One of the most unappreciated ramifications of European ghetto laws was that instead of leading to assimilation and conversion they perpetuated Orthodox Judaism. Yes that’s right, by prohibiting Jews from mingling with their gentile neighbors the state and church helped ensure strong and homogenous Jewish communities that are the antecedents of present world Jewry. The extraordinary advantages that these ghetto communities engendered were not lost on the Jewish faithful. Today nearly every city with a large Jewish population includes a segment of that Jewish demographic that chooses to reinvent the ghetto atmosphere. Precisely because its enables strong centralization of Jewish authority which is, they claim, a prerequisite for high levels of conformity to orthodox Jewish life.
Ironically, for the first time in the history of the Jewish Diasporas a minority of Israeli Rabbis are embracing a logic similar to that used by their European oppressors. Don’t get me wrong, the European gentiles were not faced with terror or the threat of assimilation -Judaism is not easy, and Jews don’t voluntarily blow children up (please see “Understanding the Goldstone Report: Intentions vs. Results”, if you find this assertion interesting). Conversely, Jews have a history of assimilation and Arabs a history of terror.
Still, Israeli Rabbis should not ignore the historical results of this logic. Remember, when the gentiles coerced separation, the result was a resilient Jewish community, and one that was prevented from contributing (their loss!). On the other hand, here in the states, some Jews have embraced the melting-pot ethos and completely assimilated into larger American society. Others have embraced the more modern notion of multi-culture America and have completely maintained their Jewish identity. Regardless most are overwhelmingly loyal citizens who contribute in every way to American society.
So I must ask: are the Israeli Rabbis implying that Arab-Israelis cannot do the same?
Yes I know that America has friendly relations with Israel, and that contributes to Jewish-American loyalty. But Jews in Iran are loyal to Iran despite Iran’s track-record vis-à-vis Israel. The same can be said regarding Jews in Britain, France, Brazil, and Turkey despite their, often, hostile stance towards Israel. My point is simple; just because Israeli-Arabs have reason to be disloyal does not mean that they are inherently disloyal.
I also know that many Israeli-Arabs are disloyal and often involved in the vilest anti-Israeli activities. But even if most Israeli-Arabs oppose Israeli treatment of Arabs in Gaza and the West-bank -and vocalize their opposition to that end-, they do so within the confines of Israeli law. Americans are renowned for vocalizing their extreme opposition to leaders and many American celebrities visit America's enemies (Michael Moore, Carter, Oliver Stone…all incidentally are often associated with antisemitism), but they are not discriminated against and nor should they be.
Yes, if Israeli-Arabs violate the law they should be prosecuted. Yes, I believe in a certain degree of profiling in Israel and abroad. Yes, Israeli-Arabs have yet to contribute in any meaningful way to the success of their host state. Yes, the Rabbis have every right to express their position. Indeed, the notion that separating Jew from Arab will protect Jews from terror, assimilation, and moral decay, may have some merit. But separate housing will never prevent the above from occurring, just look at the Jewish ghettos that spot New York and Jerusalem. Are they free of Arab terror, or of assimilation, or of moral depravity?!
We know that in a fair society true social cohesion is possible. I believe Israel is such a society. Therefore, with all due respect, I must object to the Rabbis’ position.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Poetry with an Explanation:The Path of the LSAT is...
I digress, you know I don't write like this.
It's therapy in the making. The person replaced with the screen,
the lips supplanted by the fingers,
expression exchanged for ideas,
the couch without the love-seat.
But here is the abnormal, please don't hold it against me.
The mind needs time to acclimate, to wake
6 am becomes the time to awake
Never mind what to do you need to prepare your self
To replicate the environment that you will be subjected to
No coffee, before 12!
Why not?
Because you’ll require it to be alert,
and if you drink you will crash in middle of the test
Sit for 2 hours and 55 minutes with no interruption
So that when test day arrives you wont be sedate
My head is expanding my forehead is imploding
You think that choice is correct?
But look the answer key rejects.
I sit there in a room a man barks 5 min, I jump
Three questions left, that’s sufficient time
But the pressure of the clock is hard to define
No alcohol or pot
No mechanical pencils or watches.
Instead,
Salmon, tuna, avocado, and almonds
0mega-3s’ and 6s’ working out with intensity
a simple analogue clock and yellow pencils
I wake in a sweat, the short fat proctor is replaced with my dark silhouette.
No it is not test day but its coming soon, and my dreams are replete with the coming day of truth.
What more can I do, for four years work and 4.03 to boot. But that wont do.
Nooooo, instead a 4 hour test that will help them choose. One man said to the other “the law school looks at three factors, the first, second and third number of your LSAT score”. Ouch!
So I swayed and prayed, practiced Tai Chi and meditated.
I Studied with alacrity and imagined the feeling of Yale calling
No matter what this time I did what I needed to be done,
and far as the result that will remain to be seen.
But the path of the LSAT is...well... frankly obscene.
It's therapy in the making. The person replaced with the screen,
the lips supplanted by the fingers,
expression exchanged for ideas,
the couch without the love-seat.
But here is the abnormal, please don't hold it against me.
The mind needs time to acclimate, to wake
6 am becomes the time to awake
Never mind what to do you need to prepare your self
To replicate the environment that you will be subjected to
No coffee, before 12!
Why not?
Because you’ll require it to be alert,
and if you drink you will crash in middle of the test
Sit for 2 hours and 55 minutes with no interruption
So that when test day arrives you wont be sedate
My head is expanding my forehead is imploding
You think that choice is correct?
But look the answer key rejects.
I sit there in a room a man barks 5 min, I jump
Three questions left, that’s sufficient time
But the pressure of the clock is hard to define
No alcohol or pot
No mechanical pencils or watches.
Instead,
Salmon, tuna, avocado, and almonds
0mega-3s’ and 6s’ working out with intensity
a simple analogue clock and yellow pencils
I wake in a sweat, the short fat proctor is replaced with my dark silhouette.
No it is not test day but its coming soon, and my dreams are replete with the coming day of truth.
What more can I do, for four years work and 4.03 to boot. But that wont do.
Nooooo, instead a 4 hour test that will help them choose. One man said to the other “the law school looks at three factors, the first, second and third number of your LSAT score”. Ouch!
So I swayed and prayed, practiced Tai Chi and meditated.
I Studied with alacrity and imagined the feeling of Yale calling
No matter what this time I did what I needed to be done,
and far as the result that will remain to be seen.
But the path of the LSAT is...well... frankly obscene.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Yale Law II: Do You Believe in a Higher Power?
In applying to Yale law school I was required to submit a 250 word essay on any give topic. Below is the second essay amongst the three finalists:
Do you believe in a higher power?
Why?
If you believe in a higher power and were never asked why, then you may consider asking yourself this, ostensibly, simple question. That is, of course, if you accept the premise that one can sustain ones beliefs only if one strives to understand ones beliefs. That said, I recently asked myself why do I believe in a higher power?
After much thought I respond to the question of why, with the Marxian conception of religion as a crutch ("Die Religion…ist das Opium des Volkes" ). However, the term “crutch” is value neutral and need not have negative connotations. Instead it could invoke the same positive regard that “leaning on family” carries. Framed as such, belief in a higher power can play an important role in an individual’s emotional and physiological equilibrium.
Yet the analogy between one purpose of family (to lean on) and belief in a higher power (a crutch) goes far beyond reconfiguring common held interpretations. Indeed, the degree of one’s relationship with one’s family in times of calm can determine the extent that one can lean on family in time of need. So to the degree that belief in a higher power can serve as a crutch is correlated with ones connection with that higher power in times of stability. In other words, for belief in a higher power to serve as a reliable crutch, one may need to invest, develop, and maintain a relationship before the crutch is needed.
Do you believe in a higher power?
Why?
If you believe in a higher power and were never asked why, then you may consider asking yourself this, ostensibly, simple question. That is, of course, if you accept the premise that one can sustain ones beliefs only if one strives to understand ones beliefs. That said, I recently asked myself why do I believe in a higher power?
After much thought I respond to the question of why, with the Marxian conception of religion as a crutch ("Die Religion…ist das Opium des Volkes" ). However, the term “crutch” is value neutral and need not have negative connotations. Instead it could invoke the same positive regard that “leaning on family” carries. Framed as such, belief in a higher power can play an important role in an individual’s emotional and physiological equilibrium.
Yet the analogy between one purpose of family (to lean on) and belief in a higher power (a crutch) goes far beyond reconfiguring common held interpretations. Indeed, the degree of one’s relationship with one’s family in times of calm can determine the extent that one can lean on family in time of need. So to the degree that belief in a higher power can serve as a crutch is correlated with ones connection with that higher power in times of stability. In other words, for belief in a higher power to serve as a reliable crutch, one may need to invest, develop, and maintain a relationship before the crutch is needed.
Has Russia Finally Chosen Israel and the West?
Russian president Dmitry Medvedev recent confirmation that he will be visiting Israel in January may have serious implications for Israel, the region, and international relations.
First and foremost, it signifies a choice has been made by Russia regarding who it wishes to ally itself with in the middle-east. The origins of this choice hails back to 2005 when, then, Russian president Vladimir Putin became the first Russian head of state to visit Israel. But Putin was also dealing heavily with Israel’s and the Wests opponents. Indeed, since that 2005 visit Russia has built a permanent navy base in Syria and has been the main supplier, after North Korea, of nuclear know-how to Iran.
Through 2007, the Putin led Russia seemed to be leaning towards choosing Iran/Syria. This choice was made easier by Bush’s aggressive push for missile defense in Russia’s historic sphere of Influence -Poland and Ukraine. Russia was also pushed towards Iran/Syria by the revelations that followed the 2007 Georgian-Russian war. Russia discovered that tiny Georgia was fielding superior Israeli weapons (small arms and UAV‘s), and that Israel had trained Georgian commandos. However the Obama’s reset initiative, which included revising missile defense in conjunction with the election of a more modern thinking Medvedev, spurred Russia to reevaluate its Middle Eastern strategy.
The fruits of the last two years have evidently ripened as evidenced by the Russian president’s announcement to visit Israel. According to Debka.com the agenda will include:
1. Acquiring a billion dollars in Israeli UAV technology in exchange for a long term commitment to not sell advanced technology, like the S-300 air-defense system to Iran and Syria.
2. To not instinctively support unconditional Palestinian demands, .
3. To involve itself, along with Greece, in the process of developing and distributing, the three major oil/gas fields recently discovered off the cost of Israel, which some estimate to have over 30 trillion cubic feet of retrievable oil/gas.
From Israel’s perspective this is great news and a long awaited development because:
1. It seriously undermines Israel’s enemies in the region which history has shown is a prerequisite for peace. For example, it was only after Soviet backed Eygpt and Syria were defeated in the Yom Kippur war that Egyptian president Sadat was amenable to replacing Soviet arms with American dollars and peace with Israel. There is reason to believe that an Iran without the backing of Russia (and hopefully soon China) is an Iran that will open its eyes to peace through peace.
2. Russia’s acceptance of Israel reflects a Russia that is willing to deal rationally with reality; Israel is currently the most stable power in the Middle East- not Iran, Turkey, or the Arabs. (I know some of my Turkish friend may disagree, but Israel has a track-record that does not include a coup every 20 years and does include unwavering support for its friends, despite changes in political power, Turkey does not). This is always good for an Israel that is so often the target of irrational behavior.
3. The very fact that Russia, a long term opponent of Israel is reaching out to Israel is a sign of the times. Namely, rational and forward thinking countries want to be Israel’s friend, not because of some Zionist conspiracy but because Israel has so much to offer. China, a relatively pragmatic nation, has long attempted to establish a special relationship with Israel. But Israel, in its commitment to its closest ally America has “politely” rebuffed these efforts. For example in 2002 Israel violated a 2 billion dollar contract to upgrade Chinese military platforms over objections by America. Russia, like China, wants access to Israel.
Yet Russia’s realignment implies more than just an attempt to access Israel’s intellectual treasures.
Some have interpreted it as a strategic attempt at capitalizing on America’s failures in the region.
Indeed, if wikileaks has exposed anything it is that Obama is misguided, however well-intentioned, in his efforts to force an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord. Pressure on Israel inevitably strengthens Israel’s enemies by keeping Israel on the defensive, unable to leverage its formidable offensive apparatus. But these enemies, led by Iran, are perceived by everyone in the region excluding Turkey and Syria, as the most immediate threat to regional stability. Thus Russia, sees an Obama led administration as shooting itself in the foot, and wants to access the growing feeling in the Israeli and Arab political establishment that America is not as trustworthy an ally as it should be. Conversely, Russia is seen as capable of seriously undermining Iran by putting pressure on China, and halting its nuclear support to Iran.
The far-left and, some in, the far-right in the West may refuse to acknowledge this but Israel’s hegemonic military power is the stabilizing force in the middle-east and Israel’s allies benefit immensely from its position, not the cause of conflict. Russia has come to terms with this just as an Obama led America is moving away from this truth.
I don’t necessarily accept that Russia is attempting to replace America; it is also possible that Russia is coming to terms with its international responsibility, namely, to play a positive role in world affairs. From this perspective, Russia is a rational state that seeks to contribute positively in a way that maximizes its own benefit, and is developing stronger ties with other nations that wish the same –like Israel. This has the tacit effect of moving Russia away from failed ideologies that emanate from the rape-filled prisons of Iran and other such negative state-actors that seem to gravitate towards anti-Israel rhetoric/alliances.
Likewise, Russia may align itself with Israel and by proxy America in order to reinvigorate a Democratic world-order that is increasingly coming under the shadow of an emerging undemocratic China. In short, Russia -which has historically vacillated between the West and East-, is making a choice to align itself with the West as it is embodied by Israel.
Who knows, maybe the next batch of wikileaks will shed light on Medvedev’s Russia.
First and foremost, it signifies a choice has been made by Russia regarding who it wishes to ally itself with in the middle-east. The origins of this choice hails back to 2005 when, then, Russian president Vladimir Putin became the first Russian head of state to visit Israel. But Putin was also dealing heavily with Israel’s and the Wests opponents. Indeed, since that 2005 visit Russia has built a permanent navy base in Syria and has been the main supplier, after North Korea, of nuclear know-how to Iran.
Through 2007, the Putin led Russia seemed to be leaning towards choosing Iran/Syria. This choice was made easier by Bush’s aggressive push for missile defense in Russia’s historic sphere of Influence -Poland and Ukraine. Russia was also pushed towards Iran/Syria by the revelations that followed the 2007 Georgian-Russian war. Russia discovered that tiny Georgia was fielding superior Israeli weapons (small arms and UAV‘s), and that Israel had trained Georgian commandos. However the Obama’s reset initiative, which included revising missile defense in conjunction with the election of a more modern thinking Medvedev, spurred Russia to reevaluate its Middle Eastern strategy.
The fruits of the last two years have evidently ripened as evidenced by the Russian president’s announcement to visit Israel. According to Debka.com the agenda will include:
1. Acquiring a billion dollars in Israeli UAV technology in exchange for a long term commitment to not sell advanced technology, like the S-300 air-defense system to Iran and Syria.
2. To not instinctively support unconditional Palestinian demands, .
3. To involve itself, along with Greece, in the process of developing and distributing, the three major oil/gas fields recently discovered off the cost of Israel, which some estimate to have over 30 trillion cubic feet of retrievable oil/gas.
From Israel’s perspective this is great news and a long awaited development because:
1. It seriously undermines Israel’s enemies in the region which history has shown is a prerequisite for peace. For example, it was only after Soviet backed Eygpt and Syria were defeated in the Yom Kippur war that Egyptian president Sadat was amenable to replacing Soviet arms with American dollars and peace with Israel. There is reason to believe that an Iran without the backing of Russia (and hopefully soon China) is an Iran that will open its eyes to peace through peace.
2. Russia’s acceptance of Israel reflects a Russia that is willing to deal rationally with reality; Israel is currently the most stable power in the Middle East- not Iran, Turkey, or the Arabs. (I know some of my Turkish friend may disagree, but Israel has a track-record that does not include a coup every 20 years and does include unwavering support for its friends, despite changes in political power, Turkey does not). This is always good for an Israel that is so often the target of irrational behavior.
3. The very fact that Russia, a long term opponent of Israel is reaching out to Israel is a sign of the times. Namely, rational and forward thinking countries want to be Israel’s friend, not because of some Zionist conspiracy but because Israel has so much to offer. China, a relatively pragmatic nation, has long attempted to establish a special relationship with Israel. But Israel, in its commitment to its closest ally America has “politely” rebuffed these efforts. For example in 2002 Israel violated a 2 billion dollar contract to upgrade Chinese military platforms over objections by America. Russia, like China, wants access to Israel.
Yet Russia’s realignment implies more than just an attempt to access Israel’s intellectual treasures.
Some have interpreted it as a strategic attempt at capitalizing on America’s failures in the region.
Indeed, if wikileaks has exposed anything it is that Obama is misguided, however well-intentioned, in his efforts to force an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord. Pressure on Israel inevitably strengthens Israel’s enemies by keeping Israel on the defensive, unable to leverage its formidable offensive apparatus. But these enemies, led by Iran, are perceived by everyone in the region excluding Turkey and Syria, as the most immediate threat to regional stability. Thus Russia, sees an Obama led administration as shooting itself in the foot, and wants to access the growing feeling in the Israeli and Arab political establishment that America is not as trustworthy an ally as it should be. Conversely, Russia is seen as capable of seriously undermining Iran by putting pressure on China, and halting its nuclear support to Iran.
The far-left and, some in, the far-right in the West may refuse to acknowledge this but Israel’s hegemonic military power is the stabilizing force in the middle-east and Israel’s allies benefit immensely from its position, not the cause of conflict. Russia has come to terms with this just as an Obama led America is moving away from this truth.
I don’t necessarily accept that Russia is attempting to replace America; it is also possible that Russia is coming to terms with its international responsibility, namely, to play a positive role in world affairs. From this perspective, Russia is a rational state that seeks to contribute positively in a way that maximizes its own benefit, and is developing stronger ties with other nations that wish the same –like Israel. This has the tacit effect of moving Russia away from failed ideologies that emanate from the rape-filled prisons of Iran and other such negative state-actors that seem to gravitate towards anti-Israel rhetoric/alliances.
