May 20, 2008

Tair Bat Avital

Ashkelon Attack Victim Asks Public to Pray For Baby in Surgery
by Hana Levi Julian
14 Iyar 5768, May 19, '08
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/ News.aspx/ 126211

(IsraelNN.com) One minute 24-year-old Avital Afjin was sitting with her baby daughter in the Kupat Holim Clalit medical clinic in Ashkelon's busy Chutzot Mall. The next moment, the world was a nightmare.

"I opened my eyes and saw only darkness," related the young mother as she described the aftermath of last week's Grad missile attack. Avital described how she managed to pull two-year-old Tair from the rubble of the clinic, covered in blood and looking "half human."

Both Avital and Tair suffered serious head wounds in the attack. They were air-lifted from Barzilai Hospital in Ashkelon to Tel HaShomer Hospital in Tel Aviv, where doctors battled to save Tair's life.

The doctor who was on-call at the time was also severely wounded, suffering facial injuries. She remains at Barzilai Hospital, along with a fourth critically injured person, who suffered severe stomach wounds.

Nearly 100 people were hurt when the Iranian-made missile slammed into the top floor of the mall where the clinic was located, and then crashed through the floor below. Most people suffered severe trauma reactions and light wounds in the attack.

'Pray for My Daughter's Health' Avital expressed gratitude after surviving the near-fatal attack, saying, "One must always say 'Thank you'… The Holy One, Blessed is He, saved me from death and gave my daughter and I our lives as a gift."

The toddler is now in serious but stable condition and faces a series of operations in which doctors hope to be able to save both her legs and remove the shrapnel that still remains in her head.

Avital has asked the public to pray for her daughter's health, particularly on Monday when she will undergo an especially critical operation. Her Hebrew name is Tair bat Avital.



Hat tip: Chaya

The word "tair" is in the Passover song/prayer, "Karev Yom."  I'm not sure what the actual word "tair" means. From the lyrics below, I am guessing it means "light."


The lyrics in tranliterated Hebrew:

Karev yom, karev yom
Asher hu lo yom velo laila.
Karev yom, karev yom
Asher hu lo yom velo laila.

Ram hoda, hoda, hoda
Ki lekha hayom af lekha halaila.
Ram hoda, hoda, hoda
Ki lekha hayom af lekha halaila.

Shomrim hafked, hafked leirkha
Kol hayom vekhol halaila.
Shomrim hafked, hafked leirkha
Kol hayom vekhol halaila.

Tair, tair, tair, tair
Tair keor yom kheshkhat laila.
Tair, tair, tair, tair
Tair keor yom kheshkhat laila.

Karev yom, karev yom
Asher hu lo yom velo laila.
Karev yom, karev yom
Asher hu lo yom velo laila.

Karev yom asher hu lo yom velo laila
Karev yom asher hu lo yom vehu lo laila.

 

The lyrics in English:

The day is approaching that is neither day nor night
Most High, let it be known that Yours is the day and Yours is the night
Place guards over Your City all day and all night
Lighten the darkness of the night with the light of day
The day is approaching that is neither day nor night

Neil Sedaka Plays Chopin on "I've Got a Secret"

Wow.   Beautiful. He's quite an accomplished pianist. An interesting question and answer session precedes the music. (the pop song during the first few seconds is not so special - fortunately, it ends quickly)

What Really Happened Near the Grassy Knoll?

A victim of the Cold War was assassinated.

(Neither here nor there: I never noticed before that there are two asses in assassinate.)

A Little More to the Right, Please....

Lb0521cd

Toon051908

Obama and Israel

Carolyn Glick writes:

Spin doctors were relabeled "strategists" in the early 1990s. And as Mark Steyn wrote last week in National Review, "Increasingly, the Western world has attitudes rather than policies."

The latest attitude to be flouted as policy is indignation. Specifically, Democratic Presidential hopeful Senator Barack Obama's furious indignation at President George W. Bush's address before the Knesset last week where he celebrated Israel's 60th anniversary and extolled the US's alliance with Israel. Beyond praising the Jewish people's 4,000 year-old devotion to the Land of Israel and to liberty, Bush used the speech to warn against those who think that Iran and its terror proxies can simply be wished away through appeasement.

As the president put it, "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided. We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

To Israeli ears, Bush's words were uncontroversial. Israel is beset by enemies who daily call for its physical annihilation and while doing so, build and support terror forces who attack Israel. For most Israelis, the notion that these enemies can be appeased is absurd and deeply offensive.

