Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

The philosopher, George Santayana once warned, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” But in the twenty-first century, we are confronted with a much bigger nightmare: Not forgetfulness but denial. And it is precisely the lapses of memory that leads to tragedy.

Holocaust deniers are relentless; the recent theft of “ARBEIT MACHT FREI,” sign that stood at the entrance of Auschwitz was more than just the act of a devious collector of Nazi memorabilia. In effect, it is a direct assault on the memory of the Holocaust and its victims.

Historically, when the Jewish workers constructed the sign, they deliberately inverted the “B” in ARBEIT, perhaps to indicate that appearances are misleading, for the phrase became a part of the Nazi deception to obscure from its new prisoners, its true diabolic purpose. The ARBEIT MACHT FREI sign at the entrance of Auschwitz conjures the famous line from Dante’s Inferno that was inscribed at the entrance of Hell, “Abandon hope all ye who enter here.”

An Auschwitz guard once taunted the inmate and future Holocaust writer Primo Levi with these searing words that he never forgot.

“Even if someone were to survive, the world will not believe him. There will be perhaps suspicions, discussions, research by historians, but there will be no certainties, because we will destroy the evidence together with you. And even if some proof should remain and some of you survive, people will say the events you describe are too monstrous to be believed: they will say that they are exaggerations of Allied propaganda and will believe us, who will deny everything, and not you. We will be the ones to dictate the history . . . .” Continue Reading

In the Jobian prologue, Satan always operated on the cynical assumption that whatever human beings did or wished to do originated from motives of self-interest. This theme appears in numerous midrashic legends about Abraham’s moment of decision regarding the Akedah, but we will examine this topic at another time. In this famous biblical masterpiece, Satan is depicted not as a devil but as one of the principal angels of God, for God is equally the creator of good and evil. From the Jungian perspective, Satan reflects the dark side of YHWH Himself, and it would appear that the Zohar partially agrees with this assessment!

One of the most succinct descriptions of the purpose of the Satan that reflects the Jewish attitude is  found in the writings of Goethe, who wrote in his classic “Faust”

Of all the spirits of negation
The rogue is least of burdens to be borne.
Man’s efforts sink below his proper level,
And since he seeks for unconditioned ease,
I send this fellow, who must goad and tease And to serve creation, through a devil.[1]

Similar to our citation of Goethe is a passage from the Zohar, which speaks of a parable concerning the role of Satan that should  clarify the purpose and role of Satan in Jewish tradition–as understood by the rabbis of antiquity.

Let us assume for a moment that the rabbis and the allegorical school are correct in identifying the serpent as a metaphor for the evil inclination. But why did God create the impulse for evil? Would humankind have been better off not having to deal with such an urge? The Zohar raises this question, and offers the reader a most intriguing thought-provoking response with respect to the phenomena of moral evil.

Should it be asked, “How can a man love Him with the evil inclination? Is not the evil inclination the seducer, preventing man from approaching the Blessed Holy One to serve him? How, then, can man use the evil inclination as an instrument of love for God?” The answer lies in this, that there can be no greater service done to the Holy One than to bring into subjection the “evil inclination” by the power of love to the Holy One, blessed be He. For, when it is subdued and its power broken by man in this way, then he becomes a true lover of the Holy One, since he has learned how to make the “evil inclination” itself serve the Holy One. Here is a mystery entrusted to the masters of esoteric lore. All that the Holy One has made, both above and below, is for the purpose of manifesting His Glory and to make all things serve Him. Now, would a master permit his servant to work against him, and to continually lay plans to counteract his will? It is the will of the Holy One that men should worship Him and walk in the way of truth that they may be rewarded with many benefits. How, then, can an evil servant come and counteract the will of his Master by tempting man to walk in an evil way, seducing him from the good way and causing him to disobey the will of his Lord? But, indeed, the “evil inclination” also does through this the will of its Lord.

