Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

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

One of my favorite stories about the holiday of Sukkoth comes from the 18^th century.

The Duke of Manheim asked R’ Zvi of Berlin: “Why do children ask the ‘Four Questions’ on Passover and not on Sukkot? It would appear that Sukkot brings more changes to their lives than Passover does! For example: during Sukkoth, everyone eats their meals outside in the Sukkah, such a tradition does not exist with Passover  . . .”

R’ Zvi answered the Duke’s question with sardonic wit, “During the Passover Seder, the child sees everyone sitting around the table, at ease like free men, and not like a wandering people in exile. This brute fact arouses the child’s curiosity and he asks the obvious question: ‘Why is this night different?’ On Sukkot, however, the child sees Jews exiled from their homes and without a true roof over their heads. That does not surprise him at all; Jews have always lived that way, ever since they first went into exile.”

Freedom for the Jew living in Europe seemed more like a dream, rather than a reality.

As I pondered this story, I decided to double-check the historical records of various different expulsions of Jewish history—if only to satisfy my curiosity.

Here is a cursory glance at many of the wanderings our people have experienced over the last 2000 years.

250 — – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – Carthage

415 — – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – Alexandria

554 — – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – Diocèse of Clermont (France)

561 — – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – Diocèse of Uzès (France)

612 — – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – Visigoth Spain

642 — – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – Visigoth Empire

A member of the western Goths that invaded the Roman Empire in the fourth century settled in France and Spain, and established a monarchy that lasted until the early eighth century. The Arian Visigoths were also tolerant of Jews. However, the Visigothic persecution of Jews began after Visigothic King Reccared converted to Catholicism. Shortly after the King was elected,  the bishops urged him to declare that all Jews must be baptized or expelled. Sound familiar? Now let’s look at some other dates of Jewish history where this same pattern reoccurred:

855 — – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – Italy

876 — – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – Sens

1012   — – - – - – - – - – - – —-Mainz

Note: 1012  – Emperor Henry II of Germany expels Jews from Mainz; this marked the beginning of persecutions against Jews in Germany.  As you can see, by the time Martin Luther had come around, anti-Semitism had several centuries to gestate in Germany.

• In 1290, King Edward I issued an edict expelling all Jews from England. Lasting for the rest of the Middle Ages, it would be over 350 years until it was formally overturned in 1656, thanks to the efforts of Oliver Cromwell and Rabbi Manasseh ben Israel, the famous Jewish leader of Amsterdam. The edict was not an isolated incident, but the culmination of over 200 years of conflict on the matters of usury.

Note: 1306  The Expulsion from France. Jewish wealth was more often than not the main motivation in the Jews’ expulsion from these countries. The Catholic Church coveted Jewish money, and their local leaders frequently used religion as an excuse to rid their countries of the Jews.

Historically, the Jews had settled in France for well over a thousand years, but this quickly changed when Philip Augustus came to power in 1179. Augustus decided to rid the country of his Jewish citizens so he could confiscate their wealth and also solidify his power as King. He used the infamous blood libel canard as his excuse.

I will not go into further detail about the other expulsions; I just wanted to provide some simple illustrations why the Rabbi Tvi of Berlin was more correct than many people might realize.

The various expulsions of the Jews illustrates the morally bankrupt polices that governed the Christian world all the way up to the modern period. The Holocaust would never have been possible had the Christian world not already prepared the ascent of Hitler by promoting the Jew in the most disparaging light.  It is a pity that Christianity has rarely ever practiced the precept of forgiving one’s enemies, as Jesus instructed in his Sermon on the Mount and in other NT narratives (cf. Matt. 5:43-44; Luke 17:2-4, passim). Jews have been unforgiven–even though 2000 years separate their 1st century ancestors. I often wonder what Jesus himself would say to his followers, “Ladies and gentlemen, I think you got it all wrong . . .”

Most modern Jews tend to think that anti-Semitism is not especially virulent in the United States. However, in troubled times such as ours, it could very easily become a spiritual airborne virus. Today, with the Occupy Wall Street crowd, once again we are hearing many of the same type of canards against “Jewish money” that we have heard long ago.

