The argument that linkers present is that it is in America’s STRATEGIC interest to do everything possible to pressure Israel to do "so and so" in order to gain the good will of the Arabs, and the Muslim world.
Thinkers dispute this strategic claim on two grounds.
1. While it is better for America and Israel, if Israel is at peace with its neighbors, the fact that America supports Israel’s self determination is not the reason why so many in the larger middle-east are at odds with America. For example al-Qaeda spokesmen have repeatedly pointed to Americas corrupting influence in Muslims societies and America’s military presence in countries like Saudi Arabia, for their attacks. Iran's revolution aims at establishing a global Muslim society; of course America and Israel are equally in opposition to this goal. Israel is officially in a state of war with Saudi Arabia yet the Saudi's are staunch allies of America, the same can be said of the Gulf States.
Thus the assertion that Israel is the reason for the instability in the middle-east and that America by supporting Israel losses out strategically is patently false.
Do terrorists use Israel as an excuse to attack westerners, yes, but there is NO real evidence that it is more than an excuse. Should America pull back its support for Israel simply because some terrorists want to kill two birds with one stone -justify their terror and at the same time drive a wedge between America and its natural ally?!
However the thinker concedes that even if it’s just an excuse still it is a minor reason why America should withdraw support from Israel, IF AND ONLY IF there are not real and important reasons not to withdraw support.
In other words if America gains nothing by supporting Israel why bother. The thinker contends that there are tremendous strategic benefits to maintaining a strong relationship with Israel. This leads into the second part of the thinker’s argument.
1. Israel is a reliable AND stable ally in a region where a friendly regime can turn into a mortal enemy in the blink of an eye. Take Iran's secular Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi, Shah of Iran, who was a staunch strategic ally of America until over night the Iranian Islamic revolution occurred... Egypt is a somewhat strong ally of America but Mubarak is old and who knows how influential the Muslim Brotherhood is...etc. Israel however, has real ideological reasons to ally, with America. There are historical ties going back to Truman's support for the establishment of Israel, and cultural ties of the two biggest Jewish communities in the world. Furthermore Israel like America is a nation of immigrants who believe in hard work, equal opportunity, separation between religion and state, protection of basic freedoms etc. Most importantly Israel like America has a stable political structure founded on staunch Democratic foundations. America CAN RELY ON ISRAEL'S SUPPORT REGRDLESS OF WHO IS INCHARGE.
2. Israel has the highest rate of start-ups, per capita in the world, followed by America. This translates into a vibrant and exceptionally innovative economy. Thus Israel developed the cell-phone, and was a major contributor to R&D of solar power, desalination of water, and the first known vaccine for cancer (cervical cancer). Like America, much of Israel’s civilian innovation stems from its security needs and the tremendous investment in advanced military technology. Thus the internet developed as a fall-back communication option for the American military has been transformed into the number one means of communication in the globe -the proverbial "beat your swords into plowshares".
American companies realize this and IBM and Intel have their biggest plants, outside the USA, in Israel. Strong support for Israel translates into preferential exchange of ideas between these two great innovators.
3. The flip-side of pulling support from Israel means that other emerging and ambitious economies will invariably step in. China has already begun to establish cultural roots in Israel. OF COURSE Israel prefers a moral and democratic society like America as a partner, but Israel will NOT BE LOOKED OVER BY AMERICAS COMPETITORS!
Indeed in 2002 Israel canceled a deal to upgrade Chinese military vehicles because of American objections, that may not be the case in the future.
4. Linkers like to point to numbers: there are over a billion Muslims and only 5.9 million Jewish-Israelis and 14 million Jews. America should view the numerical disparity and, for strategic reasons, side with the Muslims. The thinker responds that in this era quantity does not necessarily trump quality. Yes there are over a billion Muslims, and over 350 million Arabs surrounding Israel, but Israelis still the power of the region. The only way to explain this, from a secular standpoint, is that Israel's quality outperforms Arab/Iranian quantity.
5. The above are just strategic reasons why America is blessed by its relationship with Israel. There are myriad moral reasons, religious and secular.
G-d promised the land of Israel to the Jews. Muslims and Christians believe in the Bible, though many Muslims have conveniently turned their back on this.
From a secular standpoint, Israel has rabid anti-Israel and anti-Semitic Arabs in its parliament. Why because they where democratically elected. Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia do not, because they do not believe in equality.
Moreover the reason why Congress and many Americans support Israel is NOT BECAUSE OF THE ISRAELI LOBBY AIPAC BUT BECAUSE OF THE ABOVE REASONS THAT AIPAC REMINDS AND EDUCATES AMERICANS ABOUT.
The recent gaff between America and Israel is unfortunate and normal between friends but for America to pull support from Israel, for the thinker, is a strategic blunder of EPIC PROPORTIONS.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Ann Coulter silenced Mahmoud Ahmadinejad encouraged: Why?