Likewise, Russia may align itself with Israel and by proxy America in order to reinvigorate a Democratic world-order that is increasingly coming under the shadow of an emerging undemocratic China. In short, Russia -which has historically vacillated between the West and East-, is making a choice to align itself with the West as it is embodied by Israel.
Who knows, maybe the next batch of wikileaks will shed light on Medvedev’s Russia.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Yale Law l: The Irony of Abundance
In applying to Yale law school I was required to submit a 250 word essay on any give topic. Below is the first essay amongst my the three finalists:
The New York Times recently published an article exploring the problematic implications of rampant technological use on the brains of high school students. Yet, the source of the problem is not the abundance and pervasiveness of technology, such as Facebook, smart-phones, and I-pads, but rather its misuse.While our technological age has opened the floodgates of information that was once the privilege of the elite, it has also, ironiclly, created a problem of too much information. But the irony of abundance is not limited to technology. The abundance of food -itself a result of technological knowhow- has created a plethora of unimaginable dilemmas for Americans. Whereas as once our society was afflicted with starvation now we are burdened by over-sized guts and an epidemic of obesity related health problems that kill more Americans each year than malnutrition ever did.
How is it that our society has so abused the abundance we have achieved? Instead of leveraging the, relatively cheap, abundance of healthy produce to engender a well nourished and healthy society we have used an economy of scale to create fast food that unhealthier than it is cheap.. Instead of gorging ourselves on the intellectual bounty of C-span and PBS, we have squandered our access to knowledge on YouTube, online porn, and yellow journalism.
But, like nuclear energy, we must embrace abundance however terrible our failure to choose correctly is. True the higher we climb the greater the fall, but technology is value neutral. It offers us the choice to choose greatness, to actualize the positive inherent in the irony of abundance.
The New York Times recently published an article exploring the problematic implications of rampant technological use on the brains of high school students. Yet, the source of the problem is not the abundance and pervasiveness of technology, such as Facebook, smart-phones, and I-pads, but rather its misuse.While our technological age has opened the floodgates of information that was once the privilege of the elite, it has also, ironiclly, created a problem of too much information. But the irony of abundance is not limited to technology. The abundance of food -itself a result of technological knowhow- has created a plethora of unimaginable dilemmas for Americans. Whereas as once our society was afflicted with starvation now we are burdened by over-sized guts and an epidemic of obesity related health problems that kill more Americans each year than malnutrition ever did.
How is it that our society has so abused the abundance we have achieved? Instead of leveraging the, relatively cheap, abundance of healthy produce to engender a well nourished and healthy society we have used an economy of scale to create fast food that unhealthier than it is cheap.. Instead of gorging ourselves on the intellectual bounty of C-span and PBS, we have squandered our access to knowledge on YouTube, online porn, and yellow journalism.
But, like nuclear energy, we must embrace abundance however terrible our failure to choose correctly is. True the higher we climb the greater the fall, but technology is value neutral. It offers us the choice to choose greatness, to actualize the positive inherent in the irony of abundance.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Get Your Hands off Our Collective Junk and Start Profiling!
"Get your hands off my junk, or I will have you arrested!".
This is one version of the refrain that it being spoken, or shouted, across the nation. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has been authorized by a Homeland Security directive to place full body scanners in many of America’s airports. Yes that's rights, now, when you shuffle by JFKs security check, it will not only be the holes in your socks that are "exposed", but also the most private of your private property.
Of course you can opt-out and be subjected to a thorough hands-on grouping.
When confronted with this impossible choice, many just shrug their heads or murmur that is the better of two evils, the other being a terrorist attack. Yet I wonder does this approach really increase our security?
I mean Israel faces a much more consistent threat and has an airline security apparatus that is the envy of the modern world, so why don't they grope and expose? Yes Israel is a tiny country and, with only one major international airport, it faces much less of a logistical problem. But given that HS measures are so intrusive, should we not do everything possible to avoid them, especially considering their obvious logical flaws?
I mean in Israel, (and I apologize for continuing to return to them as the paradigm, but they understand terror) there are checkpoints at the entrance to the airport. This is because terrorists will target any location with high density human populations -malls, trains, restaurants etc. In other words "exposing" Americans does not in the least prevent terror; on the contrary it surrenders to it.
Yes terrorists have a special incentive to specifically bomb plains so as to undermine our economic viability, but Israel has dealt with that without fondling every visitor and citizen.
Put otherwise, the TSA's actions are both unnecessary and don't work.
So why is our increasingly inept government reaching into our pants, this time through the zipper?
Undoubtedly some, you know who you are, will respond that the corporations, and politicians desperate for local job creation, are pushing for the acceptance of these secularized porn flick apparatuses. Ok, but we can just as easily employ private security firms, similar to Blackwater, to help ensure our security.
I know what you’re thinking:
That this suggestion just brings us back to square one, and standard TSA practices are failing.
Yes but that’s not what I mean. You see I think the TSA can do its job and do it as effectively as Israel. All we need to do is profile.
When I brought this up with a Muslim friend he was aghast, and I don't blame him. But the profiling system that Israel uses is a lot more sophisticated and accurate, then just identifying and separating Middle-Eastern/Muslim faces from the crowd. Think the show "Don't Lie to Me", coupled with a comprehensive computer system that integrates million of disparate pieces of information into a near perfect assessment of individual fliers.
For instance, prior to the x-ray baggage check on international flights to Israel, EVERY customer is subjected to a brief but friendly interrogation. The answers are evaluated not only by their content but also by delivery. Obviously this is only one small part in a multi-layered process that is very expensive. But so are those machines and the privacy they violate.
It all boils down to whether our society is so frightened by the term profiling that we are willing to give up exactly that which we are afraid of loosing with government profiling: our autonomy, privacy, and self-respect.
If you ask me get your hands off our collective junk and start profiling!
This is one version of the refrain that it being spoken, or shouted, across the nation. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has been authorized by a Homeland Security directive to place full body scanners in many of America’s airports. Yes that's rights, now, when you shuffle by JFKs security check, it will not only be the holes in your socks that are "exposed", but also the most private of your private property.
Of course you can opt-out and be subjected to a thorough hands-on grouping.
When confronted with this impossible choice, many just shrug their heads or murmur that is the better of two evils, the other being a terrorist attack. Yet I wonder does this approach really increase our security?
I mean Israel faces a much more consistent threat and has an airline security apparatus that is the envy of the modern world, so why don't they grope and expose? Yes Israel is a tiny country and, with only one major international airport, it faces much less of a logistical problem. But given that HS measures are so intrusive, should we not do everything possible to avoid them, especially considering their obvious logical flaws?
I mean in Israel, (and I apologize for continuing to return to them as the paradigm, but they understand terror) there are checkpoints at the entrance to the airport. This is because terrorists will target any location with high density human populations -malls, trains, restaurants etc. In other words "exposing" Americans does not in the least prevent terror; on the contrary it surrenders to it.
Yes terrorists have a special incentive to specifically bomb plains so as to undermine our economic viability, but Israel has dealt with that without fondling every visitor and citizen.
Put otherwise, the TSA's actions are both unnecessary and don't work.
So why is our increasingly inept government reaching into our pants, this time through the zipper?
Undoubtedly some, you know who you are, will respond that the corporations, and politicians desperate for local job creation, are pushing for the acceptance of these secularized porn flick apparatuses. Ok, but we can just as easily employ private security firms, similar to Blackwater, to help ensure our security.
I know what you’re thinking:
That this suggestion just brings us back to square one, and standard TSA practices are failing.
Yes but that’s not what I mean. You see I think the TSA can do its job and do it as effectively as Israel. All we need to do is profile.
When I brought this up with a Muslim friend he was aghast, and I don't blame him. But the profiling system that Israel uses is a lot more sophisticated and accurate, then just identifying and separating Middle-Eastern/Muslim faces from the crowd. Think the show "Don't Lie to Me", coupled with a comprehensive computer system that integrates million of disparate pieces of information into a near perfect assessment of individual fliers.
For instance, prior to the x-ray baggage check on international flights to Israel, EVERY customer is subjected to a brief but friendly interrogation. The answers are evaluated not only by their content but also by delivery. Obviously this is only one small part in a multi-layered process that is very expensive. But so are those machines and the privacy they violate.
It all boils down to whether our society is so frightened by the term profiling that we are willing to give up exactly that which we are afraid of loosing with government profiling: our autonomy, privacy, and self-respect.
If you ask me get your hands off our collective junk and start profiling!
Divorce is Good?!
HuffingtonPost.com, the self proclaimed left wing response to drudgereport.com and co.,(http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45168.html) recently launched its newest addition to string of highly specialized categories, divorce. Its founder, Ariana Huffington, claimed that she was prompted by the statistic that 50 percent of all marriages end in divorce. It's an astute idea. After all divorce is part of the fabric of our society and America needs a forum for the growing discussion.
Yet I was taken aback by the direction in which many of the contributors on her site were going. One op-ed "Divorce! It’s good for the children!" by http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/divorce-its-good-for-the-_b_782469.html Jane Smiley, argues that divorce can be good.
But is it?
Ok, I understand that many in our society attempt to go with the flow. When they recognize a societal trend they respond with non-judgmental acceptance, i.e. instead of attributing meaning to a given development they just recognize it and report on it. I appreciate the importance of presenting objective-oriented information.
However, I perceive more than just aloof coverage, by contributors to Huffingtonpost.com, of a news-worthy story. Instead, it seems that many who gravitate to this media platform are attempting to justify the trend. Instead of offering an unadulterated statistic to their audience these writers are attempting to reshape an historically negative event (even when justified), divorce, into a positive activity.
The arguments are boring, but non-the-less should be considered.
1. we live in a post-marriage society
2.marriage works for some and not for others.
3. marriage vis-a-vis same sex couples and singles is exclusionary.
I can accept that religious grounded argument for marriage (such as the refrain that "love is a part of marriage, not marriage") often have a minimal impact in the secular public sphere and are already discounted as antiquated and/or myth. Never mind that religious communities of all types are also experiencing relative increases in divorce rates. I can even see why many proponents of divorce discount the anecdotal evidence as to the ravages of broken, uh I mean separated families. I live in Crown Heights, where gang affiliation is often directly attributed to absentee parents. Just as my classmates, of divorced parents, in my hometown of suburban CT. seemed, perhaps mistakenly, to have their own genre of problems (who doesn't right!?).
Still I'm sure many divorced parents and their children are neither gang-bangers or in therapy.
Fine, I can understand all these perspectives.
Furthermore, we may never know whether rampant divorce is a symptom of a larger cultural problem, or just another seminal development in an increasingly changing society.
But at the same time it may be cause for serious concern even for those who feel that our capitalistic mindset requires a materialistic reason to gain our attention.
So I ask: Do the implications of increasing divorce rates have a direct impact on our economic welfare?
What if it is not a mere coincidence that the 1960's liberal revolution and the increasing divorce that came with it, was also the decade when real income reached its peak and has since declined? What if having an economically stable home to turn to (yes two adults living in one location are more likely to accumulate resources to share with others) in times of distress and need, helps strengthen the fabric of our national psyche and, by virtue of that, our productivity? What if your divorce precludes your children from marrying, which negatively impacts the economic environment that we ALL live in? Do the inherent responsibilities of a successful marriage inculcate its members, especially its children, with a sense of monetary responsibility, credit cards and all?
If huffingtonPost.com is going to publish articles justifying societies divorce from marriage than, for the sake of the greater good, it should also explore the ramifications of a society without marriage.
Yet I was taken aback by the direction in which many of the contributors on her site were going. One op-ed "Divorce! It’s good for the children!" by http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/divorce-its-good-for-the-_b_782469.html Jane Smiley, argues that divorce can be good.
But is it?
Ok, I understand that many in our society attempt to go with the flow. When they recognize a societal trend they respond with non-judgmental acceptance, i.e. instead of attributing meaning to a given development they just recognize it and report on it. I appreciate the importance of presenting objective-oriented information.
However, I perceive more than just aloof coverage, by contributors to Huffingtonpost.com, of a news-worthy story. Instead, it seems that many who gravitate to this media platform are attempting to justify the trend. Instead of offering an unadulterated statistic to their audience these writers are attempting to reshape an historically negative event (even when justified), divorce, into a positive activity.
The arguments are boring, but non-the-less should be considered.
1. we live in a post-marriage society
2.marriage works for some and not for others.
3. marriage vis-a-vis same sex couples and singles is exclusionary.
I can accept that religious grounded argument for marriage (such as the refrain that "love is a part of marriage, not marriage") often have a minimal impact in the secular public sphere and are already discounted as antiquated and/or myth. Never mind that religious communities of all types are also experiencing relative increases in divorce rates. I can even see why many proponents of divorce discount the anecdotal evidence as to the ravages of broken, uh I mean separated families. I live in Crown Heights, where gang affiliation is often directly attributed to absentee parents. Just as my classmates, of divorced parents, in my hometown of suburban CT. seemed, perhaps mistakenly, to have their own genre of problems (who doesn't right!?).
Still I'm sure many divorced parents and their children are neither gang-bangers or in therapy.
Fine, I can understand all these perspectives.
Furthermore, we may never know whether rampant divorce is a symptom of a larger cultural problem, or just another seminal development in an increasingly changing society.
But at the same time it may be cause for serious concern even for those who feel that our capitalistic mindset requires a materialistic reason to gain our attention.
So I ask: Do the implications of increasing divorce rates have a direct impact on our economic welfare?
What if it is not a mere coincidence that the 1960's liberal revolution and the increasing divorce that came with it, was also the decade when real income reached its peak and has since declined? What if having an economically stable home to turn to (yes two adults living in one location are more likely to accumulate resources to share with others) in times of distress and need, helps strengthen the fabric of our national psyche and, by virtue of that, our productivity? What if your divorce precludes your children from marrying, which negatively impacts the economic environment that we ALL live in? Do the inherent responsibilities of a successful marriage inculcate its members, especially its children, with a sense of monetary responsibility, credit cards and all?
If huffingtonPost.com is going to publish articles justifying societies divorce from marriage than, for the sake of the greater good, it should also explore the ramifications of a society without marriage.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Gingrich, Clinton, China, and the Tea Party: Two Thoughts on the New Political Landscape
The Gingrich-Clinton Paradox:
Do you remember the good old days...I don't but they tell me they were really good. Every family could have an avocado on their table and every child a cell-phone under their desk. Credit cards were more numerous then dollar bills and China's 40 plus 4 million people cities were not swiftly replacing the memory of a towerless ground zero.
Yet what I wish to remember most is the time when the staunchly conservative speaker of the house, Newt Gingrich, and a Democratic stalwart, Bill Clinton worked together, and succeeded.
Yes Clinton was fulfilling the fantasy of many an aspiring politician. Yes the Republican controlled house, it turns out, had much of its own corrupt political figures. But the country was succeeding and our political class was not getting in the way.
Why?
I am sure some political theorist will pontificate about how I reversed the cause and the effect -it was a booming economy despite the government not because of the government.
However one can just as easily make the argument that the political class had an incentive to work together, and that their work facilitated the nations growth.
The Democrats recent control of both the house and the executive exemplifies this paradox:
As the Executive and the legislative branch were politically homogenous, the republican minority did all it could to obstruct and undermine the majority. They then blamed the majority for their failures despite claiming that "the majority had a real chance, they controlled it all, and blew it". True a minority that is focused on obstruction can be a serious impediment to the majorities success, but the public doesn’t see it that way, and that’s what counts.
On the other hand if there is a legislative-executive split, every party has a real and, even more importantly, obvious stake in success. Obvious, because the public is aware of their control/responsibility. It is one thing for politicians (in this case the republicans) to argue that they were "kept out of the process" as the minority, it is another thing, entirely, to fail when in control.
Now that the the GOP controls the house, can Obama get things done?
I think yes.
Why?
Because now both parties are in power and have a stake in the success of the political class they control. Think Clinton and Newt Gingrich's' "contract with America". In this case it is Obama and the "Take back America"/Tea party.
In short the recent political developments are conducive to plentiful avocados and credit, (I hope this time it will be debit cards) cards. Yes it may be as simple as restoring the the check on the balance. Or, if you will, the reemergence of the Newt Gingrich-Clinton paradox.
Tea-party Ideology May be Good for China Too:
Obama's visit to Americas four major Democratic allies in the region -Indonesia, India, Japan, and South Korea- all of which serve, in part, to hedge in China's spreading power, converts wide-spread public condemnation of China in congress into action.
This makes sense.
Besides China's abysmal human rights record, its menacing attitude to many of Americas Asian allies, and its implicit support for nuclear proliferation/bad actors, in Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran, China is also an aggressive if not unscrupulous global competitor. Of course America is not free of its own foibles and out-right blunders, but I believe in America not China.
Still, despite the rhetoric surrounding currency manipulation and the PLC's increasingly anti-American indoctrination -both issues that the tea-party targeted in their campaign- the tea-parties ascendancy can be interpreted as beneficial to China.
Yes I know that Republicans are perceived as strong on defense-spending and war (please see post on http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/04/republicans-and-democrates-herd.html) issues that are inherently threatening to China.
But republicans are also against protectionism, cap-on-trade, and pro free-markets.
Even more China gains from an austerity prone House, after all cuts in spending will strengthen the dollar; a dollar that China is invested in to the tune of 1 trillion dollars.
Do you remember the good old days...I don't but they tell me they were really good. Every family could have an avocado on their table and every child a cell-phone under their desk. Credit cards were more numerous then dollar bills and China's 40 plus 4 million people cities were not swiftly replacing the memory of a towerless ground zero.
Yet what I wish to remember most is the time when the staunchly conservative speaker of the house, Newt Gingrich, and a Democratic stalwart, Bill Clinton worked together, and succeeded.
Yes Clinton was fulfilling the fantasy of many an aspiring politician. Yes the Republican controlled house, it turns out, had much of its own corrupt political figures. But the country was succeeding and our political class was not getting in the way.
Why?
I am sure some political theorist will pontificate about how I reversed the cause and the effect -it was a booming economy despite the government not because of the government.
However one can just as easily make the argument that the political class had an incentive to work together, and that their work facilitated the nations growth.
