Matt http://www.jta.org/user/profile/65524 en-us zsilberman@washingtonjewishweek.com Copyright 2012 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 As you can see, this is somebody whose intellectual mentors on subjects like the Middle East and the Holocaust include "academic giants" like Paul Findley, Lenni Brenner, and Norman Finkelstein. That Massad would even cite such non-accredited fringe individuals as his _key_ sources in academic journal articles boggles the mind. That he would opine about subjects about which he has no understanding (like the Talmud, or world Jewish culture) is stunning. That his book on gays in the Middle East would find a proud place on Ahmadinejad's shelf is shocking. And his use of inflammatory but fraudulent quotations of certain prime ministers (and his refusal even to correct the record explicitly) belies his claims of academic professionalism---isn't that academic misconduct? The fact that anyone is seriously even considering granting Massad a tenure position at an Ivy League university is almost too absurd to imagine, and is clearly a function of ideological politics. And yet people are suggesting with a straight face that he is being _denied_ tenure because of politics? Absurd. Has anyone considered the possibility that Massad is just a second-rate, ideological, academic wannabe who is only where he is right now because of academic back-scratching and because his views happen to be in vogue these days? And this is how he behaves _before_ getting tenure. Anyone wish to imagine what a headache he’d be for the university _after_ getting tenure? And yet the inexorable process toward tenure continues to roll on, unstoppably. Aren't there any human beings involved in this process who can stand up and say "Not on my watch"? 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 I have only one thing to add, and it's a must-see:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_Massad

That should give you all a very broad sample of what kind of a guy Joseph Massad is.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_Massad

That should give you all a very broad sample of what kind of a guy Joseph Massad is.]]> 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Um, wow. Full-on uber-right-wing Jewish wacko-ism, in concentrated form! Maybe JTA really ought to consider just scrapping these comment boards. They’ve become just another place for radicals and their apologists to rant and scream and gripe. Poll after poll shows that the vast, vast majority of us Jews in both American and Israel support evacuating the outposts and forcing the settlers into line with Israeli law. Majorities in both communities support an eventual two-state solution. So, other then getting an obviously (and highly) non-representative sample of Jewish opinion on important matters, a sample riddled with bile, with xenophobia, with homophobia, with Reform-hatred and sinat hinam, with illiberal, fanatical, fundamentalist, Arab-hating screeds that sing grand and brainwashed and apologistic songs about the glory of the radical violent youth in Israel, a sample of poisoned filth incarnate at the bottom of most JTA pages that chews with venomous teeth at the end of every article, what the heck good are these comment pages? If you want to broadcast to the world your love for people who would spit in the face of the actual hard-won Jewish state in favor of a cowboy fantasy in your “God-granted” Judea and Samaria, Jews who would for the first time in Zionism scream “Nazi” at the first suggestion that they move back into that Jewish state, then the Internet is a wide-open space for you to do so. Start a blog somewhere. There are soapboxes out there for everyone. But JTA, seriously, get rid of these cesspools, these breeding grounds for hate. It’s time to eliminate the comment boards, or at least start a policy of disabling them entirely in advance for any article that touches on these dog-whistles for lunatic extremists. (A lot of blogs are doing this now, for obvious reasons.) 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Um, wow. Maybe JTA ought to consider just scrapping these comment boards. They've become just another place for radicals and their apologists to rant and scream and gripe. Poll after poll shows that the vast, vast majority of Jews in both American and Israel support evacuating the outposts and forcing the settlers into line with Israeli law. Majorities in both communities support an eventual two-state solution. So, other then getting an obviously (and highly) non-representative sample of Jewish opinion on important matters, a sample riddled with bile, with xenophobia, with homophobia, with Reform-hatred and sinat hinam, with illiberal, fanatical, fundamentalist, Arab-hating screeds that sing grand and brainwashed and apologistic songs about the glory of the radical violent youth in Israel, a sample of poisoned filth incarnate at the bottom of most JTA pages that chews with venomous teeth at the end of every article, what the heck good are these comment pages? If you want to broadcast to the world your love for people who would spit in the face of the actual hard-won Jewish state in favor of a cowboy fantasy in your "God-granted" Judea and Samaria, Jews who would for the first time in Zionism scream "Nazi" at the first suggestion that they move back into that Jewish state, then the Internet is a wide-open space for you to do so. Start a blog somewhere. There are soapboxes out there for everyone. But JTA, seriously, get rid of these cesspools, these breeding grounds for hate. It's time to eliminate the comment boards. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Well, Yaakov certainly typifies the sinat hinam I've been talking about. Nice of him to put Rabbi Julie Schonfeld's title, Rabbi, in quotation marks, wasn't it? How respectful to someone who knows vastly more about Judaism than he does. What love he demonstrates. And telling her to work on the street, rather than as a rabbi? Yaakov is really showing that warm sense of equality, isn't he? He sure makes Orthodoxy look attractive to other Jews, doesn't he? You all know why people like Yaakov behave this way, don't you? It's because they're taught to have nothing but contempt for the non-Orthodox, their fellow Jews. That's what they learn in school, from their teachers, from their parents. They hear it again and again. They never question any of it. Eventually it becomes just "obvious" that they should speak to the non-Orthodox with arrogant and immodest condescension, with that familiar patronizing and superior-sounding tone. Some of them are even taught that those horrid "reformim" brought about the Holocaust. And these impressionable youngsters just swallow it all up, this contempt for other Jews. Why do they teach their children this tripe? Are they so insecure that they feel the need to attack other Jews in order to feel stronger, to feel better, and to help resist temptation? Say what you will about the Chabadniks, but they are eminently secure in their faith, and they never feel this overwhelming desire to put those "other" Jews in their place. What a direct violation of the law to love their fellow Jews Yaakov demonstrates. I'm sure Yaakov follows all the small laws to the letter. Why he and those like him ignore the bigger laws of Judaism, like the repeated commandment to love their fellow Jews, indicates either ignorance or hypocrisy. I'm sure, like the rest, he has twisted the law to love Jews to mean that only "his" kind of Jews deserve to be loved. That may be fine for him, but not for G-d. And it's not good for the Jews. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Sinat hinam has never been good for the Jewish people. Indeed, throughout history, it has always brought about our downfall. So why do we keep falling into its trap? Diversity breeds strength, resilience, and adaptability. Why is that so difficult for some people to accept? Diversity should be celebrated and cherished. I hope all the movements of Judaism grow and prosper in the years to come. I cannot understand why some Jews would feel so insecure in their identity that they would feel the compulsion to set themselves up against other Jews. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Somehow I knew you had to try to have the last word. By all means, I'll let you, but only after one last comment, which I'm sure you'll avoid dealing with again. I'm not "bashing" "the Other." I'm saying that "the Other" isn't really "the Other" at all, at least in any fundamental sense, despite their wanting to pretend to be "the Other." I'm saying that we Jews are really all in the same mess, and that the divisions many of the Orthodox foster between themselves and the non-Orthodox are absurd and insupportable, aside from their being ultimately self-destructive. My point was that everybody---Orthodox and non-Orthodox---play games with "the law." "The law" is an ambiguous and self-inconsistent mish-mash, much of which is furthermore too inconvenient to be practiced today. So Jews of all stripes deal with this in their own way. The Orthodox are no different, with their endless hair-splitting, deferring to the rabbinical establishment, and rationalizations for why the laws don't apply here or why they can't be followed there. It's all the same, and this holier-than-thou attitude among some of the Orthodox that they alone are the only "real" Jews because they alone follow the laws as written is a sham and a farce. They're not fooling anyone, and they do not have a monopoly on what it means to be Jewish. My point is not that the Orthodox shouldn't practice Judaism as they wish. That's their right, and it brings diversity to Judaism. My only point, again and again, which you and they seem to be unable to see, is that the games they play with "the law" are just as fundamentally arbitrary as anything done by the Conservative movement, for example. For instance, the Conservative movement believes that kashrut means more than just a static list of food classifications, that it requires adherence to ethics in how food is made and how the food-makers are treated. Heksher tzedek is their attempt to fight back after the Orthodox brought the heinous Iowa Agriprocessors debacle on our heads. Meanwhile it was the Orthodox establishment, following their arbitrary understanding of "the law," who were standing up for the Agriprocessors. Hypocrites. Who says the Orthodox were truer to "the law" than the Conservatives? The Orthodox just have found ways of convincing themselves that the games they play with "the law" and the rationalizations they use are superior to those used by other Jews. Well, they can believe whatever they want. That's their right, too. But it ain't the truth, however you want to slice it. And they're still hypocrites for accusing other Jews of playing around with "the law." That's the argument, take it or leave it. But this is done. By all means, have the last word, though. I won't stop you. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Look, don't get me wrong here. My point is not that the Orthodox are somehow not true Jews. They are. And I'm proud that they exist as part of the rich diversity of the Jewish people today. I hope their numbers stay strong, and that they continue to prosper and flourish. What I am saying is that the sinat hinam must stop. The Orthodox must stop using the "reformim" as bogeyman to frighten their children to stay in line. They must learn to be secure enough in their own identity that they don't feel the need to attack and cast judgments upon the non-Orthodox. They must stop treating others Jews as being inferior. They need to demonstrate the kind of love and respect for their fellow Jews that is central to Jewish teaching. They must learn that diversity breeds strength, resilience, and adaptability, and that rooting for the demise of other branches of Judaism is foolhardy in the extreme. And, above all, they must learn some humility. Full stop. That's enough of that. This conversation has run its course. Back to work. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 You need not act as though I'm ignorant of Maimonides and his works. From the Thirteen Principles of Faith to the Mishneh Torah to the Guide for the Perplexed, I'm far from a Rambam scholar, but I've been through the gamut before. The funny thing is that the most important things I've taken from the Rambam often seem completely opposed to what has been taken by most of the Orthodox I've personally encountered or whose words I've read. You know how many Orthodox I've met who insist that the world is actually, literally 6,000 years old? Or even those who accept it's 13.78 billion years old, but insist that evolution is false? Here's what the Rambam said about science: "All this is part of the science and astonomy and mathematics about which many books have been composed by Greek sages… But since all these rules have been established by sound and clear proofs, free from any flaw and irrefutable, we need not be concerned about the identity of these authors, whether they were Hebrew prophets or Gentile sages… we rely upon the author who has discovered them only because of his demonstrated proofs and verified reasoning." The Rambam also wrote that Nature was G-d's second book, and thus to deny the lessons of Nature was to commit blasphemy. And yet you have travesties committed by the leaders of Orthodox movements like what befell Natan Slifkin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natan_Slifkin#Controversy Maimonides emphasize the importance of work and contributing to society, having spent his years working as a doctor, and yet the haredim of Israel don't hold jobs and don't serve in the armed forces. Maimonides, like others before him and the Tanakh itself, demands that Jews love other Jews (with all the sinat hinam brewing both in Israel and America, especially between the branches, let's not even go there), but also to love the convert. Yet the converts I have known or heard have spoken of deep distrust and suspicion for many years from their supposedly fellow Jews. There is no love without trust. Maimonides broke ground with the controversial idea that G-d was not like a human being, that G-d was formless and intangible and, indeed, could only be comprehended through those features that he did not possess. He also propagated the view that upholding the principles of Judaism was an end to itself, that it carried people into a state of sacred holiness, and that none of it was about avoiding punishment from G-d. But the Orthodox individuals I have known acknowledge this only in passing, while deep down treating G-d like a humanoid imaginary friend who gets "angry" and casts "judgment" on people when they misbehave or violate the laws. The fact that Shlomo Carlebach is still spoken of with great honor in many Orthodox communities is perhaps all that one needs to recognize the rank hypocrisy going on, the placing of religion ahead of morality and ethics. Tzedek tzedek tirdof is perhaps the most important principle in all of Deuteronomy. The most important lesson I learned from Judaism was that some principles are simply more important and holy than others, and that one must view the lesser laws through the light of the greater ones. And the highest laws that I've learned from Judaism make me believe that many Orthodox are often living in a state of hypocrisy, of focussing on the smallest laws and avoiding the bigger morals. So when any member of the Orthodox branches insists on casting judgments on the Jewishness of the non-Orthodox, I am justifiably angered and disappointed. We are, all of us, imperfect Jews. And there are among all the branches and movements of Judaism plenty of individuals who are trying to be the best Jews they can be, according to their understanding of what it means to be a good Jew, and understanding that ultimately rests not with any rabbi or the Shulkhan Arukh but with G-d, whose mind, according to Maimonides, was unknowable to mortal human beings. I have known even Reform rabbis who know the holy texts backwards and forwards, inside and out, better than most of the Orthodox; their beliefs come not out of ignorance, but out the struggle that is written into the very name Yisra-El. At least the other, non-Orthodox movements are honest and humble about this struggle, about reconciling Judaism with the real world and rationalizing when they have to, and don't act like they're superior to other Jews because they haven't "watered anything down." Yeah right. Call it splitting hairs, or parsing words, or interpreting in context, but at the end of the day, it's all rationalization. It's all about finding excuses not to obey the laws that would be too inconvenient today. We all do it, so let's just be honest. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Wait, Jonathan, but you've dodged my question. I live in a society with Hindus, Shinto, or Native Americans who believe in their traditional faiths, and so on. I live in a society with polytheists, pagans, and, yes, people who construct idols and pray before them, whatever they choose to say about what they're doing. Look at that list of mitzvot I presented. Am I to burn these peoples' towns and reservations, to hate them, and so forth? And am I not to fear murdering "false prophets"? And for heaven's sake, what do you do if you happen to meet a guy who happens to be able to prove thay his ancestors were one of the Canaanite tribes, or, gasp, the Amelekites? You show me one guy who literally obeys these laws. Say that you are interpreting these rules "in context", or "figuratively", or whatever rationalization you choose. But don't try to pretend that you're not rationalizing. Please. You're not fooling anybody. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Give me a break Jonathan! Who do you think you're fooling? You write that "the rules about idolatry stand, but as most of us live among monotheists, rather than worshipers of pantheons which inhabit idols, they aren’t of much practical nature." Do you really believe that? I don't know where you live, but I live in the United States, in a society filled with people who follow non-monotheistic and polytheistic faiths, including some that involve idols. My town has Hindus and Buddhists in it, not to mention, for heaven's sake, Wiccans! And I'm not even counting all the materialists who worship objects and money rather than G-d. The mitzvot say that I should hate these people, that I should burn their towns, and so forth. How can I possibly take those mitzvot literally? I'd be in prison! The difference between you and me is that at least I'm honest about not being able to obey all the mitzvot to the letter. The rest of you can come up with whatever rationalizations you want, but you're not fooling anyone. Give me a break already. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 No **decent** Jewish human beings, Orthodox or not, obey ever last one of the mitzvot, whatever their claims to the contrary. It’s all a big charade, and we all know it. Enough terrorizing non-Orthodox by holding the mitzvot over their heads, when even the Orthodox don't obey them literally. Indeed, all you super-Jews out there who bad-mouth the non-Orthodox, do tell me if you rigorously obey **all** of the following mitzvot, unless of course you want to be open to charges of hypocrisy. And don't tell me that these mitzvot must be interpreted figuratively, because that's precisely what the non-Orthodox have been trying to say for all these years. 31. Not to make human forms even for decorative purposes Ex. 20:20 33. To burn a city that has turned to idol worship Deut. 13:17 37. Not to love the idolater Deut. 13:9 38. Not to cease hating the idolater Deut. 13:9 39. Not to save the idolater Deut. 13:9 40. Not to say anything in the idolater’s defense Deut. 13:9 41. Not to refrain from incriminating the idolater Deut. 13:9 45. Not to be afraid of killing the false prophet Deut. 18:22 56. Not to make a covenant with idolaters Deut. 7:2 68. Men must not shave the hair off the sides of their head Lev. 19:27 69. Men must not shave their beards with a razor Lev. 19:27 82. Each male must write a Torah scroll Deut. 31:19 128. To perform yibbum (marry the widow of one’s childless brother) Deut. 25:5 129. To perform halizah (free the widow of one’s childless brother from yibbum) Deut. 25:9 130. The widow must not remarry until the ties with her brother-in-law are removed (by halizah) Deut. 25:5 166. Not to let a mamzer (a child born due to an illegal relationship) marry into the Jewish people Deut. 23:3 234. Not to plant diverse seeds together Lev. 19:19 238. Not to wear shaatnez, a cloth woven of wool and linen Deut. 22:11 491. Break the neck of a calf by the river valley following an unsolved murder Deut. 21:4 504. Purchase a Hebrew slave in accordance with the prescribed laws Ex. 21:2 514. Canaanite slaves must work forever unless injured in one of their limbs Lev. 25:46 528. Press the idolater for payment Deut. 15:3 545. The courts must carry out the death penalty of stoning Deut. 22:24 546. The courts must carry out the death penalty of burning Lev. 20:14 547. The courts must carry out the death penalty of the sword Ex. 21:20 548. The courts must carry out the death penalty of strangulation Lev. 20:10 549. The courts must hang those stoned for blasphemy or idolatry Deut. 21:22 552. The court must not let the sorcerer live Ex. 22:17 553. The court must give lashes to the wrongdoer Ex. 25:2 581. Not to diminish from the Torah any commandments, in whole or in part Deut. 13:1 596. Destroy the seven Canaanite nations Deut. 20:17 597. Not to let any of them remain alive Deut. 20:16 598. Wipe out the descendants of Amalek Deut. 25:19 611. Keep the laws of the captive woman Deut. 21:11 613. Not to retain her for servitude after having sexual relations with her Deut. 21:14 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 You think that anyone who wants out of the West Bank thinks it will bring peace? How naive of you to think so, sir! That's why you're so confused--you ascribe beliefs to people that they don't possess. No, I don't think pulling the settlements out of the West Bank will bring peace. None of us do anymore. It won't stop the rockets, that's for sure. And I, for one, think keeping troops there for a while is probably necessary. That's not the point. The point is the residential settlements, which you conflate with the military occupation. The point is that ruling over millions of angry and resentful Arabs is draining Israel dry, and is not a long-term sustainable situation, especially now that they represent 47% of the population west of the Jordan river. I want Israel out of there for Israel's interests, not anyone else's. As for the settlers of Gaza, give me a break. Perhaps you've forgotten the horrifying photos of settlers refusing Israel's orders to evacuate, calling Israeli soldiers Nazis, and throwing chemicals on the faces of Israeli troops, but I have not. When people attack Israel's troops, they're being disloyal. Sorry, but that's just the facts. And so that leaves us with the question again: Should Israel, by a democratic process, decide to pull out of the West Bank settlements, which side will the settlers take? And how do you know? 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 If you want to understand why so many American Jews, young and old, are turned off by Orthodox Judaism, you need only look to models of the Orthodox like Norman Lamm, chancellor of their flagship university. The arrogance and insensitivity and chauvanism he proudly flaunts is deeply unatttactive, as would be obvious to almost anyone living outside the Orthodox cocoon. It's not just the frequent hypocrisy of the fervently religious (I have a list of mitzvot right here that I know nobody obeys). It's also this condescending, petty attitude toward others that turns off millions of Jews. Lamm isn't saying a "kaddish" for the other movements, for that would imply empathy and grieving. The man is clearly gloating, and he can barely repress his glee at their troubles. Deeply unattractive. He's clearly looking forward with great anticipation for the day when the other branches and perspectives of Judaism go extinct; if he could pull a lever to destroy them utterly, ending the diversity that has made Jews in America the staggeringly important force that they have become today. Is it not enough for the Orthodox to be strong, or must the other movements be weak in order to satisfy the desires of people like Lamm? He is saying to the millions of young Jews born and raised into a Jewish identity from one of the other movements that this big man in the Orthodox movement is rooting for your extinction, for the annihilation of your very identity. Hillel would be rolling in his grave. It's time for this chauvanism between Jews to end. We must root for the growth and well-being of all, and celebrate the rich, yes, heterodox, diversity of American Jewry. Diversity breeds strength and resilience. It was the Conservative movement that was the first to take the bold stand for Zionism back when it counted, back when even the Orthodox were naysayers. (Or has Lamm forgotten?) American Jews have contributed to America far out of proportion to their numbers, shaping the very history of this country for centuries, and the vast majority of these contributions have come from the non-Orthodox. Chew on that nugget when you read that Lamm is praying for the day when only the Orthodox and haredim remain. Jewish diversity is good for America, good for our image, and, most of all, good for us, so that we never settle into the kind of cloistered, homogeneous groupthink that dooms us in the end. The image of idealized homogeneity and theological purity espoused by Lamm is deeply ahistorical, and the historical diversity of Jewish philosophy--yes, tempered by tradition-- is part of the reason we have survived the millenia. The fact that so many Jews today are white-skinned and not olive-skinned like our ancestors in the Levant is a dramatic testament to a history of intermarriage and, gasp, patrilineal descent. What Lamm should be praying for is the blossoming of all of Judaism, from the Orthodox to the rest. That would make Hillel proud. it would demonstrate that Lamm feels secure enough in his Judaism that he isn't compelled to belittle other Jews (a violation of the mitzvot, by the way). And it might even have the benefit of making his own movement more attractive to those Jews who might be receptive to a change. Fancy that! 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 The real danger of the most extreme settlers is that they openly defy the laws and rulings of the government of Israel. They question and deny the authority and legitimacy of Israel's democratic government, and that's bad for the safety and security of Israel. Tell me, if given the choice between Hebron and the Knesset, which would they choose? If the Israeli government, by a democratic process, did, in fact, decide to evacuate the outposts in the West Bank, and Hebron, and so forth, would they abandon the land, or would they abandon the state of Israel? I'm on the side of Israel, whatever it decides to do. But where do their loyalties ultimately lie? If push comes to shove, and the moment of truth comes, which side will they take? 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Rabbi Silverstein, There's a fascinating radio program I just heard on the BBC that is right up your alley. It's part of their series "Heart and Soul", and it's all about how modern believers struggle with the ancient languages in which their sacred texts were originally written. Check it out! http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p002yv27 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Wine and imported cheese and art galleries? What in heaven's name have you been smoking? As for Iran being Nazi Germany, give me a break. What an insult to the Greatest Generation who defeated the Axis powers in WWII. Germany was the most powerful industrialized nation on Earth, with the world's most powerful military, and threatened to conquer all of Europe. Iran today is a piece of crap economy with an impoverished population, one of the lowest GDP's in the world, and a paltry military. The US could squash Iran like a bug without breaking a sweat, if ever the US Air Force decided to do so. The US wouldn't even need to use nukes to do it---the conventional air power of the US would suffice. But, if needed, the US always has thermonuclear hydrogen bombs---not the teensy atom bombs Iran is trying to build. A few H bombs would reduce all of Iran to rubble. We have no reason to be quaking in our boots. Ahmadinejad is a vile antisemite and an evil man. But he's not leading Nazi Germany. He's leading a third-world country that can't even feed itself or turn its own oil into gasoline. A country can be evil and Jew-hating without being Nazi Germany. We need to deal with Iran, but let's not slide into Godwin's law while we do it. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Perhaps that was the purpose of Israel for you, Stuart, but not for Herzl. Have you actually read Der Judenstaat? The title is often translated to mean "The Jewish State," but the correct translation was actually "The Jews' state." Herzl's purpose, like that of all the other secular founders of Modern Zionism, was to normalize the Jewish people by returning them to nationhood, escape from Europe, solve the problem of antisemitism, and give the Jewish people a physical refuge, self-determination, and the capacity to defend themselves once and for all. The religious issue of serving Ha-shem by returning to the holy land was not foremost in the minds of these people, many of whom were socialists and atheists. I will not abide by any religious arguments for staying in the West Bank. If you believe Israel should be in the West Bank to serve Ha-shem, then I will bid you a good day. Anyway, the aforementioned principles are why Herzl and others of his time toyed with putting Israel in other geographic locales, eventually settling on Palestine for the entirely prosaic reasons that there were already lots of Jews there, there was plenty of enthusiasm among Jews for the land, and because the British controlled the territory and could (sometimes) be negotiated with. They didn't care about religious justifications. They didn't believe in them. The ultimate goal of Zionism should be to serve Herzl's vision: To preserve Israel as a place of refuge for Jews in trouble, as a nation where the Jewish people have self-determination and the power to defend themselves from threats, and where Jews of all ideological and cultural persuasions can be allowed to flower and develop without molestation. All decisions about Israel's future should be based on those goals. Religious arguments are worthless and not worth discussing. Some believe that the settlements further those goals, and others, like myself, do not. The fanatical religious ideology that sprang up in Israel in full force after 1967 terrified many of Israel's founders, including Ben-Gurion himself, who counseled Israel to give back all the land (except Jerusalem and Golan). But what did Ben-Gurion know? All he did was found a nation! A lot has changed since 1967, by the way. That was over forty years ago. And Israel hasn't won a war outright in over thirty-five years. Times have changed, and our thinking should change as well. Wasting money and resources, as well as Israel's talented armed forces, checking bags and humiliating Arab families at checkpoints in the West Bank is not a long-term and sustainable solution, especially now that the Arab population in Israel and the territories has reached 47%. That's why Michael Oren, who was just picked by Lieberman to be Israel's new ambassador to the US, insisted just a few months ago that Israel unilaterally get out of the West Bank for good. And few people understand history and the Middle East better than he does. Unloading responsibility for millions of resentful Arabs would be a great unburdening for Israel, as soon as Israel can get its act together and do it. Why anyone would want to rule over millions of angry, unwilling residents boggles the mind. That's why Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria should give the Kurds self-determination, and China should give the Tibetans self-determination, too. It's just not worth the effort. I don't even care if Israel decides to go out of its way to build a state for them. Let them do it themselves. But first things first: Cut them loose, and let them stew in their own problems without having anyone else to blame for their problems. And don't give me religious arguments for keeping the settlements; Ha-shem isn't going to come and solve Israel's problems. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 I read the article, and Abrams seems to be confused, thinking that this will be Obama and Netanyahu's first meeting, when they have actually had a lengthy meeting before, back during the campaign. I also think it's rich that Abrams talks about the irrationality of the Iranian regime, when he was implicated in the Iran-Contra affair back during the Reagan administration, in which he took advantage of the realpolitik practiced by the Iranians to funnel money to the contras in Latin America. Why is anyone listening to a criminal who only avoided prison because of a presidential pardon? 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Rabbi Silverstein, There's a fascinating radio program I just heard on the BBC that is right up your alley. It's part of their series "Heart and Soul", and it's all about how modern believers struggle with the ancient languages in which their sacred texts were originally written. Check it out! http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p002yv27 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 I'd really love it if Mr. Edwards would be kind enough to answer any of my questions, too. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 I was addressing Will, as well as anyone else who believes that a gay conspiracy is going to invade their houses of worship and that the state will impose practices like gay marriage on them. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 The point is that thr state does not have the legal power to go into any religious institution or to any priest or rabbi and force them to hold gay weddings or anything like it. If a church or temple ever decided to open its doors to gay marriages, it would only be if its members and leadership decided by their own free will to do so. So again I ask, why are you afraid that somebody's going to invade your temple and force it to hold gay weddings? Where do you get that idea? 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Again I ask you to tell me who is invading your temple? The First Amendment protects the right of churches, synagogues, and other places of worship to officiate over only the kinds of marriages they believe in, and to ordain as priests or rabbis only those they accept for the position. Catholic churches are free by law to refuse to officiate over the marriages of divorced people, and to refuse to ordain women as priests. Orthodox synagogues are free to refuse to officiate over interfaith weddings or to ordain female rabbis. So please tell me where you get the idea that a gay conspiracy is going to invade your temple and force its marriages on your rabbi? 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Secondly, your obvious paranoia that a gay cabal is coming to invade your synagogue, convert your rabbi, and brainwash your children is preposterous (give me the names of the specific persons leading this cabal, would you?), and with a few word replacements could well have come out of the mouth of a 19th century antisemite arguing about Jewish conspiracies and the necessity of keeping Jews separated from the rest of society, as an evil that had to be removed from their midst. (To quote your words about gays and lesbians.) Those bigots were totally blind to the reality about Jews, and could never be convinced of their wrongness. And it all sounds awfully familiar. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Where did you get the idea that legalizing marriage for gays and lesbians would intrude into your temple? Your temple can go on practicing however it wishes. That's the First Amendment. So drop your claims to the contrary. Orthodox Rabbis will never be required to officiate over gay marriages, any more than the law presently requires them to officiate over interfaith ceremonies, or presently requires Catholic churches to officiate over divorced people getting remarried. The law does not force religious groups to officiate over any marriages that violate their beliefs, thanks to the First Amendment. So please drop the sanctimony and find a real argument to use. As for religions that accept gay marriages, there are many now, and I'm rather surprised you seem unaware of the fact. Like I said before, several mainline Protestant churches accept them, as do some Episcopal churches and liberal Jewish synagogues (but no Orthodox synagogues, so don't worry.) The First Amendment guarantees religious freedom to these religious groups, too, and the state is forbidden from favoring your religious beliefs over theirs. Don't want a gay marriage? Then don't get one, and get on with your life already. Secondly, 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 You're giving up without even attempting to answer any of my questions? Well I suppose that settles it then, doesn't it! Apart from anger and opprobrium, you don't really have an argument after all. That's heartening, I suppose, for the future of equality in this country. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 We're not arguing that you, or any religious organization, should be required to officiate over gay ceremonies or stop shouting obscenities about gay people. We live in a society of free speech, where even the KKK is allowed to march through the public square. We're not imposing our beliefs on you or your behavior or your religious practices or religious organizations. You can go on believing and practicing however you wish. The First Amendment is still the law of the land. But it swings both ways. Your religious beliefs about gay marriage come from Torah, and Torah is not the law of the United States, against because of the First Amendment. You cannot impose your religious views on the rest of us, and deny marriage to people based on your religious beliefs. All we're arguing is that a small percentage of committed couples should be allowed to go to the nonsectarian state and get the rights and privileges afforded to everyone else, and then to go and live their own lives as they see fit. Your obsession with what they do and how they live their lives and with their personal legal rights, based on Torah, belies your claims that you are not pushing your beliefs on them. The facts speak for themselves. So I guess that's my sixth question: 6. Why do you believe it is okay, in light of the First Amendment, to insist that the nonsectarian state uphold your religious reading of Torah with regard to gays and lesbians, or with regard to any other issue? Does not the First Amendment also protect the rights of other religious groups (like the Episcopalians or the Reform or even many mainline Protestant branches) that do believe in granting marriage rights to gays and lesbians? Are you not violating their religious freedom by demanding that the state not permit them to practice their beliefs? Why should the government say that your religious beliefs are worthy of being enshrined in law but not theirs? 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 And just in case you attempt to argue that gays want to criminalize dissent, please read the laws that passed in NH, VT, and ME, all of which specifically contained clauses prohibiting any requirement that religious organizations be required to condone homosexuality or officiate gay marriages. Go ahead and look it up. There's nothing to fear but fear itself, as usual. MA has had gay marriage for years now, and there's been not one drop of reduction in the marriage rate of straight people, nor any increase in crime, nor cats and dogs falling from the sky, nor earthquakes or monsoons. Strangely enough, letting more people get married who otherwise would have been unable to do so has had no effect on anything whatsoever, except that now a small percentage of people (and their friends and family) are much happier than before. What a horror! So MA is a perfect test case for you, and no great horrors have befallen the people of that state. That's one reason why people are so ho-hum about gay marriage these days. The test results are in, and everyone sees that the world has not come to and end. So I suppose that's question number five: 5. Marriage rates have not fallen in states that have legalized marriage for gays and lesbians. Indeed, there's been no discernible statistical change of any kind in these states, good or bad. So now that the experiment has been run for years now, why are you still afraid, and what are you afraid of, except for fear itself? Do you believe, like some of the members of Shas, that violating Leviticus will cause earthquakes or other natural disasters? Or do you believe that straight people can be magically turned gay? 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 How convenient of you, Will, to have avoided addressing any of my questions. What, are you afraid you can't answer them? Until you make a stab at answering them, stop trying to throw dirt in my direction, in the direction of anyone else. Unless you can answer my questions, laid out carefully above, you have no case, and you might as well just quit your shouting. As for standing up for other people, how dare you accuse me of not doing so. First you accuse me of being "gay" and then you accuse me of not caring about starving people? You don't know a darn thing about me. Where do you get off feeling justified in pontificating and rendering judgments on the lives of people you don't know? Maybe your problem is bigger than your scathing judgments of gays and lesbians. Perhaps your real problem is your tendency to cast judgments on other people's lives when you disagree with them. Then again, if people like you are the ones standing up for bigotry against gays and lesbians these days, then maybe the battle really is won. You'll certainly never be won over, but your general demeanor hardly presents an appealing model for young people to emulate. So perhaps I should really be cheering you on, and encouraging you to be more public! In any event, answer my questions. Just do it. They're quite reasonable, and if you really have a case, then they should be easy to answer. But please, no more empty tirades about my character. It's getting old. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 But perhaps it's worth probing still further. So answer me these questions: 1. What makes this group of people different from all other groups of people who were denied their equal rights due to the prevailing religious doctrines of their times? 2. What actual, practical, concrete benefits would be denied straight people should committed gay and lesbian couples be permitted the pursuit of happiness granted to them by giving legal recognition of their unions by the nonsectarian state? And no vague examples please. Concrete examples only. 3. Why do you think such a tiny percentage of the population represents such a unique threat to the very fabric of society? 4. When modern states like the US and Israel part ways with Biblical law on so many issues, from pork to adultery (even several of the Ten Commandments are unrecognized by modern law), why is this one rule from Leviticus about gay men such an obsession with opponents of equality for gay people? Overcompensation anyone? And no, Will, I'm not gay, nor am I part of any cabal. Hard as it may be to believe, but some people exist who defend the rights of others. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 It's worth mentioning that although Jews were central to Hitler's disgusting cosmology, the Holocaust also saw the rounding up and mass-murdering of gays as well. The point here is that many people---majorities of some societies in fact---once found it unfathomable that Jews were human beings worthy of equal rights that the rest enjoyed. They found their justifications in religion, in their culture, and in their traditions. The very idea that Jews merited equality was seen by much of these societies as absurd on its face. And now we have people like Will who find themselves in a similar state of apoplexy, finding it impossible to imagine how gay people, a tiny percentage of the population, could merit the right to marry people they've been together with for decades, the right to something that takes away not one physical or practical right from anyone else. That people like WIll believe that this 5% of the population are part of some secret cabal or conspiracy with the power to destroy the fabric of society is very reminiscent of the thinking of antisemites over the generations, even if Will is too blind to see it. So the lesson is to ask, why is this group different from all the other groups of human beings that have been oppressed and denied equal rights in the past? Each time a new group demands its rights, people are first apoplectic, and then one day find it hard to remember why anyone ever objected. Today's youth are overwhelmingly supportive of gay rights, so it's just a matter of time until society changes again. I guess here we go again. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 My point, of course, is that the rhetoric employed today by people like Will has been used against others before, including against Jews. I have no doubt that Will would find such language and attitudes expressed regarding Jews to be rank bigotry and antisemitism whatever their religious justification. Indeed, throughout history people have taken their religion as license---in some cases mandate---to speak of Jews in this way and toinsist that the state deny them rights, freedoms, and true equality under the law. They had their "reasons" too, you know. They had their holy sanctions to act like jerks toward us. That Jews anywhere, after winning their rights in America, would kick the ladder behind them for all who struggle to follow---what a disgrace. I also have no doubt that Will will be unable to see either the irony or hypocrisy he exhibits. I'm sure he's convinced that gays really are different and therefore worthy of his bile. I'm sure that he, and all others who share his attitudes, are utterly convinced that, this time, it's okay to be a bigot. That may be fine for him, but it won't do for the rest of us trying to live in the 21st century. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 I just thought the nature of Will's comments would come out more clearly with a single word replacement. What do you think? "Rocky no one said anything about removing rights or denying Jews of equal protection under the laws of any nation. I am sick and tired of the Jews constantly pushing for more rights, more privilege, more attention then the rest of us. Jews are a very small minority of a cross section of humanity and as such are looked at somewhat differently, but they are guaranteed equal rights in the United States. It is a common trick of Jews to put this argument in to the light of them being repressed and their rights being threatened when this is absolutely not true. It is a case of a small section of fringe humanity wanting an overbearing protection and more rights then the general population. It is just wrong. You twist my words claiming hate, but I don’t hate them… I pity them sometimes because if what I see, but I don’t hate them. It is more that they hate me because I am not like them." Clear now? 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 If more people in this conflict had empathy--the capacity to see things from the other's side--it would have been over for decades already. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Naive. Living in a utopian fantasy. These are ways that wide-eyed liberals have been described from time to time. But if you want a dose of people living in a dreamy la-la land of make-believe, you'd be hard-pressed to find a better example than rosy-eyed supporters of the settler movement and their cowboy-and-indjuns fantasy. Behold! A Hebron without Jewish vandals or bullies! A Hebron where Arabs are learning their proper place! A Hebron where good, wholesome Jews are civilizing the savages! Who cares that millions of hard-nosed Israelis living in the real world are trying to keep the state in the 21st century as an economic, technological, and scientific powerhouse? Who cares if the settlers and their boosters are fulfilling every bloody stereotype about extremist Jews? Who cares if it's ticking off Israel's one dedicated and most important ally, the United States? Hebron is the place where Abraham is buried! Hooray! Go Hebron! Join us! It's bliss! 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Self-criticism is one of the defining features of an intellectually advanced culture. For comparison, just look around at societies today that lack the capacity for self-criticism, and tell me if you envy their way of life. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 (That comment about Sharon's Zionism was facetious, of course... When you nearly single-handedly save the state of Israel in the 1973 war, you score some points...) None of this, by the way, has anything to do with Gingrich, and none of it has any bearing on my original point that Gingrich has demonstrated over and over again that he's happy to exploit any issue if it benefits himself politically, even when it's totally hypocritical of him to do so, and even when he doesn't even believe his own dreck. And his own political fortunes are a testament to that fact. Does Israel really want friends like this loser? Has Israel reached a point where it can't do better than this guy? I don't think so, and I sure as heck hope you don't either. If Zionism means anything, it should mean, in part, that there are some guys the Jewish people shouldn't have to kiss up to all the time. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 It's rather convenient of you to go after Sharon, being as he's hardly in a position to defend himself. But I'm sure you're a better Zionist than he. I'm not sure how Israel conducts its census of Arab residents of the West Bank and Gaza, so I'm not totally sure that Israel's numbers in 1993 are more believable than those of the Palestinians. Obviously both sides have an ideological stake in the final numbers. Regardless, the author of your article in the Middle East Forum settles on a total number of approximately 2.6 million Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza today. According to Israel's own statistics, Israel's total population today, including all residents (Jews and non-Jews) inside the 1967 lines and all Jewish settlers outside in the territories, but excluding Arab residents of the territories, is 7.4 million, of whom 5.375 million are Jews. So here's the total percentage of Jews today, including the territories: 5.375 / (7.4 + 2.6) = 53.75% That's not a comforting number to those who worry about a demographic issue in Israel today. But one can dig deeper. Even the author of that article you cited concludes that the Arab birthrate is higher than the Jewish birthrate, though he claims it's not much higher. So that percentage I posted above is going down. Moreover, as you well know, ideological and political conformity amongst the Arabs is far, far higher than amongst Jews in Israel. Indeed, 9% of Israel's Jews are haredim, and then you have to add all the leftists and communists amongst the Jewish population as well. So if the Arabs of the territories ever did demand a vote and got it, it is highly likely that, right now, a slim majority of the country would vote to go binational and end Israel as an officially Jewish state. These are the facts. Now, as to what to do? Well, it's like I said. Israel can either give the Arabs of the territories a vote, or give them a state of their own, or expel them, or just sit in limbo and wait for a miracle. Because you claim there's no demographic threat, you're necessarily leaning toward letting them have a vote in Israel. I don't know that I agree with you, but at least maybe we now know where you stand. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Geez Nelson, I'm not "destroying Mr. Gingrich's reputation." What are you living in a bubble or something? The man's approval ratings are abysmal, and have been since he left Congress in disgrace over a decade ago in a disaster of his own making. And, no, I'm not insulting "everyone who's been married more than once." I'm only insulting---and deliberately so---the minority of people who've been married and divorced more than twice who regard themselves as judges and protectors of the sanctity of marriage, as Mr. Gingrich does. I'm insulting hypocrites. The guy who wrote the Defense of Marriage Act was divorced multiple times, as well. These people are not jerks for being divorced. They're jerks for being hypocrites. That's all. And Gingrich's attacks on what he refers to as "secular gay fascism" (his language) is not even sincere, even in hypocrisy. Gingrich doesn't really care about gays getting married. It's just another issue to rile up the base. It's crass opportunism, and that's shameful. What I'm saying is very simple, so listen carefully. When a guy repeatedly exploits hot-button issues for political gain, at some point you have to stop and question his sincerity, even (and especially) when it's an issue that's important to you. A con-man doesn't stop being a con-man when he seems like he agrees with you. And I'm not angry that he's not Jewish. What bothers me is the way that so many Jews, especially those on the extremes of Left and Right, seem to be falling back on troubling patterns of kissing up to the gentiles. And today, that's pretty much all the GOP is. Gingrich doesn't need your pity. If the great success of Israel didn't teach us that we must grow a spine and ultimately look to ourselves for salvation, wherever we live, then it taught us nothing. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Whether it's the bishops or the rabbis, why do religious authorities always try to silence the victims of sexual abuse in their communities? Isn't G-d watching? Maybe---shock of shocks!---being ultra-religious doesn't make people any more moral. In any event, there may well be a special place in hell for abusers of children, but it's nowhere nearly as horrible as the place in hell reserved for their enablers. And I mean all of their enablers---the religious authorities who shuffle them from job to job, those who spare them from justice and attack and viciously discredit their victims instead, and those who just try to close their eyes and ears to it all and pretend it's all a mirage, concocted by "bad Jews" who want to bring shame on the community. At least the abusers themselves are mentally sick; those who shelter and protect child-abusers and turn away the helpless, victimized children are pure evil. We'll never be without sick people who wish to molest children. The only thing we can do is stop their free-willed enablers and hold them accountable. To jail with them, I say. Even to this day, just try talking amongst the fervently orthodox about what Shlomo Carlebach did to all those little children. How many people conspired to protect that sicko from justice, and have even elevated him to a kind of a saint? How many people attacked the little girls he tortured rather than confront him with what he did? What kind of morality is that? 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Prayer and Torah study. Yeah, that'll work... 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 This the guy's father? The apple really doesn't fall far from the tree, does it? "These are people who do not have Torah, people who want civil marriages, shops that sell pork, and the army enlistment of yeshiva students. ... Whoever does so commits an intolerable sin. Whoever does so supports Satan and the evil inclination." --Ovadia Yosef, in 2009 "The six million Holocaust victims were reincarnations of the souls of sinners, people who transgressed and did all sorts of things that should not be done. They had been reincarnated in order to atone." --Ovadia Yosef, in 2000 "There was a tsunami and there are terrible natural disasters, because there isn’t enough Torah study... Black people reside there [New Orleans]. Blacks will study the Torah? [God said], Let’s bring a tsunami and drown them... Hundreds of thousands remained homeless. Tens of thousands have been killed. All of this because they have no God... Bush was behind the [expulsion of] Gush Katif, he encouraged Sharon to expel Gush Katif... We had 15,000 people expelled here [in Israel], and there [in America] 150,000 [were expelled]. It was God’s retribution... God does not short-change anyone." --Ovadia Yosef, in 2005 "They don't observe the Sabbath, they don't observe the Torah, they don't pray, they don't put on phylacteries every day. Is it any wonder that they're killed? It's no wonder. May the Almighty have mercy on them and bring them back to religion." --Ovadia Yosef, 2006, on fallen Israeli soldiers 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 I want you to go to Wikipedia right now and look up the term "straw man," because you clearly don't know its definition. Here, I'll make it easy for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/straw_man (While you're there, stop by: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law for good measure.) In addition to avoiding addressing my earlier straw-man claim, you added another for good measure. No, I didn't argue that history lessons were bad merely because I don't like what they have to say. I argued that they were simply irrelevant, as are irrelevant any Biblical claims or claims going back thousands of years about ownership of land. Unless you think that Hashem is going to solve the problem and not humans, none of these cosmic arguments mean a darn thing. Now you take up a new tack that's becoming increasingly popular these days. When confronted with distressing data right here in the present, you simply change the data so that they're more comforting to you. I mean, what a coincidence! When everybody is pointing to disturbing demographic trends data, you just happen to "find" data that perfectly fits what you already believe---it's a miracle! Arik Sharon, like Oren and even Lieberman, among many others, finally saw reality when he came to grips with the demographic data. You can make up new data if you like, but then there's really no point in discussing things, is there? I'll just make up some data of my own, and we'll be even.... Nor am I implying that most of the settlers would have to leave, since most live on land that would already be covered by land swaps---oh, what's the point. I know you're going to believe whatever you wish about what I'm actually saying, regardless of what I actually say. It's really a waste of time arguing with you. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Oh yeah, and before you go after Michael Oren too, just remember that Avigdor Lieberman just picked Oren to be Israel's new ambassador to the United States. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Ah, the history lesson and the string of slogans. Why do you guys find that all so darn comforting? Are you so insecure that you need to comfort yourselves constantly just to get through the day? Don't you think we know all this already? Does it even matter whether any of it has any bearing on reality? How do I know you're full of it? Because you don't know me at all. I'm not a J-street type. I know my Middle East history backwards and forwards. And I'm not an irrational "Bush hater" either. I used to stand up for the man in public. So can it, buddy. You don't know what you're talking about. The reason why the Christians needed to invent Satan was so that they didn't have to deal with their opponents' arguments on their merits. As soon as they could convince themselves that their opponents were allied with the devil, there was no need to worry anymore. So rather than deal with any of my actual statements, you box me in as a "panty-waist J-street-type liberal" and can breath a sigh of relief. Well, too bad. I'm a tough Zionist. And there are lots more where I come from. Like Michael Oren, that strong conservative Zionist who made aliyah thirty years ago, who serves in the army, who knows more Middle East history than you will ever, ever know, who literally wrote the books on Israel's wars, put it, "The only thing that can save Israel as a Jewish state is by unilaterally withdrawing our settlements from the West Bank." No, I didn't say Israel had anything to do with gay rights. Tell me, do you know what a straw man is, or do I have to explain that to you? I said that Gingrich exploits many issues---nearly every issue I can find---for crass political gain, and often in the most hypocritical way imaginable. He's a con-man. And that's why his political career tanked the moment he got into power. And let's be straight here: Gingrich can afford to sound all macho. He doesn't have his finger on the big red button, so it's very easy for him to make tough-guy pronouncements and look like a real strong fella. But Bush and Cheney couldn't pull the trigger when they were in power, and they talked pretty tough, too. They sat by and watched while Iran went from zero centrifuges to many thousands. It's all very different when you're the one in charge, with that tremendous responsibility on your shoulders. It's so much easier to be a sidewalk supervisor like Gingrich. Talk is cheap. Let me know when he actually does something that doesn't just serve his own career. And you can jump up and down about Jordan being the "true" Palestinian state. You think we haven't heard that one before? Honestly? We all know. Transjordan was carved out of the Palestine Mandate by Britain in the early 1920s and given to the Arabs. But it doesn't make a darn bit of difference. You may be totally convinced that it does, but it doesn't. None of this history does. I mean, people get mad about it, but it doesn't change anything. The fact is that there are millions of people sitting in the West Bank right now who don't want to be unrepresented subjects to foreign rule anymore. You can pat them on their little heads and tell them about how you've civilized them, sort of like China does to the Tibetans. (Not that I'd compare, considering how many orders of magnitude worse China has been than Israel ever was.) But they're never going to thank you. Go back and read Rudyard Kipling's "White Man's Burden" if you want to, but the rest of us are living in the 21st century now. (And before you start, I'm not saying Israel is a "white" country. I'm hoping you know Kipling's thesis.) Or curl up with Karsh. I know it's very comforting having your opinions steadily reinforced. Very comforting indeed. But reality doesn't permit us to do what's comforting all the time. You can either beat these millions of people into submission, or kick them all out by the millions, or grant them the vote, or give them a state. Those are the long-term options. Pick one. No slogans or history lessons. This is the present we're living in. Deal with it. And it's not enough just to say we have to be tough with them. Be specific. Imagine you're in charge, and millions of lives are on your shoulders. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Perhaps the audience ought to have remembered King Lear. They seem to be suffering from the same deficit as Lear himself, who preferred the comforting and flattering speech of the daughters who found him useful over the daughter who truly loved him and was willing to be honest when necessary. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Gingrich doesn't deserve your good-natured compliments. This is a man who's so staggeringly narcissistic and un-self-aware that he went after a president for adultery while himself engaged in an extramarital affair of his own. This is a man who jumps up and down about liberals riding roughshod over the Constitution while he himself defends a president who used the Constitution like it was toilet paper, from Article I Section 9 to amendments 4 through 6, just to name a few examples. This is a man who attacks gays for undermining the sanctity of marriage just for wanting the right to marry those they love while Gingrich has been married---wait, how many times was that? Let's put it this way--I'm happy to assume that Gingrich is being just as sincere when he talks about Israel's security as he is when he talks about the sanctity of marriage and the rule of law. How about that? When a man exploits principle after principle, exhibiting rank opportunism and populism at every step, why do you suddenly assume that he's being serious this time when he talks about Israel, perhaps the most politically useful football in conservative politics today? 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 What the heck does Gingrich know about Israel? He doesn't know Israel from his elbow! All the Jews in positions of leadership are in the Democratic party now---the Republican Jews are all gone. And for the remaining Republicans like Gingrich, Israel is just a useful political tool to divide the American vote and get back into power. If we Jews have learned anything from our history and the founding of Israel, it's that we can't allow ourselves to be used as pawns in the other peoples' games anymore, especially when they turn to cheap, shallow "flattery" of the kind Gingrich spews. We have to rise to positions of prominence and leadership, in Israel and elsewhere, and take charge of our own destiny. And when some goyishe American blowhard like Gingrich---who has no concept of what it's like to be one of us---tries to toss Israel around like a football to boost his own approval ratings and divide the electorate, we have to tell him to go shove it and find some other people to exploit. Be strong. Gingrich has plenty of other people to exploit, after all... 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Wait, is he the haredi politician who claimed that earthquakes were caused by Israelis skipping Shabbat, or the one who insisted that the swine flu be called "Mexican flu" because pork is non-kosher, or the one who announced that the Holocaust was caused by non-Orthodox Jews? I forget. But I suppose that since these people are "our" religious extremists, they're a-okay. Until they get a majority some day, that is... 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 No, Sallai. The PLO formed in 1965 and began its campaigns of terrorism right away. Suicide bombing goes back well before 12 years ago. And it's all been all but stopped the past few years. Torture had nothing to do with it. And re-instituting torture won't stop the rockets, either. Try again. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 As far as I'm concerned, Israel's biggest problems are demographic and internal in nature. The first is that Israel is getting squeezed in demographically by the rapid growth of three populations: The haredi population, the religious-nationalists/settlers, and the Israeli Arabs, all of whom have much higher birth rates than the secular and traditional Israelis who simultaneously favor an eventual peace deal, are loyal to the state, and who serve in the army. What happens when these Israelis find themselves in the minority in the country? How does Israel continue to exist as a modern, industrial, democratic, first-world country? The second issue is that Israel does not officially regard the overwhelming majority of American Jews as being, in fact, Jews. Nontraditional, Conservative, Reform, and even some Orthodox Jews are "suspect" in the eyes of Israel's official rabbinate, and many would get a big fat "non-Jew" stamped on their papers if they ever made aliyah. Why should these 80% of American Jews feel loyalty to a state that does not recognize them as members of the tribe? Sure, they could get in under the Law of Return if they had to, but they would have fewer religious freedoms in Israel than in America, including no right to marry or be buried in Jewish cemeteries. But as the haredi population in Israel grows, their control of the rabbinate will only become more entrenched, further alienating an American Jewish population that sends Israel abundant financial support and that lobbies Washington extensively on their behalf. Israel spites these American Jews at its peril. Anyone have any idea what Israel is doing to deal with these unsustainable and ever-growing problems? If Israel meets its downfall, it won't be due to external threats. That's the history of the Jewish people--it's always internal strife, domestic disunity, and sinat hinam that brings us down. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 I suspect that part of the problem with recruiting and retaining young Jews into the fold is mixed signals. On the one hand, they're told that it's easy to find a way to integrate greater Jewishness into their post-birthright lives. On the other hand, they're also told that Judaism can't be "watered down" by members of the religion who aren't sufficiently rigorous in the adherence. They have their Judaism constantly and publicly questioned by some of the most prominent members of the Jewish establishment today. And they have to deal with identity-bigotry directed toward their children, especially if they intermarry but still pledge to raise their kids as Jews. On the one hand, these young Jews are exposed on their birthright trips to a nation, Israel, that's unabashedly modern, industrious, and secular, and on the other hand, they're told en masse by the clerical establishment of Israel that their Jewishness as Americans is "suspect" and can't be trusted. How many of these birthright kids would be able to be married or buried in Israel, should they even consider making aliyah? Their kids? How many of them would have "non-Jew" obnoxiously stamped on their papers if they ever made aliyah? And why should they feel loyalty to a Jewish state that questions their very identity as Jews, and grants them fewer religious freedoms than they have in America, like the freedom to marry? People can't have it both ways. They can't practice and preach a chauvanistic form of Judaism and then complain that too many young Jews are being alienated and are assimilating. My suggestion: birthright should stand up and fight openly for greater Jewish pluralism and for a more satisfactory level of recognition for American Jews. They should emphasize the development of strong Jewish identity among young American Jews. Groups that want better engagement with young Jews need to tune down some of the most transparent and obnoxious propaganda and help bring young Jews into the fold as the people they are, and not belittle them or make them feel inferior--even implicitly--for being insufficiently devout. They shouldn't insist that young American Jews choose between their values and their religious heritage. In particular, they should follow the lead of places like Massachusetts---which is turning the tide on the shrinking Jewish population---that have embraced assimilated and intermarried Jews who choose to raise their children as strong Jews, regardless of questions of paternal versus maternal lineage. Or people can just insist on religious purity. But then you're going to lose the next generation of American Jews. That's the breaks. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Ron-- There's a larger issue here. Cohen is conflating two different issues: The Iranian people on the one hand, and the Iranian government on the other. Cohen says that the Iranian people are sophisticated and civil. But we already knew that! Nobody has been arguing that the Iranian people are the bad guys here! Find me one person--on the left or the right--who's making that argument! It's a total straw man that Cohen is constructing when he claims that the civility and goodness of the Iranian citizenry refutes the arguments of Iran's critics. What Iran's critics are arguing is that the unrepresentative, authoritarian government of Iran is run by bad guys who are jockeying for more power in the Middle East, and are using anti-American sentiment, the nuclear issue, and the Palestinian tragedy as cynical tools in gaining that greater influence. Cohen's visit to the Iranian people has absolutely nothing to do with any of it. I'd love to see Cohen address this rather dishonest gambit of his. Ron, maybe you can hold his feet to the fire for the rest of us! What do you say? Nobody has been arguing that the Iranian people are the bad guys here! Find me one person--on the left or the right--who's making that argument! It's a total straw man that Cohen is constructing when he claims that the civility and goodness of the Iranian citizenry refutes the arguments of Iran's critics. What Iran's critics are arguing is that the unrepresentative, authoritarian government of Iran is run by bad guys who are jockeying for more power in the Middle East, and are using anti-American sentiment, the nuclear issue, and the Palestinian tragedy as cynical tools in gaining that greater influence. Cohen's visit to the Iranian people has absolutely nothing to do with any of it. I'd love to see Cohen address this rather dishonest gambit of his. Ron, maybe you can hold his feet to the fire for the rest of us! What do you say?]]> 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 According to people like Buchanan, don't we Jews control the media? If so, why does this guy still have a prominent platform on the major cable news networks every day, spouting his bile? I'd say that's a pretty clear refutation of that particular antisemitic thesis... 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Say what you will---but resentful middle-aged white Christians are a rapidly diminishing demographic in this country. There's no hope for the GOP if it continues to shed heterodox members. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Now essentially all Jews in positions of leadership are in the Democratic party, with its extremely well-represented Jewish members. It's lucky for the GOP that it still has groups like the RJC who still believe---like obedient little Court Jews---that Jews have to run to the goyim for influence and protection. The rest of us Jews are Independents and Democrats because we have learned the proper lessons from history; we have spines and can take care of ourselves. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Now the only Jewish Republican in all of Congress---both houses---is Eric Cantor. And what a perfectly obedient Court Jew he is! If he were a little less arrogant, he might even feel lonely. So, it turns out that a party can't attain power if it alienates not only Jews, but immigrants, city-dwellers, feminists, intellectuals, scientists, civil libertarians, young people, liberals, gays, Hispanics, blacks, biracials, Muslims, the anti-war, and nonsectarians/atheists/agnostics. Who'da thunk? 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 These haredi party members have also explained that earthquakes are caused by Israelis skipping Shabbat. Why are these people still in charge of deciding who's a Jew in Israel? Why should we accept the authority of bona fide doofuses on this central question? 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 The Republicans are right! (*snicker*) We can't allow such an important election to be decided by just a few hundred votes, right? And we certainly can't allow such a crucial election to be decided by the Supreme Court! How short is the memory of Republicans? And does their hypocrisy know no bounds? 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 As a proud American, I want to be able to stand up and declare to allies and enemies alike that my country is a shining beacon on the hill, a moral example for all the nations on Earth. But we don't get to call ourselves a shining beacon for nothing---there's a price, and that price is that we are not allowed to torture people. Our enemies can break our bones, but they cannot break our souls---only we have that power. Now every time a sick, deranged tyrant faces trial for torture in some far-off, heaven-forsaken land, he'll be able to declare that America tortures, too. That's a stain that will be difficult for us ever to remove, and it was our fault. It's telling that these torture policies were formulated not by successful, career military men, many of whom, like Dennis Blair, Bob Gates, David Petraeus, strongly oppose torture, but by armchair warriors and chickenhawks like Cheney, Bush, Tenet, Rice, Addington, and Ashcroft, none of whom have any idea what war is really like. And what upsets me most is that those who devised these torture policies knew what they were doing was wrong. They knew they were committing a crime. How do I know? Because they didn't just classify the details of the program---they also destroyed any internal memos that expressed opposition and provided arguments against the torture policies, so that the creators of the torture policy could maintain plausible deniability about what they were doing in our name. Those are the actions of people who know they're guilty. Nobody has explained to me why things we prosecuted our enemies for---back in WWII for example---are legal when we do them. Nobody has explained to me why things we do to a tiny number of our most elite troops (with their consent) specifically to prepare them for being tortured by our enemies are not torture when we are the ones who do them to our enemies. (The difference between sex and rape is consent, after all.) Nobody has explained to me why strapping a man down and shooting water up into his airways 83 times is somehow not torture; is it because we mercifully provide a bag whenever he vomits from the choking? I'd like to see just one of these so-called tough guys who approved the torture policies stand up, face the music, and take it like a man, instead of letting our brave soldiers, intelligence analysis, and interrogators take the heat for them. If Cheney really loved his country and his soldiers, he'd announce that the buck stopped with him, and that he was going to take the heat for everything. He'd insist that everybody channel their anger in his direction and away from those who were following his orders. But he won't do that, and not for any love of country---it's because he's a coward and a flaming narcissist, and he's watching his own rear and his own legacy. He's in way too deep to come out for air now. So now we've actually reached a point where we're all standing around arguing about what constitutes torture and whether torture is effective or not. And the very same people who moan about the "political correctness police" hide behind euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation techniques." My country 'tis of thee... 