It is 2008 world leaders and despots alike are meeting in New York City for the annual UNGA summit of world leaders. Columbia University invites Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak to the student body to present his "world view".
Outside various Jewish, Israeli, and moral minded individuals gathered to protest Columbia's decision to lend its prestigious name to the man who proclaimed "Israel should be wiped off the map" and an unabashed supporter of terrorist organizations spanning the globe.
The protests were loud and angry. For good reason. But Ahmadinejad ascended to the podium of liberalism and held forth on how there are no homosexuals in Iran!
Tuesday March 23, 2010 controversial conservative commentator Ann Coulter was scheduled to speak at the University of Ottawa Canada. But her speech was canceled due to the angry -frothing at the mouth- crowd who swore to physically prevent Coulter's speech. The police refused to uphold their mandate to protect free speech. The University of Ottawa vice-president and provost Francois Houleo warned her "that freedom of speech is defined differently in Canada than in the U.S. and that she should take care not to step over the line" (The Vancouver Sun). A veiled threat if there ever was one.
When pro-Israel students where accosted by a group of anti-Israel students at York University, also in Canada, during a debate that had sprung up between the Hasbara (explanation) people and the anti-Israel individuals. It quickly escalated into an angry mob of around 50 students, who surrounded the group and chanted anti-Israel and anti-Semitic slurs.
This has been going on for some time and seldom gets reported or discussed. All over the world the majority of "whatever" (the religious, political etc. majority) is imposing itself, often resorting to defending irrational views with violence.
Indeed America and Israel are the last two countries in this world where EVERY view expressed PEACEFULLY is allowed. But there has been a sea change here in the states.
In Columbia and many other universities across America "apartheid week" which basically is a week of Israel bashing, was in full swing, but when Israeli Ambassador to the United State Michael Oren attempted to speak at the University of California Irvin he was interrupted repeatedly, and like Coulter almost silenced!
We in the states must be ever more vigilant. True the old enemy was oppressive governments (Soviet Union, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc.) suppressing speech. But don't be fooled it is just as dangerous and undemocratic for majority factions to suppress speech.
Some of my friends have recently asked me why it seems that the most vocal opponents of Islam in America are Jews and conservatives.
I respond with my own observation of a global trend
...anyone who is remotely perceived as pro-Israel OR anti-Muslim is prevented from voicing their opinion. If however, the individual in question is perceived as anti-Israel OR pro-Muslim they are encouraged.
Is it any surprise then that those in America who have for 300 plus years experienced freedom from violence and oppression of the majority OR minority point out a group that has been attacking them all over the world Mumbai, London, Sydney, Queens, Israel, Russia, etc.(do a Google search blank attacks Jews in blank)?
YES JEWS AND OTHERS ARE AFRAID THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN HERE AND THEIR FEARS ARE JUSTIFIED AS THIS TYRANNY OF THOUGHT AND ACTION SWIMS ACROSS THE OCEAN INTO CANADA, CALIFORNIA...
WHY?
Outside various Jewish, Israeli, and moral minded individuals gathered to protest Columbia's decision to lend its prestigious name to the man who proclaimed "Israel should be wiped off the map" and an unabashed supporter of terrorist organizations spanning the globe.
The protests were loud and angry. For good reason. But Ahmadinejad ascended to the podium of liberalism and held forth on how there are no homosexuals in Iran!
Tuesday March 23, 2010 controversial conservative commentator Ann Coulter was scheduled to speak at the University of Ottawa Canada. But her speech was canceled due to the angry -frothing at the mouth- crowd who swore to physically prevent Coulter's speech. The police refused to uphold their mandate to protect free speech. The University of Ottawa vice-president and provost Francois Houleo warned her "that freedom of speech is defined differently in Canada than in the U.S. and that she should take care not to step over the line" (The Vancouver Sun). A veiled threat if there ever was one.
When pro-Israel students where accosted by a group of anti-Israel students at York University, also in Canada, during a debate that had sprung up between the Hasbara (explanation) people and the anti-Israel individuals. It quickly escalated into an angry mob of around 50 students, who surrounded the group and chanted anti-Israel and anti-Semitic slurs.
This has been going on for some time and seldom gets reported or discussed. All over the world the majority of "whatever" (the religious, political etc. majority) is imposing itself, often resorting to defending irrational views with violence.
Indeed America and Israel are the last two countries in this world where EVERY view expressed PEACEFULLY is allowed. But there has been a sea change here in the states.
In Columbia and many other universities across America "apartheid week" which basically is a week of Israel bashing, was in full swing, but when Israeli Ambassador to the United State Michael Oren attempted to speak at the University of California Irvin he was interrupted repeatedly, and like Coulter almost silenced!
