Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

National Public Radio commentators recently discussed a very interesting question: Should President Obama have “apologized” for the accidental burning of the Qur’an? Some argue that the President should have expressed “regret” over the incident, which acknowledges some degree of culpability. Regret does not contain any element of obeisance that an apology would convey. One can apologize without compromising one’s dignity, or without groveling. Tonality often  conveys meaning that goes beyond the words. The White House’s tonality was decidedly humble. In a macho part of the world like the Middle East, a show of strength makes a greater impression. Dignity means everything to a society that respects honor. If you wish to command respect, you have to act with authority and with a sober composure.

Some Republican politicians used this incident to score some political points in the upcoming primaries. Of all the candidates who have taken issue with President Obama, Newt Gingrich seemed to make the most persuasive point that many pundits either  ignore or discount. According to Gingrich, the President did not hold the Afghan government responsible for the death of the six  NATO soldiers who were killed by a men wearing an Afghan army uniform.

Before the Republican critics start blaming President Obama’s apology, they should remember that Obama’s speech is essentially the same kind of apology that President Bush gave to the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, back in 2008, soon after an American soldier shot several bullets into a Qur’an. The difference between the two desecrations ought to be obvious. In 2008, the act was deliberate, whereas in 2012, burning the Qur’an was accidental. The person burning the Qur’an did not realize this was considered a breach of religious etiquette because the Qur’an already had secret messages scribbled on its pages.

* Who’s Right?

Whereas in the past, I have taken issue with President Obama on many issues, despite his tonality, I believe that he did the right thing by apologizing. Whether a person expresses “regret,” or “apologizes,” the difference between these two terms seems minor; taking the moral high road is not a bad course of action. Therefore, given the religious fanaticism of our times, apologizing seems to be the best approach in de-hostilizing an already tense environment. Obviously, the apology won’t convince the Muslim radicals, but it could detoxify the Muslim moderates. As a chess move, Obama’s apology could tactically change the direction of the political game.

While Newt did not discount the importance of Obama’s apology, he insisted upon reciprocity. Newt felt that the Afghani government also should have apologized,  “If Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, doesn’t feel like apologizing, then we should say, ‘Goodbye and good luck, we don’t need to be here risking our lives and wasting our money on somebody who doesn’t care.’”

Newt makes a good point.

What are some of the lessons we might learn from this experience?

Many.

Well, for one thing, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have caused more economic damage to our own country, as well as the other countries that have participated. The mighty Roman Empire disappeared as a super-power once it overextended itself and spent considerable monies on wars it could not afford. The United States would be wise to apply this knowledge of ancient history and apply its lessons to our current war with the Taliban. It is time to bring the troops home.

As mentioned in an earlier posting, some Muslim scholars have argued in past centuries that burning a Qur’an ought to be performed reverently and preferably on sacred ground, like a the outside of a mosque. Accidental burning of a disposable holy text, while it is a monumental testament to human thoughtlessness, certainly should not be viewed as an act of blasphemy. Once again, if rational Muslim leaders spoke out and condemned the violence, maybe somebody would listen. No religion can afford to tacitly approve psychotic behavior in the name of God. Now that’s true blasphemy—the willful misuse of God’s Name to perpetuate violence toward others. I am curious why scribbling terrorist messages in the pages of the Qur’an is not condemned as a sacrilege by Muslim scholars or leaders? Not even the Haredi would dare disrespect a Torah scroll or a Pentateuch with scribbling thoughts about the sinfulness of the non-Haredi!   Continue Reading

If anyone ever thought that Syrian President Bashar Assad was a good “peace partner” for Israel, I would hope by now that this belief is recognized for what it actually is—an illusion.

Assad has recently threatened to “destroy Tel Aviv,” if NATO or Turkey attacks his country. Given the mental condition of Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, I am not at all certain whether he might push the envelope just for the fun of it.

For the past three months, Assad has managed to put off a NATO military attack by Turkey or NATO, and he is calling NATO’s bluff to stop him from cracking down on all dissenters in his country. Assad promises that from the moment a shot is fired against Syria, “it will take only six hours for Syria to devastate Tel Aviv and ignite the entire Middle East.”

