Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

The well-known phrase, “Let them eat cake . . .” has often but incorrectly attributed to Queen Marie Antoinette. According to French philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, these words were supposedly said by a great princess who wondered why the French peasants couldn’t eat cake, instead of bread. The quote suggests that the princess was oblivious to the people’s state of poverty. This expression has become the perfect metaphor for leaders who are out of touch with the working class. (I should add that almost in Congress can really and truly honestly identify with the “Average Joe,” since everyone in Congress is a millionaire! Ergo, whenever politicians talk about “power to the people!” always ask yourself, “Which people are they referring to? The Communists have killed scores of millions to bring “power to the people”).

Among the Chinese, there is a similar quote.  When a Chinese Emperor was informed that his subjects didn’t have enough rice to eat, the Emperor replied, “So, why don’t they eat meat instead?”  In both the French and the Chinese tradition, the point is exactly the same: leaders can ill-afford to act as though everyone else in their country is privy to excellent food. In rabbinic tradition, R. Eleazar ben Azariah said , “If there is no bread, there can be no Torah” (Avoth 3:17). In other words, when people are hungry, they cannot occupy themselves with the higher pursuit of knowledge.

Hungry stomachs yearn for a more basic gastronomical truth.

In my last article, I pointed out the types of excesses we have come to expect from the White House and Congress. Mind you, I really don’t view this as a Democratic issue per se. There has been lots of waste in Congress and the Republicans must take their share of the responsibility in allowing Social Security to become insolvent and potentially bankrupt.

That being said, I expect—no I demand—that Michelle Obama cease going on these lavish vacations at our expense. She is no Marie Antoinette, but she sure acts as though she were the French queen. Ten million dollar vacations are an embarrassment.

If you have trouble accepting that fact, then remember: Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt!

Several months ago, I wrote about the President’s attempt to emulate the Republicans by going on his personal bus tour around the country. Evidently, the President wants everyone to think that he is “one of the people,” and that because of his economic background, “he really ‘understands’ their problems.” Does he really? Had the President decided to go in a Greyhound bus (with the appropriate security), he would at least make his point a little bit more persuasively. However, President Obama decided to go on one very expensive bus—along with many of his staff—on two buses that cost over 2.2 million dollars!

Welcome to President Obama’s new age of austerity.

I forgot to mention that the bus was made in Canada and not in the United States. Well, look at the bright side: At least it wasn’t made in China!  How can the President drive around in a bus that was made in Canada and talk about creating more jobs for American? My liberal Jewish friends, I ask you one simple question: Where is the cognitive dissonance here?  Is the hypocrisy too painful to admit—much  less acknowledge? If I was the Republican candidate, I would tell the government, “Keep your bus, Greyhound is good enough for me . . .”

Now, Talmudically speaking, if President Obama decided to go on an electric bus that used no gas, one that was completely fuel efficient—the President could have made an important point about energy conservation. No, not Mr. Obama! The buses he decided to ride on, only gets 2 miles to the gallon.

Way to go Mr. Obama! You, the French queen and the Chinese Emperor have a lot in common!

I am mentioning this incident to show that regardless who happens to be in the White House, I expect that leader to epitomize austerity and prudence. If after he is elected, Romney decides to act this way—I will be on his case too like white on rice.

The President cannot act like he is a “champion of the people,” while living the lifestyle of the rich and opulent.

I will conclude with a piece of timeless wisdom I wish to draw from the great Hellenistic Age, when Jewish thinkers first began articulating the symbiosis of Greek and Judaic thought. In a famous work known as, “The Letter of Aristeas,” this fictional account portrays an imaginary dialogue between King Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 B.C.E.) and the Sages of Alexandria. In one memorable passage, we find:

• The King asked another Sage, “Who is the most suitable person to be made king—a private citizen, or a member of the royal family?  The Sage replied, “He who has the most superior moral nature, for kings who come of royal lineage often act harshly and treat their subjects with cruelty. However, private citizens too are not immune to the abuse of power. Despite having experienced evil and borne their share of poverty, these private citizens often rule over the masses with even greater meanness than the godless tyrants. But, as I have said, a good nature which has been properly trained is capable of ruling, and you are a great king, not so much because you excel in the glory of your rule and your wealth but rather because you have surpassed all men in clemency and philanthropy, thanks to God who has endowed you with these qualities.”[1] Continue Reading

• Are there any biblical analogies to today’s contemporary economic problems?

Well, sort of . . .

Today’s economic times may be compared to one of the more turbulent periods of the early monarchy, to the time of King Solomon and his son Rehoboam. Most of us know that King Solomon was famous for his wisdom and his love life. Despite purportedly being the “wisest man” of all time, when it came to women—King Solomon proved to be quite foolish. Having one wife to love and cherish wasn’t good enough for the old Testosterum-driven monarch—he had to have a thousand wives. By doing so, he violated a number of biblical prohibitions designed to keep monarchial power in check:

• But he shall not have a great number of horses; nor shall he make his people go back again to Egypt to acquire them, against the LORD’S warning that you must never go back that way again.Neither shall he have a great number of wives, lest his heart be estranged, nor shall he accumulate a vast amount of silver and gold (Deut 17:16-17)

King Solomon lived the good life, while conscripting the male population to a life of slavery. He used the proceeds to build extravagant palaces for his lovers–all at the public dole. In fact, the biblical narrator writes:

