It has been a month since tragedy struck Haiti. I have watched as celebrities of every type; movie stars, radio personalities, and rabbis jumped on the van-wagon of self-interest pulled by the different nations of the world (see post Haiti Intent vs. Results). Here we are a month later and the front pages of our newspapers have moved on and the flood of empathy has dried up.
I expected this, but held off on commenting until I was sure our nature wouldn't fail us. It has not.
This is the human condition -empathy is temporary even if a tragedy is permanent.
If we admit that there is a problem then we are obligated to respond, otherwise we face being labeled apathetic and inhuman. I am not advocating the alternative, self-imposed ignorance. But if are response is triggered purely by empathy then it is bound to be short lived. After all how long can one attempt to feel anothers pain?
This is a long standing trend. Take Darfur for instance with its human-perpetrated genocide. When was the last time we have expressed empathy with the millions of traumatized victims there, forget about aid!? Where is Danny Glover, or Shmulie Boteach, do they bother to "tour" Darfur? Yes our empathy for Darfur has long since dried up.
True, for arguments sake, there is a distinction. Haiti was a natural tragedy, thus all humanity become temporary brothers in the face of an outside enemy. In the case of Sudan, it is humans who are killing, raping, and destroying. It is harder for us acknowledge and condemn our own species- perhaps because we are then condemning ourselves.
This distinction may highlight a theoretical difference between Darfur,Sudan and Haiti. However it does more to show that when empathy is our motivation, however natural empathy is, it can not be our sole reason, because empathy is short lived.
Does it take front page new stories for us to respond and advocate, or is it that because it is ON the front pagethat we respond with two levels of self interest , empathy which it self may be motivated by a deeper more disguised self-interest,fame.
The real tragedy in Haiti has been ongoing for decades. In Haiti many people have been eating cake made from a mixture of mud and water- these cakes are SOLD in the streets! Ironically, because of the disaster and the subsequent relief effort many Haitians are eating better. Where were the nations and the celebrities THEN? Where were we? Indeed human empathy is tragic.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Religion IS Violent
I enjoy the study of theology and I love a good conversation. So when my friend, a devout Muslim and scholar (though he would dispute that), recently called we got into a discussion about violence and religion.
My friend asked in his frank and in his agenda-free way how is it that G-d commands the Jews in the Bible to wipe out the tribe of Amalek- men, women, and children?
Amalek was a medium sized tribe, whose origin is debated. Some argue that they are decedents of the biblical Esau, others like the Jewish sage, Nachmanides, claim that they are decedents of man named Amalek. Arabian scholars argue they are interchangeable with the Canaanites.
Either way, the story goes that the world was awed by the Jewish exodus from Egypt, and there emerged a global recognition of a monotheistic creator. The Amalekites, staunch pagans, decided to cool down the globalization of the belief in one G-d and attacked the Jews.
The Amalekites actions read like a polemic that went like this: "despite the many miracles (and the fact that there was strong evidence they would lose in their war against the Jews as the Jewish G-d had just devastated the super-power of their day, Egypt)they by virtue of their attack on the Jews, doubted the omnipotence of the Jewish G-d". The Amalekites hoped that this display of doubt would cool down the warmth of comfort that the global movement of monotheistic belief was experiencing. In other words, they hoped that the warmth of belief, fostered by the miraculous exit from Egypt would be cooled by the doubt engendered by their attack on the recently freed Jews.
Following the defeat of the Amalekites G-d tell the Jews "don't forget what these people did,wipe out their memory from under the sky"! For a religion of peace and friendship this is quite unexpected.
Yet a similar question is raised in relation to the more current religious violence perpetuated in the name of Islam.
How can it be that Islam -which as one of its founding principles believes in helping the weak- can be be so violent?
The justification offered by the perpetrators is called Jihad, i.e. our violence is mandated -nay obligated by G-d!
There seem to be a myriad of reasons raised in support AND in opposition to Jihad from the Muslim public. I will share the one offered by my friend, which also happens to be one of UCLA's Muslim scholar, Khaled M. Abou El Fadl, points in his book on contemporary Islam, "The Great Theft".
The detractors of this jihadist view make two points.
1. Jihad can be both external and internal.
2. and much more relevant, Jihad is not a myth it is a REAL part of Islam.
Yet most of the jihadists victims are other Muslims. Furthermore the jihadists are killing Muslims of their own branch of Islam (Sunni on Sunni and Shia on Shia violence)!
The only real manifestation of Koranic Jihad, manifesting itself TODAY is the internal Jihad, a war waged against the evil inclination within the self.
This is interesting when you consider that contemporary Judaism requires Jews to verbalize G-d's commandment to remember what Amalek did and to erase their memory from the face of the earth. To be clear Jews do not travel the world looking to kill the Amalekites. The commandment is in full affect and is being carried out, but not externally, internally.