The Democrats recent control of both the house and the executive exemplifies this paradox:
As the Executive and the legislative branch were politically homogenous, the republican minority did all it could to obstruct and undermine the majority. They then blamed the majority for their failures despite claiming that "the majority had a real chance, they controlled it all, and blew it". True a minority that is focused on obstruction can be a serious impediment to the majorities success, but the public doesn’t see it that way, and that’s what counts.
On the other hand if there is a legislative-executive split, every party has a real and, even more importantly, obvious stake in success. Obvious, because the public is aware of their control/responsibility. It is one thing for politicians (in this case the republicans) to argue that they were "kept out of the process" as the minority, it is another thing, entirely, to fail when in control.
Now that the the GOP controls the house, can Obama get things done?
I think yes.
Why?
Because now both parties are in power and have a stake in the success of the political class they control. Think Clinton and Newt Gingrich's' "contract with America". In this case it is Obama and the "Take back America"/Tea party.
In short the recent political developments are conducive to plentiful avocados and credit, (I hope this time it will be debit cards) cards. Yes it may be as simple as restoring the the check on the balance. Or, if you will, the reemergence of the Newt Gingrich-Clinton paradox.
Tea-party Ideology May be Good for China Too:
Obama's visit to Americas four major Democratic allies in the region -Indonesia, India, Japan, and South Korea- all of which serve, in part, to hedge in China's spreading power, converts wide-spread public condemnation of China in congress into action.
This makes sense.
Besides China's abysmal human rights record, its menacing attitude to many of Americas Asian allies, and its implicit support for nuclear proliferation/bad actors, in Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran, China is also an aggressive if not unscrupulous global competitor. Of course America is not free of its own foibles and out-right blunders, but I believe in America not China.
Still, despite the rhetoric surrounding currency manipulation and the PLC's increasingly anti-American indoctrination -both issues that the tea-party targeted in their campaign- the tea-parties ascendancy can be interpreted as beneficial to China.
Yes I know that Republicans are perceived as strong on defense-spending and war (please see post on http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/04/republicans-and-democrates-herd.html) issues that are inherently threatening to China.
But republicans are also against protectionism, cap-on-trade, and pro free-markets.
Even more China gains from an austerity prone House, after all cuts in spending will strengthen the dollar; a dollar that China is invested in to the tune of 1 trillion dollars.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
A Muslim Questions: "Another Verbal Bomb from Rabbi Ovadia Yosef"
Jpost reported
http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?ID=191782&R=R1&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
that Rabbi Ovadia Yoesef, former Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel and spiritual leader of the Shas party, declared that
“Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel,” (context: he said this in his weekly Saturday night sermon on the laws regarding the actions non-Jews are permitted to perform on Shabbat).
and
“In Israel, death has no dominion over them... With gentiles, it will be like any person – they need to die, but [God] will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money.
and
This is his servant... That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew,” Yosef said.
and
“Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat."
My Muslim friend emailed me with the news and asked:
"Did he really say this? If so, this schmuck really isn't helping Israel's cause. I know that there are a lot of websites out there that love to cherry pick verses from the Talmud and Torah in order to show how "bad" the Jews are, same way that propagandists do to Islam, but from your perspective, I have to ask. Is there any kind of scriptural justification or reasoning for what this guy is saying?"
My response:
(note: I edited my response for source citing, and clarification)
Another verbal bomb from Rabbi Yosef.
Yes there are such commentaries on Isaiah ("And the strangers shall stand and feed your flocks" Isaiah 61:5) for example, and more recent Rabbinic leaders like Rabbi Kook, are quoted as making similar statements. But those exegesis and statements can only be understood in context of the commentators understanding of divine purpose, i.e. the Jews were to spread the belief in G-d (not Judaism, but G-d) , and the gentiles were to help them do it. The commentators saw the mission of the gentile like our society sees support for higher education. Indeed, the supporters are often seen as MORE important than the average academic (an example but there is much more nuance). The commentators intended a meaningful exposition of divine wisdom. From this article it seems the Rabbi was gratuitously insulting and intentionally speaking out of context.
I believe that a proper understanding of the concept of the chosen people, offers a concrete scenario whereas the original commentators perspective can be understood. (My blog post http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/03/chosen-people-what-does-it-mean.html, as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_as_a_chosen_people discusses this in depth). In short we are all servants/messengers of G-d. The Rabbi created a hierarchy, but in the eyes of G-d there are not, cannot be, hierarchies. Our greatest Rabbis said, and we repeat it on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur that we are as dust in front of you (G-d), this theme is repeated in Ethics of Our Fathers" (Pirkei Avot) and elsewhere. Indeed the finite (one or one million) is equally insignificant when measured against the infinite.
I would add that Rabbi Yosef has never been seen by the ChaBaD community or most Orthodox-American (never mind the rest of the Jewish-secular Diaspora) Jews as acting to benefit Israel. He supported Oslo, against clear Rabbinic (Maimonides for example, he was opposed by many leading Rabbis, including my Grandfather, Abraham B. Hecht) injunctions that were of utmost relevance. Recently he cursed the Arabs, and retracted...There is no source in Judaism for such a curse.
He cannot speak for the Jewish community not because he is too extreme, but because he repeatedly abrogates Jewish Rabbinic principles.
Still he has a tremendous following amongst Israeli ultra-orthodox Sephardim and he is a true Torah scholar, beyond most anyone I know.
http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?ID=191782&R=R1&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
that Rabbi Ovadia Yoesef, former Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel and spiritual leader of the Shas party, declared that
“Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel,” (context: he said this in his weekly Saturday night sermon on the laws regarding the actions non-Jews are permitted to perform on Shabbat).
and
“In Israel, death has no dominion over them... With gentiles, it will be like any person – they need to die, but [God] will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money.
and
This is his servant... That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew,” Yosef said.
and
“Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat."
My Muslim friend emailed me with the news and asked:
"Did he really say this? If so, this schmuck really isn't helping Israel's cause. I know that there are a lot of websites out there that love to cherry pick verses from the Talmud and Torah in order to show how "bad" the Jews are, same way that propagandists do to Islam, but from your perspective, I have to ask. Is there any kind of scriptural justification or reasoning for what this guy is saying?"
My response:
(note: I edited my response for source citing, and clarification)
Another verbal bomb from Rabbi Yosef.
Yes there are such commentaries on Isaiah ("And the strangers shall stand and feed your flocks" Isaiah 61:5) for example, and more recent Rabbinic leaders like Rabbi Kook, are quoted as making similar statements. But those exegesis and statements can only be understood in context of the commentators understanding of divine purpose, i.e. the Jews were to spread the belief in G-d (not Judaism, but G-d) , and the gentiles were to help them do it. The commentators saw the mission of the gentile like our society sees support for higher education. Indeed, the supporters are often seen as MORE important than the average academic (an example but there is much more nuance). The commentators intended a meaningful exposition of divine wisdom. From this article it seems the Rabbi was gratuitously insulting and intentionally speaking out of context.
I believe that a proper understanding of the concept of the chosen people, offers a concrete scenario whereas the original commentators perspective can be understood. (My blog post http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/03/chosen-people-what-does-it-mean.html, as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_as_a_chosen_people discusses this in depth). In short we are all servants/messengers of G-d. The Rabbi created a hierarchy, but in the eyes of G-d there are not, cannot be, hierarchies. Our greatest Rabbis said, and we repeat it on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur that we are as dust in front of you (G-d), this theme is repeated in Ethics of Our Fathers" (Pirkei Avot) and elsewhere. Indeed the finite (one or one million) is equally insignificant when measured against the infinite.
I would add that Rabbi Yosef has never been seen by the ChaBaD community or most Orthodox-American (never mind the rest of the Jewish-secular Diaspora) Jews as acting to benefit Israel. He supported Oslo, against clear Rabbinic (Maimonides for example, he was opposed by many leading Rabbis, including my Grandfather, Abraham B. Hecht) injunctions that were of utmost relevance. Recently he cursed the Arabs, and retracted...There is no source in Judaism for such a curse.
He cannot speak for the Jewish community not because he is too extreme, but because he repeatedly abrogates Jewish Rabbinic principles.
Still he has a tremendous following amongst Israeli ultra-orthodox Sephardim and he is a true Torah scholar, beyond most anyone I know.
Friday, October 22, 2010
The Tea Party, Austerity, and the End of Western Hegemony
A series of mishaps has struck a resurgent, albeit tea-infused, Republican Party. Rich Lott (R-Ohio) was exposed by the press for dressing as a Nazi... for a war reenactment... that didn't include any genocidal references, bad taste, bad politics, but not necessarily anti-Semetic. Before that Delaware Republican Senate candidate, Christine O'Donnell was exposed as a "witch" who on a decades old video clip says "I dabbled into witchcraft. I never joined a coven.”
Interestingly the clip hit the Internet just days after she stunned longtime congressman Mike Castle in the GOP primary in her third bid for Senate.
It would seem the Democrats were party to a bona fide, that's right, witch hunt!
Most recently a politically significant, however underreported nationally, story came out of Arizona, "The office of Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) has been locked down due to the presence of a suspicious package covered with swastikas. KVOA reports that an "envelope containing white powder" was mailed to Grijalva's Tucson office. Bomb technicians are reportedly on hand" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/21/raul-grijalva-suspicious-package_n_772166.html).
This episode will likely galvanize the Hispanic voting public both in Arizona and nationally because it serves as a non-verbal reminder to a major minority population that "hey vote for us or get THAT".
Could all of these recent disclosures be more than politics as usual? Could it be part of a larger effort to destroy the Tea party?
We may never know. However there is another unique development surrounding the Tea parties success and subsequent national media developments- the GOP (Grand Old Party i.e. the Republican establishment) is working against the Tea party.
To illustrate how keen the Republican establishment is on trying to crush the tea party, notice that the party is under attack from the likes of former Republican speaker of the house, Newt Gingrich and Michael Steel, Chairman of the National Republican Committee. Indeed the Republican establishment has funneled millions of dollars to boost main stream candidates in Republican primaries (http://thinkprogress.org/teaparty-primaries/). True conservative stalwarts like Rush Limbaugh and Mike Huckabee are defending the Tea Party but all in all the Democratic and Republican establishment are on an all-out offensive against the incipient "tea-baggers".
So why is there is so much bipartisanship effort directed as halting the Tea parties advance?
We should begin by asking: if the tea party takes over the Republican party and thus congress, does that mean we can expect real austerity measures, like those inching their way through parliaments in Western Europe?
Athens burned, Sarkozy is facing a fierce street-fight over his efforts to raise France's retirement age from 60 to 62, and the UK has passed a measure to reduce overall government expenditures by 18 %, a measure that includes the layoff of over 500,000 public sector employees -one third of its public workforce.
Will we go that route with the Tea party in power?
If so do we realize that austerity measures for America would be Ron Paul-like. They would probably include disbanding our ubiquitous military bases and pulling our forces out of places like, South Korea, Germany, Japan, Taiwan (Yes it costs a million dollars a day to fund an aircraft carrier we have 10)?
But it also means that the sprawling military-industrial complex, that Eisenhower forewarned will dissolve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower), and the subsidized-induced R&D innovations, like the internet, will no longer emerge with expected frequency. We will lose our technological edge -if we haven't already.
Yet our austerity measures will have far-reaching implications. Unlike Europe's localized measures the dissolution of global American power leaves the West with no shield from a variety of economic and political threats. Not that China wants to destroy us, but if we pull out of Asia, we, and the West, will loss our preferential access/relationships to the fastest growing region in the world. It could even result in the de-democratization of much of the developing world.
That’s right, at end of WWII America supplanted the British military as the protector of the global Western enterprise. Britain was happy to transfer the its strategic military position to a kindred-western spirit, after all it allowed them to maintain their economic power. Who will take our place, who will be the West’s America? India -the most populous democracy in the world- is not yet mature enough to take on that daunting challenge. Europe has its own debt crises, and has already exchanged its armies for universal health care and the likes. America like Europe has a massive debt crisis, but we borrowed more to supplement our military than we did to create a welfare-state.
European austerity affects Europeans; austerity for America could change the entire geopolitical landscape.
Tea party austerity may very well mean the end of a Western-Democratic streak dating back a little over 500 years to the reunification of the Spain under Ferdinand and Isabella.
This may explain the almost conspiratorial nature of recent revelations concerning Tea party candidates. It may also be one of the few developments significant enough to stimulate bipartisanship.
In any case this generation of Americans may be witnessing another watershed development in our world’s cyclical evolution.
Interestingly the clip hit the Internet just days after she stunned longtime congressman Mike Castle in the GOP primary in her third bid for Senate.
It would seem the Democrats were party to a bona fide, that's right, witch hunt!
Most recently a politically significant, however underreported nationally, story came out of Arizona, "The office of Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) has been locked down due to the presence of a suspicious package covered with swastikas. KVOA reports that an "envelope containing white powder" was mailed to Grijalva's Tucson office. Bomb technicians are reportedly on hand" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/21/raul-grijalva-suspicious-package_n_772166.html).
This episode will likely galvanize the Hispanic voting public both in Arizona and nationally because it serves as a non-verbal reminder to a major minority population that "hey vote for us or get THAT".
Could all of these recent disclosures be more than politics as usual? Could it be part of a larger effort to destroy the Tea party?
We may never know. However there is another unique development surrounding the Tea parties success and subsequent national media developments- the GOP (Grand Old Party i.e. the Republican establishment) is working against the Tea party.
To illustrate how keen the Republican establishment is on trying to crush the tea party, notice that the party is under attack from the likes of former Republican speaker of the house, Newt Gingrich and Michael Steel, Chairman of the National Republican Committee. Indeed the Republican establishment has funneled millions of dollars to boost main stream candidates in Republican primaries (http://thinkprogress.org/teaparty-primaries/). True conservative stalwarts like Rush Limbaugh and Mike Huckabee are defending the Tea Party but all in all the Democratic and Republican establishment are on an all-out offensive against the incipient "tea-baggers".
So why is there is so much bipartisanship effort directed as halting the Tea parties advance?
We should begin by asking: if the tea party takes over the Republican party and thus congress, does that mean we can expect real austerity measures, like those inching their way through parliaments in Western Europe?
Athens burned, Sarkozy is facing a fierce street-fight over his efforts to raise France's retirement age from 60 to 62, and the UK has passed a measure to reduce overall government expenditures by 18 %, a measure that includes the layoff of over 500,000 public sector employees -one third of its public workforce.
Will we go that route with the Tea party in power?
If so do we realize that austerity measures for America would be Ron Paul-like. They would probably include disbanding our ubiquitous military bases and pulling our forces out of places like, South Korea, Germany, Japan, Taiwan (Yes it costs a million dollars a day to fund an aircraft carrier we have 10)?
But it also means that the sprawling military-industrial complex, that Eisenhower forewarned will dissolve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower), and the subsidized-induced R&D innovations, like the internet, will no longer emerge with expected frequency. We will lose our technological edge -if we haven't already.
Yet our austerity measures will have far-reaching implications. Unlike Europe's localized measures the dissolution of global American power leaves the West with no shield from a variety of economic and political threats. Not that China wants to destroy us, but if we pull out of Asia, we, and the West, will loss our preferential access/relationships to the fastest growing region in the world. It could even result in the de-democratization of much of the developing world.
That’s right, at end of WWII America supplanted the British military as the protector of the global Western enterprise. Britain was happy to transfer the its strategic military position to a kindred-western spirit, after all it allowed them to maintain their economic power. Who will take our place, who will be the West’s America? India -the most populous democracy in the world- is not yet mature enough to take on that daunting challenge. Europe has its own debt crises, and has already exchanged its armies for universal health care and the likes. America like Europe has a massive debt crisis, but we borrowed more to supplement our military than we did to create a welfare-state.
European austerity affects Europeans; austerity for America could change the entire geopolitical landscape.
Tea party austerity may very well mean the end of a Western-Democratic streak dating back a little over 500 years to the reunification of the Spain under Ferdinand and Isabella.
This may explain the almost conspiratorial nature of recent revelations concerning Tea party candidates. It may also be one of the few developments significant enough to stimulate bipartisanship.
In any case this generation of Americans may be witnessing another watershed development in our world’s cyclical evolution.
Monday, October 18, 2010
For Israel There Is Only One Choice: A Jewish Majority At All Costs!
The PLO Representative to the United States, Maen Rashid Areikat, spoke today at the Middle East Institute of Columbia University. Mr. Areikat was asked by my friend whether he believed that the current US sponsored Peace effort, towards a two state solution was more plausible then a one state solution?
Mr. Areikat responded with standard diplomatic circumlocution, that Israel has three choices.
1. Become an apartheid state, by both refusing to negotiate for a Palestinian State and preventing West Bank Palestinians from achieving full Israeli citizenship.
2. Accept a two state solution.
3. A one state solution, by giving West Bank residents full Israeli citizenship.
But I disagree Israel has only one choice:
From Areikat’s perspective, the creation of Israel alienated an entire population, and he is right.
Perhaps this population caused its own downfall and continues to miss opportunities, -failed leadership and corruption etc.- but as any cognitive psychologist will tell you it is perception not reality that is important.
It is equally true that regardless of the justness of Israel’s position the Palestinians are not going away.
But Mr. Areikat, like so many others, misses the underlying point. Israel is not just another nation where citizens define their allegiance by rooting for their national-sports team. Israel is not just a state where Jews are a majority. It is a place defined by its Jewish majority.
To repeat:
For 2000 years the worlds Jews, and their resourcefulness, were at the whim of tyrants, imams, and popes. True in the Ottoman Empire, Muslim ruled Iberia (Spain),15th century Poland, and 19th century Germany Jews were allowed to live in peace, but they were never equal citizens. And as we know now their safety was as transient, as the laws that protected them. It is also true that America, my country, has been unwavering in its protection of its Jewish minority, but even here Jews are constantly reminded by the likes of Helen Thomase, Mel Gibson, and Oliver Stone -to name a few- that America the beautiful can be high-jacked by ugly Americans.
Now Jews finally have a state, not a decaying dessert kingdom, but a developed, and pluralistic nation in the very same geography of our ancient homeland. A place where I, an American, can choose to move and thrive and where my fellow Jews who are being firebombed and beaten (usually by disaffected un-integrated [Chancellor Angela Merkel anyone] Muslim immigrant-youth)are now running.
