It is a perverse human quality, but we are drawn to news stories about human tragedies. Some characteristics of such stories intensify the level of our interest: descriptions or pictures of gore or disfigurement; pictures of grieving loved ones; and some form of personal connection - no matter how indirect - to those at the center of the tragedies. The adage, "if it bleeds it leads," condenses this notion to a pithy directive. Yet the American media has failed to cover a story containing every item on the sure-to-interest newsreaders' checklist. I invite you to ponder why that is.
An Arab Palestinian homicide bomber detonated himself at a falafel stand in Israel on April 17th, during Passover. The murderer killed eleven innocent people and wounded dozens.
A broad range of news sources including USA Today, the New York Times, the Washington Post, CBS, ABC, CNN, and the Philadelphia Inquirer included personal background information about the bomber. We learned that he was an al-Quds University drop-out, and, incredibly, that he had been a social worker. In his going-away video, the murderer claimed he sought martyrdom on behalf of imprisoned Arab Palestinians.
Satisfying its compulsion to draw parallels between Israeli and Arab Palestinian suffering, at least one newspaper - the Philadelphia Inquirer - placed on page 1 of its April 18th edition a photograph of an unnamed Israeli grieving over the body of an Israeli victim. Placed directly below that is a photograph of the murderer's mother wistfully holding two photographs - in one he is holding a rifle - of her now-dead son.
Juxtaposing these photographs suggests that there are victims on both sides of the conflict in the Middle East: Arab mothers grieve for their dead sons and young Israeli men grieve for dead Israelis.
I find this moral equivalence repulsive.
But let's take one more step.
If bleeders are leaders, and some kind of personal connection with the bleeders increase consumers' interest in a news story, then there is a follow up story from the April 17th bombing that should have been all over the American media.
Daniel Wultz is a 16 year old Florida teen who accompanied his father to Israel to visit relatives during Passover. On April 17th, Daniel and his father were eating in one of the few kosher Shawarma restaurants in Tel Aviv. Daniel was almost killed by the homicide bombing. In a coma for three weeks, Daniel's spleen and one of his kidneys had to be removed. Then, this basketball-loving teenager had to have one leg amputated at the knee. Finally, after almost a month of valiant fighting, Daniel succumbed; he died on Mothers' Day.
An American teenager, a healthy athletic boy from sunny Florida was transformed in a split second into a shattered vessel, a soul hovering between life and death. More and more parts of his body, instead of providing him with mobility and life support, turned against him, and were pared away in a futile effort to save his life.
Islamic Jihad claimed credit for the April 17th bombing. One of the terror group's leaders immediately expressed sorrow that Daniel had not been killed, according to WorldNetDaily, one of the few media sources to cover the story.
Another Arab terrorist group seeking to share credit for the bombing extolled the double treat of having murdered an American and a Zionist. Islamic Jihad threatened Americans and Jews everywhere, saying they are all legitimate targets.
What American could hear this story, and not become riveted, eager for updates, eager to cheer his progress, or despair any further impediments? But other than the Florida newspapers, such as the Sun Sentinel and the Miami Herald, and an AP story picked up by the Los Angeles Times (but by none of AP's other major subscribers), the rest of the mainstream American media ignored Daniel's struggle to live.
How can it be that an American Jewish teenager whose survival of a terrorist bombing had been called a miracle was something most American media sources considered inconsequential? Why was his story not newsworthy - because Daniel Wultz was a teenager, an American, an amputee, or because he was a Jewish Zionist? Or was it because the media thinks we are only interested in the personal lives of homicide bombers and their families? And whose fault is that?
Lori Lowenthal Marcus
© 2005. Permission is hereby granted to redistribute this issue of The Philadelphia Jewish Voice or (unless specified otherwise) any of the articles therein in their full original form provided these same rights are conveyed to the reader and subscription information to The Philadelphia Jewish Voice is provided. Subscribers should be directed to http://www.pjvoice.com/Subscribe.htm.
May 28th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
Its interesting, the Chief Rabbanite is only picking a fight with those groups that it considers powerless and unorganized. They cannot pick a fight with Chabad, because then Chabad will wage a war with them, to deligitemize the Chief Rabbinate. Chabad will then set up its own Bais Din System in Israel which would compete with the Establishment. What this also does, that nobosy realizes is make Chabad worldwide, the defacto bet din for geirut.
