Comments on: Sorry, Nir Barkat Will Not Save Jerusalem

By: Oy, Jerusalem

Oy, Jerusalem — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:43:34 +0000

[...] of Jerusalem. I care deeply, and I’m undecided. Indeed, I’m more undecided than I was several weeks ago. I still believe in the obligation to vote for the lesser evil. But which of the major candidates – [...]

By: ben

ben — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 18:05:20 +0000

There’s a really interesting article about the Jerusalem mayor’s debate here:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/128179

By: Barkat by Default

Barkat by Default — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:36:46 +0000

[...] I just got a call from Meir Porush’s campaign central. Would I be voting for the Haredi candidate for mayor of Jerusalem, the polite young woman asked me? No, I won’t, I said. I’ll be voting for the rival candidate, Nir Barkat. And to hell with my blogging partner, Gershom, whose concern for an equitable settlement with the Palestinians in Jerusalem (justified) and his abiding suspicion of rich businessmen (somewhat less justified) has misled him into support for Porush (see “Sorry, Nir Barkat Will Not Save Jerusalem“). [...]

By: Lior

Lior — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:19:41 +0000

This is the first time I’ve read your blog.
I completely agree with your criticism of Barkat, but pointing out his faults without comparing them to the other candidates’ charectaristics is somewhat misleading. Fact is, I would not have voted for Barkat if he was to run for the PM office, or even for the mayor of Jerusalem, if there were another secular, more politically moderate candidate whose election prospects looked as good as Barkat’s.
But this is not the reality we are facing. What we do have, beside Barkat, are two candidates (Porush and Gaydamak) who equal or surpass him when it comes to their extreme right ideologies. Furthermore, where Barkat’s ideas do make sense – creating new hi-tech jobs, putting an end to the Haredi control of the Jerusalem municipality, helping young secular locals stay in the city, etc. – The other two candidates either have no comparable initiatives (Gaydamak) or simply want the opposite (Porush).
Barkat’s political idiology, as extreme as it may be, is possibly the most moderate option in the coming election, and anyway, knowing the nature of decision making in Israel, no mayor of Jerusalem will be the one calling the shots about whether or not to divide the city, nor will he be able to thwart a government-promoted peace accord with the Palestinians.
So, as these elections are not about more east-Jerusalem Jewish neighbourhoods or not (because all the candidates support it), what really is the issue is how profound will be the Haredi minority’s effect on the non-Haredi population, and whether or not this majority will have the power to gain back the control over the way this city is being run. Realizing this, I think there is no option but to swallow the bitter pill that is voting for a right-wing man, and make Barkat the mayor, on the expense of 5 more years of Haredi control.

By: Yisrael Medad

Yisrael Medad — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 21:50:35 +0000

sorry: couldn’t pull a hoe

By: Yisrael Medad

Yisrael Medad — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 21:49:26 +0000

You wrote: :the ultra-Orthodox are on the demographic march toward turning Jerusalem into a giant neo-shtetl, big sister to Bnei Brak.” I would like to challenge this conventional wisdom. I somehow feel that this is secular BS. The city always had a large Hareidi population and it was the wimps of the Second Aliyah, the intellectuals who couldn’t pull a how or push a plough, who gravitated to the city (Berl, Rachel Yannait, et. al) before WW I and then the influx of Jewish Agency officialdom who set about conquering the city. Rechavia became the dati-lite of the period. Then, during the 50s and 60s it was a backwater, whose sidewalks “were pulled in after 10″ as I recall, being a student here during 1966-67. True, the Hebrew University student bohemia gave the city a secular character in the 60s (Haim Yavin, etc.) but they were semi-transient. There was, perhaps, more coexistence then, i.e., Haim B’er’s novels, but the city was always “religious”. It was a battle never really won and so, to speak now of “losing” is a bit misplaced.