People like to accuse Israel of committing all sorts of atrocities towards the Palestinians. But they forget that no matter how bad the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is, its still part of the wider Arab-Israeli conflict. And what amazing measures do the Arabs take against Israel?
At the recent conference at Annapolis, which was billed as a 'Peace' conference, Israelis were made to enter in a separate door- the service entrance. Now, the Arab countries refuse to participate in a U.N. sponsored Middle East Environmental Center, because Israel, which is a world leader on water technology, would be included. Apartheid anyone?
Wednesday 5 December 2007
Thursday 29 November 2007
A Necessary Precondition
There has been a lot of hullabaloo directed at Israeli PM Ehud Olmert's recent demand that any negotiations with the Palestinians be only on the basis of recognition that Israel is Jewish state. Some think that this demand is absolutely right, and others think it was a tactical mistake. A more 'extreme' position was that of PA negotiator Saeb Ekrat, who declared that no nation has ever linked religion to the state. Never mind that the offical PLO charter does, and that 'Jewish State' is more of an ethnic than religious statement.
I was honestly puzzled about who was right on this issue. It seems crystal clear that Israel is, in fact, a Jewish state. Aside from its own declaration of independence declaring such, both the British Mandate, as well as UN resolution 181 recognize it as such. At the same time, who cares what others may say? Israel needs to learn to stop begging everyone else to be let into the neighborhood, and realize that it has already moved in. Such a demand reeks of the pathetic self doubt that already stereotypes Jews. If you need a prime example of such a Jew, look no further than Woody Allen.
However, I think that Olmert was certainly right on this matter and not because he is bargaining now from a higher position, nor because he throws cogs into the wheels of negotiation. Rather, he is right because to assent to anything less would be to allow hypocrisy.
The stated goal of Israel, at least since Olmert took office, is the creation of a Palestinian state. Much as Gola Meir recognized, on the eve of partition in 1947, nationalism for the Jews (Zionism) requires an equal respect towards the nationalism of all other countries, specifically the Palestinians. I iterated this position to a member of the Palestinian Solidarity Movement two nights ago, and was shocked to hear her reply. I suppose I am still stuck in the 'liberals are liberal to all' misconception.
What did she say? She claimed that while it is true on the part of the Jews, it is not true on the part of the Palestinians. The Zionists must, a priori, recognize Palestinian nationalism, but Palestinian nationalist need not recognize Zionism. According to this individual, Jews are required to be universalists, whereas Palestinians are allowed to remain particularists. Holy double standard Batman!
What claims, exactly, do Palestinians have that supercede those of the Jews? That they were there first? Well, the Jews were there well before the Palestinians were. That the Jews were colonialists? And the Arab invaders who swept by the sword of Muhammed were not? That Palestinians, at one time, lived in the entire land? Well, so did the Jews. The Jews are not an easily definable people? And the Palestinians are?
Whatever claim one may make to highlight the supposed superiority of the Palestinian position can be met quid pro quo from the Jewish side. So what gives? Why is it that those who support Palestinian nationalism don't think that they need to support Jewish nationalism?
I think the answer can be found in what occurred during the recent Annapolis meetings. These meetings were set up to restart the peace process, and presumably an air of peace would be a necessary precondition for confidence and trust. But no such air was to be found.
Prior to the meeting, a Bahrainian MP demanded that the FM of Bahrain was his hands after shaking hands with Israeli FM Tzipi Livni.
As well, Saudi Prince Faisal snubbed Israeli leaders and refused to even shake their hands. As anyone who follows the links will note, the website reporting these are Arab, and thus not part of a 'Zionist conspiracy.' Tzipi was only able to set up a meeting with Jordan, who Israel already has full ties with.
Indeed,
Remind me again what the purpose of the peace process is?
However, this highlights the reasoning behind that Palestinian supporter in her claim that Palestinian nationalists need not support Zionism: an utter lack of respect of the other side.
The context of the Israeli 'demand' should be supported, not because Israeli desperately need to be recognize and affirmed, but because the principle foundation of peace- mutual recognition of each side- is non-negotiable.
Olmert has conceded such respect to the Palestinians, when he recognized the suffering that Israel has caused them. The Palestinians, and their supporters, need to do the same.
That is, except for the hypocrites.
I was honestly puzzled about who was right on this issue. It seems crystal clear that Israel is, in fact, a Jewish state. Aside from its own declaration of independence declaring such, both the British Mandate, as well as UN resolution 181 recognize it as such. At the same time, who cares what others may say? Israel needs to learn to stop begging everyone else to be let into the neighborhood, and realize that it has already moved in. Such a demand reeks of the pathetic self doubt that already stereotypes Jews. If you need a prime example of such a Jew, look no further than Woody Allen.
However, I think that Olmert was certainly right on this matter and not because he is bargaining now from a higher position, nor because he throws cogs into the wheels of negotiation. Rather, he is right because to assent to anything less would be to allow hypocrisy.
The stated goal of Israel, at least since Olmert took office, is the creation of a Palestinian state. Much as Gola Meir recognized, on the eve of partition in 1947, nationalism for the Jews (Zionism) requires an equal respect towards the nationalism of all other countries, specifically the Palestinians. I iterated this position to a member of the Palestinian Solidarity Movement two nights ago, and was shocked to hear her reply. I suppose I am still stuck in the 'liberals are liberal to all' misconception.
What did she say? She claimed that while it is true on the part of the Jews, it is not true on the part of the Palestinians. The Zionists must, a priori, recognize Palestinian nationalism, but Palestinian nationalist need not recognize Zionism. According to this individual, Jews are required to be universalists, whereas Palestinians are allowed to remain particularists. Holy double standard Batman!
What claims, exactly, do Palestinians have that supercede those of the Jews? That they were there first? Well, the Jews were there well before the Palestinians were. That the Jews were colonialists? And the Arab invaders who swept by the sword of Muhammed were not? That Palestinians, at one time, lived in the entire land? Well, so did the Jews. The Jews are not an easily definable people? And the Palestinians are?
Whatever claim one may make to highlight the supposed superiority of the Palestinian position can be met quid pro quo from the Jewish side. So what gives? Why is it that those who support Palestinian nationalism don't think that they need to support Jewish nationalism?
I think the answer can be found in what occurred during the recent Annapolis meetings. These meetings were set up to restart the peace process, and presumably an air of peace would be a necessary precondition for confidence and trust. But no such air was to be found.
Prior to the meeting, a Bahrainian MP demanded that the FM of Bahrain was his hands after shaking hands with Israeli FM Tzipi Livni.
"I meant Tzipi is dirty and Shaikh Khalid, who is clean, should purify his hands," said MP Nasser Al Fadhala in a statement."
As well, Saudi Prince Faisal snubbed Israeli leaders and refused to even shake their hands. As anyone who follows the links will note, the website reporting these are Arab, and thus not part of a 'Zionist conspiracy.' Tzipi was only able to set up a meeting with Jordan, who Israel already has full ties with.
Indeed,
On his part, Frans Timmermans, the Dutch Minister for European Affairs, said Livni told Arab foreign ministers to stop treating her as a pariah. "They shun her like she is Count Dracula's younger sister," he was quoted as saying.
Remind me again what the purpose of the peace process is?
However, this highlights the reasoning behind that Palestinian supporter in her claim that Palestinian nationalists need not support Zionism: an utter lack of respect of the other side.
The context of the Israeli 'demand' should be supported, not because Israeli desperately need to be recognize and affirmed, but because the principle foundation of peace- mutual recognition of each side- is non-negotiable.
Olmert has conceded such respect to the Palestinians, when he recognized the suffering that Israel has caused them. The Palestinians, and their supporters, need to do the same.
That is, except for the hypocrites.
Thursday 15 November 2007
Hi! I'm an idiot, who are you?
I've just found out that my blog has the readability level of a junior high schooler. My Facebook profile is only slightly better; I'm at the grand level of high schooler. I realized last year that my English is nowhere near where it needs to be; I just did not realize quite how atrocious it was. The meter I used was odd: individual posts were all labeled genius, and some archives are labeled postgraduate level. I suppose that it needs the other posts as a backdrop for evaluation.
My English language skills are poor as a result of my years as Yeshiva. Aside from not writing in English for 6 years, I spoke in the dialect of Yeshivish. Its dictionary is quite the hilarious read. Making matters worse was the fact that I spent almost 16 hours a day studying texts in Hebrew and Aramaic.
The moral of the story? My English is horrible, but hopefully improving. So, if you find my thoughts remotely interesting, please bear with me.
Of course, the rating could simply be due to my lack of sophisticated argument, originality, and general level of insight. Naw.
Edit: In actuality, my poor ranking probably has more to do with the infantile and insulting rants that sometimes pervade my blog. I hope to stop those types of posts.
My English language skills are poor as a result of my years as Yeshiva. Aside from not writing in English for 6 years, I spoke in the dialect of Yeshivish. Its dictionary is quite the hilarious read. Making matters worse was the fact that I spent almost 16 hours a day studying texts in Hebrew and Aramaic.
The moral of the story? My English is horrible, but hopefully improving. So, if you find my thoughts remotely interesting, please bear with me.
Of course, the rating could simply be due to my lack of sophisticated argument, originality, and general level of insight. Naw.
