Monday, February 21, 2011

Columbia University is a Voice for Disoriented Ethics and Irrational Activism

This New York Post article
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/hero_unwelcome_Zi3u1fwtRpo87vXAiAQfSN

leads me to ask:

Is it any surprise that a University that embraces “apartheid week” and hosts the likes of Ahmadinejad would also be a place where wounded veterans are jeered for sharing their opinion? Why should a man who served his country be called a racist for voicing his opinion at a forum expressly established to discuss whether the army should be allowed to recruit on Columbia’s campus? Did the veteran make the choice to accept faulty intelligence from a disaffected Iraqi –is it his fault we went to war? Does he spend his every waking hour recruiting, mostly, ignorant students to malign, libel, and demonize Israel and the American-right? Is he on record calling for the genocide of an entire nation?!

Following America’s shameful treatment of Vietnam War veterans (who also fought in a war that was imposed on them) our society was supposed to have repented. America’s abysmal treatment of its veterans prompted our government to pass an array of popular legislation aimed at ensuring that our soldiers and veterans would receive the respect and dignified assistance they deserved. Why than do ostensibly educated students –the cream of the crop- find it tolerable, if not commendable, to label our hero’s “racist”. Why do like-minded students, like the ones in this story, find it acceptable to prevent Ann Coulter, Michael Oran, and veterans from sharing their opinions, but are the first to support the proliferation of Ahmadinejad’s’ genocidal rants. Is this liberalism? How did the liberal cause become one half of the unholy alliance between "absolute freedom" Liberals and sharia-imposing Muslim extremists?

Columbia University may be an Ivy League school and an institution that I considered applying to, but it is also a collective voice for disoriented ethics and irrational activism.

Saturday, February 19, 2011

Intermarriage, Divorce, and the "Great Jewish-American Wealth Transfer"

The deluge of divorce and intermarriage sweeping across the Jewish-American landscape has and will continue to impact the Jewish-American community in unforeseen ways.

No, I am not referring solely to the loss of half of our children to marriages where Jewish values, culture, and history are not passed on. Nor do I refer merely to the drop in numbers of Jewish children born due to the accelerating epidemic of single life propagated by the likes of Huffingtonpost.com. Instead I am referring to the transfer of wealth from the hands of hard working and entrepreneurial Americans who identify themselves as Jews, to the hands of others who do not.

The real consequences of this trend are already being felt. In a recent survey of the most philanthropic in America, Jews, unsurprisingly, held five of the top six spots, and there were 19 Jews amongst the top 53
(http://www.jewishjournal.org/story/news_features/survey_finds_jews_are_top_givers_in_the_u.s/). Yet most of their charity was directed at non-Jewish causes. This is, in itself, not a bad thing. After all, Jews have always contributed to larger society and such contributions are considered central to Torah-true living. On the other hand, the upkeep of Jewish institutions is a prerequisite to maintaining Jewish tradition and heritage. Day schools, hospitals, museums, houses of prayer, political action , kosher food, mikvahs (ritual baths), soup kitchens, medical assistance etc. are all expensive enterprises that have historically been considered the collective responsibility of every Jew, each according to their means (Jews are required to give 10 percent of their earning to charity, on top of taxes).

There is a long standing Jewish tradition of philanthropy. The 19th and early 20th century Rothschilds have been replaced by the 21st century Lev Levaivs. The biblical tabernacle built in the dessert, the two temples of Jerusalem, and almost every single past and present Jewish institution was funded by Jews who stepped up to the plate and continued the historic use of Jewish wealth to benefit the global Jewish community.

Until now.

For the first time since the era of Ezra and Nechemya (the end of Babylonian/Persian exile) assimilation and divorce has become the norm in the Jewish diaspora. This new norm has in-turn impacted the entire Jewish community in unforeseen ways.

Jews are disproportionally wealthy and, in most cases, happily shoulder the burden of corollary taxation. However, public schools, fast food, and churches do not assist the Jewish community in passing on 3000 year old traditions. Many Jews pay for public schools but send their children to private schools; Jews don’t eat cheap fast food, but pay close to double for (often equally unhealthy) kosher food. Jews close their businesses on the busiest consumer day of the week. Despite all the above challenges the Jewish community has committed itself -for over 2000 years with little complaint and out of love and devotion- to propagating Jewish tradition.

