Yes bcg, he said “phosphates” i Hebrew (‘fosfatim’).
I don’t think it’s so chemically accurate… I’m not an expert in chemistry, but from what I’ve gathered, I undestand that the massive gathering of minerals, especially Potash and Potassium Chloride for fertilizing, taken from these artificial pools (where he’s floating, where the hotels are), have caused an imbalance which leaves a lot of the actual salt (Natrium Chloride), which is heavier, to aggregiate disproportionally at a rate of some 25 cm pr year at the surface, and that is actually pushing the water level, at the southern pools, up (ironically, while the general water level goes drastically down). This is apparently causing a flooding of these hotels and may now mean irreversible damage – they may have to just close or be rebuilt higher up.
The company which profits from the mining is reportedly reluctant to foot the bill of balancing this over-aggregation of salt.
Thank you Wondering Jew, you are right about the ‘Americanization’ – I changed the formulation in article to be accurate about that, yet still convey the same idea, which I think is the essence of what she was saying.
As to “[t]he belief in coexistence must be tempered by realism” and “Bibi will not get us there, but your alternative will not get us there either”, I would say this:
Herzl’s settler-colonialist scheme was coupled with the notion “if you will it, it is no dream”. You posit that my “choice to present this belief as a leap of faith is not acceptable”, since it is ostensibly beyond realism.
Yet I would point out, that my suggestion is far more simple, and involves far less inherent violence, than Herzl’s. My suggestion is simply to relinquish Apartheid rule. I will give you this – settler-colonialist ventures were not “unrealistic”, since they really happened. Nonetheless, de-colonization is also something that happened. Relinquishing of Apartheid is also something that really happened.
I would thus suggest that your idea of “realism” is based in the notion of maintaining status quo for an indefinite period of time. This is no doubt a comfortable position to take from the standpoint of the privileged Jew. But for the Palestinians living under Apartheid, which includes unlivable conditions, I would say it’s unrealistic. That’s the reality that most Zionists simply deny, saying “that’s life”. But life is what we make it. And I think the Zionist solution really, really sucks.
Eljay, that Kushner is Trumpal is undoubted. But will he be triumphal with his deal of the century?
Well, it seems Kushner has a wide success criteria:
“Success can look like a lot of different things. It can look like an agreement, it can look like a discussion, it could lead to closer cooperation, maybe resolve a couple of issues, maybe not?”
By the descriptions and indications of how those issues are meant to be solved, I kind of hope he goes for the “maybe not”. But hell, it’ll be a success anyway. So maybe he could just go home instead? Then again, all this “shuttle-diplomacy” must be playing out good for his business.
Jon66: “or is Israel simply ‘preserving’ their status so they can have a right to return to their homes?”
No, Israel has been attempting to get rid of the ‘problem’ by sending them to third countries under shady economic deals, reportedly countries like Rwanda and Uganda. As mentioned in the piece, the UN has pointed out that Israel could provide them with a Temporary Protected Status, which would not infringe upon the possibility to send them back to their home countries when it becomes safe to do so. But Israel is not doing that. If it wanted to ‘preserve’ their status while protecting them, it could have used the TPS. More obviously, Israel is using the limbo to preserve its own possibility to kick them out when the time is more opportune, regardless of the risk to their lives.
Jon s, rabbi Cardozo even goes further than that quote, if you follow the link in article on “wall of shame”, in Michael Lesher’s piece. Here is what Cardozo says:
“We must free the Kotel of all denominations and abolish all synagogue services at the site, including bar and bat mitzvah celebrations. We must remove all sifrei Torah, tefillin and tallitot and restore the Kotel to its former state: A place where all are welcome and where not even the most lenient halacha can be violated. Where there are no mechitzot (partitions) and other sources of ideological or physical conflict. A place used solely for individual prayer and meditation, just as our ancestors treated it throughout our long history.”
Now once again, I did not oppose the kippa wearing as such on location. I am simply pointing to the misappropriation of this wall, and I have serious religious sources to lean upon.
Wondering Jew (partially quoting me): “and then my son said, oh, I’ll make a picture of donald duck instead. And the father is so proud that he has taught his son a good lesson”.
See, Wondering Jew, I didn’t mind that my son would go and do that ritual (and I don’t know that this ‘ritual’ is mentioned as such in any writings, though I might be wrong). I supported him in doing it. Neither did I have an objection to going to the wall, nor to wearing a kippa – which I had in fact suggested that we do in order to get there. But I let him decide. And he decided with his own instinct.
So you see, Wondering Jew, the “lesson I taught him” was that when it comes to belief, you can choose. I didn’t even speak against the kippa. But he read it as a kind of coercion. He decided, and I showed him how I do not force it upon him.
That, I think, is a good lesson, taught not by words but by deeds. I don’t think it’s hateful.
Jon S, concerning the Yemenite children, Annie already answered here, so I shall not extend at this point.
Concerning the Western Wall, you write: “in a church you’re expected to remove your hat, in a mosque you remove your shoes, in Jewish worship you cover your head”.
But you see, I was citing authoritative Jewish Orthodox rabbinical sources:
“The Kotel was never a synagogue; nor should it ever become one.”
You may be aware of the strawman in your argument, which is perhaps why, despite naming “church” and “mosque”, you do not name “synagogue”, because that would be wrong. You resort to “place of worship”.
See, if the place was a synagogue, you’d have an argument. But this is something that has merely been construed to be a “place of worship” in a kind of institutional way, and I’m contesting it – with sound arguments. I’m not arguing that it has traditionally been used as a place for private meditation. That doesn’t make it a synagogue.