The Desire to Belong (Orthodox Academic Journal, Part II)

We want to be loved by our peers. It's a basic psychological need. Usually, we find some area in which we excel - sports, intellect, socializing or otherwise and "show it off" so people can "ooh" and "aah". Eventually, we find "our" crowd, that group of people with whom we feel "at home".

I thought that home was academia. Maybe I was wrong. I didn't realize just how much I am represent an insignificant minority. I am a Modern Orthodox Jew. I disagree emphatically with the idea that "sociological" (i.e. without kabalat ol mitzvot) conversion is enough. I also disagree with the notion that whatever is "liberal", "pluralistic" or "universal" is always good or that whatever is "conservative" or "particularistic" is always bad. I also think that the Haredi stranglehold on the Rabbinate and halakhic thinking is a disaster for the Jewish people in Israel and has caused nothing but hillul hashem and hatred towards Orthodoxy as a whole. Consequently, I don't follow the "dogma" of either camp and am forced to feel defensive and uncomfortable in either setting.

It's not just that, though. I never realized, or maybe I didn't want to know, how much non-religious Jews lump all Orthodox Jews in the same group. There I am, a university student with years of experience in secular self-education, and I may as well just walk around with Haredi garb for all the difference it makes. My (big) kippa is just so much window-dressing. There's no-one that I know to talk to here. There's no support system for religious students dealing with issues like this - everyone, including people on the teaching staff, seem to all deal with this on their own with varying degrees of success. Suffice to say that I am afraid many of us are "burned" religiously even if we still have a kipa over our heads.

After years of searching, I still often feel very alone. To be sure, I have my family, who are all very supportive and helpful. Maybe I should give up looking for "my crowd". Maybe such a thing doesn't exist, at least for me. Which brings me back to the original problem - what the hell am I doing here?

Good Revisionism, Bad Revisionism

"It's Time for Another Good Idea, Bad Idea" - Animaniacs

Revisionism. The word itself makes many an historian salivate. The thought of being able to up-end established scholarship and popular perceptions of what happened in the past is a great temptation for those of us wanting to quickly establish ourselves in the scholarly community. Unfortunately, the desire to do so contains many pitfalls, so I have written up a list comparing what I consider to be "good" revisionism - i.e. revisionism that contributes to academic debate and thought, and "bad" revisionism - the type that's good for juicy newspaper interviews, but not much else. Enjoy.

The "Official" Version: A simplistic black-and-white morality tale where the "establishment" is always the "good guy" and right, and its enemies are always the "bad guys" and wrong.

Good Revisionism: A careful, objective analysis of all sides, taking into account context, contingency, zeitgeist and other factors before arriving at a reasoned judgment.

Bad Revisionism: A simplistic black-and-white morality tale where the "establishment" is always the "bad guy" and wrong, and its enemies are always the "good guys" and right.

Good Revisionism: History ("what happened") is the primary concern. Historiography (how it was written) and collective memory (what people think happened) is a secondary concern that must not affect the historical analysis.

Bad Revisionism: Historiography/collective memory are the primary concern. History is thus dependent on what people think happened, regardless of what actually happened.

Corollary: Good revisionism considers "mythbusting" to be incidental (even if it's a nice added bonus) to the primary task of the research. Bad revisionism is obsessed with rebutting popular conceptions of history, and not so much with what actually happened.

Good revisionism: Causes most reasonable people to think and consider your arguments, even if they disagree.

Bad revisionism: Convinces those who were already convinced, usually because of previous political convictions and prejudices. Happy "revising". AIWAC

On Dealing With Depression

Winston Churchill called it the "black dog". Roughly one out of ten people will experience clinical depression before the age of 40. Many of the most brilliant minds have suffered from it. Even whacky comedians like Jim Carrey and Robin Williams have it.

I was diagnosed with it as a tennager. It was a nightmare, both for myself and for my family, who did not know how to help me. The "worst years" when I did not function at all are a time in my life I would much rather forget. Life was an empty abyss of despair. I couldn't physically smile or enjoy anything. I hated myself in every sense of the word.

I mention all this because contrary to popular myth, things like to depression do not miraculously disappear. The idea that someone can just "snap out of it" is complete bullshit - the statement of someone who has clearly never dealt with depression himself. It takes years of hard work and trial and error to be able to get back on track and develop a healthy sense of self-worth.