Edit: In actuality, my poor ranking probably has more to do with the infantile and insulting rants that sometimes pervade my blog. I hope to stop those types of posts.
Wednesday 14 November 2007
A Dangerous Delusion
Last night, the University of Bristol hosted a debate based on the following motion: Is God a dangerous delusion? Debating for the motion was Susan Blackmore, and against was Alastair McGrath. Each had 20 minutes for their proposition, and 7 minutes to rebut.
I found the actual content of the debate quite disappointing. Neither of the two seemed to answer the question very well. Blackmore, who actually had green hair!, spent the first 4-5 minutes stating that God was dangerous, but not the God of the philosophers. Spouting 'cruelty' and 'war', etc., she barely explained what she was so upset about. She then briefly mentioned Sam Harris' critique that any amount of blind faith can generally erode the veracity of reason within a given society. She hardly mentioned it before moving on.
But the bulk of her 'critique' of religion was spent on explaining the origins thereof. She put forth her assertion of memes, and asserted that since religion was natural, then therefore not true. Obviously this critique fails- regardless of how religion develops, it could still be true. Indeed, this is why religion has (almost) nothing to do with science- it simply isn't falsifiable. Further, and as she mentioned, the religions that we have are the ends of the branches, more developed that the previous models. Religion, according to her, holds sway simply because it has latched onto a few good ideas. Or trickery. Either or.
Her last point is hard to swallow. The assertion of memes surely does not follow genes 1:1, but a comparison should be applicable. We don't assume that the result of evolution is only something that 'looks' useful to the species, but something that IS useful. As well, introducing memes into religion, in the way she did, implies a certain value in religion. Once that is granted, it can just as easily be argued that the 'newer' religions have validity.
McGrath was only slightly better. He broke the question into two parts. The first being whether God is a delusion. He claimed he had evidence for religion, but never provided it. At least he pointed out that the evidence necessary wasn't on the same level as science or maths. He countered that democracy is not demonstrably a better system (although, I would argue that it is) but that, nonetheless, we would all agree that it is. There are so many things that we take for granted, and are not able to sufficiently explain, but nonetheless, take for granted. To make his point fuller- as JSM observes, any telos cannot be proven.
Nonetheless, McGrath offered no proof whatsoever. He simply suggested that his belief in God, or specifically Jesus, makes science, and existence, all the more real for him. This notion seems dubious, but nice for him if it does. I've heard theist argue this before, but it doesn't seem to actually make sense. They claim that beauty can only be explained by the existence of God- surely we perceive it as more than just atoms and neural reactions.
That point is irrelevant though. No matter what the source, that does not (necessarily) create an objective concept of 'beauty.' Beauty may be an objective form, such as within Plato's extreme realist philosophy. Even barring that though, we can still accept a strong form of beauty- we can't genes make beauty the same way that God would?
McGrath then actually got to the point- it is not religion, per se, but any ideology, that is dangerous. And, more specifically, it is the fringes of any ideology that seems to brood violence. Countering the claim that theist convince themselves of God because they already want to believe, he claim that atheist are the same (if not worse) Atheism was the natural extension of the Enlightenment's view of the autonomous man.
Looking back, perhaps they said more than I though they did. But most of what the did say seemed 'old hat' to me. I guess I've been through these arguments for too long. Likewise, many people find Dawkins' arguments profoundly revealing- I find them to be nothing more than the recycling of old arguments.
Nonetheless, I think McGrath won. But only because he bothered answering the question a bit more than Blackmore did.
But, to my money, the actual contents of the debate were the most intriguing part of the night. The attitudes of the debaters, as well as the audience, seemed to exhibit certain particular patterns. As should have been expected- people tended to think that those they already agreed with, had won the debate. Further, they felt that the opposing side was rude to their favored side. In other words, the theists thought that Blackmore was just insulting to their beliefs (though she was trying to be a bit) and the atheists (or those more skeptical of religious belief) thought that McGrath was giving unsatisfactory answers. It was interesting how partisan the interpretations were.
But that was hardly the most interesting aspect of the debate. Much more interesting was the demeanor of the debaters. Blackmore was fairly condescending towards other people's opinions- she considered herself the bastion of rationality. McGrath, on the other hand, was patronizing. But he was more than that. He seemed almost to go out of his way to be nice- so that if his arguments did not suffice, he would gain the psychological advantage by his disposition.
More shocking, and also more obvious, was the terms in which the debate were framed. Although it was supposed to be a debate about theism, supposedly in general, it was actually a debate about Christianity. As I am wont to say: the God that atheists of this country deny is Jesus. Islam was denigrated to a degree greater than Christianity, and religions other than Christianity were taken to be obviously false- without any need for proof. The supposed superiority of Christianity was so obvious to the audience, that a questioner objected to grouping Christianity into the debate at all. As if Christianity has never been the source for conflict in this world. Never mind the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the 100 Year War. Nope, perfect religion. And demonstrably so.
I found the actual content of the debate quite disappointing. Neither of the two seemed to answer the question very well. Blackmore, who actually had green hair!, spent the first 4-5 minutes stating that God was dangerous, but not the God of the philosophers. Spouting 'cruelty' and 'war', etc., she barely explained what she was so upset about. She then briefly mentioned Sam Harris' critique that any amount of blind faith can generally erode the veracity of reason within a given society. She hardly mentioned it before moving on.
But the bulk of her 'critique' of religion was spent on explaining the origins thereof. She put forth her assertion of memes, and asserted that since religion was natural, then therefore not true. Obviously this critique fails- regardless of how religion develops, it could still be true. Indeed, this is why religion has (almost) nothing to do with science- it simply isn't falsifiable. Further, and as she mentioned, the religions that we have are the ends of the branches, more developed that the previous models. Religion, according to her, holds sway simply because it has latched onto a few good ideas. Or trickery. Either or.
Her last point is hard to swallow. The assertion of memes surely does not follow genes 1:1, but a comparison should be applicable. We don't assume that the result of evolution is only something that 'looks' useful to the species, but something that IS useful. As well, introducing memes into religion, in the way she did, implies a certain value in religion. Once that is granted, it can just as easily be argued that the 'newer' religions have validity.
McGrath was only slightly better. He broke the question into two parts. The first being whether God is a delusion. He claimed he had evidence for religion, but never provided it. At least he pointed out that the evidence necessary wasn't on the same level as science or maths. He countered that democracy is not demonstrably a better system (although, I would argue that it is) but that, nonetheless, we would all agree that it is. There are so many things that we take for granted, and are not able to sufficiently explain, but nonetheless, take for granted. To make his point fuller- as JSM observes, any telos cannot be proven.
Nonetheless, McGrath offered no proof whatsoever. He simply suggested that his belief in God, or specifically Jesus, makes science, and existence, all the more real for him. This notion seems dubious, but nice for him if it does. I've heard theist argue this before, but it doesn't seem to actually make sense. They claim that beauty can only be explained by the existence of God- surely we perceive it as more than just atoms and neural reactions.
That point is irrelevant though. No matter what the source, that does not (necessarily) create an objective concept of 'beauty.' Beauty may be an objective form, such as within Plato's extreme realist philosophy. Even barring that though, we can still accept a strong form of beauty- we can't genes make beauty the same way that God would?
McGrath then actually got to the point- it is not religion, per se, but any ideology, that is dangerous. And, more specifically, it is the fringes of any ideology that seems to brood violence. Countering the claim that theist convince themselves of God because they already want to believe, he claim that atheist are the same (if not worse) Atheism was the natural extension of the Enlightenment's view of the autonomous man.
Looking back, perhaps they said more than I though they did. But most of what the did say seemed 'old hat' to me. I guess I've been through these arguments for too long. Likewise, many people find Dawkins' arguments profoundly revealing- I find them to be nothing more than the recycling of old arguments.
Nonetheless, I think McGrath won. But only because he bothered answering the question a bit more than Blackmore did.
But, to my money, the actual contents of the debate were the most intriguing part of the night. The attitudes of the debaters, as well as the audience, seemed to exhibit certain particular patterns. As should have been expected- people tended to think that those they already agreed with, had won the debate. Further, they felt that the opposing side was rude to their favored side. In other words, the theists thought that Blackmore was just insulting to their beliefs (though she was trying to be a bit) and the atheists (or those more skeptical of religious belief) thought that McGrath was giving unsatisfactory answers. It was interesting how partisan the interpretations were.
But that was hardly the most interesting aspect of the debate. Much more interesting was the demeanor of the debaters. Blackmore was fairly condescending towards other people's opinions- she considered herself the bastion of rationality. McGrath, on the other hand, was patronizing. But he was more than that. He seemed almost to go out of his way to be nice- so that if his arguments did not suffice, he would gain the psychological advantage by his disposition.
More shocking, and also more obvious, was the terms in which the debate were framed. Although it was supposed to be a debate about theism, supposedly in general, it was actually a debate about Christianity. As I am wont to say: the God that atheists of this country deny is Jesus. Islam was denigrated to a degree greater than Christianity, and religions other than Christianity were taken to be obviously false- without any need for proof. The supposed superiority of Christianity was so obvious to the audience, that a questioner objected to grouping Christianity into the debate at all. As if Christianity has never been the source for conflict in this world. Never mind the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the 100 Year War. Nope, perfect religion. And demonstrably so.