We in the states must be ever more vigilant. True the old enemy was oppressive governments (Soviet Union, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc.) suppressing speech. But don't be fooled it is just as dangerous and undemocratic for majority factions to suppress speech.
Some of my friends have recently asked me why it seems that the most vocal opponents of Islam in America are Jews and conservatives.
I respond with my own observation of a global trend
...anyone who is remotely perceived as pro-Israel OR anti-Muslim is prevented from voicing their opinion. If however, the individual in question is perceived as anti-Israel OR pro-Muslim they are encouraged.
Is it any surprise then that those in America who have for 300 plus years experienced freedom from violence and oppression of the majority OR minority point out a group that has been attacking them all over the world Mumbai, London, Sydney, Queens, Israel, Russia, etc.(do a Google search blank attacks Jews in blank)?
YES JEWS AND OTHERS ARE AFRAID THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN HERE AND THEIR FEARS ARE JUSTIFIED AS THIS TYRANNY OF THOUGHT AND ACTION SWIMS ACROSS THE OCEAN INTO CANADA, CALIFORNIA...
WHY?
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
The Linkers and the Thinkers": Is Americas Support For Israel Hurting America (2)
The Linkers position is premised on the notion that if Israel is disliked by its neighbors America will be disliked by Israel’s neighbors. This is because America is perceived as supporting Israel. Monetarily in the form of 2.2 billion a year, militarily by sharing much of Americas advanced weaponry , and politically by defending Israel in the UN, UNHRC, and UNSC.
If supporting Israel is so detrimental to American interests then why does America support Israel? The linker responds that the Israeli lobby has a tight hold on the US congress and demands support for Israel, as the price for electoral backing by AIPAC.
Some more intelligent linkers concede that America has a moral obligation to support Israel.
This moral obligation is an extension of the Truman doctrine which sought to constrain post World War II Soviet expansion, by supporting all Democracies. Israel is the only Democracy in the Middle-East. Linkers contend that America’s political and strategic obligations trump their moral obligations.
This is the crux of the Carter/Brzezinski/Obama argument. America is faced with an either or scenario, support Israel or support the Arabs. Their conclusion is that they must, from a strategic perspective, support the Arabs –in some instances by pressuring Israel. In other words there is no middle-ground. Brzezinski, Obamas Foreign policy advisory recent statements reflect this either-or perspective. In response to the question of what America should do if Israel attempts to use Iraqi airspace to bomb Iran nuclear facilities:
" Well, we have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse."(http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/09/brezinski-calls-for-obama-to-shoot-down-israeli-jets-a-liberty-in-reverse.html)
In other words EITHER let Israel use Iraqi space controlled by America to prevent Iran from going nuclear -a threat the Israelis see as existential -OR take the Iran side, and by proxy Syria and Lebanon, and shoot down Israeli planes. This despite the fact that America agrees (from a moral standpoint and as Thinkers argue also from a strategic standpoint) that Iran should not have nuclear weapons. Thus taking the position that, strategically, Iran is more important than Israel, even though morally Israel is in the right.
Furthermore the linkers assert that there is no gray area – a scenario like Israel doing what it must and America criticizing Israel after the fact, which America must.
The linkers take this perspective and apply it to the Israel decision to build in Jerusalem. They claim that Israel must be stopped at all costs because strategically it’s in America’s interest to do so. After all the stability of the middle-east is linked to Israel’s actions.
Indeed the linkers rhetorically contend, "would America rather have Iran, Syria, and the rest of the Muslim world as allies or little troublesome Israel"?
There are many variations of this argument. For example some linkers concede that Israel is not the cause of ALL instability in the larger middle-east, but that it is one cause that needs to be addressed.In other words Israel is a smaller problem to American interests then hard-core linkers think, BUT STILL A PROBLEM.
Some that take this view, explain that America would be better off allying with Iran and Turkey -both non Arabic states- then they would with the Israel/Jordan/Egypt/Saudi Arabia faction. After all Iran and Turkey are burgeoning powers in the region AND are Muslim. Indeed this view is relatively comprehensive in that explains Iran's drive for nuclear weapons and Turkeys reorientation towards the region as an attempt to create the political capital to bend American foreign policy. The linker urges America to accept.
The bottom line is that Linkers argue that it is in America’s strategic interest to pressure Israel or pull support.
For the Thinker it is strategically AND morally essential for America to ally completely with Israel. This will be discussed in part three of this series.
If supporting Israel is so detrimental to American interests then why does America support Israel? The linker responds that the Israeli lobby has a tight hold on the US congress and demands support for Israel, as the price for electoral backing by AIPAC.
Some more intelligent linkers concede that America has a moral obligation to support Israel.
This moral obligation is an extension of the Truman doctrine which sought to constrain post World War II Soviet expansion, by supporting all Democracies. Israel is the only Democracy in the Middle-East. Linkers contend that America’s political and strategic obligations trump their moral obligations.