Even then, it never completely goes away. Like the yetzer hara, it is always looking for an opening - day in, day out. Every time problems occur or crises happen, it beckons. Like a drug, it beckons us to give up, to withdraw from life, either figuratively or, in more extreme cases, literally. I would be lying if I said I wasn't tempted on many an ocassion to do just that.

So what keeps me from sinking back into the hole? A recognition that my problems won't go away by ignoring them. The knowledge that however bad things are now, they are exponentially better than they were then. A promise I made to myself that I would never hurt my family that way again.

Still, I have to wonder - what girl would ever want to have anything to do with someone who has to fight a daily twin struggle against depression and OCD? How can I build a family with the "black dog" just around the corner? I admit I don't really have an answer to these questions.

So if you're out there dealing with this, know that you are not alone. There are many who are dealing with it as well.

Justice Lost, but Sanity Prevailed (on Katzav)

A-way back when the Supreme Court Appeal against the Moshe Katzav plea bargain was heating up, I explained why I think that even though Katzav is a shmuck, overturning the plea bargain would have resulted in injustices on a far greater scale. Today, I am relieved that the Supreme Court voted narrowly to uphold the plea bargain. It is true that Aleph and Katzav's other victims did not get justice, and that Katzav is practically getting away scott free. Unfortunately, an overturning of the plea bargain would have likely resulted in scores more injustices, including the Alephs of the world. More often than not, the "right" choice is not between "good" and "bad", but rather the lesser of the two evils. Let us hope and pray that there will come a time when we no longer have to make such repugnant compromises.

Tip for Those Visiting Israel During the Winter

Don't bother bringing, or buying, an umbrella. The wind here will break it in short order and leave you helpless against the elements. Invest in a hat or hooded jacket instead.

I learned this valuable lesson only after living here for 15 years and buying two umbrellas. This message is meant to prevent further grief.

The Man Who Laughs

[I had been throwing around the idea of writing an post defending the new Joker before I heard of Heath Ledger's premature death. This article is dedicated to his memory. Warning: Any offensive or insulting remarks will be deleted without warning]

When I showed the latest trailer for The Dark Knight to my siblings, the reaction was lukewarm at best. "I don't like the make-up", "He's not Jack Nicholson" and "He's not funny" were the main complaints. A few years ago, I probably would have agreed. I fondly remember watching Nicholson's Joker as a kid – a depraved but strangely funny character who chewed the scenery and delivered many a memorable quote (Our favorite was "Bob, gun" – after which he proceeds to shoot Bob).

I now realize that that is precisely the problem – many of us think of the Joker primarily as a funny, insane criminal – a cartoon character, really. Ask your average non-intensive Batman fan to think of a word they associate with the Joker and terms such as funny, entertaining, depraved and insane probably come to mind. Scary? Horrifying? They're probably not even in the top five.

This is a shame – because there is another side to the Joker, a side that elicits not laughs but rather sheer terror. Behind the jokes and the wackiness lie a psychopathic, terrifying monster who kills and maims just for the fun of it. For the Joker of the comics, everything's a joke – society, law, morality and even human life itself. His crimes are utterly devoid of any logic; as Batman once put it – they "make sense to him alone".

Neither are his methods or actions reason for laughter. One example can be found in The Killing Joke, considered one of the ultimate Joker stories. In the story, the Joker shot and paralyzed Barbara Gordon (Batgirl, though he didn't know it), stripped her and took pictures. Then he kidnapped Commissioner Gordon and showed him the pictures with the express intent of driving him insane, thus proving that anyone can become like him after a "bad day".

Another demonstration of the Joker's "humor" can be found in the unedited version of Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker. [Spoiler Alert] In a critical flashback scene, we learn that the Joker kidnapped Robin and brainwashed him into becoming a Joker sidekick named "JJ". When Batman finally tracks him down, the Joker shows him a movie graphically depicting Robin being electrocuted. Enraged, Batman attacks the Joker and pins him to the wall. The Joker simply tells him: "If you don't like the movie, I've got slides". Still think he's funny?

So I say: bring us the Joker of the Dark Knight. Bring us the Joker in his full, uncensored version – a "sick, demented monster" (World's Finest) whose high-pitched laughs send chills down your spine and whose "jokes" only demonstrate his complete lack of morality. If nothing else, we will perhaps finally begin to realize this lesson: there is nothing funny or "cool" about evil.

The Jewish Bystander Phenomenon

How often have you seen the following situation:

It's time for Minha/Maariv shel hol. There's more than a minyan present. All that's needed is a chazan. After a few minutes of complete silence, a few "nu"s penetrate the fog, daring someone (else) to get up and be the Shatz. Soon a particularly brave soul gets up and starts asking people if they want to be chazan. Most will decline the honor, until someone eventually gives in.

