"I Have No Problem with Jews its Just Israeli-Zionism"

Many critics of Israel claim that they are not anti-Semites, they are just anti-Zionist.

I agree, many critics of Israel are not anti-Semites, but that admission is not synonymous with accepting the premise that Israeli Zionism is somehow separate from being a Jew, it is not.

Yes I know that in Israel itself there is a sizable minority of the Orthodox Jews who oppose Israel's right to exist, but that doesn't make them right. Indeed many "anti-Zionists" like Ahmadinejad, Hamas, and a plethora of Left-wing professors like to point out that they have no problem with Jews It's just the existence of a Zionist state called Israel, and then have photo-ops with then Neturay-Karta (anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews) to affirm this distinction.

However that distinction is superficial. Every Jew who prays the traditional prayers of Judaism, mentions Zion over 100 times a day! This does not mean that all Jews support Israel or the current secular nature of Israel. At the same time even the most anti-Zionist Jews pray for the return of Jews to the WHOLE OF ISRAEL, known as Zion. Thus if they are hugging Iran and Hamas now, they believe that they will be mortal enemies tomorrow. To be an observant Jew is to support Israel now Or later but it is to support Israel.

The point is that while you can criticize Israel and not be an anti-Semite, it is only if you accept the right of Israel to continue as a Jewish majority state , i.e. Zionism, whether religious or secular (After all, even in Biblical times Israel fluctuated in its states observance).

Those that attack the legitimacy of a Jewish State in Israel because it based on Zionism, from this perspective, are expressing anti semetic sentiments. Not because it is that only place where Jews can be assured that they will not be oppressed. Not because it is a place where Jews shine. But because to be an observant Jew is to a zionist.

Three Excuses and One Belief:

One of the best barometers of a news sources political leanings are its readers comments.
The same exact story about Obama-care elicits diametrically different responses on Huffingtonpost.com then it does on Foxnews.com.

Like stories on Obama-care, any issue relating to Jews/Israel often results in predictable comment trends, with some innovative comments thrown into the mix.
For example Israel/Jew related stories commonly spur two opposing argument lines.

Anti-Israel= Israel spies on America. Israel takes American money, with negative consequences for America. Israel attacked and killed Americans in the Liberty incident.

Pro-Israel= G-d gave Israel to the Jews. Those that bless Israel will be blessed.

On Fox news the latter is the more prevasive comment. On left-leaning sites the former has the louder voice.

I have always found the two trends an expression of ignorance. The Bible has never been followed by the most religious of followers, even though the three monotheistic beliefs all claim to believe in it. As for the dull anti-Israel comments I told myself that these people great-grand parents believed in the Elders-of-Zion conspiracy and probably thought that Jews use Christian blood in their Matzoh.

However I recently noticed that these beliefs, like 9/11 conspiracy theories in the Middle-East, are really wide-spread. I will give, as I expect others to give me, the benefit of the doubt and offer a different perspective.

1. It is true Israel spies on America, like it does almost every country. Israel is an ally of America NOT America. The reason why Israel's intelligence is from the best in the world is because of its aggressive spying. In the real world of real politics, this is a common practice. Israel does not use this intelligence to kill Americans, but to protect its own citizens. The real question is why Jonathon Pollard -the main Israeli spy that leftists like to bring up- has received such a stiff sentence, compared to other ally-spies.

As a side note these same liberal and predictable commentators NEVER talk about China and its rape of American know-how. I am not surprised, are you?

2. Israel does get 3 billion from America, ALL OF IT MILITARY LOAN GUARANTEES THAT ISRAEL PAYS BACK YEAR AFTER YEAR AND ON TIME. Moreover 70% of these loan guarantees are required and are used to purchase American weaponry, which of course boosts American industry. This is besides the fact that America gets the most powerful military in the larger Middle-east as its closest ally (for more on the obvious benefits of America’s alliance with Israel please see the "linkers and thinkers" series).

3. The most preposterous of all is the mantra " look liberty Israel killed Americans", as if that should undermine 62 years of an America-Israel alliance. Besides the fact that Israel claims that it was an accident, an accident that occurred on June 8 1967 -when Israeli war planes and torpedo boats attacked an American intelligence ship USS Liberty, that was off the coast of Israel in international waters- FORTY THREE YEARS AGO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident)! To use it for anything more than a proof that NO ALLIANCE IS PERFECT, is akin to America cutting off its alliance with Japan, because Japan attacked America!