Every intermarriage that ends in divorce or results in offspring who eschew Jewish tradition engenders an unquantifiable, and often undesired, transfer of wealth from Jewish hands. The ramifications are felt across the nation and globe, and have been further compounded by the general economic malaise. Many Jews turned their back on their secular coreligionists, but that was wrong both from a humanitarian perspective and from a Jewish-legal viewpoint (Rabbi Hillel said “love your neighbor like yourself, this is the great law of the Torah”), and now the tangible economic implications are clear. Jews continue to be leading philanthropists, but many Jews are unable to educate and pass on their traditions. Many Jews eat only Kosher, so they don’t buy meat which they can’t afford. Many houses of prayer and study-halls (Beit Knesset, Beit medrash) want to provide a relaxing and comfortable milieu for prayer and study but they close their doors do to the lack of funds.

Where is all that famous Jewish wealth? Just look at the wonderful New York Philharmonic and billion dollar endowments of Harvard and Yale.

Yes this is a free and integrated country, yes all have a fundamental right to choose their own destiny, and yes Jews are not required by secular law to provide for their brothers and sisters. But the Jewish community should at least be made aware of the implications of the continued failure to educate and pass on our millennia old tradition to the next generation. Our failure translates into the continued transfer of Jewish wealth into the hands of others -from Jewish synagogues and schools to libraries and universities. This is not just about losing a generation of "other" Jewish children, this is about our own children!

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

From Hurriyet.com: "Turks rise up against dictators! Well, some dictators…"

Great article out of Turkey

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=turks-rise-up-against-dictators-well-some-dictators8230-2011-02-01

It’s wonderful news! Islamist Turks have finally discovered the vices of the autocratic/kleptocratic regimes of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. But why do they hate Mr. Ben Ali, whose name they had not heard of until a fortnight ago, or Mr. Mubarak, whose undemocratic credentials are well older than a week?

In the Maghreb case, the Islamist Turks have just learned that the distant country with “a flag similar to our” was not run by just a dictator, but by a secular dictator. They also learned that that shameless dictator had sent into exile a man whose name they cannot remember – but anyway – that good Muslim now talks about taking the Justice and Development Party, or AKP, as a role model for democracy. Mr. Ben Ali could not have been allowed to oppress the Tunisians. In the future, Rashed Ghannoushi can because he will be “our” dictator.

And in the case of “Pharaoh” as the Turkish protestors refer to Mr. Mubarak, Islamist Turks are angry not because he has undemocratically ruled Egypt for 30 years, but because the largest Muslim nation in the region has been at peace with Israel, not at war.

It was not a coincidence that at the weekend’s anti-Mubarak demonstrations in Istanbul and Ankara, protestors carried Mr. Mubarak picture with the Star of David superimposed over it. The usual gathering of “Islamic” NGOs (this time joined by a leftist one, too) protested him for “not having flown Egyptian fighter jets to defend Gaza.” Ahmet Faruk Ünsal, secretary-general of Mazlum-Der, an “Islamic” human rights organization (how bizarre of a mission, “Islamic” human rights…) voiced a rich menu of pleasantries about Egypt’s possibly departing leader because “he guarded Israel by shutting the gates of Gaza.”

But some of the protest language was encouraging. Demonstrators in front of the Egyptian Consulate in Istanbul shouted that “they were standing for resistance against dictatorship.”

Abdurrahman Dilipak, a prominent Islamic intellectual and writer, generously talked about “our Muslim brothers who live under oppression…” The rare non-Israeli-related language at the protests gave us hope for democracy – the one that does not come with a faith-based adjective.

Now we can cultivate further hope that the Turkish Islamists may in the future rise up against all oppressive regimes – the regimes that oppress their fellow Muslims to begin with.

How about starting with our next-door neighbors, Syria and Iran? For sure, Turkish democrats should be protesting Bashar al-Assad’s regime, which he inherited by blood rather than winning at the ballot box. How about showing some solidarity when President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad’s guards systematically kill dissidents including, most recently, Zahra Bahrami, who was arrested after taking part in anti-government protests and was hanged for “drug possession and smuggling.” Beware, Iranian diplomatic missions, next time Mazlum-Der and Mr. Dilipak may show up in front of your buildings to protest your government’s anti-democratic behavior!

