Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

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.”

One of my favorite 19^th century philosophers is John Stuart Mill, whose brilliance still sets him apart from many other thinkers who have since come after him. Why is Mill so important for us today? We are living in a divisive age where people routinely demonize people who have contrarian viewpoints. Our age of “political correctness” aptly describes the kind of rhetoric that we hear on the radio, or see on the television and Internet.

There seems to be an almost autocratic tonality to the discourse; a reluctance to really engage contrarian ideas—even if they differ considerably from our own. Mill writes:

“But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. . . .  First: the opinion which it is attempted to suppress by authority may possibly be true. Those who desire to suppress it, of course deny its truth; but they are not infallible. They have no authority to decide the question for all mankind, and exclude every other person from the means of judging.  To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility. Its condemnation may be allowed to rest on this common argument, not the worse for being common . . . We can never be sure that the opinion we arc endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still” [1]

Recently, Columbia University invited Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak to an informal gathering that took place at one of their supporter’s homes. It would seem that this university was doing its best to respect the intellectual tradition defined by Mill and others.

Academic freedom, as President Lee Bollinger expressed back in 2007 (the first time Ahmadinejad spoke), “The ideas of tolerance of ideas, freedom of speech, are essential. Our values are to be open to listening to any ideas. So, let me introduce our guest, the next speaker. . .

As I thought about this occasion, I think the university leadership should have also invited some outspoken critics and Iranian dissidents, who would be far more familiar with the real problems that affect Iranian society, which is one of the most flagrantly oppressive regimes on the planet. A scholar like Ibn Warraq, or Salman Rusdie, or Zahudi Yasser, and countless others—would have created a truly exciting ambiance where the students could compare each participant’s ideas. Ahmadinejad knows he can manipulate his gullible but ignorant (with respect to not knowing how thuggish the Mullahcracy of Iran really is) audience, but he would had a seriously difficult time answering his critics who really know firsthand what Ahmadinejad is all about.

But obviously this did not happen. Why? Maybe because Ahmadinejad might have refused to participate in such an open forum; could it be also, Columbia University is not really that committed to the free expression of ideas?

Let us forget about Ahmadinejad for a moment. Following Mill’s advice, would it not be in the students’ best interest to hear conservative thinkers or personalities, e.g., Thomas Sowell, Michael Savage, or Glen Beck—if only to challenge their unique political views? One suspects that Mill would have relished the idea of squashing his opponents’ misbegotten ideas; why should the students of Columbia University deny themselves a similar opportunity? One suspects a fear of ideas explains the reticence of the university. Ahmadinejad is not really a  threat to the status quo, but conservative thinkers–that is different . . . Simply put: listening to a conservative viewpoint is too politically risqué for common intellectual consumption.

I cannot help but get the distinct impression that listening to Ahmadinejad’s views on the world, Israel, Islam, the mahdi is preferable than listening to perspectives that may possibly undermine the foundation of modern liberal political thought.

Throughout the city of Iran, you can see large pictures of Ayatollah Khomeini smiling at you. Khomeini was Ahmadinejad’s spiritual mentor. If you wish to understand Ahmadinejad, then read the words of Khomeini himself:

Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. . . . But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. . . . Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender [to the enemy]? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur'anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.

You cannot understand today’s Iran without understanding Khomeini’s pan-Shiite vision. Like his mentor, Ahmadinejad believes in a philosophy of genocide, a hatred of homosexuals, endorses the world’s most backward laws against women or people of conscience. Unlike his mentor, he knows how to achieve his vision and present it in such a way that is palatable to the Western imagination.

It is more common place to see university students across the country make demonstrations against Israel, for her alleged “mistreatment” of Palestinians. I remember long ago how students in Berkeley used to make similar demonstrations against South Africa because of its apartheid policies.