• King Solomon conscripted thirty thousand workmen from all Israel. He sent them to the Lebanon each month in relays of ten thousand, so that they spent one month in the Lebanon and two months at home. Adoniram was in charge of the draft. Solomon had seventy thousand carriers and eighty thousand stone-cutters in the mountain, in addition to three thousand three hundred overseers, answerable to Solomon’s prefects for the work, oppressing  the people who engaged in the work (1 Kgs. 5:27-28)

King Solomon even recreated an Israelite form of slavery that was reminiscent of the Egyptian bondage. The noun מַס (mas) is usually translated as “levy” but it is sometimes used to denote “taskmaster,” or “forced labor” in Biblical Hebrew. Solomon instituted corvee labor,  which involves involuntary, unpaid labor or other service for a superior power—a feudal lord, a king, or a foreign ruler (cf. Exod. 1:11; Est 10:1; Lam 1:1). One cannot have high expectations of a pagan Pharaoh, who could scarcely recognize or pronounce the God of Israel’s Name.

But Solomon is different.  Surely the “wisest man” of the earth ought to have stronger moral scruples, but he chose to emulate the potentates of the ancient world who ruled by force and despotism.

Solomon’s brutal reign  reminded the Israelites of their historical experiences in Egypt (Exod. 1:11). When the Pharaoh who introduced slavery died, the Israelites hoped that a new Pharaoh would take pity upon them. Instead, the next Pharaoh ruled with even greater vindictiveness. (Exod.2:23). A similar development occurs after the death of Solomon. Seeking to curry favor with Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, the people said to King Rehoboam,“Your father put on us a heavy yoke. If you now lighten the harsh service and the heavy yoke your father imposed on us, we will serve you” (1 Kgs.12:1). The King then takes counsel with his advisers and later proclaims, “My father put on you a heavy yoke, but I will make it heavier. My father beat you with whips, but I will beat you with scorpions” (1 Kgs. 12:14).

Solomon’s reckless economic policies bankrupted the nation and Rehoboam’s foolishness led to the secession of the ten tribes under the leadership of Jeroboam.

Are there modern day parallels to this biblical story?

You betcha!

The real issue that clergy across the religious and political spectrum ought to be critiquing the degree of excess, misappropriation, and willful theft of the American consumer by our governmental leaders—from the President down to the typical bureaucrat. Here are several examples that come to mind.

By now, most of you probably heard about the GSA Las Vegas scandal. The GSA stands for the General Services Administration. Several top executives decided to spend over $800,000 of taxpayer dollars on an extravagant “conference” off of the Las Vegas Strip. What made this story so controversial? Well, the General Services Administration (GSA) was created to, in their words, “streamline the administrative work of the federal government” and it “oversees the business of the U.S. federal government.”

Oh really?

• $31,000 on a “networking reception” that featured $19-per-person “American artisanal cheese display” and $7,000 in sushi

• $3,200 on a session with a mind reader

• $5,600 for in-room parties

• $100,405.37 in employee travel costs to scout the event–meaning, these people returned to the Las Vegas area multiple times to visit hotels before settling on the fancy M Resort and Casino.

• $3,700 for T-shirts and $2,800 in water bottles

• $1,500 for “Boursin scalloped potato with Barolo wine-braised short ribs” and a $525 bartender fee for a cash bar.

• Three officials spent almost $400 for rented tuxedos

• $1,840 for vests for the 19 “regional ambassadors” and other employees

• $146,527.05 was spent on catered food during the entire conference

• $75,000 for a “team-building” exercise — the goal was to build bicycles (which would later be donated to a Boys & Girls Clubs)

Had it not been for an honest reporter, nobody would have known the difference. Think for a minute: Have you ever wondered how many extravagant parties our elected officials have thrown that we have never heard about? But all of these parties are nothing but chump change—when you compare the amount of billions that President Obama’s green energy corporations have squandered with our “stimulus” money. Obviously somebody is getting a lot of stimulation, but not the kind we have expected.

Consider:

• Last April, Solar Trusts of America received a $2.1 billion grant from the Department of Energy to build the world’s largest solar plant in California.

• On 31 August 2011 Solyndra announced it was filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, laying off 1100 employees, and shutting down all operations and manufacturing, while providing no severance for the fired employees, or even providing back due vacation day credit.[1]

(NaturalNews) Just a few months ago, FBI agents raided the headquarters of now-bankrupt solar panel company Solyndra, which received more than half-a-billion dollars in federal stimulus funds as part of the federal government’s green energy stimulus initiative.

According to a new investigation by CBS News, the Solyndra scandal is just the tip of the iceberg, as at least 11 other green energy companies have either already failed, or are on the verge of failing, taking with them more than $6.5 billion in taxpayer money.

Lastly, I must say that I have always been a Democrat but I am a Scoop-Jackson Democrat, one who believes that our elected officials must exemplify integrity and fairness to all—regardless of race, religion, or economic background.

Judging by her behavior, Mrs. Obama has aspirations of becoming the next Imelda Marcus  of the Philippines.  Imelda Marcus’s  extravagant lifestyle reportedly included five-million-dollar shopping tours in New York, Rome and Copenhagen in 1983, and sending a plane to pick up Australian white sand for a new beach resort.

