Many outside the Liberal American Jewish community have labeled Richard Goldstone, author of the infamous UN/Muslim/leftist sponsored Goldstone report, a self hating Jew. However Goldstone, and a cadre of staunchly pro-Palestinian Jews, adamantly deny the claim. Usually Goldstone and co. defend the report by asserting, “biased results be damned” we had the best of intentions and besides “honest” criticism is necessary for Israel’s good”.
Riiight...
Still the observer should never underestimate the propensity for individuals -whose actions are reprehensible- to dodge and swerve on the way to justifying their actions. (Indeed it is only when Goldstone verbalized his justification for the abysmal bias endemic in his “balanced” report can we gain insight into the extent of his twisted reasoning). Perhaps Goldstone actually did have “good” intentions. However good intentions do not automatically justify ones actions, and in the Goldstone’s case his verbalized defense belied his acclaimed intellectual prowess.
How did he get so far in life, how did he become the prominent human rights arbiter, how was he able to disguise his deeply rooted turmoil ? Frankly your guess is as good as mine, but Goldstone was/is more an unwitting dimwit, then a calculated co-conspirator.
How is this relevant to the ground zero Mosque, uh I mean amorphous “community center” ?
Well the Imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, has been under attack for some time for his decision to build a Muslim institution two blocks from ground zero. Many ask why here, why cause communal disharmony? Rauf responds that he didn’t know this would offend so many, and besides, he continues, we have constitutional right to (as do neo-nazis who have a right to offend). But months ago, before the explosion of community animus, Rauf rebuffed the advice to move to a different location. So he knew and stuck to his insolent plan anyway, why? As this question has never been satisfactorily answered many conclude that he is duplicitous and is motivated by insidious Islamic principles.
The accusations -to many to count- are compounded by the fact that this imam is considered a Muslim moderate. This places the most peaceful of Muslims in the camp of terror and hate. On the other hand, according to a NYT article (August 20), he presides over mixed worship, unconditionally condemns violence, and even supports Israel (how did that happen!).
So which is it? Is he a closet Mullah spearheading a covert takeover of America. Or is he unwitting fool, a tool of the “anonymous” sponsors who recognized his gullibility and offered to sponsor his peaceful 100 million dollar project?
It may very well be that Rauf, like Goldstone, is a credulous idiot with good intentions. If that’s the case I suggest we label this noxious habit CGS.
The Imam is exhibiting symptoms of Chronic Goldstone syndrome.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
A Case Study in Subjective Journalism Gone Wild: Haaretz and the Middle East
Haaretz reports that the Palestinian Authority is facing a liquidity shortfall for September because the leading Arab contributors, which incidentally make up less than 30% of all aid to the Palestinians, have not met their pledges for 2010 (http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/palestinian-authority-faces-cash-crunch-as-arab-states-cut-aid-1.309025). Haaretz concludes that the two major non-western donors, the Saudis who contributed 242 million in 2008 and only 30 million this year and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) which has a dismal 171/0 split, are trying to force Hamas-Fatah reconciliation.
This explanation is deeply flawed and is a perfect example of subjective journalism gone wild.
Deeply flawed because it assumes that 1) reconciliation will make it easier to achieve peace instead of re-radicalizing the moderate West-Bank faction of Palestinians who would likely be overrun as they were in 2007, by a Hamas coup and/or influence. 2) that Iran will not see this as ready-made opportunity to strengthen its hold over the Palestinians by filling the vacuum left by its Sunni adversaries by funding Fatah itself. 3) even if the Sunni Arab regimes give Hamas the benefit of the doubt, namely that they do not ascribe to their own suicidal charter and will support an equitable peace after reconciliation, will Iran just walk away from its investment in cultivating a major proxy-weapon on/in Israel?
To be sure all Arab states have an incentive to advocate for peace, so as to assuage their, often irritated, populations and their own oil filled but marginally guilty conscience. It is also true that solving the Arab-Israeli conflict takes on different levels of urgency for different Arab states. For example, the Saudis and other oil rich states have less domestic problems and less reason to perpetuate the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, because they are not is such a great need of a scapegoat. Indeed they now see Israel as the one sane power in the region that can check the mad ambitions of Iran and the misguided dreams of Erdogan’s Turkey. Other regimes like Syria, help perpetuate the Israeli/Palestinian conflict because it helps deflect legitimate domestic rage over endemic social ills and oppression from the Assads tyrannical regime to the oppressive occupier (Israel). There are even some linkers (I strongly encourage you to view the “linkers and thinkers” series, which explores the pros and cons of the American-Israeli alliance) who argue that Iran’s impetus for supporting Hezbollah, Hamas, and nuclear weapons would be undermined by Israeli/Palestinian peace. They are right insofar that Iran would be all the more exposed for what it is, an old decrepit regime dreaming of the glory days when it ruled the middle-east. But Iran’s quest for power has nothing to do with helping the Palestinians or Pakistan, or Iraq… Iran has a second rate army and third tier economy so it requires its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, to counter Israel’s might if it can ever hope to be a hegemony in the region.
The Arab states, led by the Saudi’s, are the last ones to be fooled by Iran’s “altruistic” quest to end Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians –indeed the Iranians are relative novices, compared to the old guard Arabs, at manipulating and abusing the Palestinians out of pure unapologetic self interest.
The Arab states know that reconciliation between Hamas and the Fatah/PA/PLO means either that Hamas miraculously, separates from Iran and repudiates terror(!) or that Iran will have established its dominance over all the Palestinians through Hamas.
Given what happened last time reconciliation was attempted –Hamas and Iran won- and the fact that Hamas has actually gained strength since then, with the Turkish/Iranian alliance, it is ludicrous to assert that the Saudi’s, who discreetly offered their air space to attack Iran, would facilitate “reconciliation”.
Instead I believe the Arab states are pressuring Abbas and Fatah to stop their delay tactics and to immediately enter into the direct talks that Israel and America has been requesting all this time. Indeed the success of such pressure WOULD weaken Iran, proving that it is the Sunni-Arabs and America who are the regional movers, and that those states like Syria and Lebanon (please see post “http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/08/was-syria-behind-recent-lebaneseisrael.html) which are leaning towards Iran should give review their policies.
Of course Haaretz prefers convoluted irrational explanations over the obvious one. Why? Because the correct explanation strengthens the hated Netanyahu administration by pointing out that Netanyahu and Israel want to talk, and that the US, the West, and the Arab states agree.
How cliche, the most liberal paper in Israel, and probably the whole middle-east, takes the post modern position on truth; humans are all inherently subjective and because the only purveyors of truth are human there is no one truth. Haaretz, like other media outlets encompassing the far-left, indulge in the notion that there is no one truth. Perhaps this is the premise at the foundation of their coverage of Israel.
A deeply flawed result is the bastard child of subjective journalism gone wild.
This explanation is deeply flawed and is a perfect example of subjective journalism gone wild.
Deeply flawed because it assumes that 1) reconciliation will make it easier to achieve peace instead of re-radicalizing the moderate West-Bank faction of Palestinians who would likely be overrun as they were in 2007, by a Hamas coup and/or influence. 2) that Iran will not see this as ready-made opportunity to strengthen its hold over the Palestinians by filling the vacuum left by its Sunni adversaries by funding Fatah itself. 3) even if the Sunni Arab regimes give Hamas the benefit of the doubt, namely that they do not ascribe to their own suicidal charter and will support an equitable peace after reconciliation, will Iran just walk away from its investment in cultivating a major proxy-weapon on/in Israel?
To be sure all Arab states have an incentive to advocate for peace, so as to assuage their, often irritated, populations and their own oil filled but marginally guilty conscience. It is also true that solving the Arab-Israeli conflict takes on different levels of urgency for different Arab states. For example, the Saudis and other oil rich states have less domestic problems and less reason to perpetuate the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, because they are not is such a great need of a scapegoat. Indeed they now see Israel as the one sane power in the region that can check the mad ambitions of Iran and the misguided dreams of Erdogan’s Turkey. Other regimes like Syria, help perpetuate the Israeli/Palestinian conflict because it helps deflect legitimate domestic rage over endemic social ills and oppression from the Assads tyrannical regime to the oppressive occupier (Israel). There are even some linkers (I strongly encourage you to view the “linkers and thinkers” series, which explores the pros and cons of the American-Israeli alliance) who argue that Iran’s impetus for supporting Hezbollah, Hamas, and nuclear weapons would be undermined by Israeli/Palestinian peace. They are right insofar that Iran would be all the more exposed for what it is, an old decrepit regime dreaming of the glory days when it ruled the middle-east. But Iran’s quest for power has nothing to do with helping the Palestinians or Pakistan, or Iraq… Iran has a second rate army and third tier economy so it requires its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, to counter Israel’s might if it can ever hope to be a hegemony in the region.
The Arab states, led by the Saudi’s, are the last ones to be fooled by Iran’s “altruistic” quest to end Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians –indeed the Iranians are relative novices, compared to the old guard Arabs, at manipulating and abusing the Palestinians out of pure unapologetic self interest.
The Arab states know that reconciliation between Hamas and the Fatah/PA/PLO means either that Hamas miraculously, separates from Iran and repudiates terror(!) or that Iran will have established its dominance over all the Palestinians through Hamas.
Given what happened last time reconciliation was attempted –Hamas and Iran won- and the fact that Hamas has actually gained strength since then, with the Turkish/Iranian alliance, it is ludicrous to assert that the Saudi’s, who discreetly offered their air space to attack Iran, would facilitate “reconciliation”.
Instead I believe the Arab states are pressuring Abbas and Fatah to stop their delay tactics and to immediately enter into the direct talks that Israel and America has been requesting all this time. Indeed the success of such pressure WOULD weaken Iran, proving that it is the Sunni-Arabs and America who are the regional movers, and that those states like Syria and Lebanon (please see post “http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/08/was-syria-behind-recent-lebaneseisrael.html) which are leaning towards Iran should give review their policies.
Of course Haaretz prefers convoluted irrational explanations over the obvious one. Why? Because the correct explanation strengthens the hated Netanyahu administration by pointing out that Netanyahu and Israel want to talk, and that the US, the West, and the Arab states agree.
How cliche, the most liberal paper in Israel, and probably the whole middle-east, takes the post modern position on truth; humans are all inherently subjective and because the only purveyors of truth are human there is no one truth. Haaretz, like other media outlets encompassing the far-left, indulge in the notion that there is no one truth. Perhaps this is the premise at the foundation of their coverage of Israel.
A deeply flawed result is the bastard child of subjective journalism gone wild.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
The, Reality, Psychology, and the Future: Three Thoughts on the Pakistan Deluge
ONE, The Sad Reality:
Why has there not been a upwelling of Muslim support for the people of Pakistan?
When Israel defends itself and stops a flotilla dead in its track, the Muslim world erupts in anger, millions are raised to support further flotillas, and the UNGA is enveloped in yet another wave of anti-Israel fervor.