The irony is, if Israel is forced to retaliate and invade Syria, they would probably be greeted by millions of Syrians. But for now, the question is: What is Israel to do? Obviously the mad mullahs of Iran are calling the shots. I suspect that the longer Assad brutalizes his population, the more likely Syria will erupt into a civil war. But what about Assad’s Tel Aviv card? Will Hezbollah and Hamas also get involved?

Israel’s response is calculated. Rather than publicizing the drama that is unfolding, which would only serve to heighten Israeli anxieties, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and other ministers have made it perfectly clear what this means for Syria, its cities, as well as for Lebanon—should such an attack against Tel Aviv take place. As with the Turkish PM, Israel is following the Teddy Roosevelt approach, “Walk softly, but carry a big stick . . .”

Short of Israel simply giving up, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s desire for Israel to make up with Turkey, while practical on the one hand, does not really solve the problem—namely, Turkey is trying to reassert its hegemony in the Arab world at the expense of Israel. If I were Panetta, I would tell him the weight of the United States will turn on him and his country should they exacerbate an already tense situation—period.

When and if Syria is attacked, if I were in the Israeli government, I would seriously consider a preemptive strike over all Syrian military bases—and that would only be a start. I think the Israeli response needs to be decisive and complete and offer military assistance to the Syrian people to reclaim their country.

Needless to say, Iran stands to lose and so does Lebanon. Continue Reading

For at least two hundred years, the Norwegians have found it very difficult to feel any kind of compassion for the Jewish people. Yes, Norway’s disdain for Israel and Jews in general has a long history. Here are a few little-known details that may surprise many of our blog readers. When Norway first declared its independence, the country’s constitution blatantly exclaimed, ““Jøder ere fremdeles udelukkede fra Adgang til Riget.” Translation: Jews are still excluded from admission to the Kingdom).” Well, by 1851 the ban was rescinded but later reinstated by the infamous Nazi sympathizer and collaborator Vidkun Quisling  in 1942, but later rescinded in 1945.

Anti-Semitism cannot be so easily erased from a culture and society that has gotten use to using the verb “Jew” for anyone that acts dishonestly. However, the deeper you examine Norwegian society, you will also find that from the 8^th to the 10^th grades, 33% of the Jewish students experience bullying from their Norwegian neighbors. As one report reads, “Last month’s publication of a study ordered by the Oslo municipality on racism and anti-Semitism among students of the 8^th through 10^th grades in the town’s schools came as a shock. The study found that 33 percent of the Jewish students regularly experience bullying at school. According to the definition used, this means that at least two or three incidents of verbal or physical abuse target these Jewish students per month . . .

After Jews, the next most pestered group was Buddhists, with 10 percent experiencing bullying; “Others” were at 7 percent and Muslims at slightly over 5 percent. Fifty-one percent of all students believe that the term “Jew” is used pejoratively, 41percent had heard ethnic jokes about Jews and 35 percent heard insulting comments. Close to 5 percent had been present when the Holocaust was denied in class. Only 25 percent of the students never witnessed anything negative about Jews in school.”[1]

Norway certainly finds itself morally challenged and their contempt toward the Jew is consistent with their national animus toward the Jewish people in general, and especially toward the State of Israel. While erasing old anti-Semitic slurs is a reasonable first step toward normalcy, eradicating ancient canards against the Jews is a lot harder to confront and eliminate. When you hate one ethnic or religious group, hatred will spread like a contagion toward other peoples and faiths. In short, hatred attacks the heart and soul of the human family.

Earlier this past year, on March 29, the internationally renowned lawyer, Harvard law professor, who also happens to be a staunch supporter of Israel Alan M. Dershowitz, decided to  publish  an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal about his recent experience in Norway. Continue Reading

When we look at the terrible tragedy that took place in Arizona–as a community–we need to ask ourselves whether our hands are really “clean” or not. The more I read about the story that led to this incident, the more painfully obvious it is that our leaders have  abdicated their responsibility once again.

