In covering political events as well as those of national importance, the media engages, perforce, in a mutual feeding/digesting phenomenon.  At the heart of the political news arena is public relations people pushing their stories while the media search for “commodifiable soundbites”.  While we usually are concerned with issues such as were all media sources being employed in producing the news about the Gilad Schalit campaign, was the public being provided with the full picture and what was neglected, there was a surprise when it was all over?

Almost unprecedentedly, as soon as solider Gilad crossed over from Hamas captivity, multiple media outlets - establishment as well as independent - indulged in an introspection fanfare that has been rare in Israel.

Nir Wolf of Israel Hayom focused on the assistance of the PR firm that Noam Schalit employed and whose main contribution was turning the soldier into "everyone's son" and in doing so, engaged in image castration.  Rationality was purposely ignored.  Channel One TV’s Ayala Chason admitted that the terminology such as 'the son of all of us' or 'the child' and not 'the soldier' pointed to a media bias “to elicit juicier emotions”.  What resulted was a symbol that was no longer the brave warrior defending the homeland but a tender child (which he may be) that needed our comfort and concern. 

The media willingly subverted not only the reality of the situation but perverted the consciousness of the price to be paid and the future that awaits us all.  Martin  Sherman described the press actions as “puerile, perverse and perfidious” and Caroline Glick insists that the “media are the strongest force in Israeli society” because they are “ideologically uniform” and act as a pack.  It was another full mobilization.

The media surrendered to emotion was the theme of Raviv Drucker’s analysis.  He added that, in doing so, the nation was “damaged”.  After the fact, he informs us that “the media went bankrupt…behaved emotionally, crazily and irrationally…It was psychosis.”

Involved in the PR effort, Tammy Shinkman defined her “codes of communication” as “the empowerment of emotions”.  Her strategy was to succeed in forging an empathy with the fear that anyone’s “child could leave and never return…You get a response when you reveal a personal side.”  As Glick phrased it: by choosing sides, the media ensured no substantive public debate.  The media was not only acting undemocratically but, combined with what she calls the “complicity” of the security services, we had a press putsch.  The personal undermined the public’s values.

There was, however, one very prominent incident which caused even Israel’s ‘lay-down-and-run-all-over-me’ media to get upset against the media; the Egyptian media, that is.  The short interview conducted by newswoman Shahira Amin for Egyptian TV released a torrent of criticism from the Israeli media.  This is rather puzzling, given the behavior of Israeli media in many other instances where an object of interest is near trampled, literally as well as figuratively, badgered, hounded and otherwise pilloried with no concern or respect.  While the ten minute interview was ethically outrageous and painful, despite claims that they were “a new low point in the media’s need for instant gratification regardless of the cost”, another low point was the pit-bull reactions to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s media presence.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was satirically mocked for his appearing in the photographs when Noam, Gilad’s father, first greeted his son.  Taken by the Government Press Office, they were, undeniably, publicity shots.  But Netanyahu’s political foes went berserk. Haaretz’s Yoram Melzer employed a near-expletive.  For Yedioth Ahronoth’s Ariana Melamed it was a “media circus” which was, to her taste, “nauseating and completely staged.” Guy Pines of Channel 10 TV was upset that Netanyahu used the pronoun “I” 37 times in his count.  The Photoshop computer program was used to create pictures of Netanyahu at the 1979 White House Peace Treaty signing, comparing him to the Forest Gump film character.

What should not be ignored were the media maneuvers of Hamas.  In October 2009, they released a 'proof of life' video – for which 20 female prisoners were set free, - showing him relatively healthy and coherent.  A second Hamas clip from April 2010, portrayed in devastating fashion, his father Noam wandering aimlessly down the years and getting visibly older and depicted an Israeli soldier who was abducted by the terrorist group in Gaza nearly four years ago, being returned to his father in Israel in a coffin.

Oddly, given the media hype about that video, the fact that Schalit was to be released without any further up-to-date film proof of his state of health and even life was indicative that the media had taken a decision to reduce as much as possible any matter that could interfere with the story line: Gilad is coming home.

At Pajama’s Media, Jonathan Speyer, in acknowledging that “Israel’s response does not typify that of Western democracies”, suggests that as a Western democracy, Israel “is forced by circumstance to require from its citizens a…willingness to sacrifice [more] than any comparable society. The result is a curious and possibly dysfunctional version of communal concern”.