When a man publishes a caricature of Muhammad, people are murdered, embassies are burned, the Muslim world seethes, and religious fatwa’s are published by the dozen.
Why has there not been a surge of Muslim support for the people of Pakistan? Where are the fatwa’s declaring it obligatory for Muslims to help? Where are the public demonstrations in Indonesia, France, and the UK demanding foreign aid and/or focusing attention on the plight of millions? Where are the furious leftist of Huffington post, fundraisers of apartheid week, and the organizers of anti-Israel boycott campaigns?
20 MILLION people are HOMELESS!
Western news reports claim that the flood will halt NATO operations and allow the Taliban to regroup. But do they realize that the situation is far more dire? Al Qaida, the Taliban, and myriad other “fringe” Islamic extremists pray daily for such “opportunities”. While the secular government of Pakistan continues the trend –evident in their failure to eliminate the Pakistan Taliban- of acting against Pakistan's best interests, the murderers have begun pouring millions of dollars into relief efforts, replacing the government and establishing their grip on every day Pakistan.
Instead of the moderate Muslims community galvanizing to help the people of Pakistan, never mind helping affirm a peaceful image of Islam that their funds would foster in Pakistan, they are barely audible. Are they waiting for the next flair-up against Israel to muster their resources ad raise their voices?
Yes, I am intimately familiar with inter-group dynamics; how people tend to react when an outsider challenges an insider. Yes all groups rage when one of their own is attacked. But that there is such a discrepancy between the extraordinary resources used to fight the outsider and the pittance being offered amongst insiders (at Friday Mosque collections etc.). The inexplicable gap between the myriad articles published in the Muslim press regarding the ground zero mosque (please see Turkish English daily Hurriyet for a sampling ) and the few referencing the plight of Pakistani's.
For all peace loving people, people that believe that most Muslims want peace, the tepid Islamic support for their suffering brothers and their rage towards outsiders is...
TWO, The Self Defeating Psychology:
Why hasn't India jumped on the opportunity to help Pakistan’s flood victim and itself, by promoting stability on its border? Doesn't India have the most to lose if Pakistan descends completely into the hands of the Islamic extremists? Why hasn’t India offered a substantial relief package to Pakistan?
Another Question:
Why is it that the Muslim regimes of the Middle East do not embrace the opportunity in their midst. Imagine Israeli drip-technology irrigating the arid desserts of Syria, or its desalination plants replenishing Yemen's thinning water sources. Would not an (energy starved?) Iranian partnership with Israel developing solar technology serve Iran’s interest more than its current quasi-suicidal attempt at becoming a nuclear regime? Or an Erdogan who used Turkeys, then relatively, neutral position to foster peace, instead of exacerbating tensions in the middle-east in a mad attempt at consolidating his political power. Yes the Muslim street is full, and full of rage, but not because of Israel but rather because there are no jobs. Israel can drive the middle-east into the 21st century and in the process stabilize a slew of tottering illegitimate regimes -even eliminate the need for them.
But that requires peace, and peace requires a measure of humility.
Humility like that shown by Obama, (the leader of the greatest country the world has ever seen) when he stooped down to Iran,( a nation that served the Sun and Moon when it last experienced greatness), and declared “we will extend our hand if you unclench your fist”. Or the humility of Israel when it repeatedly ignores the homicidal mantras and monologues of its neighbors proclaiming it desires peace, and backing up that deceleration by heart-wrenching actions like expelling its own citizens, TWICE. Or the humility of Ataturk’s Turkey when it openly accepted aid from Israel after the devastating earthquakes, and then said thank you.
When will the majority of the middle-east shake off the antiquated and self-destructive culture of ego and put their own best interest before their misplaced self-importance (see the Arab mind 1973, by Raphael Patai)? When will the larger middle-east accept reality and harness its intrinsic potential?
Was Obama criticized for reaching out to Iran, even called weak? Yes. Were Israeli leader criticized and threatened when they forced 8,000 Jews from their homes in Gaza, or when they withdrew from Southern Lebanon, in their imprudent hope for peace? Yes, but they acted because they put their own self interest BEFORE PRIDE, if only the other side would have seen the reality of a peaceful opportunity instead of the mirage of Israeli weakness.
It is the psychology of Pakistan and most of the Middle-East to worship the delusional self-image despite the decaying body. To destroy 60 years of positive relations because you were humbled, in Davos, in front of the world. To even consider rejecting aid from India because that may foster the image of Pakistan’s inferiority.
So India offered a diminutive 5 million dollars, and Pakistan has yet to accept it (http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/pakistan-says-yet-to-decide-on-india-s-aid-offer-45186)...
THREE, The Frightening Future:
Will Pakistan become the next Iran?
After all the Islamic extremists used the upstanding Pakistan middle class –led by the supreme- court and jurists- to force the secular Musharraf’s resignation. Just as Khomeini fooled the moderate bazzar (the Iranian middle-class) into thinking he was rebelling against the corruption, and not replacing a secular tyrant with a adultery stoning Islamic tyranny ( Khomeini’s Ghost, Coughlin, 2009). It goes without saying that are differences that go beyond culture such as Pakistan long standing inability to centralize control over all its territory and the lack of a figure, such as Khomeini, who has the respect and fealty of the majority of the country.
Still no one believed that Khomeini could overthrow the Western-backed Shah, or that a theocratic regime in Iran would still be in power 30 years after its revolution. Indeed it is exactly this type of “G-dly punishment” (no doubt a consequence of Pakistan supporting pro-western activities) disaster that could catapult an Islamic tyranny/theocracy into power. Just try imagining a nation run by an Iran-like oligarchy WITH NUKES!
Why has there not been a upwelling of Muslim support for the people of Pakistan?
When Israel defends itself and stops a flotilla dead in its track, the Muslim world erupts in anger, millions are raised to support further flotillas, and the UNGA is enveloped in yet another wave of anti-Israel fervor.
When a man publishes a caricature of Muhammad, people are murdered, embassies are burned, the Muslim world seethes, and religious fatwa’s are published by the dozen.
Why has there not been a surge of Muslim support for the people of Pakistan? Where are the fatwa’s declaring it obligatory for Muslims to help? Where are the public demonstrations in Indonesia, France, and the UK demanding foreign aid and/or focusing attention on the plight of millions? Where are the furious leftist of Huffington post, fundraisers of apartheid week, and the organizers of anti-Israel boycott campaigns?
20 MILLION people are HOMELESS!
Western news reports claim that the flood will halt NATO operations and allow the Taliban to regroup. But do they realize that the situation is far more dire? Al Qaida, the Taliban, and myriad other “fringe” Islamic extremists pray daily for such “opportunities”. While the secular government of Pakistan continues the trend –evident in their failure to eliminate the Pakistan Taliban- of acting against Pakistan's best interests, the murderers have begun pouring millions of dollars into relief efforts, replacing the government and establishing their grip on every day Pakistan.
Instead of the moderate Muslims community galvanizing to help the people of Pakistan, never mind helping affirm a peaceful image of Islam that their funds would foster in Pakistan, they are barely audible. Are they waiting for the next flair-up against Israel to muster their resources ad raise their voices?
Yes, I am intimately familiar with inter-group dynamics; how people tend to react when an outsider challenges an insider. Yes all groups rage when one of their own is attacked. But that there is such a discrepancy between the extraordinary resources used to fight the outsider and the pittance being offered amongst insiders (at Friday Mosque collections etc.). The inexplicable gap between the myriad articles published in the Muslim press regarding the ground zero mosque (please see Turkish English daily Hurriyet for a sampling ) and the few referencing the plight of Pakistani's.
For all peace loving people, people that believe that most Muslims want peace, the tepid Islamic support for their suffering brothers and their rage towards outsiders is...
TWO, The Self Defeating Psychology:
Why hasn't India jumped on the opportunity to help Pakistan’s flood victim and itself, by promoting stability on its border? Doesn't India have the most to lose if Pakistan descends completely into the hands of the Islamic extremists? Why hasn’t India offered a substantial relief package to Pakistan?
Another Question:
Why is it that the Muslim regimes of the Middle East do not embrace the opportunity in their midst. Imagine Israeli drip-technology irrigating the arid desserts of Syria, or its desalination plants replenishing Yemen's thinning water sources. Would not an (energy starved?) Iranian partnership with Israel developing solar technology serve Iran’s interest more than its current quasi-suicidal attempt at becoming a nuclear regime? Or an Erdogan who used Turkeys, then relatively, neutral position to foster peace, instead of exacerbating tensions in the middle-east in a mad attempt at consolidating his political power. Yes the Muslim street is full, and full of rage, but not because of Israel but rather because there are no jobs. Israel can drive the middle-east into the 21st century and in the process stabilize a slew of tottering illegitimate regimes -even eliminate the need for them.
But that requires peace, and peace requires a measure of humility.
Humility like that shown by Obama, (the leader of the greatest country the world has ever seen) when he stooped down to Iran,( a nation that served the Sun and Moon when it last experienced greatness), and declared “we will extend our hand if you unclench your fist”. Or the humility of Israel when it repeatedly ignores the homicidal mantras and monologues of its neighbors proclaiming it desires peace, and backing up that deceleration by heart-wrenching actions like expelling its own citizens, TWICE. Or the humility of Ataturk’s Turkey when it openly accepted aid from Israel after the devastating earthquakes, and then said thank you.
When will the majority of the middle-east shake off the antiquated and self-destructive culture of ego and put their own best interest before their misplaced self-importance (see the Arab mind 1973, by Raphael Patai)? When will the larger middle-east accept reality and harness its intrinsic potential?
Was Obama criticized for reaching out to Iran, even called weak? Yes. Were Israeli leader criticized and threatened when they forced 8,000 Jews from their homes in Gaza, or when they withdrew from Southern Lebanon, in their imprudent hope for peace? Yes, but they acted because they put their own self interest BEFORE PRIDE, if only the other side would have seen the reality of a peaceful opportunity instead of the mirage of Israeli weakness.
It is the psychology of Pakistan and most of the Middle-East to worship the delusional self-image despite the decaying body. To destroy 60 years of positive relations because you were humbled, in Davos, in front of the world. To even consider rejecting aid from India because that may foster the image of Pakistan’s inferiority.
So India offered a diminutive 5 million dollars, and Pakistan has yet to accept it (http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/pakistan-says-yet-to-decide-on-india-s-aid-offer-45186)...
THREE, The Frightening Future:
Will Pakistan become the next Iran?
After all the Islamic extremists used the upstanding Pakistan middle class –led by the supreme- court and jurists- to force the secular Musharraf’s resignation. Just as Khomeini fooled the moderate bazzar (the Iranian middle-class) into thinking he was rebelling against the corruption, and not replacing a secular tyrant with a adultery stoning Islamic tyranny ( Khomeini’s Ghost, Coughlin, 2009). It goes without saying that are differences that go beyond culture such as Pakistan long standing inability to centralize control over all its territory and the lack of a figure, such as Khomeini, who has the respect and fealty of the majority of the country.
