simple lines, lines somehow packed with a stunning, sinewy strength.

The philosopher, the mystic and the poet conferred for many years.

The philosopher:  It all comes from One Source.

The mystic:  This Source pervades all reality, and rumbles in the human soul.

The poet:

In the beginning of the Nameless One’s creating

Reality was an astonishing, wondrous, formless emptiness.

A Divine wind appeared over the liquid expanse –

And the Nameless One spoke.

I think the philosopher and the mystic were impressed with the poet and even very moved. They said, “Let’s talk some more, and then memorize it.”

They memorized the poem and recited it to other philosophers, mystics and poets. They formed a group and finally decided on a name: the Knowers of the Nameless One. They group loved the irony: knowing that which cannot be known but must be found. They let other philosophers, mystics and poets in the group. The expanding group found the poem so beautiful.

The philosopher, the mystic and the poet each found a suitable replacement as they faced the end of their days. The group, the Knowers (for short), expanded. The poem, in its depth, beauty and precision, grew over generations. The poem was hidden for centuries. They feared that dullards would hear it and talk about it in dull-witted ways and thus ruin the exquisite experience of the Presence that was evoked when the ever-growing poem was recited.

This secret school of philosophers, mystics and poets (long before these foundational archetypes of human thought stopped working together) never claimed that this living word, with roots and branches and a wind moving through the murmuring leaves, was the spoken, very “word o’God.” God did not dictate it. The divine channeled through their ideas, their words, their fellowship.

            This secret school of philosophers, mystics and poets (long before these foundational archetypes of human thought stopped working together) never claimed that this living word, with roots and branches and a wind moving through the murmuring leaves, was the spoken, very “word o’God.” God did not dictate it. The divine channeled through their ideas, their words, their fellowship.

The truth of the poem was not a result of God speaking to them, but was found in the Presence that brought the philosopher, the mystic and the poet together. That Nameless One, a Presence that pervades reality, rumbles in the soul, is the origin of art, poetry and all manner of beauty. It speaks of love, justice and truth, the good and the holy.

I think the early listeners were able to infer the hidden reality in the poem: The human being itself is a self-writing poem, seeking to understand itself, with the Divine as a prodding witness.

The truth of the poem lay, at least partly, in its power to enrapture those whose souls had something of the philosopher, the mystic and the poet knotted within.

(Later people said, “It is the revealed Word o’God!” without bothering to notice that the poem actually never says that.)

 

How the Torah Came to be Written – A Conjecture – Comment on Torah Portion B’reishit Read More »