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Wouldn't it be nice if our own government hadn't engaged in torture these last eight years? It would have been nice to have been able to stand tall and take the moral high ground without any charges of hypocrisy from our allies or our enemies. There are costs to torture. Bad publicity like this is extremely expensive to fix. Good branding is a valuable commodity. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Geez, the critics are really hard to please! Have you all seen the photos of the seder? There he was, our American president, the leader of the free world, sitting at the head of a Jewish seder table, with a kippah on his head and a haggadah in his hands. What kind of a sourpus isn't moved by that? Only the worst cynic in the world... These critics really still think Obama is a crypto-Muslim antisemite? And after he not only pulled out of the Durban II conference but got a host of other countries to do so as well? If he is secretly an antisemite, he's the best antisemite we Jews have ever had! But I'll tell you something that shows just how cynical and hypocritical his critics are. If Bush had been the one at that seder table, they'd be falling head over heels for Bush right now. But Bush didn't host the very first seder at the White House. Obama did. Drop the hypocrisy and deal with it. Kol HaKavod, Mr. President! 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Neuroshock 04/18/09 11:12 PM It’s getting awfully hard for Obama’s critics to argue that he’s somehow “anti-Israel” or that he’s some kind of crypto-Muslim or anti-Semite. Otherwise, what possible logic would lead his administration to boycott Durban II for anti-Israel incitement and its attempts to prohibit anti-Muslim speech? Every person who spread smears about Obama being a “secret radical Muslim” and an anti-Semite owes the guy an apology. You made your choice and spread lies, so now that you’ve been shown wrong, fair’s fair: Let’s start hearing the apologies! 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 It's getting awfully hard for Obama's critics to argue that he's somehow "anti-Israel" or that he's some kind of cypto-Muslim or anti-Semite. Otherwise, what possible logic would lead his administration to boycott Durban II for anti-Israel incitement and its attempts to prohibit anti-Muslim speech? Every person who spread smears about Obama being a "secret radical Muslim" and an anti-Semite owes the guy an apology. You made your choice and spread lies, so now that you've been shown wrong, fair's fair: Let's start hearing the apologies! 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Tamar, you're making us Jews look bad. What with your strange obsession with homosexuality and you're clear hatred of Muslims, if you were a fiction constructed by a full-throated antisemite, you wouldn't make for a better caricature. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 A bombing campaign would, according to the most optimistic Israeli estimates, require several weeks of aerial sorties. The planes would also have to traverse the thousand miles between Israel and Iran, and I don't think Turkey, Syria, or Iraq are going to offer Israel's planes pit-stops, let alone airspace clearance. In particular, flying over Iraq is unavoidable, but with 130,000 US troops still stationed there for the forseable future, the US won't give Israel airspace clearance. (Bush refused already, and Obama will do the same.) Aggresive slogans may sound nice, but unless you know about secret Israeli planes that can defy the immutable laws of physics, I'm afraid an aerial attack on Iran's facilities is impractical, if not impossible. As for Iranian civilians, these are not brainwashed Palestinians. Iranian civilians are famously pro-Western right now, and most don't spend a moment's time thinking about Israel at all. Israel-hatred is the obsession only of the ruling elite and their minority of extremist followers. Killing thousands of Iranian civilians unprovoked would just make Israel look like a douche bag. And even if it all worked, it would set back the Iranian program only a few years. Instead Israel being hated only by a minority of extremist Iranians, Israel would be hated by a wide majority. And they never forget--they're still pissed about that US-backed coup in 1953! Cost-benefit analysis of an aerial attack? Not good. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Russia and China won't agree to harsher sanctions. The absence of direct talks with Iran--the Bush strategy--has failed catastrophically, with Iran progressing hugely in its nuclear program in the last eight years. So what are our remaining options to try to stop Iran's development of nuclear weapons? Either a military attack on Iran's widely spread facilities (much of which is deep underground), with a high risk of failure and substantial loss of innocent civilians' lives (and delaying the program, at best, only a couple of years), or some kind of direct negotiations, at least as a way to hurt Iran's PR. These are our options--take 'em or leave 'em. All the bluster and swagger in the world will get the US nothing. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 This sense of entitlement among certain segments of the Orthodox community to cast judgment on their fellow Jews always gets me steamed. I'd be happy to challenge their claimed rigorous adherence to several of the 613 mitzvot. But I note with honor and respect that there are very many Orthodox Jews who do not act toward their fellow Jews the way that this army rabbi does, who act (shock of shocks!) as though keeping Jewry united is not just moral and smart defense against our enemies, but also a very wise policy. They clearly understand, as this rabbi does not, the commandment to love and respect their fellow Jews. They deserve all our blessings for it. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 This constant chauvinistic attitude demonstrated by the Orthodox toward all other Jews is nothing but sinat hinam, and it makes me sick. We're all Jews, you and the Conservative Jews alike, although your disdain for fellow Jews is not a very Jewish way of behaving at all. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Here's a message from the millions of Conservative Jews around the world: F*** you, "rabbi." Who the heck do you think you are? Who needs your acceptance? You're a mere mortal, no holier than any other Jew, and nothing more. Only G-d decides who is a Jew and who is not. You can take your pathetic, parochial chauvinism and shove it. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Eli Frankel- You write: "The Torah consists of 613 commandments, not 612. Humans are not perfect but anyone who rejects even one Mitzvah is denying the whole Torah." It's a common tactic to throw out statements like that and assume that nobody knows enough about the Torah to challenge you on it. But I'll be perfectly honest with you: I'm a practicing Jew, and I don't obey all the Mitzvot. And no other decent Jewish human beings do either, Orthodox or not, whatever their claims to the contrary. It's all a big charade, and we all know it. Indeed, do tell me if you rigorously obey all of the following Mitzvot, Mr. Super-Jew, unless of course you want to be open to charges of hypocrisy for attacking gay and lesbian Jews: 31. Not to make human forms even for decorative purposes Ex. 20:20 33. To burn a city that has turned to idol worship Deut. 13:17 37. Not to love the idolater Deut. 13:9 38. Not to cease hating the idolater Deut. 13:9 39. Not to save the idolater Deut. 13:9 40. Not to say anything in the idolater's defense Deut. 13:9 41. Not to refrain from incriminating the idolater Deut. 13:9 45. Not to be afraid of killing the false prophet Deut. 18:22 56. Not to make a covenant with idolaters Deut. 7:2 68. Men must not shave the hair off the sides of their head Lev. 19:27 69. Men must not shave their beards with a razor Lev. 19:27 82. Each male must write a Torah scroll Deut. 31:19 128. To perform yibbum (marry the widow of one's childless brother) Deut. 25:5 129. To perform halizah (free the widow of one's childless brother from yibbum) Deut. 25:9 130. The widow must not remarry until the ties with her brother-in-law are removed (by halizah) Deut. 25:5 166. Not to let a mamzer (a child born due to an illegal relationship) marry into the Jewish people Deut. 23:3 234. Not to plant diverse seeds together Lev. 19:19 238. Not to wear shaatnez, a cloth woven of wool and linen Deut. 22:11 491. Break the neck of a calf by the river valley following an unsolved murder Deut. 21:4 504. Purchase a Hebrew slave in accordance with the prescribed laws Ex. 21:2 514. Canaanite slaves must work forever unless injured in one of their limbs Lev. 25:46 528. Press the idolater for payment Deut. 15:3 545. The courts must carry out the death penalty of stoning Deut. 22:24 546. The courts must carry out the death penalty of burning Lev. 20:14 547. The courts must carry out the death penalty of the sword Ex. 21:20 548. The courts must carry out the death penalty of strangulation Lev. 20:10 549. The courts must hang those stoned for blasphemy or idolatry Deut. 21:22 552. The court must not let the sorcerer live Ex. 22:17 553. The court must give lashes to the wrongdoer Ex. 25:2 581. Not to diminish from the Torah any commandments, in whole or in part Deut. 13:1 596. Destroy the seven Canaanite nations Deut. 20:17 597. Not to let any of them remain alive Deut. 20:16 598. Wipe out the descendants of Amalek Deut. 25:19 611. Keep the laws of the captive woman Deut. 21:11 613. Not to retain her for servitude after having sexual relations with her Deut. 21:14 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 "We have never interfered in the affairs of others." Wow. You've got to give it to the guy--he's got real chutzpah! 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 As a young practicing Jew, I find the ArtScroll siddur's Ashkenazi pronunciations somewhat archaic and off-putting. They need to get with the times... 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 "Learning to stand in somebody else's shoes to see through their eyes, that's how peace begins." Wise words. There's far too little of that going on right now. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Lashon hara, Tamar. You're a terrible Jew. Here's an example of a statement by Rabbis for Human Rights, on the Durban II conference: "But if you allow the conference to be hijacked as if Israel is the only place in the world where there are issues of racism and human rights, then it makes a farce of the whole thing. We're not trying to protect Israel from being criticized, but as people who are really concerned with human rights and racism, and think it is important that there be a body among the community of nations dealing with these things, we don't want to see another hijacking." Yeah, that's what a Hamas-supporting, Neo-Nazi, Israel-hating organization sounds like. Right.... And their Prayer for the State of Israel, on their home page: "Sovereign of the Universe, accept in loving kindness and with favor our prayers for the State of Israel, her government and all who dwell within her boundaries and under her authority. On the 60th anniversary of her founding, reopen our eyes and our hearts to the wonder of Israel and strengthen our faith in Your power to work redemption in every human soul. Grant us also the fortitude to keep ever before us those ideals to which Israel dedicated herself in her Declaration of Independence, so that we may be true partners with the people of Israel in working toward her as yet not fully fulfilled vision. "Grant those entrusted with guiding Israel's destiny the courage, wisdom and strength to do Your Will. Guide them in the paths of peace and give them the insight to see Your Image in every human being. Be with those charged with Israel's saftey and defend them from all harm. May they have the strength to protect their country and the spiritual fortitude never to abuse the power placed in their hands." Boy, the hatred of Israel is just flowing, isn't it? I think it's pretty clear what's going on. Tamar is actually a Jew-hater posing as a racist Jew, just to make the Jewish people look bad. Doesn't feel so nice when it comes back at you, does it? 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 The point is that this doctor represents the kind of mentality that will be necessary for peace to be achieved some day. If everyone today were as forgiving and willing to compromise on their demands as he, then the conflict would be over. That mentality deserves distinction, to be held up high as an example for all to see. As for TV, we all know the trash on Palestinian TV. That doesn't change the fact that there is still a vocal minority in Israel who chant "Death to the Arabs" and who will be an obstacle to any eventual peace. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 There are millions of disenfranchised Palestinians in the West Bank. Israel has been unable to make them leave, and they won't stand down until either they get citizenship in Israel or in a state of their own. They've gone almost a century already---why the heck would they stop now? Their population grows every day, and together with the Israeli Arabs will soon outnumber the Jews in Israel. These are the available options: Give them citizenship in Israel, give them their own state, or stick with the rapidly decaying status quo. The Arab states aren't going to help out Israel or the Palestinians, so it's up to Israel to do something. Put yourself in the shoes of Israel's government: No more cliches or slogans; action is required. Pick your poison. Since the Palestinians have adamantly refused to leave en masse for decades now but instead have drastically grown in numbers, and since you've rejected all the aforementioned options for dealing with them and have proffered no solutions of your own, it's clear what you guys really think deep down but won't say: Kill all the bastards! Or at least firebomb all their towns until they leave out of fear for their very lives. I know you're fingers are just itching to type it out. Go for it. It'll be cathartic, I'm sure. Unless, of course, there really is some secret alternative solution you're hiding away? 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Ah, Ross, so I would assume that includes all those fanatics being trained at the various religious-nationalist settler seminaries too, right? I'm sure they're being taught that the Palestinians are fellow human beings and that we should all live in peace, right? They're awarding a Palestinian who lost three kids to an errant Israeli attack and who still believes deeply in peace? How dare they! They should give *us* awards! Me, me, me! The one thing that the extremists on both sides have in common is a staggering incapacity to put themselves in the other person's shoes. It's always about themselves, what they want, what their rights are, what their grievances are. Me, me, me! They can't even imagine for a moment what it's like to be the other guy. It's shame---empathy is the most singularly human capacity. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Who's to blame for the former Gaza settlers still living in trailer parks? Israel is to blame, for doing a pretty cruddy job taking care of its people. How a nation takes care of its own people is the ultimate measure of the state's moral quality; just witness how poorly the Arab nations take care of their own people. You all know that 400,000 Jews won't be required to leave. Land swaps that have already been agreed to with the Palestinians would cut that more than in half. As for the rest, I find it amazing that the idea of uprooting three million Palestinians to expel them from the West Bank doesn't strike you people as a "humanitarian disaster." Because they're not going to be able to stay in a sustainable way if they are refused citizenship in Israel and are refused a state of their own. Do you really think that an indefinite future of teenage Israeli guards manning checkpoints is a sustainable prospect in the long-term? The Jordanian option is a fantasy of wishful thinking. If we're going to hope that an Arab state suddenly wants the best for the Arab people, we might as well pretend that Saudi Arabia is going to swoop in and take care of the Palestinians. If you would listen to your own propaganda, you'd know that no one else is going to take any initiative here; it's up to Israel. Israel did a lousy job uprooting its citizens from Gaza, although the majority of Israelis are now thrilled to be the hell out of that cramped cesspool and have no desire ever to go back in there again. Most Israeli settlers in the West Bank are not extremists, and would move if given financial inducements to do so, especially if Israel does a decent job this time preparing places for them inside Israel proper. Start a campaign in the American Jewish community to raise money for it. A few hundred million dollars would do the job; a pittance considering the burden that would finally be removed from Israel's back. Only a few thousand extremists would remain, and their fate would be entirely up to them: Go on playing their cowboys-and-Indians fantasy on the land frontier, or make real 21st-century lives for themselves in a modern, civilized state on the cutting edge of the technological frontier. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Well, if you're going to cite unnamed "polls," then I certainly cannot argue with you. But please do find me that poll. I'd love to see it. Everyone knows that 67% of statistics are made up on the spot... 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 What extremists on both sides have managed to do is conflate residential settlements with military occupation, **which are two different things.** There is ample justification now for military occupation, at least as long as the rockets keep flying and terrorism continues. But residential settlements serve no purpose for anybody, and should either be dismantled, or their residents should be required to void citizenship in Israel and military protection. There is no argument for the residential settlements, at least no argument that does not require invoking Biblical magic. They soak up Israel's time, money, and military strength, and have the effect of just pissing everyone off---Israel's majority, America, the Arabs, everyone. Perhaps the international community, which claims it cares so much about solving the problem of the settlements, would be willing to kick in some financial inducements to convince the non-extremist majority of the settlers to move back into Israel. The tiny extremist minority can then decide if they'd like to fend for themselves as Palestinian subjects. There's no problem with Jews staying in the West Bank---provided that they give up Israeli citizenship and become lawful citizens of the eventual Palestinian state there. Or, they can move into Israel proper and save everyone a huge headache. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Ha. "Transfer." It sounds so bold, so gutsy, so hard-nosed, so tough. But how, pray tell, would you have Israel practically accomplish it in a manner consistent with Israel's civilized values? Tell me. The Palestinians aren't going to go anywhere en masse of their own volition. That's not an opinion, but a simple fact. After all these years of pain, they haven't budged, but only grown exponentially in population, and will soon overtake Israel's Jews in numbers. So, smart guy, how do you intent to force them to move, all the millions and millions of them? Maybe a few percentage---the most moderate ones---will take money, but the other 95% won't leave without a fight. So how do you practically intend to move them? Perhaps you all know the fable about belling the cat... 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 The available evidence strongly points to the conclusion that Arafat died of AIDS, a big taboo in Arafat's exceedingly homophobic culture. And that would certainly explain why his wife refused to release his medical results or permit and autopsy. I'm sure they'd rather everyone believe that Israel poisoned him. That's much more politically palatable to them. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Wow. So Hamas believes that ax-murdering children is "natural" Arab behavior? They're even more racist than I thought! 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 You can see it in your words. You criticize the UNRWA. Fine. You insist that the Palestinians should just live in Jordan or Egypt. Whatever. You make all these declarations about how things *ought* to be. But, again, I ask, what's your practical solution to the problem? I know how you think things *ought* to be, but how do you practically get from point A to point B? That's the missing link in all these discussions. People complain about this or that, people criticize, people recite history lessons and issue declarations of their rights and various other *oughts*. The Palestinians ought to think this way! The Israelis ought to think that way! But nobody has a practical, feasible *solution*. How do you practically get to a sustainable end-game, and in a manner consistent with Israel's civilized values? Imagine you're the Israeli government. Slogans and cliches are now insufficient. What do you actually, explicitly do? 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Yes, John, just as Turkey and Syria, societies without free speech, are occupying millions of Kurds with an iron fist, slaughtering tens of thousands in just the last couple of decades. The Kurds, by the way, have suffered a real genocide, at the hands of Saddam in his Anfal campaign in the late 1980s, when he killed more Kurds in a few months than all the Palestinians and Jews who have been killed in the Levant in the past 100 years. Or just as all the Arab regimes, who can never agree on anything, have agreed that they're all going to prop up Sudan's dictator Omar al-Bashir, the genocidaire of Darfur. Or Russia in Chechnya. Or China in Tibet. Yuck. Perhaps Britain or France should be the one casting judgment. After all, they know how to slaughter hundreds of thousands better than anyone, as they've demonstrated from the Levant to Afghanistan to Algeria in the modern era. Or perhaps the US, which incinerated more people in just one atom bomb in Hiroshima than all the deaths of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict put together. Nobody's hands are clean. But as far as morals go, Israel fights up close, with all their own young men and women, and because their safety is at stake. Few nations have ever fought a single war as justified as the wars Israel has fought. And no nation is as hated. Because it's always about the Jews, isn't it? 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 So maybe 10% would leave voluntarily (if that many), and, as you say, that would leave an even higher concentration of refuseniks and uncompromisers behind. So that's really not a solution at all. Again, I ask, everyone's got criticisms. I've heard every one. But nobody seems to have an actual, explicit, feasible, long-term solution. I'd love to hear one. Please, do tell. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Empathy? Who needs that...? 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Negativity and criticism. That's all well and good, but what proposals can you supply for what should eventually be done with the millions of rapidly growing Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, who, together with the Israeli Arabs, will soon exceed the population of Jews in the Levant? Do you really believe that they're ever going to rest as long as they remain stateless, or that they're all willingly going to move away? If so, let's hear your explicit, feasible proposal for how to accomplish either goal--no slogans or cliches, please. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 These are the ones who keep saying that the Earth is literally 6,000 years old and that driving on Shabbat is to blame for earthquakes, right? Just checking... Ah, to live in the 21st century. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 The Arab regimes have no moral standing to criticize Israel in any way. Between their continued sheltering of Sudan's genocidal leader Bashir and their history of treating the Palestinians far worse than even the Israelis have treated the Palestinians, they have no business making so much as a squeak now. There are only two groups of people who have a legitimate reason to be upset at Israel, and that's the Palestinians and the Lebanese. As far as the rest are concerned, f*** 'em. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 For more on this bittersweet story, be sure to see: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1073846.html and: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1074678.html Wafa Younis deserves great recognition for what she is trying to do, especially considering the array of forces that she's up against. Her clear instinct of basic humanity is the most sacred and valuable trait that human beings are capable of exhibiting. At the end of the day, what else is there to humankind that is more worthy of protection and preservation? It is truly only a heart of pure stone that would be unmoved by a story like this one. May heaven have mercy on anyone who has become so twisted by trauma and grievance to be beyond the reach of acts of this kind. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Well put. An eminently reasonable statement. The problems facing Israel today are complex, and the first step toward progress is a humble acknowledgment of that fact. The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is false certainty, and Israel cannot afford any more danger. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 You're such a racist. I disagree with you, so I must be an Arab? You're joking, right? I'm as Jewish and Zionist as they come. Nor am I a pacifist by any means. If I thought another military campaign would actually work this time, I'd be advocating it. I'm not talking about cattle cars. I'm talking caravans. We're talking about millions of people who have bee unwilling to leave for many decades now. The Jew of the Arab world cared more about their personal well-being than the lands on which they lived, so they left when the Arab regimes terrorized them with pogroms and bombs and racist laws. But you all know that a majority of the West Bank Palestinians care more about their land than anything else; Israel would have to be even more brutal than the hideous Arab regimes to drive the Palestinians out. And there are three times as many Palestinians as there were Jews in thr Arab world. Logistically, how do you intend to expel them? And be specific--clearly they are presently unwilling to leave en masse. So what do you specifically by saying that Israel should make life unbearable for them? What specific new policies do you suggest? 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Okay, the consensus around this corner of the Internet seems to twofold: 1. Stop the rockets by increasing military engagement in Gaza until either the rockets stop or all 1.5 million Gazans are dead, whichever comes first. This is still too vague, so let's be more specific: Would a ground invasion work, or targeted airstrikes, or a simple Hama-Syrian-style carpet-bombing campaign? 2. As for the Arabs in the West Bank, two options: keep them perpetually in a state of legal limbo indefinitely, without either a state or Israeli citizenship, and under Israeli governmental jurisdiction, even if Jews become a minority to the West of the Jordan river; or force them out en masse, even if millions refuse, through some system of buses and trains and at gunpoint if necessary. How do you get them into the buses, and what do you do with the many who will stand their ground even under gunpoint? You have presented a vague plan so far. Ambitious plans often sound simple and clear while they remain vague. I'm just trying to fill in the details. Tell me which details you agree or disagree with, and what details you would replace them with. But don't call me names or claim that I'm a member of the "post-Zionist left." I am not. I am a proud Zionist, with many good friends serving with honor in the Tsahal. I just want people to figure out a concrete plan to fix Israel's problems, and not just throw around bravado and cliched slogans. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 That whole last posting was a string of aphorisms and cliches slogans! "Let history teach, not dictate." "The man for the hour." "Make the hard decisions." "Keep Israel safe." "Stand up and put down belligerant neighbors who worship a god of war." "Woe to those who..."I know slogans are comforting, but they're utterly worthless. You can't defeat your enemies with cheap cliches. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 I suppose I could have been more specific. 1. Airstrikes and a military campaign in Gaza did not stop the rockets in the South. The 2006 invasion of Lebanon successfully stoppes the rockets in the North, but Hezbollah is more than fully re-armed by now and just waiting for an excuse to go at it again. Hezbollah, however, has a much better sense of their own self interest than Hamas; Hamas might well shoot rockets as long as a single civilian is alive in Gaza. 2. I meant whether the Arabs should all get their own state, or citizenship in Israel. The US melting pot is a bad example; all the various groups in the US are citizens. Presumably Israel doesn't want several million more Arab citizens. So what's to become of them? 3. "Consider a war a war and win it" is a slogan. It's a cute slogan, but it's still a slogan. What specific actions should Israel actually take should terrorism continue? Israel hasn't won a war decisively in over thirty-five years. 4. "Move them" is another cute slogan. How do you practically move millions of people? In trains or buses? At gunpoint? What do you do with the hundreds of thousands or millions that refuse to budge? We live in an era of powerful Zionist women. Don't stick them in the kitchen. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Here are the ultimate questions right now. Anyone with actual answers--not just slogans, or declarations of rights, self-comforting ideology, or history lessons--is welcome to try at them. 1. How do you stop the rockets? 2. What is to be done with the millions of Arabs in the West Bank, who, together with the Arabs living inside Israel proper, will soon outnumber the Jews of the Levant? 