Still no one believed that Khomeini could overthrow the Western-backed Shah, or that a theocratic regime in Iran would still be in power 30 years after its revolution. Indeed it is exactly this type of “G-dly punishment” (no doubt a consequence of Pakistan supporting pro-western activities) disaster that could catapult an Islamic tyranny/theocracy into power. Just try imagining a nation run by an Iran-like oligarchy WITH NUKES!
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Clinton/Mesvinsky Wedding, The Reform Movement, and it's Open Season on Eligible Jews
This month’s marriage between Chelsea Clinton, heir to the moderate-Democrat Clinton dynasty, and investor tycoon (and son of a disgraced congressman) Marc Mesvinsky has a variety of implications. One observer lamented, what he termed, the “spiritual holocaust” that wide spread American intermarriage is causing and that this marriage represents. Indeed, for most of the 20th century intermarriage in the Jewish community was taboo, in the 21st century this is no longer the case. This marriage signals that the taboo of intermarriage has been “overcome” by the liberal Jewish community. How the Liberal-Jewish community overcame this taboo, can be viewed as a case study in social-psychology: how taboos are challenged and refuted. Or it can shed light on a major flaw in liberal-Jewish thinking.
Either way my observations.
In the 1960’s the Reform movement was beginning to experience a drop in membership. They responded by amplifying their belief in accepting and being open to all and actively sought and welcomed intermarried couples, who until then had, because of the aforementioned taboo experienced a sort of alienation, into their temples. Still while the reform movement accepted intermarried couples they also encouraged conversion, and drew the line by asking its member clergy to “avoid” presiding over interfaith marriages (though true to form many reform clergy disregarded this suggestion and routinely conducted interfaith weddings). The Reform movements primary objective was to foster a welcoming experience for any individual who wanted to convert and observe a selective Judaism, (something traditional Judaism objects to). But by simplifying the transition to Judaism for the non-Jewish spouse their policies had an unintended(?)effect it eroded the taboo against entering into interfaith relationships in the first place -after all conversion to Judaism was so “easy”.
Because of the outreach of the Reform the taboo against entering into interfaith relationships was eroded and many spouses didn’t feel the social pressure to convert. The ever liberal Reform movement not wanting to lose their new stream of paying members, began to encourage interfaith couples to raise their children in the Jewish faith. Why? Because the whole premise of accepting interfaith relationships was so that spouses would convert and halt assimilation, but now that spouses felt little taboo-pressure to convert, the movement had to still support their claim of halting intermarriage- the children should be raised Jewish. Never mind the confusion a child of two religions experiences, non-the-less it was at this stage that the Menorah, next to the Christmas tree emerged.
So the taboo against intermarriage devolved from only marrying a Jew, to only marrying a convert, to we will not conduct interfaith weddings, but you are keeping to the faith so long as you raise your children Jewish.
But there was still a remnant of the taboo: condoning interfaith marriage.
This particular marriage represents the predictable culmination of a 60 year Reform/liberal Judaism’s investment in expanding Jewish identity. While the Reform movement simplified conversion in expectation that many would convert, and in the long run halt assimilation.
The taboo of intermarriage was so undermined by a convenient-focused conversion process that now intermarriage itself is not only widespread (hovering around 50 percent) and accepted as normal, but also encouraged. As exemplified by Clinton/Mesvinsky marriage.
How did the Reform movement jump from easy conversion to outright intermarriage ? The answer is imbedded in the philosophy that underpins liberal Judaism. First the Reform espoused a cultural definition of Judaism, namely that Jewish is not a inherent designation, but a choice. Why? Because Judaism is first and foremost a religion of morality and not having a choice is immoral. This choice means that a person is not Jewish because of a soul (assuming a soul exists) but because they choose to be Jewish. So if we are to premise Judaism on choice, because choice is inherently moral, then it is immoral to advocate against the choice of intermarriage. This, by the way, explains why many Reform clergy never had a problem officiating at interfaith marriages as to not officiate is tantamount to inhibiting choice…
In other words the reform movement was eventually going to enable interfaith marriage, if they were to be consistent in their philosophy. It was only a matter of time before liberal/reform Judaism, transitioned from challenging the taboo of interfaith relationships, as long as there was conversion, to challenging the taboo of interfaith marriage without. Don’t be surprised if the Reform movement continues its slide from majority humanism mixed with a little cultural spirituality, to being indistinguishable from humanistic Judaism devoid of any conventional spiritual attachment.
The crumbling of a taboo and encouraged interfaith weddings culminated in a Jewish male with a kippa and tallit marrying the most eligible bachelorette in the nation: which probably means it’s open season on eligible Jews!
Either way my observations.
In the 1960’s the Reform movement was beginning to experience a drop in membership. They responded by amplifying their belief in accepting and being open to all and actively sought and welcomed intermarried couples, who until then had, because of the aforementioned taboo experienced a sort of alienation, into their temples. Still while the reform movement accepted intermarried couples they also encouraged conversion, and drew the line by asking its member clergy to “avoid” presiding over interfaith marriages (though true to form many reform clergy disregarded this suggestion and routinely conducted interfaith weddings). The Reform movements primary objective was to foster a welcoming experience for any individual who wanted to convert and observe a selective Judaism, (something traditional Judaism objects to). But by simplifying the transition to Judaism for the non-Jewish spouse their policies had an unintended(?)effect it eroded the taboo against entering into interfaith relationships in the first place -after all conversion to Judaism was so “easy”.
Because of the outreach of the Reform the taboo against entering into interfaith relationships was eroded and many spouses didn’t feel the social pressure to convert. The ever liberal Reform movement not wanting to lose their new stream of paying members, began to encourage interfaith couples to raise their children in the Jewish faith. Why? Because the whole premise of accepting interfaith relationships was so that spouses would convert and halt assimilation, but now that spouses felt little taboo-pressure to convert, the movement had to still support their claim of halting intermarriage- the children should be raised Jewish. Never mind the confusion a child of two religions experiences, non-the-less it was at this stage that the Menorah, next to the Christmas tree emerged.
So the taboo against intermarriage devolved from only marrying a Jew, to only marrying a convert, to we will not conduct interfaith weddings, but you are keeping to the faith so long as you raise your children Jewish.
But there was still a remnant of the taboo: condoning interfaith marriage.
This particular marriage represents the predictable culmination of a 60 year Reform/liberal Judaism’s investment in expanding Jewish identity. While the Reform movement simplified conversion in expectation that many would convert, and in the long run halt assimilation.
The taboo of intermarriage was so undermined by a convenient-focused conversion process that now intermarriage itself is not only widespread (hovering around 50 percent) and accepted as normal, but also encouraged. As exemplified by Clinton/Mesvinsky marriage.
How did the Reform movement jump from easy conversion to outright intermarriage ? The answer is imbedded in the philosophy that underpins liberal Judaism. First the Reform espoused a cultural definition of Judaism, namely that Jewish is not a inherent designation, but a choice. Why? Because Judaism is first and foremost a religion of morality and not having a choice is immoral. This choice means that a person is not Jewish because of a soul (assuming a soul exists) but because they choose to be Jewish. So if we are to premise Judaism on choice, because choice is inherently moral, then it is immoral to advocate against the choice of intermarriage. This, by the way, explains why many Reform clergy never had a problem officiating at interfaith marriages as to not officiate is tantamount to inhibiting choice…
In other words the reform movement was eventually going to enable interfaith marriage, if they were to be consistent in their philosophy. It was only a matter of time before liberal/reform Judaism, transitioned from challenging the taboo of interfaith relationships, as long as there was conversion, to challenging the taboo of interfaith marriage without. Don’t be surprised if the Reform movement continues its slide from majority humanism mixed with a little cultural spirituality, to being indistinguishable from humanistic Judaism devoid of any conventional spiritual attachment.
The crumbling of a taboo and encouraged interfaith weddings culminated in a Jewish male with a kippa and tallit marrying the most eligible bachelorette in the nation: which probably means it’s open season on eligible Jews!
Monday, August 9, 2010
No To Forced Retirement!
Reports are coming out that Social Security is in the red for the first time. Moreover we have watched as social security payments have failed to keep up with inflation. So how can we consider forcing the elderly to retire?
It's one thing if they are unable to do the job,or if we could provide them with a decent standard of living. Health care, food, a home, and enough money left over for them to take a vacation.
Instead I stand on online and watch as an elderly couple places one cucumber (no bag=less weight), a loaf of white bread, and a couple of other essentials on the black conveyor belt, and then attempt to maintain their dignity by emptying a used zip lock bag full of change...Did they choose to work for 40 years acquiring experience and insight, in essence becoming the the most valuable employer, so that later they would have the "right" to retire and scrounge for essentials?
If they are of clear mind and healthy body why should they be required to retire? Especially if social security means collecting change to eat!
No to forced retirement!
It's one thing if they are unable to do the job,or if we could provide them with a decent standard of living. Health care, food, a home, and enough money left over for them to take a vacation.
Instead I stand on online and watch as an elderly couple places one cucumber (no bag=less weight), a loaf of white bread, and a couple of other essentials on the black conveyor belt, and then attempt to maintain their dignity by emptying a used zip lock bag full of change...Did they choose to work for 40 years acquiring experience and insight, in essence becoming the the most valuable employer, so that later they would have the "right" to retire and scrounge for essentials?
If they are of clear mind and healthy body why should they be required to retire? Especially if social security means collecting change to eat!
No to forced retirement!
Should the ultra-Orthodox be required to serve in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF)?
Should the ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) be required to serve in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF)?
The current system in Israel allows for Haredim to receive a deferment if they are studying in Yeshiva (Jewish institution for the higher learning) until they are 22. By that time most are married and are exempt from mandatory military service. Thus for all intents and purposes the Haredi population is exempted by the Israeli government from serving in the IDF.
The only other Israeli population that receives a blanket exemption from serving in the IDF are the Israeli Arabs who are allowed but not required to serve, though many choose to. Still, for the Israeli-Arab the reasons for such an exemption are clear; if they serve they will likely have to physically confront other Arabs and/or Muslims -it is a legitimate conflict of interest.
For the Haredi this reasoning only applies to a small minority. This minority includes those that refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of the state of Israel which they object to on questionable Talmudic/Rabbinical grounds. This small minority refuses to speak modern Hebrew, because Hebrew is the language of the holy bible, and shouldn’t be used for mundane speech. They also do not accept government funding of any kind. Thus requiring this minority to serve, is akin to forcing them to turn their back on their beliefs.
Yet the overwhelming majority of the Haredi public do accept state funds, speak Hebrew when required, and are accused of taking advantage of the system. Should they be required to serve?