The only strong reaction that Bush's remarks provoked in Israel was relief. In spite of the Bush administration's own participation in the six-party talks with North Korea, its support for the EU-3's feckless discussions with the mullahs, its paralysis in the face of Hizbullah's takeover of Lebanon, and its support for the establishment of a Palestinian state run by Fatah terrorists dedicated to Israel's destruction, at the very least, standing before the Knesset, Bush effectively pledged not to allow Iran to acquire the means to conduct a new Holocaust.

From an Israeli vantage point then, it was shocking to see that immediately after Bush stepped down from the rostrum, Obama and his Democratic supporters began pillorying him for his remarks. Most distressing is what Obama's reaction said about the Democratic presidential hopeful.

OBAMA'S RESPONSE to Bush's speech was an effective acknowledgement that appeasing Iran and other terror sponsors is a defining feature of his campaign and of his political persona. As far as he is concerned, an attack against appeasement is an attack against Obama.

Obama and his supporters argue that seeking to ease Iranian belligerence by conducting negotiations and offering military, technological, military and financial concessions to the likes of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who refers to Israel as pestilence, daily threatens the Jewish state with destruction, and calls for the eradication of the US while claiming to be divinely instructed by a seven-year-old imam who went missing 1100 years ago is not appeasement. Indeed, Obama claims that conducting direct face-to-face negotiations with the likes of Ahmadinejad is the right way to be "tough."

...Peter Osnos, Obama's former publisher told the Times that Obama's meteoric rise to the pinnacle of politics is due in large part to his gift as a storyteller. In his words, "It's almost all based on these two books, two books not based on a job of prodigious research or risking one's life as a reporter in Iraq. He has written about himself. Being able to take your own life story and turn it into this incredibly lucrative franchise, it's a stunning fact."

Indeed, it is stunning. And frightening. It says that in a world in which evil men are combining and preparing for war and genocide, good men are preparing for pleasant chitchat with their foes because they have come to prefer attitude to substance. It is a world in which indignation can be summoned as readily (and perhaps more easily) for partisan political attacks as for delusional dictators‚ open preparation for genocide. And it is a world in which it is more important to discuss "healing" emotional wounds than devising policies capable of coping with an ever-more-dangerous international coalition of murderers.

Link

Question: What Would a Caveman Do With a Cell Phone?*

Answer:

"Militia-Cams" Record Gaza's Gruesome Reality - Martin Chulov (The Australian)
    A popular pastime in Gaza is swapping gruesome footage of dead or dying victims of the Strip's incessant violence.
    The images used to be almost exclusive legacies of clashes with Israeli forces, but last year that changed. Now they are snapshots of Palestinian fratricide, gruesome images taken by "militia-cams" that record scenes for posterity.
    Sit in a town square for more than five minutes and you'll be quickly encircled by youths clamoring to outdo each other with images of death and mayhem on their mobile phones.

*I know.  It's an insult to cavemen who probably don't deserve it.

Whose Fault?

Self-Made Nakba
It has become fashionable to match the celebration of Israel's founding with Palestinians' marking of their 1948 "nakba," or catastrophe. Yet whose fault is it that they didn't use those six decades constructively? And who killed the independent Palestinian state alongside Israel that was part of the partition plan? Answer: The Arab states and Palestinian leadership themselves. In rejecting partition, in demanding everything and starting a war it could not win, the Arab side ensured endless conflict, the Palestinian refugee issue, and no Palestine. Yet 60 years later, the Arab side has the hutzpa to complain - and a good part of the Western media echo - that they were Israel's victims in 1948. - Barry Rubin(Jerusalem Post)

May 19, 2008

Divers Find a 385 Year Old...What?

A combination toothpick/earwax spoon?  Blecccchhhh.

They Simply Must...

...make the movie "A New Leaf" (1971), starring Walter Matthau and Elaine May, available on DVD.  It is a very funny movie - Matthau at his best as an old fashioned playboy who runs out of money and decides to marry a wealthy woman and then do away with her. He finds Elaine May, a nerdy horticulturalist.  Their comedic chemistry was stellar!  I laughed til I cried when I saw it and as one of the reviewers on IMDb remarked, even the second time around it's funny in anticipation of what you know is going to happen.

It's a crying shame it's not available on DVD.  I check for it every few months, but no luck.