Today, you would never expect to see students protesting at universities in the United States against the cruel execution of homosexuals in Iran or in Saudi Arabia; nor would you find demonstrations against the shabby treatment of women in Tehran, who constantly live in fear of their lives—especially when they contradict their husbands! You will never hear a word of protest from college intellectuals about the Judenrein vision of Abbas and his henchmen—a Palestine that is “Jew free,” as envisioned by Hitler. Continue Reading

President Obama’s speech at the United Nations today proved to be one of his best moments since taking the White House—at least from the Jewish community’s perspective. One might cynically ask, “How sincere was he?” Was he trying to court the Jewish vote, which he has alienated more than any other president since Jimmy Carter? Obama is a complex man, and while this writer has differed with him on virtually every issue involving the Middle East (not to mention his domestic policies), today he did the right thing. It took huptzpa and courage, and he demonstrated why he is still a formidable political candidate–one to seriously run against–even with his ever dwindling popularity. He really surprised me by what he said. Arguably, this was one of his better moments on the international stage. Western Middle East experts even rate Obama’s address as the most supportive of Israel ever delivered at the world body by any US president. This observation sounds pretty correct; I do not recall in recent years hearing such an impassioned speech on behalf of Israel by an American President to the UN.

The gist of his message was simple: Israel’s concerns about being invaded by enemy and rogue states are legitimate. Hello Washington! This is exactly what centrists like myself have been talking about. Consider what the President said today:

“The Jewish people have forged a successful state in their historic homeland. Israel deserves recognition,” Obama said after outlining the array of threats that Israelis have faced in recent years, including rocket attacks and suicide bombers. “It deserves normal relations with its neighbors. And friends of the Palestinians do them no favors by ignoring this truth, just as friends of Israel must recognize the need to pursue a two-state solution with a secure Israel next to an independent Palestine.”

Actually, I want to point out that the Palestinians have never been interested in a two-state solution, or a three-state solution (granting Hamastan its own state); the Palestinians envision only a one state solution—one which does not include Israel. Abbas and his cronies made it a special point this week that in their grand vision of a Palestinian homeland, not a single Jew will live in “their” state.  I can see the ghost of Hitler applauding with glee—yes, a true Judenrein state. Consider the irony of this remark, especially since Durban 4 is looking to castigate Israel for being an “apartheid” state. Can you imagine seeing Palestine serve on the Human Rights commission as a member state of the United Nations? The UN really stands for “United Nincompoops!”

Obama mentioned other points:

-  The Palestinians deserve a territorial base for their state. (BTW, the 1967 borders were not mentioned–but he implies Palestine must be contiguous, which is a geographical impossibility.)

- But they must acknowledge the very real security concerns Israel faces every day.

- Israel is surrounded by neighbors who have repeatedly waged war against it. Its people are killed by missiles on its borders and suicide bombers. Other children are taught to hate them and far bigger nations want to wipe them off the map.

- They deserve a historical state in their historical land just as the Palestinians deserve a stated for which they have waited too long.
-  Peace depends on compromise. Each side has legitimate aspirations and both must learn to stand in the other person’s shoes.

- The US president stressed that the US is unshakably committed to Israel’s security (Obama has a long way to prove that point).

Most of the points Obama made gives him about a B grade, which for him is a marked improvement.

No, if the Palestinians really wish to demonstrate their good will and sincerity, let them cease the theatrics at the UN and return to the negotiating table. That is the only path worth pursuing for them and for the sake of the peace.

As Netanyahu correctly observed, Israel has no problem with a peaceful Palestinian nation, but it will not tolerate a belligerent Palestinian state. “You’ve also made it clear that the Palestinians deserve a state, but it’s a state that has to make that peace with Israel,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said at an appearance with Obama after the president delivered the speech. “And, therefore, their attempt to shortcut this process, not negotiate a peace — that attempt to get membership, state membership in the United Nations — will not succeed.”

In a picture showing Obama and Netanyahu, Obama looked justifiably proud of himself for today he has done the right thing. Could this be a sign of teshuvah (repentance)? Maybe. As Jews, we have got to keep the pressure on him . . . Continue Reading

Well, the truth can be suppressed but it cannot be denied.  The world should think twice before creating a truly racist state, one that is seeking to emulate the path of Hitler’s concept of a Jew free Europe, better known as Judenrein. Hitler”s dream of a Jew-free world lives on. If you have any doubts, just ask the Hamas leadership.