Sukkoth reminds us that anti-Semitism is a disease that transcends geographical boundaries. More importantly, Sukkot teaches all human beings the importance of creating shelter for the homeless and the vagabonds, who more often than not, become the scapegoats for a troubled society.

Remarkably, much of the Sukkot holiday focuses on the importance of hospitality. Despite the countless expulsions of our people, Jews celebrated Sukkoth by creating shelter for all those who found themselves on the ragged edge of life. I, for one, am very proud of how Israel has welcomed so many refugees who have been rejected by their original country of origin.  Since her inception as a nation, Israel absorbed over a million Jews, who were kicked out of the Arab countries in 1948.  Thousands of Druze also found sanctuary in Israel, as well as the Bahai, whose Temple was rebuilt in Haifa.

Israel is the only country that protects the rights of its Arab citizens as well. I would also add that when people suffer from natural or man-made catastrophes anywhere around the world, Israel is always there to offer a helping hand—creating shelter wherever possible. In the early 1970s, Israel welcomed the famous Vietnamese boat people, and later Christian Ethiopians, Sudanese refugees, and numerous other ethnic groups.

Much of historical memory is rooted in the biblical injunctions, “You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Exod. 22:20). “You shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the soul of the stranger, having yourselves been strangers in the land of Egypt” (Exod. 23:9). Think about it. There are thirty-six warnings against exploiting the resident alien, who frequently was at the mercy of the host country. Sound familiar?

With 36 warnings against unsuitable behavior toward a stranger, no other commandment is referred to as frequently as much as this particular biblical proscription. Our tradition teaches us over and over again: “You shall love the stranger…The resident stranger that dwells with you shall be unto you as the home-born among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Lev. 19:34).

Henri Nouwen, the distinguished Catholic theologian writes about the basic essential qualities of hospitality shortly before he died:

• In a world full of strangers, estranged from their own past, culture, and country, from their neighbors, friends, and family, from their deepest self and their God, we witness a painful search for a hospitable place where life can be lived without fear…That is our vocation, to convert the hostis into hospes, the enemy into a guest and to create the free and fearless space where brotherhood and sisterhood can be formed and fully expressed. Continue Reading

One of the strange customs observed by many Orthodox on Erev Yom Kippur, involves the ritual of taking a rooster on the Eve of Yom Kippur. Here are the instructions: Men must take a rooster, while women must take a hen. Take a rooster in the right hand and afterwards say:  “This is my exchange, this is my salvation, and this is my atonement. This rooster shall go to its death, while I will enter and proceed to a good long life, and to peace.”

Then revolve the chicken around your head swinging it over your head. Some authorities argue that this should be done three times others say once is sufficient. If you are an expecting mother, it is customary to use two chickens for atonement, one for the mother and one for the unborn child.

The custom of Kapparot has some peculiar similarities to the ancient pagan and black magic rituals. The 16^th century scholar R. Joseph Karo, author of the Shulchan Aruch, condemned it as a pagan superstition. Today, several leading Haredi rabbis have complained for the first time about the problems with animal cruelty, and have now banned it. Some scholars thought it was better to give food gifts or money to the poorer.

Yet, despite rabbinic reservations, folk religion often follows customs because of tradition. I would imagine that being able to transfer our collective and individual sins unto the poor chicken, must be a real exhilarating experience.

I mention this odd piece of Jewish folk religion because in some ways it highlights man’s eternal desire to seek some symbolic way of banishing our sins. Despite the fact we no longer have a Temple to perform these ancient rites, we nevertheless yearn for rituals of personal purification.

The origin of the scapegoat derives from the Yom Kippur rituals where the sins of the community were transferred unto a goat which was sent to die in the wilderness. As primitive as this rite is, bear in mind that the Torah improved on the concept of the scapegoat. Note that it is only the goat that is singled out for destruction–and not human beings. (One possible exception: Job, but Job is truly the one person who refused to be his society’s scapegoat; however, this is discussion for another time . . . )

THE SCAPEGOAT IN ANTIQUITY

Sir James Frazer illustrates in his famous work, the Golden Bough, shows how the ancient Greeks and Romans utilized the scapegoat. On every March 14^th in the calendar year, the  ancient Romans used to send a man clad in skins through the streets of Rome, beating him with long white rods until they drove him out of the city.  The ancient Greek historian and philosopher Plutarch records how the ancient Greeks utilized the scapegoat in their society. Bear in mind Plutarch was considered pious and quite friendly—well, to most people!