White House sources today claimed that the First Lady has spent $10 million of U.S. taxpayers’ money on vacations alone in the past year. Not bad for just 42 days of vacation, or a little more than one  million out of every nine days, according to a White House Dossier analysis of her travel.

Her vacations, the cost of which are mostly borne by taxpayers, include trips to Panama City, Fla., Martha’s Vineyard, Hawaii, South Africa, Latin America, Vail, Colo., and her visit this week to her brother in Corvallis, Ore.

One can only conclude that, “It’s good to be President!”

Amos the prophet once said, “Hear this word, women of the mountain of Samaria, you cows of Bashan, You who oppress the weak and abuse the needy; Who say to your lords, ‘Bring drink for us!’” (Amos 4:1). It seems that the fat cows of Bashan have invaded and conquered the White House.

So ask my fellow clergy: Where is your sense of outrage? When you consider how many people can barely fill their cars up with gas, Michelle Obama’s spending habits seem obscene.

If I were the President, I would make it a point to be more circumspect with my personal conduct. The appearance of impropriety undermines the confidence the President is trying to establish for his presidency. Continue Reading

I find it amusing whenever I see Christians argue about Jesus and the virtues of liberalism vs. conservatism. NPR featured a story dealing with the question: Would Jesus promote a political philosophy endorsing small-government, or whether he would act as the advocate of the poor?

Politicians love to pontificate almost as much as clergy!  After the House passed its budget last month, liberal religious leaders claimed that the Republican plan, which lowered taxes and cut services to the poor, was an affront to the Gospel — and particularly Jesus’ command to care for the poor.

Not so, says Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, who chairs the House Budget Committee. He told Christian Broadcasting Network last week that it was his Catholic faith that helped shape the budget plan. In his view, the Catholic principle of subsidiarity suggests the government should have little role in helping the poor. He adds, “Through our civic organizations, through our churches, through our charities — through all of our different groups where we interact with people as a community — that’s how we advance the common good.”

The debate is an interesting one and I have heard some rabbis make similar claims that the Exodus proves that God and Moses are great examples of biblical liberals, while the evil Pharaoh and his supporters would have been an excellent Republican. To some extent, the Democrats are also correct in asserting that Moses and Jesus were liberals—and by the way, so is God.

Historically, Ryan’s position has been correct. One of the great philosophers and evolutionary theorists of the 19th century, Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921), took issue with Darwin’s concept of the “survival of the fittest,” and believed that the species of the world survived because of a concept known as “mutual aid.”   Continue Reading

A few weeks ago, we heard President Obama condemn the accidental burning of the Qu’ran. With great interest, I went online to see what the President had to say about the murders that took place in the French city of Toulouse, where three Jewish children along with their father were killed at gunpoint by a crazed Jihadist. The only reference I found was a statement from White House spokesman Tommy Vietor, who said:

• We were deeply saddened to learn of the horrific attack this morning against the teachers and students of a Jewish school in the French city of Toulouse . . . Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families and friends of the victims, and we stand with a community in grief . . . We join the government of France in condemning this unprovoked and outrageous act of violence in the strongest possible terms.

However, a friend of mine later brought to my attention a news article that appeared in today’s Yahoo’s News that said:

• US President Barack Obama has called up his French counterpart Nicolas Sarkozy, to express his solidarity with the people of France as they deal with the aftermath of the “tragic and unprovoked attacks” at a Jewish school . . . “Obama expressed his solidarity with President Sarkozy, and the government and people of France, as they deal with the aftermath of the tragic and unprovoked attacks that left seven dead, including three French soldiers, and three children and a teacher at a Jewish school,” the White House said in a statement after he spoke by phone with Sarkozy while aboard Air Force One en route to Nevada yesterday . . . “Obama welcomed the actions taken by French authorities in identifying and locating a suspect in the killings, and their continued efforts to prevent further acts of violence,” the White House said, adding that Obama underscored that the American people stand shoulder to shoulder with its French allies and friends in this trying time.

This article could have appeared a couple of days ago, but it didn’t. “Better late than never,” I suppose. I think that a  public statement from the President would have made a much greater impression on the international community that America stands shoulder to shoulder with the Jewish victims of terror.

President Obama had nothing to lose politically by offering a Presidential condolence to the French Jewish families and to the American Jewish community would have given all Jews in this country a sense of solidarity.

The President’s advisers made a serious blunder here in failing to advise the President properly–especially in a year where he ought to be concerned about the Jewish vote.

Many American Jews tend to think of anti-Semitic attacks as a part of our past—it’s something a lot of us would much rather forget. However, France, Germany, Italy, and other Eastern European countries have a long history where the Jew suffered for the “crime” of being different.

According to the NY Post, the killer Mohammed Merah may have been in U.S. custody while he was in Afghanistan! “The stunning revelation that the mad Jihadist was once in the hands of the US Army came as the Rabbi Jonathan Sandler, 30, his two boys Arieh, 5, and Gabriel, 4; and a cousin Miriam Monsenego, 8, were laid to rest in Jerusalem in a funeral that drew 1,000 mourners, including the French foreign minister.”[1]

If the NY Post allegation is indeed correct, the President ought to consider making another apology–but this time–to the Jewish community.

Somebody dropped the ball.