So why should Israel's support a two state solution only to be hedged in by a proven enemy from every side?
1967 borders?!
You mean to say Israel should allow itself to be effectively split in half? Because 1967 borders=20; 20 miles wide at its most narrow point, which is also smack in the middle of Israel. Dismantling settlements?!
You mean to say that Israel should force 325,000 Jews from their homes? Isn't that exactly what Palestinians claim happened to them?
Worse why should Israel support a one state solution only to lose its Jewish majority and place itself in the hands -once again- of a people who, justly or otherwise, have been taught to hate and have murdered out of hate?
Indeed even if they were peace loving Europeans (ahem hem) why take the chance?
I know, the moral arguments coming from the left and Muslims are compelling.
But from my perspective this is not about who is the bigger victim of circumstance or whether Israel deserves all the world’s condemnation, it's not even about the moral issues of "occupation".
It's about Israel's mission to preclude another 2000 years of forced subjection to unfettered human hate. Jews are no longer defenseless. For this reason Israel has only one choice, a Jewish Majority at all costs!
Mr. Areikat responded with standard diplomatic circumlocution, that Israel has three choices.
1. Become an apartheid state, by both refusing to negotiate for a Palestinian State and preventing West Bank Palestinians from achieving full Israeli citizenship.
2. Accept a two state solution.
3. A one state solution, by giving West Bank residents full Israeli citizenship.
But I disagree Israel has only one choice:
From Areikat’s perspective, the creation of Israel alienated an entire population, and he is right.
Perhaps this population caused its own downfall and continues to miss opportunities, -failed leadership and corruption etc.- but as any cognitive psychologist will tell you it is perception not reality that is important.
It is equally true that regardless of the justness of Israel’s position the Palestinians are not going away.
But Mr. Areikat, like so many others, misses the underlying point. Israel is not just another nation where citizens define their allegiance by rooting for their national-sports team. Israel is not just a state where Jews are a majority. It is a place defined by its Jewish majority.
To repeat:
For 2000 years the worlds Jews, and their resourcefulness, were at the whim of tyrants, imams, and popes. True in the Ottoman Empire, Muslim ruled Iberia (Spain),15th century Poland, and 19th century Germany Jews were allowed to live in peace, but they were never equal citizens. And as we know now their safety was as transient, as the laws that protected them. It is also true that America, my country, has been unwavering in its protection of its Jewish minority, but even here Jews are constantly reminded by the likes of Helen Thomase, Mel Gibson, and Oliver Stone -to name a few- that America the beautiful can be high-jacked by ugly Americans.
Now Jews finally have a state, not a decaying dessert kingdom, but a developed, and pluralistic nation in the very same geography of our ancient homeland. A place where I, an American, can choose to move and thrive and where my fellow Jews who are being firebombed and beaten (usually by disaffected un-integrated [Chancellor Angela Merkel anyone] Muslim immigrant-youth)are now running.
So why should Israel's support a two state solution only to be hedged in by a proven enemy from every side?
1967 borders?!
You mean to say Israel should allow itself to be effectively split in half? Because 1967 borders=20; 20 miles wide at its most narrow point, which is also smack in the middle of Israel. Dismantling settlements?!
You mean to say that Israel should force 325,000 Jews from their homes? Isn't that exactly what Palestinians claim happened to them?
Worse why should Israel support a one state solution only to lose its Jewish majority and place itself in the hands -once again- of a people who, justly or otherwise, have been taught to hate and have murdered out of hate?
Indeed even if they were peace loving Europeans (ahem hem) why take the chance?
I know, the moral arguments coming from the left and Muslims are compelling.
But from my perspective this is not about who is the bigger victim of circumstance or whether Israel deserves all the world’s condemnation, it's not even about the moral issues of "occupation".
It's about Israel's mission to preclude another 2000 years of forced subjection to unfettered human hate. Jews are no longer defenseless. For this reason Israel has only one choice, a Jewish Majority at all costs!
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Scary Theory, Puzzle Theory, Soul-Mates, and the Unifying Factor
There is this persistent claim that my soul-mate is... Ms. Fabulosa!
Na just kidding.
But really who is my soul-mate? Where is she, what is she waiting for?
Than again do I even believe in the concept of a soul-mate?
And if so, what do I mean by "soul-mate"? Is soul-mate singular in nature or do we all have multiple soul-mates?
In conversation on the topic of soul-mate with a mixture of agnostics, Muslims, Jews, and Christians it seems that there are two dominant modes of thought, The Scary theory and the Puzzle theory. In all cases, however, the dialog flowed from a key question:
What does the term "soul-mate" mean?
The agnostics generally responded that it refers to the animal instinct that predisposes you to desire a given mate. If there is a reciprocal non-drug induced urge to mate, you have found your soul-mate. In short, the soul is an amorphous label for an intangible urge.
The religious conception differed in that it's proponents (generally) attributed different degrees of higher deterministic attributes to the term soul mate. But in every case all agreed that the soul was either a G-dly representative, or a piece of G-d, guiding the individual on a given course (please see blog post for more on this http://factoru.blogspot.com/2009/12/unifying-factor-is-soul-global.html). This course includes an intersection where one meets their mate. Thus "soul-mate" is a descriptive term delineating the process in which we meet our G-d chosen mate.
Still there seems to be a raging debate on the singularity or plurality of ones soul-mate.
The arguments, ruffly, fall into two theoretical perspectives.
The "Scary Theory" (ST):
ST, posits that a soul-mate is interchangeable with the one and only. This is what makes this theory so scary, to think that I may have missed my one and only chance...
Personally I don't buy this romantic tragedy waiting-to-happen for a second. I think the Puzzle theory has more to offer.
The "Puzzle Theory" (PT):
Is predicated on the hypothesis that the "soul" pervades and guides every event in an individuals life. We are who we are, either because we have accessed our soul/self or we have denied it. Either way it defines us. Moreover it is what connects us and makes us a necessary component of all existence. Environmentalist, and economists call it globalization, or inevitable interconnectivity. But the root of the ability to connect effectively is not the internet. Nor do the environmental practices in China negatively impact us here simply because we live on the same planet. Rather it is the fact that we are actually one organism connected by our collective soul.
Like a puzzle made up of multiple parts -sizes, colors, and shapes- we are not just isolated individuals -without our proper placement the global puzzle is incomplete. This analogy carries over to the role of the pieces of the puzzle that you are intimately connected with. Thats right the pieceS... plural.
Every piece of the puzzle has a few potential soul-mates, and the larger the puzzle the more pieces AND the harder it is to find the one. Still, just as your soul inevitably fits into the larger soul that is at the heart of and enables increasing global interconnectivity. So to, if one embraces their inner soul -their purpose- they too will inevitably meet their soul-mate.
Yes, the soul-mate as understood by the Puzzle theory is another manifestation of the unifying factor.
Na just kidding.
But really who is my soul-mate? Where is she, what is she waiting for?
Than again do I even believe in the concept of a soul-mate?
And if so, what do I mean by "soul-mate"? Is soul-mate singular in nature or do we all have multiple soul-mates?
In conversation on the topic of soul-mate with a mixture of agnostics, Muslims, Jews, and Christians it seems that there are two dominant modes of thought, The Scary theory and the Puzzle theory. In all cases, however, the dialog flowed from a key question:
What does the term "soul-mate" mean?
The agnostics generally responded that it refers to the animal instinct that predisposes you to desire a given mate. If there is a reciprocal non-drug induced urge to mate, you have found your soul-mate. In short, the soul is an amorphous label for an intangible urge.
The religious conception differed in that it's proponents (generally) attributed different degrees of higher deterministic attributes to the term soul mate. But in every case all agreed that the soul was either a G-dly representative, or a piece of G-d, guiding the individual on a given course (please see blog post for more on this http://factoru.blogspot.com/2009/12/unifying-factor-is-soul-global.html). This course includes an intersection where one meets their mate. Thus "soul-mate" is a descriptive term delineating the process in which we meet our G-d chosen mate.
Still there seems to be a raging debate on the singularity or plurality of ones soul-mate.
The arguments, ruffly, fall into two theoretical perspectives.
The "Scary Theory" (ST):
ST, posits that a soul-mate is interchangeable with the one and only. This is what makes this theory so scary, to think that I may have missed my one and only chance...
Personally I don't buy this romantic tragedy waiting-to-happen for a second. I think the Puzzle theory has more to offer.
The "Puzzle Theory" (PT):
Is predicated on the hypothesis that the "soul" pervades and guides every event in an individuals life. We are who we are, either because we have accessed our soul/self or we have denied it. Either way it defines us. Moreover it is what connects us and makes us a necessary component of all existence. Environmentalist, and economists call it globalization, or inevitable interconnectivity. But the root of the ability to connect effectively is not the internet. Nor do the environmental practices in China negatively impact us here simply because we live on the same planet. Rather it is the fact that we are actually one organism connected by our collective soul.
Like a puzzle made up of multiple parts -sizes, colors, and shapes- we are not just isolated individuals -without our proper placement the global puzzle is incomplete. This analogy carries over to the role of the pieces of the puzzle that you are intimately connected with. Thats right the pieceS... plural.
Every piece of the puzzle has a few potential soul-mates, and the larger the puzzle the more pieces AND the harder it is to find the one. Still, just as your soul inevitably fits into the larger soul that is at the heart of and enables increasing global interconnectivity. So to, if one embraces their inner soul -their purpose- they too will inevitably meet their soul-mate.
Yes, the soul-mate as understood by the Puzzle theory is another manifestation of the unifying factor.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
A New Paradigm for Linkage: The Iranian Threat is At the Root of Middle East Conflict
In an under-publicized July meeting between president Obama and 14 Jewish organizations, The ADL's Abe Foxman told the president.
"I agree with your goal to bring peace to the Middle East, But the perception is that you're beating up only on Israel, and not on the Arabs. If you want Israel to take risks for peace, the best way is to make Israel feel that its staunch friend America is behind it."
"You are absolutely wrong," the president replied. "For the past eight years [under the Bush administration], Israel had a friend in the United States and it didn't make peace."
Abe Foxman continued:
"I came away from the meeting convinced that Obama has introduced a new and dangerous strategy and that it's revealing itself in steps," Foxman told Edward Klein. "Unlike other administrations, this one is applying linkage in the Middle East. It's saying that if you resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the messiah will come and the lions will lie down with the lambs." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-klein/the-jewish-problem-with-o_b_748082.html?ir=Politics)
Obama argued that America needed to pressure Israel because the Israel conflict was at the heart of Middle-east instability. In other words Obama was arguing the old Jimmy Carter linkage line, "it's Israels fault".
I have always opposed this oversimplified, and frankly dilettantish, conception of that conflict. At the same time I believe there is evidence of a different type of linkage at play.
Iran's Ahmadinejad plans on visiting Lebanon October 13-14 and already there is talk of an Lebanese civil war . It seems that Ahmadinejad is worried that prominent leaders of his proxy occupying force in Lebanon, Hezbollah, will be indited for the assassination of former premier of Lebanon Rafiq Harari(http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=lebanon-heading-toward-crisis-over-hariri-case-2010-10-05, Debka.com).
Meanwhile, another proxy of Iran, HAMAS, has done all it could, including killing four innocent civilians, to upend the most recent American instigated peace initiative. In Iraq, wikileaks documents exposed Iran's comprehensive role in multiple attacks against American/NATO forces as well as civilian Iraqis, in order to destabilize, and ultimately defeat Americas efforts.
Iran is also making a concerted effort to block Israeli-Syrian peace, realizing that such an accord would strengthen Israel's and Americas position in the region. While Turkey finds it easier to dissolve old alliances in the region as they see Iran as an alternative to America and Israel (!).
Now there is evidence of Iran's bloody work in Yemen, Afghanistan (http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/international/afghan-police-seize-22-tons-of-explosives-from-iran-20101006-ncx), and North Korea.
All these leads me to the conclusion that Jimmy Carter/Obama/destabilizing-left and co. are right about the existence of linkage (please see post on "linkers and thinkers", for more) in the Middle-east. Only its the Iran threat, not the Israel/Palestinian conflict, that is at the root of instability in the region.
Ironically the Iran problem is allot easier to solve.
"I agree with your goal to bring peace to the Middle East, But the perception is that you're beating up only on Israel, and not on the Arabs. If you want Israel to take risks for peace, the best way is to make Israel feel that its staunch friend America is behind it."
"You are absolutely wrong," the president replied. "For the past eight years [under the Bush administration], Israel had a friend in the United States and it didn't make peace."
Abe Foxman continued:
"I came away from the meeting convinced that Obama has introduced a new and dangerous strategy and that it's revealing itself in steps," Foxman told Edward Klein. "Unlike other administrations, this one is applying linkage in the Middle East. It's saying that if you resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the messiah will come and the lions will lie down with the lambs." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-klein/the-jewish-problem-with-o_b_748082.html?ir=Politics)
Obama argued that America needed to pressure Israel because the Israel conflict was at the heart of Middle-east instability. In other words Obama was arguing the old Jimmy Carter linkage line, "it's Israels fault".
I have always opposed this oversimplified, and frankly dilettantish, conception of that conflict. At the same time I believe there is evidence of a different type of linkage at play.
Iran's Ahmadinejad plans on visiting Lebanon October 13-14 and already there is talk of an Lebanese civil war . It seems that Ahmadinejad is worried that prominent leaders of his proxy occupying force in Lebanon, Hezbollah, will be indited for the assassination of former premier of Lebanon Rafiq Harari(http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=lebanon-heading-toward-crisis-over-hariri-case-2010-10-05, Debka.com).
Meanwhile, another proxy of Iran, HAMAS, has done all it could, including killing four innocent civilians, to upend the most recent American instigated peace initiative. In Iraq, wikileaks documents exposed Iran's comprehensive role in multiple attacks against American/NATO forces as well as civilian Iraqis, in order to destabilize, and ultimately defeat Americas efforts.
Iran is also making a concerted effort to block Israeli-Syrian peace, realizing that such an accord would strengthen Israel's and Americas position in the region. While Turkey finds it easier to dissolve old alliances in the region as they see Iran as an alternative to America and Israel (!).
Now there is evidence of Iran's bloody work in Yemen, Afghanistan (http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/international/afghan-police-seize-22-tons-of-explosives-from-iran-20101006-ncx), and North Korea.
All these leads me to the conclusion that Jimmy Carter/Obama/destabilizing-left and co. are right about the existence of linkage (please see post on "linkers and thinkers", for more) in the Middle-east. Only its the Iran threat, not the Israel/Palestinian conflict, that is at the root of instability in the region.
Ironically the Iran problem is allot easier to solve.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Poetry With an Explanation: "Indoctrinated Youth"
I know what your thinking
but its not exactly what you predicted
Rush hour in Brooklyn
A cacophony of smells and noise
Now your pocket concerns you,
not your face.
We all move with great speed
A mixed heard of sheep, cattle, and some predators too
Our destinations vary our purpose is the same
Lo the R train is it coming will I have to wait?
Again!
Then.
The fluid solids waves of man, women, and
and whats this...
A Child?
He may have been 12 but he was lurching, sidestepping, and nudging all with the deftness of a seasoned commuter. I moving watched as he almost ran over a pleasantly plump woman and then dove elbows first into the train. Society's impact on a 12 year old, he, like many of our youth, has been indoctrinated.
He knows he must run but does he know why?
Is he the same when he visits small town Connecticut?
Does he realize that one acts like a Roman only when in Rome?
Is THIS what we have succeeded in imparting?
Indoctrinated youth, tell me what else have you learned?
but its not exactly what you predicted
Rush hour in Brooklyn
A cacophony of smells and noise
Now your pocket concerns you,
not your face.
We all move with great speed
A mixed heard of sheep, cattle, and some predators too
Our destinations vary our purpose is the same
Lo the R train is it coming will I have to wait?
Again!
Then.
The fluid solids waves of man, women, and
and whats this...
A Child?
He may have been 12 but he was lurching, sidestepping, and nudging all with the deftness of a seasoned commuter. I moving watched as he almost ran over a pleasantly plump woman and then dove elbows first into the train. Society's impact on a 12 year old, he, like many of our youth, has been indoctrinated.
He knows he must run but does he know why?
Is he the same when he visits small town Connecticut?
Does he realize that one acts like a Roman only when in Rome?
Is THIS what we have succeeded in imparting?
Indoctrinated youth, tell me what else have you learned?
An Evolutionary Perspective on Israel Bias in the UN and Endemic Anti-Semitism
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), on the last day of its annual general conference, voted against a non-binding resolution urging Israel to accede to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).The paper -- which Washington had asked Arab countries not to table at all for fear it could jeopardize a conference on a nuclear weapons-free Middle East to be held in 2012 -- was rejected by the 151-member general assembly with 51 votes against it, 46 votes in favor and 23 abstentions. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100924/wl_mideast_afp/iaeanuclearpoliticsisrael).
Why is this news?
Over the last 60 years every apparatus of the United Nations -from the General Assembly (UNGA) to the Human Rights Council (UNHRC, previously the UNCRH )- has served as instruments to channel the international community’s anti-Israel fervor. One egregious example of this long standing trend had the 2010 session of the UNHRC (as of March 25) passing 5 resolutions condemning Israel -more than the total combined amount of resolutions it dedicated to all other countries in the world — one each on Burma, North Korea and Guinea. No mention of Darfur, Tibet, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Russia, Congo, Libya etc.
Some attribute this blatant lopsidedness to the nature of the UN. Namely its various committees, especially the human rights council, are controlled and/or heavily influenced by political blocks. The block with the most votes is that of non-aligned states i.e. most non-Western states. This means, for example, that France may verbally condemn Iranian violations but because it does not want Iran and its allies to vote against Frances interests in the future France abstains from voting for a resolution condemning Iran. Furthermore, because non-aligned states outnumber western states, they can vote any member-state into any commission. For example, Libya, a gross violator of human rights was elected to the UNHRC. But Israel, with its few allies is one state that the world can agree to condemn without fearing any vote related backlash. Indeed condemning Israel is often used to justify the existence of an otherwise inept UN. After all the UN is fighting injustice, just not ALL injustice.
Still others contend that the reason that Israel is so predictably and consistently targeted is because Israel deserves it. In other words, the fact that HAMAS cannot rearm openly, because of Israel’s embargo, and Israel’s often overwhelming defense of its population trumps the wide-spread government sponsored suppression, rape, and murder of UNHRC members like Libya and Iran.