Whenever the Greek colony of Marseilles, one was ravaged by a plague, a man of the poorer classes used to offer himself as a scapegoat. For a whole year he was maintained at the public expense, being fed on choice and pure food. At the end of the year he was dressed in sacred garments, decked with holy branches, and led through the whole city, while prayers were uttered that all the evils of the people might fall on his head. He was then cast out of the city or stoned to death by the people outside of the walls.  (I believe this type of story probably inspired several Stephen King horror novels.)

Frazer also describes how primitive societies throughout the world have relied on scapegoats and other ritual purification ceremonies, usually performed annually and seasonally, to purge their communities of evil and epidemics, demons and natural disasters. “To effect,” Frazer writes, “a total clearance of all the ills that have been infesting a people.”

THE SCAPEGOAT IN MODERN TERMS

Yes, our forbearers were not terribly sophisticated; their world was steeped in magic and superstition. The scapegoat reflected their need to purify themselves as a society—but often it came at the expense of an innocent victim—quite often the poorest and most vulnerable elements of society.

Modern society is much more subtle about its use of scapegoats. Psychologists Alice Miller and Robert Coles explain  that  scapegoats are targets that “absorb our pain, our feelings of hopelessness.” I would add: we crave scapegoats to absorb our hypocrisy and moral duplicity. The scapegoat is also often applied to individuals and groups who are accused of causing misfortune; they are identified with evil, blamed and then cast out of the family or community so that the remaining members are left with a feeling of guiltlessness.

The political arena tends to promote class warfare, pitting the rich vs. the poor, when the real problem is the lack of accountability when it comes to how government monies are being spent. Rather than exposing the crooked and dishonest politicians, we often see our political leaders create scapegoats, so that nobody will notice the real source of our problems—namely, our own leaders’ moral corruption.

People who see themselves as life’s victims tend to see somebody else to blame. The phenomena of frivolous lawsuits are empirical evidence of how ordinary people sue large companies no matter how silly the claim might be. Personal responsibility is seldom ever taught as a virtue worth cultivating in schools.

A thought from Ayn Rand really gets to the heart of our reticence to accept personal responsibility: “We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality . . .” If we act in ways that are so totally and obviously self-destructive, we have nobody else to blame but ourselves for failing to think and act responsibly–which I might add, is the hallmark of  spiritual adulthood. It is also the key to unlocking our human potential and actualizing our life purpose in this temporal world.

Freud understood this human problem and observed, “Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility.” Is it any wonder why people seek to blame others for life’s injustices?

THE JEW AS SCAPEGOAT

Since the days of Late Antiquity, the Jews have become the perennial scapegoat for Western Civilization (“What a concept!”—Gandhi)  we have long been the scapegoat for everything that is wrong. The resurgence of anti-Semitism is not just in Muslim countries, it has spiked up even in the Western countries. The world is always looking to blame Israel—her crime: she exists!

Yet despite all the tragedies that have befallen the Palestinians, their greatest blunder in a history was failing to realize the opportunities that came their way.  As Abba Eben once said, The Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Paradoxically, Arab leaders needs Israel, for without Israel, who else would they blame for their societal problems. With the development of the “Arab Spring” this past year, for the first time Arab population centers are beginning to recognize that Israel is not to blame, but their own leaders are corrupt!

IN SUMMARY . . .

As primitive as the scapegoat ritual is, its inclusion in the Yom Kippur liturgy is a painful reminder of what is wrong in our lives and society.  Rather than looking for somebody else to bear the stigma of our pain, Yom Kippur teaches us that we need to take responsibility for our own behavior.

An interesting human behavior is pointing out everyone else’s faults and sins rather than looking at your own. It can be summed up in the following conversation between Linus and Lucy.

Linus asks Lucy, “Why are you always so anxious to criticize me?”

