A Convenient Excuse: What Role do the Israeli "Settlements" Play in the Middle-East? Part ll

The Israeli Perspective:

Israel’s use of settlements has a lot more nuance reflecting the diversity of Israel’s free political landscape.

The Left blames the settlements for all the woes of Israel “if only those settlers would disappear, Israel could finally achieve its potential”.

On a psychological level, the Left feels guilty (justly or otherwise) for supplanting so many Palestinians. However Israel is their home, and ensures Jewish survival, so they shift their guilt on to the settlements. On the rational (or irrational) level the Left protects its own homes, in Tel Aviv, by arguing that the only reason why there is violence against Israel-proper is because of the occupation, i.e. settlements. They conveniently ignore the stated beliefs –described above- of both religious and secular Muslims and Arabs. Ironically this is the real reason for the collapse of the Left in Israel; the illusion that there will be peace once occupation has ended has been completely dispelled by the Gaza fiasco. It seems obvious but it is a fact that has been conveniently ignored by the left-leaning media in Israel.

The secular right sees the settlements as a useful bargaining tool.

If the Arabs don’t fall in line and accept Israel’s right to exist, the right claims: "we (Israel) will maintain the settlements, and the anger that they engender in Arab countries!" The recent ascendancy of the Israel Beitanu party and its leader, Russian-born, Avigdor Lieberman is a reflection not only of a political coming-of-age of former Soviet Union immigrants but also a consequence of the left's now discredited belief that “settlements are the problem”. For the secular-right the settlements have always been a convenient bargaining tool. Think Menachem Begin (Yamit-Sinai) and Ariel Sharon (Gush Katif- Gaza).

For the religious-Right the settlements are the tangible manifestation of their core beliefs that Israel belongs to the Jews not because of the 1917 Balfour declaration, or the 1947 UN partition plan- but because it says so in the Bible. The settlements are the ideological breeding ground for the religious-Right. As the settlements grow and prosper, the religious-Right grows and prospers.

The settlement enterprise serves many interests. It is a convenient tool for the Arab, Muslim, and anti-Israel world to focus their “justified hate”, and it is a convenient football for Israeli politicians to kick around.

Meanwhile there are over 500,000 thousand “settlers” in the West-Bank and East-Jerusalem. To remove them from their homes would be no less traumatic and wrong then the expulsion and self-imposed exodus of the 600,000 Arabs from Israeli lands after the Arab world refused to recognize the 1947 partition plan.

A Convenient Excuse: What Role do the Israeli "Settlements" Play in the Middle-East? Part l

The anti-Israel crowd is obsessed with illegal settlements in Israel. So I decided to share some relevant facts regarding the so-called settlements:

But first an update:

Arab nations have submitted a draft resolution to the UN Security Council condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The resolution is only one part of a larger effort by the PA/Fatah, to garner international support for establishing a de facto Palestinian state. The impetus for this resolution and the call for states like Brazil, to recognize a Palestinian state, is a result of the inability of the Palestinians to force Netanyahu into extending the freeze on settlements. In other words, Abbas and co. recognize that violence will not work, that America will not turn its back on Israel, and that the only other option is the UN.

Yet the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has, since the 1967 war, been in the Palestinians corner. However this has been almost meaningless because the UNGA's support is not-binding. When it comes down to business, which is conducted by the UN Security Council (UNSC), countries like Britain, which freely condemn Israel in the UNGA, refuse to act on those condemnations in the UNSC. Indeed, the US has already blocked a vote on this resolution in the UNSC.

So why are Abbas, the PA, and the Arab states putting so much effort into introducing more inane resolutions, this time opposing settlement expansion? On that note, why are the Palestinians seeking international recognition for their state, when that recognition will be meaningless, unless America and Israel accept it –which they won’t?

There are many potential answers to this question. But the question is significant because it leads the observer, in this case me, to analyze the settlement issue from a multitude of perspectives.

The Muslim and Arab Perspective:

The fact of the matter is that the argument that the so called "settlements" are the barrier to peace is a convenient excuse. For all the anti-Israel voices, Arabs, Muslims, and the Europeans who can find little else to harp on. Think about it, religious Muslims reject Israel’s right to exist, because the Koran implies that Jews were rejected by G-d for their sins, and have permanently lost their claim to the land of Israel -green-line or otherwise. Secular Muslims and Arabs can never accept the idea of a Jewish state in the Arab heartland. I mean how humiliating is it for the average impoverished and politically suppressed Muslim and Arab to watch how the Jews -the same people who 65 years ago were living with few rights in Muslim lands- thrive and dominate them in war and peace? The same can be asked regarding the many anti-Semites, who just can’t figure out why the Jews and Israel, despite all their efforts, are so successful.

On the other hand very few Muslim and Arab nations are willing to honestly explicate their true beliefs, usually because of overarching economic and political interests. But these states feel threatened by Israel’s inexplicable growth in the face of every type of challenge. They also have to contend with their own perpetually angry populations. So they target the settlements, not just in the West Bank, where they know Israel is willing to compromise, but also in Jerusalem where Israel will not. Thereby the Muslim and Arab states, (and the rest of the anti-Israel crowd) can portray themselves as reasonable state actors on the international stage, while also suppressing the anger of the Muslim street, by their opposition to the Israeli occupation.

So why did the Arabs offer this resolution now? It’s likely that the economic anger and political turmoil that is spreading from Tunisia to Egypt has a lot to do with it.

Regardless the anti-Israel crowd uses Israeli settlements as a convenient excuse to condemn all of Israel and, in many cases, all Jews. America recognizes this and refuses to jump on the bandwagon of hate.

In Part two I will discuss the many Israeli perspectives on settlements.

Lieberman, for G-ds sake don’t be such a Putz!

Don’t jump to any conclusions, hear me out.

Israel’s foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman's rhetoric arouses conflicting emotions. My instinctive response to his abusive rhetoric and behavior, such as his tacit support for the insult towards Turkey’s ambassador to Israel, was YES! FINALLY! AN ISRAELI POLITICIAN WHO SAYS IT LIKE IT IS!

Then I remember how I felt when Turkey's PM Erdogan,stated that no genocide happened in Darfur,Sudan "because Muslims can't commit genocide"! Or when Ahmadinejad of Iran stood in front of the world and denied the Holocaust, while calling for one! Or when Egypt’s tourist minister stated that he could not rule out that the shark attacks on tourists in his country were a Mossad operation! Or when Saudi Arabia incarcerated a Zionist-vulture-spy (yes a bird) because it was caught with a GPS tag on which it was written Tel Aviv University!

Or...

Yes Lieberman's rhetoric is nothing like the above –his statements are usually grounded in the truth and are responsive. But I consider Israel’s track record of saying little and doing a lot as a source of pride. Why should the great nation of Israel succumb to the hate filled and purposeless rhetoric of its neighbors?

Lieberman, be strong, stand for what is right, but for G-ds sake don’t be such a putz!