This is the crux of the Carter/Brzezinski/Obama argument. America is faced with an either or scenario, support Israel or support the Arabs. Their conclusion is that they must, from a strategic perspective, support the Arabs –in some instances by pressuring Israel. In other words there is no middle-ground. Brzezinski, Obamas Foreign policy advisory recent statements reflect this either-or perspective. In response to the question of what America should do if Israel attempts to use Iraqi airspace to bomb Iran nuclear facilities:
" Well, we have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse."(http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/09/brezinski-calls-for-obama-to-shoot-down-israeli-jets-a-liberty-in-reverse.html)
In other words EITHER let Israel use Iraqi space controlled by America to prevent Iran from going nuclear -a threat the Israelis see as existential -OR take the Iran side, and by proxy Syria and Lebanon, and shoot down Israeli planes. This despite the fact that America agrees (from a moral standpoint and as Thinkers argue also from a strategic standpoint) that Iran should not have nuclear weapons. Thus taking the position that, strategically, Iran is more important than Israel, even though morally Israel is in the right.
Furthermore the linkers assert that there is no gray area – a scenario like Israel doing what it must and America criticizing Israel after the fact, which America must.
The linkers take this perspective and apply it to the Israel decision to build in Jerusalem. They claim that Israel must be stopped at all costs because strategically it’s in America’s interest to do so. After all the stability of the middle-east is linked to Israel’s actions.
Indeed the linkers rhetorically contend, "would America rather have Iran, Syria, and the rest of the Muslim world as allies or little troublesome Israel"?
There are many variations of this argument. For example some linkers concede that Israel is not the cause of ALL instability in the larger middle-east, but that it is one cause that needs to be addressed.In other words Israel is a smaller problem to American interests then hard-core linkers think, BUT STILL A PROBLEM.
Some that take this view, explain that America would be better off allying with Iran and Turkey -both non Arabic states- then they would with the Israel/Jordan/Egypt/Saudi Arabia faction. After all Iran and Turkey are burgeoning powers in the region AND are Muslim. Indeed this view is relatively comprehensive in that explains Iran's drive for nuclear weapons and Turkeys reorientation towards the region as an attempt to create the political capital to bend American foreign policy. The linker urges America to accept.
The bottom line is that Linkers argue that it is in America’s strategic interest to pressure Israel or pull support.
For the Thinker it is strategically AND morally essential for America to ally completely with Israel. This will be discussed in part three of this series.
Monday, March 22, 2010
The Linkers and the Thinkers": Is Americas Support For Israel Hurting America (1)
Israel's decision to continue building homes for Jews in East Jerusalem has raised the ire of the Obama administration. Some have argued that the anger was fostered by the timing of the Israeli foreign ministries announcement to build 1,600 homes -Vice President Biden was in Israel pushing to renew the peace initiative. However it is likely that the Obama administration is following through on its promise to place the Israeli/Palestinian conflict on top of its agenda.
There are a number of interesting developments that affirm this latter perspective.
CENTCOM Chief David Petraeus testified in front of a Senate Armed Service Committee that Israels decision to build in West-Jerusalem is weakening Americas military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Hillary Clinton continued this trend of thought when she addressed AIPAC and warned Israel against building, what this administration has termed, settlements. While debka.com reports that America has gone so far as to threaten to place American military installations in the West bank, which is tantamount to America giving the Palestinians an American security shield. This shield would effectively undermine Israeli deterrence in a future conflict with West-bank terrorism . Indeed these policies seem to be driven by more then mere timing issues. It is more likely that they reflect an underlying ideology translated into a Middle-East policy.
This ideology is known as "linkage". Linkage is not a new concept, on the contrary it is a reoccurring philosophy that was most prevalent amongst American policy makers in the Carter administration. Linkage proposes:
1.that the stability of the entire Middle-East is subject to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.
2. if America supports Israel that is not at peace with its Arab neighbors then America suffers politically and strategically.
3. most if not all of the conflicts in the so called larger middle-east (Pakistan, Afghanistan etc.) are spurred on and exasperated by the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Opponents of the Linkage argument, most notably Dennis Ross, argue that the conflict between al-Qaida and America, Yemen's war with its Houthi rebels, or Iran's drive for Nuclear weapons would occur regardless of Israels existence or its conflict with some of its neighbors.
The implications of linkage are clear. America will suffer strategically as long as Israel has not made peace with its Arab neighbors. Israels Arab neighbors will not make peace with Israel as long as the Palestinians are unhappy. Thus it is in Americas SUPREME interest to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
To be clear ALL agree that it is in Americas interest, as well the Israelis for that matter, to resolve the conflict. However the "Linkers" see it as the most pressing issue in the Middle-East that must be resolved at all costs -even forcing Israel into submitting to International dictates of where Israelis can live in Israel.