 
Sometime during the Clinton Administration (and please bear in mind, I really like Clinton), Attorney General Janet Reno enacted a policy that restricted the military from reporting certain drug abusers to the FBI, which has long maintained a national list of prohibited gun-buyers since 1994.

This seemingly well-meaning decision  paved the way for accused Arizona gunman Jared Loughner to buy his first firearm–despite the fact that he failed a drug-screening test when he attempted to join the military back in 2008. So, as it turned out, Loughner went and purchased the gun from a local Sportsman’s Wearhouse–no questions asked.

What was Reno’s motivation? Why would she propose a law that would help a known drug-user obtain a gun that ordinarily he would never have been able to get–even by the standards of an old 1994 statute?  Well, Janet Reno really felt sorry for the poor drug-addict; perhaps if the federal agencies disallowed men like Loughner to obtain a gun, he might not ever take the necessary steps to  seek treatment.

Every choice and deed has consequences. A better screening process is necessary–one which will close the legal loophole that allowed Loughner to obtain his weapon of choice. Psychological testing is necessary for all wishing to obtain a gun, just like we insist upon psychological testing for anyone working in a government or public building. It’s common sense. Perhaps if we worried more about the rights of law-abiding people more than the rights of drug-users and other criminals, we could avoid more tragedies like the one we saw this past week in Arizona. Continue Reading

The story is a peculiar one. The Haredi members of the Israeli Kenesset celebrated over passing a new legislation that would deport the children of foreign workers.  One Haredi editor named Streimel, claimed, “History teaches us that foreign elements that come to countries offering them work are destined to destroy the absorbing country, or to take it over.” Among Streimel’s other complaints, he blasted the Conservative and Reform movements, and expressed exasperation about the growth of anti-Haredism in Israel and abroad.

When I read the article, I found myself wondering: “Where have I heard these words before?” Let me cite you the famous biblical passage that pretty much says it all:  ”Then a new king, who knew nothing of Joseph , came to power in Egypt. ^He said to his subjects, “Look how numerous and powerful the Israelite people are growing, more so than we ourselves! Come, let us deal shrewdly with them to stop their increase; otherwise, in time of war they too may join our enemies to fight against us, and so leave our country” (Exod 1:8-10).

Wait a minute, since when are frum Jews supposed to act like Pharaoh? The answer ought to be obviou for in Deuteronomy 16, we discover a different kind of attitude that the Torah expects us to model:

“If your kinsman, a Hebrew man or woman, sells himself to you, he is to serve you for six years, but in the seventh year you shall dismiss him from your service, a free man. When you do so, you shall not send him away empty-handed, but shall weight him down with gifts from your flock and threshing floor and wine press, in proportion to the blessing the LORD, your God, has bestowed on you. For remember that you too were once slaves in the land of Egypt, and the LORD, your God, ransomed you. That is why I am giving you this command today . . . Remember that you too were once slaves in Egypt, and carry out these statutes carefully.”

Memory of the Exodus must be the ethical foundation of any kind of future Israelite society. Without a memory of our past, we  risk becoming like  Pharaoh of Egypt, who showed no compassion to the resident alien population that was living among them.

One Haredi spokesman, A. Yitzhaki, added that the government now fears the growth of the ultra-Orthodox population more than it does the growth of the non-Jewish population. “The Haredim,” he wrote, “are the ones against whom a battle needs to be waged in order to stop growth in any way possible, especially by starving their children.” Continue Reading

Well, here is an article that I think makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately, when people talk about the Middle East, I hear very little in the way of common sense. The animus against Israel reveals a double-standard that no normal civilized country would ever accept–namely, the violations of its borders. Even Obama recently sent 1800 troops to help curtail the flow of illegal Mexican immigrants into this country. Without borders, you have no country.

=========================================

From scramble to pre-emptive diplomacy

By ISRAEL KASNETT
06/01/2010 23:21
Israel must pre-empt negative PR by informing foreign governments on the exact circumstances it faces and the course of action it will take.