This internal war against Amalek is defined by Kabbalah and Chassidus, as a war against doubt. Indeed the Hebrew word Amalek=240 as does the Hebrew word for doubt (safek).
Amalek which represents doubt must be wiped out; doubt must be wiped out. To be clear this is not a war on questioning and conversation; that is encouraged by Judaism. Here we are talking about a certain type of doubt.
The doubt that precludes you from the reaching out to a higher force, when that higher force is all you have.
Think about it, you have no where to go no money, no friends, but you have hope,
hope that this world is NOT a disjointed impersonal place,
hope that everything has a reason and purpose, (just as the minutest detail of our eco-system has a purpose).
That hope may even inspire you to overcome -to succeed.
But then doubt comes and undermines that sustaining hope; it cools down the warmth and comfort of inspiration.
Thus everyday a Jew is obligated to declare Jihad on the doubt that festers in the heart, BEFORE doubt severs the rope of hope that otherwise may inspires us to overcome.
So it seems that violence plays a role in religion but the application and direction of that violence be it Jihad or the war against Amalek, must be directed inwards; a brutal war for control over ones own emotions.
THE CONVERSATION CONTINUES.
My friend asked in his frank and in his agenda-free way how is it that G-d commands the Jews in the Bible to wipe out the tribe of Amalek- men, women, and children?
Amalek was a medium sized tribe, whose origin is debated. Some argue that they are decedents of the biblical Esau, others like the Jewish sage, Nachmanides, claim that they are decedents of man named Amalek. Arabian scholars argue they are interchangeable with the Canaanites.
Either way, the story goes that the world was awed by the Jewish exodus from Egypt, and there emerged a global recognition of a monotheistic creator. The Amalekites, staunch pagans, decided to cool down the globalization of the belief in one G-d and attacked the Jews.
The Amalekites actions read like a polemic that went like this: "despite the many miracles (and the fact that there was strong evidence they would lose in their war against the Jews as the Jewish G-d had just devastated the super-power of their day, Egypt)they by virtue of their attack on the Jews, doubted the omnipotence of the Jewish G-d". The Amalekites hoped that this display of doubt would cool down the warmth of comfort that the global movement of monotheistic belief was experiencing. In other words, they hoped that the warmth of belief, fostered by the miraculous exit from Egypt would be cooled by the doubt engendered by their attack on the recently freed Jews.
Following the defeat of the Amalekites G-d tell the Jews "don't forget what these people did,wipe out their memory from under the sky"! For a religion of peace and friendship this is quite unexpected.
Yet a similar question is raised in relation to the more current religious violence perpetuated in the name of Islam.
How can it be that Islam -which as one of its founding principles believes in helping the weak- can be be so violent?
The justification offered by the perpetrators is called Jihad, i.e. our violence is mandated -nay obligated by G-d!
There seem to be a myriad of reasons raised in support AND in opposition to Jihad from the Muslim public. I will share the one offered by my friend, which also happens to be one of UCLA's Muslim scholar, Khaled M. Abou El Fadl, points in his book on contemporary Islam, "The Great Theft".
The detractors of this jihadist view make two points.
1. Jihad can be both external and internal.
2. and much more relevant, Jihad is not a myth it is a REAL part of Islam.
Yet most of the jihadists victims are other Muslims. Furthermore the jihadists are killing Muslims of their own branch of Islam (Sunni on Sunni and Shia on Shia violence)!
The only real manifestation of Koranic Jihad, manifesting itself TODAY is the internal Jihad, a war waged against the evil inclination within the self.
This is interesting when you consider that contemporary Judaism requires Jews to verbalize G-d's commandment to remember what Amalek did and to erase their memory from the face of the earth. To be clear Jews do not travel the world looking to kill the Amalekites. The commandment is in full affect and is being carried out, but not externally, internally.
This internal war against Amalek is defined by Kabbalah and Chassidus, as a war against doubt. Indeed the Hebrew word Amalek=240 as does the Hebrew word for doubt (safek).
Amalek which represents doubt must be wiped out; doubt must be wiped out. To be clear this is not a war on questioning and conversation; that is encouraged by Judaism. Here we are talking about a certain type of doubt.
The doubt that precludes you from the reaching out to a higher force, when that higher force is all you have.
Think about it, you have no where to go no money, no friends, but you have hope,
hope that this world is NOT a disjointed impersonal place,
hope that everything has a reason and purpose, (just as the minutest detail of our eco-system has a purpose).
That hope may even inspire you to overcome -to succeed.
But then doubt comes and undermines that sustaining hope; it cools down the warmth and comfort of inspiration.
Thus everyday a Jew is obligated to declare Jihad on the doubt that festers in the heart, BEFORE doubt severs the rope of hope that otherwise may inspires us to overcome.