Subjective Journalism Gone Wild II: Israeli FM Lieberman is Not the New Kahane

“They're right, the villains - Kahane does live. He is the foreign minister today and the cabinet speaks and breathes from his mouth” (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/lieberman-is-the-new-kahane-1.336296)

Haaretz.com, the voice of the Israeli left-wing, got it wrong. Avigdor Lieberman, foreign minister of Israel, is not the “new Kahane”. I know Lieberman, like Kahane, is outspoken, openly calls for Israeli-Arab transfer, and sounds more like Middle-Eastern dictator than he does the foreign representative of a Modern-thinking Democracy. However the political motivations driving Lieberman could not be more different than the complicated ideologies that lay at the heart of Meir Kahane’s religious Zionist movement.

Lieberman is the child of the mass waives of Russian immigrants who poured out of the former Soviet Union. They unlike their Western, Oriental, and Arab Israeli hosts were used to and advocated for un-western-Putin-like politics. Lieberman has captured that public sentiment and has made a career out of responding to rhetoric with rhetoric -like a Russian politician. In his way of thinking, the Arabs living within Israeli borders need to either swear loyalty to Israel or leave. Lieberman would run a war against Hamas like Russia has led its war on Chechen rebels –unapologetic, ambitious, and ruthless.

Conversely Kahane philosophy was

“that Israel's democracy be replaced by a state modeled on Jewish religious law, and promoting the idea of a Greater Israel in which Israel would annex the West Bank and Gaza strip…[to prevent Arabs from] becoming a numerical majority in Israel, he proposed a plan allowing Arabs to voluntarily leave Israel and receive compensation for their property, and forcibly removing Arabs who refused” (Wikipedia).

For Lieberman it was simply a matter of POLITICAL fidelity on the part of the Arabs and they could stay. Not especially extreme, many nations follow this system, especially Russia. For Kahane the land was HOLY and was meant only for Jews and for it to be safe Arabs had to leave. Now THAT is extreme.

Haaretz and the Israeli-Left are so predictable. They don’t like Lieberman’s methods and belief’s, and are doing what they can to stem Lieberman’s meteoric rise to political power. This includes, but is not confined to, comparing him to Meir Kahane. But just because Lieberman is as outspoken as Kahane was does not mean that Lieberman is the new Kahane.

Lieberman is a political opportunist Kahane was an ideological politician.

Haaretz and subjective journalism at its best.

Israel Must Support Mubarak

Egypt and Israel are in serious trouble!

The recent bombing outside a Copt church, was not committed (Debka.com) by foreign Al-Qaida extremists, but by homegrown terrorists intent on toppling Egypt’s secular regime. This bombing follows a rigged election which ensured that Mubarak would win. Domestic sectarian terror is not the only issue challenging Egypt. In the South, Egypt’s control of the Nile (its life blood) is being challenged. Egypt is also weary of the implications of Southern Sudanese independence (Huffingtonpost.com).

Don’t get me wrong, I am no supporter of Egypt. It is led by a corrupt government that has mostly squandered its position of leadership in the Arab world. However, Mubarak’s Egypt is an ally of America and does have a “peace” accord with Israel. If Mubarak’s regime falls, it is likely Egypt will go the way of Pakistan.

The Copt bombing which occurred following the red mosque fiasco could galvanize Egyptian Islamists. Mubarak is being heavily criticized, both domestically and internationally, for election fraud and the Islamists are attempting to create a tipping-point event to ensure that Mubarak is overthrown. Like post-Musharraf Pakistan, Egypt’s subsequent central government will be weak, and the Islamists who always seem to be lurking in the back waiting to jump will overrun Egypt. Who has been supporting the Islamists? According to a plethora of sources, including Mubarak himself, Iran.

If Egypt falls under Islamist control, peace with Israel will be a bitter-sweet memory. Jordan -seeing that Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt have fallen under the influence of Iran- will also submit to the anti-Israel coalition.

This will create a vacuum for a global-power, like China, to establish a foothold in the region. Unlikely, you say. Remember it was the Soviet Union which supplied Syria and Egypt to counter American influence, in the guise of Israel, prior to Camp David. China, like the Soviets, will likely jump at the opportunity to secure its growing energy demand, and will accomplish this by challenging American influence by arming its Iranian allies. Israel, surrounded by enemies on every side as it was prior to the Yom Kippur war, will be weakened, along with the power that rules it, America.

From Israel’s perspective, it would be akin to national suicide to stand by and watch itself be surrounded completely by Iran. An Iran that recently hanged an Israeli spy and has been the primary enabler of both Hamas and Hezbollah. Without peace with Egypt and Jordan, Israel will be back to the position it was before war with the Arabs, and this time around the Arabs will backed by a nuclear Iran.

For America the question is: do we allow a region, which supplies a significant amount of oil to America, to be controlled by a country that calls for a new world order (i.e. for America to be replaced)? Or do we continue pursuing our current policy of challenging Iran, and prop up Mubarak of Egypt? Barring a revolution in energy technology, American policy makers, both left and right wing, need to put ideology aside and not miss what is going on.

For Israel the issue is clear. It must do what it can to support Mubarak against the Islamists, and their Iranian backers.

Separate Housing: With All Due Respect I Must Object to the Rabbis Position

One of the most unappreciated ramifications of European ghetto laws was that instead of leading to assimilation and conversion they perpetuated Orthodox Judaism. Yes that’s right, by prohibiting Jews from mingling with their gentile neighbors the state and church helped ensure strong and homogenous Jewish communities that are the antecedents of present world Jewry. The extraordinary advantages that these ghetto communities engendered were not lost on the Jewish faithful. Today nearly every city with a large Jewish population includes a segment of that Jewish demographic that chooses to reinvent the ghetto atmosphere. Precisely because its enables strong centralization of Jewish authority which is, they claim, a prerequisite for high levels of conformity to orthodox Jewish life.

Ironically, for the first time in the history of the Jewish Diasporas a minority of Israeli Rabbis are embracing a logic similar to that used by their European oppressors. Don’t get me wrong, the European gentiles were not faced with terror or the threat of assimilation -Judaism is not easy, and Jews don’t voluntarily blow children up (please see “Understanding the Goldstone Report: Intentions vs. Results”, if you find this assertion interesting). Conversely, Jews have a history of assimilation and Arabs a history of terror.

Still, Israeli Rabbis should not ignore the historical results of this logic. Remember, when the gentiles coerced separation, the result was a resilient Jewish community, and one that was prevented from contributing (their loss!). On the other hand, here in the states, some Jews have embraced the melting-pot ethos and completely assimilated into larger American society. Others have embraced the more modern notion of multi-culture America and have completely maintained their Jewish identity. Regardless most are overwhelmingly loyal citizens who contribute in every way to American society.

So I must ask: are the Israeli Rabbis implying that Arab-Israelis cannot do the same?

