The Jerusalem Post gets a lot of flak from readers. It has more typographical errors than any other periodical of its stature, that’s for sure. It employs Faye Levy, their main food writer, who lives in California and sometimes concocts recipes that require combinations of fruits where one is in season and the other is out (something she can do in the US where out-of-season fruits are imported, but which is impossible in Israel). Those leaning left politically complain that it’s too right-wing, and those on the right are sometimes appalled at the stuff its left-wing writers churn out. The fact that it has the ability to offend people on both ends of the spectrum (while trying to provide a home for both) probably means it’s doing something right.
I often strongly disagree with Jonathan Rosenblum, its haredi apologist, who attempts to justify many of the positions taken by haredim in Israeli society, including their view that IDF-sponsored conversions are invalid, and who adopts across-the-board right-wing views on American politics. I’ve been disappointed with some of the stuff Daniel Gordis has written, which seems either to echo the contents of his 2009 book Saving Israel, or suggest overall writer’s doldrums. I was delighted when they got rid of Daoud Kuttab as a regular writer, and don’t miss his whining about the discrimination and deprivation suffered by Arabs at Israel’s hands one bit. And while I don’t rejoice in the death of Reform Rabbi David Forman, I don’t miss his columns, nor Naomi Chazan’s either.
But lately I’ve been finding myself marveling at how out of touch some of the Post’s regular contributors are, particularly in the February 25 Magazine. Larry Derfner, who often writes the feature articles for the Magazine, is usually more interested in generating heat than shedding light on a topic. His cover article for February 25, “Shadow over utopia,” about a Tel Aviv school whose students hail from 48 different countries and is the subject of a recent short documentary film, “Strangers No More,” seemed designed to tug at the heartstrings of people who are alarmed at the possibility that 120 of the children, who are in the country illegally, may be sent back with their parents to their countries of origin. In reading it, I learned that Derfner thinks these kids are too cute, their families too nice, and the school too much of a triumph of multiculturalism for the children to be sent back with their parents. I learned much less about the country’s concerns about illegal workers, about the impact on the economy of making them legal versus sending them back, or on the differences between those seeking asylum here versus those hoping to earn money to send home to their families in poorer countries. It’s an issue that requires some study and thorough investigation to understand, but this was not an article that was going to provide the reader with much of that.
David Breakstone is one of the new crop of Lefties taken on in recent months, and another regular contributor who has me shaking my head most of the time. In his February 25 column, entitled “Jewish Identity 101,” he sings the praises of the Limmud NY conference in which he recently participated, which brought together Jews across the spectrum of movements, including Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, Renewal, secular, and unaffiliated. His criticisms of the rabbinical establishment in Israel, its power-hungriness, its narrow definition of Judaism, its woefully poor leadership, and its corruption and illegal shenanigans are well taken. But the opening to his article where he decries the Knesset’s recent Jewish Identity Day, which included a session on “the need to combat the phenomenon of Jewish women marrying Muslim men,” came close to losing me. His protest was registered by borrowing the words of Arab MK Taleb a-Sanaa, who said, “I’d like to see what would happen if in France they held a hearing about what happens when Christians marry Jews.” Now, on the surface, that might seem like real equivalence. Everyone (including Arabs) knows how sensitive Jews are to discrimination, and particularly the Jews’ experience of it in European countries like France. (Actually, these days, France is more likely to have hearings about what happens when Christian women marry Muslims, but we’ll leave that for another time.) But scratch the surface and you can see that there is no equivalence. The Jews in France were a small minority, lived quietly, contributed to society, and were patriotic French citizens. The Arabs in Israel are, to some extent, contributors to Israeli society. They usually live quietly, but not always. Some are patriotic, but some choose instead to sympathize, in thought, word, and deed, with their more terrorist-inclined brethren across the Green Line. And when Jewish women marry Muslim men, they marry into a society in which they no longer have a voice, freedom of movement, freedom of religion, rights over their property, their children, or their own bodies. Some try to flee, and many find it difficult or impossible to escape the life they didn’t necessarily expect or that was promised to them. Arab men are free to beat their wives as much as they wish; that is not so in Israel. While Judaism would dictate that the woman’s children are halachically Jewish, Muslim law says that they are Muslim, and since possession is nine-tenths of the law, they will grow up Muslim. Those who advocate that Jews—particularly women—avoid working in places where they will naturally encounter Arab men are simply recognizing that it is impossible to prevent friendships from forming and romance from blossoming between people who work in close proximity day after day. It’s not racism; it’s reality.