So it seems that violence plays a role in religion but the application and direction of that violence be it Jihad or the war against Amalek, must be directed inwards; a brutal war for control over ones own emotions.
THE CONVERSATION CONTINUES.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
The Arabization of Israeli Politics?
Whatever happened to Vice President Joe Biden’s memorable streak of "loud" comments? For example Biden declared that a "withering" Russia will bend to the West and America (WSJ, 7/25/09) and that Israel was entitled to attack Iran (ABC, 7/05/09).
We haven't heard any controversial declarations from Joe in some time probably after Rahm Emmanuel or some other pit-bull from the Obama administration reminded Biden that his foreign relations credentials were only required to bolster Obama's election campaign.
Juxtapose that with an un-muzzled Avigdor Lieberman-the outspoken leader of the Yisrael Beitenu (Israel is our Home) party, and current foreign minister of Israel. This is unusual because like America, Israel's bite is usually bigger than its bark.
Bush’s "War on Terrorism" is a perfect example, of a monumental understatement, Bush should have called it the "50 years war on global terror". A similar example followed Israel’s warning to Hamas in Gaza to halt two years of rocket fire. When Hamas continued its spiteful ways Israel followed up with a devastating campaign, a continued blockade, and the promise to be just as "disproportional” in the future if Hamas terror continued.
If Israel’s bite is bigger than its bark then the Arab world’s bark is historically bigger than its bite. Indeed if the Arab states and Iran share anything in common it is their propensity to make broad, bold, and often outrageous remarks. Take for example Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, recent declarations that the West can expect a punch in the face on the anniversary of the Iranian "Islamic Revolution" (Washington Times 02/09/10). Syrian dictator, Bashar al-assad, announced that an Israeli attack on Lebanon, Hamas, Hezbollah, or Iran would result in Syrian attacks “inside your cities”-read Israel’s citizens ( JPOST 03/02/10).Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan ,has only recently put a lid on a string outrageous statements following the Davos fiasco. Erdogan is on record asserting that Sudan’s president Omar al-bashir is innocent of the charge of "crimes against humanity" in Darfur because "it is not possible for those who belong to the Muslim faith to carry out genocide" (GurdianUk 11/10/09).
Some anthropologists, like Raphael Patai author of "The Arab Mind", see this is a cultural/societal trait of Arab overstatement (though that doesn’t account for Turkey and Iran both of which are not ethnically Arab). Others seasoned political analysts see this type of outspoken rhetoric as a crude but effective method, habitually used by Middle-Eastern autocrats to deflect criticism from their own failed leadership.
Either way this type of bluster is EXPECTED from the Arab Middle-East. So when Avigdor Lieberman started responding bluntly to commonplace genocidal threats emanating from Israel’s unhappy neighbors it came as a surprise. Indeed, Israel’s response to Turkish provocations, led to highly unnecessary diplomatic gaff of overtly criticizing the Turkish ambassador to Israel, and placing him in a visibly lower seat -which achieved what? We can assume that these actions were taken at the behest of the Israel’s Foreign minister Lieberman.
It also requires a closer look.
One possible explanation is that Lieberman’s vocalizations of his beliefs are expected by his political base, primarily Eastern-European immigrants who are used to that type of Putin bluntness. Thus it does not reflect a permanent shift in Israeli politics, but rather it is an ephemeral development, that is a necessary bi-product of a Netanyahu coalition that relies heavily on Lieberman’s political base.
This may also explain why Netanyahu has not really challenged Lieberman's remarks; on the contrary he probably took them into account in his final decision to include Liebermanls party in his center-right coalition.
Alternatively, Lieberman as the foreign minister is responding to remarks whose source has not been paralleled since the Yom-Kippur war (1973). In other words, from 1973 until Ahmadinejad’s rise to power in 2005, no local power has been so open and outspoken about their desire to destroy Israel. Thus Lieberman feels that this situation is an exception that requires an exceptional Israeli response.
Another potential explanation, could point to a permanent shift in Israeli diplomacy. This could be the result of Israel feeling abandoned by the International community or Israel finally starting to assert itself.As such, like China, Brazil, or India, Israel is a burgeoning power, whose technological genius, and socio-political makeup (Israel is the most diverse country in the Middle-East) -despite its resource-thin geography and constant attacks from its neighbors- has made for a nation which is on the brink of joining the exclusive developed country club(Bloomberg 6/16/2009). Lieberman’s statements may just reflect a country sick and tired of being verbally bullied, especially when Israel is the biggest kid on the block.
Finally, this may be a political manifestation of Israel absorbing the culture that they have become submerged in. Perhaps it is a side-effect of Israel’s growing strategic-ties with the Western leaning Arab-block, Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. It is possible that like the ancient kingdoms of Israel, modern Israel is displaying on its proverbial borders the first signs of cultural influence in the form of political arabzation.