Lucy responds, “I just think I have a knack for seeing other people’s faults.”

“What about your own faults?”

“I have a knack for overlooking them.” Continue Reading

Fewer politicians irk me like Ron Paul. Recently, he condemned the Obama administration for assassinating Al-Awalki, an American citizen who has played an invaluable role in recruiting American citizens to join the ranks of Al Qaeda. Now, Paul has condemned Obama for disregarding the American Constitution that guarantees all Americans a free trial. By assassinating Al-Awalki, Obama has killed an American citizen without due process, and represents a significant step toward tyranny. In fact, Obama might even be impeached over this attack!

As my readers know, I am no fan of Obama. However, he has proven to do one thing right: He is not afraid to go after celebrity terrorists who inspire random acts of violence against American citizens. Kudos goes to Obama and Pinetta for a job well-done! Paul sees nothing wrong with going after individuals whose actions pose a certain danger to the general populace. Al-Awalki definitely qualifies as a rodef—a man who is hell-bent to kill as many innocents as he possibly can.

Ron Paul is not only an enabler for men like Al-Awalki and bin Ladin, he is a well-known for his anti-Israel policies.

Last February he proposed legislation to cut all aid to Israel. Some apologists for Paul complained that Paul did not single out only Israel. I double-checked the sources and found out that his apologists were partially correct. They contend Paul urged that the United States ought to cut aid to Egypt, Pakistan, the PLO, Iraq, and Israel, and probably some other countries like Germany and Japan. Paul supporters claim that they are not “anti-Israel” in neither their tone or rhetoric, after all—he included other countries as well! Paul doesn’t care whether the withdrawal of American monies might endanger the Jewish State. On other occasions he has referred to Israel as an “imperialistic power.” I have often wondered whether Al Qaeda wrote or inspired Ron Paul’s political speeches.

Isn’t odd that the United States gives away billions of dollars to countries who consistently vote against the U.S., but when it comes to Israel, Paul always complains about Israel? This is despite the fact Israel supports the U.S. 97% of the time, and Israel has never defaulted on a loan. Egypt, Pakistan, and Jordan have defaulted several times and recently Obama tried to bribe the Egyptians by forgiving one billion dollars worth of debt. Oy, such a foolish President, but compared to Ron Paul, Obama sounds like Einstein–with his teleprompters! Ron Paul is different; a straight-jacket would suit him fine! (Pardon the pun.)

Lastly, for the record, he doesn’t care if anti-Semites like Paul has accepted money from Don Black, the founder of Stormfront, and a notorious neo-Nazi, who donated $500 to help elect Ron Paul for President. Continue Reading

What exactly did Areikat say about a “Jew Free Palestine”?

In 2010, in an interview with Tablet Magazine the following interaction took place.

[TABLET]: When you imagine a future Palestinian state, do you imagine it being a place where Jews, if they wish to become Palestinian citizens, could own property, vote in elections, and practice their religion freely?

[AREIKAT]: I remember in the mid-’90s, the late [PLO official] Faisal Husseini said repeatedly “OK, if Israelis choose to stay in a future Palestinian state, they are more than welcome to do that. But under one condition: They have to respect and obey Palestinian laws; they cannot be living as Israelis. They have to respect Palestinian laws and abide by them.” When Faisal Husseini died, basically no Palestinian leader has publicly supported the notion that they can stay. What we are saying is the following: We need to separate. We have to separate. We are in a forced marriage. We need to divorce. After we divorce, and everybody takes a period of time to recoup, rebound, whatever you want to call it, we may consider dating again.

[TABLET]: So, you think it would be necessary to first transfer and remove every Jew—

[AREIKAT]: Absolutely. No, I’m not saying to transfer every Jew, I’m saying transfer Jews who, after an agreement with Israel, fall under the jurisdiction of a Palestinian state.

[TABLET]: Any Jew who is inside the borders of Palestine will have to leave?