“There is a time to speak and a time to be silent” (Eccl. 3:7). When the Palestinians shot 500 rockets at Israeli cities, President Obama also chose silence. I hope that  the loss of Jewish innocents means something in the political world.

One last note:
The Republican candidates running for President had even less to say about the Toulouse attack than did the White House. Perhaps some politicians don’t read or pay much attention to the newspapers. Sen. Santorum can lecture us all he wants about American values,” but empathy for others does not seem to be a part of his moral or religious teachings. Surprisingly, Gov. Mitch Romney also had nothing to say. Still and all, making a public condolence at the time of the attack, or shortly after, is really the job of the President.

Sometimes a story is told as much by silence, as it is by speech.

Notes:

[1] http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/french_police_turn_out_lights_around_M3gTWTgzc9KDddy8t8jw5N#ixzz1ptJqzP6a

Barely eight months have passed since the “Arab Spring” has taken root in Egypt. At the time of his departure from power, Hillary Clinton hailed Hosni Mubarak’s eviction from office as one of President Obama’s crowning achievements.

Nearly eight months later, the Muslim Brotherhood has taken political control over Egypt. Does the leopard change its spots? The Muslim Brotherhood’s legacy of antisemitism is unique in the modern Arab world. During WWII, Egypt supported Hitler until he began to lose the war. Several decades later, the Muslim Brotherhood quietly planned for the day when it would overturn everything Hosni Mubarak tried to achieve in a lifetime.

Yesterday, Egyptian parliament decided to expel Israel’s ambassador over Israeli air strikes in the Gaza Strip. “Egypt will never be the friend, partner or ally of the Zionist entity which we consider as the first enemy of Egypt and the Arab nation!” Egypt’s Parliament called upon its government to “revise all its relations and agreements with that enemy.”

One day later, Iran applauded Cairo’s decision.

The fruit of the Arab Spring appears to be bitter; the entire region has become more unstable as a result of President Obama’s efforts to remake the Middle East into a safer environment.

The text from the Egyptian Parliament called for supporting Palestinian “resistance… in all its forms” in the face of the Jewish state’s “aggressive policies,” Egypt’s official Middle East News Agency reported. The statement – approved unanimously in the Islamist-dominated chamber – also called pulling Egypt’s ambassador from Tel Aviv and for an immediate end to natural gas exports to Israel.

Let us not assume the worse. It is crucial to remember that the Egyptian military makes all the final decisions regarding the peace treaty with Israel. However, the situation could quickly deteriorate if Washington fails to handle this situation properly. Will the Israeli-Egyptian Peace Treaty be the next casualty of the Arab Spring? What about the Jordanian-Israeli peace accords? A Palestinian-Israeli peace treaty becomes a practical impossibility. The prognosis does not look appetizing.

Hosni Mubarak is not a candidate for sainthood. Nevertheless, he accomplished something miraculous: he made a peace treaty with Israel that lasted over 35 years. There is an old saying, “Sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t know.” In this case, however, we know exactly what the Muslim Brotherhood stands for and personifies.

Now, after applying considerable pressure on Mubarak of Egypt to resign, President Obama is quickly learning that no amount of flowery rhetoric about the civil rights of all citizens is going to convince the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood to adopt a Western-style democracy for its citizens. Women, gays, Coptic Christians and other minorities feel anxious—and for good reason.

I am reminded about the story of an outlaw who went to the preacher and he told the preacher, “You had better say something nice about my brother, (who also happened to be an outlaw) or I will kill ya!” The preacher composed an original eulogy that was perfect for the occasion, “Jesse was a horse-thief, a bank-robber, an adulterer, and a cold-hearted murderer, but compared to his brother, Jesse was a real saint!” Compared to the chaos and destruction the Muslim Brotherhood is capable of unleashing, Mubarak looks like a saint in comparison! Continue Reading

See also: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/26/rick-santorum-quran-burning_n_1302219.html

The German Jewish poet Heinrich Heine (1797-1856) once wrote, “Those who begin by burning books will end by burning people.” Heine’s admonition certainly became a prophetic portend in the days of the Holocaust. However, his words are no less an admonition for the future we are now—once again—creating.

More than 30 people have been killed after American soldiers accidentally burned copies of the Quran along with other religious materials had been thrown into a fire pit used to burn garbage at Bagram Air Field, a large U.S. base north of Kabul. The incident prompted apologies from the Secretary of State, a leading brigadier general, and an American President—all who expressed sadness about the act of sacrilege.

Adding more fuel to the fire (pardon the pun), Rick Santorum criticized Obama for having dared to apologize to the Muslim international community for burning their sacred literature.  Santorum would be wise to follow the advice of Ecclesiastes, “A time for silence and a time for speaking” (Eccl. 3:7). This is clearly not the time to politicize the loss of human life for pecuniary political gain in the polls. Despite apologies from the President and other U.S. officials for what they said was a mistake, their regrets have not quelled the anger of Afghans, who viewed the Quran burnings as an illustration of what they perceive as foreign disrespect for their culture and religion. One would think after ten years of fighting, the military would have decided to error on the side of caution with respect to this issue.

The loss of life and animus that the Afghanis are exhibiting make it clear that our past policy of waging war to achieve our goals was—and still—is  a misguided policy. It is this writer’s opinion that the United States needs to think more cautiously in the future about fighting ground wars in countries, whose culture and religion it does not really understand. War is not always the best or only solution to global conflicts.