Or how's about the following:

Three guys have just finished dining together. A mezuman is needed. Now a game of "pass the buck" begins. Each member of the trio will say "bechavod" to his neighbor, running round and round till someone caves and is mezamen. (The cohanim have already happily gievn up their first dibs to play the "bechavod" game).

Maybe I missed something - isn't being a mezamen or a shatz an honor? When did it become a burden to borne only when absolutely necessary? Perhaps someone can explain this to me?

Well, I'm no farmer...

I was going to write a post about how it's impossible for an active grad student to find any sort of work, but this comic demonstrates this better than I ever could (no, I'm not married).

When in Israel, Speak in Hebrew

The latest YU Commentator has a very illuminating set of articles (see Hirhurim link, requires free subscription) on the tensions between Torah study and academia. As I've mentioned before, there is nothing similiar for those of us that learn in Israel. Zilch. Gornisht. We have nowhere to turn for any kind of advice, or even informed debate and opinion, regarding academia and religion.

Note to Richard Joel: You want to make inroads here? Start by translating the Commentator into Hebrew (I also think that the Orthodox Forum needs to do the same with their books), or better yet - by establishing a journal that would include both Israeli and American students' perspectives on the conflict between religion and the university. The mutual translation of views from English to Hebrew and vice versa can make a real difference and lead to genuine cultural interaction. Otherwise, the YU presence here will amount to little more than just another American Jewish bubble in Israel, one of many.

Finally, Some Sanity

ADDeRabbi, whose blog I always enjoy, makes one of the most sensible comments on the shemitah ta-ra-ram I've seen yet. I wish there were more like him.

On Frumkeit and Hypocrisy

As a practicing MO Jew, I have nothing against frumkeit per se. On the contrary, I consider the present flourishing of the Jewish religion to be a highly positive phenomenon. After being told by non-Jews and 'enlightened' Jews for the past two centuries that we are doomed to extinction, it is heart-warming to see the exact opposite happening. Even academia, that bastion of secular liberal humanism, is starting to recognize the power and importance of religion in Jewish and non-Jewish society.

Nevertheless, this revival is not without its uglier aspects. One of these is the phenomenon of self-appointed 'defenders of the faith' who disparage and disgrace talmidei chachamim, gedolim and rabbis who are not 'frum' enough in their mind. The most extreme expression of such fanaticism is of course the small group of Me'ah She'arim kana'im (obviously I refer to a group within Meah She'arim, not all of its residents) who viciously attack all but the most stringent authorities. At times, this even leads to physical violence, as when some kana'im physically assaulted Rabbi Yitzhak Halevi Herzog, Chief Rabbi of Israel, when he attended and spoke at Rabbi Isser Zalaman Melzer's funeral in 1954.

Most of the expressions of this disparagement do not reach this level, although they are no less digusting and disgraceful. One such phenomenon is the use of the term 'JB' for Rav Soloveitchik or referring to Rabbis without their proper title, like a recent comment on My Obiter Dicta's post about authorities on heter mechira referred to Rav Shlomo Goren.

It goes without saying that such people would go apoplectic if one referred to the Brisker Rav or the Hazon Ish in like form. That this is utterly hypocritical and disgusting also goes without saying. It is also contrary to halacha, which did not make kavod talmidei chachamim and the issur of bizui talmidei chachamim contingent on agreement with their halachic opinions, though I'm sure many have tried to be metaher that sheretz. Worse still, by allowing the use of ad hominem and insults against Rabbis one doesn't like, the more stringent sections of the Orthodox community are burning whatever bridges of common dialogue remain between them and the 'insufficiently frum' crowd. Nay, it undercuts the very fabric of halachic dialogue and 'friendly disagreement' on which I believe normative Orthdox Judaism rests. Otherwise we are no different than the various murderous sects of tzadikim the Netziv lamented in his intro to Sefer Bereishit. It pains me immensely that it has come to this.

I don't care what your opinion is on heter mechira, kashrut, or whatever halachic issue gets your goat. You have an unequivocal halachic obligation to respect the authority and person of Rabbis who hold differently. Otherwise, you're not much different from the thugs who attacked Rav Herzog - in other words, you're just a common self-important bully.