Another side-note: these same commentators love to claim that this is an "insidious event covered up by AIPAC (read Jewish) Media" that they only found out about recently… Oh come on, type "liberty incident" into your Google search, the first hit, you guessed it. This despite the central role liberty plays in Israel and America!

As for those that support Israel with Biblical claims. Well that what it says in the Bible. If you don't believe in the Bible, then clearly those arguments don't hold water.

In my opinion there are three groups of people who bring up the above "facts": those who are genuinely ignorant, those that are looking for an excuse to be ignorant, and those that believe in the Bible.

Three excuses and one belief, to be exact.

BESIDES WHY SHOULD IRAN BE THE POWER IN THE REGION

The recent nuclear summit hailed by Obama as a monumental success has highlighted minor gains while completely ignoring the severity of the Iranian nuclear impasse.

Some conspiracy theorist have already hypothesized that this was the purpose behind the summit. They also contend that Netanyahu's real reason for not participating was to create noise as a reminder of the real issue at hand. Just as the real dispute between the White house and the Knesset is about Iran, not Israelis living in the old city of Jerusalem.

Regardless, the bottom line remains that Iran is on the cusp of nuclear armament and the international community refuses to confront the realities on the ground.

There are two views currently making their way through the halls of capitals across the globe.

1. Israel can be relied upon to take the Iranian threat out -and the diplomatic/military fall that will inevitably come along with it.

2. Israel's leadership does not have the political will nor the tools to attempt a strike. The world should prepare for the reality of a nuclear armed Iran, in part by convening high-profile summits affirming the international communities’ commitment to non-proliferation.

Unfortunately the second view, which under the Obama administration has taken hold, underestimates Israel's commitment to its security and Iran's commitment to arm itself.

1. Iran's nuclear aspirations date back to 1979 as part of the Islamic revolution in Iran.
2. Iran understands that as long as it doesn't have nuclear weapons it can not dominate the region.
3. Iran has shown that it is willing to kill its own people. Though I must add that one of my Turkish friends asserts that the protests since the disputed elections reflect a small minority of Iran, I respectfully disagree. Besides the bottom line is that Iran’s leader killed its own citizens.
So there is clear evidence that Iran puts its Mullahs/elites aspirations above the people. What does that mean for the MAD theories that support the notion that Iran would never use its nuclear arsenal?

1. Israel, despite having nuclear weapons has never spurred a regional nuclear arms race, why, because EVERYONE knows that it is a deterrent.
2. That deterrent does not counter an autocratic state like Iran that has as its platform the destruction of Israel.
3. Israel must remove that threat.
4. Israel attacks, then Lebanon, Gaza, and even Syria may get drawn in to a war.
And who knows who else?
5. The likely outcome is Israel’s victory, at a heavy and unwanted cost. Also energy prices, attacks on Americans and other random non-Iranians WILL occur.

Yet the International community had 6 years to stop Iran. Instead they concluded that either of the two views were inevitable and refused to take the threat seriously. Sanctions over a period of time could have worked. But for economic, and who knows what other reasons, Russia and China refused to serve the cause of humanity.

Some may contend that it is purely Israel’s problem. BIG MISTAKE, I have said it before and I will say it again Israel/Jews are the first targets of tyranny but never the last!

As a Jew and a person of conscious I can not stomach the notion that the Hitler of our day will get his hands on nukes, or the idea that there is EVEN A CHANCE THAT millions of my fellow Jews, Americans, Muslims, and people are killed (as was the case in world war II) we shoud not have to declare retroactively "never again".

I say Israel should take out Irans military NOW, before Israel gets drawn into a nuclear war. Israel cannot and should not rely on an international community that has never been up to the task of standing up to Hitler tyranny.

Besides WHY SHOULD IRAN BE THE POWER IN THE REGION

Palestinians and Iranians HAVE TO BE WONDERING...

So Iran which began its genocidal mantra with threats against Israel, has finally come out in the open claiming that if attacked, they will detonate nuclear weapons in American cities (http://debka.com/article/8713/).

The obvious irrationality of murdering 10,000s of men, women, and children in response to attack on Iranian military installations, is not new. On the contrary it is a manifestation of the same perverse model followed by terrorists, primarily claiming to be Muslims, only this time officially sanctioned by a state. Regardless this homicidal equation was at first applied, only, against Israel. The International community myopically ignored the writing on the wall. Now it has spread like a cancer, to every continent, with nuclear undertones.