The force of circumstance that is applied, of course, is done so by the media.  It amplifies opinions held by a minority, thrusts to the fore its own editorial bias and skews the reality by omission, by unfair and unbalanced presentation.  Instead of identifying with the threats of terror, war and hostility, the media adopted the imagery spoon-fed it: save the child. 

Moreover, the media guided the public’s interest in one direction. Benny Katz of the Semitic Action movement pointed out that “Not once did the media legitimize the option of an Entebbe-style rescue or the execution of Hamas prisoners until Gilad is free… it was all about Israel submitting to Hamas demands”.  According to Dror Eydar in Israel Hayom, the media had been engaged in the aestheticization of politics until a “shackled mutednes that was imposed on the public debate was lifted” and “suddenly, the media started to do its job…only after the details of the deal were ironed out”. 

In the end, the question of the media's involvement devolves to whether it was acting professionally, which was doubtful, and does the media feel any communal or national responsibility? 

Uzi Benjamin is sure, as he wrote in The Seventh Eye, that with the power-press-public axis as it is, there is no chance of the media acting different in the future. 

That is very bad news.

In covering political events as well as those of national importance, the media engages, perforce, in a mutual feeding/digesting phenomenon.  At the heart of the political news arena is public relations people pushing their stories while the media search for “commodifiable soundbites”.  While we usually are concerned with issues such as were all media sources being employed in producing the news about the Gilad Schalit campaign, was the public being provided with the full picture and what was neglected, there was a surprise when it was all over?

Almost unprecedentedly, as soon as solider Gilad crossed over from Hamas captivity, multiple media outlets - establishment as well as independent - indulged in an introspection fanfare that has been rare in Israel.

Nir Wolf of Israel Hayom focused on the assistance of the PR firm that Noam Schalit employed and whose main contribution was turning the soldier into "everyone's son" and in doing so, engaged in image castration.  Rationality was purposely ignored.  Channel One TV’s Ayala Chason admitted that the terminology such as 'the son of all of us' or 'the child' and not 'the soldier' pointed to a media bias “to elicit juicier emotions”.  What resulted was a symbol that was no longer the brave warrior defending the homeland but a tender child (which he may be) that needed our comfort and concern. 

The media willingly subverted not only the reality of the situation but perverted the consciousness of the price to be paid and the future that awaits us all.  Martin  Sherman described the press actions as “puerile, perverse and perfidious” and Caroline Glick insists that the “media are the strongest force in Israeli society” because they are “ideologically uniform” and act as a pack.  It was another full mobilization.

The media surrendered to emotion was the theme of Raviv Drucker’s analysis.  He added that, in doing so, the nation was “damaged”.  After the fact, he informs us that “the media went bankrupt…behaved emotionally, crazily and irrationally…It was psychosis.”

Involved in the PR effort, Tammy Shinkman defined her “codes of communication” as “the empowerment of emotions”.  Her strategy was to succeed in forging an empathy with the fear that anyone’s “child could leave and never return…You get a response when you reveal a personal side.”  As Glick phrased it: by choosing sides, the media ensured no substantive public debate.  The media was not only acting undemocratically but, combined with what she calls the “complicity” of the security services, we had a press putsch.  The personal undermined the public’s values.

There was, however, one very prominent incident which caused even Israel’s ‘lay-down-and-run-all-over-me’ media to get upset against the media; the Egyptian media, that is.  The short interview conducted by newswoman Shahira Amin for Egyptian TV released a torrent of criticism from the Israeli media.  This is rather puzzling, given the behavior of Israeli media in many other instances where an object of interest is near trampled, literally as well as figuratively, badgered, hounded and otherwise pilloried with no concern or respect.  While the ten minute interview was ethically outrageous and painful, despite claims that they were “a new low point in the media’s need for instant gratification regardless of the cost”, another low point was the pit-bull reactions to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s media presence.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was satirically mocked for his appearing in the photographs when Noam, Gilad’s father, first greeted his son.  Taken by the Government Press Office, they were, undeniably, publicity shots.  But Netanyahu’s political foes went berserk. Haaretz’s Yoram Melzer employed a near-expletive.  For Yedioth Ahronoth’s Ariana Melamed it was a “media circus” which was, to her taste, “nauseating and completely staged.” Guy Pines of Channel 10 TV was upset that Netanyahu used the pronoun “I” 37 times in his count.  The Photoshop computer program was used to create pictures of Netanyahu at the 1979 White House Peace Treaty signing, comparing him to the Forest Gump film character.