Wednesday 7 November 2007
Woot! Technology
Having begun to storm my way into the blogosphere, (what was it, like 10 posts in 4 months?) I've started to figure out how to use this thing a little better. And I've got news for me. Some of it is quite gratifying, and some of it quite scary.
I've learned that I am ranked 8,911,336 out of all blogs. Yeah, I have a number! I hope to be past 8,911,335 by the end of the year. Maybe if I keep up the ranting, and non-linkage to other blogs! I've also found out that that the stunt I pulled at Ynet, where I simply linked to this blog in a comment, worked quite well. Although, almost everyone left straight away. My post wasn't that interesting- I readily admit that. Also, I was only half done when I linked to it. Well, I thought I was done- but then knowing that people had read it, and left quickly, made me want to make it better. Just not very much.
But, it's also scary the stuff I can find out, and easily. I know all the IP addresses of everyone who come to this blog. No, I know nothing about what to do with that, but it's scary that that information is so easily available. Plus, I probably put way too much of my own information out there. But I refuse to blog anonymously, and I don't look like that anymore. Quite an old picture- back from my days at HotOrNot.
That being said- I hope to make my continually less sucky. We'll see how that turns out!
One thing I do want to find out- how do I get authority? I want it! I want it! Gimme!
I've learned that I am ranked 8,911,336 out of all blogs. Yeah, I have a number! I hope to be past 8,911,335 by the end of the year. Maybe if I keep up the ranting, and non-linkage to other blogs! I've also found out that that the stunt I pulled at Ynet, where I simply linked to this blog in a comment, worked quite well. Although, almost everyone left straight away. My post wasn't that interesting- I readily admit that. Also, I was only half done when I linked to it. Well, I thought I was done- but then knowing that people had read it, and left quickly, made me want to make it better. Just not very much.
But, it's also scary the stuff I can find out, and easily. I know all the IP addresses of everyone who come to this blog. No, I know nothing about what to do with that, but it's scary that that information is so easily available. Plus, I probably put way too much of my own information out there. But I refuse to blog anonymously, and I don't look like that anymore. Quite an old picture- back from my days at HotOrNot.
That being said- I hope to make my continually less sucky. We'll see how that turns out!
One thing I do want to find out- how do I get authority? I want it! I want it! Gimme!
Tuesday 6 November 2007
Druken escapades, and privacy theft?
Yet another creepy example of the grownups using Facebook- did they have permission to use those photos?
That said, indeed- why do people air their dirty laundry on Facebook. I guess we just want to be remembered.
That said, indeed- why do people air their dirty laundry on Facebook. I guess we just want to be remembered.
Should I support the settlers?
This question has been bothering me for quite some time. Let's just lay some groundwork for my frame of reference. Though I am religious, and a Zionist, I am not a religious Zionist, and therefore do not buy that a necessary step of redemption is settlement of the land. Is it possible that the State of Israel has relevance to the redemption? Yes- but not in the way that Religious Zionists have construed it.
What about international law? Well, here's where it becomes problematic. International consensus seems to be that the settlements are illegal. The law itself is not so clear. First of all, '67 would most likely be classified as a defensive law. As such, when Israel captured Judea and Samaria, its occupation thereof would be 'legal.' Perhaps a better word is legitimate. I'm still not clear how this affects the law. Those on the pro-settlement side tend to think that it validates it. Those against, obviously,think it does not.
But, there is a bigger point to be had. Can the 'Palestinian Territories' be properly considered occupied? Since the Arabs refused the Partition plan in 1947, how could it be operative now? In contract law, when one party refuses to comply, the contract is completely void. Although, this seems to bear problems for the legitimacy of Israel itself. It is further argued that since the Partition Plan failed, the British Mandate is still in effect. This either means that the land is completely up for grabs, or that it is slated for Israel. This reasoning sounds a bit dubious- Even Israel agreed to U.N. Resolution 242, (land for peace) and as such, it comes with the implication that Israel will have to give some, even if not all, land towards the Palestinians. (whether as a new state, or as part of Jordan, et al.)
These last two arguments seem to provide legal justification for the settlements. But, even when something is legal, doesn't mean it is moral, or even tactically sound.
A further argument can be made that we ought to support the settlements because of their locations in the heartlands of the previous Jewish state. Hebron, for example, was the original capital of Judah, and the second Temple state was located primarily in Judea. It only later conquered the North, etc. The question here is simple: does the current state of Israel need to acquire contiguity to the previous states? I think this question also has significant bearing on the nature of public religion in the modern state.
I think, at the end of the day, there are certainly two good reasons for 'supporting' the settlers. I put the supporting in quotes because the point is quite vague, and the ways in which I will extend my support aren't really that.
The first is simply that to be against the settlements is to pander to racism. Imagine that a peace deal were struck right now, giving the Palestinians all of Judea and Samaria. Do the Palestinians demand that the setters be evacuated? If so, that's when the true apartheid kicks in. Such a scenario would be likely. So, by evacuating the settlements, Israel would be encouraging apartheid, instead of the opposite. As such, allowing settlements mandates that the future Palestinian state (is it still gonna happen?i dont know anymore) would be morally 'on the level.' It would send the wrong message to the Palestinians to evacuate, as it would legitimize their racism.
However, such a consideration only mandates some settlements. To 'get the point across' Israel would not have to build anymore settlements. And, this would actually be a good thing. Assuming you don't buy into the whole 'Greater Israel' stuff, which, as I mentioned earlier I don't.
The second consideration is perhaps more cynical. In the eyes of public opinion, and in the eyes of foreign leaders, there is a balance to be struck between the competing interests of each party. The less the Israelis 'demand' the closer the pendulum swings towards the Palestinians. But the more radical demands Israel presents, the more the pendulum swings back towards the middle. But, Israel has, as would I, a problem with that- the Jews in Israel have consistently gone out of their way to tell the truth to their detriment.
When confronted by the British to determine who should take control of the Wall, the Jews argued that it belongs to G-d. The Arabs, on the other hand, staked full claim on it. Guess who won?
So, by having a faction that demands all of Israel, that becomes the radical sentiment. As soon as that is disbanded, then Zionism itself becomes the most radical claim available, marginalizing it, and making a 'one state' solution the only one available.
Let me first start off by saying that the settlers are, fundamentally speaking, no different than early Zionists who came to settle the land. There is a prevalent attitude that the settlers practice 'not my kind of Zionism.' Zionists tend to ignore the fact, and yes I did say fact, that there were people here before the state. No many, yes, but people were here nonetheless. As such, the current settlers differ in degree and not form. There are more Palestinians now than in 1850 (try over 10 times more)- and they are more so a cohesive unit. The idea of settling the land is Zionist through and through.
So, I don't have a positive reason from the standpoint of Religious Zionism. What about the supposed security they bring? As that is a rather disputable point, I don't see how I could sway definitely on either side. They probably do serve as a front-line bufferzone- but they also piss the Palestinians off (rightly or wrongly) and I'm not sure which is stronger.What about international law? Well, here's where it becomes problematic. International consensus seems to be that the settlements are illegal. The law itself is not so clear. First of all, '67 would most likely be classified as a defensive law. As such, when Israel captured Judea and Samaria, its occupation thereof would be 'legal.' Perhaps a better word is legitimate. I'm still not clear how this affects the law. Those on the pro-settlement side tend to think that it validates it. Those against, obviously,think it does not.
But, there is a bigger point to be had. Can the 'Palestinian Territories' be properly considered occupied? Since the Arabs refused the Partition plan in 1947, how could it be operative now? In contract law, when one party refuses to comply, the contract is completely void. Although, this seems to bear problems for the legitimacy of Israel itself. It is further argued that since the Partition Plan failed, the British Mandate is still in effect. This either means that the land is completely up for grabs, or that it is slated for Israel. This reasoning sounds a bit dubious- Even Israel agreed to U.N. Resolution 242, (land for peace) and as such, it comes with the implication that Israel will have to give some, even if not all, land towards the Palestinians. (whether as a new state, or as part of Jordan, et al.)
These last two arguments seem to provide legal justification for the settlements. But, even when something is legal, doesn't mean it is moral, or even tactically sound.
A further argument can be made that we ought to support the settlements because of their locations in the heartlands of the previous Jewish state. Hebron, for example, was the original capital of Judah, and the second Temple state was located primarily in Judea. It only later conquered the North, etc. The question here is simple: does the current state of Israel need to acquire contiguity to the previous states? I think this question also has significant bearing on the nature of public religion in the modern state.
I think, at the end of the day, there are certainly two good reasons for 'supporting' the settlers. I put the supporting in quotes because the point is quite vague, and the ways in which I will extend my support aren't really that.
The first is simply that to be against the settlements is to pander to racism. Imagine that a peace deal were struck right now, giving the Palestinians all of Judea and Samaria. Do the Palestinians demand that the setters be evacuated? If so, that's when the true apartheid kicks in. Such a scenario would be likely. So, by evacuating the settlements, Israel would be encouraging apartheid, instead of the opposite. As such, allowing settlements mandates that the future Palestinian state (is it still gonna happen?i dont know anymore) would be morally 'on the level.' It would send the wrong message to the Palestinians to evacuate, as it would legitimize their racism.