We haven't heard any controversial declarations from Joe in some time probably after Rahm Emmanuel or some other pit-bull from the Obama administration reminded Biden that his foreign relations credentials were only required to bolster Obama's election campaign.
Juxtapose that with an un-muzzled Avigdor Lieberman-the outspoken leader of the Yisrael Beitenu (Israel is our Home) party, and current foreign minister of Israel. This is unusual because like America, Israel's bite is usually bigger than its bark.
Bush’s "War on Terrorism" is a perfect example, of a monumental understatement, Bush should have called it the "50 years war on global terror". A similar example followed Israel’s warning to Hamas in Gaza to halt two years of rocket fire. When Hamas continued its spiteful ways Israel followed up with a devastating campaign, a continued blockade, and the promise to be just as "disproportional” in the future if Hamas terror continued.
If Israel’s bite is bigger than its bark then the Arab world’s bark is historically bigger than its bite. Indeed if the Arab states and Iran share anything in common it is their propensity to make broad, bold, and often outrageous remarks. Take for example Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, recent declarations that the West can expect a punch in the face on the anniversary of the Iranian "Islamic Revolution" (Washington Times 02/09/10). Syrian dictator, Bashar al-assad, announced that an Israeli attack on Lebanon, Hamas, Hezbollah, or Iran would result in Syrian attacks “inside your cities”-read Israel’s citizens ( JPOST 03/02/10).Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan ,has only recently put a lid on a string outrageous statements following the Davos fiasco. Erdogan is on record asserting that Sudan’s president Omar al-bashir is innocent of the charge of "crimes against humanity" in Darfur because "it is not possible for those who belong to the Muslim faith to carry out genocide" (GurdianUk 11/10/09).
Some anthropologists, like Raphael Patai author of "The Arab Mind", see this is a cultural/societal trait of Arab overstatement (though that doesn’t account for Turkey and Iran both of which are not ethnically Arab). Others seasoned political analysts see this type of outspoken rhetoric as a crude but effective method, habitually used by Middle-Eastern autocrats to deflect criticism from their own failed leadership.
Either way this type of bluster is EXPECTED from the Arab Middle-East. So when Avigdor Lieberman started responding bluntly to commonplace genocidal threats emanating from Israel’s unhappy neighbors it came as a surprise. Indeed, Israel’s response to Turkish provocations, led to highly unnecessary diplomatic gaff of overtly criticizing the Turkish ambassador to Israel, and placing him in a visibly lower seat -which achieved what? We can assume that these actions were taken at the behest of the Israel’s Foreign minister Lieberman.
It also requires a closer look.
One possible explanation is that Lieberman’s vocalizations of his beliefs are expected by his political base, primarily Eastern-European immigrants who are used to that type of Putin bluntness. Thus it does not reflect a permanent shift in Israeli politics, but rather it is an ephemeral development, that is a necessary bi-product of a Netanyahu coalition that relies heavily on Lieberman’s political base.
This may also explain why Netanyahu has not really challenged Lieberman's remarks; on the contrary he probably took them into account in his final decision to include Liebermanls party in his center-right coalition.
Alternatively, Lieberman as the foreign minister is responding to remarks whose source has not been paralleled since the Yom-Kippur war (1973). In other words, from 1973 until Ahmadinejad’s rise to power in 2005, no local power has been so open and outspoken about their desire to destroy Israel. Thus Lieberman feels that this situation is an exception that requires an exceptional Israeli response.
Another potential explanation, could point to a permanent shift in Israeli diplomacy. This could be the result of Israel feeling abandoned by the International community or Israel finally starting to assert itself.As such, like China, Brazil, or India, Israel is a burgeoning power, whose technological genius, and socio-political makeup (Israel is the most diverse country in the Middle-East) -despite its resource-thin geography and constant attacks from its neighbors- has made for a nation which is on the brink of joining the exclusive developed country club(Bloomberg 6/16/2009). Lieberman’s statements may just reflect a country sick and tired of being verbally bullied, especially when Israel is the biggest kid on the block.
Finally, this may be a political manifestation of Israel absorbing the culture that they have become submerged in. Perhaps it is a side-effect of Israel’s growing strategic-ties with the Western leaning Arab-block, Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. It is possible that like the ancient kingdoms of Israel, modern Israel is displaying on its proverbial borders the first signs of cultural influence in the form of political arabzation.
The Current Economic Downturn: Crises or Opportunity?
As an ambitious student with a very high GPA, one of the most difficult experiences I have faced was revaluating my commitment to a Law Degree. One symptom of the same malady that was bothering me was evident at Brooklyn College. Here I pursued my undergrad degree in psychology and political science. Through out that time I noticed a direct and positive correlation between the wait time for a computer and a weakening economy. This comes as no surprise; a higher education is a patently positive way to spend your unemployed time.