It is as if a king had an only son whom he dearly loved, and just for that cause he warned him not to be enticed by bad women, saying that anyone defiled might not enter his palace. The son promised his father to do his will in love. Outside the palace, however, there lived a beautiful harlot. After a while the King thought: “I will see how far my son is devoted to me.” So he sent to the woman and commanded her, saying: “Entice my son, for I wish to test his obedience to my will.” So she used every trick in her book to lure him into her embraces. But the son, being good, obeyed the commandment of his father. He refused her allurements and thrust her from him. Then did the father rejoice exceedingly, and, bringing him in to the innermost chamber of the palace, bestowed upon him gifts from his best treasures, and showed him every honor. And who was the cause of all this joy? The harlot! Is she to be praised or blamed for it? To be praised, surely, on all accounts, for on the one hand she fulfilled the king’s command and carried out his plans for him, and on the other hand she caused the son to receive all the good gifts and deepened the king’s love to his son. [2]

The Zoharic passage illustrates a remarkable concept that exists in many of the primal religions of the world, the notion of the coincidentia oppositorum, also known as “the reunion of opposites.” As Eliade has already noted, the lost memory of this unitive existence with reality emanates from a part of humanity that yearns to overcome the duality and opposites we now experience in a post-Fallen world. He adds that “on the level of presystematic thought, the mystery of totality embodies man’s endeavor to reach a perspective in which the contraries are abolished, the Spirit of Evil reveals itself as a stimulant for the Good . . .” [3]

Sheneir Zalman of Liadi writes in his Tanya, “The answer lies in this, that there can be no greater service done to the Blessed Holy One than to bring into subjection the “evil inclination by the power of love to the Holy One, blessed be He. For, when it is subdued and its power broken by man in this way, then he becomes a true lover of the Holy One, since he has learns how to make the “evil inclination” itself serve the Blessed Holy One.[4]

Hassidic tradition looks at Satan as a force of good. Indeed, to some, Satan even provides lessons in piety. According to Hassidic tradition, Satan is never lazy in carrying out his responsibilities; the Satan is always out there testing our moral resolve — even when we are performing good deeds! Here is a Hassidic anecdote to illustrate:

Once Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev (18th century) was once asked to lead the congregation in prayer on Simchat Torah.

As he ascended the pulpit, he stood in silence for a moment, and then he returned to his seat without reciting a word. His father-in-law wanted to know the reason for such a peculiar action. Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev explained:

When I was ready to begin my prayers, I suddenly felt the Evil Impulse, the Satan, wished to recite them with me. Therefore I asked him: ‘Who are you to dare recite these important prayers before the whole congregation?” ‘And who are you?” was his reply. ‘I am a man learned in the Torah, I answered. So am I, and when you studied, I kept you company,’ answered Satan. But I am also a Hasid of the Mezeritzcher Maggid,’ I rejoined. ‘So am I; I kept you company then as well,’ he said. ‘Since this is so,’ I replied, ‘if you are both a ‘scholar’ and a ‘Hasid,’ go and say the prayers yourself.’ And I descended from the Bimah.”

Maimonides in his Guide to the Perplexed argued that Satan is only a metaphor for the evil inclination (yetzser hara) and is not a supernatural being. This has some basis in the Talmud (cf. BT Bava Batra 16a) but many of the Talmudic rabbis did regard Satan as a supernatural being who serves God by testing humanity’s moral character. If nothing else, the Satanic archetype is a grim reminder that we are not necessarily as righteous as we would like to imagine ourselves to be; beneath the exterior of our conscious minds is the awareness that we are indeed, petty little beings–hardly even worthy of a Creator’s attention. Satan, thus serves to purge us of our hubris and sense of accomplishment. The simple truth is, we have a long way yet to go in matters of spiritual growth and honesty.

======

Notes:

[1] Faust, Part 1‎ – page 42.

[2] Zohar 2:162b–163a (Soncino translation)

[3] Mircea Eliade, The Two and the One (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), 123.

[4] Tanya, chapter 27; cf. Zohar 2:128.

There is nothing in the Torah, or in the Talmud and Midrash, or Kabbalah that would suggest that there is a supremely evil being that is determined to make war against God.

As a verb, שָׂטַן (śāṭan), means to “be hostile,” or “accuse,” deriving from the root śṭn, whose basic meaning can be rendered “to be hostile to, oppose.” Generally, it implies someone who verbally accuses another. [1] Only in Job 1-2; Zechariah 3:2; and 1 Chronicles 21:1 the same term is translated as a proper name and designates the angel that acts as the  “Public Prosecutor.”  It is interesting to note that the passage in 1 Chronicles 21:1  is based upon the parallel story in 2 Samuel 24:1, but it is God who entices David to count his people and not Satan! The Satanic angel who serves as Public Prosecutor is not an apostate nor is it a fallen being, an idea that is nowhere suggested in the Hebrew Bible.