The PLO Ambassador to the United Nations said rather explicitly that Says Jews are NOT Allowed in Palestinian State. “After the experience of the last 44 years of military occupation and all the conflict and friction, I think it would be in the best interest of the two people to be separated,” Maen Areikat, the PLO ambassador, said during a meeting with reporters sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor. He was responding to a question about the rights of minorities in a Palestine of the future.

Gee, I wonder: What do all the Protestant and Catholic leaders think of this comment? How come we haven’t heard any condemnation? Could it be that with the exception of our good evangelical friends and people like Glenn Beck, most of our Christian friends haven’t learned any lessons from WWII? Anti-Semitism is a virus pulsating in their veins. We can thank Martin Luther and the Church Fathers for that.

I am reminded of an old joke; in Nazi Germany, there was a restaurant that said, “We don’t serve Jews.” A Jewish man with a yarmulke comes in and orders a meal. The owner of the restaurant goes to him, shows him the sign that says, “We don’t serve Jews.” The Jew replied, “That’s ok, I don’t eat Jews anyway!” I could see the same thing happening in the new proposed State of Palestine.

Little did the foolish but honest ambassador realize that the last country to officially prohibit Jews was Hitler’s Germany—a country that took considerable pride (much like the Palestinians), in not having any Jews live in their country.

To my liberal Jewish friends, think for a minute . . . How would you feel if Israel had that kind of attitude toward its non-Jewish citizens? Wouldn’t you be outraged? Now, I wish to introduce some cognitive dissonance: Shouldn’t civilized people everywhere be concerned about such a policy being enacted?

But again, what could you possibly expect from a society that builds museums littered with body parts of children from an Israeli pizzeria? What are they, “progressive”? Maybe once the PLO is in, the United Nations might even put them on the Human Rights Commission. Wouldn’t that be swell? Hey, with the newest human rights conference in Durbin, maybe the PLO could lead a workshop on the evils of racism.

But again, what would you expect from a government that praises its mass murderers whenever they rain terror from the skies, like the denizens of Hamas do every day? Civilized? By whose standards? Of course, by European and Arab/Iranian/Turkish standards!   Continue Reading

It has been a long time since I have read an intelligent and balanced article written by a European writer.  As a child of a Holocaust survivor, I do not think much of many of the European leaders after WII, who each promised never to allow another Holocaust to occur after WWII. An Indian friend used to say, “Ungawa!” “Ungawa” is a something you avoid stepping on whenever you  walk across your yawn.

Although Europe produces some of the world’s greatest thinkers and scientists, actors, and varied artists, in the sphere of moral conscience, Europe still is and remains a zero. With respect to their attitude toward Israel and the Jews, Europe’s grandeur in the moral arena has been abysmal.

In previous articles I have written, I think it is in part due to an animus stemming from European guilt for allowing the Holocaust to occur. The Jewish reaction of reminding Europe of the Holocaust has also contributed toward this problem. Somewhere along its moral development, Europe does not seem to have much of a moral backbone—at least whenever its leaders begin talking about the Jews.

Well, here’s the article. I hope our European readers take its message seriously.

London Times : “If Israel goes down, we all go down” By Spanish PM José María Aznar

For far too long now it has been unfashionable in Europe to speak up for Israel. In the wake of the recent incident on board a ship full of anti-Israeli activists in the Mediterranean, it is hard to think of a more unpopular cause to champion. In an ideal world, the assault by Israeli commandos on the Mavi Marmara would not have ended up with nine dead and a score wounded. In an ideal world, the soldiers would have been peacefully welcomed on to the ship. In an ideal world, no state, let alone a recent ally of Israel such as Turkey, would have sponsored and organised a flotilla whose sole purpose was to create an impossible situation for Israel: making it choose between giving up its security policy and the naval blockade, or risking the wrath of the world.

In our dealings with Israel, we must blow away the red mists of anger that too often cloud our judgment. A reasonable and balanced approach should encapsulate the following realities: first, the state of Israel was created by a decision of the UN. Its legitimacy, therefore, should not be in question. Israel is a nation with deeply rooted democratic institutions. It is a dynamic and open society that has repeatedly excelled in culture, science and technology.

