For now, Mr Nachman continues to spurn the ultra-orthodox Jews who have peopled much larger settlements. But seemingly holding his nose, he has welcomed religious “Anglos”, or English-speaking Jewish immigrants, including a South African rabbi. He has also made room for some of the religious settlers Israel moved from Gaza when it pulled out in 2005. But if it is to survive, Ariel will have to swallow its pride and admit less tolerant and flexible folk. Not such great news after all.I keep being amazed by The Economist malignant distorsion of Israel. It happens that was present at the foundation of Ariel by Menachem Begin, work in Ariel and know its Palestinian City Engineer and its major Ron Nachman, who is fighting for his life (has urinary cancer). The Economist builds up a straw man, an imaginary Nachman who stands at the city door forbidding the entrance of Jews who keep the Shabbath. The Economist reports his humiliation when he is forced to swallow his pride and holding his nose, receive a South African rabbi with "Anglo" settlers...
Say this is read in Tokyo, what does the article convey? Reality is that all Jews including Ethiopian converts are welcome in Ariel, they can buy an apartment (if they have the money, they are expensive). The city has stopped growing in the eighties because successive governments refused to approve building permits and are chasing away existing industries. I cannot imagine to whom and to what The Economist is referring when writes "Ariel will have to swallow its pride and admit less tolerant and flexible folk". What is The Economist talking about?
If The Economist reports such nonsense about things I know well, why should I believe it when it writes about things I know nothing, like Japan or Australia?