A_new_leaf

A summary from Amazon:

Elaine May wrote, directed, and starred in this acidic comedy about a wealthy playboy (Walter Matthau) who discovers that he has nearly spent all of his fortune. Casting about for a solution to his money problems that won't actually involve work, he finds a desperate solution: He'll marry an heiress (May) for her fortune. The hitch: She's a social maladept ("The woman is feral," Matthau growls). Indeed, Matthau finds marriage so intolerable that he decides there's only one course of action, which is to actively pursue making himself a widower by bumping her off. An offbeat, funny, and dry film, with a wonderfully misanthropic performance by Matthau and a sharply drawn one by May.

Some reviews from Amazon and IMDb:

This comedy performance by Walter Matthou ranks with his best work, such as in The Odd Couple, Sunshine Boys etc. Unfortunately, not as many people have seen it, as this movie is a little-known gem.

I saw it as a second feature and almost missed it as I had never heard or read anything about it. We stayed, and laughed so hard I looked for it for years and told people about this odd film no one knows about.

Thank God cable aired it and it became available on VHS so I could recommend it to friends. The movie is simply hilarious.

Matthau is an arrogant, cultured, vain, selfish and rich snob suddenly finding himself penniless. His only salvation is to marry a rich woman and he finds the perfect target in the introverted and socially inept heiress/botanist played by Elaine May.

Matthau, dreading this intrusion into his perfectly ordered bachelor existence, decides murder of this ditz-of-all-time is the answer to all his problems. But, that is just the beginning to a very funny and ultimately touching story.

There are some of the best written and performed comedy bits in this film that I've ever seen. Starting with William Redfield as an accountant trying to explain to a willfully uncomprehending Matthau that he's broke; James Coco as Matthau's detested uncle extorting him over breakfast; Jack Weston as May's conniving and crooked lawyer/boyfriend; Matthau proposing to May while kneeling on broken glass; the wedding with May being given away by a blubbering Weston; the Honeymoon and the toga nightgown; May's disasterous household of thieving servants; and so on.

Special mention must go to George Rose who plays Matthau's valet and all-purpose manservant. He is superb in his dry, clipped delivery while conveying the man's undelying wisdom and empathy.

Okay, the ending may seem tacked on or otherwise not perfect but you can say that about The Producers, Blazing Saddles, and quite a few other classic comedies. I won't take so much as 1/2 star off for that. This is a Classic American comedy and should be seen by everyone. Don't miss it. And please, someone, preserve it forever by putting it on DVD!

**********

Every now and then you stumble across a film that has been forgotten, or just ignored, and for the life of you, you can't figure out why. "A New Leaf" is such a film. Seeing this wonderful comedy for the first time was the movie-watching equivalent of discovering buried treasure.

One of the marks of an excellent comedy is one that you can watch a number of times and still laugh involuntarily even though you know what is coming. The performances of Matthau and May, as well as the supporting cast are that priceless.

So many funny and memorable scenes, but a couple of my favorites are: the meeting between Henry Graham (Matthau) and his accountant Beckett (Redfield) as Beckett tries to contain his frustration and explain to Matthau that his money is gone ("perfect"); and the scene where Graham crawls to his rich uncle (James Coco) to ask to borrow money while the uncle is favoring an electric pepper mill during his lavish meal (the expressions on Matthau's face are exquisite).

A delightful, black romantic comedy that somehow manages to be very light, and as a bonus even subtly tosses out some profound truths.

**************

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Continue reading "They Simply Must..." »

Musical Monday

I almost hate to advertise it because the more people that know about it, the less opportunity I will have to sneak an answer in edgewise, but if you are not checking out SoccerDad's and Elie's Exposition's joint venture,  Musical Monday, you are missing one of the cleverest and most fun blogging features on the internet.

The game goes like this:  There is a list of 20-odd lyric fragments, and without using google, the players must guess the name of the song and the artist.  Additionally, there's always a theme that binds the songs together. 

I can't imagine how long it takes them to make these quizzes up and how they manage come up with the terrific themes week after week.  If I haven't said it before:  Bravo!  Very well done and thank you gentlemen for keeping it going.

Today's Musical Monday.

Virginia Beach 5/17/08

Just some pics of random people - surfing, flying kites. It was a delightful weekend.

May 15, 2008

The Silent City

Beautifully expressed truth about a very ugly subject:

I think it fundamentally wrong to think that love and admiration for totalitarianism died in the Fuherbunker with Adolph Hitler. It almost immediately shifted its affections East to Uncle Joe. For him, no sacrifice was too great. Did America have atomic secrets? The highest duty of the most enlightened was to share them with Joseph Stalin in the interests of world peace.