Yes I know that America has friendly relations with Israel, and that contributes to Jewish-American loyalty. But Jews in Iran are loyal to Iran despite Iran’s track-record vis-à-vis Israel. The same can be said regarding Jews in Britain, France, Brazil, and Turkey despite their, often, hostile stance towards Israel. My point is simple; just because Israeli-Arabs have reason to be disloyal does not mean that they are inherently disloyal.

I also know that many Israeli-Arabs are disloyal and often involved in the vilest anti-Israeli activities. But even if most Israeli-Arabs oppose Israeli treatment of Arabs in Gaza and the West-bank -and vocalize their opposition to that end-, they do so within the confines of Israeli law. Americans are renowned for vocalizing their extreme opposition to leaders and many American celebrities visit America's enemies (Michael Moore, Carter, Oliver Stone…all incidentally are often associated with antisemitism), but they are not discriminated against and nor should they be.

Yes, if Israeli-Arabs violate the law they should be prosecuted. Yes, I believe in a certain degree of profiling in Israel and abroad. Yes, Israeli-Arabs have yet to contribute in any meaningful way to the success of their host state. Yes, the Rabbis have every right to express their position. Indeed, the notion that separating Jew from Arab will protect Jews from terror, assimilation, and moral decay, may have some merit. But separate housing will never prevent the above from occurring, just look at the Jewish ghettos that spot New York and Jerusalem. Are they free of Arab terror, or of assimilation, or of moral depravity?!

We know that in a fair society true social cohesion is possible. I believe Israel is such a society. Therefore, with all due respect, I must object to the Rabbis’ position.

Has Russia Finally Chosen Israel and the West?

Russian president Dmitry Medvedev recent confirmation that he will be visiting Israel in January may have serious implications for Israel, the region, and international relations.

First and foremost, it signifies a choice has been made by Russia regarding who it wishes to ally itself with in the middle-east. The origins of this choice hails back to 2005 when, then, Russian president Vladimir Putin became the first Russian head of state to visit Israel. But Putin was also dealing heavily with Israel’s and the Wests opponents. Indeed, since that 2005 visit Russia has built a permanent navy base in Syria and has been the main supplier, after North Korea, of nuclear know-how to Iran.

Through 2007, the Putin led Russia seemed to be leaning towards choosing Iran/Syria. This choice was made easier by Bush’s aggressive push for missile defense in Russia’s historic sphere of Influence -Poland and Ukraine. Russia was also pushed towards Iran/Syria by the revelations that followed the 2007 Georgian-Russian war. Russia discovered that tiny Georgia was fielding superior Israeli weapons (small arms and UAV‘s), and that Israel had trained Georgian commandos. However the Obama’s reset initiative, which included revising missile defense in conjunction with the election of a more modern thinking Medvedev, spurred Russia to reevaluate its Middle Eastern strategy.

The fruits of the last two years have evidently ripened as evidenced by the Russian president’s announcement to visit Israel. According to Debka.com the agenda will include:

1. Acquiring a billion dollars in Israeli UAV technology in exchange for a long term commitment to not sell advanced technology, like the S-300 air-defense system to Iran and Syria.
2. To not instinctively support unconditional Palestinian demands, .
3. To involve itself, along with Greece, in the process of developing and distributing, the three major oil/gas fields recently discovered off the cost of Israel, which some estimate to have over 30 trillion cubic feet of retrievable oil/gas.

From Israel’s perspective this is great news and a long awaited development because:

1. It seriously undermines Israel’s enemies in the region which history has shown is a prerequisite for peace. For example, it was only after Soviet backed Eygpt and Syria were defeated in the Yom Kippur war that Egyptian president Sadat was amenable to replacing Soviet arms with American dollars and peace with Israel. There is reason to believe that an Iran without the backing of Russia (and hopefully soon China) is an Iran that will open its eyes to peace through peace.

2. Russia’s acceptance of Israel reflects a Russia that is willing to deal rationally with reality; Israel is currently the most stable power in the Middle East- not Iran, Turkey, or the Arabs. (I know some of my Turkish friend may disagree, but Israel has a track-record that does not include a coup every 20 years and does include unwavering support for its friends, despite changes in political power, Turkey does not). This is always good for an Israel that is so often the target of irrational behavior.

3. The very fact that Russia, a long term opponent of Israel is reaching out to Israel is a sign of the times. Namely, rational and forward thinking countries want to be Israel’s friend, not because of some Zionist conspiracy but because Israel has so much to offer. China, a relatively pragmatic nation, has long attempted to establish a special relationship with Israel. But Israel, in its commitment to its closest ally America has “politely” rebuffed these efforts. For example in 2002 Israel violated a 2 billion dollar contract to upgrade Chinese military platforms over objections by America. Russia, like China, wants access to Israel.
Yet Russia’s realignment implies more than just an attempt to access Israel’s intellectual treasures.

Some have interpreted it as a strategic attempt at capitalizing on America’s failures in the region.

Indeed, if wikileaks has exposed anything it is that Obama is misguided, however well-intentioned, in his efforts to force an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord. Pressure on Israel inevitably strengthens Israel’s enemies by keeping Israel on the defensive, unable to leverage its formidable offensive apparatus. But these enemies, led by Iran, are perceived by everyone in the region excluding Turkey and Syria, as the most immediate threat to regional stability. Thus Russia, sees an Obama led administration as shooting itself in the foot, and wants to access the growing feeling in the Israeli and Arab political establishment that America is not as trustworthy an ally as it should be. Conversely, Russia is seen as capable of seriously undermining Iran by putting pressure on China, and halting its nuclear support to Iran.

The far-left and, some in, the far-right in the West may refuse to acknowledge this but Israel’s hegemonic military power is the stabilizing force in the middle-east and Israel’s allies benefit immensely from its position, not the cause of conflict. Russia has come to terms with this just as an Obama led America is moving away from this truth.

I don’t necessarily accept that Russia is attempting to replace America; it is also possible that Russia is coming to terms with its international responsibility, namely, to play a positive role in world affairs. From this perspective, Russia is a rational state that seeks to contribute positively in a way that maximizes its own benefit, and is developing stronger ties with other nations that wish the same –like Israel. This has the tacit effect of moving Russia away from failed ideologies that emanate from the rape-filled prisons of Iran and other such negative state-actors that seem to gravitate towards anti-Israel rhetoric/alliances.

Likewise, Russia may align itself with Israel and by proxy America in order to reinvigorate a Democratic world-order that is increasingly coming under the shadow of an emerging undemocratic China. In short, Russia -which has historically vacillated between the West and East-, is making a choice to align itself with the West as it is embodied by Israel.

Who knows, maybe the next batch of wikileaks will shed light on Medvedev’s Russia.

Get Your Hands off Our Collective Junk and Start Profiling!

"Get your hands off my junk, or I will have you arrested!".

This is one version of the refrain that it being spoken, or shouted, across the nation. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has been authorized by a Homeland Security directive to place full body scanners in many of America’s airports. Yes that's rights, now, when you shuffle by JFKs security check, it will not only be the holes in your socks that are "exposed", but also the most private of your private property.