What should not be ignored were the media maneuvers of Hamas.  In October 2009, they released a 'proof of life' video – for which 20 female prisoners were set free, - showing him relatively healthy and coherent.  A second Hamas clip from April 2010, portrayed in devastating fashion, his father Noam wandering aimlessly down the years and getting visibly older and depicted an Israeli soldier who was abducted by the terrorist group in Gaza nearly four years ago, being returned to his father in Israel in a coffin.

Oddly, given the media hype about that video, the fact that Schalit was to be released without any further up-to-date film proof of his state of health and even life was indicative that the media had taken a decision to reduce as much as possible any matter that could interfere with the story line: Gilad is coming home.

At Pajama’s Media, Jonathan Speyer, in acknowledging that “Israel’s response does not typify that of Western democracies”, suggests that as a Western democracy, Israel “is forced by circumstance to require from its citizens a…willingness to sacrifice [more] than any comparable society. The result is a curious and possibly dysfunctional version of communal concern”.

The force of circumstance that is applied, of course, is done so by the media.  It amplifies opinions held by a minority, thrusts to the fore its own editorial bias and skews the reality by omission, by unfair and unbalanced presentation.  Instead of identifying with the threats of terror, war and hostility, the media adopted the imagery spoon-fed it: save the child. 

Moreover, the media guided the public’s interest in one direction. Benny Katz of the Semitic Action movement pointed out that “Not once did the media legitimize the option of an Entebbe-style rescue or the execution of Hamas prisoners until Gilad is free… it was all about Israel submitting to Hamas demands”.  According to Dror Eydar in Israel Hayom, the media had been engaged in the aestheticization of politics until a “shackled mutednes that was imposed on the public debate was lifted” and “suddenly, the media started to do its job…only after the details of the deal were ironed out”. 

In the end, the question of the media's involvement devolves to whether it was acting professionally, which was doubtful, and does the media feel any communal or national responsibility? 

Uzi Benjamin is sure, as he wrote in The Seventh Eye, that with the power-press-public axis as it is, there is no chance of the media acting different in the future. 

That is very bad news.

In reading this article here at the news site, I became inquisitive and researched the court's judgments.

In a March High Court of Justice decision rendered by the President of the Supreme Court, Dorit Beinisch, and signed on by Judeges Gronis and Fogelman, the conclusion permitted the security barrier's location near and/or on Walaja village land and here is a key phrase:

בבית המשפט העליון בשבתו כבית משפט גבוה לצדק
בג"ץ 146/11

 בנסיבות אלה, ובשים לב לקביעותינו בפסק הדין בעניין הכפר וולג'ה באשר לתוואי המעודכן, נחה דעתנו כי המפקד הצבאי נתן דעתו למכלול השיקולים הרלוונטיים לקביעת תוואי גדר הביטחון נשוא העתירה, תוך שהוא מאזן באופן סביר ומידתי בין שלושת אלה: שיקולי ביטחון; החובה לשמור על זכויותיה וצרכיה של האוכלוסייה הפלסטינית; וכן שיקולים שעניינם הגנה

על זכויותיה הנטענות של העותרת

In translation:

"In these circumstances, and with our fixtures regarding the updated route as regards Walaja village, our mind is at ease that the Military Commander has paid proper attention to the varied relevant considerations in connection with fixing the route of the security barrier the subject of this appeal, in that he has balanced within a reasonable and measured manner between these three: the concerns of overall security; the obligation to protect the rights and needs of the Palestinian populace; as well as the protection of the [private and personal] rights claimed by the appellant...

safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

Moreover, Article 5, actually demands that

The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power.

The judges should simply write "Arabs".  That would be quite democratic.

^

Yes, lamb.  And no broken limbs.

The lamb I am referring to is the Paschal Offering, commanded four times commanded in the Bible and the sole Temple Sacrifice that is totally dedicated to be eaten - not by the Kohanim but by those who have dedicated the lamb, or the goat, for the explicit purpose of the sacrifice and by those who have committed themselves to be part of the family seder unit (chavurah) on the festival night..  As reported, an initiative to raise the awareness of the centrality of the Paschal sacrifice is gaining momentum and even Hareidi Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky supports the project of arranging a possible korban pesach to be ready for this Passover, and encourages people to sign up and join a chavura.  The Chief Rabbi of Safed Shmuel Eliyahu has explained that it is possible to

work out the implementation of the biblical commandment of the Passover Sacrifice in cooperation with all religious, legal, and administrative authorities. Current proposals do not require any…Just as circumcision, the first commandment imposed on an individual Jew, our forefather Abraham brought us into the covenant as individuals, the commandment of Korban-Pesach, the first commandment imposed on the Jewish People as a collective - obligating men, women and even children - brings us into the covenant as a People.