However, such a consideration only mandates some settlements. To 'get the point across' Israel would not have to build anymore settlements. And, this would actually be a good thing. Assuming you don't buy into the whole 'Greater Israel' stuff, which, as I mentioned earlier I don't.
The second consideration is perhaps more cynical. In the eyes of public opinion, and in the eyes of foreign leaders, there is a balance to be struck between the competing interests of each party. The less the Israelis 'demand' the closer the pendulum swings towards the Palestinians. But the more radical demands Israel presents, the more the pendulum swings back towards the middle. But, Israel has, as would I, a problem with that- the Jews in Israel have consistently gone out of their way to tell the truth to their detriment.
When confronted by the British to determine who should take control of the Wall, the Jews argued that it belongs to G-d. The Arabs, on the other hand, staked full claim on it. Guess who won?
So, by having a faction that demands all of Israel, that becomes the radical sentiment. As soon as that is disbanded, then Zionism itself becomes the most radical claim available, marginalizing it, and making a 'one state' solution the only one available.
Oh no, he said convert them to Judaism
In my previous post I bullocked (though quite mildly, I believe) Martin Luckas for suggesting that the Palestinians ought to convert to Judaism in order to resolve the conflict. While theoritically it would work on a local level (i.e. the Palestinian/Israeli part of the conflict) it would only exacerbate the rest of the Arab and Muslim world. But, it's just a humorous comment, so why get my panties in a bunch?
Simple- many in the Arab and Muslim world already believe that Israel wants to take over the Middle East. Since to their version of taking over would include conversion to Islam, just as Christian hegemony included conversion to Christianity, they probably already suspect that Jews want to convert all the Muslims. So, since anything, and everything, in the Arab/Muslim world gets attributed to a conspiracy by Israel, converting Palestinians would probably piss the rest of the Middle East off further.
But that's not the only issue. Martin Luckas is a writer at McGill- a Western University. (in Canada, for those who don't know) Many in that part of the world already believe that the West is merely part of a Zionis
t cabal. So right now, even the suggestion that the Palestinians should convert might be seen as the plans for that conversion. How could people be so naive as to twist Martin's words that far? Well, for starters, they think CNN is pro-Israel. Secondly, if you lived in a world where you thought this the ultimate aim of the Israelis, the suggestion that the Palestinians ought to actively join the Jewish side would just piss you off. And people are already pretty pissed off at Israel. They don't need many more excuses to be.
t cabal. So right now, even the suggestion that the Palestinians should convert might be seen as the plans for that conversion. How could people be so naive as to twist Martin's words that far? Well, for starters, they think CNN is pro-Israel. Secondly, if you lived in a world where you thought this the ultimate aim of the Israelis, the suggestion that the Palestinians ought to actively join the Jewish side would just piss you off. And people are already pretty pissed off at Israel. They don't need many more excuses to be. Just as a side note, Backspin seems to have dropped the link- I'm not sure why.
© MEMRI holds copyrights on all translations. Materials may ONLY be cited with proper attribution.
Martin Luckas's suggestion: Palestinians should convert. My suggestion: STFU until you know what you are talking about
Dumbass. That's the word I would use to describe Martin Luckas. Now, I have nothing personal against the man. But his knowledge of the Israeli-Arab conflict is clearly limited. In fact, I knew more about it in third grade than he knows now. I think we should pick this article apart. It's begging for it. Oh, btw, Hattip to Backspin:
Um, no. Try again. What rights are denied to Arabs? There is a certain level of social, not legal, discrimination. However, Arabs have every right to press charges. And guess what, they do. Further, Arabs actually have more rights than Jews. Unlike Jews who have to serve in the army (unless they learn Torah full time) no Arab whatsoever is obligated to do so. Further, Arabs, or to be more accurate non-Jews, can marry outside of their religion, and have secular ceremonies. A Jew has to fly to Cyprus to do so.
Yes, the Palestinians have less 'rights' than Israelis, Jewish and Arab. They aren't citizens. Guess what, in every country on earth people who aren't citizen have less rights. Don't argue from rights distinction- argue for an independent Palestine, a unified Israel/Palestine, whatever you want.
Ha! Palestian non-violent protest? You mean like the weekly protests where they invade military zones at Be'elin. And throw rocks. And yes, rocks can kill. Talk to Goliath. (And I do say this fully concious of the possible misinterpretations.) In fact, a recent concert for peace in which Israelis and Palestinians were to participate was called off. By the Palestinians. And only by them.
Not to take a partisan line here: the Arab countries could have absorbed all those refugees, many times over, just Israel absorbed the Jewish ones. Oh, and most the Palestinians weren't 'expelled,' they left either on account of the war, or at Arab urging. Get your facts straight. Oh, and I'm sorry your enlightened values don't agree with the concept of Jewish autonomy. Oops, I don't give a crap. Martin buddy, the enlightenment helped some Jews, in some places. But, as Ruth Wisse argues for in her book Jews and Power, Jews have been constantly dependant on the whims of the state officials- to their detriment. I'm sure you support female empowerment, why not Jewish?
The Israel-Palestine conflict is stuck in an anachronistic rut. Israel, the
dominant power, has developed into a 19th century-style ethnic state – according
full rights of citizenship to Jews, some rights to its Arab citizens, and none
to the Palestinians over whom it rules.
Um, no. Try again. What rights are denied to Arabs? There is a certain level of social, not legal, discrimination. However, Arabs have every right to press charges. And guess what, they do. Further, Arabs actually have more rights than Jews. Unlike Jews who have to serve in the army (unless they learn Torah full time) no Arab whatsoever is obligated to do so. Further, Arabs, or to be more accurate non-Jews, can marry outside of their religion, and have secular ceremonies. A Jew has to fly to Cyprus to do so.
Yes, the Palestinians have less 'rights' than Israelis, Jewish and Arab. They aren't citizens. Guess what, in every country on earth people who aren't citizen have less rights. Don't argue from rights distinction- argue for an independent Palestine, a unified Israel/Palestine, whatever you want.
At any rate, non-violent Palestinian activism doesn’t work – Israel crushes
it – and violent resistance has proved counter-productive or immoral.
Ha! Palestian non-violent protest? You mean like the weekly protests where they invade military zones at Be'elin. And throw rocks. And yes, rocks can kill. Talk to Goliath. (And I do say this fully concious of the possible misinterpretations.) In fact, a recent concert for peace in which Israelis and Palestinians were to participate was called off. By the Palestinians. And only by them.
As a state of all Jews rather than its citizens, Israel offers a peculiar
form of affirmative action: a Jew anywhere in the world can, on a whim, claim
automatic citizenship. Meanwhile, a Palestinian Arab expelled from his home
within Israel in 1948 and now languishing in refugee camps has no such option.
Tribalism trumps secular accommodation, as it should in the holy land.
Not to take a partisan line here: the Arab countries could have absorbed all those refugees, many times over, just Israel absorbed the Jewish ones. Oh, and most the Palestinians weren't 'expelled,' they left either on account of the war, or at Arab urging. Get your facts straight. Oh, and I'm sorry your enlightened values don't agree with the concept of Jewish autonomy. Oops, I don't give a crap. Martin buddy, the enlightenment helped some Jews, in some places. But, as Ruth Wisse argues for in her book Jews and Power, Jews have been constantly dependant on the whims of the state officials- to their detriment. I'm sure you support female empowerment, why not Jewish?
This minor land dispute between competing petty tribes demands creative
solutions. Clearly, a resolution based on Enlightenment values of universalism,
rationality, and equality is out of the question. Religion is the one element of
the conflict that hasn’t proved inflammatory, so it ought to figure in the
equation.
He gets one important thing here right: it is a minor land dispute. So stop caring about it. Oh no, you can't, because you need your oil fix- and your 'pushers' just happen to use their political clout against Israel. But a solution based on enlightenment values? Sure, when the Arab countries, Palestine included, stop their warmongering, the conflict would be over. If the Palestinians threw down their weapons there would be no war, if Israel their down hers, there would be no Israel.
But the suggestion that religion doesn't factor prominently into this conflict is nothing but laughable. Have you read what the Qu'ran says about Jews? Sure, you can interpret those quotes away, which will hopefully form the basis for a Islamic 'reformation'- just as it has to in Christianity. But many Muslims don't- they take very seriously how despicable Jews are. They continually pronouce their sole claims to holy sites in Israel.
And, on the flip side, we always hear how the religious settlers are an obstacle to peace. Nevermind a racist peace, but nonetheless- religion has a lot to do with this conflict. Nice research.
Now he makes a, somewhat, logical suggestion:
If Israel persists in granting rights to practitioners of just one religion,
Palestinians should reassess their political strategy. Forget the Palestinian
National Liberation Movement. Think Palestinian National Conversion Movement.
What easier way to win the freedom and equality they deserve than by simply
converting to Judaism? A course of study over six months, circumcision,
immersion in a ritual bath, and presto! Israeli citizenship, or Right of Return
by conversion.
