For the past few weeks we have been witness to an absurd situation. The Palestinians, with the approval of their Hamas terrorist quasi-government, launches rockets and morters at civilian Israeli border communities. Israel responds by closing its borders and stopping Israeli supplies from reaching the terrorist entity. Then the Palestinians, with the support of the leftist international community hypocrites, cry afoul "collective punishment", and demand that we supply them with fuel. Can you imagine such a standard being applied to any country under attack from a neighbor other than Israel? Would civilian and infrastructure targets be off the table if your civilians are being attacked?
What is more absurd is that Israel's own supreme court lends a hand to this ridiculous process, by agreeing to hear urgent appeals by "human rights" groups who worry only about the welfare of the Palestinians but not that of Israel's own citizens. Can you imagine the US supreme court intervening in military tactics in Iraq?
Let the Palestinians walk and suffer in the cold, as long as Sderot children bedwet, as PM Ehud Olmert said.
The world forces Israel to fight with its hands tied behind its back, like a prize fighter who would be allowed to defend himself in the ring using only his right great toe.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Haaretz--self hating Jews
Anybody who has been reading my blog is familiar with my rantings about Israel's far left anti-Zionist newspaper Haaretz.
Recently they have outdone themselves. In a meeting between Condoleezza Rice and leading Israeli businessman and journalists, Haaretz's managing editor David Landau told Dr. Rice that "Israel wants to be raped" and forced by the US into a settlement with the Palestinians and it would be his "wet dream" to see this. He also called Israel a "failed state".
Here is the story in The Jewish Week
Lest there be any doubts in anybody's mind, the editors of Haaretz share views about Israel with the likes of Norman Finklestein, Noam Chomsky and John Mearsheimer.
What is particularly dangerous in this is that foreign reporters view Ha'aretz as representing respectable liberal thinking in Israel, whereas they in fact represent the view of a very small radical post-zionist left.
Recently they have outdone themselves. In a meeting between Condoleezza Rice and leading Israeli businessman and journalists, Haaretz's managing editor David Landau told Dr. Rice that "Israel wants to be raped" and forced by the US into a settlement with the Palestinians and it would be his "wet dream" to see this. He also called Israel a "failed state".
Here is the story in The Jewish Week
Lest there be any doubts in anybody's mind, the editors of Haaretz share views about Israel with the likes of Norman Finklestein, Noam Chomsky and John Mearsheimer.
What is particularly dangerous in this is that foreign reporters view Ha'aretz as representing respectable liberal thinking in Israel, whereas they in fact represent the view of a very small radical post-zionist left.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
More leftist dribble
Since Annapolis, and with GW's upcoming visit to Israel, many on Europe's and Israel's left are beginning to drool at the mouth again regarding the possibility of a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians. The favorite scapegoats being blamed for the peace messiah not coming include the usual parade: the settlers, Bibi, Olmert, and the religious. We're seeing headlines in Ha'aretz of "progress" in the meetings between Livni and Palestinian officials, reports of an impending prisoner exchange (despite Haaretz's abysmal history of grossly inaccurate reporting on this numerous times in the past), and of the "strengthening" of the Fatah moderates. According to these pundits, the only things interfering with diplomatic progress towards an agreement are settlements and the lack of Israeli "gestures" to the Palestinians.
As I have explained on a previous post, for several reasons there is no chance of an agreement in the foreseeable future. Even though Olmert and other western leaders know this, they cannot come out and say this openly. Instead, for political reasons, they must maintain the illusion of diplomatic activity, to satisfy their constituents and the Europeans. At the same time they must manage the conflict diplomatically and militarily, keeping it on low flame and out of the headlines.
I think that this explains Israel's approach in dealing with Gaza and the Kassam problem. The only other alternative is a massive invasion and prolonged occupation of the strip, with all that this entails. Of course such an invasion doesn't guarantee the stopping of Kassams (it didn't when we were in Gaza), and the military and diplomatic costs would be very high, perhaps not justifying any benefits gained. I think that both sides are playing a game by certain unwritten rules that both can realistically "live" with, until such time that one side, either intentionally or unintentionally, breaks them. At the same time Israel needs to continue work at a furious pace towards the development of an effective anti-rocket system.