3. If Israel ends the military occupation, pulls back to the 1967 borders and cedes Arab-majority parts of Jerusalem, will the terrorism, the arms build-up, and the violent "resistance" all cease? Is there really anything that will make the terrorism stop once and for all, or will there always be an excuse for more? What is Israel's practical recourse in the event that the terrorism continues, or, for that matter, intensifies? 4. Would millions of Arab Palestinians ever be satisfied without eventual sovereignty on some significant portion of land in the Levant? I don't really see how any progress is possible until we have practical, feasible answers to these questions. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 You people are ridiculous. You pontificate, but you don't even really listen. What, are you afraid that if you actually listen to what other people say, it might puncture your comforting ideologies? When did I ever call for retreat? I explicitly rejected retreat. You clearly are too afraid to listen carefully, lest it perturb your womb of orthodoxy. I could not have been more clear: How do you stop the rockets? What do you do with the millions of Arabs in the West Bank, who, together with the Arabs inside Israel, will soon outnumber the Jews in the Levant? How could these questions be any more clear? There they are. Answer them, or acknowledge some small modicum of humility and admit that you don't actually know how to answer them. I can assure you that Bibi doesn't know the answer. Otherwise, explain precisely what you would do. No slogans, no triumphant and self-congratulatory shouts of "Kill the bastards!" No vagueness. No bluster. No straw men about who I am and what I believe. (I can assure you that you don't know a darn thing about me.) Tell me what you would do, and how. Lay our your plan, your strategy. I'm fully open to any course of action, be it military or nonmilitary, if it will work. But nothing has worked, for decade upon decade now. All the pretty theories have been dashed to pieces upon the shores of reality. Unless one of you is willing to go out on a limb and actually explain what you would do, you might as well stop all the insults and condescending history lessons. They're about as useful as the UN. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Oh, a history lesson! Thanks so much! Nothing like a drop of condescension to brighten my day! We all know the history. We've heard it all. Every empire that controlled the Levant, every battle, every war, every claim, everything. So what? What does it change? I'm amazed at the naivete that it takes for somebody in the year 2009, to include in his argument a statement of the form "Only our side has the right to the land, not their side." So what else is new? Nothing you say answers any of the problems. How do you stop the rockets, which will just grow and grow in number and sophistication as time goes on? What do you do with the millions of Arabs in the West Bank, who, together with the Arabs inside Israel, will soon outnumber the Jews in the land? You want to hold on to all of the land forever? Some plan indeed. Just brilliant. And Israel has thousands of Palestinian terrorists with blood on their hands in prison; you want to execute them all? Israel's justice system doesn't have the death penalty, having made just one exception in all its history for million-fold mass murderer Adolf Eichmann; you want to hang thousands of people with the cameras flashing? What brilliant hasbara! They should hire you for the foreign ministry at once! (It might even be an improvement.) You don't have any answers. All you have are the old and tired slogans, the history lessons, the pontificating, and declarations about rights and so forth. All the usual jumping up and down, but with nothing useful to say. I could hear the same sort of drivel from a Palestinian revolutionary, with nouns switched around. But nobody has any actual, practical answers. And you know why? Because the situation is not, despite your pedantic response, simple at all. Nothing in the Middle East is simple to fix. And anyone who says differently is out of touch with reality. My aim isn't to provide answers. I don't know them. I'm not arrogant enough to claim that I do. The problem is hard. My aim is to get everybody to drop their oversimplifications and trite ideologies, and to start thinking. Because maybe if we all actually use our heads for a while, we might actually figure something out. Our only other option is to just keep going over the same boring tripe that we've been hearing for a century now, and nothing will ever change. People will keep jumping up and down about their rights, and nobody will fix anything. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 The British! Now there's the Israeli dark humor that I know and love! My hope was a Labor-Kadima-Likud government that took the opportunity to reform Israel's electoral laws. The best idea I heard was to divide the Knesset in half, with half the seats voted nationally (like an upper house) and the other half voted regionally (like a lower house), and with a significant increase in the threshold for representation in the Knesset to 10 to 15 percent to keep out the tiny fringe parties. Then Israel will have larger majorities and stabler governments. When was the last time an Israeli prime minister served a full term, anyhow? Not for decades! The way things work right now, it's a wonder that the government ever gets anything done at all. Instead, we've got another coalition built out of tiny, irreconcilable parties. The tyranny of the tiny parties continues, I'm afraid! 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 You certainly do love straw men. Who said anything about retreat? Who denied the evil of Islamic terrorism? You can't argue with me on the merits, so you pretend I'm arguing something completely different and attack that instead. No, the quagmire scenario is not "rubbish." Sometimes we win, and sometimes we can't. That's life. As for Israel "expanding," again I ask, what are you going to do with the millions of Arabs? I'm not left-wing, and I'm not right-wing. I think people who look to simplistic ideologies for comfort are just fooling themselves. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Geez, you guys show all the signs of long-term abuse. It's always been a matter of great concern that nearly a century of living in a bastion of civilization amidst the Arab jungle would start having a deleterious effect on the psyche, and I suppose now we're seeing some of the proof. Abused people become immoderate, latching on to the protective comfort of ideologies and movements. Perhaps you all think the right-wing is going to be your salvation, just as a previous generation felt about the left-wing. Keep dreaming. The answers are not easy, and won't be coming any time soon. Your straw men aside, I don't care about Israel's enemies. I care about Israel, and its people. The greatest discovery of Judaism was its system of ethics, the envy of the world. To see Israel jettison those ethics, even a little bit, is a tragedy. Casting aspersions, lashon hara, as you all do now, at any with whom you disagree (do you really wish death upon me, as one of your postings suggested?) is a sad thing to see. Tell me, do you ever doubt? Has the capacity for self-examination, the ability to look in the mirror at yourselves, remained in intact? The very name Israel means "one who struggles with G-d." That inner struggle is the essence of the Jewish spirit. Jews must kill their enemies when they have to, but they must never become barbarians like their enemies. As for PHR, it's worth mentioning to any reasonable people who might come across these entries that their web site, at least at the moment, says nothing whatsoever about Israel. All the PHR web site talks about is Zimbabwe, Sudan/Darfur, human rights violations in Iran, and HIV/AIDS and PEPHAR. Somewhere along the way, people on all corners of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict came to the conclusion that everything that happens in the world revolves around themselves. Hard as it may be to imagine, you're not the center of the universe. The world was not created six thousand years ago, and the fate of the universe does not lie in Judea and Samaria. The Earth is hurtling through a near-empty void, and all we, its inhabitants, have at our disposal is our brains. We'd better start using them. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Nikos isn't saying that Israel should give up its pre-1967 land. S/he is saying that Israel shouldn't be colonizing territory in the West Bank, outside the separation barrier, unless, of course, Israel wants to be permanently responsible for several million more Arab residents and threatening their majority. Already the Jewish population of Israel has dropped from 79% to 75% in the last decade. Apart from simply expelling all the Arabs from the West Bank (and how in the world do you propose to accomplish such a thing?), I don't see what other option there is besides giving them the land of the West Bank eventually. Even Lieberman believes that. Of course, the idiots on the other side have decided to make it a policy to lob rockets from any liberated territory, and that's why everyone is stuck and nobody knows how to solve the problem. As for Netanyahu and Barak, they have both already been prime ministers, and neither did a terribly distinguishing job. Why anyone expect some kind of magic to arise from them this time is a mystery to me. As for "organized, effective resistance" halting Islamic terrorism, it's worked in Iraq, but never in Afghanistan (ask the British or the Russians, not to mention NATO today) and certainly not in the Levant. Unless a century of fighting in the Levant is about to end tomorrow. By the way, when was the last time Israel flat-out won a war, let alone won decisively? 1973--over 35 years ago. Maybe it's time to rethink strategy. As proud Zionist Albert Einstein put it, The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If you really think one more war is going to solve the problem, then I've got news for you. The problem today is the rockets. The rockets mean that Israel won't relinquish any further land, and rightly so, since next Ben Gurion airport and Tel Aviv will be in range. Solve the problem with the rockets, and there's hope for improvement. But the fact is that nobody knows how to stop the rockets. Nobody. Anyone who thinks the answer is simple has got meat for brains. How many more people must die before it becomes clear that there isn't a military solution to the problem? (Never enough, it would seem.) I'm always amazed by people who claim on the one hand that the enemy loves only death and destruction and has no care for their own lives or the lives of their civilians, and yet believe on the other hand that somehow the enemy can be bombed into changing their minds. Yeah, right. There are no easy answers here. Anyone who says differently is a liar and a fool. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 This is not a group "dedicated to the destruction of Israel." This is a group dedicated to saving Israel's soul. This is a group whose existence makes Israel worth saving, and whose existence makes Israel the moral superior of all of its foes. Few things have been as good for Israeli PR than the fact that groups like this exist and operate freely. Surprising though it may be, but cruelty and brutality are not the measures of a state's success. Israel may sit in the jungle, but it must be a bastion of civilization. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Geez, Tamar, what do you do, post a nasty comment after *every* JTA article? I invite other readers to take a look at Tamar's history of comments. At least the gentlemen in the article above have a job, which is more than is probably true for someone like you who seems to have so much time to put the commenting system here at JTA to shame. Tell me, how is it possible for one human being to produce so much bile? What, are you a walking liver? You must be loads of fun to be around. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 We Jews rightly pride ourselves on inheriting a long history of civilization, of thought, of philosophy, of intellectual debate, of profound complexity, of aloofness from the barbarians. It is upsetting, to say the least, to hear someone like this "Steve" character going into full-on barbarian mode and reducing a complicated situation to brutish and barbaric sloganeering, ad hominem attacks, name-calling, aspersions of character, self-righteous posturing, and immodest judgment. Who are you, "Steve", to stand above us all and cast judgment upon us? You do not know the mind of G-d better than those you defame, and your charge that "David" is harmful to the future of Judaism is a colossal act of projection. Even Moses and Abraham went through frequent periods of doubt and self-reflection, whereas I know that you are supremely and totally convinced of your simplistic ideologies, and your delineation of the world into Good (which "obviously" includes yourself, as it always does for blowhards) and Bad (into which you lump all who dare to disagree). Take your brutish and barbaric worldview and politely leave. Or return and converse like a civilized human being. There's too much at stake these days for such silliness. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 This extremist poison that has penetrated segments of the Jewish community has filled precious Jewish hearts with a most dark and ugly hatred. I've known all too many Tamars. They've found their grand theories and comforting, unthinking ideologies, and they are forever lost, never to be turned again to the light of the sun. Gone from their minds is the capacity of doubt, self-criticism, or reflection, some of the very traits that make human beings human. G-d help us Jews if we are ever left only with people like that. What a loss. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 To all the Tamars out there, A "fool" or a "traitor." This puerile language and these outrageous charges. The name-calling and the juvenility. Is that all you know to speak? That takes some real chutzpah. Perhaps you think it's simple or obvious what an Israeli PM must do, but, in truth, you have no clue. It's easy to be a critic, but few have any idea what it's like to hold Israel's safety and future in your hands, or a better plan for going forward. Tell me, what is your great plan to solving Israel's problems? Olmert fell short in many ways. But he's got one of the toughest jobs on Earth. At the very least, everyone owes him, like any other sad fool who ascends to Israel's premiership, an expression of humility. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Yeah, Tamar. Just like Shlomo Carlebach's followers keep insisting that he is innocent. It really does boggle the mind how easy it is for people to rationalize away the crimes of those whom they look up to. Why can't people just accept the truth, horrid though it may sometimes be? 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 The international community has demanded, fairly, that Hamas accept three conditions in exchange for recognition: (1) recognize an Israeli state's right to exist in the Levant, (2) renounce violence, and (3) accept previous agreements. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Likud wants to lead the Israeli government, and be deemed legitimate internationally. So does Likud accept the analogous conditions: (1) recognize a Palestinian state's right to exist in the Levant, (2) renounce violence, and (3) accept previous agreements? I happen to think Hamas is evil. My only point here is that if Likud takes power, how does Israel escape claims of hypocrisy for demanding that Hamas accept conditions that correspond to conditions that Likud does not accept? 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00