On the other hand, early Judaic writings in the apocryphal books of the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls describes  Satan  as Beliyal (“the Baseless One”), i.e., the preeminent Adversary of God. [2] It is plain and clear that the apocryphal literature later influenced the early Christian Bible.  In John (16:1) for instance, Satan appears with a capital “S.” Matthew, Mark, and Luke clearly accept and teach a doctrine of a personal Satan and called the Satanic agents “fallen angels” or “demons” (Mark 3:22).  Sometimes referred to as Lucifer, Christian legends teach that Satan vaingloriously sought to overturn the regime in heaven and waged war against God’s loyalists.

Defeated by the Archangel Michael, the angel who had ambition to be God was cast into his inferno, to brood in the darkness, “hatching vain empires.” Satan did not go unescorted, along with him went about a third of the heavenly host, a horde of fallen angels. According to Christian doctrine, angels were created separately and were given free will, just as humans were. Their fallenness had to do with a denial and distortion of angelic life just as human fallenness has to do with the denial and distortion of goodness and truth.

In contrast, Judaism teaches that only humanity was  endowed with freedom of choice. Angles are often described as omdim (beings who occupy a stationary position cf. Isaiah 6:2, Eze. 1:21-25, 10:3-6) while human beings are described as mehalchim (movers) for only human beings are capable of transcending their baser natures. Angels are sometimes compared to animals (cf. Eze.1:5) because the character of angels is instinctive much like an animals’ instinct. Angels cannot help but be what God intended for them to be.

For poets like John Milton, Satan was the archetypal antihero, the rebel waging  eternal guerrilla warfare against his Creator. He is best known for his statement, “ “To reign is worth  ambition though in hell: “Better to reign in hell than serve in heav’n” (Paradise Lost, Book 1:263).

=========

Notes:

[1] This is especially the case with respect to the Psalms, cf. Psa. 38:21; 71:13; 109:4, 20, 29.

[2] See Helmer Ringgren, The Faith of Qumram — Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Fortress Press, N.Y., 1963, later reprinted by Crossroad in 1995).

The Cain and Abel story raises more questions to an inquisitive reader like myself. Unlike the stories of Homer, which leave so little to the imagination because Homer wants the reader to understand the thought-processes of his characters, the biblical personalities are different.  One could say they are even psychologically complicated precisely because the biblical narrators left out the vital information from its readers.

According to the famous narrative, God accepts Abel’s sacrifice, but Cain’s offering is different, “for Cain and his offering he had no regard” (Gen 4:5). But why is Cain’s offering rejected?

Claus Westermann suggests that God’s choice of one brother over the other is due to the inscrutable nature of God’s discretion. “God’s disregard for Cain’s sacrifice does not go back to Cain’s attitude nor to a sacrifice that was not right nor to an incorrect way of offering the sacrifice. It is saying something about the immutable; it happens so.”[1] God maintains His right to choose whoever is worthy in His eyes: “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion” (Exod. 33:19). In other words, God’s choice was essentially inscrutable and capricious. Donald Gowan recasts Westermann’s thesis in succinct and clearer theological terms. The story of the brothers underscores a problem that we see frequently in life–the problem of unexplainable inequality:

Two persons seem equally qualified; one finds work and the other does not. One takes good care of health and gets a severe illness; another breaks all the rules and leads a healthy life. One finds love and friendship from companions; another must struggle daily with unpleasant people. The examples could be multiplied without end. And the reactions vary greatly. I believe the issue raised in Genesis 4:3–7 is precisely the question of how one reacts to the inequalities of life. Some do not ask why but just put up with inequalities as best they can. Others attribute them to luck or fate and may curse their luck. But some see their lot as a matter of injustice and are inclined to blame God for their lack of success. The anger that may result, either from blaming luck or blaming God, has the potential of being directed against society in general or certain favored individuals specifically.^[2]

Gowan’s interpretation is intriguing, especially because of its theological relationship to the Book of Job.

The fact that Abel’s offering was received did not mean that he would have a life of ease and comfort, for being chosen often carries a personal price. Although Abel’s sacrifice was accepted, he was killed! For the Israelite audience listening to this story for the first time, this message must have come across as rather unsettling—there are no ironclad guarantees for those choosing to follow in God’s ways; in the real world, there is a degree of paradox one must be prepared to accept.