I agree, politics is one factor that contributes to the UN’s track record but there is another.
Yes you guessed correctly, my input relates to anti-Semitism but only so far as anti-Semitism is a label for what evolutionary theory calls natural selection and what others conflate with "survival of the fittest”.
Briefly, natural selection is “the ability of an organism to survive, adapt, and proliferate in its environment” this success is attributed to genetic traits. On the other hand the “survival of the fittest” implies superior fitness/external traits. This difference is key to understanding Hitler’s conception of the uber race, anti-Semitism, and is at the root of the UN’s obsession with condemning Jews/Israel.
Hitler argued that the physical traits of the Aryan, blond hair and such, were evidence of their genetic superiority, whereas Jewish noses, somehow proved genetic inferiority . But Hitler confused the cause and the effect. It is internal genetic traits that enable organisms to thrive -ones hair color and height are the effect of genetic traits not their cause. Thus such external traits cannot serve as evidence of genetic tenacity.
OK, so Hitler confused cause an affect, whats the point?
First a question:
Why did Hitler reach for a genetic reason to condemn Jews, why didn't he focus only on the usual stereotypes?
Because many anti-Semites throughout history made the claim that Jews were inferior. At first it was Jews did not assimilate into the Roman empire. Then Jews refused to convert to Christianity. Then the Jews killed the Jew Jesus. Then the hate was justified by Jewish disloyalty to their host state, and/or the Jewish control of world banks etc...
Hitler assumed that all these Jewish "sins" must reflect a deeper inferiority of the Jew, he proved this by pointing out the Jewish nose and hair color. The irony is that Hitler's reasoning was just as flawed as his predecessors. For he used perceived external traits as evidence of internal flaws. His forbearer's pointed to Jewish stubbornness, Hitler pointed to Jewish physical characteristics
This illogical trend raises an obvious question: why do anti-Semites continually condemn Jews based on external factors like noses and conspiracies to control banks? Can one really make a claim about the innate properties of a people based on external sins? Indeed, can UN nations really sit in judgement of Israel's excessive self-defense while many of its own members rape and murder by the thousands!?
It would seem then that the proclaimed/conscious flawed reasoning of the anti-Semite reflect "survival of the fittest" principles, whereas their true sub-conscious motivations reflect natural selection
Hitler, the anti-Semite, and the UN are all motivated by a similar concern. Namely the unwillingness to accept that their hate is not based on objective external factors like noses, religion, or propensity for economic malfeasance ("survival of the fittest"). Rather it stems from a deeply rooted evolutionary fear that the Jews success, despite everything, is evidence of natural selection working in favor of the Jews.
The UN has simply institutionalized, on a global scale, the irrational fears of the simple anti-Semite.
At first Israel teetered on the edge of a social, political, and existential abyss, but now it has emerged as a small world power. The nations of the world are worried once again. The UN's collective subconscious is crying “evolution is at work the Jews are supplanting us”. The conscious manifestation of this is the inexplicable and abysmal bias against Israel expressed in every corner of the UN and the reemergence of anti-Semitism in every corner of the world.
In short there is reason to believe that evolutionary principles are at the root of all this preponderance of hate by the anti-Semite and in the UN. Caused by overwhelming Jewish success that spans all known history that was, and is, perceived as an existential threat to the ascendency of the non-Jewish species. The manifest result of this perception is labeled "anti-Semitism". The perceived threat of the Jewish "species" was compounded by the failure of the various state-sponsored measures of forced conversion expulsion, and ghettos. Despite every effort the Jew not only survived but prospered. The anti-Semite interpreted this, subconsciously, as evidence of the Jewish evolutionary ascendancy and responded to it consciously by discounting Jewish success as nefarious and ill-gained, -anything to not have to face up to their own insecurities- and then persecuting the Jew.
It seems only natural that the UN manifests this carnal fear of Jewish superiority in its treatment of Israel. As Israel, like the Jew, continues to experience ever greater success despite global efforts of boycott, sanction, condemnation, terror, to force Israel into submission. Yes, the UN has taken on both the deep-seated motivations and misinterpreted manifestations of the anti-Semite. The UN justifies its hate-campaign by pointing to Israel’s wrongs, but the extent and bias of this pointing is at its root a subconscious motivation- the collective fear of Israeli success.
The tragedy is that anti-Semites and the UN continue to make Hitler’s mistake by assuming that external factors such as Jewish success, “survival of the fittest”, is valid evidence of natural selection choosing the Jew. Not only is this a inverted conception of natural selection (as described above), and thus in itself should not arouse the subconscious fear, it is also the Jewish perspective that if natural selection is correct it is in itself a tool of a higher power. It is not the final determinant of survival and success.
The world need not perceive Israel’s successes as a threat, just as the anti-Semite need not perceive the Jew as attempting his dissolution.
On the contrary:
As is evidenced by global Jewry in general and the Jewish-American experience in particular, Jews can and do contribute in every way to society.
Interestingly all the above may explain Americas pro-Israel track-record.
Why is America an exceptional example of Jewish contribution? Because America is a society that is secure in its own inherent worth and is not threatened by a subconscious psychosis that natural selection is favoring the Jew, to the detriment of the rest.
THAT is a major factor contributing to Americas general (though not unanimous) support of Israel in the UN, and Americas/Americans relatively stellar record on anti-Semitism.
Why is this news?
Over the last 60 years every apparatus of the United Nations -from the General Assembly (UNGA) to the Human Rights Council (UNHRC, previously the UNCRH )- has served as instruments to channel the international community’s anti-Israel fervor. One egregious example of this long standing trend had the 2010 session of the UNHRC (as of March 25) passing 5 resolutions condemning Israel -more than the total combined amount of resolutions it dedicated to all other countries in the world — one each on Burma, North Korea and Guinea. No mention of Darfur, Tibet, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Russia, Congo, Libya etc.
Some attribute this blatant lopsidedness to the nature of the UN. Namely its various committees, especially the human rights council, are controlled and/or heavily influenced by political blocks. The block with the most votes is that of non-aligned states i.e. most non-Western states. This means, for example, that France may verbally condemn Iranian violations but because it does not want Iran and its allies to vote against Frances interests in the future France abstains from voting for a resolution condemning Iran. Furthermore, because non-aligned states outnumber western states, they can vote any member-state into any commission. For example, Libya, a gross violator of human rights was elected to the UNHRC. But Israel, with its few allies is one state that the world can agree to condemn without fearing any vote related backlash. Indeed condemning Israel is often used to justify the existence of an otherwise inept UN. After all the UN is fighting injustice, just not ALL injustice.
Still others contend that the reason that Israel is so predictably and consistently targeted is because Israel deserves it. In other words, the fact that HAMAS cannot rearm openly, because of Israel’s embargo, and Israel’s often overwhelming defense of its population trumps the wide-spread government sponsored suppression, rape, and murder of UNHRC members like Libya and Iran.
I agree, politics is one factor that contributes to the UN’s track record but there is another.
Yes you guessed correctly, my input relates to anti-Semitism but only so far as anti-Semitism is a label for what evolutionary theory calls natural selection and what others conflate with "survival of the fittest”.
Briefly, natural selection is “the ability of an organism to survive, adapt, and proliferate in its environment” this success is attributed to genetic traits. On the other hand the “survival of the fittest” implies superior fitness/external traits. This difference is key to understanding Hitler’s conception of the uber race, anti-Semitism, and is at the root of the UN’s obsession with condemning Jews/Israel.
Hitler argued that the physical traits of the Aryan, blond hair and such, were evidence of their genetic superiority, whereas Jewish noses, somehow proved genetic inferiority . But Hitler confused the cause and the effect. It is internal genetic traits that enable organisms to thrive -ones hair color and height are the effect of genetic traits not their cause. Thus such external traits cannot serve as evidence of genetic tenacity.
OK, so Hitler confused cause an affect, whats the point?
First a question:
Why did Hitler reach for a genetic reason to condemn Jews, why didn't he focus only on the usual stereotypes?
Because many anti-Semites throughout history made the claim that Jews were inferior. At first it was Jews did not assimilate into the Roman empire. Then Jews refused to convert to Christianity. Then the Jews killed the Jew Jesus. Then the hate was justified by Jewish disloyalty to their host state, and/or the Jewish control of world banks etc...
Hitler assumed that all these Jewish "sins" must reflect a deeper inferiority of the Jew, he proved this by pointing out the Jewish nose and hair color. The irony is that Hitler's reasoning was just as flawed as his predecessors. For he used perceived external traits as evidence of internal flaws. His forbearer's pointed to Jewish stubbornness, Hitler pointed to Jewish physical characteristics
This illogical trend raises an obvious question: why do anti-Semites continually condemn Jews based on external factors like noses and conspiracies to control banks? Can one really make a claim about the innate properties of a people based on external sins? Indeed, can UN nations really sit in judgement of Israel's excessive self-defense while many of its own members rape and murder by the thousands!?
It would seem then that the proclaimed/conscious flawed reasoning of the anti-Semite reflect "survival of the fittest" principles, whereas their true sub-conscious motivations reflect natural selection
Hitler, the anti-Semite, and the UN are all motivated by a similar concern. Namely the unwillingness to accept that their hate is not based on objective external factors like noses, religion, or propensity for economic malfeasance ("survival of the fittest"). Rather it stems from a deeply rooted evolutionary fear that the Jews success, despite everything, is evidence of natural selection working in favor of the Jews.
The UN has simply institutionalized, on a global scale, the irrational fears of the simple anti-Semite.
At first Israel teetered on the edge of a social, political, and existential abyss, but now it has emerged as a small world power. The nations of the world are worried once again. The UN's collective subconscious is crying “evolution is at work the Jews are supplanting us”. The conscious manifestation of this is the inexplicable and abysmal bias against Israel expressed in every corner of the UN and the reemergence of anti-Semitism in every corner of the world.
In short there is reason to believe that evolutionary principles are at the root of all this preponderance of hate by the anti-Semite and in the UN. Caused by overwhelming Jewish success that spans all known history that was, and is, perceived as an existential threat to the ascendency of the non-Jewish species. The manifest result of this perception is labeled "anti-Semitism". The perceived threat of the Jewish "species" was compounded by the failure of the various state-sponsored measures of forced conversion expulsion, and ghettos. Despite every effort the Jew not only survived but prospered. The anti-Semite interpreted this, subconsciously, as evidence of the Jewish evolutionary ascendancy and responded to it consciously by discounting Jewish success as nefarious and ill-gained, -anything to not have to face up to their own insecurities- and then persecuting the Jew.
It seems only natural that the UN manifests this carnal fear of Jewish superiority in its treatment of Israel. As Israel, like the Jew, continues to experience ever greater success despite global efforts of boycott, sanction, condemnation, terror, to force Israel into submission. Yes, the UN has taken on both the deep-seated motivations and misinterpreted manifestations of the anti-Semite. The UN justifies its hate-campaign by pointing to Israel’s wrongs, but the extent and bias of this pointing is at its root a subconscious motivation- the collective fear of Israeli success.
The tragedy is that anti-Semites and the UN continue to make Hitler’s mistake by assuming that external factors such as Jewish success, “survival of the fittest”, is valid evidence of natural selection choosing the Jew. Not only is this a inverted conception of natural selection (as described above), and thus in itself should not arouse the subconscious fear, it is also the Jewish perspective that if natural selection is correct it is in itself a tool of a higher power. It is not the final determinant of survival and success.
The world need not perceive Israel’s successes as a threat, just as the anti-Semite need not perceive the Jew as attempting his dissolution.
On the contrary:
As is evidenced by global Jewry in general and the Jewish-American experience in particular, Jews can and do contribute in every way to society.
Interestingly all the above may explain Americas pro-Israel track-record.
Why is America an exceptional example of Jewish contribution? Because America is a society that is secure in its own inherent worth and is not threatened by a subconscious psychosis that natural selection is favoring the Jew, to the detriment of the rest.
THAT is a major factor contributing to Americas general (though not unanimous) support of Israel in the UN, and Americas/Americans relatively stellar record on anti-Semitism.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
This 9/11: Islam Needs ChaBaD!
Many Muslims, including a close friend, argue that Islam is not violent, suicidal, or expansionist. Yet people like me, see the reality. Homicide bombings, stoning, insult laden mosque building, and little self criticism. Which one is it?
Some of these said acquaintances have concluded that even if some Muslims are genuinely opposed to the hate and pain that their coreligionists cause it is because they are “reform” Muslims or they are afraid of discrimination and would otherwise be quick to support the hate.
I do not agree with this absolute bifurcation. Nor do I not subscribe to the following proposal out of naiveté or even unwarranted optimism –on the contrary as a lover of America and a proud Jew I cannot forgive, nor close my eyes to the unrepentant terror and hate that Islam-inspired extremism has directed against my nation and people. Rather I make the following assertions based on my personal experience with scrupulous orthodox-Muslims who proudly acknowledge that their religion has a violent past and even seeks to convert others, but who are also adamantly opposed to both Sunni motivated Saudi extremism and Shia instigated terror.
Furthermore these same Muslims concede that they -peace and Koran loving Muslims- are not doing enough to fight this real corruption within the ranks of their coreligionists or preventing the insidious/misguided acts by moderate Muslims (such as the ground zero mosque). Then again, they justly contend, they do not have the oil of Iran or Saudi Arabia to propagate their view.
It is to these Muslims that I address the following suggestion:
To be clear I offer this suggestion not as a patronizing snob but as a religious Jew who has seen with my own eyes how ChaBaD, an uncompromising cadre of orthodox Jews who focus on the Jewish believe in unqualified acts of goodness and kindness, has revolutionized and revitalized international Judaism. Not through trying to convince other orthodox streams of Judaism to mimic them but by reaching out to largely secular world Jewry with words of inspiration, lessons in fundamental Jewish practice like charity, "love thy neighbor", acts of goodness and kindness, and heartfelt prayer. This all the while accurately emphasizing that this is not a form of “Judaism-lite” but rather essential practice; a prerequisite to Torah/Rabbinic-true Judaism.
Does this mean that ChaBaD obscures that orthodox Judaism is opposed to same-sex marriage, abortion (under most circumstances), and the expulsion of Jews from parts of Israel? Does it mean that ChaBaD Jews are apolitical and do not have strong, even offensive, personal beliefs? No and no. What it means is that the focus of outreach and study is on the affirmative practice of fundamental Judaism to the best of the individual’s ability.
The upshot is that even the most hard-core ultra-orthodox Jews have recognized the validity of ChaBaD’s efforts and focus, and have themselves been reinvigorated and strengthened in the practice of Jewish principles like love thy neighbor (irrespective of religious practice or background) and general acts of goodness.
I believe that if orthodox Muslims (not easy to dismiss reform/apologist) began a movement that focused on spreading the positive FUNDAMENTALS of Islam to their secular Muslim brothers and sisters -not a watered down presentation offered by “Muslims at heart” but a Koran true message taught by practicing main stream orthodox Muslims that focused on charity, prayer, and belief in their creator- ChaBaD-like results could be achieved.
Likewise, as in the ChaBaD approach, the outreach should not target the hard headed extremists THAT DO GATHER in some mosques and educate the unwary youth regarding all those kaufers (infidels) and how the world is out to destroy Islam. Rather it should focus on secular Muslims; those that know their religion only as it is depicted by Al Jazeera, Memri, Drudgereport, or the New York Times –if at all.
True orthodox Muslims believe that they must proselyte non-Muslims and that defaming the prophet is wrong, but so do Christians. The point is that Muslims can be true to their religion and offer a purely positive message to those around them. The face of Islam need not be defined by incendiary community-center projects, flag burning, or threats against the expression of free speech. On the contrary devout Muslim-Americans who seek what Islam demands –peace- should grasp the opportunity, economic and political, that America offers.
Indeed if you, American-Muslims, gathered to fight extremism through education, the totality of America would put its powerful shoulder to the same wheel and support you to the benefit of all.
Some of these said acquaintances have concluded that even if some Muslims are genuinely opposed to the hate and pain that their coreligionists cause it is because they are “reform” Muslims or they are afraid of discrimination and would otherwise be quick to support the hate.
I do not agree with this absolute bifurcation. Nor do I not subscribe to the following proposal out of naiveté or even unwarranted optimism –on the contrary as a lover of America and a proud Jew I cannot forgive, nor close my eyes to the unrepentant terror and hate that Islam-inspired extremism has directed against my nation and people. Rather I make the following assertions based on my personal experience with scrupulous orthodox-Muslims who proudly acknowledge that their religion has a violent past and even seeks to convert others, but who are also adamantly opposed to both Sunni motivated Saudi extremism and Shia instigated terror.
Furthermore these same Muslims concede that they -peace and Koran loving Muslims- are not doing enough to fight this real corruption within the ranks of their coreligionists or preventing the insidious/misguided acts by moderate Muslims (such as the ground zero mosque). Then again, they justly contend, they do not have the oil of Iran or Saudi Arabia to propagate their view.
It is to these Muslims that I address the following suggestion:
To be clear I offer this suggestion not as a patronizing snob but as a religious Jew who has seen with my own eyes how ChaBaD, an uncompromising cadre of orthodox Jews who focus on the Jewish believe in unqualified acts of goodness and kindness, has revolutionized and revitalized international Judaism. Not through trying to convince other orthodox streams of Judaism to mimic them but by reaching out to largely secular world Jewry with words of inspiration, lessons in fundamental Jewish practice like charity, "love thy neighbor", acts of goodness and kindness, and heartfelt prayer. This all the while accurately emphasizing that this is not a form of “Judaism-lite” but rather essential practice; a prerequisite to Torah/Rabbinic-true Judaism.
Does this mean that ChaBaD obscures that orthodox Judaism is opposed to same-sex marriage, abortion (under most circumstances), and the expulsion of Jews from parts of Israel? Does it mean that ChaBaD Jews are apolitical and do not have strong, even offensive, personal beliefs? No and no. What it means is that the focus of outreach and study is on the affirmative practice of fundamental Judaism to the best of the individual’s ability.