To understand the implications of this question is to understand the nature of Israeli society. The IDF is a necessary defensive organization that literally foils daily terror plots and prevents Israels neighbors from seriously contemplating war. However, he IDF also enables a diverse mixture of immigrant populations to integrate and to acculturate. In essence, Bedouins, Eastern Europeans, North Americans, South Africans etc. enter the IDF and three years later (two for women) they exit as mature Israeli’s. The importance of serving in the IDF is amplified by the fact that potential employers will usually give preference to veterans of the IDF.
So not only does the fastest growing minority, the Haredi population, not contribute directly to national security they also are not integrated into the workforce. Ironically, those Haredi that choose to pursue a secular education, on average, score higher on reading and reasoning sections of standardized tests. In other words the Haredi choose not to integrate and succeed. Still, because they are generally not employed in the mainstream workforce (either because they do not serve, or spend their day studying) and have little or no secular education, they are a growing burden on Israeli tax payers.
But wait! I’m not one of those religious bashers, there is another side to this story.
You see, it was not always the case that the ultra-Orthodox ALL studied in Yeshiva. Prior to the holocaust, when there were myriad thriving communities spanning Eastern Europe, Jewish boys were given a chaider education (Jewish equivalent of early grade school). Those that showed promise continued their studies often for the rest of their life. Usually they were supported by their local communities, the private wealthy, or their in-laws who believed that it was a great merit and responsibility to ensure that every town, however small, funded the local study of the Torah. Indeed it was seen as a way to ensure that a town was blessed materially and spiritually.
Thus the holocaust did not only destroy Eastern European Judaism but also a complex array of institutions. These included the educational structure that ensured the continuity of, what many consider, Judaism’s most prized inheritance; the totality of the Biblical/Talmudic/Rabbinic tradition. There are a number of extraordinary accounts of efforts to save the institutions that carried this tradition from the fires of the Nazi ovens and/or the cold of Soviet Siberia.
A few yeshivas were saved, or survived, the terror and undertook a massive effort to rebuild the great intuitions of Torah learning that once existed in Europe. Part of this initiative meant that every Jewish boy was encouraged to pursue his Torah studies as long as he wanted so as to replenish the depleted stock of Torah scholars.
From this perspective, the Israeli government is basically continuing a millennia old tradition in the guise of public funds going towards supporting Torah study.
The Haredi position is even more persuasive when considering that they are both the proven guardians of an unbroken chain of Jewish tradition and were the ones that passed on and propagated the words of the great prophets. These prophets very foresaw that the Jews would eventually return to Israel their homeland. In other words, modern Israel, with all its secular tendencies, is basically a mundane interpretation of the Zion that religious Jews have mentioned in their prayers, over a hundred times a day, since the destruction of the second Temple by the Romans in 70 AD.
Could there be a State of Israel (or a Jewish people) without the memory and tradition that was jealously guarded by Rabbinic Judaism since the days of the prophets? Should the Haradi not be rewarded for their contribution to modern Israel?
That said, now that we do have a state of Israel, and numerous yeshivas churning out students of the highest caliber, why should we not return to the pre-holocaust system whereas only the studies of the best are publicly funded? It would be similar to the Western system, (if that system is not itself replicating the Rabbinic tradition) where PHD students and other important institutions of higher learning are funded by the public.
Israel is growing and needs productive citizens, Orthodox or otherwise. Anyone familiar with the Rabbis of the Talmud or the history of the greatest Jewish leaders of every generation, knows that they all had extensive secular knowledge and often supported themselves “with their hands” (they were doctors, jurists, winemakers, water-carriers etc. in fact it is laudable not to live off the Torah, Pirkei Avot). At the same time, there have always been a cadre of our brightest scholars who have spent their entire life in the study of Torah.
Therefore I propose that the Haradi sector be granted a certain quota for each Yeshiva, whereas the brightest students, as the dean so deems, receive a deferment. The rest should be required to serve. The Israeli government has already established a Haredi military unit, which meets all the strict requirements followed by Haredi individuals. One of the most successful programs in the IDF, the Hesder program, allows for religious soldiers to study Torah for 1 ½ years of their three years service.
For those searching for a Talmud-like reasoning to support the above: the influx of Torah-true scholars into the Israeli economy would not only give an already successful economy a massive boost, but it would also help the state of Israel look more like the Land of Israel.
The current system in Israel allows for Haredim to receive a deferment if they are studying in Yeshiva (Jewish institution for the higher learning) until they are 22. By that time most are married and are exempt from mandatory military service. Thus for all intents and purposes the Haredi population is exempted by the Israeli government from serving in the IDF.
The only other Israeli population that receives a blanket exemption from serving in the IDF are the Israeli Arabs who are allowed but not required to serve, though many choose to. Still, for the Israeli-Arab the reasons for such an exemption are clear; if they serve they will likely have to physically confront other Arabs and/or Muslims -it is a legitimate conflict of interest.
For the Haredi this reasoning only applies to a small minority. This minority includes those that refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of the state of Israel which they object to on questionable Talmudic/Rabbinical grounds. This small minority refuses to speak modern Hebrew, because Hebrew is the language of the holy bible, and shouldn’t be used for mundane speech. They also do not accept government funding of any kind. Thus requiring this minority to serve, is akin to forcing them to turn their back on their beliefs.
Yet the overwhelming majority of the Haredi public do accept state funds, speak Hebrew when required, and are accused of taking advantage of the system. Should they be required to serve?
To understand the implications of this question is to understand the nature of Israeli society. The IDF is a necessary defensive organization that literally foils daily terror plots and prevents Israels neighbors from seriously contemplating war. However, he IDF also enables a diverse mixture of immigrant populations to integrate and to acculturate. In essence, Bedouins, Eastern Europeans, North Americans, South Africans etc. enter the IDF and three years later (two for women) they exit as mature Israeli’s. The importance of serving in the IDF is amplified by the fact that potential employers will usually give preference to veterans of the IDF.
So not only does the fastest growing minority, the Haredi population, not contribute directly to national security they also are not integrated into the workforce. Ironically, those Haredi that choose to pursue a secular education, on average, score higher on reading and reasoning sections of standardized tests. In other words the Haredi choose not to integrate and succeed. Still, because they are generally not employed in the mainstream workforce (either because they do not serve, or spend their day studying) and have little or no secular education, they are a growing burden on Israeli tax payers.
But wait! I’m not one of those religious bashers, there is another side to this story.
You see, it was not always the case that the ultra-Orthodox ALL studied in Yeshiva. Prior to the holocaust, when there were myriad thriving communities spanning Eastern Europe, Jewish boys were given a chaider education (Jewish equivalent of early grade school). Those that showed promise continued their studies often for the rest of their life. Usually they were supported by their local communities, the private wealthy, or their in-laws who believed that it was a great merit and responsibility to ensure that every town, however small, funded the local study of the Torah. Indeed it was seen as a way to ensure that a town was blessed materially and spiritually.
Thus the holocaust did not only destroy Eastern European Judaism but also a complex array of institutions. These included the educational structure that ensured the continuity of, what many consider, Judaism’s most prized inheritance; the totality of the Biblical/Talmudic/Rabbinic tradition. There are a number of extraordinary accounts of efforts to save the institutions that carried this tradition from the fires of the Nazi ovens and/or the cold of Soviet Siberia.
A few yeshivas were saved, or survived, the terror and undertook a massive effort to rebuild the great intuitions of Torah learning that once existed in Europe. Part of this initiative meant that every Jewish boy was encouraged to pursue his Torah studies as long as he wanted so as to replenish the depleted stock of Torah scholars.
From this perspective, the Israeli government is basically continuing a millennia old tradition in the guise of public funds going towards supporting Torah study.
The Haredi position is even more persuasive when considering that they are both the proven guardians of an unbroken chain of Jewish tradition and were the ones that passed on and propagated the words of the great prophets. These prophets very foresaw that the Jews would eventually return to Israel their homeland. In other words, modern Israel, with all its secular tendencies, is basically a mundane interpretation of the Zion that religious Jews have mentioned in their prayers, over a hundred times a day, since the destruction of the second Temple by the Romans in 70 AD.
Could there be a State of Israel (or a Jewish people) without the memory and tradition that was jealously guarded by Rabbinic Judaism since the days of the prophets? Should the Haradi not be rewarded for their contribution to modern Israel?
That said, now that we do have a state of Israel, and numerous yeshivas churning out students of the highest caliber, why should we not return to the pre-holocaust system whereas only the studies of the best are publicly funded? It would be similar to the Western system, (if that system is not itself replicating the Rabbinic tradition) where PHD students and other important institutions of higher learning are funded by the public.
Israel is growing and needs productive citizens, Orthodox or otherwise. Anyone familiar with the Rabbis of the Talmud or the history of the greatest Jewish leaders of every generation, knows that they all had extensive secular knowledge and often supported themselves “with their hands” (they were doctors, jurists, winemakers, water-carriers etc. in fact it is laudable not to live off the Torah, Pirkei Avot). At the same time, there have always been a cadre of our brightest scholars who have spent their entire life in the study of Torah.
Therefore I propose that the Haradi sector be granted a certain quota for each Yeshiva, whereas the brightest students, as the dean so deems, receive a deferment. The rest should be required to serve. The Israeli government has already established a Haredi military unit, which meets all the strict requirements followed by Haredi individuals. One of the most successful programs in the IDF, the Hesder program, allows for religious soldiers to study Torah for 1 ½ years of their three years service.
For those searching for a Talmud-like reasoning to support the above: the influx of Torah-true scholars into the Israeli economy would not only give an already successful economy a massive boost, but it would also help the state of Israel look more like the Land of Israel.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Not After 9/11, NOW! Why are Anti-Mosque Protests Sweeping Across America ?
I remember walking through Manhattans Mid-town weeks after 9/11 and I was both dismayed and proud of what I encountered. The protesters were advocating against going to war.
What we didn't see was wide-spread attacks on Muslims. On the contrary most political and religious leaders defended Islam and their American followers. Americans are proud of that too.
Almost 10 years later a new Mosque/community center has been proposed and approved by NYC only blocks away from a ground zero monument yet to be completed. To the families of victims it is seen as the ultimate insult, however legal, to the memory of their loved ones and many regular-Americans agree.
Then we saw The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/us/08mosque.html?_r=1) published an article exposing the growing trend of anti-Mosque protests highlighting the blatant arguments to suppress religious freedom. The NYT articles point was intended not only to expose a troubling trend but also to conflate the non-racist arguments against the ground zero mosque with the racist protests elsewhere; with the intent of discrediting the arguments against the ground zero mosque.
Yet the fact remains, after 9/11 there was little anti-Islam activity, whereas, now Mosque building across Amercia –reflecting a constitutional right to practice religious freedom- is being challenged!
