The worthy and watchful folks of Camera caught Haaretz in a glaring (no pun intended) blooper:
You see, Western Wall as such is not the Judaism holiest site - the Temple Mount is. Well, make of it whatever you will. Camera made of it quite a big story, to me it's just another case of poor journalism/translation coupled with poor editing, and I wouldn't make a federal case out of it. Camera routinely catches Haaretz in much more serious obfuscation of truth. And these are only related to willful "sabotage" by translators. What about the body of work by, say, Gideon Levy, the baron of deceit industry - to take one example?
I was more interested in the general contents of the article. What may have caused such a long one on such a puny subject? Was it a slow day in Haaretz' office? Or is it only an external symptom of infighting in the tourism Ministry? And why was is so important to the Haaretz' soul mates from Forward that they put a long excerpt from that same piece under the Breaking News (!) rubric? Beats me.
Otherwise, I can agree with Nir Hasson, the author of the article: the whole country here is not planned with any thought about possible tourism. Heat, humidity, the sun beating down relentlessly, open spaces without any cover or air conditioning and whatnot. Take this example:
Massada - the place which popularity and fame are overshadowed only by lack of vision, care and planning displayed by the original creators* of the place. Almost around the year you can bake eggs, pastry or yourself simply by displaying the goods to the sun.
I can imagine (when I focus on it) the displeasure, incessant cursing, complaining and rising AWOL numbers of the Roman
Oh well, such are the ways of the idle Levantines...
(*) Take that word as you wish.
2 comments:
Actually, the Romans probably had an occasional nice breeze once they got to the top of Masada. Probably no breeze at all down below.
The "holiest site" remark for the Kotel is pretty common, though. Holy by virtue of being sanctified by all the people who have prayed there over the centuries. Putting an awning over it might work. At least it would keep out the stones the effing Muslims throw down occasionally.
The mount, itself, I suppose you would have to say is holy, but no one is really sure where the temple stood up there. Under the dome is possible, but there's no proof of that I ever heard of.
I agree - the Camera was being somewhat small-minded in this case. Not that awful a mistake.
As for Romans: well, they spent a lot of time below and part of it was heavy duty digging and piling...
Post a Comment