This is, to be sure, a radical approach.  It realigns the conceptualization of Zionism from one predicated on “saving” Jewish lives or for the Jewish people to be “as all the nations” to one that facilitates the fulfillment of the potential of the Jewish people as a Covenantal Nation, a term promoted by Prof. Harold Fisch.  He was providing an understanding of the revolutionary reordering of the direction of Zionism propagated by Gush Emunim.   Yes, this could be considered almost as a subversive paradigm of action which could attract both Hareidi objections to this new form of Zionism as a ‘revolt against God’ as well as to the secular presumptions that view redemptive restoration theology as a revolt against humanism and simplistic nationalism.  That Mount Moriyah, site of the Temple Mount – Har HaBayit – would become a focal point of emotion and patriotism is for both groups nigh anathema if not quite unsettling.

Back in 2008, Israel's leading ultra-Orthodox rabbis were waging a renewed offensive against Jews visiting Jerusalem's Temple Mount, the first stage in a reawakening of the Jewish people's relationship with the element of sanctity and promoting a Temple-oriented outlook. It was a visit by Rabbi Moshe Tendler, the son-in-law of prominent Halachic decisor, the late sage Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, seems to have stirred things up although opposition from Rabbinuical quarters is not new (see here and here).

*    *    *

 
The investigation of the delineations of the Temple Mount and the various other complex issues has made significant strides over the past four decades since Har HaBayit was returned to Jewish sovereignty.   Even English-language articles have been published.  Ari Z. Zivotofsky’s piece, What’s the Truth About…Har HaBayit? clarifies (and see pictures here) that

…although we currently lack the means to remove tumat met [impurity through contact with the dead], this is not really a deterrent for ascending Har HaBayit. Those who refrain from ascending do so because of other halachic or political concerns or because of archeological uncertainties…Those who forbid entering the area do so because of the fear of violating the laws pertaining to its sanctity. Advocates insist on extreme caution and intense reverence, but see a value in establishing a connection between the Jewish people and the awesome holiness of Judaism’s most sanctified site.

Another two authors, Gedalia Meyer and Henoch Messner, published Entering the Temple Mount—in Halacha and Jewish History and assert that

those who choose to enter Har Habayis under the guidance of an experienced and knowledgeable Guide…should keep in mind that entering Har Habayis is not another stop on the tourist trail in Israel…Entering Har Habayis is to pray in the holiest spot on the earth. It offers a unique opportunity to experience an awareness of Hashem that may not be attainable elsewhere...

and they continueL

it would seem reasonable to say that now more than ever there is a dire need to demonstrate Jewish sovereignty over the Temple Mount. During the Camp David negotiations, the Israeli government came within a hairsbreadth of relinquishing sovereignty to the Arabs. With pressure on Israel only mounting as the years go by to compromise more and more, we have to assume the Temple Mount will soon be on the table again to sweeten any deal. If Jews do not show their bond to the area by regularly entering it and holding it to be at least as essential to their religion as the Muslims do to theirs, why should any Israeli or foreign negotiators value it as sacred and non-negotiable? This political element, which may very well encompass the mitzvah of Kibush Haaretz, is all too frequently ignored in the never-ending debate about entering Har Habayis.

This is not an exclusive concern of the Orthodox stream.  Rabbi Reuven Hammer authored the Conservative Movement’s Responsum “Entering the Temple Mount In Our Time” and decided that many authorities were overly stringent, and that it is permissible to enter part of the Temple Mount in our time. This approach is based on the following:

1) …even if halakhah is according to Maimonides, there are a number of reasons to permit entry into a part of the Temple Mount.
2) It is known that from the Tannaitic period and at least until the fifteenth century, there were Jews who entered and even prayed on the Temple Mount.
3) As was stated above, the prohibition of the entrance of a t'mey met pertains only to the area of the Heil, the Ezrat Nashim and the Ezrat Israel, and not to the entire Temple Mount. Thus if we can determine the originally sanctified area of the Temple on today's Temple Mount, we can determine where one can enter.