To many in America and Israel, that I term the "Thinkers" (because their arguments are very theoretical), the Linkers argument is the result of the realization that on the moral battle-ground it is nearly impossible to defeat supporters of Israel. So they created a strategic reason to pressure Israel. Moreover the linkers are undermined by the fact that they would never, (and have never argued) that American ties with China are a moral or strategic liability. I.e. that by supporting China America loses strategic sway on the weaker nations around china (including Japan, India, and Taiwan).
The Linkers respond that the bottom line is that Al-Qaida, Palestinian, and a plethora of other terrorist groups have pointed to Americas support for Israel as the reason for their attacks. The only reason America supports Israel is because of the nefarious Israeli lobby which stifles criticisms of Israel.
Whatever your opinion on this issue it is important to familiar with the perspectives that surround it, if only to be able to refute misinformation.
Part two of this discussion will analyze the "Linkers" arguments.
Part three will look at the "Thinkers" arguments.
There are a number of interesting developments that affirm this latter perspective.
CENTCOM Chief David Petraeus testified in front of a Senate Armed Service Committee that Israels decision to build in West-Jerusalem is weakening Americas military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Hillary Clinton continued this trend of thought when she addressed AIPAC and warned Israel against building, what this administration has termed, settlements. While debka.com reports that America has gone so far as to threaten to place American military installations in the West bank, which is tantamount to America giving the Palestinians an American security shield. This shield would effectively undermine Israeli deterrence in a future conflict with West-bank terrorism . Indeed these policies seem to be driven by more then mere timing issues. It is more likely that they reflect an underlying ideology translated into a Middle-East policy.
This ideology is known as "linkage". Linkage is not a new concept, on the contrary it is a reoccurring philosophy that was most prevalent amongst American policy makers in the Carter administration. Linkage proposes:
1.that the stability of the entire Middle-East is subject to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.
2. if America supports Israel that is not at peace with its Arab neighbors then America suffers politically and strategically.
3. most if not all of the conflicts in the so called larger middle-east (Pakistan, Afghanistan etc.) are spurred on and exasperated by the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Opponents of the Linkage argument, most notably Dennis Ross, argue that the conflict between al-Qaida and America, Yemen's war with its Houthi rebels, or Iran's drive for Nuclear weapons would occur regardless of Israels existence or its conflict with some of its neighbors.
The implications of linkage are clear. America will suffer strategically as long as Israel has not made peace with its Arab neighbors. Israels Arab neighbors will not make peace with Israel as long as the Palestinians are unhappy. Thus it is in Americas SUPREME interest to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
To be clear ALL agree that it is in Americas interest, as well the Israelis for that matter, to resolve the conflict. However the "Linkers" see it as the most pressing issue in the Middle-East that must be resolved at all costs -even forcing Israel into submitting to International dictates of where Israelis can live in Israel.
To many in America and Israel, that I term the "Thinkers" (because their arguments are very theoretical), the Linkers argument is the result of the realization that on the moral battle-ground it is nearly impossible to defeat supporters of Israel. So they created a strategic reason to pressure Israel. Moreover the linkers are undermined by the fact that they would never, (and have never argued) that American ties with China are a moral or strategic liability. I.e. that by supporting China America loses strategic sway on the weaker nations around china (including Japan, India, and Taiwan).
The Linkers respond that the bottom line is that Al-Qaida, Palestinian, and a plethora of other terrorist groups have pointed to Americas support for Israel as the reason for their attacks. The only reason America supports Israel is because of the nefarious Israeli lobby which stifles criticisms of Israel.
Whatever your opinion on this issue it is important to familiar with the perspectives that surround it, if only to be able to refute misinformation.
Part two of this discussion will analyze the "Linkers" arguments.
Part three will look at the "Thinkers" arguments.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
The Chosen People: What does it mean?
DISCLAIMER: THIS IS A DIFFICULT SUBJECT WITH MANY NECESSARY TANGENTS, PLEASE BEAR WITH ME.
For millennia one of the major accusations raised against the Jewish community was, and is, that Jews express superiority. The more learned exponents of this canard point to the bible and Jewish prayers, where Jews are called the "Chosen People". I felt that it may be a good idea to delve into the biblical meaning of the phrase "chosen".
To place this conversation in proper context we should begin by asking the question "chosen for what"?
Abraham the first Jew came to know the monotheistic G-d through exploration and inquiry. Once he came to the conclusion that there is a G-d, he began to spread this belief to those around him. Not through the sword but through conversation and example.