After the 2006 Second Lebanon War and the 2008 operation in Gaza, the Israeli government was left having to explain its actions to leaders around the world. The Foreign Ministry had to move quickly to do damage control and while then-foreign minister Tzipi Livni did make efforts to launch a public relations campaign by sending ambassadors and diplomats to explain Israel’s actions, it was already too late. Israel’s lack of public relations foresight resulted in “scramble” diplomacy.

The recent events concerning the so-called Gaza aid flotilla turned unfortunate when some of the activists were killed during a confrontation with IDF Navy commandos. Yet, having dealt with similar aid convoys in the past, the Foreign Ministry should have been well aware of the negative PR Israel would receive regardless.

The State of Israel does not reveal the inner workings of its secret diplomacy and obviously there is a lot of diplomatic activity that takes place behind the scenes. However, the public must be able to see at least a portion of what can be called “pre-emptive” diplomacy, by which foreign governments are informed of Israel’s intentions and subsequent reasoning prior to taking action. This way, Israel has already explained the legal reasoning and logic behind its decision to use force without having to sprint to the phones during each crisis.

Israel must be able to pre-empt negative PR by preparing and educating foreign governments and populations on the exact circumstances faced by Israel and the course of action that will be taken based on unfolding events. Pre-emptive diplomacy would at least minimize the harsh reaction Israel often witnesses when events take a wrong turn.

This time, Prime Minister Netanyahu, his spokesman Nir Hefetz and Minister of Public Diplomacy Yuli Edelstein were all in Canada and Israel was left with Tzipi Livni as a spokesperson. Again, there was lack of coordination between the Foreign Ministry, the IDF Spokespersons Unit and the Prime Minister’s Office. While the foreign press announced “worldwide condemnation” for a “botched raid” creating a “diplomatic crisis” and “international outrage,” Israel yawned. As events unfolded and it was becoming clear that Israel needed to clarify the facts and present legal reasoning for its actions, Israel’s leaders rolled over and went back to sleep instead.

HAD ISRAEL used pre-emptive diplomacy at the same time the Navy was planning its raid on the ships, the government would have been preparing legal arguments for any potential scenario. For instance, Israel could have pointed to the San Remo Manual on International Law dealing with armed conflicts at Sea, which specifies in Article 47 that “vessels engaged in humanitarian missions are exempt from attack” only if they are recognized by Article 48 which demands that they are “innocently employed in their normal role.” Continue Reading

In Israel, I heard they are filming a new movie entitled, “Grumpy Old Rabbis.”

Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv sure looks like he could use a Kosher McDonald’s Happy Meal today. The HaAretz newspaper had a very interesting article how this centenarian continues to exert a powerful influence on the inner world of the Haredi community. His discordant halachic positions continue to send both the Israeli and Diaspora Jewish community reeling. Jews by Choice are among his favorite targets.

Most elderly Haredi scholars are known for their Responsa decisions pertaining to Jewish law. This elderly rabbi has never written a halachic work, and yet when he speaks, many of the leading Israeli Haredi rabbis are afraid to disagree with him. Is it because of his scholarship? Or is it because of his unique ability to commandeer Haredi politics? I suspect more the latter.

Remember one eternal halachic truth: A man may know the entire Talmud, Codes and commentaries and still be a boorish individual.

Readers may recall how Rabbi Elyashiv recently (about six months ago) banned the use of Shabbat elevators, which are essential for many high-rise senior centers and hotels that cater to an Orthodox elderly clientele. This rabbi did not seem to care what kind of hardship his legal decision would cause frail elderly people who can barely walk down the corridor  in the event a Shabbat elevator became “forbidden.” Fortunately, the people asserted their voice and Rabbi Elyashiv backed down on this issue.

HaAretz reported, “We saw proof of that two weeks ago, when two words from him, ‘Don’t compromise,’ caused his two representatives in the Knesset to attack the conversion bill initiated by MK David Rotem (Yisrael Beiteinu), which was designed to make the process of conversion in Israel much easier . . .” The ghost of Shammai must be gloating over Hillel, who always sought to welcome perspective converts. Shammai is reborn in the persona of Rabbi Elyashiv.