Nothing can disguise the fact that six million Jews died, not in the Middle East, but in ovens which burned in the very heart of Europe. In countries that prided themselves in culture; that listened to Mozart; read books and vaunted their universities. When Golda Meir said with relief, on the occasion of the foundation of Israel that "For two thousand years we have waited for our deliverance. Now that it is here it is so great and wonderful that it surpasses human words" she was speaking of escape from a darkness within the very center of Western civilization.

Yet nothing great or wonderful is safe forever, and that darkness, that love for savagery, that admiration for the brutal, that was believed to have died beneath the ground in 1945 is on the march again. It is crawling out of books, lofty towers, places of culture in precisely the manner Camus warned us against. He said that the evil may be beaten, but it is rarely beaten forever; "that the plague bacillus never dies or disappears for good; that it can lie dormant for years and years in furniture and linen-chests; that it bides its time in bedrooms, cellars, trunks and bookshelves; and that perhaps the day would come when, for the bane and the enlightening of men, it would rouse up its rats again and send them forth to die in a happy city."

But we may not speak of it. And therefore it begins.

Read the whole thing.

He Had Me at "Tired Argument"

"Some people suggest that if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away," Bush said in his prepared address. "This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of our enemies, and America rejects it utterly. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because America stands with you."

"The killers claim the mantle of Islam, but they are not religious men," Bush said. "No one who prays to the God of Abraham could strap a suicide vest to an innocent child, or blow up guiltless guests at a Passover Seder, or fly planes into office buildings filled with unsuspecting workers."

Bush said that those who carry out such violent acts are serving only their own desire for power.

"They accept no God before themselves. And they reserve a special hatred for the most ardent defenders of liberty, including Americans and Israelis," Bush said. "That is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the `elimination' of Israel. That is why the followers of Hezbollah chant `Death to Israel, Death to America!' That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that `the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties.' And that is why the president of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map."

- President George W. Bush

May 14, 2008

Renaming the Paradigm

Bookworm has written a brilliant post which recounts a conversation between herself and her mother. She comes to the conclusion that the labels "left" and "right" ought to be renamed. Highly recommended reading.

...And Just What is Judaism?

D08511_3

She Did Not Wish to Be Called a Hero

But what else could we call someone who cared enough to save 2500 children despite great danger to herself? Who, after escaping punishment which included imprisonment, torture and a death sentence, continued to help under a different identity?

Irena Sendler, Polish Woman Who Saved 2,500 Jewish Children in Warsaw, Dies at 98 (Telegraph-UK)

  • Irena Sendler was a Polish Roman Catholic social worker with links to Zegota, the Council for Aid to Jews, and in December 1942 Zegota put her in charge of its children's department. Wearing nurses' uniforms, she and Irena Schultz were sent into the Warsaw ghetto with food, clothes and medicine, including a vaccine against typhoid. It soon became clear that the ultimate destination of many Jews was to be the Treblinka death camp, and Zegota decided to try to save as many children as possible.
  • One baby was spirited away in a mechanic's toolbox. Some children were transported in coffins, suitcases and sacks; others escaped through the sewer system beneath the city. An ambulance driver smuggled infants beneath the stretchers in the back of his van The children who were taken by Irena Sendler were given new identities and placed with convents, sympathetic families, orphanages and hospitals.
  • In later life Irena Sendler recalled the heartbreak of Jewish mothers having to part from their children: "We witnessed terrible scenes. Father agreed, but mother didn't. We sometimes had to leave those unfortunate families without taking their children from them. I'd go back there the next day and often found that everyone had been taken to the Umschlagsplatz railway siding for transport to the death camps." Irena Sendler kept a list of the names of all the children she saved, in the hope that she could one day reunite them with their families.
  • On October 20, 1943, her house was raided by the Gestapo and the Nazis took Sendler to the Pawiak prison, where she was tortured; although her legs and feet were broken, and her body left permanently scarred, she refused to betray her network of helpers or the children whom she had saved. Sentenced to death, she escaped thanks to Zegota, who bribed a guard to set her free. She immediately returned to her work using a new identity.
  • In her later years Irena Sendler was cared for in a Warsaw nursing home by Elzbieta Ficowska, who - in July 1942, at six months old - had been smuggled out of the ghetto by Irena in a carpenter's workbox.
  • In 2005 Irena Sendler reflected: "We who were rescuing children are not some kind of heroes. That term irritates me greatly. The opposite is true - I continue to have qualms of conscience that I did so little. I could have done more. This regret will follow me to my death."

