The gloves are on for Israeli boxers
Filed under: coexistence, History and Culture, Israeliness, Profiles, Sports, War
The Philadephia Daily News recently ran a compelling profile of international Israeli boxers Ran Nakash (pictured) and Elad Shmouel.
The main thrust of the piece is that being raised in the Middle East makes one a particularly hard brand of badass, making Israel an emerging source for fighting talent:
“Israel is becoming what Russia was 10 years ago when the Klitschkos [current heavyweight titlists Vitali and Wladimir] were starting out,” said [matchmaker Don] Elbaum, who believes Nakash will fight for some version of a world championship before too long. “In the next couple of years, I think you’ll see an exodus of incredible boxing talent coming out of Israel.”
Some of the piece’s hyped-out tone is grounded in hyperbole (calling Israel “an area where to end any day alive qualifies as a small triumph” might be a bit of a stretch), but overall, these two guys do come off as seriously dangerous. Shmouel speaks about how his experiences witnessing a suicide bomb attack in a shopping mall when he was in his teens have made him tough. Nakash maintains a successful career as a Krav Maga instructor for the IDF.
And they discuss their impressions of the recent Gaza war and assess the prospects for real regional peace. But politics and punching prowess aside, what’s life in Israel really like?
Shmouel, who recently concluded his mandatory 3-year military service obligation as a first sergeant, said many Americans can’t begin to fathom the reality of the Middle East situation from what they see on television.
“You have to experience it to understand,” Shmouel said. “You have to be there. It would change people’s perspective, that’s for sure.”
CNN scents ISRAEL21c flower story
CNN World Report this week broadcast Molly Livingstone’s excellent piece for ISRAEL21c on floral scent research at Hebrew University.
How ’bout those apples?
Just wanted to make sure you all caught that news item about Israel resuming its regular export of Golan Heights-grown apples to Syria. The idea is to allow Israeli Druze farmers in the Golan Heights — the controversial northern region of Israel that was wrested from Syrian control in 1967 — to market one of their main crops in Syria.
The Druze apples will be shipped in Red Cross trucks through the UN-patrolled border at Kuneitra, offering a diplomatic and economic solution for the Druze, Syrians and Israelis. For the Druze farmers and Syrians, it’s an important connection to the motherland, despite their settlement in Israel. For Israel, it shows the possibility of free trade with Syria, something that’s still quite hard to imagine.
The Druze say their apples are tastier than the Israeli apples, despite the fact that Israelis produce more apples, thanks to their more generous water allocations from the Israeli government. What I know about Israeli apples is that they often spend months in cold storage, leaving them somewhat tasteless once they cross the supermarket counter. And I also know that I’ve tried many tasty and/or quality Druze products, from Savta Gamila soap to the cured olives sold at the labane and fresh pita stands that line the road up the Hermon ski resort.
But hey. If we can make peace over a basket of apples, then I like them apples.
“Getting Back in Touch” via Facebook – Digital Natives vs. Digital Immigrants
Filed under: A New Reality, Immigrant Moments, Life, Pop Culture, Technology
Lately, my wife Jody and I have spent a lot of time getting in touch with old friends via Facebook. It started when I received a friend request from Larry. Larry and I were best buddies growing up. But after I moved away, we fell out of touch. I’ve looked for him from time to time via Google but never found any contact information. It had been 20 years since I last spoke with him. But through the wonder of social networking, we’re back in contact.
Larry connected me to another high school friend who connected me to a college colleague. It’s been a blast.
And it got Jody and I thinking: What if there had been a Facebook when we were teenagers some 30+ years ago. The whole concept of “getting back in touch” with old friends as we are doing now simply wouldn’t exist. We’d be connected from the start and would stay that way (unless we were “unfriended” for some unforgivable offense).
As we shared status updates, we’d always know what achievements the high school jock had attained, or what type of relationship an old flame was in (undoubtedly “it’s complicated”).
That’s the difference between us old fogeys and the “digital natives” – a term from the book Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives by John Palfrey, director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society – to describe young people born after 1980 for whom the Internet was already a given by the time they hit surfing age.
Lev Grossman at Time Magazine wrote a funny piece this week that echoes what I’m saying. He lists a number of reasons why social networking tools such as Facebook are even better for “digital immigrants,” as Palfrey refers to us, who didn’t grow up with social networking. Among his conclusions:
1. We’re no longer bitter about high school. Digital natives may be “hung up on any number of petty slights,” Grossman says, but when a person who insulted us way back when asks to friend us today, we say sure. Because we’re bigger than that now.
2. Facebook isn’t just a social network; it’s a business network. Sure, LinkedIn may “officially” be the professional social media tool, but it’s Facebook, with its 175 million users (and counting), where we make most of our work connections.
3. Facebook lets you share pictures of your children. Digital natives may be snapping shots of friends at school or the beach, but we’re just kvelling by posting albums of our grand kids.
4. Facebook means you don’t have to remember e-mail addresses. Just log on and search. You never have to leave the walled garden.
5. We’re more careful about our privacy. You won’t see us posting half-clothed drunken pictures of ourselves at a fraternity party that may lead to a potential employer, looking to vett a job candidate via Google, to disqualify us without even getting to the interview.