Furthermore Abraham was promulgating a belief in one G-d NOT the tenants of Judaism. Why? Because Judaism believes in a G-d that created an incomprehensibly complex world, and like, that annoying un-assembled dresser from target, every piece of material -from the leaf falling off the tree to the nation-state- plays a specific role and has a unique irreplaceable purpose. To force Judaism (or even subtly influence Jewish practices) on others is simply antithetical to Jewish belief in absolute divine providence i.e. EVERY THING HAPPENS FOR A REASON.
Thus Abraham's role was to introduce monotheism to a world steeped in polytheistic mythology. His decedent’s role in larger society was and is informed by Abraham's role. The Jew was chosen to be the standard bearer and proponent of monotheism. Indeed the success is reflected by Islam and to a great degree Christianity.
Yet this still raises two questions.
1. Why the Jews?
2. Why is the mission of the Jew -to spread monotheism- so important; to the extent that it is the only role OPENLY attributed in the Bible to a people?
To the first question the greatest Jewish Rabbis have debated and have concluded that it was because G-d loved the Jewish people; WHY DID G-d love the Jewish people? We don't know. What we do know is that this "love" has translated into countless massacres, inquisitions, and the holocaust, yet it IS LOVE.
The second question has a, perhaps, more rational explanation. Monotheism is essential to world peace.
One may counter, "But whose monotheism", The Christians the Muslims etc.?
Judaism's belief in one G-d is that all should serve G-d in their own way. But that they should follow the seven universal laws, something most societies already aspire to. These seven laws are logical but they are not followed because of logic. After all how often has genocide been justified by the human mind!
The key here is that the Jew is the only EXPLICITLY chosen being! But the Jew was chosen to promulgate the belief that WE ARE ALL CHOSEN BY THE CHIEF ARCHITECT AND PLAY AN ESSENTIAL ROLE IN THE DIVINE PLAN!
In othe words the Jew was chosen and has suffered happily to spread the belief that we are all chosen.
Indeed if one wanted to preclude world peace they could never succeed as long as there are Jews proclaiming the uniqueness and sanctity of the life of EVERY individual. Far more on this to come.
For millennia one of the major accusations raised against the Jewish community was, and is, that Jews express superiority. The more learned exponents of this canard point to the bible and Jewish prayers, where Jews are called the "Chosen People". I felt that it may be a good idea to delve into the biblical meaning of the phrase "chosen".
To place this conversation in proper context we should begin by asking the question "chosen for what"?
Abraham the first Jew came to know the monotheistic G-d through exploration and inquiry. Once he came to the conclusion that there is a G-d, he began to spread this belief to those around him. Not through the sword but through conversation and example.
Furthermore Abraham was promulgating a belief in one G-d NOT the tenants of Judaism. Why? Because Judaism believes in a G-d that created an incomprehensibly complex world, and like, that annoying un-assembled dresser from target, every piece of material -from the leaf falling off the tree to the nation-state- plays a specific role and has a unique irreplaceable purpose. To force Judaism (or even subtly influence Jewish practices) on others is simply antithetical to Jewish belief in absolute divine providence i.e. EVERY THING HAPPENS FOR A REASON.
Thus Abraham's role was to introduce monotheism to a world steeped in polytheistic mythology. His decedent’s role in larger society was and is informed by Abraham's role. The Jew was chosen to be the standard bearer and proponent of monotheism. Indeed the success is reflected by Islam and to a great degree Christianity.
Yet this still raises two questions.
1. Why the Jews?
2. Why is the mission of the Jew -to spread monotheism- so important; to the extent that it is the only role OPENLY attributed in the Bible to a people?
To the first question the greatest Jewish Rabbis have debated and have concluded that it was because G-d loved the Jewish people; WHY DID G-d love the Jewish people? We don't know. What we do know is that this "love" has translated into countless massacres, inquisitions, and the holocaust, yet it IS LOVE.
The second question has a, perhaps, more rational explanation. Monotheism is essential to world peace.
One may counter, "But whose monotheism", The Christians the Muslims etc.?
Judaism's belief in one G-d is that all should serve G-d in their own way. But that they should follow the seven universal laws, something most societies already aspire to. These seven laws are logical but they are not followed because of logic. After all how often has genocide been justified by the human mind!
The key here is that the Jew is the only EXPLICITLY chosen being! But the Jew was chosen to promulgate the belief that WE ARE ALL CHOSEN BY THE CHIEF ARCHITECT AND PLAY AN ESSENTIAL ROLE IN THE DIVINE PLAN!
In othe words the Jew was chosen and has suffered happily to spread the belief that we are all chosen.
Indeed if one wanted to preclude world peace they could never succeed as long as there are Jews proclaiming the uniqueness and sanctity of the life of EVERY individual. Far more on this to come.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
The roots of Modern Terrorism:
I was both shocked and unsurprised by a recent Fatwa (religious decree) authored by one of the most prestigious Muslim scholars in England, Sheikh Dr. Tahir ul-Qadri. Ul-Qadri claims that
“Today’s tragedy is that terrorists, murderers, mischief-mongers and rioters try to prove their criminal, rebellious, tyrannous, brutal and blasphemous activities as a right and a justified reaction to foreign aggression under the garb of defense of Islam and national interests,” (jposthttp://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=169984) This blanket statement shocked.