The History of Modern Israel

In the late 1940s, before the establishment of Israel as a modern state, Jewish leaders once dreamed of a "Jewish-Arab alliance." Over the years, we've traveled very far from that dream, to the point where it seems almost inconceivable. It is a crying shame that it is the Israelis who are condemned for its loss and for the Palestinian refugee problem by the international community.  This should not be.  Media bias, lies and propaganda have turned Israel's plight into a sorry travesty of justice. It is made that much more grievous by the thought that so many of the victims of hitler and their descendents suffer yet another iteration of antisemitism hiding in a new costume - - anti-Zionism.

Efraim Karsh documents the history of the establishment of the modern state of Israel based upon recently declassified documents from the period of 1920-1948. They have brought forth some new facts which shed light on how the conflict actually developed:

Sixty years after its establishment by an internationally recognized act of self-determination, Israel remains the only state in the world that is subjected to a constant outpouring of the most outlandish conspiracy theories and blood libels; whose policies and actions are obsessively condemned by the international community; and whose right to exist is constantly debated and challenged not only by its Arab enemies but by segments of advanced opinion in the West.

During the past decade or so, the actual elimination of the Jewish state has become a cause célèbre among many of these educated Westerners. The “one-state solution,” as it is called, is a euphemistic formula proposing the replacement of Israel by a state, theoretically comprising the whole of historic Palestine, in which Jews will be reduced to the status of a permanent minority. Only this, it is said, can expiate the “original sin” of Israel’s founding, an act built (in the words of one critic) “on the ruins of Arab Palestine” and achieved through the deliberate and aggressive dispossession of its native population.

This claim of premeditated dispossession and the consequent creation of the longstanding Palestinian “refugee problem” forms, indeed, the central plank in the bill of particulars pressed by Israel’s alleged victims and their Western supporters. It is a charge that has hardly gone undisputed. As early as the mid-1950’s, the eminent American historian J.C. Hurewitz undertook a systematic refutation,[1] and his findings were abundantly confirmed by later generations of scholars and writers. Even Benny Morris, the most influential of Israel’s revisionist “new historians,” and one who went out of his way to establish the case for Israel’s “original sin,” grudgingly stipulated that there was no “design” to displace the Palestinian Arabs.[2]

The recent declassification of millions of documents from the period of the British Mandate (1920-1948) and Israel’s early days, documents untapped by earlier generations of writers and ignored or distorted by the “new historians,” paint a much more definitive picture of the historical record. They reveal that the claim of dispossession is not only completely unfounded but the inverse of the truth. What follows is based on fresh research into these documents, which contain many facts and data hitherto unreported.

_____________


Far from being the hapless objects of a predatory Zionist assault, it was Palestinian Arab leaders who from the early 1920’s onward, and very much against the wishes of their own constituents, launched a relentless campaign to obliterate the Jewish national revival. This campaign culminated in the violent attempt to abort the UN resolution of November 29, 1947, which called for the establishment of two states in Palestine. Had these leaders, and their counterparts in the neighboring Arab states, accepted the UN resolution, there would have been no war and no dislocation in the first place.

The simple fact is that the Zionist movement had always been amenable to the existence in the future Jewish state of a substantial Arab minority that would participate on an equal footing “throughout all sectors of the country’s public life.”[3] The words are those of Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the founding father of the branch of Zionism that was the forebear of today’s Likud party. In a famous 1923 article, Jabotinsky voiced his readiness “to take an oath binding ourselves and our descendants that we shall never do anything contrary to the principle of equal rights, and that we shall never try to eject anyone.”[4]

Eleven years later, Jabotinsky presided over the drafting of a constitution for Jewish Palestine. According to its provisions, Arabs and Jews were to share both the prerogatives and the duties of statehood, including most notably military and civil service. Hebrew and Arabic were to enjoy the same legal standing, and “in every cabinet where the prime minister is a Jew, the vice-premiership shall be offered to an Arab and vice-versa.”[5]

If this was the position of the more “militant” faction of the Jewish national movement, mainstream Zionism not only took for granted the full equality of the Arab minority in the future Jewish state but went out of its way to foster Arab-Jewish coexistence. In January 1919, Chaim Weizmann, then the upcoming leader of the Zionist movement, reached a peace-and-cooperation agreement with the Hashemite emir Faisal ibn Hussein, the effective leader of the nascent pan-Arab movement. From then until the proclamation of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948, Zionist spokesmen held hundreds of meetings with Arab leaders at all levels. These included Abdullah ibn Hussein, Faisal’s elder brother and founder of the emirate of Transjordan (later the kingdom of Jordan), incumbent and former prime ministers in Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and Iraq, senior advisers of King Abdul Aziz ibn Saud (founder of Saudi Arabia), and Palestinian Arab elites of all hues.

