No More "Settlements"
My pal Jerry made the following suggestion, and I think it's brilliant! Let's start this right away:
"Population centers that are called settlements in Israel are called towns and cities in the US and Europe. Let's give these Jewish communities some permanency. Settlements do not have the 'ring of permanency' that towns and cities do. Let's help Israel with a little PR and use towns and cities when discussing Jews living in the West Bank."
posted by Esther @ 3:54 PM
15 comments
15 Comments:
The New Amsterdam settlement with its rich Dutch cultural and spiritual roots should be reclaimed by its rightful owners.
Support the right of return!
Awesome Patrick!
LOL felis.
kibbutz (קיבוץ) ..., is out?
Culturally correct translation and interpretation is more "correct" to me than attempts at being politically correct, but that's just me ...
Awww, thanks Regular Ron! I gave up trying to understand what Sharon is doing a long time ago.
lol, SA. But yeah, Kibbutz is out because the towns aren't the same. They aren't co-operatives or collectives. They're just regular towns and cities like we have in the US.
Esther, this is off subject a bit, but I have a question. I just received in the mail a booklet produced by the ADL that they are planning on distributing in elementary schools. It's on divirsity; homosexuality, religions, etc. Liberal stuff. How can the ADL produce literature that is in direct conflict with the Old Testament? I'm not attacking, I'm just going to the horses mouth. (SYP-not using initials anymore)
I agree with the suggestion. Let's take it one step further. Let's stop referring to Tulkarm, Jenin and other West Bank towns as "refugee camps." They are not. On my last trip to Israel (2003), I got a very good look at Tulkarm from over the defensive barrier (just east of Netanya). I expected to see a tent city with red crosses all over the place. What I saw was a town of brick structures, narrow warrens, and lots of minarets.
Stacy, I think the answer to your question is that the ADL is a civil rights organization. Its primary goal, in addition to exposing anti-Semitism and racism in all its forms, is to help foster understanding and respect for all religions, races and even sexual orientations. I suspect they leave the theology to others to sort out.
Hey Stacy, thanks for clueing me in there. Love your comments elsewhere so thanks for coming here! OK, let me see how to handle this one, especially since I'm only in my first quarter of my ADL leadership training program...hardly a true horse's mouth.
While it's on diversity, that includes tolerance, which I don't think is a strictly "liberal" thing, at least the republicans better hope not. The ADL is all about tolerance of others but also they steadily support the separation of Church and State. That said, I don't think it is in direct conflict with the teachings of the Old Testament. If you mean "in conflict" if you interpret it literally, maybe, but I am of the mind that it should be interpreted, not taken literally. Otherwise, wouldn't I have to indulge in slavery, sacrifice my children, and worry about being smited or something? I don't mean to be flip. I'm not saying this applies to you specifically, but I just don't think something like the Old Testament should be used as a reason for people today to be prejudiced against any segment of the population. I believe in a loving G-d. Children should be taught to be loving and tolerant. Maybe then the world won't be so messed up. And they have to be taught this young because it's almost impossible to unlearn bigotry. Not sure if this answered your question.
Jonathan -- I like that suggestion too!
Thanks Rory! I think you said it much better than I did.
Not at all, Esther. You've just said it beautifully.
Sure, but the ADL as a well known organization has to be clear on what and who it represents. Abiding to laws/traditions does not mean following the bible literally. What are leading Rabbis for? They apply old teachings to modern daily life.
It's all good and nice to be politically correct, and we're all for tolerance, but that shouldn't involve uncalled for a** kissing that might give the wrong idea to people.
This reminds me of the rabbis of the rome community who went to the Pope's funeral. Many frowned upon that. Sure, it looks good and it's a nice thing to do, but to judaism, christianity is impure- we aren't even supposed to walk into a church, if you know what I mean. So is it ok to praise the pope just because of his high position, despite the fact that he represents the height of impurity? I hope I didn't digress much, it seemed to be along the same lines.
RW, I don't usually disagree with you but I gotta say, I think it's great that rabbis went to the Pope's funeral. He was a tremendous friend to the Jews. I didn't agree with everything he did, but rabbis paying him respect seems a decent thing to do.
I was presenting the arguments. Personally, I'm not sure how to look at it. From a Jewish viewpoint,was it wrong of them to go? Probably.
But for the interest of their community, was it necessary for them to go? Probably. You can never be too careful.
Yea, my knowledge of the ADL is minimal, so I was shocked to see this pamphlet. I personally teach my children to be hateful towards no one, but there is right and wrong, and all decisions we make will eventually impact us directly.
Population Centers in West Virginia are called Road Houses.
Post a Comment
<< Home