What about protesting in front of the Embassy of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in Ankara? Do our Saudi brothers not deserve democracy and free elections? Are we not going to “stand for our oppressed brothers”? Are we not going to “stand for resistance against dictatorships”?

The awakening Turkish soul is bad news for Sudan’s President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, too. Sooner or later, Islamist Turks should start protesting Mr. al-Bashir, wanted by an international court for genocide and crimes against humanity. Surely the Turks will stand for their Muslim Sudanese brothers mass-murdered by Mr. al-Bashir’s vigilantes.

In the meantime, the Democratic Turkish Resistance Solidarity Movement should turn its angry looks on the kings, emirs, sheiks and sultans of the Middle East… only to help liberate their fellow Muslims from dictatorships of all possible tags. Bad news for the kings, emirs, sheiks and sultans…

I am not the one to teach the Islamists Islam. All the same, the Tunisia/Egypt protestors should better refresh their knowledge with one verse: “O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be [against] rich or poor: for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts [of your hearts], lest you swerve, and if you distort [justice] or decline to do justice, verily God is well-acquainted with all that you do.” (Quran, 4:135).

Iran and Egypt: Why did Mubarak Fall?

Despite conventional wisdom and realistic expectations, the Egyptian riots have nearly pushed Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian dictator, out of office.

How did a leaderless protest movement successfully challenge one of the longest serving and savviest leaders in the Middle East? Adding to the mystery, how did the support of America, Jordan, and the Gulf states, for Mubarak, become moot?

I am not the first to ask this question, and the explanations abound. One compelling account asserts that America was planning an overthrow of Mubarak in 2011, under Bush in 2008.
True or not, Obama has not shied away from vaguely, but unambiguously (as only an American politician can) supporting the Egyptian street. And for the first time since the abortive Oslo Accords, Americas “meddling” is being applauded (or at least not be condemned) by the average Arab and Muslim. This lack of anti-America hate may be due to the fact for the first time in recent years America is turning away from an autocratic (in this case 30 years of loyalty) leader in favor of the common Arab.

Obama, for his part, supports the Arab/Muslim street because of realpolitik. In other words throwing a long standing ally to the wind simply serves America’s best interest. The Saudis, Israelis, Jordanians, and every other ally of America should take this lesson to heart.

That said, why did Obama not come out in support of the Green revolution in Iran? Instead, according to some intelligence sites like debka.com, Obama sent a private letter of support to Iran’s “elected” leader Ahmadinejad. The question is compounded when you consider that Mubarak was a friend while the Mullahs of Iran were our sworn enemies.

One may respond that the Green movement did not reflect the majority of Iranians - just look at the mass pro-Ahmadinejad protests. A fair point, but one could counter that the only difference between the Mullah’s response to the Green movement and Mubarak’s response to the Egyptian protests was political fortitude and strategy.

Thus the Mullahs of Iran expected protests immediately after the disputed elections, and were ready to respond, they also had no qualms about resorting, almost, immediately to mass violence. The anti-Mubarak elements may have learned a lesson. They surprised Mubarak months after the disputed elections, and also reached out to the Egyptian army so as to prevent them from becoming a tool of repression. Another key difference, as pointed out by Debka.com, was that the Iranians regime had a target- the opposition leaders- whereas the Egyptian protesters were leaderless, at least superficially.

Perhaps the difference is simple. Obama only supports movements that he believes will actually succeed because "to support the projected victor is to gain the allegiance of the winner". Or it may be that Obama was a freshman president with little experience when the Green movement emerged, whereas now he is a seasoned politician.

Regardless of Obama's inconsistencies (or consistencies). The real question is will this movement coalesce into an effective Democratic movement that is friendly to America and peace, or whether the ominous silence of Iran heralds a Middle-East that sees a certain genre of Islam, not stability, as the primary objective. The answer to the above question will likely explain why the Egypt movement succeeded while the Green movement failed?