Yet this influx of students was a symtpom of a shrinking job market that has affected every industry and vocation. The blogosphere and conventional media is alight with reports of a ever weaker job market-healthcare aside. Law, a highly competitive and lucrative career has also been affected; even a degree from Harvard does not ensure a “good” position.
So here I was a student with a plethora of prestigious internships under my belt, a Rabbinical degree, and a transcript replete with honors designations, yet I was truly daunted by the prospect of graduating from a top-14 law school with 150,000 in debt and a public sector job.
So began a period of indecision, self doubt, fear of failure, and a glut of other phobias. Was I what I thought I was? Could I really compete with those Ivy League 5th avenue residents? Was I destined to be a nobody-PHD withering away in a dusty library turning my nose down at all those active people making a real difference? These negative thoughts consumed me.
Out of desperation I reached out to my professors, my mentors, my family, and ultimately myself.
Then I heard a whisper. The whisper, like nature, was dictating not what I can do but what I should do. At first I thought I was crazy, after all I never heard this whisper before. But it occured to me that until now the whisper was drowned out by the shouts of monetary successes of my neighbors, my friends, even my family. The shouts proclaimed “look at what they have, look at what they have achieved, and look how happy they seem”! The shout was asserting that, if I wanted to be somebody, I neede to succeed in what everybody was pursuing. In our capitalist society that means one thing, MONEY.
Don’t get me wrong I know the role money plays in our lives, as I have very little of it. Yet the shouting was affecting how I thought of myself, it drowned the whisper of truth that I only recently was able to hear. The whisper offered a rational evaluation of what I am, and how what I am dictates what I will be successful at. A success that will result in a decent income but that will not be dictated by income. A success that will be achieved because it is my purpose to achieve; the whisper asserts that it is natural for me to be successful at what I am intended to do.
I am neither advocating complete submission to fate, nor total rejection of existentialism (in short, that we are in total control of who we are), rather the realization that just as athletes are athletic, and that writers can write, I too must look for what I have a natural affinity for. Thus an athlete can go professional or become a banker, or a writer can write books or they can jump at an opportunity to make money in mortgages. Yes I can listen to the irrational shouts of society or I can discern the whisper of the self pointing to my place in nature.
I heard my whisper as I direct result of the recent downturn in the economy. The downturn forced me to search for the whisper, the mission, the role, and I believe that I have started to hear its faint but unyielding argument. It is telling me to pursue law , but not because it will make me rich- in this economy it will not- but because it is what I have the natural capability to do it. Not only because it offers a measure of respect (respect diminished by the proverbial ambulance chaser), but also because It is my role in nature, and I can only be successful AND happy if I do what I am supposed to do.
I wonder if this downturn has forced others to disregard the irrational shouts. True there are still those elite groups of rich people, and those that continue to become rich, yet that may be their role or it may be that they are disregarding their role. It is irrelevant to me, what matters are the rational whispers in myself.
Yet this influx of students was a symtpom of a shrinking job market that has affected every industry and vocation. The blogosphere and conventional media is alight with reports of a ever weaker job market-healthcare aside. Law, a highly competitive and lucrative career has also been affected; even a degree from Harvard does not ensure a “good” position.
So here I was a student with a plethora of prestigious internships under my belt, a Rabbinical degree, and a transcript replete with honors designations, yet I was truly daunted by the prospect of graduating from a top-14 law school with 150,000 in debt and a public sector job.
So began a period of indecision, self doubt, fear of failure, and a glut of other phobias. Was I what I thought I was? Could I really compete with those Ivy League 5th avenue residents? Was I destined to be a nobody-PHD withering away in a dusty library turning my nose down at all those active people making a real difference? These negative thoughts consumed me.
Out of desperation I reached out to my professors, my mentors, my family, and ultimately myself.
Then I heard a whisper. The whisper, like nature, was dictating not what I can do but what I should do. At first I thought I was crazy, after all I never heard this whisper before. But it occured to me that until now the whisper was drowned out by the shouts of monetary successes of my neighbors, my friends, even my family. The shouts proclaimed “look at what they have, look at what they have achieved, and look how happy they seem”! The shout was asserting that, if I wanted to be somebody, I neede to succeed in what everybody was pursuing. In our capitalist society that means one thing, MONEY.
Don’t get me wrong I know the role money plays in our lives, as I have very little of it. Yet the shouting was affecting how I thought of myself, it drowned the whisper of truth that I only recently was able to hear. The whisper offered a rational evaluation of what I am, and how what I am dictates what I will be successful at. A success that will result in a decent income but that will not be dictated by income. A success that will be achieved because it is my purpose to achieve; the whisper asserts that it is natural for me to be successful at what I am intended to do.