In short, human tragedy and error can cause considerable trouble. Although the Muslim reaction is understandable, it is important for all religious leaders of all faiths to acknowledge that showing disrespect toward any religious faith is inappropriate behavior.

With this thought in mind, it is important for all of us to be introspective and reflective about our own religions. Have we honored the finest teachings of our faith? Muslims cannot ignore the importance and relevance of this question either. Let’s be honest and candid. Muslims are not the only “victims,” not by a long shot. The Islamic international community did not complain much when the Afghani Taliban government destroyed the ancient statues of Buddha on March 1, 2001.

In 1993, the Oslo Accords put Joseph’s Tomb under Israeli jurisdiction, but on Oct. 7, 2000, then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak ordered a unilateral retreat, based on a Palestinian agreement to protect the site. Well, this proved to be a terrible mistake when the Palestinians stormed into the Joseph’s Tomb and destroyed the site believed to be the burial place of the biblical patriarch Joseph––the son of Jacob––who was sold by his brothers into slavery and later became the viceroy of Egypt. Joseph is a hero who is enshrined in Muslim literature. How could they allow the desecration of a hero’s memory who was loved by their own scriptural tradition? The international Muslim community not only refused to condemn the violence, but in many places, they actually applauded and celebrated the desecration.

How many times have we seen Muslim Sunnis blow up the holy places of Muslim Shi’ites, or Sufi shrines?  What about all the Qurans and other sacred items that one has destroyed–all in the name of Allah? What about last week’s news about how Assad of Syria defiled a mosque and used it as a military barracks? Why are we not hearing any fatwas from world respected Muslim leaders on the BBC or on Al-Jazeera, or the American news stations directed against those members of the Muslim community who endorse and perpetuate a relentless philosophy of violence directed at the Other?

When I hear Muslim intellectuals and religious leaders take this matter seriously, then I will know we are taking a meaningful step forward. Unfortunately, when violence turns against the “insider” of a given faith, it is inevitable the rage of violence will turn to the Outsider as well.

Respect is a two-way street. Before there can be any hope of peace, religious leaders of all faiths need to make the respect of all faiths a nonnegotiable item and prerequisite. People who live in glass homes should not throw stones. There must be no double-standard when it comes to the religious desecration of any faith. Continue Reading

Scholars generally define the law of self-preservation as the instinct for individual preservation. The men who wrote the Geneva rules of war never anticipated a time when streets and malls would become battlefields. For thousands of year, warring nations generally realized that citizens are not soldiers. Soldiers must fight other soldiers. The reality of asymmetrical war has altered the way peoples across the world now fight. Fanatical religious regimes are making people rethink about the effectiveness of traditional deterrents (e.g., MAD). Today’s forces of Radical Islam revel in the apocalyptic destruction of a sworn enemy–regardless of the casualties and deaths they cause. Radical Islam poses exponentially greater problems today than the forces of Nazism presented to the pre-WII world.

Unlike Nazis, the forces of Radical Islam have no moral problem transforming their own children into human bombs. Try to remember that simple fact.

Had the European community taken a proactive position against Hitler’s Germany, the world might have been spared WWII; the death of over 25 million people might have been profoundly avoided.

Today’s efforts to prevent war include racial profiling, detention of those suspected of having terrorist connections, expansive surveillance through wire-tapping, computer hacking, cyber-warfare, assassinating known terrorists and their masters, pre-emptive attacks on known terrorist training camps, not to mention—outright pre-emptive war.

Without a re-visioning of these principles, Western civilization may not be able to withstand the force of an amoral enemy, who has no regard or respect for Western values—but holds these values we consider sacred as, “worthless.”

Does Israel have the moral right to unleash a pre-emptive attack on the Iranian nuclear reactors? The risks are obvious: Iranian population centers will suffer the brunt of nuclear fallout, but should Israel rather put the safety of its own people at risk and allow Iran or its affiliates to, “wipe Israel off the map”?

Israel has often used pre-emptive attacks in the past. When the Egyptian army crossed the Suez and blocked international waterways, Israel justly viewed these bold actions as a provocation for war. But again, Israel did bomb the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981, and the one Al Kabir nuclear reactor that Syria was trying to build in 2007.

Will the world condemn Israel once again? Of course, but what else would you expect? Will Obama chastise Israel? You can count on it! In 1981, the United States ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, described the attack as “shocking” and likening it to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Given the fact that Iran has supported Al Qaeda attacks on the United States military facilities and civilian targets, through their Hezbollah proxies, Israel would be wise to take Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at his word.

The spiritual leader of the Palestinian Authority, the Mufti Muhammad Hussein, went on record declaring, “The killing of Jews by Muslims is a religious, Islamic goal. The hour of Resurrection will not come until you fight the Jews. The Jew will hide behind stones or trees. Then the stones or trees will call out, ‘Oh Muslim, faithful servant of Allah–there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!’” Continue Reading

The death of the North Korean dictator, Kim Jong-il raises some interesting moral and religious questions as to how we—as individuals—and as a nation ought to respond. It is most unfortunate that this rogue seems to be the talk of the hour, while scant attention has been given to one of humanity’s truly great heroes of the 20th century, the Czechoslovakian President and champion of democracy, Vaclav Havel, whose Velvet Revolution stood of the might of the Soviet Communist machine; his legacy is the democracy he created for the two countries of Czech and Slovakia. Jewish tradition teaches that the death of the righteous is a like the destruction of the Temple (BT Rosh Hashanah 18b).