The upshot is that even the most hard-core ultra-orthodox Jews have recognized the validity of ChaBaD’s efforts and focus, and have themselves been reinvigorated and strengthened in the practice of Jewish principles like love thy neighbor (irrespective of religious practice or background) and general acts of goodness.
I believe that if orthodox Muslims (not easy to dismiss reform/apologist) began a movement that focused on spreading the positive FUNDAMENTALS of Islam to their secular Muslim brothers and sisters -not a watered down presentation offered by “Muslims at heart” but a Koran true message taught by practicing main stream orthodox Muslims that focused on charity, prayer, and belief in their creator- ChaBaD-like results could be achieved.
Likewise, as in the ChaBaD approach, the outreach should not target the hard headed extremists THAT DO GATHER in some mosques and educate the unwary youth regarding all those kaufers (infidels) and how the world is out to destroy Islam. Rather it should focus on secular Muslims; those that know their religion only as it is depicted by Al Jazeera, Memri, Drudgereport, or the New York Times –if at all.
True orthodox Muslims believe that they must proselyte non-Muslims and that defaming the prophet is wrong, but so do Christians. The point is that Muslims can be true to their religion and offer a purely positive message to those around them. The face of Islam need not be defined by incendiary community-center projects, flag burning, or threats against the expression of free speech. On the contrary devout Muslim-Americans who seek what Islam demands –peace- should grasp the opportunity, economic and political, that America offers.
Indeed if you, American-Muslims, gathered to fight extremism through education, the totality of America would put its powerful shoulder to the same wheel and support you to the benefit of all.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
The Ground Zero Imam is Suffering from CGS
Many outside the Liberal American Jewish community have labeled Richard Goldstone, author of the infamous UN/Muslim/leftist sponsored Goldstone report, a self hating Jew. However Goldstone, and a cadre of staunchly pro-Palestinian Jews, adamantly deny the claim. Usually Goldstone and co. defend the report by asserting, “biased results be damned” we had the best of intentions and besides “honest” criticism is necessary for Israel’s good”.
Riiight...
Still the observer should never underestimate the propensity for individuals -whose actions are reprehensible- to dodge and swerve on the way to justifying their actions. (Indeed it is only when Goldstone verbalized his justification for the abysmal bias endemic in his “balanced” report can we gain insight into the extent of his twisted reasoning). Perhaps Goldstone actually did have “good” intentions. However good intentions do not automatically justify ones actions, and in the Goldstone’s case his verbalized defense belied his acclaimed intellectual prowess.
How did he get so far in life, how did he become the prominent human rights arbiter, how was he able to disguise his deeply rooted turmoil ? Frankly your guess is as good as mine, but Goldstone was/is more an unwitting dimwit, then a calculated co-conspirator.
How is this relevant to the ground zero Mosque, uh I mean amorphous “community center” ?
Well the Imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, has been under attack for some time for his decision to build a Muslim institution two blocks from ground zero. Many ask why here, why cause communal disharmony? Rauf responds that he didn’t know this would offend so many, and besides, he continues, we have constitutional right to (as do neo-nazis who have a right to offend). But months ago, before the explosion of community animus, Rauf rebuffed the advice to move to a different location. So he knew and stuck to his insolent plan anyway, why? As this question has never been satisfactorily answered many conclude that he is duplicitous and is motivated by insidious Islamic principles.
The accusations -to many to count- are compounded by the fact that this imam is considered a Muslim moderate. This places the most peaceful of Muslims in the camp of terror and hate. On the other hand, according to a NYT article (August 20), he presides over mixed worship, unconditionally condemns violence, and even supports Israel (how did that happen!).
So which is it? Is he a closet Mullah spearheading a covert takeover of America. Or is he unwitting fool, a tool of the “anonymous” sponsors who recognized his gullibility and offered to sponsor his peaceful 100 million dollar project?
It may very well be that Rauf, like Goldstone, is a credulous idiot with good intentions. If that’s the case I suggest we label this noxious habit CGS.
The Imam is exhibiting symptoms of Chronic Goldstone syndrome.
Riiight...
Still the observer should never underestimate the propensity for individuals -whose actions are reprehensible- to dodge and swerve on the way to justifying their actions. (Indeed it is only when Goldstone verbalized his justification for the abysmal bias endemic in his “balanced” report can we gain insight into the extent of his twisted reasoning). Perhaps Goldstone actually did have “good” intentions. However good intentions do not automatically justify ones actions, and in the Goldstone’s case his verbalized defense belied his acclaimed intellectual prowess.
How did he get so far in life, how did he become the prominent human rights arbiter, how was he able to disguise his deeply rooted turmoil ? Frankly your guess is as good as mine, but Goldstone was/is more an unwitting dimwit, then a calculated co-conspirator.
How is this relevant to the ground zero Mosque, uh I mean amorphous “community center” ?
Well the Imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, has been under attack for some time for his decision to build a Muslim institution two blocks from ground zero. Many ask why here, why cause communal disharmony? Rauf responds that he didn’t know this would offend so many, and besides, he continues, we have constitutional right to (as do neo-nazis who have a right to offend). But months ago, before the explosion of community animus, Rauf rebuffed the advice to move to a different location. So he knew and stuck to his insolent plan anyway, why? As this question has never been satisfactorily answered many conclude that he is duplicitous and is motivated by insidious Islamic principles.
The accusations -to many to count- are compounded by the fact that this imam is considered a Muslim moderate. This places the most peaceful of Muslims in the camp of terror and hate. On the other hand, according to a NYT article (August 20), he presides over mixed worship, unconditionally condemns violence, and even supports Israel (how did that happen!).
So which is it? Is he a closet Mullah spearheading a covert takeover of America. Or is he unwitting fool, a tool of the “anonymous” sponsors who recognized his gullibility and offered to sponsor his peaceful 100 million dollar project?
It may very well be that Rauf, like Goldstone, is a credulous idiot with good intentions. If that’s the case I suggest we label this noxious habit CGS.
The Imam is exhibiting symptoms of Chronic Goldstone syndrome.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
A Case Study in Subjective Journalism Gone Wild: Haaretz and the Middle East
Haaretz reports that the Palestinian Authority is facing a liquidity shortfall for September because the leading Arab contributors, which incidentally make up less than 30% of all aid to the Palestinians, have not met their pledges for 2010 (http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/palestinian-authority-faces-cash-crunch-as-arab-states-cut-aid-1.309025). Haaretz concludes that the two major non-western donors, the Saudis who contributed 242 million in 2008 and only 30 million this year and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) which has a dismal 171/0 split, are trying to force Hamas-Fatah reconciliation.
This explanation is deeply flawed and is a perfect example of subjective journalism gone wild.
Deeply flawed because it assumes that 1) reconciliation will make it easier to achieve peace instead of re-radicalizing the moderate West-Bank faction of Palestinians who would likely be overrun as they were in 2007, by a Hamas coup and/or influence. 2) that Iran will not see this as ready-made opportunity to strengthen its hold over the Palestinians by filling the vacuum left by its Sunni adversaries by funding Fatah itself. 3) even if the Sunni Arab regimes give Hamas the benefit of the doubt, namely that they do not ascribe to their own suicidal charter and will support an equitable peace after reconciliation, will Iran just walk away from its investment in cultivating a major proxy-weapon on/in Israel?
To be sure all Arab states have an incentive to advocate for peace, so as to assuage their, often irritated, populations and their own oil filled but marginally guilty conscience. It is also true that solving the Arab-Israeli conflict takes on different levels of urgency for different Arab states. For example, the Saudis and other oil rich states have less domestic problems and less reason to perpetuate the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, because they are not is such a great need of a scapegoat. Indeed they now see Israel as the one sane power in the region that can check the mad ambitions of Iran and the misguided dreams of Erdogan’s Turkey. Other regimes like Syria, help perpetuate the Israeli/Palestinian conflict because it helps deflect legitimate domestic rage over endemic social ills and oppression from the Assads tyrannical regime to the oppressive occupier (Israel). There are even some linkers (I strongly encourage you to view the “linkers and thinkers” series, which explores the pros and cons of the American-Israeli alliance) who argue that Iran’s impetus for supporting Hezbollah, Hamas, and nuclear weapons would be undermined by Israeli/Palestinian peace. They are right insofar that Iran would be all the more exposed for what it is, an old decrepit regime dreaming of the glory days when it ruled the middle-east. But Iran’s quest for power has nothing to do with helping the Palestinians or Pakistan, or Iraq… Iran has a second rate army and third tier economy so it requires its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, to counter Israel’s might if it can ever hope to be a hegemony in the region.
The Arab states, led by the Saudi’s, are the last ones to be fooled by Iran’s “altruistic” quest to end Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians –indeed the Iranians are relative novices, compared to the old guard Arabs, at manipulating and abusing the Palestinians out of pure unapologetic self interest.
The Arab states know that reconciliation between Hamas and the Fatah/PA/PLO means either that Hamas miraculously, separates from Iran and repudiates terror(!) or that Iran will have established its dominance over all the Palestinians through Hamas.
Given what happened last time reconciliation was attempted –Hamas and Iran won- and the fact that Hamas has actually gained strength since then, with the Turkish/Iranian alliance, it is ludicrous to assert that the Saudi’s, who discreetly offered their air space to attack Iran, would facilitate “reconciliation”.
Instead I believe the Arab states are pressuring Abbas and Fatah to stop their delay tactics and to immediately enter into the direct talks that Israel and America has been requesting all this time. Indeed the success of such pressure WOULD weaken Iran, proving that it is the Sunni-Arabs and America who are the regional movers, and that those states like Syria and Lebanon (please see post “http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/08/was-syria-behind-recent-lebaneseisrael.html) which are leaning towards Iran should give review their policies.
Of course Haaretz prefers convoluted irrational explanations over the obvious one. Why? Because the correct explanation strengthens the hated Netanyahu administration by pointing out that Netanyahu and Israel want to talk, and that the US, the West, and the Arab states agree.
How cliche, the most liberal paper in Israel, and probably the whole middle-east, takes the post modern position on truth; humans are all inherently subjective and because the only purveyors of truth are human there is no one truth. Haaretz, like other media outlets encompassing the far-left, indulge in the notion that there is no one truth. Perhaps this is the premise at the foundation of their coverage of Israel.
A deeply flawed result is the bastard child of subjective journalism gone wild.
This explanation is deeply flawed and is a perfect example of subjective journalism gone wild.
Deeply flawed because it assumes that 1) reconciliation will make it easier to achieve peace instead of re-radicalizing the moderate West-Bank faction of Palestinians who would likely be overrun as they were in 2007, by a Hamas coup and/or influence. 2) that Iran will not see this as ready-made opportunity to strengthen its hold over the Palestinians by filling the vacuum left by its Sunni adversaries by funding Fatah itself. 3) even if the Sunni Arab regimes give Hamas the benefit of the doubt, namely that they do not ascribe to their own suicidal charter and will support an equitable peace after reconciliation, will Iran just walk away from its investment in cultivating a major proxy-weapon on/in Israel?
To be sure all Arab states have an incentive to advocate for peace, so as to assuage their, often irritated, populations and their own oil filled but marginally guilty conscience. It is also true that solving the Arab-Israeli conflict takes on different levels of urgency for different Arab states. For example, the Saudis and other oil rich states have less domestic problems and less reason to perpetuate the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, because they are not is such a great need of a scapegoat. Indeed they now see Israel as the one sane power in the region that can check the mad ambitions of Iran and the misguided dreams of Erdogan’s Turkey. Other regimes like Syria, help perpetuate the Israeli/Palestinian conflict because it helps deflect legitimate domestic rage over endemic social ills and oppression from the Assads tyrannical regime to the oppressive occupier (Israel). There are even some linkers (I strongly encourage you to view the “linkers and thinkers” series, which explores the pros and cons of the American-Israeli alliance) who argue that Iran’s impetus for supporting Hezbollah, Hamas, and nuclear weapons would be undermined by Israeli/Palestinian peace. They are right insofar that Iran would be all the more exposed for what it is, an old decrepit regime dreaming of the glory days when it ruled the middle-east. But Iran’s quest for power has nothing to do with helping the Palestinians or Pakistan, or Iraq… Iran has a second rate army and third tier economy so it requires its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, to counter Israel’s might if it can ever hope to be a hegemony in the region.
The Arab states, led by the Saudi’s, are the last ones to be fooled by Iran’s “altruistic” quest to end Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians –indeed the Iranians are relative novices, compared to the old guard Arabs, at manipulating and abusing the Palestinians out of pure unapologetic self interest.
The Arab states know that reconciliation between Hamas and the Fatah/PA/PLO means either that Hamas miraculously, separates from Iran and repudiates terror(!) or that Iran will have established its dominance over all the Palestinians through Hamas.
Given what happened last time reconciliation was attempted –Hamas and Iran won- and the fact that Hamas has actually gained strength since then, with the Turkish/Iranian alliance, it is ludicrous to assert that the Saudi’s, who discreetly offered their air space to attack Iran, would facilitate “reconciliation”.
Instead I believe the Arab states are pressuring Abbas and Fatah to stop their delay tactics and to immediately enter into the direct talks that Israel and America has been requesting all this time. Indeed the success of such pressure WOULD weaken Iran, proving that it is the Sunni-Arabs and America who are the regional movers, and that those states like Syria and Lebanon (please see post “http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/08/was-syria-behind-recent-lebaneseisrael.html) which are leaning towards Iran should give review their policies.
Of course Haaretz prefers convoluted irrational explanations over the obvious one. Why? Because the correct explanation strengthens the hated Netanyahu administration by pointing out that Netanyahu and Israel want to talk, and that the US, the West, and the Arab states agree.
How cliche, the most liberal paper in Israel, and probably the whole middle-east, takes the post modern position on truth; humans are all inherently subjective and because the only purveyors of truth are human there is no one truth. Haaretz, like other media outlets encompassing the far-left, indulge in the notion that there is no one truth. Perhaps this is the premise at the foundation of their coverage of Israel.
A deeply flawed result is the bastard child of subjective journalism gone wild.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
The, Reality, Psychology, and the Future: Three Thoughts on the Pakistan Deluge
ONE, The Sad Reality:
Why has there not been a upwelling of Muslim support for the people of Pakistan?
When Israel defends itself and stops a flotilla dead in its track, the Muslim world erupts in anger, millions are raised to support further flotillas, and the UNGA is enveloped in yet another wave of anti-Israel fervor.
When a man publishes a caricature of Muhammad, people are murdered, embassies are burned, the Muslim world seethes, and religious fatwa’s are published by the dozen.
Why has there not been a surge of Muslim support for the people of Pakistan? Where are the fatwa’s declaring it obligatory for Muslims to help? Where are the public demonstrations in Indonesia, France, and the UK demanding foreign aid and/or focusing attention on the plight of millions? Where are the furious leftist of Huffington post, fundraisers of apartheid week, and the organizers of anti-Israel boycott campaigns?
20 MILLION people are HOMELESS!
Western news reports claim that the flood will halt NATO operations and allow the Taliban to regroup. But do they realize that the situation is far more dire? Al Qaida, the Taliban, and myriad other “fringe” Islamic extremists pray daily for such “opportunities”. While the secular government of Pakistan continues the trend –evident in their failure to eliminate the Pakistan Taliban- of acting against Pakistan's best interests, the murderers have begun pouring millions of dollars into relief efforts, replacing the government and establishing their grip on every day Pakistan.
Instead of the moderate Muslims community galvanizing to help the people of Pakistan, never mind helping affirm a peaceful image of Islam that their funds would foster in Pakistan, they are barely audible. Are they waiting for the next flair-up against Israel to muster their resources ad raise their voices?
Yes, I am intimately familiar with inter-group dynamics; how people tend to react when an outsider challenges an insider. Yes all groups rage when one of their own is attacked. But that there is such a discrepancy between the extraordinary resources used to fight the outsider and the pittance being offered amongst insiders (at Friday Mosque collections etc.). The inexplicable gap between the myriad articles published in the Muslim press regarding the ground zero mosque (please see Turkish English daily Hurriyet for a sampling ) and the few referencing the plight of Pakistani's.
For all peace loving people, people that believe that most Muslims want peace, the tepid Islamic support for their suffering brothers and their rage towards outsiders is...
TWO, The Self Defeating Psychology:
Why hasn't India jumped on the opportunity to help Pakistan’s flood victim and itself, by promoting stability on its border? Doesn't India have the most to lose if Pakistan descends completely into the hands of the Islamic extremists? Why hasn’t India offered a substantial relief package to Pakistan?
Another Question:
Why is it that the Muslim regimes of the Middle East do not embrace the opportunity in their midst. Imagine Israeli drip-technology irrigating the arid desserts of Syria, or its desalination plants replenishing Yemen's thinning water sources. Would not an (energy starved?) Iranian partnership with Israel developing solar technology serve Iran’s interest more than its current quasi-suicidal attempt at becoming a nuclear regime? Or an Erdogan who used Turkeys, then relatively, neutral position to foster peace, instead of exacerbating tensions in the middle-east in a mad attempt at consolidating his political power. Yes the Muslim street is full, and full of rage, but not because of Israel but rather because there are no jobs. Israel can drive the middle-east into the 21st century and in the process stabilize a slew of tottering illegitimate regimes -even eliminate the need for them.
But that requires peace, and peace requires a measure of humility.
Humility like that shown by Obama, (the leader of the greatest country the world has ever seen) when he stooped down to Iran,( a nation that served the Sun and Moon when it last experienced greatness), and declared “we will extend our hand if you unclench your fist”. Or the humility of Israel when it repeatedly ignores the homicidal mantras and monologues of its neighbors proclaiming it desires peace, and backing up that deceleration by heart-wrenching actions like expelling its own citizens, TWICE. Or the humility of Ataturk’s Turkey when it openly accepted aid from Israel after the devastating earthquakes, and then said thank you.
When will the majority of the middle-east shake off the antiquated and self-destructive culture of ego and put their own best interest before their misplaced self-importance (see the Arab mind 1973, by Raphael Patai)? When will the larger middle-east accept reality and harness its intrinsic potential?
Was Obama criticized for reaching out to Iran, even called weak? Yes. Were Israeli leader criticized and threatened when they forced 8,000 Jews from their homes in Gaza, or when they withdrew from Southern Lebanon, in their imprudent hope for peace? Yes, but they acted because they put their own self interest BEFORE PRIDE, if only the other side would have seen the reality of a peaceful opportunity instead of the mirage of Israeli weakness.