I am neither advocating complete submission to fate, nor total rejection of existentialism (in short, that we are in total control of who we are), rather the realization that just as athletes are athletic, and that writers can write, I too must look for what I have a natural affinity for. Thus an athlete can go professional or become a banker, or a writer can write books or they can jump at an opportunity to make money in mortgages. Yes I can listen to the irrational shouts of society or I can discern the whisper of the self pointing to my place in nature.
I heard my whisper as I direct result of the recent downturn in the economy. The downturn forced me to search for the whisper, the mission, the role, and I believe that I have started to hear its faint but unyielding argument. It is telling me to pursue law , but not because it will make me rich- in this economy it will not- but because it is what I have the natural capability to do it. Not only because it offers a measure of respect (respect diminished by the proverbial ambulance chaser), but also because It is my role in nature, and I can only be successful AND happy if I do what I am supposed to do.
I wonder if this downturn has forced others to disregard the irrational shouts. True there are still those elite groups of rich people, and those that continue to become rich, yet that may be their role or it may be that they are disregarding their role. It is irrelevant to me, what matters are the rational whispers in myself.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
An open Letter to UN Watch
To Whom it may Concern:
I have been following your organizations vital activities for over two years now. As a graduate of Brooklyn College, editor of an internationally based online magazine, and a staunch advocate of a fair and balanced international legal doctrine (not as currently delineated in the Rome Statute which was the real premise for the Goldstone report, a connection UN Watch has failed to recognize and address) that is needed if only because globalization is inevitable.
As a human and as a Jew I appreciate all that UNWatch is doing. However, there is one area where it seems that you are clearly and unnecessarily failing. Namely, you have not watered the "roots of the grass".
When I talk with my Turkish, Palestinian, Russian, Australian, or American colleges your organizations work NEVER comes up. Not because they disagree with the hierarchy of human rights initiatives that you accurately espouse. But because you have not even attempted to introduce, recruit, or advertise the validity of your cause amongst the young, in the cities of America.
Erecruiting databases for UNPAID interns are rife with advertisements for HRW, AI, and other misguided organizations. These recruits imbibe the ideologies that such organizations advocate, and they in turn influence the extraordinary and unprecedented diversity that exists on American campuses.
UNWatch would be well advised to reach out to the young and diverse population centers, such as those found at schools like Brooklyn College, because THAT is where the war for the hearts and minds of the future is being fought not in the UN OR UNHRC. Recruiting student leaders from the Sudanese, Burmese, or Chinese student populations would be a simple matter, if there was an effort to that end.
I along with the few others in Brooklyn who are aware of your existence wish you the best in your rightly guided endeavor.
With best wishes for success,
Menachem M. Hecht
I have been following your organizations vital activities for over two years now. As a graduate of Brooklyn College, editor of an internationally based online magazine, and a staunch advocate of a fair and balanced international legal doctrine (not as currently delineated in the Rome Statute which was the real premise for the Goldstone report, a connection UN Watch has failed to recognize and address) that is needed if only because globalization is inevitable.
As a human and as a Jew I appreciate all that UNWatch is doing. However, there is one area where it seems that you are clearly and unnecessarily failing. Namely, you have not watered the "roots of the grass".
When I talk with my Turkish, Palestinian, Russian, Australian, or American colleges your organizations work NEVER comes up. Not because they disagree with the hierarchy of human rights initiatives that you accurately espouse. But because you have not even attempted to introduce, recruit, or advertise the validity of your cause amongst the young, in the cities of America.
Erecruiting databases for UNPAID interns are rife with advertisements for HRW, AI, and other misguided organizations. These recruits imbibe the ideologies that such organizations advocate, and they in turn influence the extraordinary and unprecedented diversity that exists on American campuses.
UNWatch would be well advised to reach out to the young and diverse population centers, such as those found at schools like Brooklyn College, because THAT is where the war for the hearts and minds of the future is being fought not in the UN OR UNHRC. Recruiting student leaders from the Sudanese, Burmese, or Chinese student populations would be a simple matter, if there was an effort to that end.
I along with the few others in Brooklyn who are aware of your existence wish you the best in your rightly guided endeavor.
With best wishes for success,
Menachem M. Hecht
Haman and Rahm Emmanuel: The Liar and the Advisor
Haman and Rahm Emmanuel have much in common.
Haman had served Persia in the past, when he was a failed general for the Persian army. Emmanuel served the Clinton administration, but was lesser known.
Then Haman was suddenly elected to the post of chief adviser to the most powerful man in the world. Emmanuel was unexpectedly chosen as chief-of-staff to Obama, the most powerful man in the world.
Haman was opposed to a Jewish presence on earth. Rahm Emmamuel, is opposed to a Jewish presence in the West Bank in Israel.
Haman had all the people in Sushan bow to him. Rahm Emmanuel is famous for his bark and bite attitude towards the presidents staff and everyone else that enters the white house.
Yet there is a major difference between Rahm Emmanuel and Haman.