But the columnist whose relatively recent employment by the Post most baffles me is Alon Ben-Meir, a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU who teaches international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies. Like Faye Levy, he doesn’t live here, which is often a telling fact in understanding some of the things he writes. He consistently tries to plug the Arab Peace Initiative as the solution to Israel’s problems with the Palestinian Arabs. He seems to have internalized Time Magazine’s absurd claims made last year that Israelis don’t care about peace, and chides Israel for not rushing to make more concessions and give more gifts to the Arabs. His February 25 column, “Israel, where are you?” is particularly well-titled. (Right where you left us to go to New York, Mr. Ben-Meir.) He accuses Israel’s current leadership of being focused more on staying in power than effecting change that will lead to peace and prosperity for all. (Shocking; simply shocking.) He bemoans the lack of a vibrant opposition from Kadima (clearly his party of choice) in much softer terms. He is alarmed that the IDF has become more ideological and religious, obviously unaware that one reason for this is the mass refusal by secular, ideologically bankrupt Israeli youth to serve, in approximately the same numbers as the haredim. He is upset at Education Minister Gideon Sa’ar’s plans to have schoolchildren visit the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, “in what amounts to an unnecessary and untimely provocation aiming to bolster nationalistic—and right-wing—perspectives among youth,” echoing the language applied to Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount in 2000, and suggesting perhaps that less contact with sites listed in the Jewish heritage register will make for a better Israeli citizenry tomorrow. He wonders where the students and academics are, who he thinks should be in the streets protesting Israel’s foreign policy and the status quo. He chalks it up to complacency; it has apparently never occurred to him that many of these students and academics either support the current democratically elected government, or don’t have any brilliant ideas on how to change the way the Arab world views the repugnant Zionist entity to create a climate in the Middle East more conducive to peace with the State of Israel.
I attempt to read articles by columnists (usually left wing) with whom I don’t agree. (This way, I can safely criticize Lefties who never read anything they might disagree with.) I am always hopeful that one day I’ll read one who makes enough sense to me to actually see their points of view as legitimate. However, the columnists the Post hires never seem to meet that standard. Their views are always based on a superficial reading of the situation, ignoring crucial facts, and a refusal to learn from history and Israel’s past experience. The Cap’n says that if the Post is really a right-wing newspaper, then by hiring these totally unconvincing apologists for the Left, they’re actually doing a good job of furthering the right-wing agenda. Perhaps he’s right. But old-time Lefties like Abba Eban were able to recognize certain truths, including the fundamental inequity of requiring one side to make material concessions (like giving up land) in exchange for a change in behavior. And yet that very principle, now dubbed “land for peace,” has become the standard for the Left.
Hoping for some non-political refreshment, I flipped to the back to read about how Ian McEwan, the author of the brilliant Atonement and other novels, won the Jerusalem Prize for the Freedom of Society last week at the 25th Jerusalem International Book Fair. I enjoyed learning about him, his background, his writing life, his family’s years living in Libya, and the fact that while many pro-Palestinian groups pressured him to decline the prize and refuse to visit Israel, he came anyway. Of course, he did attend the weekly Friday demonstration outside Sheikh Jarrah, which protests the eviction of three Arab families from Jewish-owned property after failure to pay their rent for several years (in essence, protesting against the freedom of property ownership). But you can’t win ’em all. This is, after all, the Jerusalem Post.
Shimshonit 
Leave a Reply