Checkmate

The reviewer of Foreign Affairs wipes the floor with Mearsheimer and Walt. Well worth the read. (Hat Tip: Martin Kramer)

The Silent Demon: OCD and Orthodoxy

We walk among you. Most of us are normal people, many are quite intelligent. You may know us as very hard workers. Perhaps you think that we are "perfectionists" when it comes to cleaning or doing work, or that we worry excessively over what appear to be insignificant issues. What binds us all is an overwhelming, often emotionally paralyzing fear of having done something wrong by omission or commission (leaving a place dirty, not knowing whether we locked the house) as well as a ritualistic need to repeat actions over and over again until we're "sure" the problem has gone away. But the fear and the need always come back, often the second we finish our ritual.

What we all share is a biological-psychological disorder known as obsessive-compulsive disorder or OCD. I'm sure you've heard of this illness in the past. You may have thought it a funny or strange quirk, one of those quaint neuroses we suffer from in the modern world. Nothing could be further from the truth. OCD is hell repeating itself over and over again on a daily, nay hourly, nay sometimes even minute-to-minute basis. Whatever our "quirk" is, it paralyzes us, takes up an increasing amount of our time, and if not checked, can consume our entire life. What's worse is that many of us are ashamed of it or don't even realize that we have a sickness, since we mistake our problem (cleanliness, order) for the cause of our anxiety rather than just the disease's "excuse" for torturing us. We're very good at hiding it too, making a compulsion seem just like slightly excessive diligence.

All of which brings me to the issue of the relationship between OCD and the 'humra' mentality of many yeshivot and Orthodox communities. What I say here is based primarily on my own experience and knowledge, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were true elsewhere.

Imagine the following scenario: A new yeshiva student comes at Zman Elul and is immediately immersed in rabbinic speeches about the need to do teshuva, to change. His natural zeal to change now becomes an overwhelming fear when he realizes just how many things he's doing wrong, certainly by the ridiculously high standards he set himself and which are encouraged in the strict yeshiva world. All of a sudden he doubts himself with every action he takes - always not sure whether he said the right words at davening, always thinking that he did a sin with every move he made, or that he wasn't makpid enough or mahmir enough. Every clearly minority opinion in halakha in the mahmir direction forces him to go even further, shema that opinion is right. Eventually he simply breaks down in davening after imagining himself committing the worst sin he could think of at the time. Or perhaps, instead of just thinking and worrying excessively, he moves to compulsive activities, such as repeated fasts, mikve bathing or tefilot and acts of crying and self-flagellation.

I myself was fortunate to have a RM who was aware of dangers such as these, and helped to calm me down and take things slowly. Whenever I had a ridiculous question on halakha, he knew to answer me patiently and allay my fears. Eventually I learned of my condition and have adapted myself accordingly. I deliberately avoid the study of halakhas that would encourage crazy thoughts (such as hilkhot hanhagat haboker, nedarim etc), at least not without the oversight of someone knowledgeable enough to put things in perspective for me. Thanks to a lot of hard work, I have started to actually enjoy mitzvot and mo'adim, instead of spending every waking second thinking about what I might have done wrong.

I highly doubt there is such awareness of this problem in many of the orthodox communities and yeshivot, especially, but not exclusively, the more "right-wing" ones, where religious stringency is the norm. I have no doubt that Hanokh Daum's book on the subject, regardless of his motivations, contains a great deal more than a grain of truth when it comes to the sufferings of OCD Orthodox Jews in the "total" atmosphere that is yeshivah. For us, religion becomes a hell of emotional torture, instead of the multifaceted experience, which should include happiness and contentment alongside periods of fasting and sorrow, which I believe Judaism to be.

We walk among you. We could be your fellow hevruta or student, a neighbour or a relative. For years we have suffered terribly without you noticing. Now it is time that you look for, and listen to, our desperate cry for help.

Ahh, sweet schadenfreude!

There are few things more entertaining than watching the radical secular looney-left folks at "the newspaper for thinking people", Haaretz, tear each other apart. It seems all the hard-core secularists (scroll down for the vituperative stuff) are up in arms over a critique of a five-volume encyclopedia of post-emancipation Jewry which focuses almost exclusively on secular Judaism and Jews, by a radical post-Zionist, no less. This post-zionist critiques the book for not having Mizrahi Jews or women on the writing staff, and is a bit miffed at the lack of mention of religion in this massive encyclopedia.