As late as September 15, 1947, two months before the passing of the UN partition resolution, two senior Zionist envoys were still seeking to convince Abdel Rahman Azzam, the Arab League’s secretary-general, that the Palestine conflict “was uselessly absorbing the best energies of the Arab League,” and that both Arabs and Jews would greatly benefit “from active policies of cooperation and development.”6 Behind this proposition lay an age-old Zionist hope: that the material progress resulting from Jewish settlement of Palestine would ease the path for the local Arab populace to become permanently reconciled, if not positively well disposed, to the project of Jewish national self-determination. As David Ben-Gurion, soon to become Israel’s first prime minister, argued in December 1947:

If the Arab citizen will feel at home in our state, . . . if the state will help him in a truthful and dedicated way to reach the economic, social, and cultural level of the Jewish community, then Arab distrust will accordingly subside and a bridge will be built to a Semitic, Jewish-Arab alliance.[7]

On the face of it, Ben-Gurion’s hope rested on reasonable grounds. An inflow of Jewish immigrants and capital after World War I had revived Palestine’s hitherto static condition and raised the standard of living of its Arab inhabitants well above that in the neighboring Arab states. The expansion of Arab industry and agriculture, especially in the field of citrus growing, was largely financed by the capital thus obtained, and Jewish know-how did much to improve Arab cultivation. In the two decades between the world wars, Arab-owned citrus plantations grew sixfold, as did vegetable-growing lands, while the number of olive groves quadrupled.[8]

No less remarkable were the advances in social welfare. Perhaps most significantly, mortality rates in the Muslim population dropped sharply and life expectancy rose from 37.5 years in 1926-27 to 50 in 1942-44 (compared with 33 in Egypt). The rate of natural increase leapt upward by a third.[9]

That nothing remotely akin to this was taking place in the neighboring British-ruled Arab countries, not to mention India, can be explained only by the decisive Jewish contribution to Mandate Palestine’s socioeconomic well-being. The British authorities acknowledged as much in a 1937 report by a commission of inquiry headed by Lord Peel:

The general beneficent effect of Jewish immigration on Arab welfare is illustrated by the fact that the increase in the Arab population is most marked in urban areas affected by Jewish development. A comparison of the census returns in 1922 and 1931 shows that, six years ago, the increase percent in Haifa was 86, in Jaffa 62, in Jerusalem 37, while in purely Arab towns such as Nablus and Hebron it was only 7, and at Gaza there was a decrease of 2 percent.[10]

Had the vast majority of Palestinian Arabs been left to their own devices, they would most probably have been content to take advantage of the opportunities afforded them. This is evidenced by the fact that, throughout the Mandate era, periods of peaceful coexistence far exceeded those of violent eruptions, and the latter were the work of only a small fraction of Palestinian Arabs.[11] Unfortunately for both Arabs and Jews, however, the hopes and wishes of ordinary people were not taken into account, as they rarely are in authoritarian communities hostile to the notions of civil society or liberal democracy. In the modern world, moreover, it has not been the poor and the oppressed who have led the great revolutions or carried out the worst deeds of violence, but rather militant vanguards from among the better educated and more moneyed classes of society.

So it was with the Palestinians.

Read the rest.

May 13, 2008

McCain vs Obama on Israel

Jennifer Rubin writes that despite what Obama may be saying on the subject, there are definitive differences between his Israel policy and McCain's:

Part of Barack Obama’s expressed amazement over his difficulty in attracting Jewish support is his claim to adhere to positions identical to John McCain’s on Israel and Hamas. His willingness to hold direct talks with Hamas’s sponsor Iran without preconditions–and without insisting it renounce its policy of obliterating Israel–is one big difference. But it is not the only one.

Others have noted that Daniel Kurtzer, former ambassador to Israel and advisor to Obama, has stated that it “will be impossible to make progress on serious peace talks without putting the future of Jerusalem on the table.” In response to my asking whether this approach is “identical” to McCain’s, I received this response from McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann:

It is revealing that Senator Obama’s Middle East adviser is talking about the need for Israeli concessions on Jerusalem to be ‘on the table’ while making no reference to the need for Palestinians to meet basic roadmap obligations on countering terror and providing security. Senator McCain is not going to pressure Israel into making concessions that undermine its security.