As I have explained on a previous post, for several reasons there is no chance of an agreement in the foreseeable future. Even though Olmert and other western leaders know this, they cannot come out and say this openly. Instead, for political reasons, they must maintain the illusion of diplomatic activity, to satisfy their constituents and the Europeans. At the same time they must manage the conflict diplomatically and militarily, keeping it on low flame and out of the headlines.
I think that this explains Israel's approach in dealing with Gaza and the Kassam problem. The only other alternative is a massive invasion and prolonged occupation of the strip, with all that this entails. Of course such an invasion doesn't guarantee the stopping of Kassams (it didn't when we were in Gaza), and the military and diplomatic costs would be very high, perhaps not justifying any benefits gained. I think that both sides are playing a game by certain unwritten rules that both can realistically "live" with, until such time that one side, either intentionally or unintentionally, breaks them. At the same time Israel needs to continue work at a furious pace towards the development of an effective anti-rocket system.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Idiot of the Day Award
As many of you may have read, Israel is considering broadening the criteria for Palestinians prisoners qualifying for release in a potential swap. The negotiators claim that with current "no blood on their hands" criteria, there are no prisoners left!!
So today on the morning radio I heard Rafi Eitan, the health minister offer forth the following argument for release of murderers, including the ringleader Marwan Barguti: The prisoners organise themselves and remain activist in prison anyway (evidently we allow them to do so). So there's no reason to hold on to them, and if and when they return to terrorism (which they are extremely likely to do) we can simply arrest them again or kill them.
This is not only morally bankrupt but sheer lunacy. The terrorists kill or injure Israelis. IDF risks soldiers lives to capture them, after they commit terrorist acts. They are tried and convicted in a court of law. We then summarily release them so that they continue their activities, thus risking the lives of their potential victims and of the soldiers who have to arrest them again. Can you imagine Rafi Eitan making the same argument for releasing jailed common criminals?
Very compelling logic and brilliant strategic thinking.
Matan Vilnai, vice primier, and another over-confident and under-intelligent minister, states that we have to do anything to secure Shalit's release, and if this means releasing the arch-terrorist Barguti, then so be it. According to this logic, even if Hamas demands we withdraw from Jerusalem or disband the IDF we must do so, since we must pay any price.
So today on the morning radio I heard Rafi Eitan, the health minister offer forth the following argument for release of murderers, including the ringleader Marwan Barguti: The prisoners organise themselves and remain activist in prison anyway (evidently we allow them to do so). So there's no reason to hold on to them, and if and when they return to terrorism (which they are extremely likely to do) we can simply arrest them again or kill them.
This is not only morally bankrupt but sheer lunacy. The terrorists kill or injure Israelis. IDF risks soldiers lives to capture them, after they commit terrorist acts. They are tried and convicted in a court of law. We then summarily release them so that they continue their activities, thus risking the lives of their potential victims and of the soldiers who have to arrest them again. Can you imagine Rafi Eitan making the same argument for releasing jailed common criminals?
Very compelling logic and brilliant strategic thinking.
Matan Vilnai, vice primier, and another over-confident and under-intelligent minister, states that we have to do anything to secure Shalit's release, and if this means releasing the arch-terrorist Barguti, then so be it. According to this logic, even if Hamas demands we withdraw from Jerusalem or disband the IDF we must do so, since we must pay any price.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Israel's Newspapers
Here's another example of the Israeli press's immature journalism and Ami Ayalon's stupidity.
Suddenly, yesterday every paper was carrying a story reporting some of this idiot's remarks, that could come either from the journal "Duh!", or from Neville Chamberlain's School of International Relations. Here are some of the "pearls" quoted in the stories:
1. There is a military intelligence "failure" in that we don't have enough information to rescue Shalit.
2. We should do no less to stop the Qassams than what we're doing to get Shalit back (presumable he means talk to Hamas)
3. Here's to real duezy: Hamas is now asking for a cease fire because they are in distress, for what reason? Because of the diplomatic process since Annapolis. (Not because of our military successes against them)
I can't believe that this guy was really head of the Shabak! Its kind of scary that he has a say in government policies.