Now, I have not seen the encyclopedia myself, but if this very perceptive critique by an author I read and respect has any truth to it, then not only is the encyclopedia essentially a WASP-ish (White Ashkenazi Secular Protectionist) endeavor meant for other WASPs, but much of it sounds like a souped-up version of those who-is-a Jew books that include people who were Jewish by accident of birth and no more. More importantly, the encyclopedia apparently has removed anyone who was not a die-hard secular atheist liberal - this would remove almost all of the great "Jewish" thinkers of the age, regardless of how they defined their religiosity.

After years of us religious folk having to defend ourselves against the attacks of these ideological die-hards, it's nice to see them suffer the same fate, and on the pages of their "in-house" newspaper yet. Ken Yirbu.

Attention, up-and-coming Israeli Graduate Students: WE ARE SCREWED!

One of the most common questions I get asked when I mention my field of study (Contemporary Jewry), aside from "what is that?" is "what are you going to do with that"? To tell the truth I haven't given it much thought. I entered the subject of history because I like it and because I'm good at it. I always figured I could lnd a job at a think tank, teach, do research, or if those don't work, then try translating or editing. Still, I've always wanted to be Prof. Higgins' definition of a happy person - making a living from my "hobby".

Recently I received the equivalent of a sudden dunk in a bucket of ice water. A recent study found that the amount of Israelis with higher education finding work in their chosen fields is quite low. Not only that, but the amount of tenured faculty in Israel has essentially been frozen even though thousands of students graduate with higher degrees every year. This is not even mentioning the tenure process in Israel, an over-beauracratized, top-secret and convoluted matter which can lead to decisions based on, among other things, "academic politics". Needless to say, I am not optimistic about my future, and I am seriously considering a career change if things don't start looking up.

If anyone has any suggestions to improve the situation, I'm all ears.

Internet Dating for Dummy Jews like Myself

1. It's not personal. Really - when I make contact with someone else or vice versa, we are just two cards on a screen at first. Rejection simply means I or my opposite number decided that two random cards out of thousands don't match.
2. Corollary to the above: We all have a sense of humour and a love of life (or some other generic meaningless trait). You need to stand out to get noticed. For instance, you can tell a joke to prove your humour, or perhaps tell something quirky or interesting about yourself that isn't on the "traits" list.
3. Pictures are not a negotiable item. They increase exponentially the chance of you getting noticed. Conversely, items with no pictures will be skipped over quite often. Few of us like "blind dates", so don't expect people to take that chance on the net.
4. Corollary to the above (3): In your picture, you should smile friendly-like. Nothing is more off-putting than a bland serial-killer style stare at the camera. Also, choose your picture wisely - not too artificial looking, but still nice.
5. When you address someone, do so directly - in the second person ("you"). Don't write some general statement about how nice marriage is or send holiday greetings. We simple folk prefer direct communication over oblique hints.
6. If you don't like someone, have the decency to say so. There are few things more agonizing than sending a message to someone and never receiving even a formal response.

If anyone has anything to add to this list, I'm all ears.

Torn, Part II: On Being a Failure

Last year, I started a journal to express my anxieties and dillemas as a religious Jew learning in a university. Now that the new academic year is coming around, I have decided to try and renew this journal with the hope of expanding on the points I made in the introductory post.

I made mention in the introduction of my conversation with my RM (teacher) in yeshiva. There I complained of adjustment difficulties and keeping myself busy all the time. Finding hevrutas was very difficult, and I just did not succeed in filling up every seder with activity. Even more frustrating was what I felt to be a lag in my learning abilities. Try though I might, I rarely succeeded in finishing all the sources in the mar'e mekomot, and I always felt that everyone else understood everything and could keep up, while I was forever behind. My RM wisely suggested that I start studying some courses at University, a path that I would begin to take a year later.

Still, my failure to be able to last more than a year really smarted. My attempts to study in the BIU kollel were similiarly doomed to failure. In the easy class I was bored; in the challenging classes I couldn't make any headway. In the end, I just gave up, a veritable reject. It turns out I'm not the only one. From what I have heard, yeshiva students who decide to go to university rather than stay on were seen for many years, and saw themselves, as failures. Even though this perception is beginning to change, the amount of prepapration of yeshiva students for university is still lacking. Nothing resembling the corpus of the 'Torah U-Madda' ethos in America exists here.

So here I am, a guy who couldn't cut it in yeshiva now plowing his way through the dangerous minefield of Academic Judaism (more on that in the next post). The real question is, am I a failure, a grade-B Jew? Am I doomed to be considered inferior in two worlds - the yehsivish for not being able to learn, and in the academic for being frum?