Unfortunately, like Rabbi Eliezer Shach (whose sour disposition lasted till he was 103 years old), Rabbi Elyashiv sees the Haredi community at war with the rest of the secular and Jewish world. For him, there is no such thing as “compromise.” Unlike the great Haredi rabbis of the past generations, e.g., R. Moshe Feinstein, Rabbi Eliezer Yehuda Waldenberg, and Rabbi Shlomo Auerbach, Rabbi Elyashiv tends to focus on the issues that politically divide Jews; he is not someone who strives for harmonization. Under his influence, we are witnessing what has been dubbed as the “Haredi Intifada,” where rioting has been a weekly activity for young Haredi kids that prefer rioting to football on Shabbat. Rabbi Elyashiv has yet to publicly condemn such unlawful behavior.

When we consider the daily scandals coming out in the news from Israel regarding its Haredi members’ behavior, we are reminded of the words of the great Greek cynic, Diogenes, who was  famous for walking through the streets of Athens in broad daylight waving a lantern and announcing that he was looking for a “honest man”  (It’s a little bit like trying to find an honest politician in Washington). According to another legend, Diogenes lit a lamp in broad daylight and said, as he went about, “I am looking for a man.” It is a pity we do not have a rabbinic Diogenes wandering the streets of Mea She’arim and B’nai Brak with a lantern in broad daylight, exclaiming the same ethical proclamation,“I am looking for a mentsch …” We need moral and articulate teachers today more than we need Talmud scholars who lack the ability to correct a wayward generation with a soothing but compelling ethical voice.

Continue Reading

The 20th century Sufi mystic Hazrat Inayat Khan writes, “Morality is a flower which springs out of the plant of individuality.”

Although the Muslim world  has been reticent to embrace change (much like the Haredi parties in Israel), there are signs of an ideological thaw taking place as we speak. How appropriate! Spring is the time of transformation. It is a pity the Western media acts as if social change in the patriarchal world of Islam is an impossibility. Maintaining the status quo will never solve the great problems we all face, but like a seed breaking forth in the earth, perhaps more people will begin to embrace the kind of attitude that is now surfacing on Arab media for the very first time in its history.

Recently, an American professor has become the first Jew to win the King Faisal International Prize in Medicine, popularly  known as the “Arab Nobel Prize.” Stanford professor Ronald Levy,  who heads of the university’s Oncology department, told Haaretz that as  an American Jew married to an Israeli it never crossed his mind  that he might win the Saudi-financed competition.The  prize, which included $200,000, a medal, and a certificate in English  and Arabic, also came with a dinner with Saudi King  Abdullah. Levy’s victory is the  first time in the award’s 30 years that a Jew has won, which Levy says  he took as a sign that Saudi Arabia is becoming more open. Levy  won the prize for his part in the development of a drug used in the  treatment of many types of cancer that is being widely viewed  as revolutionary.

Even more recently . . . .

February 26, 2010 — Clip No. 2414 — memri.org

Former Saudi Shura Council Member Ibrahim Al-Buleihi: The Arab Is Incapable of Individual Thinking

The following excerpts are from an interview with former Saudi Shura Council Member Ibrahim Al-Buleihi, which aired on Al-Arabiya TV on February 26, 2010.

Ibrahim Al-Buleihi: When we want to study a religious issue, we go back to our heritage. But when we want to study an earthy matter, such as why we are backward, while others are prosperous, we must search for the answer elsewhere, not in our heritage.

Interviewer: Where is “elsewhere”?

Ibrahim Al-Buleihi: In the West. Without a doubt.

Interviewer: In the West, not the East?

Ibrahim Al-Buleihi: The East only emulates [the West]. Take Japan, for example – if not for its openness to Western culture, it too would have remained backward.

[...]

The individualism of the Arab has been erased in this society…

Interviewer: What do you mean by erased individualism?