Of course, nobody can really determine what the original writers or readers felt or thought after they orally delivered these ancestral folktales. It is precisely this kind of ambiguity that inspired the genre of rabbinic interpretation better known as “Midrash.” And now you know–the rest of the story.

[1] Genesis 1-11, 296.

[2]  International Theological Commentary, Genesis 1–11: From Eden to Babel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1988), 67.

Appeasing the Mullahs

How the Obama administration learned to love the Iranian bomb.

BY Stephen F. Hayes

April 5 – April 12, 2010, Vol. 15, No. 28

On March 24, Obama administration officials briefed reporters on what was described as a very positive development in the U.S. effort to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon: China had agreed to participate in a conference call to discuss sanctions.

Three weeks earlier, China had all but ruled out sanctions. “As everyone knows, pressure and sanctions are not the fundamental way forward to resolving the Iran nuclear issue and cannot fundamentally solve the issue,” said Chinese foreign minister Yang Jiechi on March 7. Just to persuade China to rejoin the discussions about sanctions, the United States further watered down the proposed language of a United Nations Security Council resolution.

In early February, the Obama administration had given reporters a similar update on its progress, his one about Russia. According to Jennifer Loven from the Associated Press, White House officials said Russia was  on board with sanctions and was “not seen as a problem anymore in getting a tougher new sanctions package.”

But by the time the administration had convinced China to join the phone call, Russia was teetering. A spokesman for Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin said only that Russian support for sanctions “was possible,” adding ominously that sanctions “do not always help to resolve such an issue” and are often “counterproductive.”

Even before they were weakened, there were already serious questions about whether the proposed sanctions would do anything at all to retard Iran’s nuclear progress. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu does not think so, and he is not alone. At a joint appearance with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in February, Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, Prince Saud al Faisal, took the unusual step of publicly disparaging the U.S. proposals. With Clinton at his side, he said: “Sanctions are a long-term solution. They may work, we can’t judge. But we see the issue in the shorter term maybe because we are closer to the threat. .  .  . So we need an immediate resolution rather than a gradual resolution.”

So here we are. After 15 months of pleading with the mullahs and entreating our allies for help, Barack Obama’s Iran policy is such a dismal failure that administration flacks are left to tout as a breakthrough Chinese participation in a phone call to discuss watered-down U.N. sanctions that few believe will work.

And Iran’s enrichment proceeds apace.

In October 2009, Kenneth Pollack, a Clinton administration official and author of a first-rate history of U.S.-Iranian relations, said, “If by early next year we are getting nothing through diplomacy and sanctions, the entire policy is going to be revealed as a charade.” Plan B, Pollack noted, is “containment,” adding: “In their heart of hearts I think the Obama administration knows that this is where this is going.”

Senator John McCain agrees. Asked if the Obama administration’s policy on Iran was tantamount to containment, he agreed. “Yes, they’re leaking it out. You see it all over the place. I don’t know whether they’ve adopted it or not but it sure looks like it,” he said in an interview last week.

Indeed, several pro-Obama columnists and commentators have already floated “a robust containment strategy against Iran,” to use the words of Fareed Zakaria. Back in July 2009, Hillary Clinton was certainly using the language of containment when she raised the prospect of a “defense umbrella” in the region to protect U.S. allies from a nuclear Iran. The New York Times’s David Sanger, who writes frequently on nuclear issues, wrote in mid-March that “the administration is deep into containment now—though it insists its increases in defensive power in the Gulf are meant to deter a conventional attack by Iran.”

McCain read from a long list of administration statements warning Iran against nuclear weapons development: “There is a huge disconnect between what they are doing and how we are responding, and it reflects the wishful thinking that has characterized appeasement policies in the past.” McCain mentioned the famous photograph of Jimmy Carter kissing Leonid Brezhnev.

McCain then graduated to an even harsher comparison. He said he had been rereading William Manchester’s biography of Winston Churchill and was struck by the similarities between the naïveté of Neville Chamberlain and the willingness of the Obama administration to accommodate the mullahs. “They’re just flailing. A few days ago the president said he wanted to talk some more,” McCain said, incredulous, referring to Obama’s message on Nowruz, the Iranian new year, which renewed the administration’s offer for negotiations. The overture, following Iran’s dismissal of several previous “final” deadlines for new talks, is “consistent with the thread of appeasement throughout history. It’s that same idea that if we’re nice to our enemies, they’ll do what we want.”