[AREIKAT]: Absolutely. I think this is a very necessary step, before we can allow the two states to somehow develop their separate national identities, and then maybe open up the doors for all kinds of cultural, social, political, economic exchanges, that freedom of movement of both citizens of Israelis and Palestinians from one area to another. You know you have to think of the day after. It is explicit in this sequence of statements that Areikat was calling for a Jew-Free State of Palestine, but Kampeas and others refuse to accept the reality.

Here are the statements from September 14, 2011.

WEINSTEIN: What kind of state do you perceive the independent Palestinians to be? For instance, do you imagine that in an independent Palestinian state, a Jew could be elected mayor of Ramallah?

AREIKAT: I haven’t seen the draft resolution but I can assure you the resolution will be calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital. And it will definitely include also that it will live side by side in peace and security with Israel…

WEINSTEIN: To my point, do you foresee in an independent Palestinian state, for instance, a member of the Jewish minority there, if they existed, being elected mayor of Ramallah

AREIKAT: Well, you know, I personally still believe as a first step we need to be totally separated and we can contemplate these issues in the future. But after the experience of the last 44 years of military occupation and all the conflict of friction, I think it would be in the best interests of the two peoples to be separated first.

Weinstein asked for clarification after the event and got the following response:

WEINSTEIN: Could I get a quick clarification Mr. Ambassador? When I asked a question about whether a Jew could be elected mayor of Ramallah, you said there would be a period of separation. Does that mean that for a period there would be no Jews in the West Bank and Gaza?

AREIKAT: We have to be separated. We have to work on developing our own national identities and then after that we have to cooperate together, we have to live together.

As I have said before, if the Palestinians want to demonstrate that they will not follow the Judenrein polices of Hitler, let them take the Neturei Karta and settle them in Palestine. Why? Because they both share a great hatred toward Israel; the Neturei Karta would love living under a Palestinian flag; they would prove to be a great match to one another. Lastly, Israel could probably send the rest of the Haredi Jews who do not believe in the State of Israel along with the Neturei Karta. However, I suspect the Palestinian Authority really hates the idea of having any kind of Jew whatsoever—even the Neturei Karta. Why? The answer is deceptively simple, to the PA, we are all the same in their book. Besides, everyone in Israel knows that the Neturei Karta and the Haredim get tremendous benefits from the Israeli government and they would justifiably get nothing from a Palestinian government.

If a the Palestinians truly wish to create a homeland in the West Bank, why not extend to all Palestinians—no matter where they live—the right to settle in the West Bank or Gaza? Actually, the PA has denied their own people who are living in a Palestinian Diaspora such an option; they would rather see them continue living in a refugee camp–indefinitely. As you can see, the Palestinians are not interested in solving their differences with Israel—they are only interested in keeping the conflict alive until Israel eventually disappears. Continue Reading

The Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, delivered a speech for Israel’s 60th. The speech is over a year old, but it is still quite relevant.

To the young Jewish critics of Israel, I strongly recommend that you learn to get in touch with Israel and its history. PM M. Abbas is a Holocaust denier and wrote his PhD thesis on Holocaust denial. In addition, he also denies that the Jewish people EVER had a historical relationship with Israel. Here is what the PM wrote:

“All of my life, Israel has been a symbol of the triumph of hope and faith. After 1945, our battered world desperately needed to be lifted out of post-war darkness and despair. After so much pain and suffering, humanity needed comfort and optimism. After so much death and destruction, we needed the renewal of the dream of a better and more civilized world. In short, we needed to be inspired. It was the people who had suffered who most provided that inspiration. By their example, they led the world back to the light. From shattered Europe and other countries near and far, the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob made their way home. Their pilgrimage was the culmination of a two-thousand-year-old dream; it is a tribute to the unquenchable human aspiration for freedom, and a testament to the indomitable spirit of the Jewish people.

“In the sixty years that followed, Israel blossomed into one of the most successful countries on earth; a land of ingenuity and enterprise, an oasis of agricultural genius, a wellspring of fine art and high culture, a model of democracy. Israel truly is the ‘miracle in the desert.’

“But the source of Israel’s strength and success, in my view, is its commitment to the universal values of all civilized peoples: freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law . . .