It is the psychology of Pakistan and most of the Middle-East to worship the delusional self-image despite the decaying body. To destroy 60 years of positive relations because you were humbled, in Davos, in front of the world. To even consider rejecting aid from India because that may foster the image of Pakistan’s inferiority.
So India offered a diminutive 5 million dollars, and Pakistan has yet to accept it (http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/pakistan-says-yet-to-decide-on-india-s-aid-offer-45186)...
THREE, The Frightening Future:
Will Pakistan become the next Iran?
After all the Islamic extremists used the upstanding Pakistan middle class –led by the supreme- court and jurists- to force the secular Musharraf’s resignation. Just as Khomeini fooled the moderate bazzar (the Iranian middle-class) into thinking he was rebelling against the corruption, and not replacing a secular tyrant with a adultery stoning Islamic tyranny ( Khomeini’s Ghost, Coughlin, 2009). It goes without saying that are differences that go beyond culture such as Pakistan long standing inability to centralize control over all its territory and the lack of a figure, such as Khomeini, who has the respect and fealty of the majority of the country.
Still no one believed that Khomeini could overthrow the Western-backed Shah, or that a theocratic regime in Iran would still be in power 30 years after its revolution. Indeed it is exactly this type of “G-dly punishment” (no doubt a consequence of Pakistan supporting pro-western activities) disaster that could catapult an Islamic tyranny/theocracy into power. Just try imagining a nation run by an Iran-like oligarchy WITH NUKES!
Why has there not been a upwelling of Muslim support for the people of Pakistan?
When Israel defends itself and stops a flotilla dead in its track, the Muslim world erupts in anger, millions are raised to support further flotillas, and the UNGA is enveloped in yet another wave of anti-Israel fervor.
When a man publishes a caricature of Muhammad, people are murdered, embassies are burned, the Muslim world seethes, and religious fatwa’s are published by the dozen.
Why has there not been a surge of Muslim support for the people of Pakistan? Where are the fatwa’s declaring it obligatory for Muslims to help? Where are the public demonstrations in Indonesia, France, and the UK demanding foreign aid and/or focusing attention on the plight of millions? Where are the furious leftist of Huffington post, fundraisers of apartheid week, and the organizers of anti-Israel boycott campaigns?
20 MILLION people are HOMELESS!
Western news reports claim that the flood will halt NATO operations and allow the Taliban to regroup. But do they realize that the situation is far more dire? Al Qaida, the Taliban, and myriad other “fringe” Islamic extremists pray daily for such “opportunities”. While the secular government of Pakistan continues the trend –evident in their failure to eliminate the Pakistan Taliban- of acting against Pakistan's best interests, the murderers have begun pouring millions of dollars into relief efforts, replacing the government and establishing their grip on every day Pakistan.
Instead of the moderate Muslims community galvanizing to help the people of Pakistan, never mind helping affirm a peaceful image of Islam that their funds would foster in Pakistan, they are barely audible. Are they waiting for the next flair-up against Israel to muster their resources ad raise their voices?
Yes, I am intimately familiar with inter-group dynamics; how people tend to react when an outsider challenges an insider. Yes all groups rage when one of their own is attacked. But that there is such a discrepancy between the extraordinary resources used to fight the outsider and the pittance being offered amongst insiders (at Friday Mosque collections etc.). The inexplicable gap between the myriad articles published in the Muslim press regarding the ground zero mosque (please see Turkish English daily Hurriyet for a sampling ) and the few referencing the plight of Pakistani's.
For all peace loving people, people that believe that most Muslims want peace, the tepid Islamic support for their suffering brothers and their rage towards outsiders is...
TWO, The Self Defeating Psychology:
Why hasn't India jumped on the opportunity to help Pakistan’s flood victim and itself, by promoting stability on its border? Doesn't India have the most to lose if Pakistan descends completely into the hands of the Islamic extremists? Why hasn’t India offered a substantial relief package to Pakistan?
Another Question:
Why is it that the Muslim regimes of the Middle East do not embrace the opportunity in their midst. Imagine Israeli drip-technology irrigating the arid desserts of Syria, or its desalination plants replenishing Yemen's thinning water sources. Would not an (energy starved?) Iranian partnership with Israel developing solar technology serve Iran’s interest more than its current quasi-suicidal attempt at becoming a nuclear regime? Or an Erdogan who used Turkeys, then relatively, neutral position to foster peace, instead of exacerbating tensions in the middle-east in a mad attempt at consolidating his political power. Yes the Muslim street is full, and full of rage, but not because of Israel but rather because there are no jobs. Israel can drive the middle-east into the 21st century and in the process stabilize a slew of tottering illegitimate regimes -even eliminate the need for them.
But that requires peace, and peace requires a measure of humility.
Humility like that shown by Obama, (the leader of the greatest country the world has ever seen) when he stooped down to Iran,( a nation that served the Sun and Moon when it last experienced greatness), and declared “we will extend our hand if you unclench your fist”. Or the humility of Israel when it repeatedly ignores the homicidal mantras and monologues of its neighbors proclaiming it desires peace, and backing up that deceleration by heart-wrenching actions like expelling its own citizens, TWICE. Or the humility of Ataturk’s Turkey when it openly accepted aid from Israel after the devastating earthquakes, and then said thank you.
When will the majority of the middle-east shake off the antiquated and self-destructive culture of ego and put their own best interest before their misplaced self-importance (see the Arab mind 1973, by Raphael Patai)? When will the larger middle-east accept reality and harness its intrinsic potential?
Was Obama criticized for reaching out to Iran, even called weak? Yes. Were Israeli leader criticized and threatened when they forced 8,000 Jews from their homes in Gaza, or when they withdrew from Southern Lebanon, in their imprudent hope for peace? Yes, but they acted because they put their own self interest BEFORE PRIDE, if only the other side would have seen the reality of a peaceful opportunity instead of the mirage of Israeli weakness.
It is the psychology of Pakistan and most of the Middle-East to worship the delusional self-image despite the decaying body. To destroy 60 years of positive relations because you were humbled, in Davos, in front of the world. To even consider rejecting aid from India because that may foster the image of Pakistan’s inferiority.
So India offered a diminutive 5 million dollars, and Pakistan has yet to accept it (http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/pakistan-says-yet-to-decide-on-india-s-aid-offer-45186)...
THREE, The Frightening Future:
Will Pakistan become the next Iran?
After all the Islamic extremists used the upstanding Pakistan middle class –led by the supreme- court and jurists- to force the secular Musharraf’s resignation. Just as Khomeini fooled the moderate bazzar (the Iranian middle-class) into thinking he was rebelling against the corruption, and not replacing a secular tyrant with a adultery stoning Islamic tyranny ( Khomeini’s Ghost, Coughlin, 2009). It goes without saying that are differences that go beyond culture such as Pakistan long standing inability to centralize control over all its territory and the lack of a figure, such as Khomeini, who has the respect and fealty of the majority of the country.
Still no one believed that Khomeini could overthrow the Western-backed Shah, or that a theocratic regime in Iran would still be in power 30 years after its revolution. Indeed it is exactly this type of “G-dly punishment” (no doubt a consequence of Pakistan supporting pro-western activities) disaster that could catapult an Islamic tyranny/theocracy into power. Just try imagining a nation run by an Iran-like oligarchy WITH NUKES!
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Clinton/Mesvinsky Wedding, The Reform Movement, and it's Open Season on Eligible Jews
This month’s marriage between Chelsea Clinton, heir to the moderate-Democrat Clinton dynasty, and investor tycoon (and son of a disgraced congressman) Marc Mesvinsky has a variety of implications. One observer lamented, what he termed, the “spiritual holocaust” that wide spread American intermarriage is causing and that this marriage represents. Indeed, for most of the 20th century intermarriage in the Jewish community was taboo, in the 21st century this is no longer the case. This marriage signals that the taboo of intermarriage has been “overcome” by the liberal Jewish community. How the Liberal-Jewish community overcame this taboo, can be viewed as a case study in social-psychology: how taboos are challenged and refuted. Or it can shed light on a major flaw in liberal-Jewish thinking.
Either way my observations.
In the 1960’s the Reform movement was beginning to experience a drop in membership. They responded by amplifying their belief in accepting and being open to all and actively sought and welcomed intermarried couples, who until then had, because of the aforementioned taboo experienced a sort of alienation, into their temples. Still while the reform movement accepted intermarried couples they also encouraged conversion, and drew the line by asking its member clergy to “avoid” presiding over interfaith marriages (though true to form many reform clergy disregarded this suggestion and routinely conducted interfaith weddings). The Reform movements primary objective was to foster a welcoming experience for any individual who wanted to convert and observe a selective Judaism, (something traditional Judaism objects to). But by simplifying the transition to Judaism for the non-Jewish spouse their policies had an unintended(?)effect it eroded the taboo against entering into interfaith relationships in the first place -after all conversion to Judaism was so “easy”.
Because of the outreach of the Reform the taboo against entering into interfaith relationships was eroded and many spouses didn’t feel the social pressure to convert. The ever liberal Reform movement not wanting to lose their new stream of paying members, began to encourage interfaith couples to raise their children in the Jewish faith. Why? Because the whole premise of accepting interfaith relationships was so that spouses would convert and halt assimilation, but now that spouses felt little taboo-pressure to convert, the movement had to still support their claim of halting intermarriage- the children should be raised Jewish. Never mind the confusion a child of two religions experiences, non-the-less it was at this stage that the Menorah, next to the Christmas tree emerged.
So the taboo against intermarriage devolved from only marrying a Jew, to only marrying a convert, to we will not conduct interfaith weddings, but you are keeping to the faith so long as you raise your children Jewish.
But there was still a remnant of the taboo: condoning interfaith marriage.
This particular marriage represents the predictable culmination of a 60 year Reform/liberal Judaism’s investment in expanding Jewish identity. While the Reform movement simplified conversion in expectation that many would convert, and in the long run halt assimilation.
The taboo of intermarriage was so undermined by a convenient-focused conversion process that now intermarriage itself is not only widespread (hovering around 50 percent) and accepted as normal, but also encouraged. As exemplified by Clinton/Mesvinsky marriage.
How did the Reform movement jump from easy conversion to outright intermarriage ? The answer is imbedded in the philosophy that underpins liberal Judaism. First the Reform espoused a cultural definition of Judaism, namely that Jewish is not a inherent designation, but a choice. Why? Because Judaism is first and foremost a religion of morality and not having a choice is immoral. This choice means that a person is not Jewish because of a soul (assuming a soul exists) but because they choose to be Jewish. So if we are to premise Judaism on choice, because choice is inherently moral, then it is immoral to advocate against the choice of intermarriage. This, by the way, explains why many Reform clergy never had a problem officiating at interfaith marriages as to not officiate is tantamount to inhibiting choice…
In other words the reform movement was eventually going to enable interfaith marriage, if they were to be consistent in their philosophy. It was only a matter of time before liberal/reform Judaism, transitioned from challenging the taboo of interfaith relationships, as long as there was conversion, to challenging the taboo of interfaith marriage without. Don’t be surprised if the Reform movement continues its slide from majority humanism mixed with a little cultural spirituality, to being indistinguishable from humanistic Judaism devoid of any conventional spiritual attachment.
The crumbling of a taboo and encouraged interfaith weddings culminated in a Jewish male with a kippa and tallit marrying the most eligible bachelorette in the nation: which probably means it’s open season on eligible Jews!
Either way my observations.
In the 1960’s the Reform movement was beginning to experience a drop in membership. They responded by amplifying their belief in accepting and being open to all and actively sought and welcomed intermarried couples, who until then had, because of the aforementioned taboo experienced a sort of alienation, into their temples. Still while the reform movement accepted intermarried couples they also encouraged conversion, and drew the line by asking its member clergy to “avoid” presiding over interfaith marriages (though true to form many reform clergy disregarded this suggestion and routinely conducted interfaith weddings). The Reform movements primary objective was to foster a welcoming experience for any individual who wanted to convert and observe a selective Judaism, (something traditional Judaism objects to). But by simplifying the transition to Judaism for the non-Jewish spouse their policies had an unintended(?)effect it eroded the taboo against entering into interfaith relationships in the first place -after all conversion to Judaism was so “easy”.
Because of the outreach of the Reform the taboo against entering into interfaith relationships was eroded and many spouses didn’t feel the social pressure to convert. The ever liberal Reform movement not wanting to lose their new stream of paying members, began to encourage interfaith couples to raise their children in the Jewish faith. Why? Because the whole premise of accepting interfaith relationships was so that spouses would convert and halt assimilation, but now that spouses felt little taboo-pressure to convert, the movement had to still support their claim of halting intermarriage- the children should be raised Jewish. Never mind the confusion a child of two religions experiences, non-the-less it was at this stage that the Menorah, next to the Christmas tree emerged.
So the taboo against intermarriage devolved from only marrying a Jew, to only marrying a convert, to we will not conduct interfaith weddings, but you are keeping to the faith so long as you raise your children Jewish.
But there was still a remnant of the taboo: condoning interfaith marriage.
This particular marriage represents the predictable culmination of a 60 year Reform/liberal Judaism’s investment in expanding Jewish identity. While the Reform movement simplified conversion in expectation that many would convert, and in the long run halt assimilation.
The taboo of intermarriage was so undermined by a convenient-focused conversion process that now intermarriage itself is not only widespread (hovering around 50 percent) and accepted as normal, but also encouraged. As exemplified by Clinton/Mesvinsky marriage.
How did the Reform movement jump from easy conversion to outright intermarriage ? The answer is imbedded in the philosophy that underpins liberal Judaism. First the Reform espoused a cultural definition of Judaism, namely that Jewish is not a inherent designation, but a choice. Why? Because Judaism is first and foremost a religion of morality and not having a choice is immoral. This choice means that a person is not Jewish because of a soul (assuming a soul exists) but because they choose to be Jewish. So if we are to premise Judaism on choice, because choice is inherently moral, then it is immoral to advocate against the choice of intermarriage. This, by the way, explains why many Reform clergy never had a problem officiating at interfaith marriages as to not officiate is tantamount to inhibiting choice…
In other words the reform movement was eventually going to enable interfaith marriage, if they were to be consistent in their philosophy. It was only a matter of time before liberal/reform Judaism, transitioned from challenging the taboo of interfaith relationships, as long as there was conversion, to challenging the taboo of interfaith marriage without. Don’t be surprised if the Reform movement continues its slide from majority humanism mixed with a little cultural spirituality, to being indistinguishable from humanistic Judaism devoid of any conventional spiritual attachment.
The crumbling of a taboo and encouraged interfaith weddings culminated in a Jewish male with a kippa and tallit marrying the most eligible bachelorette in the nation: which probably means it’s open season on eligible Jews!
Monday, August 9, 2010
No To Forced Retirement!
Reports are coming out that Social Security is in the red for the first time. Moreover we have watched as social security payments have failed to keep up with inflation. So how can we consider forcing the elderly to retire?
It's one thing if they are unable to do the job,or if we could provide them with a decent standard of living. Health care, food, a home, and enough money left over for them to take a vacation.
Instead I stand on online and watch as an elderly couple places one cucumber (no bag=less weight), a loaf of white bread, and a couple of other essentials on the black conveyor belt, and then attempt to maintain their dignity by emptying a used zip lock bag full of change...Did they choose to work for 40 years acquiring experience and insight, in essence becoming the the most valuable employer, so that later they would have the "right" to retire and scrounge for essentials?
If they are of clear mind and healthy body why should they be required to retire? Especially if social security means collecting change to eat!
No to forced retirement!
It's one thing if they are unable to do the job,or if we could provide them with a decent standard of living. Health care, food, a home, and enough money left over for them to take a vacation.
Instead I stand on online and watch as an elderly couple places one cucumber (no bag=less weight), a loaf of white bread, and a couple of other essentials on the black conveyor belt, and then attempt to maintain their dignity by emptying a used zip lock bag full of change...Did they choose to work for 40 years acquiring experience and insight, in essence becoming the the most valuable employer, so that later they would have the "right" to retire and scrounge for essentials?
If they are of clear mind and healthy body why should they be required to retire? Especially if social security means collecting change to eat!
No to forced retirement!
Should the ultra-Orthodox be required to serve in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF)?
Should the ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) be required to serve in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF)?
The current system in Israel allows for Haredim to receive a deferment if they are studying in Yeshiva (Jewish institution for the higher learning) until they are 22. By that time most are married and are exempt from mandatory military service. Thus for all intents and purposes the Haredi population is exempted by the Israeli government from serving in the IDF.
The only other Israeli population that receives a blanket exemption from serving in the IDF are the Israeli Arabs who are allowed but not required to serve, though many choose to. Still, for the Israeli-Arab the reasons for such an exemption are clear; if they serve they will likely have to physically confront other Arabs and/or Muslims -it is a legitimate conflict of interest.
For the Haredi this reasoning only applies to a small minority. This minority includes those that refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of the state of Israel which they object to on questionable Talmudic/Rabbinical grounds. This small minority refuses to speak modern Hebrew, because Hebrew is the language of the holy bible, and shouldn’t be used for mundane speech. They also do not accept government funding of any kind. Thus requiring this minority to serve, is akin to forcing them to turn their back on their beliefs.
Yet the overwhelming majority of the Haredi public do accept state funds, speak Hebrew when required, and are accused of taking advantage of the system. Should they be required to serve?
To understand the implications of this question is to understand the nature of Israeli society. The IDF is a necessary defensive organization that literally foils daily terror plots and prevents Israels neighbors from seriously contemplating war. However, he IDF also enables a diverse mixture of immigrant populations to integrate and to acculturate. In essence, Bedouins, Eastern Europeans, North Americans, South Africans etc. enter the IDF and three years later (two for women) they exit as mature Israeli’s. The importance of serving in the IDF is amplified by the fact that potential employers will usually give preference to veterans of the IDF.
So not only does the fastest growing minority, the Haredi population, not contribute directly to national security they also are not integrated into the workforce. Ironically, those Haredi that choose to pursue a secular education, on average, score higher on reading and reasoning sections of standardized tests. In other words the Haredi choose not to integrate and succeed. Still, because they are generally not employed in the mainstream workforce (either because they do not serve, or spend their day studying) and have little or no secular education, they are a growing burden on Israeli tax payers.