But even as Obama extends the deadlines, he talks tough. “It’s one of our highest priorities to make sure that Iran doesn’t possess a nuclear weapon,” he said on March 17, in an interview with Bret Baier of Fox News. The problem is that if keeping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is one of the highest priorities, the very highest priority seems to be avoiding military conflict at all cost. Continue Reading

Bible translations vary considerably; regardless of the translation, the translators will inevitably interpret the text they are rendering into another language. This insight is hardly new. Maimonides writes to his foremost translator, Yehudah Ibn Tibbon, some sobering words about the art of translation:

“One who wishes to translate from one language to another and tries to translate word by word, while adhering to the original order of words, the subject will ultimately produce a confusing and unreadable translation. Instead, the translator should first try to grasp the sense of the subject matter. He should then proceed to explain the material according to his understanding into the other language. Such an undertaking is impossible without transposing the word order of a text. Sometimes, he will have to utilize several words to express a single idea, while at other times the translator will utilize fewer words to express a more complex thought. Adding and deleting words is necessary—if one wishes to produce a lucid translation of an original work . . .”

With this thought in mind, one of the strangest Hebraic passages of the entire Bible demands a thoughtful rendering:

וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים אֶל־מֹשֶׁה אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה וַיֹּאמֶר כֹּה תֹאמַר לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶהְיֶה שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם׃

Here are some interesting choices to consider:

“I am He who is. And he said, This is what you are to say to the Israelites, I am has sent me to you.  [Exodus 3:13‑14]. [New Jerusalem Bible]

” I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.” [The American Standard Version [1901]]

“I AM WHO I AM.” He said further, “Thus you shall say to the Israelites, “I AM has sent me to you.””  [The New Revised Standard Version and the New International Version, New America Standard Version of 1995]

“I AM; that is who I am.Tell them I AM  has sent you to them.” [New English Bible]

” I Shall Be As I Shall Be” And He said, “I Shall Be has sent you.”  [The ArtScroll Translation ]

” I will be what I will be, ” and He said, “So shall you say to the children of Israel, “Eheyeh (I will be) has sent me to you.” [Judaica Press]

” I AM the One Who Always Is.” He went on: “Thus shall you say to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me forth to you.” [The Word Biblical Commentary]

“I will always be present as I will always be present”  [Martin Buber--by the way, this is also Rashi's understanding of the phrase.]

Note that the message Moses delivered from God to the Israelites had nothing to do with abstract or obtuse theology, which would have meant nothing to an enslaved people. Instead, Moses informs his people about the new creation God was going to do—the God of Exodus, is a God who initiates new beginnings. YHWH announces that He will not allow those forces that are destructive to reduce the Jewish people to non-being.[1]

Soon, the forces that God created from the beginning of creation would converge and force a change in Egypt. The “nobody”  slaves, whom Pharaoh never even recognized as human beings, would soon bear witness to the creative power of God’s Word that would ultimately deconstruct centuries of exploitation and oppression. Although Moses’ words had little to do with “being” as an abstraction, it had everything to do with the process of “becoming.”

In my opinion, of all the translations that speak to the heart of the matter,  I think Buber’s translation is the best of the group. From Buber’s understanding we may deduce God assured Moses, that He would always be present in the life of His people; He has not abandoned them, for even as they suffer, so too, does God’s Shechina ‑‑ the feminine aspect of Divinity. God promised Moses that He and would bring about a new beginning for a suffering people.

Of special note, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch writes  in his commentary:  “I shall be that which I wish to be” ‑‑ All other beings are what they have to be; their existence is bound up with the will of the One Who alone can say not merely “I am,” but, “I shall be that which I wish to be.”  This name expresses the personal, absolute and free‑willed essence of God.  By declaring not, “I am,” but, “I shall be”; i.e., by speaking in terms of the future which is totally dependent upon His will, He has proclaimed that uniquely Jewish conception of God, an entirely new conception, which is to be made known to mankind through Israel’s deliverance from Mitzrayim and which eventually will bring about the redemption of the whole world.”