Yes, on the face of it- it would work. And you know what, the Jews wouldn't actually care. But you're forgetting two crucial point Martie- the Palestinians would never convert to the despised religion, and it wouldn't change the status of other Arab countries. Oh, you forgot- they hate Israel too? Oh, you forgot about the concept of Dar Al-Islam? Oopsie daisie
Monday 5 November 2007
Timely news
The Canadian National Post is reporting that new information is to be released regarding the Jewish refugees from Arab Lands. Never heard of them? See here for a good start. They are planning to use this information to pressure Abbas to drop the right of return from the agenda at the upcoming Annapolis conference. What new information? Simply put-
New research shows there was Arab inter-state "collusion" to
persecute Jews in Arab countries after Israel's creation, former federal justice
minister Irwin Cotler and Jewish rights scholars will announce today in New
York.
Yet another example of the guilty placing their guilt on others- aside from an isolated incident, Jewish leaders continually asked the Arabs dwelling in Palestine not to leave. Yes, many of them left because of the war- but they weren't driven out like the Jews were.
As well, many members of the Arab league have met in Syria to discuss the continuation of their economic boycott of Israel. Oh, you did not know that? You thought it was only the evil Israel who did naughty stuff? Oops. Anyhow, with Fayyad making loads of demands from Israel to encourage the Peace Process, why don't the Arabs follow in suit?
Either way, it's easy to see how parties are using information to manipulate the peace process. I wonder, if I bothered for more than five minutes, how many other examples I could find?
It's All Propaganda
I pretty much insinuated here that all statements, factual or no, are propaganda. A simple question should help make this more obvious: What is the difference between what you learned when you were little and the information you hear now? The simple answer is that we are trained, or are hardwired in the first place, to learn that way. That is why propaganda is so effective: in method it is no different than learning that permeates your entire life. In fact, it's much easier to accept propaganda than it is what you learn when you are young. Propaganda builds off a system of connections that we have already made, whereas learning is a struggle for many.
This is all especially true if you buy into the Humean theory that causal connections, and the like, are made up. We process information based on how it fits into our previous framework, and are in fact hardwired to create new frameworks.
However, propaganda is not foolproof. There are two obvious guards that we have against it: our reason and our senses. Our reason can tell us when something does not fit. As well, when claimed item do not correspond to our sense data we may reject them. However, neither check is fully effective: There was a study where people were placed in a classroom and two line were drawn on the board, one clearly shorter than the other. Most students were told to say that the shorter one was longer. When the test subjects were asked which was in fact longer, over 60% agreed with the liars. Obviously, peer pressure is a significant factor in that figure. But, when the whole world thinks you are wrong, it can be quite powerful psychologically.
I will post soon on why I post, if everything is propaganda.
This is all especially true if you buy into the Humean theory that causal connections, and the like, are made up. We process information based on how it fits into our previous framework, and are in fact hardwired to create new frameworks.
However, propaganda is not foolproof. There are two obvious guards that we have against it: our reason and our senses. Our reason can tell us when something does not fit. As well, when claimed item do not correspond to our sense data we may reject them. However, neither check is fully effective: There was a study where people were placed in a classroom and two line were drawn on the board, one clearly shorter than the other. Most students were told to say that the shorter one was longer. When the test subjects were asked which was in fact longer, over 60% agreed with the liars. Obviously, peer pressure is a significant factor in that figure. But, when the whole world thinks you are wrong, it can be quite powerful psychologically.
I will post soon on why I post, if everything is propaganda.
Racist, Racist, You're a Racist!
Much like the intimidating chants that frequent childhood, many of us never grow up. Instead of using our intellect to argue issue, and refute them, most of us simply cry foul when disagreed with. Often, as I've previously noted, the complaint issued is usually what the complainer is guilty of. And today, yet another case is upon us.
Ynetnews reports a bill being brought to the Knesset floor that would require all to either serve in the army, or in national service, in order to receive citizenship to Israel. However Mk Ahmed Tibi complains that:
But wait- is it really that simple? Maybe Tibi is right- after all, the oath does require everyone to swear fealty to Israel's nature as Jewish and democratic. Isn't the Jewish bit racist? Simple question here- is the State of Israel as a Jewish state racist? I don't mean in actuality, but rather in theory. Germany is a German state, and has similar laws (such as a law of return). Perhaps Japan is a better example- non-Japanese, no matter how assimilated, are always ostracized there. So, if the concept of a Jewish state, wherein minorities have equal rights, is not racist, then why should the added oath and service be problematic?
It seems first off that the service is exactly as I claimed it was- completely egalitarian. The oath, however, seems to be no different than the obligation to obey the law. You don't have to be Jewish to respect a Jewish state. In fact, you don't have to suffer in any way. Just like England is a Christian state, even though most people here are atheists.
That said, I think the phrasing of the oath is stupid- the national service is much more to the point. Israel has more than its fair share of groups that want to destroy the state. They simply don't view themselves as part of it. The obvious solution, and the one that has worked for years, it to bond all by nation building. And not the kind that GW does.
Ynetnews reports a bill being brought to the Knesset floor that would require all to either serve in the army, or in national service, in order to receive citizenship to Israel. However Mk Ahmed Tibi complains that:
I won't be surprised when the day comes that factories will be obligated to put the flag of Israel and the slogan 'Jewish, democratic state' on canned food, yogurt containers, and traditional Arab olive-press. We have had enough of this populist, racist trend this is another populist bills of extreme-rightist MKs whose goal is to tie the basic right for citizenship with a nonconsensual ideological statement.However, it is Tibi who is being the racist. Demanding special treatment is racism. Period. And that is what he is demanding. He wants exemption for the Arabs, as they have now, so that they can continued their status a people within a people. It is high time to end this farce- every Jew has to serve in the army or national service, so should every Arab. (and Hareidi)
But wait- is it really that simple? Maybe Tibi is right- after all, the oath does require everyone to swear fealty to Israel's nature as Jewish and democratic. Isn't the Jewish bit racist? Simple question here- is the State of Israel as a Jewish state racist? I don't mean in actuality, but rather in theory. Germany is a German state, and has similar laws (such as a law of return). Perhaps Japan is a better example- non-Japanese, no matter how assimilated, are always ostracized there. So, if the concept of a Jewish state, wherein minorities have equal rights, is not racist, then why should the added oath and service be problematic?
It seems first off that the service is exactly as I claimed it was- completely egalitarian. The oath, however, seems to be no different than the obligation to obey the law. You don't have to be Jewish to respect a Jewish state. In fact, you don't have to suffer in any way. Just like England is a Christian state, even though most people here are atheists.
That said, I think the phrasing of the oath is stupid- the national service is much more to the point. Israel has more than its fair share of groups that want to destroy the state. They simply don't view themselves as part of it. The obvious solution, and the one that has worked for years, it to bond all by nation building. And not the kind that GW does.
Vacuous Egoism
I've posted before about why I am an egoist. But, as I noted, one can be an egoist and still believe in helping others. In fact, so do I. Then isn't that simply vacuous egoism? I don't think it is. Strong, Randian egoism comes from the premise that the only actual person relevant to any discussion is the individual. Rand denied that there was anything such as humanity, in a rather Humian fashion. And yes, I like the play on words there. She claimed that humanity is nothing more than the aggregate of all its parts- humans. Any other notion, claimed Rand, denied the individual his due autonomy, and would be nothing more than collectivist fascism.
This is precisely where I would disagree. I haven't worked out all the details in my head yet, but it's clear to me that individuals are also parts of communities. Besides the oft quote Aristotelain maxim that man is a social being, society in crucial in man's upbringing. Without society, man simply would not develop in the same way- and not in a positive way at all. There have been cases where children have been kept in complete isolation, and upon entry into society, simply could not learn to talk. No matter how long.
That said, what is it that society makes? I agree here with Rand that it, first and foremost, makes an individual. It is quite the paradox that individual cognition can only be achieve through communal help, but it seems to be the case nonetheless. But, people's bonds of association run deeply. Rand was wont to explain love as a capitalist transaction, whereby one loved someone only as a result of achieving value in them.
This seems false- I love my parents, but that love does not consist in the value I see in them, for often I don't see such value. Now, that love was probably caused by the situation I was raised in, in other words, the facts that they care for me and showed me love as well. Even though this was the cause of the love, it is not the content of that love. Likewise, it is not restricted by that cause. Even were my parents to be so despicable that I hated them, and their evil actions far outweighed whatever good they gave to me, I would still love them nonetheless. Why? Because that love so formed it part of my self-conception of personhood.
In other words, and more simply, I see myself as part of my family. But, not only that, it is a perception that is almost impossible to escape. It would require specific deliberation and action, and even then, there is not guarantee that it would work. So, I see myself, in addition to being an individual, as part of my family, as part of two nations (America, and the Jewish people), and as part of humanity in general.
Now, I still haven't completely reconciled these two ideas. I don't know that reconciliation is possible, maybe they are simply two conflicting strains of perception. My inquiry runs parallel to the very same inquiry I have in Judaism. Hopefully I will address that in a future post- and the answer there may help me here.
This is precisely where I would disagree. I haven't worked out all the details in my head yet, but it's clear to me that individuals are also parts of communities. Besides the oft quote Aristotelain maxim that man is a social being, society in crucial in man's upbringing. Without society, man simply would not develop in the same way- and not in a positive way at all. There have been cases where children have been kept in complete isolation, and upon entry into society, simply could not learn to talk. No matter how long.