Of course you can opt-out and be subjected to a thorough hands-on grouping.

When confronted with this impossible choice, many just shrug their heads or murmur that is the better of two evils, the other being a terrorist attack. Yet I wonder does this approach really increase our security?

I mean Israel faces a much more consistent threat and has an airline security apparatus that is the envy of the modern world, so why don't they grope and expose? Yes Israel is a tiny country and, with only one major international airport, it faces much less of a logistical problem. But given that HS measures are so intrusive, should we not do everything possible to avoid them, especially considering their obvious logical flaws?

I mean in Israel, (and I apologize for continuing to return to them as the paradigm, but they understand terror) there are checkpoints at the entrance to the airport. This is because terrorists will target any location with high density human populations -malls, trains, restaurants etc. In other words "exposing" Americans does not in the least prevent terror; on the contrary it surrenders to it.

Yes terrorists have a special incentive to specifically bomb plains so as to undermine our economic viability, but Israel has dealt with that without fondling every visitor and citizen.
Put otherwise, the TSA's actions are both unnecessary and don't work.

So why is our increasingly inept government reaching into our pants, this time through the zipper?
Undoubtedly some, you know who you are, will respond that the corporations, and politicians desperate for local job creation, are pushing for the acceptance of these secularized porn flick apparatuses. Ok, but we can just as easily employ private security firms, similar to Blackwater, to help ensure our security.

I know what you’re thinking:

That this suggestion just brings us back to square one, and standard TSA practices are failing.
Yes but that’s not what I mean. You see I think the TSA can do its job and do it as effectively as Israel. All we need to do is profile.

When I brought this up with a Muslim friend he was aghast, and I don't blame him. But the profiling system that Israel uses is a lot more sophisticated and accurate, then just identifying and separating Middle-Eastern/Muslim faces from the crowd. Think the show "Don't Lie to Me", coupled with a comprehensive computer system that integrates million of disparate pieces of information into a near perfect assessment of individual fliers.

For instance, prior to the x-ray baggage check on international flights to Israel, EVERY customer is subjected to a brief but friendly interrogation. The answers are evaluated not only by their content but also by delivery. Obviously this is only one small part in a multi-layered process that is very expensive. But so are those machines and the privacy they violate.

It all boils down to whether our society is so frightened by the term profiling that we are willing to give up exactly that which we are afraid of loosing with government profiling: our autonomy, privacy, and self-respect.

If you ask me get your hands off our collective junk and start profiling!

A Muslim Questions: "Another Verbal Bomb from Rabbi Ovadia Yosef"

Jpost reported
http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?ID=191782&R=R1&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

that Rabbi Ovadia Yoesef, former Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel and spiritual leader of the Shas party, declared that

“Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel,” (context: he said this in his weekly Saturday night sermon on the laws regarding the actions non-Jews are permitted to perform on Shabbat).

and

“In Israel, death has no dominion over them... With gentiles, it will be like any person – they need to die, but [God] will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money.

and

This is his servant... That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew,” Yosef said.

and

“Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat."

My Muslim friend emailed me with the news and asked:

"Did he really say this? If so, this schmuck really isn't helping Israel's cause. I know that there are a lot of websites out there that love to cherry pick verses from the Talmud and Torah in order to show how "bad" the Jews are, same way that propagandists do to Islam, but from your perspective, I have to ask. Is there any kind of scriptural justification or reasoning for what this guy is saying?"

My response:
(note: I edited my response for source citing, and clarification)

Another verbal bomb from Rabbi Yosef.

Yes there are such commentaries on Isaiah ("And the strangers shall stand and feed your flocks" Isaiah 61:5) for example, and more recent Rabbinic leaders like Rabbi Kook, are quoted as making similar statements. But those exegesis and statements can only be understood in context of the commentators understanding of divine purpose, i.e. the Jews were to spread the belief in G-d (not Judaism, but G-d) , and the gentiles were to help them do it. The commentators saw the mission of the gentile like our society sees support for higher education. Indeed, the supporters are often seen as MORE important than the average academic (an example but there is much more nuance). The commentators intended a meaningful exposition of divine wisdom. From this article it seems the Rabbi was gratuitously insulting and intentionally speaking out of context.

I believe that a proper understanding of the concept of the chosen people, offers a concrete scenario whereas the original commentators perspective can be understood. (My blog post http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/03/chosen-people-what-does-it-mean.html, as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_as_a_chosen_people discusses this in depth). In short we are all servants/messengers of G-d. The Rabbi created a hierarchy, but in the eyes of G-d there are not, cannot be, hierarchies. Our greatest Rabbis said, and we repeat it on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur that we are as dust in front of you (G-d), this theme is repeated in Ethics of Our Fathers" (Pirkei Avot) and elsewhere. Indeed the finite (one or one million) is equally insignificant when measured against the infinite.

I would add that Rabbi Yosef has never been seen by the ChaBaD community or most Orthodox-American (never mind the rest of the Jewish-secular Diaspora) Jews as acting to benefit Israel. He supported Oslo, against clear Rabbinic (Maimonides for example, he was opposed by many leading Rabbis, including my Grandfather, Abraham B. Hecht) injunctions that were of utmost relevance. Recently he cursed the Arabs, and retracted...There is no source in Judaism for such a curse.
He cannot speak for the Jewish community not because he is too extreme, but because he repeatedly abrogates Jewish Rabbinic principles.

Still he has a tremendous following amongst Israeli ultra-orthodox Sephardim and he is a true Torah scholar, beyond most anyone I know.

For Israel There Is Only One Choice: A Jewish Majority At All Costs!

The PLO Representative to the United States, Maen Rashid Areikat, spoke today at the Middle East Institute of Columbia University. Mr. Areikat was asked by my friend whether he believed that the current US sponsored Peace effort, towards a two state solution was more plausible then a one state solution?

Mr. Areikat responded with standard diplomatic circumlocution, that Israel has three choices.
1. Become an apartheid state, by both refusing to negotiate for a Palestinian State and preventing West Bank Palestinians from achieving full Israeli citizenship.
2. Accept a two state solution.
3. A one state solution, by giving West Bank residents full Israeli citizenship.

But I disagree Israel has only one choice:

From Areikat’s perspective, the creation of Israel alienated an entire population, and he is right.
Perhaps this population caused its own downfall and continues to miss opportunities, -failed leadership and corruption etc.- but as any cognitive psychologist will tell you it is perception not reality that is important.
It is equally true that regardless of the justness of Israel’s position the Palestinians are not going away.

But Mr. Areikat, like so many others, misses the underlying point. Israel is not just another nation where citizens define their allegiance by rooting for their national-sports team. Israel is not just a state where Jews are a majority. It is a place defined by its Jewish majority.