He continues by stating that "It can in no way be permissible to keep foreign delegates under unlawful custody and murder them and other peaceful non-Muslim citizens in retaliation for interference, unjust activities and aggressive advances of their countries,”(jposthttp://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=169984)This qualification is what engendered my lack of surprise.
What makes this Fatwa just another piece of paper, is that it confirms the usual semantic contortions of past Fatwas. For example, the refrain that Jihad can not be waged against peaceful non-Muslims is just another way of saying "innocent civilians". A term used and abused by myriads of past Fatwas.
Putting aside the fact that, for most of the civilized world-the statement that "one can not murder innocent people"- is superfluous, the phrase peaceful/innocent is ambiguous at best. After all who is a "civilian/peaceful" human?
Perhaps reserve soldiers who are not serving are not innocent? Maybe every American tax-payer is not peaceful because they pay for the military? One could say that children of tax payers, because they strengthen the family and therefore a society which supports a war, are not civilians?!
Thus this Fatwa is unsurprising, and will likely have little affect on curbing terror. Both because of its ambiguity and because militant Muslims couldn't care less about some Imams ambiguous statement.
The real question is why the ambiguity? At best, the Imam is simply reflecting the ambiguity of the Koran. At worst the Imam is intentionally leaving a loop-hole for acts of terror! BUT WHY?
Indeed if the Imam did make a blanket statement it would have to include Israeli civilians. I wonder whether the Imam realizes this and would rather just be ambiguous for the sake of justifying terror against Israel?! It is a scary notion, but it must be explored.
Until the Imam's of today recognize that Israeli civilians are just as innocent as British, Arab, and American civilians, I would argue that, EVERYONE WILL SUFFER THE SCOURGE OF ISLAMIC TERROR. MOST OF ALL MUSLIMS WHO ARE THE MAIN VICTIMS OF ISLAMIC TERROR. After all the Imam may intend to provide the loophole to only target Israelis but it will be exploited to target all.
The roots of modern terrorism, specifically the type that intentionally targets and kills civilians, started in Israel and will continue to affect ALL civilians. Until IMAMS acknowledge what they know and issue a FATWA against all terrorism. They must proclaim a BLANKET FATWA:
For those that scream "oh but the only weapon Muslims have is terror" know this!
Colonial era American-patriots and British-mandate era Jewish-fighters attacked British forces ONLY (that parallel is often overlooked)BUT NEVER DID THEY INTENTIONALLY TARGET CIVILIANS, DESPITE THE OVERPOWERING FORCE OF THE BRITISH THEY WERE VICTORIOUS.
To defeat modern terror those partly responsible for it, namely the Imams and their undefined fatwas, must recognize the price of not challenging terror targeting Israel.
“Today’s tragedy is that terrorists, murderers, mischief-mongers and rioters try to prove their criminal, rebellious, tyrannous, brutal and blasphemous activities as a right and a justified reaction to foreign aggression under the garb of defense of Islam and national interests,” (jposthttp://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=169984) This blanket statement shocked.
He continues by stating that "It can in no way be permissible to keep foreign delegates under unlawful custody and murder them and other peaceful non-Muslim citizens in retaliation for interference, unjust activities and aggressive advances of their countries,”(jposthttp://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=169984)This qualification is what engendered my lack of surprise.
What makes this Fatwa just another piece of paper, is that it confirms the usual semantic contortions of past Fatwas. For example, the refrain that Jihad can not be waged against peaceful non-Muslims is just another way of saying "innocent civilians". A term used and abused by myriads of past Fatwas.
Putting aside the fact that, for most of the civilized world-the statement that "one can not murder innocent people"- is superfluous, the phrase peaceful/innocent is ambiguous at best. After all who is a "civilian/peaceful" human?
Perhaps reserve soldiers who are not serving are not innocent? Maybe every American tax-payer is not peaceful because they pay for the military? One could say that children of tax payers, because they strengthen the family and therefore a society which supports a war, are not civilians?!
Thus this Fatwa is unsurprising, and will likely have little affect on curbing terror. Both because of its ambiguity and because militant Muslims couldn't care less about some Imams ambiguous statement.
The real question is why the ambiguity? At best, the Imam is simply reflecting the ambiguity of the Koran. At worst the Imam is intentionally leaving a loop-hole for acts of terror! BUT WHY?
Indeed if the Imam did make a blanket statement it would have to include Israeli civilians. I wonder whether the Imam realizes this and would rather just be ambiguous for the sake of justifying terror against Israel?! It is a scary notion, but it must be explored.