=======

Notes:

[1] Seforno’s Commentary to the Torah

Our English word “inspire” is from the Latin word inspirare which means “to breathe upon,” i.e., infusing something with life. In religious terms, inspiration denotes the spiritual affect that occurs spontaneously enables a person to think, speak, and act in ways that transcend beyond one’s ordinary capabilities. The idea of inspiration clearly points to a spiritual reality that has a profound impact upon us and the world around us. In Hebraic terms, the metaphor that best conveys this process is the word ruach, which was  later redefined in ancient rabbinical writings as ruach hakodesh, or ‘Holy Inspiration.”

It is interesting to contrast the word inspiration with the word “revelation,” which comes from the Latin revelation, signifying “to removing the veil.” The experience of revelation heightens our capacity to embrace life with greater self-awareness, passion, freedom and integration. Yet as Heschel notes in his writings, revelation is never merely a personal affair of a mystical kind; it aims to transform the societal world into an ethical domain where the rights of all are respected.

When defined from this perspective, revelation and inspiration are two sides of the same coin. In the classic biblical sense of the word, revelation opens our imagination to endless new possibilities of meaning. Indicative of this is the blessing we recite every day: “Blessed are You Adonoy, the Giver of the Torah.” Rabbinic wisdom conveys a timeless truth about revelation—Sinai wasn’t a onetime event; the spirit of Sinai continues to unfold newer meanings and insights that expands and transforms human consciousness even in our present era.

Inspiration has the power to produce a revelatory experience. To a listener, or to a reader of a sacred text, inspiration can bring about a profound life change that summons the person to a embrace a radical new understanding of the Self and God,  which affects the way s/he relates to the world. The Mishnah reflects such an understanding:

“Turn it over and over because everything is in it and reflect upon it and grow old and worn in it and do not leave it, for you have no better lot than that” (Avot 5:22). Barry Levy further points out that there are other variant readings that have a direct bearing on Ben Bag-bag’s statement:הפוך בה והפוך בה דכולה בה דכולך בה  (hafok bah we-happek bah de-kola bah wekolak bah), “ . . . because everything is in it, and all of you is in it . . .” This reading suggests, every personal life experience and situation finds expression in the words of Scripture. Yes, the Tanakh has the ability to awaken the psyche and transform the soul–provided one is spiritually awake and receptive. Continue Reading

Leviticus 13-14 deals with three of the most obtuse passages found anywhere in the Tanakh. Since the time of the Septuagint, the Sages of Alexandria correctly identified the disease of   as λέπρα (lepra), which includes a group of infectious and inflammatory skin diseases. It was only historically much later, the English translator [1]  re-interpreted  λέπρα (lepra), to mean the disease we know today as  leprosy, i.e., Hanson’s Disease. ^[2]

Hanson’s disease is a chronic disease of man caused by the Mycobacterium leprae bacillus, a bacterium similar to the tuberculosis bacillus and is characterized by skin lesions and adversely affects the nerves’ ability to sense pain and leads to the loss of sensation. Combined with the loss of sensation, over time, the body experiences progressive tissue degeneration, resulting in the extremities of the body becoming deformed, eroded, and often falling off.  This dreaded disease, according to modern studies is poised to make a comeback within the next hundred years or more particularly in the third-world countries.

Modern historians note that there is no hard evidence that the  phenomena of clinical leprosy existed in the ancient Near East, until 332 B.C.E. and it is believed to have been introduced Alexander the Great’s soldiers after they returned from India.² There are several other reasons why the biblical disease was something other than leprosy:

*  None of the most prominent characteristics of Hansen’s disease are listed in the text, and the symptoms that are listed argue against a relationship to Hansen’s disease.

* Nowhere does the  Biblical depiction suggest that this condition was ever seen as contagious. Nor does the Torah describes this condition as affecting houses and clothes, Hanson’s disease only affects the body and nothing else.

* Leprosy is a slow developing disease takes many years to occur. The Biblical disease of  צָרָעַת  (tsra`at) appears to occur must more quickly and can disspate after a quarantine periods of seven days. ^[3] None of this  fits the modus operandi of leprosy.

*  Leprosy cannot be cured without medical treatment and drugs. The צָרָעַת indicate that a person may recover from the ailment without this kind of treatment.

*  Leprosy is a disease which attacks the nervous system, affecting the ability of the body to sense pain, this condition is nowhere intimated in Lev. 13-14, nor does the text address the physical disfigurement which  is associated with the advanced stages of leprosy.