To repeat:

For 2000 years the worlds Jews, and their resourcefulness, were at the whim of tyrants, imams, and popes. True in the Ottoman Empire, Muslim ruled Iberia (Spain),15th century Poland, and 19th century Germany Jews were allowed to live in peace, but they were never equal citizens. And as we know now their safety was as transient, as the laws that protected them. It is also true that America, my country, has been unwavering in its protection of its Jewish minority, but even here Jews are constantly reminded by the likes of Helen Thomase, Mel Gibson, and Oliver Stone -to name a few- that America the beautiful can be high-jacked by ugly Americans.

Now Jews finally have a state, not a decaying dessert kingdom, but a developed, and pluralistic nation in the very same geography of our ancient homeland. A place where I, an American, can choose to move and thrive and where my fellow Jews who are being firebombed and beaten (usually by disaffected un-integrated [Chancellor Angela Merkel anyone] Muslim immigrant-youth)are now running.

So why should Israel's support a two state solution only to be hedged in by a proven enemy from every side?
1967 borders?!
You mean to say Israel should allow itself to be effectively split in half? Because 1967 borders=20; 20 miles wide at its most narrow point, which is also smack in the middle of Israel. Dismantling settlements?!
You mean to say that Israel should force 325,000 Jews from their homes? Isn't that exactly what Palestinians claim happened to them?

Worse why should Israel support a one state solution only to lose its Jewish majority and place itself in the hands -once again- of a people who, justly or otherwise, have been taught to hate and have murdered out of hate?
Indeed even if they were peace loving Europeans (ahem hem) why take the chance?

I know, the moral arguments coming from the left and Muslims are compelling.
But from my perspective this is not about who is the bigger victim of circumstance or whether Israel deserves all the world’s condemnation, it's not even about the moral issues of "occupation".

It's about Israel's mission to preclude another 2000 years of forced subjection to unfettered human hate. Jews are no longer defenseless. For this reason Israel has only one choice, a Jewish Majority at all costs!

A New Paradigm for Linkage: The Iranian Threat is At the Root of Middle East Conflict

In an under-publicized July meeting between president Obama and 14 Jewish organizations, The ADL's Abe Foxman told the president.

"I agree with your goal to bring peace to the Middle East, But the perception is that you're beating up only on Israel, and not on the Arabs. If you want Israel to take risks for peace, the best way is to make Israel feel that its staunch friend America is behind it."

"You are absolutely wrong," the president replied. "For the past eight years [under the Bush administration], Israel had a friend in the United States and it didn't make peace."

Abe Foxman continued:

"I came away from the meeting convinced that Obama has introduced a new and dangerous strategy and that it's revealing itself in steps," Foxman told Edward Klein. "Unlike other administrations, this one is applying linkage in the Middle East. It's saying that if you resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the messiah will come and the lions will lie down with the lambs." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-klein/the-jewish-problem-with-o_b_748082.html?ir=Politics)

Obama argued that America needed to pressure Israel because the Israel conflict was at the heart of Middle-east instability. In other words Obama was arguing the old Jimmy Carter linkage line, "it's Israels fault".

I have always opposed this oversimplified, and frankly dilettantish, conception of that conflict. At the same time I believe there is evidence of a different type of linkage at play.

Iran's Ahmadinejad plans on visiting Lebanon October 13-14 and already there is talk of an Lebanese civil war . It seems that Ahmadinejad is worried that prominent leaders of his proxy occupying force in Lebanon, Hezbollah, will be indited for the assassination of former premier of Lebanon Rafiq Harari(http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=lebanon-heading-toward-crisis-over-hariri-case-2010-10-05, Debka.com).

Meanwhile, another proxy of Iran, HAMAS, has done all it could, including killing four innocent civilians, to upend the most recent American instigated peace initiative. In Iraq, wikileaks documents exposed Iran's comprehensive role in multiple attacks against American/NATO forces as well as civilian Iraqis, in order to destabilize, and ultimately defeat Americas efforts.

Iran is also making a concerted effort to block Israeli-Syrian peace, realizing that such an accord would strengthen Israel's and Americas position in the region. While Turkey finds it easier to dissolve old alliances in the region as they see Iran as an alternative to America and Israel (!).

Now there is evidence of Iran's bloody work in Yemen, Afghanistan (http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/international/afghan-police-seize-22-tons-of-explosives-from-iran-20101006-ncx), and North Korea.

All these leads me to the conclusion that Jimmy Carter/Obama/destabilizing-left and co. are right about the existence of linkage (please see post on "linkers and thinkers", for more) in the Middle-east. Only its the Iran threat, not the Israel/Palestinian conflict, that is at the root of instability in the region.

Ironically the Iran problem is allot easier to solve.

An Evolutionary Perspective on Israel Bias in the UN and Endemic Anti-Semitism

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), on the last day of its annual general conference, voted against a non-binding resolution urging Israel to accede to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).The paper -- which Washington had asked Arab countries not to table at all for fear it could jeopardize a conference on a nuclear weapons-free Middle East to be held in 2012 -- was rejected by the 151-member general assembly with 51 votes against it, 46 votes in favor and 23 abstentions. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100924/wl_mideast_afp/iaeanuclearpoliticsisrael).

Why is this news?

Over the last 60 years every apparatus of the United Nations -from the General Assembly (UNGA) to the Human Rights Council (UNHRC, previously the UNCRH )- has served as instruments to channel the international community’s anti-Israel fervor. One egregious example of this long standing trend had the 2010 session of the UNHRC (as of March 25) passing 5 resolutions condemning Israel -more than the total combined amount of resolutions it dedicated to all other countries in the world — one each on Burma, North Korea and Guinea. No mention of Darfur, Tibet, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Russia, Congo, Libya etc.

Some attribute this blatant lopsidedness to the nature of the UN. Namely its various committees, especially the human rights council, are controlled and/or heavily influenced by political blocks. The block with the most votes is that of non-aligned states i.e. most non-Western states. This means, for example, that France may verbally condemn Iranian violations but because it does not want Iran and its allies to vote against Frances interests in the future France abstains from voting for a resolution condemning Iran. Furthermore, because non-aligned states outnumber western states, they can vote any member-state into any commission. For example, Libya, a gross violator of human rights was elected to the UNHRC. But Israel, with its few allies is one state that the world can agree to condemn without fearing any vote related backlash. Indeed condemning Israel is often used to justify the existence of an otherwise inept UN. After all the UN is fighting injustice, just not ALL injustice.

Still others contend that the reason that Israel is so predictably and consistently targeted is because Israel deserves it. In other words, the fact that HAMAS cannot rearm openly, because of Israel’s embargo, and Israel’s often overwhelming defense of its population trumps the wide-spread government sponsored suppression, rape, and murder of UNHRC members like Libya and Iran.

I agree, politics is one factor that contributes to the UN’s track record but there is another.

Yes you guessed correctly, my input relates to anti-Semitism but only so far as anti-Semitism is a label for what evolutionary theory calls natural selection and what others conflate with "survival of the fittest”.