Recently I have been called a bigot by a reader of my blog who opposed my article questioning the reasoning of building a Mosque so close to ground zero. The full essay can be viewed at http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/05/between-mosque-and-hard-place.html. But the thesis is that Muslims know there are questions about their beliefs and anger against the actions committed by people who claim to be Muslims. So I asked why not avoid insulting people? What was gained by using religious freedom to again victimize the victims? Did they expect such an actions to strengthen the harmony between Americas religious communities? My conclusion was that whatever the intentions, they forced the average American to choose between a Mosque -representing religious freedom- and a hard place -representing the insult and disregard that victims of 9/11 feel.
Indeed after 9/11 there was no “choice”, every community, except for a few who exercised their freedom to dance in New Jersey as the towers and people burned, gathered together and denounced the suicide-murder. For most Americans, like myself, it was another instance of the triumph of American exceptionalism -rationality and law trumped irrational anger and frustration, and there were no wide-spread attacks on Muslim-American community. After all Muslim were also lost in the inferno of hate, many spoke out against the terror, their religion was victimized by their suicidal coreligionists.
Yet now Americans turn on their tv’s and they see Muslims completely rejecting the feelings of many good and honest Americans. The same America that elected a Black president and refused to blame Islam for Fort Hood the attempted Christmas-day bombing, despite 9/11… Muslim-Americans like Farreed Zakaree, the CNN anchor and writer who returned an ADL award, because the ADL DID recognize the legitimacy, however irrational, of the victims feelings and opposed the mosque ON THOSE GROUNDS.
Muslim-Americans the overwhelming majority who espouse peace could have come out and declared
“WE ARE A PEACFUL RELIGOUN WE BELIEVED THIS MOSQUE WOULD FOSTER UNDERSTANDING AND HARMONY, BUT FOR THE SAKE OF PEACE AND THE STILL TRAUMATIZED VICTIMS, ESSPECIALY CONSIDERING RECENT AMERICAN HISTORY, WE WILL FIND A LESS SENSATIVE AREA IN LOWER MANHATTAN FOR THIS MOSQUE.”
Instead Muslims told me that they opposed the Mosque because of the unnecessary disunity it causes, but now support it because they feel under attack. But I say this is not the way you respond to an attack in America. Not one major America-Muslim organization publicized and acknowledged the feelings of the victims. Not one organization said “you know what we understand”!
Indeed America refuses to blame American-Muslims for the horror committed in its name, and I believe it will continue to do so.
When Americans saw American-Muslims going out of their way to insult America. They said “perhaps Muslims don’t understand the pain this mosque is causing”, let us explain it to them -dissuade them from using this location. That didn’t work. So then they asked “is this what we can expect from the Muslim-American community in the future”? To deliberately insult, like the fringe racists who now feel free to openly stand in front of Mosques with dogs at their side hurling insults? To use freedom of religion to create disharmony amongst religious communities? To be unable to adjust to real concerns by deeply hurt people? To add insult to injury and label the emotionally injured who ONLY remember their children and parents and call them bigots!!! Is this a religion of understanding is this a community which has leaders that understand that the law is a means for coexistence not an ends on to itself?
Of course protesting in front of mosques simply because they are Muslim institutions is wrong. Of course the Mosque/community center is legal, and Muslims are free to build anywhere the law allows them! Of course American-Muslims, (except the American-Muslims that provided support to the 9/11 hijackers) are not to blame for 9/11 and to blame them is wrong! Of Course!
But do Muslim-Americans understand that this Mosque will achieve the what the hijackers were unable to achieve, wide-spread religious conflict? Do Muslim-Americans not feel the grief that so many Americans victimized by 9/11 feel?
Then again by now the Mosque supporters realize what they are doing and continue to act, if they didn't at the onset.
If that is the case it does not make Mosque protesting outside of the ground zero mosque right, but it certainly explains it.
What we didn't see was wide-spread attacks on Muslims. On the contrary most political and religious leaders defended Islam and their American followers. Americans are proud of that too.
Almost 10 years later a new Mosque/community center has been proposed and approved by NYC only blocks away from a ground zero monument yet to be completed. To the families of victims it is seen as the ultimate insult, however legal, to the memory of their loved ones and many regular-Americans agree.
Then we saw The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/us/08mosque.html?_r=1) published an article exposing the growing trend of anti-Mosque protests highlighting the blatant arguments to suppress religious freedom. The NYT articles point was intended not only to expose a troubling trend but also to conflate the non-racist arguments against the ground zero mosque with the racist protests elsewhere; with the intent of discrediting the arguments against the ground zero mosque.
Yet the fact remains, after 9/11 there was little anti-Islam activity, whereas, now Mosque building across Amercia –reflecting a constitutional right to practice religious freedom- is being challenged!
Recently I have been called a bigot by a reader of my blog who opposed my article questioning the reasoning of building a Mosque so close to ground zero. The full essay can be viewed at http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/05/between-mosque-and-hard-place.html. But the thesis is that Muslims know there are questions about their beliefs and anger against the actions committed by people who claim to be Muslims. So I asked why not avoid insulting people? What was gained by using religious freedom to again victimize the victims? Did they expect such an actions to strengthen the harmony between Americas religious communities? My conclusion was that whatever the intentions, they forced the average American to choose between a Mosque -representing religious freedom- and a hard place -representing the insult and disregard that victims of 9/11 feel.
Indeed after 9/11 there was no “choice”, every community, except for a few who exercised their freedom to dance in New Jersey as the towers and people burned, gathered together and denounced the suicide-murder. For most Americans, like myself, it was another instance of the triumph of American exceptionalism -rationality and law trumped irrational anger and frustration, and there were no wide-spread attacks on Muslim-American community. After all Muslim were also lost in the inferno of hate, many spoke out against the terror, their religion was victimized by their suicidal coreligionists.
Yet now Americans turn on their tv’s and they see Muslims completely rejecting the feelings of many good and honest Americans. The same America that elected a Black president and refused to blame Islam for Fort Hood the attempted Christmas-day bombing, despite 9/11… Muslim-Americans like Farreed Zakaree, the CNN anchor and writer who returned an ADL award, because the ADL DID recognize the legitimacy, however irrational, of the victims feelings and opposed the mosque ON THOSE GROUNDS.
Muslim-Americans the overwhelming majority who espouse peace could have come out and declared
“WE ARE A PEACFUL RELIGOUN WE BELIEVED THIS MOSQUE WOULD FOSTER UNDERSTANDING AND HARMONY, BUT FOR THE SAKE OF PEACE AND THE STILL TRAUMATIZED VICTIMS, ESSPECIALY CONSIDERING RECENT AMERICAN HISTORY, WE WILL FIND A LESS SENSATIVE AREA IN LOWER MANHATTAN FOR THIS MOSQUE.”
Instead Muslims told me that they opposed the Mosque because of the unnecessary disunity it causes, but now support it because they feel under attack. But I say this is not the way you respond to an attack in America. Not one major America-Muslim organization publicized and acknowledged the feelings of the victims. Not one organization said “you know what we understand”!
Indeed America refuses to blame American-Muslims for the horror committed in its name, and I believe it will continue to do so.
When Americans saw American-Muslims going out of their way to insult America. They said “perhaps Muslims don’t understand the pain this mosque is causing”, let us explain it to them -dissuade them from using this location. That didn’t work. So then they asked “is this what we can expect from the Muslim-American community in the future”? To deliberately insult, like the fringe racists who now feel free to openly stand in front of Mosques with dogs at their side hurling insults? To use freedom of religion to create disharmony amongst religious communities? To be unable to adjust to real concerns by deeply hurt people? To add insult to injury and label the emotionally injured who ONLY remember their children and parents and call them bigots!!! Is this a religion of understanding is this a community which has leaders that understand that the law is a means for coexistence not an ends on to itself?
Of course protesting in front of mosques simply because they are Muslim institutions is wrong. Of course the Mosque/community center is legal, and Muslims are free to build anywhere the law allows them! Of course American-Muslims, (except the American-Muslims that provided support to the 9/11 hijackers) are not to blame for 9/11 and to blame them is wrong! Of Course!
But do Muslim-Americans understand that this Mosque will achieve the what the hijackers were unable to achieve, wide-spread religious conflict? Do Muslim-Americans not feel the grief that so many Americans victimized by 9/11 feel?
Then again by now the Mosque supporters realize what they are doing and continue to act, if they didn't at the onset.
If that is the case it does not make Mosque protesting outside of the ground zero mosque right, but it certainly explains it.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
It's Not the First Time Syria is Behind a Lebanese/Israel Conflict
The Lebanese Army took responsibility for Tuesdays attack on an routine Israeli patrol, that left Israeli Lt Col. Hariri and three Lebanese soldiers dead. While violence on the Northern border is common, this event was unique for two reasons. First it was the most violent incident since the 2006 war, instigated by Hezbollah, that left Beirut in ruins, and caused thousands of Lebanese and Israeli casualties. Second, the UN actually laid the blame on Lebanon. No one disputes the narrative. The IDF was cutting down a tree on the internationally recognized Israeli side of the blue line after having informed the Lebanese of their intentions to do so. The Lebanese responded that they dispute this blue line and that they warned Israel.
The fact that the Lebanese army had the temerity to initiate an attack on Israel after experiencing 10-1 casualties in the 2006 war is astonishing; to do so under the nose of the UN peacekeepers is simply inexplicable. It’s one thing if Hezbollah was directly responsible, after all they are now being blamed by the tribunal investigating the 2005 assassination of Lebanese PM Hariri. A war with Israel -and the inevitable civilian casualties that come with Hezbollah terror tactics- would be a small price to pay for a distraction the emotions of which could be used to lay the blame on Israel’s doorstep. But despite that fact that the officer who ordered the Lebanese sniper ambush was a Shiite with close ties to Hezbollah, this act was committed blatantly and unapologetically by the Lebanese army. It was an act of war not by a proxy but a recognized state.
Why would Lebanon put themselves in a position of being pounded into dust by Israel, while giving Israel an excuse to preempt Hezbollah’s eventual attack?
This may very well be explained by an underreported power shift, reported by Debka.com (http://debka.com/article/8946/) in the region following the July 30th meeting between Lebanon’s current PM, Saad Hariri ( the son of the assassinated Rafiq Hariri), Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, and the tyrant of Syria Bashar al-Assad. Following their meeting in Beirut, Damascus, reportedly, cut ties with the Iran backed Shia Hezbollah. It seems some deal was cut between the most vocal opponents of Shia Iran, the Sunni Saudis, and opportunist Syria.
This agreement not only weakens Iran’s position -which explains the Saudis involvement- in the region by eliminating the contiguous land route between Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon. It also allows Saad Hariri to turn his back on his major political opponents, Hezbollah, as he is now supported by Syria.
Indeed many have questioned why Hariri would ever ally with the group many suspected of being involved with murdering his father. It seems that until now Hariri had no choice, it was either accept that Hezbollah was backed by both Syria and Iran, and thus unassailable, or launch a failed civil war. Until now he collaborated with Hezbollah, no longer (?).