It seems there are indeed major differences between the two. Might that have something to do with the level of support Obama is receiving from American Jews?

Just Sent This to My Daughter

You may find it interesting too:

Get your daughters off the couch: New research shows exercise during the teen years — starting as young as age 12 — can help protect girls from breast cancer when they're grown. Middle-aged women have long been advised to get active to lower their risk of breast cancer after menopause.

What's new: That starting so young pays off, too.

...Women who were physically active as teens and young adults were 23 percent less likely to develop premenopausal breast cancer than women who grew up sedentary, researchers report Wednesday in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Read the whole thing.

"The Nine Questions People Ask About Judaism"

"The Nine Questions People Ask About Judaism" is a short but valuable book written by Dennis Prager and Rabbi Joseph Telushkin. In it, I have found some very persuasive arguments on behalf of Jewish religious belief - - perhaps some of the most compelling I have seen anywhere. 

An excerpt:

God may have His own reasons for denying us certainty with regard to His existence and nature. One reason apparent to us is that man's certainty with regard to anything is poison to his soul. Who knows this better than moderns who have had to cope with dogmatic Fascists, Communists, and even scientists?

Emanuel Rackman, in The Condition of Jewish Belief

If the believer has his troubles with evil, the atheist has more and graver difficulties to contend with. Reality stumps him altogether, leaving him baffled not by one consideration but by many, from the existence of natural law through the instinctual cunning of the insect to the brain of the genius and heart of the prophet. This then is the intellectual reason for believing in God: That, though this belief is not flee from difficulties, it stands out, head and shoulders, as the best answer to the fiddle of the universe.

Milton steinberg, Anatomy of Faith

DOUBT

Does God exist? This is life's most crucial question. The implications of the conclusion have the most significant consequences for the meaning of human existence.

Yet, despite its overwhelming importance, serious discussion of Cod is usually confined to theologians and philosophers. The rest of us form simple opinions of belief, agnosticism, or atheism at a relatively early age and are content to retain them without questioning for the rest of our lives.

We must therefore begin our presentation of Judaism with a discussion about God. First, let us briefly note Judaism's attitude toward a most common contemporary sentiment about God: doubt.

Can you doubt God's existence and still be a good Jew? Yes.

Belief in God is often difficult. Crises of faith are to be expected, and acknowledging such crises is not an irreligious act for a Jew. There are four significant reasons why doubts about God's existence should not be an obstacle to your being a good Jew.

1. Judaism emphasizes deed over creed

Judaism stresses action far more than faith. The Talmud attributes to God a declaration which is probably unique among religious writings: "Better that they [the Jews] abandon Me, but follow My laws" (for, the Talmud adds, by practicing Judaism's laws, the Jews will return to God, Jerusalem Talmud Haggigah 1:7). According to Judaism, one can be a good Jew while doubting God's existence, so long as one acts in accordance with Jewish law. But the converse does not hold true, for a Jew who believes in God but acts contrary to Jewish law cannot be considered a good Jew.

It is not, of course, our intention to deny the centrality of God in Judaism, but merely to emphasize that Judaism can be appreciated and practiced independently of one's present level of belief in God. You can incorporate Judaism into your daily life through study and practice even while doubting God's existence, because Jewish study and practice in and of themselves are extraordinarily valuable to the individual and society.

Moreover, our experience has confirmed that once you begin to study and live Judaism, you will find belief in God much more feasible. As the Talmud notes, whereas a man or woman may begin to practice Judaism for reasons unrelated to God (such as rational and ethical conviction), he or she will eventually do so because of God (Pesahim 50b).

2. Absolute certainty in faith leads to fanaticism

In the words of Emanuel Rackman, one of the foremost Orthodox rabbis of our time: "Judaism encourages doubt even as it enjoins faith and commitment. A Jew dare not live with absolute certainty, because certainty is the hallmark of the fanatic and Judaism abhors fanaticism, [and] because doubt is good for the human soul, its humility....God may have had His own reasons for denying us certainty. with regard to His existence and nature. One apparent reason is that man's certainty with regard to anything is poison to his soul. Who knows this better than moderns who have had to cope with dogmatic Fascists, Communists, and even scientists?"

3. If God were known, moral choice would end

If we knew God existed and would punish us for evil acts, then good acts would be much less freely chosen. An element of unknowability about God is necessary so as to allow us to choose good. In order to choose good, we must feel free to do bad, and we would not feel this way if we had definite knowledge that God was present and recording our every action. (How much choice do we have to speed when we know a police car is present?)

