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.

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.

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!

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.

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.