* The white hairs listed in the biblical verses do not match the characteristics of modern leprosy. A white patch of skin is not characteristic of leprosy, nor is the scalp ordinarily affected. Continue Reading

Ironically, this may have produced potential Fatah al Aksa Brigade and even Hamas cadres for terrorist actions against IDF security forces and Jewish settlements on the West Bank and Jerusalem.  Jones’ views are in line with Marine General Anthony Zinni, a former CENTCOM commander and Middle East Special Envoy, who evinced anti-Israel positions on security and occupation issues in the Palestinian territories.

At a Cornell visiting professor lecture in April, 2009, Zinni appeared to prefigure the controversy surrounding recent Senate Armed Services Committee testimony of General Petraeus:

The road to everywhere else starts in Jerusalem. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict a is a “core issue” in the global geopolitical landscape.

I hope that unlike other administrations, if [Obama] sees it not going anywhere, he doesn’t quit the process — because it’s too easy to get frustrated … and walk away from it. You have to stick it through.

Many current US general officers were products of the Bosnia-Kosovo regional conflicts and Gulf War I under the Bush and Clinton Administrations. The Balkan conflicts resulted in the establishment of two Islamic republics, Bosnia and Kosovo, supported by both Saudi and Iranian funding.

General Petraeus’ briefings with Admiral Mullin and his Senate Armed Services Committee testimony suggest that the lack of resolution of the Arab-Israel conflict produces anti-American animus among Arab allies and additional US force casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. This we believe maybe behind his request to expand the territories under his CENTCOM jurisdiction to include Israel and the West Bank.

In his statement Petraeus said:

The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR [CentCom's area of operation, which includes Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as much of the Middle East]. … The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world.

Meanwhile, al-Qaida and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas. [Italics added.]

These comments, taken out of context, gave rise to blog posts by Mark Perry at Foreign Policy.com and others endeavoring to paint General Petraeus as being anti-Israel. Note what Perry said that caused the eruption of concern:

The January Mullen briefing was unprecedented. No previous CENTCOM commander had ever expressed himself on what is essentially a political issue; which is why the briefers were careful to tell Mullen that their conclusions followed from a December 2009 tour of the region where, on Petraeus’ instructions, they spoke to senior Arab leaders. “Everywhere they went, the message was pretty humbling,” a Pentagon officer familiar with the briefing says. “America was not only viewed as weak, but its military posture in the region was eroding.” Continue Reading

This is great article. I hope our country will wake up to the Obama fiasco that is threatening to engulf the Middle Eastern world with a new war that may prove to be the deadliest ever seen. If our President ever bothered to study World War II and its dangerous legacy, he would approach this matter with greater caution and seriousness. Obsessed with a Messianic desire to bring peace, he will most certainly bring its exact antithesis–war, suffering, and mayhem. As the philosopher Santyana said, “Those who forget history, will be condemned to repeat it.”

New English Review

The Czechoslovakization of Israel by Obama
by Jerry Gordon (April 2010)

A crisis arose between Washington and Jerusalem during a visit to Israel by US Vice President Biden. Simultaneous with his visit the Israeli Interior Ministry announced approval of the fourth stage in the process of building 1600 new apartment units for poor Orthodox Jews in the Ramat Shlomo development located in north Jerusalem. The Ramat Shlomo project has been in existence since 1995.

The Obama Administration erupted in scathing attacks against Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu for “insulting” Vice President Biden and imperiling the flagging peace process by building “settlements” in East Jerusalem. This crisis erupted as Washington was about to dispatch Special Envoy former US Senator George Mitchell to hold so-called ‘proximity talks’ between Palestinian Authority leaders in Ramallah and the Netanyahu government in Jerusalem.

The verbal diatribes directed at PM Netanyahu from Secretary of State Clinton and David Axelrod, senior political counselor to President Obama, had the untoward effect of emboldening leaders of the Palestinian Authority (PA). PA negotiator Ahmed Qurei and leaders of the extremist Northern Branch of the Islamic Movement (Hamas inside Israel) incited protests by calling for “days of rage” by Palestinians in East Jerusalem. The pretext for those protest actions was the re-dedication of the Hurva synagogue that Netanyahu and other Israel officials had attended following the departure of Vice President Biden. The Hurva synagogue was destroyed by Jordanian Legionnaires when they occupied the Jewish section of the Old City of Jerusalem during Israel’s War for Independence in 1948.