Ayalon's PR man must have launched a campaign to get him some publicity, otherwise how can we explain why the ranting of a second rate politician suddenly appear in the headlines in all of the online papers? Israel's major newspapers, in their unprofessionalism, cooperate in this scam.
Suddenly, yesterday every paper was carrying a story reporting some of this idiot's remarks, that could come either from the journal "Duh!", or from Neville Chamberlain's School of International Relations. Here are some of the "pearls" quoted in the stories:
1. There is a military intelligence "failure" in that we don't have enough information to rescue Shalit.
2. We should do no less to stop the Qassams than what we're doing to get Shalit back (presumable he means talk to Hamas)
3. Here's to real duezy: Hamas is now asking for a cease fire because they are in distress, for what reason? Because of the diplomatic process since Annapolis. (Not because of our military successes against them)
I can't believe that this guy was really head of the Shabak! Its kind of scary that he has a say in government policies.
Ayalon's PR man must have launched a campaign to get him some publicity, otherwise how can we explain why the ranting of a second rate politician suddenly appear in the headlines in all of the online papers? Israel's major newspapers, in their unprofessionalism, cooperate in this scam.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Now I figured it out
In one of my Shabbat discusions with a friend, I finally came to understand the essence of why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is destined to continue, and why around the world we are so misunderstood:
Good will.
Online definition:
"An attitude of kindness or friendliness; benevolence.
Cheerful acquiescence or willingness.
A good relationship, as of a business with its customers or a nation with other nations."
The American/western culture, in essence, values the "other" and sees conflict as a way of resolving misunderstanding. In other words, if 2 parties have a disagreement, it results from misunderstanding each other. Since the parties really want to resolve their differences, negotiation is really about problem solving and increasing each side's understanding of the other's needs and interests, thereby finding a creative solution. Everybody wins. American negotiation is characterized by pragmatic problem solving, with "goodwill" gestures and avoiding dirty tricks.
This is not part of Palestinian Arab culture, which sees negotiation more as a zero sum gain. I win and you lose. They are not men of good will. Gestures on our part, which we and the Americans see as "goodwill", are seen by them as concessions out of weakness, to be pocketed, and used in the future against us. Have we ever seen a "good will" gesture from them? I'm not saying we're all sugary with them, but there is a gulf between us in our basic approaches to negotiation. Herein lies the problem. We approach peace talks from a problem solving point of view, they view it as a method to defeat us, in lieu of or in parallel to, military force. In this case the rules of negotiation are very different than ours. Lying, cheating, and trickery are legitimate tools in negotiation to defeat the enemy. (They quite openly still refer to us as the "enemy"). Witness Iran's antics in dealing with the West.
Here in Israel I work for a medical HMO. We have branches in East Jerusalem, run by local Arabs. I am told by my administrative colleagues that doing projects with them is nearly impossible. Why? Because we'll set up a meeting, come up with agreement on a plan, and shake hands over it. Later, when the plan isn't implemented, when the local Arab administrative head is confronted, he behaves as though no plan was agreed upon and we have to start all over.
So the Americans and Europeans see the problem as an issue of misunderstanding, whereas in truth, we understand each other all too well.
Therefore, I don't see a resolution in the foreseeable future, until the Pals lose all hope of defeating us.
Good will.
Online definition:
"An attitude of kindness or friendliness; benevolence.
Cheerful acquiescence or willingness.
A good relationship, as of a business with its customers or a nation with other nations."
The American/western culture, in essence, values the "other" and sees conflict as a way of resolving misunderstanding. In other words, if 2 parties have a disagreement, it results from misunderstanding each other. Since the parties really want to resolve their differences, negotiation is really about problem solving and increasing each side's understanding of the other's needs and interests, thereby finding a creative solution. Everybody wins. American negotiation is characterized by pragmatic problem solving, with "goodwill" gestures and avoiding dirty tricks.