Haman lied to the king when he said that the Jews where disloyal, he lied for his own gains. Perhaps even attempting to weaken the king’s political base, to make it easier for him to implement a coup and usurp the Persian crown.
Emmanuel is advising Obama. In his opinion settlements impede peace in Israel. Because Rahm follows the linkage argument whose central proposition states that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, has a causal relationship with the instability in the greater Middle-East. Therefore for the Middle-East to be stable the Israeli/Palestinian conflict needs to be resolved.
Thus Emmanuel believes what he says, whereas Haman lied in an effort to fulfill his beliefs.
The real question is whether Emmanuel will be an Esther when he wakes up and sees the Persians about to launch a nuke at Israel or like Haman implicitly allowing the nuke to be launched?
Haman had served Persia in the past, when he was a failed general for the Persian army. Emmanuel served the Clinton administration, but was lesser known.
Then Haman was suddenly elected to the post of chief adviser to the most powerful man in the world. Emmanuel was unexpectedly chosen as chief-of-staff to Obama, the most powerful man in the world.
Haman was opposed to a Jewish presence on earth. Rahm Emmamuel, is opposed to a Jewish presence in the West Bank in Israel.
Haman had all the people in Sushan bow to him. Rahm Emmanuel is famous for his bark and bite attitude towards the presidents staff and everyone else that enters the white house.
Yet there is a major difference between Rahm Emmanuel and Haman.
Haman lied to the king when he said that the Jews where disloyal, he lied for his own gains. Perhaps even attempting to weaken the king’s political base, to make it easier for him to implement a coup and usurp the Persian crown.
Emmanuel is advising Obama. In his opinion settlements impede peace in Israel. Because Rahm follows the linkage argument whose central proposition states that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, has a causal relationship with the instability in the greater Middle-East. Therefore for the Middle-East to be stable the Israeli/Palestinian conflict needs to be resolved.
Thus Emmanuel believes what he says, whereas Haman lied in an effort to fulfill his beliefs.
The real question is whether Emmanuel will be an Esther when he wakes up and sees the Persians about to launch a nuke at Israel or like Haman implicitly allowing the nuke to be launched?
Monday, February 8, 2010
A Muslim/Jewish Coalition?
Is it possible to create a Muslim/Jewish coalition, in America?
I believe there is the potential IF we address two key questions.
But before that...
This question requires a definition of what is a Muslim, or Jew.
As I am Jewish, I can best address the definition of what it is to be a Jew. Of course even this definition could be challenged on many levels, be it as it may.
A Jew is the child of a Jewish mother, or has converted to Judaism following the orthodox process.
A Jew believes in one G-d, and that love of a fellow person is the most important factor governing human-human and human-God relationships.
A Jew believes in the veracity of the oral tradition.
Yet what is more important to a Jew, the sanctity of marriage, abortion, or Israel?
To crystallize this question. If a Muslim said "I will join your Jewish coalition defending traditional values, IF you withdraw your blind support from Israel" how would a Jew respond?
Probably by trying to compromise, or separate the two.
But in my case I would have to say no to that condition. Many Jews wouldn’t.
A Muslim -according to the prominent American-Muslim scholar of Law Abou El Fadl- believes in the five pillars of Islam. For those familiar with the Maimonides 13 principles of Jewish faith...
To be a Muslim one needs to follow these practices.
A Muslim believes that there is one G-d and his greatest and last prophet was Muhammad.
A Muslim believes that one needs to pray to G-d every day, as far as five times a day that seems to be the dominant practice but a minority disputes that.
A Muslim believes in caring for the needy (poor, widows, orphans).
A Muslim believes in purification through fasting.
A Muslim believes in the "Hajj" or pilgrimage to Mecca, if possible.
If a Jew approached a Muslim and said stop supporting the Palestinians blindly and we will join your coalition to uphold traditional values, how would the Muslim respond?
One of my Muslim friends tells me that he would join the coalition and avoid the issue. But is that the dominant Muslim response?
Yet please take a moment and review the above core beliefs. Then ask yourself this question.
Is it more important to Judaism for us to uphold society’s traditional values or for us to weaken that coalition by our
inability to find the common ground with Muslims/Jews? I don’t know but I think it is a legitimate question.
The point is that many of us put our superficial beliefs ahead of our core beliefs.
Why?
Another point, we often make the mistake of calling others hypocrites. In the sense that how can one person believe in something and then not carry it out? How can a Jew who was given the bible which states "love you neighbor like yourself" (Leviticus 19:18, [perhaps not incidentally 18 is the numerical equivalent in Hebrew of the letters chet and yud CHAI=life, i.e. life can only be achieved by following this principle]) support Israel which is ostensibly not loving its neighbors? OR if Muslims really believed in caring for the needy then how can they target children?
As if we never strike out or speak about others behind their backs!. Hypocrisy is by definition cynical; IF it is to carry the common social stigma attributed to it, but I digress.