If Syria has in fact shifted its support from Hezbollah to Lebanon it would have to assuage its erstwhile ally Iran for two reasons. One, Iran is a major supplier of weapons to Syria, and supports it against Israel. Two, its relationship with Iran is a bargaining chip to be used with the West. So even though it agreed to shift its support in return some tantalizing incentives including by not limited to the following three incentives.
-One it regains the political hold in Lebanon that it lost in 2005, and the vacuum of which was filled by Iran with a revamped and expanded Shia Hezbollah. Two, the 2005 Hariri assassination is blamed on Hezbollah, not on the obvious suspect Syria. Three, Saudi Arabia and America, which is probably pulling the strings, offers Syria serious concessions, tying Palestinian/Israeli peace with the Golan etc.-
Still.
Syria is hedging its bets and authorized an attack on Israel which shows Iran that their relationship with Syria is still valuable. Because even though they have shifted their support from Hezbollah to the Sunni PM Hariri, Syria is still willing to use its newly reestablished clout to menace Israel’s northern border.
Syria which recently salvaged its relationship with Turkey has somehow leveraged its relatively small position in the middle east to its absolute benefit. As far as Syria’s actions jeopardizing Lebanon by using it as a tool against Israel. Well it won’t be the first time.
The fact that the Lebanese army had the temerity to initiate an attack on Israel after experiencing 10-1 casualties in the 2006 war is astonishing; to do so under the nose of the UN peacekeepers is simply inexplicable. It’s one thing if Hezbollah was directly responsible, after all they are now being blamed by the tribunal investigating the 2005 assassination of Lebanese PM Hariri. A war with Israel -and the inevitable civilian casualties that come with Hezbollah terror tactics- would be a small price to pay for a distraction the emotions of which could be used to lay the blame on Israel’s doorstep. But despite that fact that the officer who ordered the Lebanese sniper ambush was a Shiite with close ties to Hezbollah, this act was committed blatantly and unapologetically by the Lebanese army. It was an act of war not by a proxy but a recognized state.
Why would Lebanon put themselves in a position of being pounded into dust by Israel, while giving Israel an excuse to preempt Hezbollah’s eventual attack?
This may very well be explained by an underreported power shift, reported by Debka.com (http://debka.com/article/8946/) in the region following the July 30th meeting between Lebanon’s current PM, Saad Hariri ( the son of the assassinated Rafiq Hariri), Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, and the tyrant of Syria Bashar al-Assad. Following their meeting in Beirut, Damascus, reportedly, cut ties with the Iran backed Shia Hezbollah. It seems some deal was cut between the most vocal opponents of Shia Iran, the Sunni Saudis, and opportunist Syria.
This agreement not only weakens Iran’s position -which explains the Saudis involvement- in the region by eliminating the contiguous land route between Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon. It also allows Saad Hariri to turn his back on his major political opponents, Hezbollah, as he is now supported by Syria.
Indeed many have questioned why Hariri would ever ally with the group many suspected of being involved with murdering his father. It seems that until now Hariri had no choice, it was either accept that Hezbollah was backed by both Syria and Iran, and thus unassailable, or launch a failed civil war. Until now he collaborated with Hezbollah, no longer (?).
If Syria has in fact shifted its support from Hezbollah to Lebanon it would have to assuage its erstwhile ally Iran for two reasons. One, Iran is a major supplier of weapons to Syria, and supports it against Israel. Two, its relationship with Iran is a bargaining chip to be used with the West. So even though it agreed to shift its support in return some tantalizing incentives including by not limited to the following three incentives.
-One it regains the political hold in Lebanon that it lost in 2005, and the vacuum of which was filled by Iran with a revamped and expanded Shia Hezbollah. Two, the 2005 Hariri assassination is blamed on Hezbollah, not on the obvious suspect Syria. Three, Saudi Arabia and America, which is probably pulling the strings, offers Syria serious concessions, tying Palestinian/Israeli peace with the Golan etc.-
Still.
Syria is hedging its bets and authorized an attack on Israel which shows Iran that their relationship with Syria is still valuable. Because even though they have shifted their support from Hezbollah to the Sunni PM Hariri, Syria is still willing to use its newly reestablished clout to menace Israel’s northern border.
Syria which recently salvaged its relationship with Turkey has somehow leveraged its relatively small position in the middle east to its absolute benefit. As far as Syria’s actions jeopardizing Lebanon by using it as a tool against Israel. Well it won’t be the first time.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
My Chabad Friends: Provide the Thirsty Reader with Some Clean Water.
I often wonder how those close to great historical figures react when reading the inevitable plethora of biographies authored by unqualified experts? When the first biographer of Mohandas Gandhi, authored their work did those close to Gandhi wince? Did they smile and whisper to themselves “they will never understand” or did they author frustrated rebuttals of the misguided agenda-driven biographers? Perhaps they wrote reviews claiming that the authors lacked a basic understanding of the subjects scholarship? Whatever the reaction the memory of almost every historical figure exists in a perpetual state of controversy. Washington the great defender of American freedom and a slave owner. JFK enactor of civil rights, and the married lover of many women. The Lubavitcher Rebbe, the missionaries missionary, the scholars scholar, the rabbis rabbi, a student of Kantian philosophy, engineering, and awarded, posthumously, the Congressional Gold Medal. The Messiah?
As one would expect the only comprehensive biographies of the Rebbe are extremely controversial.
Of course there are many innocuous books, but they are usually written by devotees who are enveloped in their masters majesty. Like clockwork they remind the reader of the Rebbe’s prodigious memory, his miracle working, and his humanity (there is a myriad of such biographies). These books invariably begin with the hackneyed upbringing of the Rebbe, the fact that he was a prodigy etc. and then skip to the Rebbe’s meeting and eventual marriage with the Previous Rebbe’s, (his predecessor) daughter. After that expect another quantum leap to the Rebbe’s arrival in America in 1941, interspersed with some stories of the Rebbe’s lifestyle in Berlin and France. Don’t get me wrong this is all good and accurate. Still it leaves the curious reader hungry for more. What shaped the Rebbe? How did he attain his extraordinary proficiency in every stream of secular knowledge? What did the Rebbe specifically study in Berlin, and Paris, why? What was the Rebbe’s relationship at that time with his wife, family, and larger Jewish community? Did the Rebbe have a correspondence with his professors? For whatever reason, perhaps because I was so awed by the Rebbe I knew and still know, I never verbalized these questions.
But then.
I remember a friend at Brooklyn college pulling out a plain blue hard cover book -I was ecstatic. Finally a scholarly work that explored the Rebbe before he accepted the mantel of Rebbe in 1951. Unfortunately it was written by a known malcontent. This disaffected former student of ChaBaD, subtly educated me, the reader, about the ostensibly less spiritual origins of the Rebbe (Larger than Life [out of print], Deutsch 1995 part, II 1997).
Then two professors (scholars?) Samuel Heilman (CUNY) and Menachem Freidman of (Bar Ilan, Israel) teamed up and authored a “human biography”: The Rebbe: The Life and Afterlife of Menachem Mendel Shneerson (Princeton University Press, 2010). When I heard about it I was as excited as when I discovered Deutsch’s book. But instead of immediately reading it I decided to first pre-color my judgment of the book by discussing it with “a close acquaintance of the Rebbe”, who I in turn have the privilege of being very close too. I do not think it's fair to share his name, but suffice it to say he offered a different perspective, the insider perspective. Not to digress, he also shared with me that he knew Deutsch. Let’s just say that if I previously read Deutsch with a grain of salt now I read him with a myriad of spices.
But I admit that was, for me, a juicy digression.
Either way their conclusion, my acquaintance argued, is deeply flawed because the biography is rife with erroneous translations of the Rebbe’s writing, of which there is over 300,000 pages. The authors, in turn could not have a clear unobstructed conception of the Rebbe’s philosophical and theological thinking, and they did not consult with individuals that did. Their thesis not only guided the thrust of their writing (which is normal, every writer has an agenda) but also caused them to disregard almost every piece of evidence that contradicted their hypothesis. Their thesis itself -that the Rebbe failed in his secular pursuits and only then decided that he would stand at the helm of ChaBaD as it initiated and implemented the biggest revival in Judaism since Ezra and Nehemiah- was deeply flawed if only because it ignores or misconstrues the Rebbes personality, writings, and fails at connecting the dots vis-a-vis ChaBaD’s extraordinary success.
Now my point:
However justified the insider criticism is simply not loud enough to discredit the book nor does it suppress the widespread desire to understand the Rebbe. In my opinion, every historical figure has been subjected to apocryphal analysis and agenda driven biographical studies. In those cases as in this case, the insiders and scholars authored criticisms in the relevant media, and most readers disregarded or were unaware of those criticisms. Most readers can’t be blamed for accepting what they read nor will the insider criticism of a given biography quench the thirst for information, on the contrary controversy stimulates interest.
My suggestion is another biography be authored by an insider who is able to explore and discuss the totality of the Rebbe’s life even those parts that may be construed as secular or even negative (I understand the eminent Rabbinic scholar, Adin Steinsaltz, began but never finished) . It is never an easy task for a devotee to author, or assist in authoring, anything that may challenge the well crafted image of the object of their devotion. Still it is better than armchair criticism. Indeed if the insider really cares about the image of the Rebbe than it is imperative that they provide the thirsty reader with some clean water.
As one would expect the only comprehensive biographies of the Rebbe are extremely controversial.
Of course there are many innocuous books, but they are usually written by devotees who are enveloped in their masters majesty. Like clockwork they remind the reader of the Rebbe’s prodigious memory, his miracle working, and his humanity (there is a myriad of such biographies). These books invariably begin with the hackneyed upbringing of the Rebbe, the fact that he was a prodigy etc. and then skip to the Rebbe’s meeting and eventual marriage with the Previous Rebbe’s, (his predecessor) daughter. After that expect another quantum leap to the Rebbe’s arrival in America in 1941, interspersed with some stories of the Rebbe’s lifestyle in Berlin and France. Don’t get me wrong this is all good and accurate. Still it leaves the curious reader hungry for more. What shaped the Rebbe? How did he attain his extraordinary proficiency in every stream of secular knowledge? What did the Rebbe specifically study in Berlin, and Paris, why? What was the Rebbe’s relationship at that time with his wife, family, and larger Jewish community? Did the Rebbe have a correspondence with his professors? For whatever reason, perhaps because I was so awed by the Rebbe I knew and still know, I never verbalized these questions.
But then.
I remember a friend at Brooklyn college pulling out a plain blue hard cover book -I was ecstatic. Finally a scholarly work that explored the Rebbe before he accepted the mantel of Rebbe in 1951. Unfortunately it was written by a known malcontent. This disaffected former student of ChaBaD, subtly educated me, the reader, about the ostensibly less spiritual origins of the Rebbe (Larger than Life [out of print], Deutsch 1995 part, II 1997).