Ibrahim Al-Buleihi: He is incapable of independent thinking, and therefore, he always rejects what is rejected by society, and accepts what is accepted by society. Continue Reading

The Middle East has often been synonymous with the metaphors of despair and angst. This story began about six years ago, when a young Israeli Arab law student and musician named George Khoury, was accidentally killed by a drive-by Palestinian terrorist, while jogging in East Jerusalem’s French Hill neighborhood. The terrorists exclaimed afterward, “Oops, we thought your son was Jewish. Sorry . . .”

To most people, a victim of terrorism is just a statistic–unless you happen to personally know who the victim was. George was an  Israeli who lived among Palestinians, in a Palestinian neighborhood of Jerusalem. While he was a high school student, he participated in interfaith projects with fellow Christians, Muslims and Jews. His death was so tragic because it was so unnecessary.

George’s father, Elias, is a respectable attorney in Jerusalem, has fought for Palestinians clients that had their lands confiscated by the Israeli government. Elias Khoury believes violence is a poison that is harming the Palestinian people. In memory of his beloved son, he made an unusual decision that has stirred controversy among his fellow Palestinians and Arabs–both within Israel–and well beyond Israel’s borders.

Elias decided to pay for an Arabic translation of Israeli writer Amos Oz’s autobiography, “A Tale of Love and Darkness.”Amos Oz is beloved as a moderate and a dove, and Elias wanted the Palestinian community to learn about a different kind of Israeli, whose vision might help co-create  a new and more tolerant peaceful co-existence for Israel and the Palestinian people. Perhaps this new literary project would also give redemptive meaning to his son’s tragic death so that other young people might be spared from the endless cycle of violence.

The Arabic version of the book, “A Tale of Love and Darkness,” went on sale late last month in Beirut, Lebanon. So far it has received pretty favorable reviews–especially by Abdo Wazen, cultural editor of the pan-Arab newspaper Al Hayat. As to be expected, some have reacted critically toward the book’s publication as well. The book is due to be distributed more widely in the region in the coming weeks. The book will soon be released in Egypt and Jordan.

Perhaps the pen is mightier than the sword.

You can be sure this literary work will send shock-waves throughout the Muslim world–from Algeria to Tehran.

Elias writes in his preface to the Arabic translation, “This book tells the history of the rebirth of the Jewish people,” he said as he sat in his law office. “We can learn from it how a people like the Jewish people emerged from the tragedy of the Holocaust and were able to reorganize themselves and build their country and become an independent people. If we can’t learn from that, we will not be able to do anything for our independence.” [1] Continue Reading

Understanding the “Real” War Against the Internet

Strangely, Rosenblum neglects to mention the most important aspect about the  Haredi war against the Internet–they fear its self critiquing and self-examination much more than the erotic websites.  Banning the Internet promotes the conspiracy of silence it desires.  Ynet news uncovered a document where the rabbis denounce the websites – the majority of which are daily news publications unsanctioned by the ultra-Orthodox establishment – on grounds that they “pursue all manners of news and gossip that defame our public” and “spread slander, lies and impurities to thousands.”

Haredi rabbis want to create a hermetic seal that will prevent their people from critically examining its community’s leaders, many of whom have been exploiting their flock in almost every conceivable way for decades.

In the same Ynet issue, Jerusalem “modesty squads” says computers containing “abominations” found in apartments rented by yeshiva students, calls on capital’s residents to “stand guard” and have forbidden the ownership of computers in the yeshivas.

The real animus against the Internet is not so much toward the erotic sites, it is toward the news services that openly criticize Haredi power and undermine their authority. Micromanaging or lobotomizing its Haredi community cannot solve the problem here.

What the rabbis are really trying to prevent is the emergence of self-reflective Haredim who are willing to take a hard and serious look at the level of dysfunction within its community. There was a time when child-molesters in the Haredi community could hide and get away with a cloak of unanimity. The Internet has made it virtually impossible for pedophiles to hide. Nor will the Internet hide the financial shenanigans we see among many of the most prestigious leaders of the Haredi community–they too, are now accountable. Continue Reading