If someone wants to become a convert, they will know that Chabad is the way to go. Is Chabad more willing to take someone on as a convert than other batei dinim, I don’t know you be the judge…..
The RCA, will not stand up to the Chief Rabbinate, and frankly the other more Chareidi sects in the usa, chassidish, or yeshivish, don’t really care, because they are not really in the business of converting people anyway, and don’t really care for them. If you have to go to Israel to do it, they couldn’t care less.
Its now conversions, but then will be gittin, and later other things as well.
As Richard Dreyfus famously told Bill Murray in “What About Bob”, …..”Baby steps, Baby steps, Baby steps….”
May 28th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
CS, not to sound ignorant or to side track from more important issues, but I want to ask: are you using Chabad as an example?
I have the understanding that Chabad will not actually perform conversions — they will take the convert after the fact, but not do the conversion so as to not be responsible if it goes “bad.”
Although this makes no sense to me, given that the candidate spends severel years in the Lub. community, so I would still think the community is responsible, more than some one-day beit din experience.
Anyway, this is what I was told by several Chabad converts, and one or two Lubavitchers, as well. Is that just a US thing, or was I given false information?
May 28th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Last year Amar toured the FSU and was scheduled to make an appearance at a non-Chabad yeshiva. The students, faculty and guests waited 5 hours for him, but he did not show. His companions Lev Leviav and Berel Lazar did not want to go the non-Chabad yeshiva, and Amar complied with their requests, even as his staff was telling the non-Chabad Jews to wait, Amar was coming.
Amar did not even apologize for this. The non-Chabad organization of European rabbis tried to raise this issue, but were largely ignored by journalists – and by the RCA. What goes around, it seems, comes around.
May 28th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
Chabad Rabbi in the US will not be recognized, only Lazar’s in the FSU..
May 29th, 2006 at 3:12 am
you misread the interview, the point Rav Amar made was that HE was the one who set up the bais Din in the FSU under Rav Lazar so it is his baby . Lazar has always had close contacts with the Rabbanut here they provide him with funds and many materials, he is their boy and so are the rabbonim under him!
rav Amar still accepts the geirim of Rav Gedalia Schwartz Shlit’a Av Beis Din of the CRC if they are done by him personally not by others under him withoutout his direct personal participation. Such a situation existed in Boston when there was a Bais Din uof Rav Mordechai Savitzky Z”L, Rav Yoshe Ber Solovietchik Z”L and yibadel the Bostoner Rebbe Shlit”a , when the first 2 were niftar the rabbanut no longer accepted documents signed by Rabbi Fox who was the administrator. In a way Rav Amar is right as in the USA there is no control and no standards and unfortunately there are members of the RCA who have congregations without a mechitza etc. or who have been involved in sex and fraud scandals unbecoming of rabbonim.
May 29th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
I can’t believe that Yitz could say, “Rav Amar is right as in the USA there is no control and no standards and unfortunately there are members of the RCA who have congregations without a mechitza etc. or who have been involved in sex and fraud scandals unbecoming of rabbonim.”
I guess the recent indictments of BOTH chief rabbis in Israel would inspire my confidence in Israeli Rabbis??? PLEEEZE.
Amar isn’t stupid. Amar needs to accept Russia or all the Russians in Israel will bolt and Amar would lose the political majority needed to keep his post. Remember, he has a POLITICAL, not religious, position to uphold, and the Russians hold the majority in Israel right now. The Russians are powerful and Chabad is leading them around by the nose. Hence Amar’s kiss-up to Russian Chabadniks.
You want to know why Amar is rejecting diaspora bet dinim? Don’t look to the US. That is a red herring planted by the idea that, at first, it was an RCA conversion that was turned down. Now that we know Amar’s decision is implicating the entire diaspora, it is time to look beyond the US.
Try Taking a look at Amar’s feud with Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks of England. Sacks turned down an Israeli Sephardic Bet Din’s conversion in a very public case last year. Amar was in charge of that Bet Din, and Sacks was basically spitting in Amar’s face. Then, to add to that, Sacks wrote a book criticizing Israeli’s Rabbinic system.
Now, almost one year to the day, Amar won’t accept diaspora bet dinim?
I am not saying they are directly related; I’ll let you piece it together yourself.