This is not part of Palestinian Arab culture, which sees negotiation more as a zero sum gain. I win and you lose. They are not men of good will. Gestures on our part, which we and the Americans see as "goodwill", are seen by them as concessions out of weakness, to be pocketed, and used in the future against us. Have we ever seen a "good will" gesture from them? I'm not saying we're all sugary with them, but there is a gulf between us in our basic approaches to negotiation. Herein lies the problem. We approach peace talks from a problem solving point of view, they view it as a method to defeat us, in lieu of or in parallel to, military force. In this case the rules of negotiation are very different than ours. Lying, cheating, and trickery are legitimate tools in negotiation to defeat the enemy. (They quite openly still refer to us as the "enemy"). Witness Iran's antics in dealing with the West.
Here in Israel I work for a medical HMO. We have branches in East Jerusalem, run by local Arabs. I am told by my administrative colleagues that doing projects with them is nearly impossible. Why? Because we'll set up a meeting, come up with agreement on a plan, and shake hands over it. Later, when the plan isn't implemented, when the local Arab administrative head is confronted, he behaves as though no plan was agreed upon and we have to start all over.
So the Americans and Europeans see the problem as an issue of misunderstanding, whereas in truth, we understand each other all too well.
Therefore, I don't see a resolution in the foreseeable future, until the Pals lose all hope of defeating us.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Did religion evolve?
One of the hot topics now among evolutionary biologists is the existence and survival of religion among human beings. Is religion and belief part of our wiring? In Darwinian theory a trait that evolved and survived did so for a reason. Did it evolve in order to give the species some survival advantage? If so, what about it modern times? The plethora of religious beliefs as far back as recorded history, and its existence everywhere, is fascinating. That people are drawn to faith is certain, but why?
One school of reasoning is that faith is indeed an adaptive evolved trait. It gave groups a survival advantage, whose members organized around a group of similar believers, giving them a social structure and primitive organized society. To the individual, faith gives strength, comfort, community support and predictability.
Others argue that religion logically is maladaptive, in that the person believes in imagined beings and false explanations. So how could that be a survival advantage? Seemingly, the most "logical" rational intelligence would have an advantage over others. According to this school, religion is considered a "spandrel" (literally, the unplanned space between two arches). In evolutionary theory, a spandrel is an "unintended" byproduct of another trait that is in fact, advantageous to survival. A classic example, which Dawkins gives, is the moth, which uses the angle of incidence from the sun to navigate in a straight line. Since the sun is at an infinite distance, this angle doesn't change. But a close artificial light source, like a lamp, is close, so the angle changes, causing the moth to spiral into the light.
Man's large cortex and intelligence gave him an advantage over other species. Part of this intelligence includes determination of cause and effect. Certainly a creature who could learn well from mistakes and figure out the causes for things would do better than a creature who couldn't. Yet ancient man didn't have to tools to really understand the cause of many natural phenomena around him. So his drive to understand these things lead him to find hidden, unseen causes for these experiences. So the basic intellectual trait, which is adaptive, went "awry" with religion.
Both explanations seem plausable. My sense is that by observing how people today are drawn to religion that even now it has adaptive value in helping people living a meaningful and healthy life.
One school of reasoning is that faith is indeed an adaptive evolved trait. It gave groups a survival advantage, whose members organized around a group of similar believers, giving them a social structure and primitive organized society. To the individual, faith gives strength, comfort, community support and predictability.
Others argue that religion logically is maladaptive, in that the person believes in imagined beings and false explanations. So how could that be a survival advantage? Seemingly, the most "logical" rational intelligence would have an advantage over others. According to this school, religion is considered a "spandrel" (literally, the unplanned space between two arches). In evolutionary theory, a spandrel is an "unintended" byproduct of another trait that is in fact, advantageous to survival. A classic example, which Dawkins gives, is the moth, which uses the angle of incidence from the sun to navigate in a straight line. Since the sun is at an infinite distance, this angle doesn't change. But a close artificial light source, like a lamp, is close, so the angle changes, causing the moth to spiral into the light.
Man's large cortex and intelligence gave him an advantage over other species. Part of this intelligence includes determination of cause and effect. Certainly a creature who could learn well from mistakes and figure out the causes for things would do better than a creature who couldn't. Yet ancient man didn't have to tools to really understand the cause of many natural phenomena around him. So his drive to understand these things lead him to find hidden, unseen causes for these experiences. So the basic intellectual trait, which is adaptive, went "awry" with religion.
