I don't get it. Do you want the Haredim to get an education or not? do you want the Haredim to enter the workforce or not?

In Netanya, the Michlelet Netanya is rumored to be preparing to open a set of courses specifically for the Hareidi community. Not just a set of courses, but they have requested permits from the Iryah of Netanya for the construction of a new building that would house a "Haredi campus".

Local residents have protested outside City Hall in an attempt to cause the cancellation of any such plans.

Residents see such programs as the beginning of a trend of "hitchardut", or, haredim taking over the area. They say they want Haredim to integrate into society, but into existing programs and into full society, and not by creating their own secluded programs.

City Hall of Netanya says that the new program will not be in a new, separate, building, but will be within the existing campus of Michlelet Netanya.

I don't care if they start their programs in the same building, in a different building, in this or that city or in whatever way they want. Why shouldn't they be allowed to choose the setting for the program they are developing for their community? If we want integration, and we do, at least in certain ways, we cannot force them to do things "our" way. Why is our way any more right than their way or than any other way? If we force them to do it our way, they will, or many will, retreat and cancel any such plans. the Haredi community makes changes on its terms, when they feel terms are necessary, or not at all.

This is another attempt to ram "our" way down their throats even at the expense of actual gains that we say we want.

Thinking out of the box.

There is no law that defines who is or what makes someone Sephardi or Ashkenazi. And, there is no law that limits the position of either Chief Rabbi or any of the City Rabbi positions to specifically Sephardim or Ashkenazim. It does not say anywhere that only a Sephardi can run for the Sephardic Chief Rabbi position (or chief rabbi of a city) or that only an Ashkenazi can run for the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi position (or chief rabbi of a city).

It seems to be self-understood that only an Ashkenazi would run for the Ashkenazi position, and only a Sephardi would run for the Sephardi position, but there is no technical legal limitation.

In what is a head-scratching move, Rav Yehuda Shlush, the son of the Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Netanya, has announced his candidacy for the newly available position of Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Netanya.

Rav Shlush is not the only Ashkenazi candidate - he is pitting himself against two others, including one of the sons (Rav Moshe Chaim Lau) of Rav Yisrael Meir Lau, former Chief Rabbi of Israel and also the last person to hold the position of Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Netanya, a position he left 26 years ago. Rav Shlush isn't the only candidate, but he is the only candidate who is not Ashkenazi. Rav Shlush even justifies his candidacy by saying he learned in Ashkenazi yeshivot and knows all the customs and issues of Ashkenazi Jewry, and so is fitting for the position.

It's a bit confounding that this is possible, and perhaps it is another reason, or example, of how splitting the Chief Rabbi position to two is superfluous, and we can really make do with just one Chief Rabbi serving the needs of all the citizens no matter the racial background.

Perhaps Rav Shlush's thinking out of the box can give some direction to the candidates in the nasty fight for Chief Rabbi of Israel. Let Rav Yosef's son be one chief rabbi, and let Aryeh Deri's brother be the second chief rabbi - and they can decide between themselves which will be sephardi and which ashkenazi. Or, Rav Stav and Rav Lau can be the two chief rabbis, again working out between themselves which is sephardi and which is ashkenazi.

this solution might make the selection process easier, or maybe it just makes the competition tighter - instead of 4-5 candidates for each of two positions, now there would be 8 or 10 candidates for both of 2 positions.

A bitter fight was just concluded in Netanya, with the local Chabad house coming out victorious.

The local Chabad house wanted the street name of "Max Nordau Street" to be changed to "Lubavitcher Rebbe Street".

The local residents were against the name change and fought it bitterly.

The local Chabad house won, as the mayor supported their petition.

The name change does not bother me, but I wonder if it could have been done in a better way without religious jews having to embitter the local secular/traditional residents. I mean, how important is a street name anyway that it is something that has to be fought over?

It seems strange for Chabad to get into such a fight with locals. Their whole success is based on good relations with the locals wherever they are. How are they going to ask people to put n tefillin and come for a glass of vodka when the neighbors now hate them?

But, regardless, they chose to fight for it and they won.

I guess one good thing that comes out of it is that at least one Chabad house recognizes that Rabbi Schneerson has died. After all, streets are not named after living people.