Then two professors (scholars?) Samuel Heilman (CUNY) and Menachem Freidman of (Bar Ilan, Israel) teamed up and authored a “human biography”: The Rebbe: The Life and Afterlife of Menachem Mendel Shneerson (Princeton University Press, 2010). When I heard about it I was as excited as when I discovered Deutsch’s book. But instead of immediately reading it I decided to first pre-color my judgment of the book by discussing it with “a close acquaintance of the Rebbe”, who I in turn have the privilege of being very close too. I do not think it's fair to share his name, but suffice it to say he offered a different perspective, the insider perspective. Not to digress, he also shared with me that he knew Deutsch. Let’s just say that if I previously read Deutsch with a grain of salt now I read him with a myriad of spices.
But I admit that was, for me, a juicy digression.
Either way their conclusion, my acquaintance argued, is deeply flawed because the biography is rife with erroneous translations of the Rebbe’s writing, of which there is over 300,000 pages. The authors, in turn could not have a clear unobstructed conception of the Rebbe’s philosophical and theological thinking, and they did not consult with individuals that did. Their thesis not only guided the thrust of their writing (which is normal, every writer has an agenda) but also caused them to disregard almost every piece of evidence that contradicted their hypothesis. Their thesis itself -that the Rebbe failed in his secular pursuits and only then decided that he would stand at the helm of ChaBaD as it initiated and implemented the biggest revival in Judaism since Ezra and Nehemiah- was deeply flawed if only because it ignores or misconstrues the Rebbes personality, writings, and fails at connecting the dots vis-a-vis ChaBaD’s extraordinary success.
Now my point:
However justified the insider criticism is simply not loud enough to discredit the book nor does it suppress the widespread desire to understand the Rebbe. In my opinion, every historical figure has been subjected to apocryphal analysis and agenda driven biographical studies. In those cases as in this case, the insiders and scholars authored criticisms in the relevant media, and most readers disregarded or were unaware of those criticisms. Most readers can’t be blamed for accepting what they read nor will the insider criticism of a given biography quench the thirst for information, on the contrary controversy stimulates interest.
My suggestion is another biography be authored by an insider who is able to explore and discuss the totality of the Rebbe’s life even those parts that may be construed as secular or even negative (I understand the eminent Rabbinic scholar, Adin Steinsaltz, began but never finished) . It is never an easy task for a devotee to author, or assist in authoring, anything that may challenge the well crafted image of the object of their devotion. Still it is better than armchair criticism. Indeed if the insider really cares about the image of the Rebbe than it is imperative that they provide the thirsty reader with some clean water.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Why Every War in The Middle East Weakens the Palestinians
Despite Netanyahu’s unprecedented freeze of all construction in the disputed territories PA/PLO/Fatah leader Abbas refuses to have direct negotiations with Israel demanding that Israel first concede most of what is supposed to be negotiated. Meanwhile Hezbollah/Lebanon attacks an Israeli patrol, which was cutting down a tree, after informing the UN peace-keepers as per the UNSC resolution 1701 agreement. Perhaps trying to deflect attention from the indictment of senior Hezbollah operatives for the 2005 assassination of Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri.
Both of these developments could have happened ten years ago and we wouldn’t have known the difference. At the same time they reveal yet another fallacy in pro-Palestinian thinking.
You see the average Jew on the streets of Paris, London, Madrid, Quebec, Burn, Berlin , Amsterdam etc. knows exactly what to expect during any conflict in the middle east, anti-Semitism, boycotts, media libel, and flag-burning/destructive protests etc. Eventually many Jews decide that they are no longer welcome in these countries, especially the ones which are rapidly filling with Muslim immigrants. Because it is usually those Muslim immigrants who target anything Jewish, and it is the host governments which are faced with the difficult option of integrating Muslims but often find it easier to allow them an avenue to hate, the Jews are a convenient target.
So the hardworking Jew, probably a doctor, scientist, or financial analyst returns home one day perhaps with drying blood/spittle on their shirt, a light injury contributed by the dregs of their society a disaffected Muslim, left wing, or right wins thug. They sit down with their family take of their hat covering/hiding their kippa, and describe how they were jumped on a train full of people by a group of bums shouting “death to Israel” or too “bad Hitler didn’t finish the job” -they tried to defend themselves but there were too many cowards…
Why not move to Israel, there our family will be protected, after all it is one of the most successful countries in the world were Jews are allowed to protect themselves and if there is discrimination is doesn’t target Jews. They move to Israel and help contribute to the latest scientific breakthrough perhaps another Nobel prize!
The above is exactly what is going on all over the Jewish-world Israel is seeing the largest influx of Jews from North America, France and the UK since the 90’s. Never mind the steady flow of Jews from Africa, and Asia. The fact of the matter is that every war in the Middle East increases immigration to Israel, and Israel becomes stronger. The byproduct of this inevitability is that Palestinians and those who encourage their self immolation -most of the power hungry Muslim middle-east, become weaker.
It is ironic considering that that many Palestinians/left-wingers/demographers and one state advocates, believe openly or otherwise that it is just a matter of time before Israel’s Jewish majority devolves into a minority. The argument in their mind is that we can outwait the Jews and in the intern make their lives miserable (as if this somehow encourages ambivalent Jews to accept the notion that if there was no state of Israel they would have equal rights in Palestine!).
Yet what happens if Frances 500,000 plus Jewish community or even a fraction of the Americas 7 million plus Jewish population feels like they need to move to Israel? Let us further postulate that many of these Jews find that the West Bank is really cheap… But further aggressions by Hezbollah and HAMAS, stirred by their masters in Iran is exactly what actualizes the above scenario. And runs contrary to the line of reasoning that supports Abbas’s refusal to negotiate, as war strengthens Israel.
Some with noxious conspirator tendencies (those who are adept at taking a kernel of truth and using it to prove a lie please see post for discussion on this tendency: http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/07/oliver-even-if-jews-do-control-americas.html) conclude that this proves that anti-Semitism is fomented by Israel, or by the ADL. Unlikely, but either way the longer the Palestinians wait to get their act together and give up on their dream of greater Palestine, the more war and thus the smaller their chances of having a land of their own. This is besides the fact that in every war with Israel the arab/muslims always sustain more casualties.
For those who are really pro-Palestinians (not anti-Israel), you would do well to encourage less war and more conversation.
Both of these developments could have happened ten years ago and we wouldn’t have known the difference. At the same time they reveal yet another fallacy in pro-Palestinian thinking.
You see the average Jew on the streets of Paris, London, Madrid, Quebec, Burn, Berlin , Amsterdam etc. knows exactly what to expect during any conflict in the middle east, anti-Semitism, boycotts, media libel, and flag-burning/destructive protests etc. Eventually many Jews decide that they are no longer welcome in these countries, especially the ones which are rapidly filling with Muslim immigrants. Because it is usually those Muslim immigrants who target anything Jewish, and it is the host governments which are faced with the difficult option of integrating Muslims but often find it easier to allow them an avenue to hate, the Jews are a convenient target.
So the hardworking Jew, probably a doctor, scientist, or financial analyst returns home one day perhaps with drying blood/spittle on their shirt, a light injury contributed by the dregs of their society a disaffected Muslim, left wing, or right wins thug. They sit down with their family take of their hat covering/hiding their kippa, and describe how they were jumped on a train full of people by a group of bums shouting “death to Israel” or too “bad Hitler didn’t finish the job” -they tried to defend themselves but there were too many cowards…
Why not move to Israel, there our family will be protected, after all it is one of the most successful countries in the world were Jews are allowed to protect themselves and if there is discrimination is doesn’t target Jews. They move to Israel and help contribute to the latest scientific breakthrough perhaps another Nobel prize!
The above is exactly what is going on all over the Jewish-world Israel is seeing the largest influx of Jews from North America, France and the UK since the 90’s. Never mind the steady flow of Jews from Africa, and Asia. The fact of the matter is that every war in the Middle East increases immigration to Israel, and Israel becomes stronger. The byproduct of this inevitability is that Palestinians and those who encourage their self immolation -most of the power hungry Muslim middle-east, become weaker.
It is ironic considering that that many Palestinians/left-wingers/demographers and one state advocates, believe openly or otherwise that it is just a matter of time before Israel’s Jewish majority devolves into a minority. The argument in their mind is that we can outwait the Jews and in the intern make their lives miserable (as if this somehow encourages ambivalent Jews to accept the notion that if there was no state of Israel they would have equal rights in Palestine!).
Yet what happens if Frances 500,000 plus Jewish community or even a fraction of the Americas 7 million plus Jewish population feels like they need to move to Israel? Let us further postulate that many of these Jews find that the West Bank is really cheap… But further aggressions by Hezbollah and HAMAS, stirred by their masters in Iran is exactly what actualizes the above scenario. And runs contrary to the line of reasoning that supports Abbas’s refusal to negotiate, as war strengthens Israel.
Some with noxious conspirator tendencies (those who are adept at taking a kernel of truth and using it to prove a lie please see post for discussion on this tendency: http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/07/oliver-even-if-jews-do-control-americas.html) conclude that this proves that anti-Semitism is fomented by Israel, or by the ADL. Unlikely, but either way the longer the Palestinians wait to get their act together and give up on their dream of greater Palestine, the more war and thus the smaller their chances of having a land of their own. This is besides the fact that in every war with Israel the arab/muslims always sustain more casualties.
For those who are really pro-Palestinians (not anti-Israel), you would do well to encourage less war and more conversation.
The Arizona Immigration Debate: Political Domination is Now the Ends not the Means
I was in CT this weekend and got into a brief conversation with a good friend and president of my synagogue. He was asking why there was no well balanced and informative article dealing with the immigration debate.
Sherrif Joe Arpaio the quintessential Western lawman and leading advocate of Arizona's bill to suppress illegal immigration (II), like many honest hardworking and not racist citizens argue that illegal immigration is overtaxing our states resources. Healthcare, which II’s get free when they show up in emergency rooms. Education costs for II children, law enforcement and incarceration costs, as 17% of II’s are second time offenders (all II have already broken the law, when they entered illegally), and the fact that we don’t know who is coming into the country, terrorists etc. Let us not forget the most questionable refrain made famous by South Park “they took are jooobs”.
The bill is opposed by a coalition of organizations and people. Businessman like Bloomberg argue that we need these immigrants to do the work Americans wont, i.e. American companies need a source of cheap un-union labor, as evident by the increasing outsourcing of jobs that keep some companies internationally competitive. The ACLU, which opposes the bill because they claim it leads to racial profiling. The Justice Department, under Eric Holder, because its good politics. The Hispanic community is the biggest minority population in the states, and is a major supporter of the Democratic party, specifically because of the party policies like this one.
Everyone agrees that the ideal immigrant is one that gains citizenship, like my great-grandfathers father did, legally. Furthermore most agree that this country thrives on absorbing the full spectrum of humanity, and we benefit from providing the opportunity for every community to elevate and contribute their unique talents. The obvious solution then, and the one most agree with is comprehensive immigration reform.