That said, what is it that society makes? I agree here with Rand that it, first and foremost, makes an individual. It is quite the paradox that individual cognition can only be achieve through communal help, but it seems to be the case nonetheless. But, people's bonds of association run deeply. Rand was wont to explain love as a capitalist transaction, whereby one loved someone only as a result of achieving value in them.
This seems false- I love my parents, but that love does not consist in the value I see in them, for often I don't see such value. Now, that love was probably caused by the situation I was raised in, in other words, the facts that they care for me and showed me love as well. Even though this was the cause of the love, it is not the content of that love. Likewise, it is not restricted by that cause. Even were my parents to be so despicable that I hated them, and their evil actions far outweighed whatever good they gave to me, I would still love them nonetheless. Why? Because that love so formed it part of my self-conception of personhood.
In other words, and more simply, I see myself as part of my family. But, not only that, it is a perception that is almost impossible to escape. It would require specific deliberation and action, and even then, there is not guarantee that it would work. So, I see myself, in addition to being an individual, as part of my family, as part of two nations (America, and the Jewish people), and as part of humanity in general.
Now, I still haven't completely reconciled these two ideas. I don't know that reconciliation is possible, maybe they are simply two conflicting strains of perception. My inquiry runs parallel to the very same inquiry I have in Judaism. Hopefully I will address that in a future post- and the answer there may help me here.
Damnit, does anyone know how to answer questions anymore?
In this video, at 2:14, someone ask how the term 'Islamofacism' is a racist term. What's the response?Yeah, it's not because it wasn't the whities who invented it. Dude, seriously, the question wasn't why is NOT racist, but rather why IS it racist. Does anyone bother answering things honestly anymore, or is every bitten by this propaganda bug?
Reform and Orthodox bigotry, and a brief history of new movements
People need to get into their heads the realization that both sides contain at least a bit of bigotry towards the other. The primary difference between the two, though, is the method of expression, which lies in each movement's formation.
Reform was a movement started, concurrently with the so-called Jewish Enlightenment, as attempt to modernize Judaism and make it more palatable. This drive was fulled both by modern sensibilities accrued by those making the reforms, as well as a desire to live up to the modern sensibilities of the dominant religion- Christianity. Reform congregations went as far as possible to model themselves after Protestant churches- they included choir, music, changed the service to Sunday, removed Hebrew as the language of prayer, and removed any mention of Zion.
However, as Ruth Wisse points out in Jews and Power, the attempt was also to ameliorate to their new found status as equals in Europe. Everything was to be given to Jews as individuals, but not as a nation. As such, they tried to eliminate the nationalistic attitudes within Judaism.
Before Reform Judaism, there wasn't an Orthodoxy as such. Simply put, most Jews were just religious. Those who were not, may have had serious theological misgivings about Judaism, or its prevalent form, but the main body of Jews were simply religious. Orthodoxy, as it is characterized today, was a reactionary movement to the modernizing, and 'traitorous' denationalization of Jewry. The Chasam Sofer manipulated the Torah prohibition of new grain to coin the phrase of 'Chadah Assur Min HaTorah,' 'new things are prohibited from the Torah.' As an example of the reactionary tendencies of the movement, see the sacrosanct Hasidic garb, which is nothing more than 18th century Polish dress, which has been vaulted to a mark of specific Jewish identity.
Thus, Orthodoxy came to emphasized that anything that was ancient was more theologically valid, in contrast to the modernizing Reform. Minhag, custom, became more and more sacrosanct- often to the detriment of Halacha, Jewish Law. In addition to the modernizing influence of the Haskalah and of Reform, there was the opposition of Zionism. However, Zionism came later in the game, and I think the reaction to it, and indeed its very particular constitution, resulted from the Orthodox reaction to Reform.
Why do I say this? The only thing problematic in Zionism qua Zionism, vis a vi an Orthodox perspective, is its shirking of Torah obligations. Further, Zionism was itself a reaction to the Reform movement- it thought the assimilation attempted by the Reform had failed. As such, to an Orthodox perspective, Zionism was a movement that came from assimilated Jewry, and was therefore problematic. In order to contrast to Zionism, while still holding the Jews as a nation, Orthodoxy emphasize the constitutional nation of the Torah. While it does seem to be true that, theologically speaking, the Torah serves this purpose, it also seems true that the Torah is meant to be kept as a state, in some way or another. So, the Orthodox reaction to Zionism was motivated by its reaction to Reform.
Why is this relevant? Because the bigotry on each side is the call to arms left over from the initial fight. The Reform call the Orthodox antiquated and narrow-minded. They extent this charge to accuse all Orthodox outreach programs of cultish behavior and brainwashing- how else could one want to be 'antiquated'? The Orthodox, on the other had, continue to denounce Reform as irrelevant to Judaism, and traitors to the cause. Zionism is either perceived as a perverting influence, or else (by the religious Zionism) perverted to a type of messianism.
What is most ironic is the fact that the war is over. Both sides lost in some respects, and the Orthodox probably suffered greater casualties- they were fighting against things, instead of for things. The Reform failed to completely modernize Judaism, and denationalize it, and the Orthodox failed to prevent modernization. Both are gravitating towards the mean. Orthodoxy is presenting itself more and more as relevant to the modern age, and Reform is adhering more and more to the traditions of traditional Judaism.
I only wish that both sides would realize that the war is essentially at a stalemate, and work together towards encouraging those who completely slipped through the cracks and have no Jewish identity at all.
Reform was a movement started, concurrently with the so-called Jewish Enlightenment, as attempt to modernize Judaism and make it more palatable. This drive was fulled both by modern sensibilities accrued by those making the reforms, as well as a desire to live up to the modern sensibilities of the dominant religion- Christianity. Reform congregations went as far as possible to model themselves after Protestant churches- they included choir, music, changed the service to Sunday, removed Hebrew as the language of prayer, and removed any mention of Zion.
However, as Ruth Wisse points out in Jews and Power, the attempt was also to ameliorate to their new found status as equals in Europe. Everything was to be given to Jews as individuals, but not as a nation. As such, they tried to eliminate the nationalistic attitudes within Judaism.
Before Reform Judaism, there wasn't an Orthodoxy as such. Simply put, most Jews were just religious. Those who were not, may have had serious theological misgivings about Judaism, or its prevalent form, but the main body of Jews were simply religious. Orthodoxy, as it is characterized today, was a reactionary movement to the modernizing, and 'traitorous' denationalization of Jewry. The Chasam Sofer manipulated the Torah prohibition of new grain to coin the phrase of 'Chadah Assur Min HaTorah,' 'new things are prohibited from the Torah.' As an example of the reactionary tendencies of the movement, see the sacrosanct Hasidic garb, which is nothing more than 18th century Polish dress, which has been vaulted to a mark of specific Jewish identity.
Thus, Orthodoxy came to emphasized that anything that was ancient was more theologically valid, in contrast to the modernizing Reform. Minhag, custom, became more and more sacrosanct- often to the detriment of Halacha, Jewish Law. In addition to the modernizing influence of the Haskalah and of Reform, there was the opposition of Zionism. However, Zionism came later in the game, and I think the reaction to it, and indeed its very particular constitution, resulted from the Orthodox reaction to Reform.
Why do I say this? The only thing problematic in Zionism qua Zionism, vis a vi an Orthodox perspective, is its shirking of Torah obligations. Further, Zionism was itself a reaction to the Reform movement- it thought the assimilation attempted by the Reform had failed. As such, to an Orthodox perspective, Zionism was a movement that came from assimilated Jewry, and was therefore problematic. In order to contrast to Zionism, while still holding the Jews as a nation, Orthodoxy emphasize the constitutional nation of the Torah. While it does seem to be true that, theologically speaking, the Torah serves this purpose, it also seems true that the Torah is meant to be kept as a state, in some way or another. So, the Orthodox reaction to Zionism was motivated by its reaction to Reform.
Why is this relevant? Because the bigotry on each side is the call to arms left over from the initial fight. The Reform call the Orthodox antiquated and narrow-minded. They extent this charge to accuse all Orthodox outreach programs of cultish behavior and brainwashing- how else could one want to be 'antiquated'? The Orthodox, on the other had, continue to denounce Reform as irrelevant to Judaism, and traitors to the cause. Zionism is either perceived as a perverting influence, or else (by the religious Zionism) perverted to a type of messianism.
What is most ironic is the fact that the war is over. Both sides lost in some respects, and the Orthodox probably suffered greater casualties- they were fighting against things, instead of for things. The Reform failed to completely modernize Judaism, and denationalize it, and the Orthodox failed to prevent modernization. Both are gravitating towards the mean. Orthodoxy is presenting itself more and more as relevant to the modern age, and Reform is adhering more and more to the traditions of traditional Judaism.
I only wish that both sides would realize that the war is essentially at a stalemate, and work together towards encouraging those who completely slipped through the cracks and have no Jewish identity at all.
There are no Reform bigots..................Not!
Members of the Reform movement often complain about being oppressed in some fashion or another. Most of it is b.s.- its just a matter of the Orthodox thinking they are right, and actually caring about their convictions. But, Orthodox sentiment does indeed 'cross the line' sometimes. You know what? So does Reform.