What a dramatic contrast . . .

Jewish tradition teaches us that “The death of the wicked benefits themselves and the world” (BT Sanhedrin 72a), but some scriptural texts seem to adopt a different attitude, “Do not rejoice when your enemies fall, and do not let your heart be glad when they stumble (Prov. 24:17). Now compare this passage with another biblical verse where King David is believed to have said, “Do I not hate, LORD, those who hate you? Those who rise against you, do I not loathe?With fierce hatred I hate them, enemies I count as my own” (Psalms 139:22).

For Christians, the question becomes even more acute: One might easily ask, “How does one reconcile the famous prescription of Jesus found in NT Matthew 5:43-48:

• [Y]ou shall love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Heavenly Father, for He makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Don’t the tax collectors do the same?[1]And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Don’t the pagans do the same? So be perfect, just as your Heavenly Father is perfect.

These sundry passages seem to be in conflict with one another. One could argue that since the Bible was written by different individuals over time, it is only natural that some writers might have strong opinions about the death of the wicked.[2] This is certainly a plausible way of looking at our texts. On the other hand, a more organic approach is certainly not only conceivable, but I would argue represents a clearer way of harmonizing the above cited texts.

With respect to Psalm 139:22, let’s be blunt: for many people, the verse certainly offends the liberal propensities and moral values of our times. Obviously, this is not a warm and fuzzy type of passage we might expect to encounter in the Psalms, but do not underestimate its contemporary message. Besides, there are numerous other passages in both Testaments that reflect the same animus toward “God’s enemies.” [3]

More specifically, would it be too farfetched to suggest that when Jesus said, “Love your enemies,” he was merely referring to the garden variety of people who behave more like a nuisance in our lives, or people who simply don’t like us, rather than individuals who pose a certain existential threat to whole societies or even civilization itself? Put in different words, would Jesus consider the likes of a Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jong-il, and Osama bin Ladin as “enemies of God” because of their genocidal behavior?  Are such villains of history beyond even the periphery of forgiveness?

Most Americans probably don’t remember how Kim Jong-il’s policies directly created the mass starvation of the 1990s, where famine devastated North Korea, killing anywhere between 2.5 million and possibly 3.7 million victims. Imagine people living off of approximately 1 cup of food, the equivalent to 25% of the 25 percent of the internationally-recommended minimum calorie intake.[4] Beyond the incalculable damage this man has committed against his own people, Kim Jong-il has done to proliferate nuclear technology to the most unstable region of the world—the Middle East. If the day should arrive when Iran and its consort of terrorist groups gain access to any of these nuclear weapons, humanity may soon find itself standing at the precipice of non-existence. ‘

In practical terms, how should leaders of the free world remember Kim Jong-il?

There are two ways of responding; one approach is championed by diplomats; the other method comes from real people who have faced evil in their lives.

For an example of the former, take the former Secretary of State, Madeline Albright; in an interview with Larry King, where she admires certain qualities Ki Jong-il displayed in their meeting:

• He said that he would really have loved to have been a movie director.  He knew a lot about American movies and had suggestions for Oscar nominations and, you know, he also liked American sports, he liked Michael Jordan.  It was possible to talk with him.  He’s not a nut.  I think that’s the main kind of point.  I think that it’s important actually not to make fun.  He wanted me to e-mail with him.  I think the thing that’s interesting, Larry, is I do not believe that he’s crazy.  I know a lot of people have said that.  I don’t think so.” One must wonder: Had she been the Secretary of State during WWII, would she have had the gull to say something similar about Hitler too?

And then there is Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington, who said with enthusiastic glee, “I actually met Kim Jong-il.” I would like to ask Ms. Mitchell, “Did you manage to get his autograph, too?”

When you consider the amount of human suffering and evil this one man has contributed to the world, it is amazing to hear any American diplomat sing his praises as though Kim Jong-il was some Hollywood “bad boy” celebrity.

As I was reading the media’s reaction to the death of Kim Jong-il, I decided to compare the media’s reaction with the kind of reactions seen when the world first discovered about the death of Adolf Hitler, on June 1^st, 1945. If nothing else, it is offers a remarkable contrast to how our society has changed over the last 67 years.

• Lt. William J. Cullerton of Chicago, a fighter pilot who was left for dead a few weeks after a German SS man fired a .35-slug through his stomach, said, “I thought I’d had it, now they say Hitler is dead. Maybe he is. If he is, I don’t believe he died heroically. Mussolini died at least like a dictator, but somehow I can’t figure Hitler dying in action . . .”

• Sgt. Allan Pettit of Verndale, Minnesota, said, “Why waste words on Hitler?” he said. “And how do you know for sure? Anyway, he picked a damn good Nazi to take his place . . .”

• Another soldier said, “I wish I was the guy who killed him . . . I’d kill him a little slower. Awful slow . . .” One infantry captain said, “Yeah, I guess he’s dead, but so are a lot of other good guys. And you just remember that.

What a contrast . . .