Despite this clear cut and historically predictable equation i.e. evil targeting Israel/Jews is evil that will eventually attack the world (please see post on "Ann Coulter silenced..."). I can only wonder whats going through common Palestinian and Iranian minds.

For example lets say America or more likely Israel attacks Iran nuclear installations and Iran's Mullahs follow through on their genocidal-rhetoric,and launch indiscriminate attacks on America/Israel. Thousands of Palestinians, whether they support intifada or not, would be killed by a nuclear detonation. After all Israel is so small that Israelis, both Jewish and Arabs, are crammed into a proverbial closet.

Likewise Iranian civilians most of whom, I hope we can assume, want nothing to do with the Mullahs genocidal plans would be disintegrated by thousands.

Thus Palestinians and Iranians have to be wondering...Where is THEIR voice?

Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and Poland: Who’s Next?

I know I'm not the only one who had a sick feeling in their stomach when it was announced that America and the West, excluding Germany, had lost a proven friend. The Polish president and most of his cabinet fell out of the sky.
This was both an uncanny coincidence and ironic:
Coincidence 1. that it happened over Russia.
Conicidence 2. that a proven experienced pilot chose to land when he was advised not to.
Ironic:as it occurred right as Poland was commemorating the Katyn massacre.

For those unfamiliar with Polish history, the Katyn massacre occurred in 1940 after Russia and Germany signed their non-aggression, Molotov-Ribbentrop, Pact, and divided Poland. The Nazis found the mass-graves in 1943, and attempted to use it as propaganda toll to besmirch their enemies -the allies. The Soviets blamed the death of over 20,000 Polish officers and elites on the Nazis. Despite overwhelming evidence that the Soviets were behind the massacre the allies accepted the canard for the sake of their coalition. That is until a 1990-1991 investigation by the Soviets revealed Soviet responsibility.

On the very day that Poland was commemorating the intentional massacre of its leadership it was stripped, accidentally, of its current leadership. Of course the sometimes savvy Russians were quick to extend their sincere condolences.

The bottom line is, however, that the Polish plane was filled by Polish leadership that was openly leery of Russia, and had openly supported and sided with the American/Western coalition in Eastern-Europe.

However Eastern Europe especially countries associated with the former Soviet -Union has been subject to a series of coincidences:

Russia was the first to recognize the opposition takeover of Kyrgyzstan. Interestingly, this opposition is pro-Russian whereas the ousted government led by Bakiyev, was western-oriented -he signed off on a pivotal American army-base used to launch operations in Afghanistan. Not insignificant is the fact that Kyrgyzstan is the only state that hosts army-bases from both of the former cold-war adversaries.

Then how can we forget Russia's invasion of Georgia on the pretext of defending the pro-Russian provinces of South-Ossetia and Abkhazia.

There are many other coincidences that seem inextricably tied to Georgia/Kyrgyzstan/Polish. For instance the resurgence of Chechen terrorism; who’s supporting them?

All of which makes it clearer that Russia has recovered from its post-Soviet pacifist malaise and is accelerating the recapture of what it perceives to be, its sphere of influence. Albeit using a lot more tact and strategy.

While it make take 50 years until the Russians officially take responsibility for the Polish incident, rest assured the west in its effort to get along with Russia on energy, Iran, and North Korea will accept the official narrative.

What is eminently important is to know who’s next?

Republicans and Democrates: herd psychology behind success, and failure

I have noticed a trend in democratically oriented political systems.

It would seem that each side can only achieve what the other wants. For example NATO in Afghanistan, which is a pseudonym for America in Afghanistan, has increasingly been responsible for civilian deaths. Yet there has been no outcry and little media coverage of civilian carnage. For those following Afghanistan during the Bush years...well lets just say there was "robust criticism". Is this predictable hypocrisy on the part of the media and Democratic politicians OR is it that because the Democrats are perceived as inherently pacifist their war-making is seen as truly necessary -politics aside.

In other words what ever side of the aisle is perceived as naturally opposed to a given course of action is perceived as sincere when pursuing that same action.

Thus the fact that Bush expanded (both of them) government spending is overlooked but when the Democrats followed suit it becomes a major talking point of criticism, as if the national debt was an Obama creation.

There are myriad of other examples...my point is that instead of predicting hypocrisy we can start to understand the herd psychology behind success, and failure.

Love: What comes first, expressions or feelings?

I was in CT over Passover and I ran into an old friend of mind, an optometrist. As usual we got in to a fast paced conversation -this time about the holiday.

