NYT Article (10/8)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/nyregion/08birthright.html?em&ex=1191988800&en=0c15c58660b1eb91&ei=5087

Un-be-liev-a-ble. I certainly have read much stronger articles regarding Taglit than this. I could yawn at this because the author seemed to miss his point entirely and should've aligned it differently. Okay, so that woman returned to Israel- what did she do? Big deal about hanging out at Steinhardt's mansion for a cocktail. *insert sarcasm* Did he asked the tatooed woman when she did get that Star of David tattoo and why? The journalist obviously didn't bother to include revealing details about how these interviewees' lives were altered by their birthright trip.

If a careful reader also saw the article in Section A about religion and farming in Israel, she might disregard Santos' birthright article in the Metro section (B). Honestly, what is NYT trying to aim here? You've got the religious/farmers controversy revealing that Jerusalem is the "poorest" city in Israel (certainly not the housing market) and the haredim refusing to buy Jewish-grown produce on Jewish-owned land and will only buy imported produce from the Gaza and West Bank by the Palestinians. You've got the head rabbis locked in a debate over what to do about the double/triple costs of the produce. Lawyers are busy negotiating contracts so that Jewish farmers don't actually own the land but will get them back within a year. It certainly also reveals how Jerusalem is heading more to the right as even the market down in secular Emek Refaim buying produce grown by gentiles. (Course, what could he do?) For many of the haredim, they're willing to be dirt poor as church mice (or is it temple mice?) over saving a couple of sheklim.

So back to Santos' article, do the kids on birthright trips know about this? No. I've seen a couple of travel plans for different trips and they don't really address much to the domestic issues. I remember the major issues of my birthright trip: a reporter from J-Post talking about disengagement in 2005, the soldiers about the Army, kibbutz and history lectures, and "what it means to be Jewish" group discussions. The birthright trips certainly are double-edged. On one hand, they're exposing young Jews to Judaism through travel to a Jewish state to experience the "comfort" feeling of being the majority. That's the aim really. On the other hand, if the foundation is going to make a huge investment in Israel, they should give back by educating the participants about the domestic issues affecting Israel as a state. It's not just the Arabs threatened to destroy Israel's democracy but also the factions inside Israel who don't believe in a Zionist state too. They're essentially harming the government and economy with their fanatic religious beliefs and unwillingness to serve the state as citizens by paying reasonable taxes and serving in the Army.

Nowadays, Israel is not a Disney World for the Jews. The best way to bring back the magic is if you can explore every ups and downs of every ride that makes the world go round. In other ways, adapt to the culture there- it's not what you think. I wouldn't go as far comparing this to the Stepford Wives.....