The real issue that bothers me is the feeling of moral relativism that has become a part of our modern culture. Lines of demarcation differentiating between good and evil has become passé; in its place we are now seeing a new lexicon of political correctness that no longer refers to evil leaders as “evil,” but “opinionated,” or some other vacuous metaphors that trivialize evil in the world. Continue Reading

One of the important questions raised by Rashi (1040–1105) in the beginning of his famous commentary is this: “Why did the Torah begin with the Book of Genesis and not with the first commandment found in the book of Exodus—the precept of sanctifying the New Moon?” For Rashi, who lived during the period of the Crusades, the creation story stresses how God is the Owner and Proprietor of the universe and, therefore, God alone has every right to give the Land of Canaan to whomever He pleases; in this case, He bequeaths it to the nation of Israel. As God’s people, Israel has a bond with the land that is eternal and irrevocable.[1] Rashi’s opening salvo was quite a remarkable comment to make at a time when Christians and Muslims were fighting for control of the Holy Land. What began long ago as an ideological struggle during the age of the Crusades continues to haunt present-day reality in the Middle East.

Ramban[2] (1194–1270), as well other Judaic commentators, finds Rashi’s answer to be inadequate.[3] The importance of Genesis goes beyond the primacy of the Land of Israel as Rashi envisages. In fact, the purpose of the creation narrative is to teach the importance of creatio ex nihilo—nothing would exist were it not for the creative power of God. Every creature and entity could not exist were it not due to the conscious act of the Divine bringing each being into existence at every moment.

Like Ramban, Rashbam[4] (ca. 1085-1158) also  supports the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, while adding, “Do not imagine that this world you now see and experience had existed forever, for everything in the universe had an absolute beginning—that is why the Torah states from the onset: “At the beginning of the creation of the heaven and the earth . . .” (1:1). Furthermore, reasons Rashbam, the purpose of the creation narrative is to explain why the Sabbath is the cornerstone of all the Jewish holidays—a point that is emphatically stressed in the Decalogue: “Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day. . . . In six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them; but on the seventh day he rested. That is why the LORD has blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy” (Exod. 20:8-10). By observing the Sabbath, Israel bears witness to the world that God is the sole Creator of the universe.

Among the patristic fathers, Theodoret of Cyprus (393-457) explains that after centuries of oppression and assimilation, the Israelites became religiously indistinguishable from their Egyptian masters who believed solely in a visible creation. Consequently, the Israelites had forgotten about the one and true God of their ancestors, who created the heavens and the earth. “The statement that heaven and earth and the other parts of the universe were created and the revelation that the God of the universe was their Creator provided a true doctrine of God sufficient for people of that time.”[5] Theodoret’s point is significant. From the very outset of their freedom, Moses begins re-educating his people by teaching them about the creation story. The purpose of the Sabbath thus serves to teach the people of Israel about the nature of true faith and belief in God. Maimonides later expresses a similar point. According to him, each biblical precept—in one manner or another—aims to raise humankind, as theologian David Hartman notes, “from an anthropocentric to a theocentric concept of religious life.”[6]

Karaite exegete and theologian Aharon ben Eliahu (1260-1320), sharing a somewhat similar opinion to that of Rashbam, points out that the principles of Providence and prophecy would be inconceivable were it not for the belief that God created the world. “Moses,” argues Aharon, “wished to impress upon his people that they look only to God as the Ultimate Cause of their existence.” Like Rashbam, Aharon explains that the purpose of the Creation narrative also serves to theologically reinforce the celebration of the Sabbath.

[Hello again, I hope you liked reading the article. Better still, I would greatly appreciate if you would purchase my book, “Birth and Rebirth through Genesis: A Timeless Theological Conversation Genesis 1-3, which is available at:

http://www.amazon.com/Birth-Rebirth-through-Genesis-Conversation/dp/1456301713/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1309652244&sr=1-2.

Notes:

[1] Rashi’s subtle insight captures one of the most important themes of Genesis: the concept of land. In the Abraham pericope, God promises the Holy Land as a gift to Abraham and his descendants. “Land” has a rich and sacred dimension that is inextricably connected to Israel’s possession of it. Israel’s capacity to believe in the divine promise that God made to Abraham is the key that enables future generations to take physical possession of it; this same faith is also what defines Israel’s stewardship of the Land. Although the patriarchs and their children (with the exception of Isaac) experienced life outside of God’s Promised Land, their invisible and sacred bond remained eternally intact.  The theme of land is what ties all the books of the Pentateuch together. The God who created the heavens and the earth is also the God who guided His people to their Promised Land through the prophet Moses and his successor, Joshua, thus fulfilling the biblical promise given to the patriarchs. From Rashi’s comment, God’s designation as “Creator” is historically and inextricably bound up with the success of Israel as His people. To achieve their ultimate purpose, Israel requires the Promised Land to fully realize their mission in the world. For this reason, the Creation narratives form an essential basis for the biblical legislation that follows in the other books of the Pentateuch as noted in Mizrahi’s supra-commentary on Rashi.

Continue Reading

If a picture is worth more than a thousand words, then take heart! All of my liberal friends, you tend to see the world through rose-colored classes. Check this out . . . .

Wall Photos

Please share with a friend.