4. Since God's existence is unprovable, doubt is natural

God cannot be known to exist in the sense that we know a table or a cat exists. Their existences can be physically demonstrated and verified through our senses. But God's existence cannot, since God possesses no physical qualities. One can prove the existence of the natural, the physical, the finite; God, however, is supernatural, metaphysical, infinite. The inability to prove God's existence reflects, then, only on the fact that God has no physical qualities, a position that Judaism has always maintained.

To have doubts about God is, then, normal, permissible, and consistent with being a good Jew. But a good Jew may not deny God's existence. Indeed, the primary task of the Jewish people since its inception has been to bring the idea of a universal God and morality, or ethical monotheism, to mankind. As we shall see below, the most important values of life are dependent upon positing the existence of God: morality, or good and evil as objective realities that transcend personal and national opinions, and ultimate purpose and meaning to human existence. To put it another way, if there is no God, then there can be no objective good and evil, and no ultimate purpose to our existence. For these reasons, among many others, a committed Jew (a) may not deny God's existence, (b) must struggle with his doubts about God (the name of the Jewish people, Israel, means "struggle with God"), and (c) must advocate ethical monotheism, the ideal of a universal God as the basis of a universal standard of ethical behavior. As Elie Wiesel stated it: "The Jew may love God, or he may fight with God, but he may not ignore God."

THE NEED TO POSIT GOD'S EXISTENCE

MORALITY

The first value whose existence is dependent upon positing God's existence is morality. If there is no God, there are no rights and wrongs that transcend personal preference. Gases and molecules, the laws of nature, are not "good" or "evil," "right" or "wrong." If the natural world is the one objective reality, and there is no moral source beyond nature, good and evil possess no objective reality. Moral judgments then become purely subjective. They are popular or personal opinions which are objectively meaningless and represent no reality. It is self-evident and acknowledged by the foremost atheist philosophers that if a moral God does not exist, neither does a universal morality. Without God, all we can have are opinions about morality, but our opinions about "good" and "evil" behavior are no more valid or binding than our opinions about "good" and "bad" ice cream.

This is why in secular societies morality is generally considered to be a matter of opinion. Moral relativism is the only possible consequence of the denial of God's existence; morality becomes a euphemism for personal opinion. As this century's most eloquent atheist philosopher, Bertrand Russell, wrote: "I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values but," Russell conceded, "I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don't like it."

Russell's second point is our whole point. All that can possibly be wrong with wanton cruelty according to atheism and its moral relativism, is that we may personally not like it. Amorality is inherent to atheism.

To illustrate this point, assume there is no God and attempt to explain why Hitler was morally wrong. For the atheist and moral relativist, the only thing wrong with Nazi atrocities, as Russell said, "is that I don't like it."

One may answer that we know "deep down" that Hitler's mass murder and torture were wrong. But from where does this "deep down" feeling of right and wrong come? If there is no God, such feelings are just feelings, and objective morality must transcend subjective feelings. And if in fact we do possess "deep down" knowledge of good and evil, what source of morality put it within us?

Or, one may answer that Nazi-type murder is wrong for pragmatic reasons -- citing the argument that "if we kill them, they'll start to kill us and society will fall apart." This is not a moral argument, but merely a pragmatic one, and it is in any event invalid, since committing evil can be regarded as highly practical. In fact, pragmatic arguments usually favor committing the crime. The Nazis, for example, would have correctly dismissed the argument that "if we kill them, then they will kill us" by noting that "they" will not be able to kill "us." As in the rest of nature, only the weak will be destroyed. The pragmatic argument against committing evil is naive. If you can get away with a crime, there is no pragmatic argument against committing it -- only a moral argument, which is often quite impractical.

Take, for example, the relatively minor crime of tax evasion. The pragmatic argument again argues for, not against, committing the crime. The argument that "if everyone cheated on their tax returns, we would all suffer," understandably dissuades almost no one from cheating. On the contrary, tax evaders are quite certain that nearly everyone else is cheating, and it is precisely this fact that serves as their justification for doing the same. Precisely because one believes nearly everyone else is cheating, he, too, should cheat. Otherwise he loses. Pragmatism dictates immoral behavior at least as often as it dictates moral behavior.

You can purchase a used copy from Amazon for as little as 27 cents and read the whole thing.

My Photo

Google: Search This Site


Blogs I Read