He was wondering why it was that many of the customs, especially the practice of not mixing unleavened bread (matzo) with liquid, seemed unnecessarily burdensome.

He had a point; after all, practically speaking, it is highly unlikely that unleavened bread would have any remnant of unbaked flour that would then mix with liquid and rise. This is not to say it can't happen, then again one can also win the lottery.

To be clear our dilemma regarded the "extra" observances that stem from the core biblical and rabbinic laws (for more on this please see post "the politics of semantics"). Many Jewish practices that stem from hypothetical contingencies are observed despite their unlikely occurrence, such as the black/fur hat. Why?

Our conversation then turned to potential explanations. I would like to share the one that seemed most compelling.

This response assumes that the observance of extra rules to guard against breaches in core observances shares a relationship analogous to that a parent and a child.

Thus a parent is required by society and core legal practice to act as a guardian of their child. For example on a cold day the parents core obligation is ensure that their child remains warm. However, like many of parents/children can attest, most parents go the extra mile when bundling up their children from the cold; the extra scarf, mittens, or hat, all of which is an expression of love.

It is the same way with the extra observance, which goes beyond the legal obligation and is a reflection of love.

But what if you don't love G-d or, for that matter, believe in him?

This leads directly into the question of why we act lovingly. Do future spouses really love each other on first sight?
Indeed, many of my close acquaintances before and after getting married shared with me their concern that they didn't feel in love -I responded "yet".

The point is that one need not love to express love. On the contrary, as psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover explains, to feel love one should express love. By not dipping matzo in water we are telling G-d I love you OR I hope one day to love you OR to believe in you.

Robin Obama: Hero or a Villian?

My family, which is conservative leaning, and I, a self described realist, have been debating the relative merits of a state imposed health care system.

Months ago, during one of these conversations, I informed a close family member that as far as I was concerned I felt that health care had to be reformed in this country and besides I, a working student, don't have health care and would like to see a doctor once in a while.

In other words I supported health care reform because I would benefit. I suppose there are many others that see it the same way.

Recently, I have revisited this from a more egalitarian perspective. Now I ask at what cost will Obama-care benefit me?
On one hand every human being has a moral responsibility to assist their neighbor as best they can. On the other hand can the state impose such a moral code on its citizens?

For those of you who enjoy a more theoretical scenario... Was Robin Hood a hero or a villain; to steal from the rich to give to the poor? While many instinctively respond that he was a hero, here is another perspective that perhaps will change your mind.
Historically speaking, the Robin Hood policy was applied to Jews in every corner of the "civilized" world. The Jew who was undesirable and must have achieved his/her wealth through usury or some other insidious means was forced to return some or all of that wealth to society. Sometimes this was achieved "legally" through a "Jew Tax" other times the Jews where simply expelled from the land ( England 1290, France 1305, 1683 Spain, 1492, Egypt, Syria, Libya, Morrow, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon 1940-1960) of course Jews were required to leave all their assets behind. Or Jews were killed (1640-50 Eastern Europe, 1910's Russia, 1940's Western Europe etc.), again leaving their "ill-earned" assets to the "oppressed masses and governments".

However like many of the upper-middle and rich of America, the overwhelming majority of Jews achieved their wealth through hard work, perseverance, and plan old innovation (for more on this analogy please view or read Niall Ferguson's The Ascent of Money, PBS). To legally take their wealth by imposing a moral requirement sounds good, but is in reality a reoccurring historical wrong. It is a form of Robin Hood thinking, the imposition of the majority’s desires on the minority.

It is a powerful argument and one that I once ascribed to.

As a Jew whose forefathers where abused by the majority the idea that Jew has been replaced with “rich-man” as the target of Robin-hood practices is abominable.

But why?

Why is it that the rich should not be forced to give to the poor? After all in Ancient Israel and today Jews are REQUIRED TO GIVE 1/10 of their income to charity. Muslims and Christians are likewise admonished to give to charity. Why not have a secular authority enshrine this in American law?

(This perspective holds true despite that face that the American public already VOLUNTARILY, gives disproportionately to charity (http://www.jewishachievement.com/domains/phil.html).

To this valid and important question the answer is clear.
Americans already give a tremendous amount of money to larger society. In Brooklyn, where I live, I know a number of people who live in free housing WITH CABLE! In other words the FED has already exhausted its "biblical" ability to tax.

We Americans with or without health-care should not be blinded by the Robin Hood syndrome. At the end of the day humanity was given free will, morality or alleged morality, cannot be imposed. Obama-Hood is not the way.