Until the Imam's of today recognize that Israeli civilians are just as innocent as British, Arab, and American civilians, I would argue that, EVERYONE WILL SUFFER THE SCOURGE OF ISLAMIC TERROR. MOST OF ALL MUSLIMS WHO ARE THE MAIN VICTIMS OF ISLAMIC TERROR. After all the Imam may intend to provide the loophole to only target Israelis but it will be exploited to target all.
The roots of modern terrorism, specifically the type that intentionally targets and kills civilians, started in Israel and will continue to affect ALL civilians. Until IMAMS acknowledge what they know and issue a FATWA against all terrorism. They must proclaim a BLANKET FATWA:
For those that scream "oh but the only weapon Muslims have is terror" know this!
Colonial era American-patriots and British-mandate era Jewish-fighters attacked British forces ONLY (that parallel is often overlooked)BUT NEVER DID THEY INTENTIONALLY TARGET CIVILIANS, DESPITE THE OVERPOWERING FORCE OF THE BRITISH THEY WERE VICTORIOUS.
To defeat modern terror those partly responsible for it, namely the Imams and their undefined fatwas, must recognize the price of not challenging terror targeting Israel.
Soft drinks, Circumcision, and Burka’s: Beware of the slippery slope!
One of the most common legal and philosophical arguments heard in today's classrooms is the refrain "its a slippery slope".
Slippery slope means that if we intact this law what will come next. For example if we ban trans-fat for health reasons what will the health argument be used for next perhaps red meat?!
However the slippery slope has recently exited the classroom and inundated the western hemisphere.
Governor Paterson (D-NY)is pushing a bill to tax soft drinks in New York, after all soft drinks are unhealthy.
And why not? If we already tax cigarettes at 300 percent and banned trans-fat from restaurant chains, why shouldn't the government combine health concerns with revenue interests and tax soft drinks? We the healthy consummer who enjoy the occasional steak should not be suprised if we are asked for ID next time we enter a steak house!
Yet the slippery slopes of New York are relativity innocuous. 4 major countries in Western Europe have recently moved to ban Burkas (Burqa or Burkha). In France, Britain, Italy, and even Holocaust-handicapped Germany public surveys have shown majority support of a total ban on the full body covering worn by Muslim women.
Why? Frances president Sarkozy sumed it up "the burka message of a women's segregation from larger society is antithetical to Western notion of equality and liberty". Some reading this post may ask two questions.
1. Does this indicate Mendel is pro-burka?
2. What wrong with banning the Islamist burka?
First of all I am not a fan of the Burka nor the extremisim it represents.
Second, this is of a real concern to ALL OF US!
In liberal England parents have been sued for circumcising their son! Moreover a Jewish school is being forced to accept children who were defined as Jewish by the government in opposition to the Orthodox Rabbis Halachic (Jewish law) decision.
In both theses cases the government contends that the actions they overturned were antithetical to Western values. Whats next Shabbos on Saturday and crucifixes around the neck?
The fact of the matter is that certain arguments, though having merit create hazards that we only recognize after the fact.
Beware of the slippery slope!
Slippery slope means that if we intact this law what will come next. For example if we ban trans-fat for health reasons what will the health argument be used for next perhaps red meat?!
However the slippery slope has recently exited the classroom and inundated the western hemisphere.
Governor Paterson (D-NY)is pushing a bill to tax soft drinks in New York, after all soft drinks are unhealthy.
And why not? If we already tax cigarettes at 300 percent and banned trans-fat from restaurant chains, why shouldn't the government combine health concerns with revenue interests and tax soft drinks? We the healthy consummer who enjoy the occasional steak should not be suprised if we are asked for ID next time we enter a steak house!
Yet the slippery slopes of New York are relativity innocuous. 4 major countries in Western Europe have recently moved to ban Burkas (Burqa or Burkha). In France, Britain, Italy, and even Holocaust-handicapped Germany public surveys have shown majority support of a total ban on the full body covering worn by Muslim women.
Why? Frances president Sarkozy sumed it up "the burka message of a women's segregation from larger society is antithetical to Western notion of equality and liberty". Some reading this post may ask two questions.
1. Does this indicate Mendel is pro-burka?
2. What wrong with banning the Islamist burka?
First of all I am not a fan of the Burka nor the extremisim it represents.
Second, this is of a real concern to ALL OF US!
In liberal England parents have been sued for circumcising their son! Moreover a Jewish school is being forced to accept children who were defined as Jewish by the government in opposition to the Orthodox Rabbis Halachic (Jewish law) decision.
In both theses cases the government contends that the actions they overturned were antithetical to Western values. Whats next Shabbos on Saturday and crucifixes around the neck?
The fact of the matter is that certain arguments, though having merit create hazards that we only recognize after the fact.
Beware of the slippery slope!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