Briefly, natural selection is “the ability of an organism to survive, adapt, and proliferate in its environment” this success is attributed to genetic traits. On the other hand the “survival of the fittest” implies superior fitness/external traits. This difference is key to understanding Hitler’s conception of the uber race, anti-Semitism, and is at the root of the UN’s obsession with condemning Jews/Israel.

Hitler argued that the physical traits of the Aryan, blond hair and such, were evidence of their genetic superiority, whereas Jewish noses, somehow proved genetic inferiority . But Hitler confused the cause and the effect. It is internal genetic traits that enable organisms to thrive -ones hair color and height are the effect of genetic traits not their cause. Thus such external traits cannot serve as evidence of genetic tenacity.

OK, so Hitler confused cause an affect, whats the point?

First a question:

Why did Hitler reach for a genetic reason to condemn Jews, why didn't he focus only on the usual stereotypes?

Because many anti-Semites throughout history made the claim that Jews were inferior. At first it was Jews did not assimilate into the Roman empire. Then Jews refused to convert to Christianity. Then the Jews killed the Jew Jesus. Then the hate was justified by Jewish disloyalty to their host state, and/or the Jewish control of world banks etc...

Hitler assumed that all these Jewish "sins" must reflect a deeper inferiority of the Jew, he proved this by pointing out the Jewish nose and hair color. The irony is that Hitler's reasoning was just as flawed as his predecessors. For he used perceived external traits as evidence of internal flaws. His forbearer's pointed to Jewish stubbornness, Hitler pointed to Jewish physical characteristics

This illogical trend raises an obvious question: why do anti-Semites continually condemn Jews based on external factors like noses and conspiracies to control banks? Can one really make a claim about the innate properties of a people based on external sins? Indeed, can UN nations really sit in judgement of Israel's excessive self-defense while many of its own members rape and murder by the thousands!?

It would seem then that the proclaimed/conscious flawed reasoning of the anti-Semite reflect "survival of the fittest" principles, whereas their true sub-conscious motivations reflect natural selection

Hitler, the anti-Semite, and the UN are all motivated by a similar concern. Namely the unwillingness to accept that their hate is not based on objective external factors like noses, religion, or propensity for economic malfeasance ("survival of the fittest"). Rather it stems from a deeply rooted evolutionary fear that the Jews success, despite everything, is evidence of natural selection working in favor of the Jews.


The UN has simply institutionalized, on a global scale, the irrational fears of the simple anti-Semite.

At first Israel teetered on the edge of a social, political, and existential abyss, but now it has emerged as a small world power. The nations of the world are worried once again. The UN's collective subconscious is crying “evolution is at work the Jews are supplanting us”. The conscious manifestation of this is the inexplicable and abysmal bias against Israel expressed in every corner of the UN and the reemergence of anti-Semitism in every corner of the world.

In short there is reason to believe that evolutionary principles are at the root of all this preponderance of hate by the anti-Semite and in the UN. Caused by overwhelming Jewish success that spans all known history that was, and is, perceived as an existential threat to the ascendency of the non-Jewish species. The manifest result of this perception is labeled "anti-Semitism". The perceived threat of the Jewish "species" was compounded by the failure of the various state-sponsored measures of forced conversion expulsion, and ghettos. Despite every effort the Jew not only survived but prospered. The anti-Semite interpreted this, subconsciously, as evidence of the Jewish evolutionary ascendancy and responded to it consciously by discounting Jewish success as nefarious and ill-gained, -anything to not have to face up to their own insecurities- and then persecuting the Jew.

It seems only natural that the UN manifests this carnal fear of Jewish superiority in its treatment of Israel. As Israel, like the Jew, continues to experience ever greater success despite global efforts of boycott, sanction, condemnation, terror, to force Israel into submission. Yes, the UN has taken on both the deep-seated motivations and misinterpreted manifestations of the anti-Semite. The UN justifies its hate-campaign by pointing to Israel’s wrongs, but the extent and bias of this pointing is at its root a subconscious motivation- the collective fear of Israeli success.

The tragedy is that anti-Semites and the UN continue to make Hitler’s mistake by assuming that external factors such as Jewish success, “survival of the fittest”, is valid evidence of natural selection choosing the Jew. Not only is this a inverted conception of natural selection (as described above), and thus in itself should not arouse the subconscious fear, it is also the Jewish perspective that if natural selection is correct it is in itself a tool of a higher power. It is not the final determinant of survival and success.

The world need not perceive Israel’s successes as a threat, just as the anti-Semite need not perceive the Jew as attempting his dissolution.

On the contrary:

As is evidenced by global Jewry in general and the Jewish-American experience in particular, Jews can and do contribute in every way to society.

Interestingly all the above may explain Americas pro-Israel track-record.

Why is America an exceptional example of Jewish contribution? Because America is a society that is secure in its own inherent worth and is not threatened by a subconscious psychosis that natural selection is favoring the Jew, to the detriment of the rest.

THAT is a major factor contributing to Americas general (though not unanimous) support of Israel in the UN, and Americas/Americans relatively stellar record on anti-Semitism.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

Oliver Even if the Jews Do Control America's Media, If You Had Your Chance...

Oliver thanks for retracting your outrageous comments, “that were anyway taken out of context”. Still your retraction intentionally didn't cover the main offense. You referenced an important issue that many an anti-Semite loves to declare: “the Jews control the media”. Here is some perspective, on your classic display of hate.

You imply that the Jews control the media because…because of what? Your point is that because Jews are disproportionally represented in the media, is in itself evidence that the Jews “control” the media, and that that control was ill gotten?!

This is an interesting strategy, observing a truth, the Jews are disproportionately represented in the media, and then blending a truth with a lie by implying that “disproportionate” equals “illicitly achieved control”, which is a baseless conspiracy. How wise, how subtle, how obvious. The Jew is adept at discerning the hater.

Here is an example. In the 1348-1351s Western Europe was devastated by the bubonic plague, “the black death”. Historians estimate that between one quarter to a half of Western Europe's population perished. The mobs, of course, looked for a scapegoat and discovered a truth: the Jews were less susceptible to the plague. They observed a truth and concluded that the Jews, being less affected, must be responsible for the plague. A rumor spread that the Jews were poisoning the wells, and mobs, egged on by the Stones' (secularists, trying to eliminate Jewish competition), Gibsons' (blood thirsty catholic clergy), and Thomases' (hate filled city officials) of their day, raged in every city, raping, pillaging and killing Jewish men, women, and children. After all, they argued, the truth was that less Jews were dying.

You see what the ignorant masses didn’t know was that Jews were in a constant state of ritual purity. This includes washing their hands before every meal and after every bowl movement. Married Jewish women are required to bathe every 30 days, and Jews in general are advised to bathe on the eve of the Jewish Sabbath. Indeed Jews washed constantly despite the medical view which claimed that people were born with natural oils that protected them from illness and that washing removed this natural protection. 400 years later Germ-theory vindicated the Jewish bible. But at the time, the haters were able to incite the masses against the Jews by conflating a truth –the Jews were less affected- with a lie –the Jews are poisoning the water supply.