If anyone has any answers, I'm all ears.

To Rectify an Historic Injustice (on Rav Goren)

As we approach the Day of Judgement, I would like to take this opportunity to adress a major injustice done to one of the major Rabbinic thinkers and activists in the State of Israel - Rabbi Shlomo Goronchik (Goren) (1918-1994), Chief Rabbi of the IDF from 1948-1967; of Tel Aviv from 1968-1972; and of the State of Israel from 1972-1983. Rav Goren was a highly prolific and original thinker, both in terms of halakha and general thought. He almost singlehandedly established the IDF Chief Rabbinate and helped turn it into an institution that positively affected not just religious Jews but all Jews in the army (indeed, the IDF Rabbinate's authority declined when he left).

His contribution to the subject of halakha and war, in all its aspects, is so large that it is simply impossible to mention the subject of war and religious Jewish thought without mentioning him. A highly public figure, he aroused considerable controversy (such as when he suggested blowing up the Muslim buildings on the Temple Mount) and demonstrated halakhic backbone - for instance, when he was matir the agunot of the Israeli sailors who died at sea, such as the members of the submarine Dakar. He left behind an impressive literary corpus (link includes only some his post-humously published writings) on virtually every subject regarding Jewish law and thought.

Yet, a review of the scholarly literature published in Israel on religious-Zionist thought finds almost no reference to Rav Goren. Thinkers and authorities from all ends of the religious spectrum - from the Rav Kook school to the Kibbutz Hadati and beyond, has been given due scholarly treatment. Relatively marginal figures (for their time) such as Rav Hayim Hirschenzon, as well as oppositional thinkers such as Yeshayahu Leibowitz and Eliezer Goldman have entire books and collections of essays analyzing their work and thought.

And Rav Goren? A footnote here, a short mention there, if we're lucky enough. True, he has been the subject of a popular biography and a few, very recent, articles by Dr. Aryeh Edrei of Tel Aviv University. A PhD Thesis is presently being written in Bar Ilan on the IDF Chief Rabbinate that will undoubtably discuss his contribution to the same. Still, even if we were to dig deep for scholarship and study of Rav Goren, we would still come up with a mere fraction of the attention given to others. A man who dedicated his life to the Jewish people, who was publicly involved in so many fields of thought and halakha, now seems doomed to endure the ultimate insult - that of being ignored and ultimately forgotten. I believe that those of us in the field of Jewish Studies have a moral responsibility to ensure that this does not happen. At the very least, we owe him the courtesy of acknowledgement.

On the Matter of Bagatz VS. Katzav

I'm sure you've all heard of Bagatz's decision to suspend the plea bargain with Moshe Katzav. In all likelihood, given the temprament of the court and the media circus, the arrangement will be overturned. While many are exulting at this reversal, I belive that Bagatz's present policy is nothing short of a disaster. This has nothing to do with the specific case of Katzav himself. If he really is guilty of the charges, then I would like nothing more than to see him put in a jail cell alongside a very lonely 300-pound prisoner named Bubba, or the Israeli equivalent, for the rest of his natural life.

So what's the problem, you may ask? There are many, actually, but I will focus in this post on one immediate issue - plea bargains. The overwhelming majority of criminal convictions in this country are based on plea bargains of one kind or another. Only a small percentage of cases actually see the inside of a courtroom. Even so, the judicial system suffers from backlog and there is a lack of judges.

Now imagine that Katzav's plea bargain is overturned. The judges can claim that it was an exceptional ruling from now till Doomsday - once the precedent has been set, there will be no turning back. Every bereaved family member or two-bit politico with a grudge can apply to have cases re-opened or the thousands of pleas arrived at each year examined. As a result, there will be fewer pleas, fewer "deals" to get at least partial justice or catch criminal fish higher up the ladder. Thousands of cases will result not in pleas, since the defendants aren't going to sign agreements that could easily be overturned. Many cases which could have had some good results will be thrown out, many other will reach the courtroom. Trials will take years longer to be resolved, if ever.

In its effort to achieve absolute "justicity" over every facet of administration in this country, Bagatz will end up paralyzing the justice system. Bagatz would have done well to take a cue from Moses, who realized that even he could not handle every single complaint. As for the "lynch-mob" public enthusiastically endorsing a Bagatz reversal, I would advise: "Be careful what you wish for...you just might get it".

Man Bites Dog

Tom Segev, hardly a Zionist, gives Avrum Burg's screed a good thrashing (in Hebrew). Well worth the read.