“Unfortunately, Israel at 60 remains a country threatened by those groups and regimes who deny to this day its right to exist. And why? Make no mistake; look beyond the thinly-veiled rationalizations: because they hate Israel, just as they hate the Jewish people. Our government believes that those who threaten Israel also threaten Canada, because, as the last world war showed, hate-fueled bigotry against some is ultimately a threat to us all, and must be resisted wherever it may lurk.

“In this ongoing battle, Canada stands side-by-side with the State of Israel, our friend and ally in the democratic family of nations. We have stood with Israel even when it has not been popular to do so, and we will continue to stand with Israel, just as I have always said we would . . .

“There will be many challenges along the way, but considering how far Israel has come in such a short time, in the face of such seemingly insurmountable odds, I can foresee no dark force, no matter how strong, that could succeed in dimming the light of freedom and democracy that shines from within Israel.” Continue Reading

Mary Shelly’s famous horror story, “Frankenstein,” is one of the most profound work of modern literature; like all timeless works, this story continues to unfold new possibilities of meaning that continue to challenge today’s readers in novel and unexpected ways.

Although most people identify Frankenstein with the monster he created, the personality of the monster’s creator is really what is at the heart of this great story. Shelly anticipated the dangers of the scientific revolution, where man embarks on a relentless conquest of the technological world. With subtle irony, Shelly also shows what happens to man when he tries to create a human being without the aid of a woman.

Deciphering the psychology of Victor Frankenstein is complex. Victor is determined to find a technological way of transcending death. Throughout recorded history, people everywhere have grappled the problem of mortality, as seen in the Epic of Gilgamesh of antiquity. However, Victor Frankenstein  is indifferent to the moral consequences of his creation; and neither is his creation. He is unconsciously driven by the desire to unseat the Creator of the world through science.

The Frankenstein metaphor certainly seems like an apt metaphor for the world of changes we are witnessing today in the international arena. The United Nation’s manic quest to create a modern Frankenstein-esque state named “Palestine” is no less shocking. The assonance of “Frankenstein” and “Palestine” seems more than coincidental.

Imagine a state where parents send their children to a summer camp, where its leaders inspire children to become suicide bombers. No, we are not talking about Kafka, but we might just as well be! Imagine streets named after suicide bombers, or entire museums depicting the blown out Israel bus or a blown up Israeli pizza shop strewn with body parts? Picture a society that is dedicated to making Israel “Jew-free” regardless how many they must kill?

Imagine creating a terrorist state that sees nothing wrong with volleying 10,000 missiles into Israeli cities. Picture a society that loves the death or “martyrdom” of its followers more than they do life itself.  Can you imagine a country whose leaders cynically use the “peace treaty” of Camp David as an excuse for war, or as Feisal Husseni once said, “The Palestinian-Israeli peace treaty is nothing more than a modern-day Palestinian Trojan horse.”

Earlier we mentioned how the obsession of Victor Frankenstein really makes him the true monster of our story. Are not the European nations any different? Rest assured that just as the Frankenstein monster rebelled against its creator, you can be sure that Islamic totalitarian forces looking to create a Palestinian state will eventually turn against its creators by educating and expanding their network of terror throughout the Middle East, Europe and beyond.

The world must understand that there can never be peace between those countries that refuse to acknowledge the existence of the Other. Israel and its people has made great strides in accepting the reality of a Palestinian State, but the Palestinian leaders have never prepared their populace for peaceful co-existence with Israel.

As one editorial said, “The only difference between Arafat and Abbas is that the latter wears a suit and only looks “civilized”, but neither wish to even acknowledge Israel as a Jewish homeland and there is our real problem. In my opinion, Arafat was at least a little bit more honest about his lack of humanity and civility. But in all honesty, Abbas is playing a fool’s gambit. If he fails in his attempt to create a Palestinian state–a certainty with the US veto–you can count on Hamas using this failed attempt to completely gain power and control over the West Bank. Like the Frankenstein metaphor we have examined above, Abbas’s new creation will rebel against him–it is inevitable. Sometimes doing nothing is preferable to acting impulsively, and this situation is certainly the case!

One last note: I would strongly recommend to PM Abbas that he rename his country, “Frankenstein,” and call his people “Frankenstinians.”