PM Netanyahu in his speech at the AIPAC Washington Policy Conference made it plain why Israel would not stand down: The connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel cannot be denied. The connection between the Jewish people and Jerusalem cannot be denied.

The Jewish people were building Jerusalem 3,000 year ago and the Jewish people are building Jerusalem today. Jerusalem is not a settlement. It is our capital.In Jerusalem, my government has maintained the policies of all Israeli governments since 1967, including those led by Golda Meir, Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Rabin. Today, nearly a quarter of a million Jews, almost half the city’s Jewish population, live in neighborhoods that are just beyond the 1949 armistice lines. All these neighborhoods are within a five-minute drive from the Knesset. They are an integral and inextricable part of modern Jerusalem.
Everyone knows that these neighborhoods will be part of Israel in any peace settlement. Therefore, building them in no way precludes the possibility of a two-state solution.

The unfolding drama of the conflict between President Obama and PM Netanyahu was evident in strained meetings in Washington following his AIPAC Policy Conference speech. Prime Minister Netanyahu, according, to news reports was ‘snubbed’ by President Obama. There was no joint press statement and no photos were released. The U.K. Telegraphnoted:
Mr Obama was less inclined to be so conciliatory. He immediately presented Mr. Netanyahu with a list of 13 demands designed both to the end the feud with his administration and to build Palestinian confidence ahead of the resumption of peace talks. Key among those demands was a previously-made call to halt all new settlement construction in east Jerusalem.

When the Israeli prime minister stalled, Mr Obama rose from his seat declaring: “I’m going to the residential wing to have dinner with Michelle and the girls.”
As he left, Mr Netanyahu was told to consider the error of his ways. “I’m still around,” Mr Obama is quoted by Israel’s Yediot Ahronot newspaper as having said. “Let me know if there is anything new.”

For over an hour, Mr Netanyahu and his aides closeted themselves in the Roosevelt Room on the first floor of the White House to map out a response to the president’s demands.

Although the two men then met again, at 8.20 pm, for a brief second meeting, it appeared that they failed to break the impasse. White House officials were quoted as saying that disagreements remained. Shimon Peres, the Israeli president, added: “Apparently they did not reach an understanding with the United States.”

“There is no humiliation exercise that the Americans did not try on the prime minister and his entourage,” Israel’s Maariv newspaper reported. “Bibi received in the White House the treatment reserved for the president of Equatorial Guinea.”

There appears to be a yawning and dangerous cognitive disconnect. It is reflected in the opposing views on the Israeli Arab conflict within the Obama White House National Security team, including senior levels in the Pentagon. That was graphically illustrated by the contrast between a closed session at the White House between the two national leaders, followed by a warm public bi-partisan Congressional welcome for Netanyahu on Capitol Hill.

The Obama Administration presents the troubling appearance of isolating Israel. Those views reflect appeasement by the Obama Administration of the supremacist agenda of the 56 nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), led by Saudi Arabia. That OIC agenda seeks to establish a world Caliphate ruled under Islamic Sharia law and removal of Israel, the Jewish state, from the Arab Muslim heartland.

PM Netanyahu drew attention to that threat in his Washington AIPAC conference address:

Our soldiers and your soldiers fight against fanatic enemies that loathe our common values. In the eyes of these fanatics, we are you and you are us. To them, the only difference is that you are big and we are small, you are the Great Satan and we are the Little Satan. This fanaticism’s hatred of Western civilization predates Israel’s establishment by over one thousand years. Militant Islam does not hate the West because of Israel. It hates Israel because of the West, because it sees Israel as an outpost of freedom that prevents them from overrunning the Middle East. When Israel stands against its enemies, it stands against America’s enemies.

The Obama Administration misses this fundamental point raised by PM Netanyahu. Palestinian Hamas, and Fatah leaders, and the OIC recognize that doctrinal Islam considers Israel a usurper of the Waqf (‘the trust’) conferred by Allah when the area was conquered in the great initial wave of Jihad nearly 1400 years ago. Thus, under Islamic Sharia Law there is no other solution than elimination of the usurper and retaking of Waqf lands including Israel. The areas of Spain, the Balkans, even Central and Eastern Europe also fall into this category under Islamic Sharia.  That Islamic doctrine may explain a great deal about the lack of any resolution of the long festering Israeli Arab conflict. Continue Reading