But wait! I’m not one of those religious bashers, there is another side to this story.
You see, it was not always the case that the ultra-Orthodox ALL studied in Yeshiva. Prior to the holocaust, when there were myriad thriving communities spanning Eastern Europe, Jewish boys were given a chaider education (Jewish equivalent of early grade school). Those that showed promise continued their studies often for the rest of their life. Usually they were supported by their local communities, the private wealthy, or their in-laws who believed that it was a great merit and responsibility to ensure that every town, however small, funded the local study of the Torah. Indeed it was seen as a way to ensure that a town was blessed materially and spiritually.
Thus the holocaust did not only destroy Eastern European Judaism but also a complex array of institutions. These included the educational structure that ensured the continuity of, what many consider, Judaism’s most prized inheritance; the totality of the Biblical/Talmudic/Rabbinic tradition. There are a number of extraordinary accounts of efforts to save the institutions that carried this tradition from the fires of the Nazi ovens and/or the cold of Soviet Siberia.
A few yeshivas were saved, or survived, the terror and undertook a massive effort to rebuild the great intuitions of Torah learning that once existed in Europe. Part of this initiative meant that every Jewish boy was encouraged to pursue his Torah studies as long as he wanted so as to replenish the depleted stock of Torah scholars.
From this perspective, the Israeli government is basically continuing a millennia old tradition in the guise of public funds going towards supporting Torah study.
The Haredi position is even more persuasive when considering that they are both the proven guardians of an unbroken chain of Jewish tradition and were the ones that passed on and propagated the words of the great prophets. These prophets very foresaw that the Jews would eventually return to Israel their homeland. In other words, modern Israel, with all its secular tendencies, is basically a mundane interpretation of the Zion that religious Jews have mentioned in their prayers, over a hundred times a day, since the destruction of the second Temple by the Romans in 70 AD.
Could there be a State of Israel (or a Jewish people) without the memory and tradition that was jealously guarded by Rabbinic Judaism since the days of the prophets? Should the Haradi not be rewarded for their contribution to modern Israel?
That said, now that we do have a state of Israel, and numerous yeshivas churning out students of the highest caliber, why should we not return to the pre-holocaust system whereas only the studies of the best are publicly funded? It would be similar to the Western system, (if that system is not itself replicating the Rabbinic tradition) where PHD students and other important institutions of higher learning are funded by the public.
Israel is growing and needs productive citizens, Orthodox or otherwise. Anyone familiar with the Rabbis of the Talmud or the history of the greatest Jewish leaders of every generation, knows that they all had extensive secular knowledge and often supported themselves “with their hands” (they were doctors, jurists, winemakers, water-carriers etc. in fact it is laudable not to live off the Torah, Pirkei Avot). At the same time, there have always been a cadre of our brightest scholars who have spent their entire life in the study of Torah.
Therefore I propose that the Haradi sector be granted a certain quota for each Yeshiva, whereas the brightest students, as the dean so deems, receive a deferment. The rest should be required to serve. The Israeli government has already established a Haredi military unit, which meets all the strict requirements followed by Haredi individuals. One of the most successful programs in the IDF, the Hesder program, allows for religious soldiers to study Torah for 1 ½ years of their three years service.
For those searching for a Talmud-like reasoning to support the above: the influx of Torah-true scholars into the Israeli economy would not only give an already successful economy a massive boost, but it would also help the state of Israel look more like the Land of Israel.
The current system in Israel allows for Haredim to receive a deferment if they are studying in Yeshiva (Jewish institution for the higher learning) until they are 22. By that time most are married and are exempt from mandatory military service. Thus for all intents and purposes the Haredi population is exempted by the Israeli government from serving in the IDF.
The only other Israeli population that receives a blanket exemption from serving in the IDF are the Israeli Arabs who are allowed but not required to serve, though many choose to. Still, for the Israeli-Arab the reasons for such an exemption are clear; if they serve they will likely have to physically confront other Arabs and/or Muslims -it is a legitimate conflict of interest.
For the Haredi this reasoning only applies to a small minority. This minority includes those that refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of the state of Israel which they object to on questionable Talmudic/Rabbinical grounds. This small minority refuses to speak modern Hebrew, because Hebrew is the language of the holy bible, and shouldn’t be used for mundane speech. They also do not accept government funding of any kind. Thus requiring this minority to serve, is akin to forcing them to turn their back on their beliefs.
Yet the overwhelming majority of the Haredi public do accept state funds, speak Hebrew when required, and are accused of taking advantage of the system. Should they be required to serve?
To understand the implications of this question is to understand the nature of Israeli society. The IDF is a necessary defensive organization that literally foils daily terror plots and prevents Israels neighbors from seriously contemplating war. However, he IDF also enables a diverse mixture of immigrant populations to integrate and to acculturate. In essence, Bedouins, Eastern Europeans, North Americans, South Africans etc. enter the IDF and three years later (two for women) they exit as mature Israeli’s. The importance of serving in the IDF is amplified by the fact that potential employers will usually give preference to veterans of the IDF.
So not only does the fastest growing minority, the Haredi population, not contribute directly to national security they also are not integrated into the workforce. Ironically, those Haredi that choose to pursue a secular education, on average, score higher on reading and reasoning sections of standardized tests. In other words the Haredi choose not to integrate and succeed. Still, because they are generally not employed in the mainstream workforce (either because they do not serve, or spend their day studying) and have little or no secular education, they are a growing burden on Israeli tax payers.
But wait! I’m not one of those religious bashers, there is another side to this story.
You see, it was not always the case that the ultra-Orthodox ALL studied in Yeshiva. Prior to the holocaust, when there were myriad thriving communities spanning Eastern Europe, Jewish boys were given a chaider education (Jewish equivalent of early grade school). Those that showed promise continued their studies often for the rest of their life. Usually they were supported by their local communities, the private wealthy, or their in-laws who believed that it was a great merit and responsibility to ensure that every town, however small, funded the local study of the Torah. Indeed it was seen as a way to ensure that a town was blessed materially and spiritually.
Thus the holocaust did not only destroy Eastern European Judaism but also a complex array of institutions. These included the educational structure that ensured the continuity of, what many consider, Judaism’s most prized inheritance; the totality of the Biblical/Talmudic/Rabbinic tradition. There are a number of extraordinary accounts of efforts to save the institutions that carried this tradition from the fires of the Nazi ovens and/or the cold of Soviet Siberia.
A few yeshivas were saved, or survived, the terror and undertook a massive effort to rebuild the great intuitions of Torah learning that once existed in Europe. Part of this initiative meant that every Jewish boy was encouraged to pursue his Torah studies as long as he wanted so as to replenish the depleted stock of Torah scholars.
From this perspective, the Israeli government is basically continuing a millennia old tradition in the guise of public funds going towards supporting Torah study.
The Haredi position is even more persuasive when considering that they are both the proven guardians of an unbroken chain of Jewish tradition and were the ones that passed on and propagated the words of the great prophets. These prophets very foresaw that the Jews would eventually return to Israel their homeland. In other words, modern Israel, with all its secular tendencies, is basically a mundane interpretation of the Zion that religious Jews have mentioned in their prayers, over a hundred times a day, since the destruction of the second Temple by the Romans in 70 AD.
Could there be a State of Israel (or a Jewish people) without the memory and tradition that was jealously guarded by Rabbinic Judaism since the days of the prophets? Should the Haradi not be rewarded for their contribution to modern Israel?
That said, now that we do have a state of Israel, and numerous yeshivas churning out students of the highest caliber, why should we not return to the pre-holocaust system whereas only the studies of the best are publicly funded? It would be similar to the Western system, (if that system is not itself replicating the Rabbinic tradition) where PHD students and other important institutions of higher learning are funded by the public.
Israel is growing and needs productive citizens, Orthodox or otherwise. Anyone familiar with the Rabbis of the Talmud or the history of the greatest Jewish leaders of every generation, knows that they all had extensive secular knowledge and often supported themselves “with their hands” (they were doctors, jurists, winemakers, water-carriers etc. in fact it is laudable not to live off the Torah, Pirkei Avot). At the same time, there have always been a cadre of our brightest scholars who have spent their entire life in the study of Torah.
Therefore I propose that the Haradi sector be granted a certain quota for each Yeshiva, whereas the brightest students, as the dean so deems, receive a deferment. The rest should be required to serve. The Israeli government has already established a Haredi military unit, which meets all the strict requirements followed by Haredi individuals. One of the most successful programs in the IDF, the Hesder program, allows for religious soldiers to study Torah for 1 ½ years of their three years service.
For those searching for a Talmud-like reasoning to support the above: the influx of Torah-true scholars into the Israeli economy would not only give an already successful economy a massive boost, but it would also help the state of Israel look more like the Land of Israel.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Not After 9/11, NOW! Why are Anti-Mosque Protests Sweeping Across America ?
I remember walking through Manhattans Mid-town weeks after 9/11 and I was both dismayed and proud of what I encountered. The protesters were advocating against going to war.
What we didn't see was wide-spread attacks on Muslims. On the contrary most political and religious leaders defended Islam and their American followers. Americans are proud of that too.
Almost 10 years later a new Mosque/community center has been proposed and approved by NYC only blocks away from a ground zero monument yet to be completed. To the families of victims it is seen as the ultimate insult, however legal, to the memory of their loved ones and many regular-Americans agree.
Then we saw The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/us/08mosque.html?_r=1) published an article exposing the growing trend of anti-Mosque protests highlighting the blatant arguments to suppress religious freedom. The NYT articles point was intended not only to expose a troubling trend but also to conflate the non-racist arguments against the ground zero mosque with the racist protests elsewhere; with the intent of discrediting the arguments against the ground zero mosque.
Yet the fact remains, after 9/11 there was little anti-Islam activity, whereas, now Mosque building across Amercia –reflecting a constitutional right to practice religious freedom- is being challenged!
Recently I have been called a bigot by a reader of my blog who opposed my article questioning the reasoning of building a Mosque so close to ground zero. The full essay can be viewed at http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/05/between-mosque-and-hard-place.html. But the thesis is that Muslims know there are questions about their beliefs and anger against the actions committed by people who claim to be Muslims. So I asked why not avoid insulting people? What was gained by using religious freedom to again victimize the victims? Did they expect such an actions to strengthen the harmony between Americas religious communities? My conclusion was that whatever the intentions, they forced the average American to choose between a Mosque -representing religious freedom- and a hard place -representing the insult and disregard that victims of 9/11 feel.
Indeed after 9/11 there was no “choice”, every community, except for a few who exercised their freedom to dance in New Jersey as the towers and people burned, gathered together and denounced the suicide-murder. For most Americans, like myself, it was another instance of the triumph of American exceptionalism -rationality and law trumped irrational anger and frustration, and there were no wide-spread attacks on Muslim-American community. After all Muslim were also lost in the inferno of hate, many spoke out against the terror, their religion was victimized by their suicidal coreligionists.
Yet now Americans turn on their tv’s and they see Muslims completely rejecting the feelings of many good and honest Americans. The same America that elected a Black president and refused to blame Islam for Fort Hood the attempted Christmas-day bombing, despite 9/11… Muslim-Americans like Farreed Zakaree, the CNN anchor and writer who returned an ADL award, because the ADL DID recognize the legitimacy, however irrational, of the victims feelings and opposed the mosque ON THOSE GROUNDS.
Muslim-Americans the overwhelming majority who espouse peace could have come out and declared
“WE ARE A PEACFUL RELIGOUN WE BELIEVED THIS MOSQUE WOULD FOSTER UNDERSTANDING AND HARMONY, BUT FOR THE SAKE OF PEACE AND THE STILL TRAUMATIZED VICTIMS, ESSPECIALY CONSIDERING RECENT AMERICAN HISTORY, WE WILL FIND A LESS SENSATIVE AREA IN LOWER MANHATTAN FOR THIS MOSQUE.”
Instead Muslims told me that they opposed the Mosque because of the unnecessary disunity it causes, but now support it because they feel under attack. But I say this is not the way you respond to an attack in America. Not one major America-Muslim organization publicized and acknowledged the feelings of the victims. Not one organization said “you know what we understand”!
Indeed America refuses to blame American-Muslims for the horror committed in its name, and I believe it will continue to do so.
When Americans saw American-Muslims going out of their way to insult America. They said “perhaps Muslims don’t understand the pain this mosque is causing”, let us explain it to them -dissuade them from using this location. That didn’t work. So then they asked “is this what we can expect from the Muslim-American community in the future”? To deliberately insult, like the fringe racists who now feel free to openly stand in front of Mosques with dogs at their side hurling insults? To use freedom of religion to create disharmony amongst religious communities? To be unable to adjust to real concerns by deeply hurt people? To add insult to injury and label the emotionally injured who ONLY remember their children and parents and call them bigots!!! Is this a religion of understanding is this a community which has leaders that understand that the law is a means for coexistence not an ends on to itself?
Of course protesting in front of mosques simply because they are Muslim institutions is wrong. Of course the Mosque/community center is legal, and Muslims are free to build anywhere the law allows them! Of course American-Muslims, (except the American-Muslims that provided support to the 9/11 hijackers) are not to blame for 9/11 and to blame them is wrong! Of Course!
But do Muslim-Americans understand that this Mosque will achieve the what the hijackers were unable to achieve, wide-spread religious conflict? Do Muslim-Americans not feel the grief that so many Americans victimized by 9/11 feel?
Then again by now the Mosque supporters realize what they are doing and continue to act, if they didn't at the onset.
If that is the case it does not make Mosque protesting outside of the ground zero mosque right, but it certainly explains it.
What we didn't see was wide-spread attacks on Muslims. On the contrary most political and religious leaders defended Islam and their American followers. Americans are proud of that too.
Almost 10 years later a new Mosque/community center has been proposed and approved by NYC only blocks away from a ground zero monument yet to be completed. To the families of victims it is seen as the ultimate insult, however legal, to the memory of their loved ones and many regular-Americans agree.
Then we saw The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/us/08mosque.html?_r=1) published an article exposing the growing trend of anti-Mosque protests highlighting the blatant arguments to suppress religious freedom. The NYT articles point was intended not only to expose a troubling trend but also to conflate the non-racist arguments against the ground zero mosque with the racist protests elsewhere; with the intent of discrediting the arguments against the ground zero mosque.
Yet the fact remains, after 9/11 there was little anti-Islam activity, whereas, now Mosque building across Amercia –reflecting a constitutional right to practice religious freedom- is being challenged!
Recently I have been called a bigot by a reader of my blog who opposed my article questioning the reasoning of building a Mosque so close to ground zero. The full essay can be viewed at http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/05/between-mosque-and-hard-place.html. But the thesis is that Muslims know there are questions about their beliefs and anger against the actions committed by people who claim to be Muslims. So I asked why not avoid insulting people? What was gained by using religious freedom to again victimize the victims? Did they expect such an actions to strengthen the harmony between Americas religious communities? My conclusion was that whatever the intentions, they forced the average American to choose between a Mosque -representing religious freedom- and a hard place -representing the insult and disregard that victims of 9/11 feel.
Indeed after 9/11 there was no “choice”, every community, except for a few who exercised their freedom to dance in New Jersey as the towers and people burned, gathered together and denounced the suicide-murder. For most Americans, like myself, it was another instance of the triumph of American exceptionalism -rationality and law trumped irrational anger and frustration, and there were no wide-spread attacks on Muslim-American community. After all Muslim were also lost in the inferno of hate, many spoke out against the terror, their religion was victimized by their suicidal coreligionists.
Yet now Americans turn on their tv’s and they see Muslims completely rejecting the feelings of many good and honest Americans. The same America that elected a Black president and refused to blame Islam for Fort Hood the attempted Christmas-day bombing, despite 9/11… Muslim-Americans like Farreed Zakaree, the CNN anchor and writer who returned an ADL award, because the ADL DID recognize the legitimacy, however irrational, of the victims feelings and opposed the mosque ON THOSE GROUNDS.
Muslim-Americans the overwhelming majority who espouse peace could have come out and declared
“WE ARE A PEACFUL RELIGOUN WE BELIEVED THIS MOSQUE WOULD FOSTER UNDERSTANDING AND HARMONY, BUT FOR THE SAKE OF PEACE AND THE STILL TRAUMATIZED VICTIMS, ESSPECIALY CONSIDERING RECENT AMERICAN HISTORY, WE WILL FIND A LESS SENSATIVE AREA IN LOWER MANHATTAN FOR THIS MOSQUE.”
Instead Muslims told me that they opposed the Mosque because of the unnecessary disunity it causes, but now support it because they feel under attack. But I say this is not the way you respond to an attack in America. Not one major America-Muslim organization publicized and acknowledged the feelings of the victims. Not one organization said “you know what we understand”!
Indeed America refuses to blame American-Muslims for the horror committed in its name, and I believe it will continue to do so.
When Americans saw American-Muslims going out of their way to insult America. They said “perhaps Muslims don’t understand the pain this mosque is causing”, let us explain it to them -dissuade them from using this location. That didn’t work. So then they asked “is this what we can expect from the Muslim-American community in the future”? To deliberately insult, like the fringe racists who now feel free to openly stand in front of Mosques with dogs at their side hurling insults? To use freedom of religion to create disharmony amongst religious communities? To be unable to adjust to real concerns by deeply hurt people? To add insult to injury and label the emotionally injured who ONLY remember their children and parents and call them bigots!!! Is this a religion of understanding is this a community which has leaders that understand that the law is a means for coexistence not an ends on to itself?
Of course protesting in front of mosques simply because they are Muslim institutions is wrong. Of course the Mosque/community center is legal, and Muslims are free to build anywhere the law allows them! Of course American-Muslims, (except the American-Muslims that provided support to the 9/11 hijackers) are not to blame for 9/11 and to blame them is wrong! Of Course!
But do Muslim-Americans understand that this Mosque will achieve the what the hijackers were unable to achieve, wide-spread religious conflict? Do Muslim-Americans not feel the grief that so many Americans victimized by 9/11 feel?
Then again by now the Mosque supporters realize what they are doing and continue to act, if they didn't at the onset.
If that is the case it does not make Mosque protesting outside of the ground zero mosque right, but it certainly explains it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