Indeed, the relationship to privacy is probably the biggest difference between digital immigrants and natives, the latter of whom have no problem living their lives entirely in public.
For example, my teenager daughter last night bemoaned the fact that her grandparents asked about her new boyfriend. “That’s my private business,” she wailed. “They have no right going there.”
“But you posted it all in your status for everyone to see!” I countered. She stormed out of the room.
Now, in a controversial move that had the blogosphere up in arms this week, Facebook tried to quietly change its Terms of Service to so that if a member quits the site, his or her content will no longer be deleted.
The Dubai Apartheid Tennis Tournament
You don’t have to be a tennis fan to be outraged at how Dubai is treating Israel and her favorite tennis daughter Shahar Pe’er.
Pe’er, Israel’s top female tennis star, and 45th ranked on the international circuit, has become a cause celebre since The United Arab Emirates (UAE) earlier this week denied her an entry visa to participate in the Dubai Tennis Championships – one of the most lucrative tournaments on the WTA Tour. Why? Only because she’s Israeli.
According to Reuters, WTA chief Larry Scott has said the $2 million Dubai tournament could be scratched from next year’s calendar if UAE officials persist with their stance of barring Israeli competitors.
Said Scott:
“There certainly will be (sanctions) imposed on the tournament but we’ll make those decisions following this year’s tournament. They were awarded this tournament with a very clear understanding and their agreement that if an Israeli ever wanted to play, they would be allowed to play. But (the agreement) had never been tested until now. Whatever we decide here will send a very clear signal.”
The Association of Tennis Professionals is waiting to hear whether Israeli doubles player Andy Ram will be issued a visa to the UAE, enabling him to play in the Dubai men’s tournament.
In an interview with the BBC, Ram suggested what should be done if he’s refused a visa.
“Maybe cancel the tournament or sanction them with money or something else,” he said. “But something should be done to make sure this situation does not develop again next year.”
Tournament officials defended their stance, with the extremely lame excuses that fans would have boycotted the event if an Israeli was allowed to compete and that Peer’s safety could also have been compromised.
Alan Solow, chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, called on the Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) to impose sanctions against the UAE. “We find the United Arab Emirates’s decision to deny a visa to Ms. Pe’er because of her nationality offensive, discriminatory and unacceptable,” the statement said.
The Conference of Presidents also called for sanctions against the Dubai tournament.
It urged its sponsors, Barclays and Sony Ericsson, to withdraw their support, and that the tennis championships be cancelled in 2010 “unless and until appropriate corrective measures are taken.”
“If they’re going to bar Israelis, why not just rename it the `Dubai Apartheid Tournament’?” said Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder of the Wiesenthal Center.
But it’s not just Jewish organizations who are lining up on Israel’s side of the court. The Tennis Channel and the European edition of the Wall Street Journal are both boycott the tournament. In an interview with The New York Times, Ken Solomon, chairman and chief executive of the Tennis Channel, called the network’s move “an easy decision to come by.”
“Sports are about merit, absent of background, class, race, creed, color or religion,” Solomon said. “They are simply about talent. This is a classic case, not about what country did what to another country. If Israel were barring a citizen of an Arab nation, we would have made the same decision.”
And tennis mega-star Serena Williams, who won a third round victory in Dubai and moved closer to a semifinal matchup, gave a backhanded compliment to Pe’er, saying in essence that Pe’er was a good egg even if she was from evil Israel.
“I know she’s previously played in the Middle East, in Doha, so it was my understanding she would have the opportunity to play here also, despite legislative issues,” she said, according to AP. “Obviously I am disappointed she hasn’t had a chance to do this because she’s a good person and works just as hard as anyone else on the tour, and should have the opportunity to play. She shouldn’t be denied, it’s not right, she’s just a person. We are all people, no matter where we are from.”
And despite defending Pe’er, Williams made it clear who she was looking out for in defending her decision not to boycott the tournament – number one.
“I have to look at the bigger picture. The big picture is that Shahar Pe’er didn’t get a chance to play but, making an immediate decision, we also have to look at sponsors, fans and everyone who has invested a lot in the tournament. We are all going to consider what are the options for next year, but [this year] we didn’t even know till Saturday that Pe’er had been denied a visa. I think there are rules and protocols as to how you can proceed.”
Don’t worry about Serena, when they start banning blacks as well, we’ll be right behind you.
Subscribe
Subscribe to Israelity via email:
Social Media
Categories
- A New Reality
- Art
- Blogging
- Business
- coexistence
- Crime
- design
- education
- Entertainment
- Environment
- Food
- Foto Friday
- General
- health
- History and Culture
- Holidays
- Immigrant Moments
- Israeliness
- Life
- Medical Breakthroughs
- Movies
- Music
- News
- Nostalgia Sunday
- Picture of the Week
- Politics
- Pop Culture
- Profiles
- Religion
- Science
- Social Justice
- Sports
- Technology
- Travel
- tv
- War
The Face of Israel Today
-
About Israelity
Free newsletter
Stories from ISRAEL21c.orgPopular Posts