…Most Rabbis and archaeologists agree on two main points: A) The area of the Temple Mount in our days is much larger than the one described by the Mishnah and Josephus. The southern part and the northern part (north of the elevated area of the Mosque of Omar) were added by King Herod, and are not part of the sanctified area. B) The rock situated under the Mosque of Omar (Dome of the Rock) is the "Foundation Stone" which stood under the Holy of Holies. Therefore it is permissible to enter the southern part of the Temple Mount, near the mosque of El Aksa, and the northern part, north of the elevated area of the Mosque of Omar…Therefore it is preferable not to enter the elevated area around the Mosque of Omar at all.

In the west, one should remain close to the Western Wall, in order to avoid the area of the Holy of Holies. In the east, one should stay close to the eastern side to avoid the Heil and the Ezrat Nashim.

A rich collection of scholarly articles favoring entry is at The Temple Institute site including this simple guide for those who ascend. There is even a scientific approach based on geophysics (for my own previous opinions, see here and here and here, among others.     

 
*    *    *

Let us return to the eve of Pesach of this year.  There is no reason not to be engaged, with your family and relatives and friends in this 'raising of the consciousness' of the theme of the centrality of the Temple Mount and its significance for the ethos of the Jewish people, Thousands of Jews ascend the Mount as a religious act these days.  As Police Commander Avi Roif testified before the Knesset’s Interior Committee (in Hebrew) on March 29, this past 2010 saw a rise of 7% in the amount of Jews visiting the temple Mount in comparison to 2009 (over all, there was a 36% increase in visitors of all types).

I might be going out on a limb but that lamb offering is not too far in the future, with or without the rebuilt Temple, with or without the High Court of Justice.  This year, in addition to the matzah, the maror and the Seder, give thought to the lamb.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was “shocked and deeply saddened” when she learned about the murders in Itamar. She announced:

The United States condemns this appalling attack in the strongest possible terms. To kill three innocent children and their parents while they sleep is an inhuman crime for which there can be no justification.

She did not use the term “illegitimate” or “corrosive” which she employed previously to describe what those five civilians were doing with their lives: residing in a Jewish community beyond the Green Line. 

What does Mrs. Clinton presume Arabs would think, and then do, if they hear the words she utters?  Does she not grasp her language influence?  Does she not think that an Arab would assume he has a license to kill?

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu announced the authorization of construction of hundreds of new housing units in Judea and Samaria, in a visit to the families sitting shiva for those murdered Jews of Itamar said: “they murder, we build” and the US State Department which Mrs. Clinton heads then let loose another volley of verbal abuse, calling "settlement activity" 'illegitimate'  and that construction therein runs counter efforts to resume Middle East peace negotiations.  The State Department was "deeply concerned by continuing Israeli actions with respect to settlements in the West Bank."

And the statement, also issued by the US Tel Aviv Embassy (which the US refuses to move to Jerusalem despite a Congressional directive) continued:

Israeli settlements are illegitimate and run counter to efforts to resume direct negotiations...through good faith direct negotiations, the parties should mutually agree on an outcome that realizes the aspirations of both parties.

The statement stressed that “the continued peace-talks stalemate injured both parties" and that "the lack of a resolution to this conflict harms Israel, harms the Palestinians, and harms the interests of the United States and the international community.”  That is dangerous language.  Harms?

It appears obvious that the United States in now justifying, in principle, that attack.  If the Arab side is “injured,” if the Arabs of the former Mandate of Palestine territory are “harmed”, if the right of Jews to reside in their national homeland is “illegitimate” and runs “counter” to peace efforts, what do you think an Arab, educated in the hate-filled incitement-generated atmosphere of the Palestinian Authority with its anti-Semitic mosque sermons, is assuming and concluding?

And if agency reports, along with many other mainstream media outlets, including the Washington Post, continue to call the persons who slaughtered the Fogel family members as “militants”, then terror becomes irrelevant as a moral issue simply because the media assures it doesn’t exist.  Terror is a term that is excluded from public discourse and so the Arabs get, as it were, a free ride to kill, to slaughter, to destroy.  A new value system is in place.

In the fixation centered on the Jewish communities in Yesha while avoiding Arab violence, the media will overlook all items as the story that Hamas was planning to murder Israelis, take their bodies and then 'negotiate' their return to Israel which appeared a day before the Itamar terror attack.

It is terror that is illegitimate just as the Pal. Authority incitement is illegitimate.  And what is especially "corrosive" is an American Administration policy that cannot but appear to encourage Arab obstinacy and even provide succor for violence against Jews.