Ask yourself a simple question: Would you buy a used car from this guy? Abbas is no different than his master Arafat. The only difference: Abbas wears a suit and “looks” civilized. When Arafat spoke about the “peace of the brave,” he really meant, “the peace of the grave.”

Should we be surprised? Not really. Weren’t the Oslo Accords based upon the principle of “mutual recognition”? Inspired by the atavistic theology of the Koran, the PLO is proud to emulate the duplicity of Mohammed, who made peace with the more powerful cities of Mecca and Medina–only to later attack these cities when the first opportunity presented itself.

On May 10th, 1994 while visiting Johannesburg, South Africa, Arafat proudly defended his move to “make peace” with Israel by saying, “I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the Quraysh in Mecca.”

Well, for those of you unfamiliar with what happened in Quraysh, heads were literally rolling in the streets, and the streets were drenched with blood . . . this is the legacy Arafat and Abbas wish to re-actualize in our day.

=======

Western countries tend to see what they want—or better yet—hope to see. Since the time of the Enlightenment, most of the great European philosophers view human nature in fairly optimistic terms and see human societies as evolving toward a more advanced stage of human civilization.

With the advent of modern genocide, the wholesale destruction of indigenous peoples across the world has shown repeatedly that our belief in human advancement has been misplaced. We, as a modern society, tend to ignore the atavistic side of human nature. Jews especially, because of the Holocaust, seriously want—better yet—hope that the world has learned its lessons, but has it?

This year, November 9^th marks the 73^rd anniversary when the Nazis organized a national pogrom on November 9^th, 1939. But has the world really learned its lessons? Even if we want to believe that the Europeans have indeed evolved, what about the Muslim societies, which continue depicting the Jew in the vilest imagery we have seen since the 1930s?

When Mahmoud Abbas announces a “Jew Free Palestine,” using Hitler-esque Judenrein language, he is not referring to just the West Bank—he means all of Israel.

As Jews, we want to believe that Palestinians really wish to live in peace, but do they really? One of the most important architects of the Oslo Accords was a man named Faisal Husseini, who was often considered to be a “moderate voice of peace” in the Palestinian community.

On his way to Kuwait, where he died of a heart attack in May, Husseini gave his last interview  to the Egyptian daily “Al-Arabi.” Following are excerpts from the interview, published on June 24, 2001.

Playing on the idealism of the Enlightenment, Husseini—like a master chess player—laid out a strategy that the Palestinian Authority is following, with methodical perfection. Husseini regarded the Oslo Accords as a “Palestinian Trojan Horse.”

In a speech in Beirut in April 2001, Husseini develops this theme: [note that Word Press does not have indentation features, so I had to use bullets instead for spacing]

• The [ancient] Greek Army was unable to break into Troy due to [internal] disputes and disagreements [among themselves]. The Greek forces started retreating one after the other, and the Greek king ended up facing the walls of Troy all by himself, and he too suffered from illnesses and [internal] disputes, and ended up leading a failed assault on Troy’s walls. [Following these events] the people of Troy climbed on top of the walls of their city and could not find any traces of the Greek army, except for a giant wooden horse. They cheered and celebrated thinking that the Greek troops were routed, and while retreating left a harmless wooden horse as spoils of war. So they opened the gates of the city and brought in the wooden horse. We all know what happened next.
• Had the U.S. and Israel not realized, before Oslo, that all that was left of the Palestinian National movement and the Pan-Arab movement was a wooden horse called Arafat or the PLO, they would never have opened their fortified gates and let it inside their walls. Despite the fact that we entered these walls in order to build, unlike the Greeks who entered them in order to destroy, I now tell you all, all these to whom I spoke in a secret meeting during the days of Oslo: “Climb into the horse and don’t question what type of material the horse is made of. Climb into the horse, and we shall transform your climbing into that horse into a beginning of a building era, rather than an era of the end of hope.”
• And indeed, there are those who climbed onto the horse and are [now] inside [the PA territory] whether they supported the Oslo Accords or not . . . I told everyone: three years ago I said, “climb into the horse,” and everyone entered into the horse and the horse entered into the walled-in [area]. Now, the time has come for us to say: “Come out of the horse and start working. Don’t stay inside the horse and don’t waste time and energy while you are inside the horse arguing whether this was a good horse or not. Look, it is thanks to this horse that you were able to get into the walled-in city.”
• So come down out of the horse and start working for the goal for which you entered the horse to begin with. In my opinion, the Intifada itself is the coming down out of the horse. Rather than getting into the old arguments… this effort [the Intifada] could have been much better, broader, and more significant had we made it clearer to ourselves that the Oslo agreement, or any other agreement, is just a temporary procedure, or just a step towards something bigger…If you are asking me as a Pan-Arab nationalist what are the Palestinian borders according to the higher strategy, I will immediately reply: “from the river to the sea.” [1]

• …the Oslo agreement, or any other agreement, is just a temporary procedure, or just a step towards something bigger…Faisal Husseini

The moral of the story ought to be painfully clear: you cannot make peace with a government that cynically uses peace as a ruse for war. If the State of Israel has not yet mastered this basic lesson in Darwinian survival, then I fear that we may be witnessing the last vestige of Jewish Independence since the 2^nd century. I pray that our leaders recognize the ground facts—beware of letting your guard down. Let us not repeat the mistakes of our history—for our sake, and the sake of the civilized world. Continue Reading