Of course Oliver you recognize that American society, excluding your far-left and their Islamo-Facist allies (when Muslims are illicitly attacked, Jews are the first to defend them as they are for all minorities. Where is the Muslim voice?)is not so gullible. They will not start rioting against American-Jews, nor will they turn against Israel for irrational reasons. So you posit assertions based on the truth, while placing conspiratorial inventions next to those truths. You declare the Jews control the media, true, if you mean they are disproportionally represented. Then you add another truth, more Russians were killed then Jews in WWII, true. Then you go on to say Russia had it worse, but because the Jews control the media, Americans are made ignorant! Then you expand on the implications of Jewish control of the media: just as Americans are kept in the dark by Jews regarding the Russians so too are Americans hoodwinked by the Jewish controlled media which is why our “foreign policy is f###ed up for years”.

First off, don’t underestimate America's sense of history. Second, the Russians didn't lose 1/3 of their population. Third, why are Jews responsible for making sure people know about the suffering of our, then, enemies? Fourth, what makes you think that two truths -Jews are disproportionally represented in the media, and that more Russians perished during WW2- prove a lie “Jews have messed up American foreign policy by manipulating public and government opinion using their “control of the media”.

Oliver let us accept your toxic mixture of truths and lies: Jews' disproportionate representation equals "control" of Americas media. What has happened since the Jews controlled the media? Civil Rights, suppression of bigotry, the election of the most anti-Israel president since Carter, and unremitting criticism of the really evil man, no not Chavez or Ahmadinejad, but Bush!
On the other hand prior to Jewish “control of the media”, when people like you controlled the media: Jim Crow, slavery, unremitting biased criticism or outright lies, Vietnam etc. You want the media to support Stalin’s and Hitler’s legacy, or paint over Chavezs' suppression of freedoms, or Ahmadinjad's raping and murdering his way to election victory and supporting terrorism against our troops and our allies! Ah, then America will be free of Jewish control of the media!

The “Jewish” controlled media exposed a ring of Jewish organ traffickers, including Rabbis. But unlike what you would have liked, they didn't conclude from that that Jews are killing babies and stealing Palestinian organs. Instead the truth: organs that saved lives were being bought at really low prices and sold at exorbitant profits, while also avoiding the authorities. The “Jewish controlled media”, exposed Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition, domestic wire-tapping, the failures of Bush and less so Obama, supported Israel’s self-destruction with its expulsion of Israelis from Gaza, and with this article your subtly orchestrated bigotry.

The "Jewish media" refused to entertain unsubstantiated 9/11 conspiracy theories, just because there were serious abnormalities in the events leading up to 9/11. Your media, would have shifted a narrative based on readily apparent facts to a fictitious saga about the hidden hand of Jews and the CIA. As if Americans are so uneducated as not to recognize a classic anti-Semitic scapegoating when they see it. Yes, the “Jewish controlled Media” reported on government produced evidence leading up to the war in Iraq but Congress and America were firmly behind that war -not the Israeli lobby. Does this mean that Americas media is perfect, of course not, but that imperfection is not reflection of a Jewish conspiracy but human fallibility.


Then again, movie-director Stone, aren’t the Jews disproportionally represented in Hollywood, medicine, finance, law, politics, and Nobel prizes, does this mean that Jewish dominance reflects a white bearded blood sucking conspiracy OR is it akin to African-American dominance in sports.
The reason why Jews are disproportionally represented in Media, is because THEY ARE GOOD AT IT, not because of some conspiracy! Oliver I know you don't like it but in this country we put performance before race, ethnicity, AND religion!

Besides,Oliver, even if Jews do control America's media if you and your ilk had your chance, you would give us blood libels, communism, fascism, a loss of national pride, and irrational support for terrorism. Never (again) YOU ANTI-SEMITIC...!

Why Did Netanyahu Agree To Return The Confiscated Flotilla Ships?!

On July 23, in conference with his "council of seven", Netanyahu announced that Israel will accede to Turkey’s demand that Israel return the confiscated flotilla ships. Debka.com reports that Netanyahu once again has misguided hopes that the Israeli-Turkish relationship can be revived. “Misguided” because this is only the latest effort to engage with Turkey, all the previous initiatives failed. It was only last month that a failed “secret” meeting between trade and labor minister Ben-Eliezer and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu blew up in Netanyahu’s face because Lieberman, Israel’s foreign minister, was not consulted with.

One can only wonder why Netanyahu agreed to return the ships. Some see it as a botched effort to head off yet another biased UN probe, this time investigating the flotilla fiasco. Others see it as a way to support the opposition's stance in Turkey, especially the military because it will show that Israel does want a positive relationship. The opposition and military in Turkey understands this and will use Israel’s action as proof of the potential for a return to normal relations (please see post http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/05/erdogan-and-turkey-are-israels-right.html). This assertion is supported by the fact that Israel actually transferred the final four Heron UAV’s to Turkey, i.e. Israel is maintaining its military ties. At the same time Turkey turned around and violated the terms of sale when they used the UAV’s to target PKK fighters in Syria. By using Israeli UAV’s in conjunction with Syria, Turkey is sharing Israeli military secrets with a nation that it is in a state of war with Israel.

Regardless, Netanyahu looks like an unrepentant fool.

It is clear that Erdogan’s Turkey will continue on its path of reckless hostility towards Israel, even while the government's domestic position continues to weaken. Furthermore there is conclusive evidence, coming from Ankara, that Ankara had good reason to support IHH’s botched efforts (NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/world/middleeast/16turkey.html). Ankara enabled a pivotal event in an ongoing proxy war on Israel the moment the boat full of “activists” embarked with the approval of Ankara with aims of defying Jerusalem. To those that argue that it was not the government of Turkey which aided and abetted the enemies of Israel, the flotilla, but rather a private charity organization, consider this: Turkey openly meets with Hamas leaders, the sworn enemies of Israel (which I will address in the near future), offering legitimacy, encouragement, and who knows what else. Turkey openly and unabashedly supports a terrorist organization whose goal is the destruction of Israel. So why wouldn’t Erdogan’s government covertly support the homicidal flotilla? Erdogan’s Turkey perceives Israel as a barrier to its designs on becoming the regional power.

You would think that the ultimate victor in the flotilla encounter (if that term can be used), Israel, would not return the vehicles of war to its enemy.

Either Netanyahu doesn’t understand that Erdogan’s Turkey is an enemy, or there is something else amiss.

Josephus and Conversions: Is World Jewry Destined to be Divided?

“Titus retired to Antonia intending to launch a full scale attack at dawn the next day and surrounded the sanctuary completely. It had, however, been condemned to the flames by G-d long ago…the 10th of Loos the day which centuries before had seen it burnt by the king of Babylon. But it was the Jews themselves who caused and started this conflagration (Josephus, The Jewish War, VI,254).