Second, owing to its roots, history, and values, Israel is a fully fledged Western nation. Indeed, it is a normal Western nation, but one confronted by abnormal circumstances.

Uniquely in the West, it is the only democracy whose very existence has been questioned since its inception. In the first instance, it was attacked by its neighbours using the conventional weapons of war. Then it faced terrorism culminating in wave after wave of suicide attacks. Now, at the behest of radical Islamists and their sympathisers, it faces a campaign of delegitimisation through international law and diplomacy.

Sixty-two years after its creation, Israel is still fighting for its very survival. Punished with missiles raining from north and south, threatened with destruction by an Iran aiming to acquire nuclear weapons and pressed upon by friend and foe, Israel, it seems, is never to have a moment’s peace.

For years, the focus of Western attention has understandably been on the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. But if Israel is in danger today and the whole region is slipping towards a worryingly problematic future, it is not due to the lack of understanding between the parties on how to solve this conflict. The parameters of any prospective peace agreement are clear, however difficult it may seem for the two sides to make the final push for a settlement.

The real threats to regional stability, however, are to be found in the rise of a radical Islamism which sees Israel’s destruction as the fulfilment of its religious destiny and, simultaneously in the case of Iran, as an expression of its ambitions for regional hegemony. Both phenomena are threats that affect not only Israel, but also the wider West and the world at large.

Spanish ex-PM Jose Maria Aznar (left) receiving UN Watch’s 2010 Guardian of Freedom Award; community leader Joe Tugendhaft (center); Executive Director Hillel Neuer (right). UN Watch annual gala, Geneva, May 27, 2010< /SPAN>.  Click here to watch the “Global Impact” video of UN Watch screened at the dinner.

The core of the problem lies in the ambiguous and often erroneous manner in which too many Western countries are now reacting to this situation. It is easy to blame Israel for all the evils in the Middle East. Some even act and talk as if a new understanding with the Muslim world could be achieved if only we were prepared to sacrifice the Jewish state on the altar. This would be folly.

Israel is our first line of defence in a turbulent region that is constantly at risk of descending into chaos; a region vital to our energy security owing to our overdependence on Middle Eastern oil; a region that forms the front line in the fight against extremism. If Israel goes down, we all go down. To defend Israel’s right to exist in peace, within secure borders, requires a degree of moral and strategic clarity that too often seems to have disappeared in Europe. The United States shows worrying signs of heading in the same direction.

The West is going through a period of confusion over the shape of the world’s future. To a great extent, this confusion is caused by a kind of masochistic self-doubt over our own identity; by the rule of political correctness; by a multiculturalism that forces us to our knees before others; and by a secularism which, irony of ironies, blinds us even when we are confronted by jihadis promoting the most fanatical incarnation of their faith. To abandon Israel to its fate, at this moment of all moments, would merely serve to illustrate how far we have sunk and how inexorable our decline now appears.

This cannot be allowed to happen. Motivated by the need to rebuild our own Western values, expressing deep concern about the wave of aggression against Israel, and mindful that Israel’s strength is our strength and Israel’s weakness is our weakness, I have decided to promote a new Friends of Israel initiative with the help of some prominent people, including David Trimble, Andrew Roberts, John Bolton, Alejandro Toledo (the former President of Peru), Marcello Pera (philosopher and former President of the Italian Senate), Fiamma Nirenstein (the Italian author and politician), the financier Robert Agostinelli and the Catholic intellectual George Weigel.

It is not our intention to defend any specific policy or any particular Israeli government. The sponsors of this initiative are certain to disagree at times with decisions taken by Jerusalem. We are democrats, and we believe in diversity.

What binds us, however, is our unyielding support for Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself. For Western countries to side with those who question Israel’s legitimacy, for them to play games in international bodies with Israel’s vital security issues, for them to appease those who oppose Western values rather than robustly to stand up in defence of those values, is not only a grave moral mistake, but a strategic error of the first magnitude. Continue Reading