In discussing the new Reform prayer book, Rabbi Elyse Frishman had these nice words to say:
The Ha'aretz editorial isn't any better:
Yet another campaign of misinformation born out of inherent bias.
In discussing the new Reform prayer book, Rabbi Elyse Frishman had these nice words to say:
Nice! So, the Reform movement has a particularly rational outlook, and they, above all, are smart enough to have the capability of recognizing metaphor! Woot! Dumbass- all religions, no matter how watered down, do not fit the bill of being 'rational.' So, you reject the resurrection of the dead, but you keep certain mitzvot when you feel like them- where is the rationality there? Oh, right, because it's the culture of our fore bearers. Well, they kept all, and not some. Further, you really care about culture that much? Why? Unless there is something more to Judaism than meets the 'eye of rationality' than why not completely assimilate- it would be much easier. At least the Orthodox are consistent- they accept it wholesale. The Reform only accept half, and try to pass that half off as rational. What's that I hear? Oh, you meant 'modern.' So say that, you dumbass.So much so that a huge, publicized debate has arisen because of the decision to return the "Resurrection of the Dead [M'chayeih Hameitim]" prayer to the prayer book. Previous Reform prayer books had dropped this prayer because of the movement's refusal to accept the expression's literal meaning, which is not suited to the rational outlook of Reform belief, and instead replaced it with the blessing "Gives Life to All [M'chayeih Hakol]." The discussion on including the prayer went on for many long months. In the end, Frishman's own opinion was accepted: The dead were brought back to the prayer as a metaphor - but in parentheses. Frishman is not referring to the dead literally coming back to life but rather to a blessing that stands for renewal, for a flourishing after a withering. There is no need to be alarmed by a prayer like this. Our community, she says, is smart enough to understand why the prayer has returned and what it symbolizes.
The Ha'aretz editorial isn't any better:
So, Reform is the ultimate experience in Jewish spirituality, yet it needs to draw its inspiration from Hasidim? What you meant was less ritualistic. But even that's problematic, because while many synagogues do, in fact, do ritual for ritual's sake (and I even know a Rabbi who claims he enjoys that concept) most Orthodox shuls understand the meaning being the rituals- and hence, the rituals themselves are immensely spiritual.Frishman thinks "worship is an art" - that is, if it is done properly. She also aspires for her prayer book to provide a spiritual experience. The Reform movement is more spiritual than Judaism's more traditional streams, which are parallel to it. In fact - and this, too, has often been spoken of, demonstrated and discussed - it has drawn quite a lot from Hasidism.
Yet another campaign of misinformation born out of inherent bias.
Sunday 4 November 2007
More right-wing rage.
It's always about the right wing rage. Never the left wing. Even here, where the 'rage' was a leftist provaction, Ha'aretz does none but to accenuate how extreme those fellows are. Yup Yup. They're all right wing extremist freaks. And the lefties? Why, they're just yuppies.
The seed of Civil War
I've been thinking about this for a while. I think that there is a strong possibility of civil war in Israel. Israel, unlike Britain or America, or anywhere else, has highly charged political issues that are relevant on a day to day bases. Further, those Jews are just damn hotheads! Just kidding... No I'm not.
So, I when I read this commentary in Ha'aretz this morning, I felt the satisfaction of being right about something I hoped I was dreadfully wrong on.
The Ha'aretz article continues:
While I think this point is definitely valid, I think he misses, and not surprisingly considering that its the Ha'aretz, the left's floundering association to the state. Those on the left protest that the right is chock full of tribalism, whereas the left's dissent is individualistic. I don't buy it. First off, it doesn't really make a difference- either way, the state is ripping at the seems. But more importantly, just because the left doesn't have a rabbi, or an ethnic minority status, doesn't mean its thinking is any less 'tribal.' Britain is an amazing example of this idea: It is in vouge to be against the current, but only within a group. The 'counterculture' of the left is also one swept with tribal feelings- to left ideology. Not all people, on any side, are swept up by their ideology. I'm actually fairly 'left' when it come to stuff, but that's only when you make a scorecard. People tow the party line without thinking, whether on the left or the right.
Further, you could argue that the left has its leaders and bastions of cultural indoctrination. Yose Be'elin and Amos Oz come to mind on the first front; the universities come to mind on the second. Honestly, I don't really buy the 'leftist indoctrination' at universities crap. Is there? I'm sure of it- again, all information is propaganda, whether intentional or not. But it's more likely that Israeli universities simply reflect the nature of the state, and of those in the state who become intellectuals. Let's face it: Israel was definitely born on the left.
But, back to the point: people are self-interested. That's just a fact. It's a fact that's needed for survival in most cases, but its also a fact that is detrimental to living in society. Especially a society with Jews in it. The cohesiveness caused in the beginning of Israel was due to a) the trauma of the Holocaust b)the realization of the goals of auto-emancipation. Suffice it to say that it's a bit hard to be united by those goals anymore. And certainly, Israeli Arabs have no reason to be at all.
What can be done though? A misleading aspect of the article quoted above is that, though less and less Jews are feeling Israeli or part of the Israel qua Israel, more and more are feeling part of the 'Jewish nation' - whatever that means. Most people think that this is simply a rightist thing, but I disagree. Post-Zionist like Avraham Burg also feel more connected to world Jewry than to Israel. I think the solution can be found in this point: a reconception of Jewish polity. If you read my blog in the future, you will hear this type of solution a lot. I hope to go in depth into when I have fleshed the idea out.
Suffice it to say that this is not the be all and end all of the issue: Israel, as a state, has a commitment to democracy that it needs to maintain. This solution sort of ignores Israeli Arabs. And, it isn't completely new: Many Jews in Israeli have always felt a)more Jewish than Israeli b)that Jewishness and Israeliness are synonymous. But, I still think the basic aim should be a reorientation of society's self-conception- so that instead of tribalism, the focus is on nationalism.
So, I when I read this commentary in Ha'aretz this morning, I felt the satisfaction of being right about something I hoped I was dreadfully wrong on.
Nor are the Druze unique. Most Arab Israelis declare that their Palestinian
identity trumps their Israeli identity. More than a few Jewish settlers declare
that their duty to obey their rabbis takes precedence over their duty to obey
the laws of the state. The ultra-Orthodox believe that the laws of the state are
secondary to the commands of Jewish law (as they interpret it). And some people
claim that discrimination against Mizrahim (Jews of Middle Eastern descent)
justifies ignoring the crimes committed by a few of their number.
The Ha'aretz article continues:
Studies have proven this. The social solidarity index, published ahead of the
Sderot conference that opens on Wednesday, showed a decline in the public's
belief in mutual civic responsibility (this year, 54 percent do not trust
government agencies to help them in times of trouble, double the 27 percent
recorded in 2003). The democracy index, which was published by the Israel
Democracy Institute five months ago, found that only 31 percent of Israeli
citizens trust one another, and only 27 percent believe that the state's
interests are more important than personal interests (down from 64 percent in
1981). When respondents were asked to define their identity, only 39 percent put
"Israeli" in first place, and while 59 percent said they had a feeling of
belonging to the state, this was down from 79 percent four years ago.
While I think this point is definitely valid, I think he misses, and not surprisingly considering that its the Ha'aretz, the left's floundering association to the state. Those on the left protest that the right is chock full of tribalism, whereas the left's dissent is individualistic. I don't buy it. First off, it doesn't really make a difference- either way, the state is ripping at the seems. But more importantly, just because the left doesn't have a rabbi, or an ethnic minority status, doesn't mean its thinking is any less 'tribal.' Britain is an amazing example of this idea: It is in vouge to be against the current, but only within a group. The 'counterculture' of the left is also one swept with tribal feelings- to left ideology. Not all people, on any side, are swept up by their ideology. I'm actually fairly 'left' when it come to stuff, but that's only when you make a scorecard. People tow the party line without thinking, whether on the left or the right.
Further, you could argue that the left has its leaders and bastions of cultural indoctrination. Yose Be'elin and Amos Oz come to mind on the first front; the universities come to mind on the second. Honestly, I don't really buy the 'leftist indoctrination' at universities crap. Is there? I'm sure of it- again, all information is propaganda, whether intentional or not. But it's more likely that Israeli universities simply reflect the nature of the state, and of those in the state who become intellectuals. Let's face it: Israel was definitely born on the left.
But, back to the point: people are self-interested. That's just a fact. It's a fact that's needed for survival in most cases, but its also a fact that is detrimental to living in society. Especially a society with Jews in it. The cohesiveness caused in the beginning of Israel was due to a) the trauma of the Holocaust b)the realization of the goals of auto-emancipation. Suffice it to say that it's a bit hard to be united by those goals anymore. And certainly, Israeli Arabs have no reason to be at all.
What can be done though? A misleading aspect of the article quoted above is that, though less and less Jews are feeling Israeli or part of the Israel qua Israel, more and more are feeling part of the 'Jewish nation' - whatever that means. Most people think that this is simply a rightist thing, but I disagree. Post-Zionist like Avraham Burg also feel more connected to world Jewry than to Israel. I think the solution can be found in this point: a reconception of Jewish polity. If you read my blog in the future, you will hear this type of solution a lot. I hope to go in depth into when I have fleshed the idea out.
