Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another


Sundown: NYT On The Jews. Discuss.

Plus the Jordan Riverbed, and more

Print Email
The Jordan River.(Flickr)

• Four people have probably already emailed this to you, but the Times reports on the Israel-related disconnect between American Jews and American-Jewish institutional leaders. The article fails to mention J Street, though. Just kidding! [NYT]

• In a similar vein, J.J. Goldberg argues that the silent majority of American Jews is getting drowned out. [Haaretz]

• An environmental group warns that the stretch of the Jordan River from the Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea is in danger of drying out. Between Israel, Jordan, and Syria, 98 percent of river water is diverted. [JTA]

• Yuri Foreman: The ESPN profile. [ESPN]

• Prime KO, a Japanese joint on the Upper West Side “where kosher aspires to be cool,” opens. [City Room]

• Jewish Funds for Justice, which initiated a Gulf Coast charity after Hurricane Katrina, is asking for donations related to the oil spill. [Jewish Funds for Justice]

Check out Deputy Editor Gabe Sanders’s interview with Chilean-American author Ariel Dorfman from the PEN festival.

Print Email

Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180

Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.

Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.

We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.

fw says:

I don’t disagree entirely with J.J. Goldberg’s plaint, but I think he glosses over a few issues. First, he implicitly equates social activism with a progressive political stance. What he sees as apathy may, however, be a perfectly legitimate reaction to Arab rejectionism. Two offers of peace, from two Israeli prime ministers, were rebuffed by two Palestinian leaders, whose professed interest in a negotiated solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict we had previously taken at face value. And we got slapped in the face for it. Add to that the two wars that followed Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza and Lebanon, and the instinct to throw up ones hands in frustration and despair is understandable. It may not be acceptable to the paladins of left wing politics, but it’s not indifference or complacency. It’s a choice, whether or not you agree with it.

Second, just as Lee Smith describes a worldview that sees Middle East politics exclusively through the lens of the Arab-Israel issue, so too is there concomitant tendency to look at all politics through the prism of the Middle East conflict. In fact, there are many outlets for social activism, even Jewish social activism, and our leading role in championing the policies of Barack Obama is evidence of strong political engagement, of the kind to which I would imagine Goldberg is favorably disposed.

Again, I share his frustration in a lot of ways, but ultimately, Israel is going to step up the plate again, because it will have no choice, and we’ll just have to see if the third time’s the charm. I hope so.

But I do wonder if the anger and calls for action on the part of Jews of goodwill to overcome our self-created obstacles of paranoia and reaction doesn’t mask a deeper, more profound fear that our desire for peace, which is ultimately a desire for acceptance, our deepest longing, will be met with refusal. If we can keep telling ourselves its our own fault, we can hold out hope for acceptance. But maybe that acceptance just won’t be forthcoming. And maybe there is nothing we can do about that fact.

max says:

In reply to FW. I can tell you that the Moslems will never accept the presence of a Jewish country in the middle east. They may, on the other hand come to the conclusion, like Jordan and Egypt did, that Israel is too strong to defeat militarily and we will make peace. That does not mean that they like us, or if Israel shows signs of weakness that they will not try and destroy us. It’s not an ideal situation, but that is the reality.

fw says:

Max, I’m sure you’re right, and would add that peace between any two formerly warring parties is probably never a matter of choice, but of accommodating reality.


Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

Sundown: NYT On The Jews. Discuss.

Plus the Jordan Riverbed, and more

More on Tablet:

A Tale of Three Twitter Feeds: Hamas Tweets in Arabic, English, and Hebrew

By Aaron Magid — Analysis of the social-media messaging of Hamas’ military wing reveals distinct voices for the West, the Arab Middle East, and Israel