What did the Jews do that made them the destroyers of the holy temple? Was it their decision to fall back on it as a last defense, or perhaps the very fact that they went to war with Rome? According to many it was the discord that existed amongst the various factions of Jews that devolved into self destructive baseless hate.

Regardless, as Josephus aptly pointed out 1,940 years ago, the 10th of Loos, or as Jews know it the 9th of Av was, is, a day of Jewish mourning. According to the bible, it is the day when the Jews received the news from the 12 spies, 10 of whom proclaimed that the promised land, Canaan, was a death trap. Because the Jews rejected G-d’s promise that Israel would be given to them and mourned their impending destruction G-d proclaimed that “you mourn for no reason, I will give you a reason to mourn”.

Later Solomon’s temple was set on fire by the Babylonians in 586 BCE as they sacked the city of Jerusalem, and killed 100,000 of Jews. It was in the 9th of Av 1492 that the Jews were expelled from Spain. WWI began on the 9th of Av 1914, which according to most students of history led to WWII and the holocaust. It was on the 9th of Av that the expulsion of the Jews by Jews from Gush Katif, Gaza was signed into law. The irony of the date is one of the great under-reported paradoxes in history. The “disengagement” from Gaza led to Iran’s proxy, HAMAS, establishing a base in Gaza, and the 1000’s of rockets that continue to rain on Israel’s population.

Not to be outdone the Jewish community is once again embroiled in a internal struggle. This time over, it involves a controversial conversion initiative, the “Rotem bill”. The bill, passed 5-4 by the Knesset's Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, stipulates that all conversions in Israel must be approved by the office of the chief Rabbinate. Moreover, any Jewish convert that wishes to move to Israel under the “Law Of Return” -which ensures automatic citizenship to any Jew to preclude another scenario were Jews are persecuted with nowhere to flee- will have their conversion evaluated by the Orthodox Rabbinate.

The powerful Reform/Conservative movement in America and the smaller albeit growing Israeli Masorti (essentially the Israeli conservative movement), are up in arms claiming that this bill effectively disqualifies their conversions, and ultimately delegitimizes their interpretation of Judaism. Furthermore, leaders of the American Jewish-liberal faction, have authored public letters condemning the bill and arguing that it will foster disunity between the American and Israeli Jewish communities at a time when unity is imperative. Supporters of the bill including FM Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu party, and Netanyahu’s minority partner in the Knesset counter that this will streamline the often frustrating/complicated conversion process for many immigrants, who are the political base of the Lieberman’s party. The Haredi/ultra-Orthodox, and National-Religious parties, which at first opposed the bill, now support it as it “will ensure that all those that claim to be Jews are actually Jews”. Meanwhile Netanyahu repudiated the bill asserting that it will divide the Jewish community while preventing any Likud committee members from attending the vote.

There are three issues here that I believe need to be addressed:

1. Is this bill and the Law of Return racist?
2. Is this bill intended to undermine progressive Judaism?
3. Is this bill another Josephus-like self afflicted division in global Jewry?

Before we can discuss whether the bill is racist it is important to first address what made this bill necessary. Namely the growing number of immigrants to Israel who came to Israel under the Law of Return, and desire to convert, or have had apocryphal conversions. The Law of Return stipulates automatic Israeli citizenship to any individual with one Jewish grandparent. The reasoning behind this thinking was that Hitler classified anyone with a Jewish grandparent as Jewish.


The fact that a Jew and the immediate family of a Jew gain near automatic citizenship under the Law of Return is often labeled racist. Yet this law is not so much asserting Jewish racial superiority or inherent rights. Rather it is intended to allow for the implementation of the philosophy behind the creation of the state of Israel. In other words Jews for two millennia have been at the mercy of tyrants, demagogues, emperors, popes, caliphs, reformists, and fascists. The only way Israel can offer maximum protection to Jews is by granting them a retroactive place of refuge, i.e. you always have/had a place where you will be relatively safe. Another way to understand the Law of Return is that it asserts that Jewish citizenship in Israel is rooted in the bible and secular history. Thus the Law of Return is not granting new citizenship to Jews but rather making sure that the person coming through the border is already a citizen, by virtue of the their biblical and historical relationship with Israel. This is not just premised on religion but also unambiguous historical records, Israel was the Jewish homeland. Indeed many countries like Germany, Spain, Poland, and Japan, also give preferential consideration for prospective immigrants with ethnic ties. Is this racist? I don’t think so.


With this preface we can better understand the relationship between, and the implications of, the Rotem bill and the Law of Return. If “who is a Jew” is decided by the Orthodox Chief Rabbinate then those eligible to move to Israel by choice or by genocide, would be subject to the Orthodox criteria for conversion, which is designed to prevent opportunism, minimal acceptance of Judaism, and Jewish tradition. Furthermore, if it is passed by the Knesset it will inevitably delegitimize progressive Judaism.

The question is whether that delegitimization is the intended goal or a bi-product of a bill purely formulated with domestic issues in mind?

Unfortunately the media has focused on the dividing results of the bill without giving the other motivations sufficient consideration. After all the bill's positives may outweigh its negatives. The debate can’t be complete without considering that Lieberman simply wants to gain concessions for his political base who are predominantly eastern-European immigrants and would benefit from streamlined conversions. At the same time the motivation may be a lot more complex than concluding that it one or the other.

One perspective offered is that Lieberman is creating leverage with Netanyahu to be used in the upcoming budget debate. Lieberman will drop support for the bill if Netanyahu will agree to Lieberman’s budget demands.

It may also be that Lieberman, the uncompromising strongman in rightwing Israeli politics, is actually challenging the prodigious influence of American Jewry in Israel. There is no question that American-Jewish progressives are the ideological allies of the political left in Israel –Lieberman’s sworn foes. Moreover Jewish-American progressives, actually helped elect Obama, the man who tried to have Lieberman’s right-wing party replaced with Tzipi Livni’s left-leaning Kadima. Thus this bill serves Lieberman’s interests by weakening the progressive Jewish-American establishment. At the same time the majority of progressive Jewry are staunchly pro-Israel and continue to be so. Is Lieberman intentionally weakening his political opponents abroad to strengthen his domestic position? If so he may actually be putting himself before his country.

From whatever perspective it is clear that Lieberman’s primary intentions vis-a-vis the bill are difficult to pin-down. That being said there is certainly merit to the assertion that this bill will divide the global Jewish community.

The real question is whether this bill will result in another display of the Jewish communities masochistic tendencies described by Josephus 2 millennia ago, in this very month, or does this bill actually offer an iconoclastic opportunity?

I guess it depends on how you see the nature of our existence. If everything happens for a greater purpose then this event is another keystone in a necessary progression towards a greater good. Who knows, perhaps this an opportunity to overcome global Jewry’s propensity to allow a difference of opinion to devolve into baseless hate.

However this turns out let it not divide us!