The point here is that we should not use the argument that if one supports what we deem terrorism or if one supports what we deem an occupation that these people are not good people who we could work with on other levels. THIS IS NOT HYPOCRISY IT IS WELL INTENTIONED AND IF WE ARE TO ARGUE THAT INTENTIONS DON'T COUNT THEN WE ARE SUPPORTING THE GOLDSTONE REPORT (please see post on Goldstone)
Yet these two issues are often buried in the guise of self righteousness or even strong FEELINGS of right and wrong, but if we always relied on our feeling we wouldn’t need a Bible or a Koran, would we?
Finally there are already segments of the Jewish and Muslim community working on common issues, yet this post was written to those that are perhaps held back from appreciating the value of cooperation by faulty assumptions, some of which I point out above.
Either way one rung in the ladder towards global unity is to find a common space where Jews and Muslims can stand AND speak the same language. Perhaps it is the language of Abraham who believed in one G-d AND traditional social values. After all we have a tradition that both are the sons of Abraham. As to the variations in religious practice, when the Messiah/al-Mahdi comes we will know.
I believe there is the potential IF we address two key questions.
But before that...
This question requires a definition of what is a Muslim, or Jew.
As I am Jewish, I can best address the definition of what it is to be a Jew. Of course even this definition could be challenged on many levels, be it as it may.
A Jew is the child of a Jewish mother, or has converted to Judaism following the orthodox process.
A Jew believes in one G-d, and that love of a fellow person is the most important factor governing human-human and human-God relationships.
A Jew believes in the veracity of the oral tradition.
Yet what is more important to a Jew, the sanctity of marriage, abortion, or Israel?
To crystallize this question. If a Muslim said "I will join your Jewish coalition defending traditional values, IF you withdraw your blind support from Israel" how would a Jew respond?
Probably by trying to compromise, or separate the two.
But in my case I would have to say no to that condition. Many Jews wouldn’t.
A Muslim -according to the prominent American-Muslim scholar of Law Abou El Fadl- believes in the five pillars of Islam. For those familiar with the Maimonides 13 principles of Jewish faith...
To be a Muslim one needs to follow these practices.
A Muslim believes that there is one G-d and his greatest and last prophet was Muhammad.
A Muslim believes that one needs to pray to G-d every day, as far as five times a day that seems to be the dominant practice but a minority disputes that.
A Muslim believes in caring for the needy (poor, widows, orphans).
A Muslim believes in purification through fasting.
A Muslim believes in the "Hajj" or pilgrimage to Mecca, if possible.
If a Jew approached a Muslim and said stop supporting the Palestinians blindly and we will join your coalition to uphold traditional values, how would the Muslim respond?
One of my Muslim friends tells me that he would join the coalition and avoid the issue. But is that the dominant Muslim response?
Yet please take a moment and review the above core beliefs. Then ask yourself this question.
Is it more important to Judaism for us to uphold society’s traditional values or for us to weaken that coalition by our
inability to find the common ground with Muslims/Jews? I don’t know but I think it is a legitimate question.
The point is that many of us put our superficial beliefs ahead of our core beliefs.
Why?
Another point, we often make the mistake of calling others hypocrites. In the sense that how can one person believe in something and then not carry it out? How can a Jew who was given the bible which states "love you neighbor like yourself" (Leviticus 19:18, [perhaps not incidentally 18 is the numerical equivalent in Hebrew of the letters chet and yud CHAI=life, i.e. life can only be achieved by following this principle]) support Israel which is ostensibly not loving its neighbors? OR if Muslims really believed in caring for the needy then how can they target children?
As if we never strike out or speak about others behind their backs!. Hypocrisy is by definition cynical; IF it is to carry the common social stigma attributed to it, but I digress.
The point here is that we should not use the argument that if one supports what we deem terrorism or if one supports what we deem an occupation that these people are not good people who we could work with on other levels. THIS IS NOT HYPOCRISY IT IS WELL INTENTIONED AND IF WE ARE TO ARGUE THAT INTENTIONS DON'T COUNT THEN WE ARE SUPPORTING THE GOLDSTONE REPORT (please see post on Goldstone)
Yet these two issues are often buried in the guise of self righteousness or even strong FEELINGS of right and wrong, but if we always relied on our feeling we wouldn’t need a Bible or a Koran, would we?
Finally there are already segments of the Jewish and Muslim community working on common issues, yet this post was written to those that are perhaps held back from appreciating the value of cooperation by faulty assumptions, some of which I point out above.
Either way one rung in the ladder towards global unity is to find a common space where Jews and Muslims can stand AND speak the same language. Perhaps it is the language of Abraham who believed in one G-d AND traditional social values. After all we have a tradition that both are the sons of Abraham. As to the variations in religious practice, when the Messiah/al-Mahdi comes we will know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