Both explanations seem plausable. My sense is that by observing how people today are drawn to religion that even now it has adaptive value in helping people living a meaningful and healthy life.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Absolute or Relative Morality?
Religious fundamentalists (including Jews) claim moral superiority because their morality is absolute, from God, as opposed to secular and humanistic values, that shift over time. Herein lies the biggest flaw in their ideology.
Any serious student of Jewish history and halachah knows that Jewish law and morality has shifted over time. This is true for all religions. Even for the ultra-orthodox morality and law is not absolutist but evolved over time (albeit more slowly than general society), given societal pressures. Their morality is a function of the society with which they identify. Yes, it is anchored in an ancient tradition through a process, but it definitely shifts.
Think about attitudes about women, relations with non-Jews, slavery, economics, sacrifice, etc. To assert that Jewish ethics is absolute is completely ridiculous. A good book about this topic is "T'murot B'sadeh Hahalach", by Akiva Sternberg (in Hebrew).
As far as God being the source of morality, I would posit that most religious people observe their ethical norms because of the societal structure that they live in, not because of God, since clearly they have to determine what God wants of them through man's interpretation ("an eye for an eye", etc). Do not kill? It depends who is doing the killing and the being killed!!Would a Beit Din now burn a prostitute? This "intepretation" changes due to societal pressures and circumstances.
Just like American culture is a function of American history, laws, norms and societal pressure, Judaism started as the ethical and legal system of ancient Israel, and bears little resemblance to modern Judaism (even though many ultraorthodox like to believe that they are observing Judaism like they did during the Temple era).
IMHO, morality is a man-made construct to make society more livable, and is part of our emotional makeup. Religion then adds holiness to it and gives it metaphysical meaning. This perhaps strengthens it but also makes it resist the inevitable adaptation and change. Maybe for the better but who knows?
Any serious student of Jewish history and halachah knows that Jewish law and morality has shifted over time. This is true for all religions. Even for the ultra-orthodox morality and law is not absolutist but evolved over time (albeit more slowly than general society), given societal pressures. Their morality is a function of the society with which they identify. Yes, it is anchored in an ancient tradition through a process, but it definitely shifts.
Think about attitudes about women, relations with non-Jews, slavery, economics, sacrifice, etc. To assert that Jewish ethics is absolute is completely ridiculous. A good book about this topic is "T'murot B'sadeh Hahalach", by Akiva Sternberg (in Hebrew).
As far as God being the source of morality, I would posit that most religious people observe their ethical norms because of the societal structure that they live in, not because of God, since clearly they have to determine what God wants of them through man's interpretation ("an eye for an eye", etc). Do not kill? It depends who is doing the killing and the being killed!!Would a Beit Din now burn a prostitute? This "intepretation" changes due to societal pressures and circumstances.
Just like American culture is a function of American history, laws, norms and societal pressure, Judaism started as the ethical and legal system of ancient Israel, and bears little resemblance to modern Judaism (even though many ultraorthodox like to believe that they are observing Judaism like they did during the Temple era).
IMHO, morality is a man-made construct to make society more livable, and is part of our emotional makeup. Religion then adds holiness to it and gives it metaphysical meaning. This perhaps strengthens it but also makes it resist the inevitable adaptation and change. Maybe for the better but who knows?
Saturday, October 13, 2007
To all readers!
Please Note: I have changed the settings to this blog to allow anonymous comments, so you don't need to log in or have an account.
I welcome all of your comments!
JS
The teacher's strike in Israel is seriously disrupting hundreds of thousands of high school students and their families (including mine). Israel still has a very strong socialist vestige, and the labor laws and courts essentially block the possibility or breaking a strike. In the recent past, Israel has been afflicted by strikes at Ben Gurion airport, the sea ports, city services (including garbage collection), banks, universities, hospitals and postal services. There has been some form of teacher's strike almost every academic year. I would claim that at a societal level this is very dysfunctional and would qualify for a Darwin Award. Most of the strikes end with very marginal gains for the strikers, who then strike again after a short time. They are often political in nature, intended to advance the interest of a particular labor leader or organization. The electric company, which is a national monopoly and has the highest paid workers of any sector in the economy (including private), can also strike and bring the country to its knees but shutting down the power (although this hasn't happened in a long time, thankfully).