Unfortunately they don’t agree about how to deal with the 20 million II’s that are already here. That is the crux of the debate. Arizona has responded with their own measures, deport them like FDR did after WWII to provide returning soldiers with jobs. The pro-illegal immigration community offers different reasons why the illegal’s shouldn’t be deported. We need them, it would require racial profiling, they equal votes for a beleaguered Democratic party. So what the pro-illegal immigrants propose is amnesty with a fine. The anti-illegal immigrants respond that amnesty, like the immigration reform and control act of 1986, will result in further incentive for border infiltration and ultimately the same problem we are dealing with now, a massive undocumented population being accused of causing too many problems.
Frankly I believe that the issue revolves around one legitimate superficial issue, and another more insidious illegitimate issue.
The superficial legitimate issue is that many businesses (especially agriculture) require cheap labor to survive/remain profitable in lieu of closing or moving their business overseas. At the same time the 1986 immigration law also referenced this legitimate need, thus seasonal workers who had worked for a number of seasons were given a path to citizenship and the bill also allowed subcontracting which basically allowed employers to hire illegal’s without responsibility for their illegal status. Either way these loopholes did not achieve its intent of a narrow exception, rather it contributed to the overall disregard of immigration reform and ultimately contributed to the situation we are in now.
From this perspective it makes sense that states should do what they can until the federal government gets its act together. Especially states like Arizona ,which is absorbing more than its share of illegal immigration. We live in a Democracy and state governments have an obligation to achieve optimal results for their residents. Arizona’s electorate voted for their bill, it is legal. AG Holder and the ACLU, opposed the bill referencing the 14th amendment which imposes the bill of rights of states (Dual Process clause), and the Equal Protection Clause which requires states to offer equal protection to all people in their jurisdiction. They claim that Arizona, by virtue of the requirement for everyone to carry documents and for officers of the law to ask for them, will violate the equal protection clause because they will racially profile i.e. not all people will be treated equally.
Yet the 14th amendment, as stated in the Citizenship Clause, expressly states that only citizens are protected under the 14th amendment.
It would seem then that Arizona is acting legally and justifiably. So why the tremendous opposition?
This leads us to the insidious illegitimate issue, votes. Yes votes!
The pro-illegal immigrant coalition is basically the Democratic party. They do not really care about whether illegal’s are deported from as Arizona on the contrary, this country will be better off if we have strong borders, and suppressed illegal immigration. Yet this is an opportunity for the Democrats to firmly establish themselves as the party of the Hispanics. Just as they effectively gained and solidified the black vote by being the party of the new deal and JFK’s civil rights bill. By coming down hard on those “racist white Republican Arizona folk” the Democrats, led by Obama and AG Holder can affirm and galvanize the Hispanic vote for the upcoming election and add to the Democratic coalition of next half century. The Republican establishment is aware of the political game and sees this as an opportunity to harness their constituency for the upcoming election, by opposing illegal immigration and supporting Arizona’s efforts.
Meanwhile Arizona, California, and many other states are drowning in a sea of illegal immigrants and the unique financial/social burden that they represent. Then again political domination of America has for some times become more an ends then a means.
Raphael I hope this adds some perspective.
Sherrif Joe Arpaio the quintessential Western lawman and leading advocate of Arizona's bill to suppress illegal immigration (II), like many honest hardworking and not racist citizens argue that illegal immigration is overtaxing our states resources. Healthcare, which II’s get free when they show up in emergency rooms. Education costs for II children, law enforcement and incarceration costs, as 17% of II’s are second time offenders (all II have already broken the law, when they entered illegally), and the fact that we don’t know who is coming into the country, terrorists etc. Let us not forget the most questionable refrain made famous by South Park “they took are jooobs”.
The bill is opposed by a coalition of organizations and people. Businessman like Bloomberg argue that we need these immigrants to do the work Americans wont, i.e. American companies need a source of cheap un-union labor, as evident by the increasing outsourcing of jobs that keep some companies internationally competitive. The ACLU, which opposes the bill because they claim it leads to racial profiling. The Justice Department, under Eric Holder, because its good politics. The Hispanic community is the biggest minority population in the states, and is a major supporter of the Democratic party, specifically because of the party policies like this one.
Everyone agrees that the ideal immigrant is one that gains citizenship, like my great-grandfathers father did, legally. Furthermore most agree that this country thrives on absorbing the full spectrum of humanity, and we benefit from providing the opportunity for every community to elevate and contribute their unique talents. The obvious solution then, and the one most agree with is comprehensive immigration reform.
Unfortunately they don’t agree about how to deal with the 20 million II’s that are already here. That is the crux of the debate. Arizona has responded with their own measures, deport them like FDR did after WWII to provide returning soldiers with jobs. The pro-illegal immigration community offers different reasons why the illegal’s shouldn’t be deported. We need them, it would require racial profiling, they equal votes for a beleaguered Democratic party. So what the pro-illegal immigrants propose is amnesty with a fine. The anti-illegal immigrants respond that amnesty, like the immigration reform and control act of 1986, will result in further incentive for border infiltration and ultimately the same problem we are dealing with now, a massive undocumented population being accused of causing too many problems.
Frankly I believe that the issue revolves around one legitimate superficial issue, and another more insidious illegitimate issue.
The superficial legitimate issue is that many businesses (especially agriculture) require cheap labor to survive/remain profitable in lieu of closing or moving their business overseas. At the same time the 1986 immigration law also referenced this legitimate need, thus seasonal workers who had worked for a number of seasons were given a path to citizenship and the bill also allowed subcontracting which basically allowed employers to hire illegal’s without responsibility for their illegal status. Either way these loopholes did not achieve its intent of a narrow exception, rather it contributed to the overall disregard of immigration reform and ultimately contributed to the situation we are in now.
From this perspective it makes sense that states should do what they can until the federal government gets its act together. Especially states like Arizona ,which is absorbing more than its share of illegal immigration. We live in a Democracy and state governments have an obligation to achieve optimal results for their residents. Arizona’s electorate voted for their bill, it is legal. AG Holder and the ACLU, opposed the bill referencing the 14th amendment which imposes the bill of rights of states (Dual Process clause), and the Equal Protection Clause which requires states to offer equal protection to all people in their jurisdiction. They claim that Arizona, by virtue of the requirement for everyone to carry documents and for officers of the law to ask for them, will violate the equal protection clause because they will racially profile i.e. not all people will be treated equally.
Yet the 14th amendment, as stated in the Citizenship Clause, expressly states that only citizens are protected under the 14th amendment.
It would seem then that Arizona is acting legally and justifiably. So why the tremendous opposition?
This leads us to the insidious illegitimate issue, votes. Yes votes!
The pro-illegal immigrant coalition is basically the Democratic party. They do not really care about whether illegal’s are deported from as Arizona on the contrary, this country will be better off if we have strong borders, and suppressed illegal immigration. Yet this is an opportunity for the Democrats to firmly establish themselves as the party of the Hispanics. Just as they effectively gained and solidified the black vote by being the party of the new deal and JFK’s civil rights bill. By coming down hard on those “racist white Republican Arizona folk” the Democrats, led by Obama and AG Holder can affirm and galvanize the Hispanic vote for the upcoming election and add to the Democratic coalition of next half century. The Republican establishment is aware of the political game and sees this as an opportunity to harness their constituency for the upcoming election, by opposing illegal immigration and supporting Arizona’s efforts.
Meanwhile Arizona, California, and many other states are drowning in a sea of illegal immigrants and the unique financial/social burden that they represent. Then again political domination of America has for some times become more an ends then a means.
Raphael I hope this adds some perspective.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Is “Human Surfing” Another Effect of the Internet Age?
A friend and I were discussing the relationship between social-milieu and dating. He mentioned that his friend had been in the singles capital of NYC Friday evening. As is “customary” there, following the evening service everyone exits the ordered chapel into a mass of mingling singles. My friends friend wished a women good evening and as she shook his hand her eyes instinctively shifted to another man. This man in turn was shaking another’s hand and staring at a third person.
My psychology inclined friend explained that these individuals had taken their individuality so far that now they resemble a collective of the highly superficial and selfish. Which explains the tremendous success they have at the office were individualism is prized, and the dearth of more than one-night-stand-couples.
I agree that the pervasive state of singleness that exists there is underpinned by an extreme of individualism –selfishness. Yet this does not explain their inability to focus on one person for any appreciable amount of time. Thus beyond the uniformly negative opinion outsiders have of this little island of loneliness, and the close minded bubble that many of the insiders live in, the whole episode rings a familiar tune.
It seems that the above vignette, reflects an unexplored tributary of a much discussed phenomena. Surly we have all heard the doomsayers and observers postulating the ramifications of the age of internet surfing: short attention spans the rewiring of individuals and societies brain paths etc. Is it possible that my friends friend encountered the first waves of “human surfing”? People who exist in an individual bubble may see the other as just another page to be surfed and then forgotten, if the platform is bursting with pages – as the singles capital bursts with singles –then there is so much to be surfed and so little time…
Of course very few people living in this “area” would assert that a person should be treated like an interesting-but-common internet page. Except, if their individualism doesn’t allow them to recognize their actions. If everyone is selfish then selfish becomes the norm, just as if everyone is single then single becomes the norm. Like the internet surfing era, if everyone is rewired to think in a certain way then there is no one to ask “why are you surfing for relationships, (jdate/e-harmony is one thing), but in person?”
So I ask, is “human surfing” another effect of the internet age?
My psychology inclined friend explained that these individuals had taken their individuality so far that now they resemble a collective of the highly superficial and selfish. Which explains the tremendous success they have at the office were individualism is prized, and the dearth of more than one-night-stand-couples.
I agree that the pervasive state of singleness that exists there is underpinned by an extreme of individualism –selfishness. Yet this does not explain their inability to focus on one person for any appreciable amount of time. Thus beyond the uniformly negative opinion outsiders have of this little island of loneliness, and the close minded bubble that many of the insiders live in, the whole episode rings a familiar tune.
It seems that the above vignette, reflects an unexplored tributary of a much discussed phenomena. Surly we have all heard the doomsayers and observers postulating the ramifications of the age of internet surfing: short attention spans the rewiring of individuals and societies brain paths etc. Is it possible that my friends friend encountered the first waves of “human surfing”? People who exist in an individual bubble may see the other as just another page to be surfed and then forgotten, if the platform is bursting with pages – as the singles capital bursts with singles –then there is so much to be surfed and so little time…
Of course very few people living in this “area” would assert that a person should be treated like an interesting-but-common internet page. Except, if their individualism doesn’t allow them to recognize their actions. If everyone is selfish then selfish becomes the norm, just as if everyone is single then single becomes the norm. Like the internet surfing era, if everyone is rewired to think in a certain way then there is no one to ask “why are you surfing for relationships, (jdate/e-harmony is one thing), but in person?”
So I ask, is “human surfing” another effect of the internet age?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