It's about time that Israel revises its labor law to ban strikes in the public sector (such a law exists in the US for federal workers) . In 2002 when Bibi Netanyahu was finance minister he initiated legislation to outlaw public worker strikes but backed down when the unions agreed to accepts wage cuts during a severe economic slowdown. These strike cause severe economic damage to Israel, not only in direct losses in productivity, but due to harm in its industry's ability to meet commitments to international partners, and thus result in lost/cancelled agreements, future deals and imposed penalties.
I welcome all of your comments!
JS
The teacher's strike in Israel is seriously disrupting hundreds of thousands of high school students and their families (including mine). Israel still has a very strong socialist vestige, and the labor laws and courts essentially block the possibility or breaking a strike. In the recent past, Israel has been afflicted by strikes at Ben Gurion airport, the sea ports, city services (including garbage collection), banks, universities, hospitals and postal services. There has been some form of teacher's strike almost every academic year. I would claim that at a societal level this is very dysfunctional and would qualify for a Darwin Award. Most of the strikes end with very marginal gains for the strikers, who then strike again after a short time. They are often political in nature, intended to advance the interest of a particular labor leader or organization. The electric company, which is a national monopoly and has the highest paid workers of any sector in the economy (including private), can also strike and bring the country to its knees but shutting down the power (although this hasn't happened in a long time, thankfully).
It's about time that Israel revises its labor law to ban strikes in the public sector (such a law exists in the US for federal workers) . In 2002 when Bibi Netanyahu was finance minister he initiated legislation to outlaw public worker strikes but backed down when the unions agreed to accepts wage cuts during a severe economic slowdown. These strike cause severe economic damage to Israel, not only in direct losses in productivity, but due to harm in its industry's ability to meet commitments to international partners, and thus result in lost/cancelled agreements, future deals and imposed penalties.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Peace Negotiations
One might almost begin to believe the news reports regarding negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. The fact is that these are destined to go nowhere for the forseeable future. Here's why:
1. Everybody--the Americans, the Israelis and the Palestinians--know that the bottom line positions of the two sides are mutually incompatible. Israel cannot give the Palestinians the state they seek and remain viable herself.
2. The extremists on the Palestinian side will veto any potential agreement using violence and terrorism. This can be counted on.
3. The Americans are stretched thin militarily and diplomatically and cannot do anything unilaterally. They need the support of the Europeans for dealing with Iran, Iraq, N Korea and Syria.
4. It follows from 1-3 above, that, to help get Europe on board, the best course for the Americans is to create the illusion of diplomatic activity and that they are trying to solve the Middle East's problems. Thus all of Condy's trips. the November conference, etc.
5. It follows from 4, above, that Israel must cooperate with this game, knowing full well that it will lead nowhere, and that it must tread carefully in order to avoid being pressured into making compromises that jeapordize its current or future security. Thus, the talks with Abu Mazen, who is powerless to cancel a parking ticket, and trial balloons in the press every day.
If the past is any indication, it would seem that at some point the negotiations will blow up (again) and lead to a new wave of violence.
1. Everybody--the Americans, the Israelis and the Palestinians--know that the bottom line positions of the two sides are mutually incompatible. Israel cannot give the Palestinians the state they seek and remain viable herself.
2. The extremists on the Palestinian side will veto any potential agreement using violence and terrorism. This can be counted on.
3. The Americans are stretched thin militarily and diplomatically and cannot do anything unilaterally. They need the support of the Europeans for dealing with Iran, Iraq, N Korea and Syria.
4. It follows from 1-3 above, that, to help get Europe on board, the best course for the Americans is to create the illusion of diplomatic activity and that they are trying to solve the Middle East's problems. Thus all of Condy's trips. the November conference, etc.
5. It follows from 4, above, that Israel must cooperate with this game, knowing full well that it will lead nowhere, and that it must tread carefully in order to avoid being pressured into making compromises that jeapordize its current or future security. Thus, the talks with Abu Mazen, who is powerless to cancel a parking ticket, and trial balloons in the press every day.
If the past is any indication, it would seem that at some point the negotiations will blow up (again) and lead to a new wave of violence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)