Suffice it to say that this is not the be all and end all of the issue: Israel, as a state, has a commitment to democracy that it needs to maintain. This solution sort of ignores Israeli Arabs. And, it isn't completely new: Many Jews in Israeli have always felt a)more Jewish than Israeli b)that Jewishness and Israeliness are synonymous. But, I still think the basic aim should be a reorientation of society's self-conception- so that instead of tribalism, the focus is on nationalism.
Saturday 3 November 2007
A Bertram Manifesto
This is a (semi) old post I made on Facebook:
Every once in a while, people make a comment they believe to be simply careless, or even benign, that, in fact, can damage the very core of people. I admit that I have not been remotely careful enough as to what I say, or how I say it. However, there are certain comments and assertions that people can make that clearly cross any of innocent, feigned or real, insult. These are the comments that assert a particular point about the person making them, in regards to their respect, or usually lack thereof, for the person they have made the comment about.
Oddly enough, I feel like I am an outsider coming in at the University of Bristol. Not only am I an American, a nation which is the subject of constant 'casual' derision, but I am also a Jew. There are very few Jews in England, fewer South of London, fewer in the city of Bristol, and an almost paltry amount in the University itself. That would be difficult even were the setting America.
However, this Enlgand- a Christian country, and especially in the South. Even worse is the fact that part of my degree is Theology and Religious Studies, which in this country, is an outgrowth of programs formerly religious. Although the content of this course is now devoid of such a 'faith commitment' many of the students are not.
Despite feeling at such a disatvantage, I nonetheless have tried to acclimate to my environment, within the context of who I am as an America, Jew, and more importantly- an individual.
However, a line has been crossed today which I fear cannot be uncrossed. You see, in my attempt to acclimate to this country, to the University, and to the people on my courses I have held one maxim- I am who I am, and the respect that I afford myself is the respect that I will afford others, and that others will afford me. As people may have noticed, I am hardly shy about my beliefs. Neither am I willing to apologize for them.
My convictions are ones felt wholeheartedly. They are ones that I have discovered throughout my journey in life, as an individual and as a memeber of a wider community.Indeed, I am more than willing to 'stick up' for my own beliefs. They are not matters held lightly by me, for they are not matters arrived at lightly by me.
At the same time, I do not presume that everyone will think I am right. In fact, I am convinced most will think my beliefs, conceptions, and conviction borderline absurd; I know I think the beliefs of many others are as such. I can accept that- I dish it out, and I am willing to take it. You who want to criticize America, the land that I DO love, Judaism, my religion of choice, or the Jewish people, my people by fate- feel free to do so. However, do so with one caveat in mind- I am who I am, and that I am that way is my own choice, and not anyone else's. Above all, and beyond all, I am an autonomous individual who choices his path- rightly or wrongly. I will suffer any criticism; I will not suffer any coercion. If I am wrong, then show me. And if you cannot, I will not accept your mere conjectures. But, if when I die, I am shown to be truly wrong before the tribunal of truth, let me be damned for it. I will offer only this in my defense- I live only by my own convictions, and no one else's.It is within this frame of reference that I find the particular remarks made to me today beyond particularly insulting. My right, as anyone else's, is to live my life as I see fit. Anyone who denies that fact, does not my conception of the good, but rather denies me as a human being.
You see, I was told today that it is incorrect to call non-Christians (by association and context, I am included) 'not Christian,' the correct term is 'not Christian yet.'
What is implied in this term is not only that non-Christians are wrong, but they, as soon as they take their blinders off, will become Christian. Aside from the obvious descriptive absurdity that the vast majority of people who grace this earth with their presence will not become Christian, this comment has the insidious connotation that I do not have to autonomy to choose my own path. Particularly startling is that one of the persons who made this comment ought to know better. That person should realize, at least through any due deliberation on the history of that person's people, that such an attitude has been the general cause of calimnity for them.
Perhaps it is startling for non-Jews to be confronted by a Jew who asserts his right, either within his community as a Jew, or as an individual, to choose his own destiny. Perhaps Christendom's frame of reference towards the Jews is not yet able to conceive of him as different and equal, being. Perhaps Jews had been too complacent in allowing such an attitude to be fostered.
But, we, and I, no longer accept those terms. We, and I, are no longer outside the recognized realm of proper society. We, and I, no longer wish to be dominated by you, subjected to you norms and scorn. We, and I, have realized that we are autonomous and are not granted the right to anythng, be it life, happiness, freedom, or the pursuit of any goal, by you or anyone else.
We Jews, myself included, grant our own licences to live. I do not, nor do any other Jews, need your 'sanction' to live. In fact, I refuse and utterly reject it. My life, and that of my people's, is our own by rights.
Be you a colleague, a friend, a teacher or a stranger, this is all I expect of you. I do not ask it, for it is not yours to refuse. I will state this clealy and emphatically: I am a Jew becaue it is my right, and because I choose to be. And if I become, at any point, a Christian- it will be nothing other than my choice, and my right. It is my life, not yours, that I must account for. And it is your life, not mine, that is your sole responsibility. Those who deny this fact, disrespect me as a Jew, and as a human being. And to this, I will not submit.
Every once in a while, people make a comment they believe to be simply careless, or even benign, that, in fact, can damage the very core of people. I admit that I have not been remotely careful enough as to what I say, or how I say it. However, there are certain comments and assertions that people can make that clearly cross any of innocent, feigned or real, insult. These are the comments that assert a particular point about the person making them, in regards to their respect, or usually lack thereof, for the person they have made the comment about.
Oddly enough, I feel like I am an outsider coming in at the University of Bristol. Not only am I an American, a nation which is the subject of constant 'casual' derision, but I am also a Jew. There are very few Jews in England, fewer South of London, fewer in the city of Bristol, and an almost paltry amount in the University itself. That would be difficult even were the setting America.
However, this Enlgand- a Christian country, and especially in the South. Even worse is the fact that part of my degree is Theology and Religious Studies, which in this country, is an outgrowth of programs formerly religious. Although the content of this course is now devoid of such a 'faith commitment' many of the students are not.
Despite feeling at such a disatvantage, I nonetheless have tried to acclimate to my environment, within the context of who I am as an America, Jew, and more importantly- an individual.
However, a line has been crossed today which I fear cannot be uncrossed. You see, in my attempt to acclimate to this country, to the University, and to the people on my courses I have held one maxim- I am who I am, and the respect that I afford myself is the respect that I will afford others, and that others will afford me. As people may have noticed, I am hardly shy about my beliefs. Neither am I willing to apologize for them.
My convictions are ones felt wholeheartedly. They are ones that I have discovered throughout my journey in life, as an individual and as a memeber of a wider community.Indeed, I am more than willing to 'stick up' for my own beliefs. They are not matters held lightly by me, for they are not matters arrived at lightly by me.
At the same time, I do not presume that everyone will think I am right. In fact, I am convinced most will think my beliefs, conceptions, and conviction borderline absurd; I know I think the beliefs of many others are as such. I can accept that- I dish it out, and I am willing to take it. You who want to criticize America, the land that I DO love, Judaism, my religion of choice, or the Jewish people, my people by fate- feel free to do so. However, do so with one caveat in mind- I am who I am, and that I am that way is my own choice, and not anyone else's. Above all, and beyond all, I am an autonomous individual who choices his path- rightly or wrongly. I will suffer any criticism; I will not suffer any coercion. If I am wrong, then show me. And if you cannot, I will not accept your mere conjectures. But, if when I die, I am shown to be truly wrong before the tribunal of truth, let me be damned for it. I will offer only this in my defense- I live only by my own convictions, and no one else's.It is within this frame of reference that I find the particular remarks made to me today beyond particularly insulting. My right, as anyone else's, is to live my life as I see fit. Anyone who denies that fact, does not my conception of the good, but rather denies me as a human being.
You see, I was told today that it is incorrect to call non-Christians (by association and context, I am included) 'not Christian,' the correct term is 'not Christian yet.'
What is implied in this term is not only that non-Christians are wrong, but they, as soon as they take their blinders off, will become Christian. Aside from the obvious descriptive absurdity that the vast majority of people who grace this earth with their presence will not become Christian, this comment has the insidious connotation that I do not have to autonomy to choose my own path. Particularly startling is that one of the persons who made this comment ought to know better. That person should realize, at least through any due deliberation on the history of that person's people, that such an attitude has been the general cause of calimnity for them.
Perhaps it is startling for non-Jews to be confronted by a Jew who asserts his right, either within his community as a Jew, or as an individual, to choose his own destiny. Perhaps Christendom's frame of reference towards the Jews is not yet able to conceive of him as different and equal, being. Perhaps Jews had been too complacent in allowing such an attitude to be fostered.
But, we, and I, no longer accept those terms. We, and I, are no longer outside the recognized realm of proper society. We, and I, no longer wish to be dominated by you, subjected to you norms and scorn. We, and I, have realized that we are autonomous and are not granted the right to anythng, be it life, happiness, freedom, or the pursuit of any goal, by you or anyone else.
We Jews, myself included, grant our own licences to live. I do not, nor do any other Jews, need your 'sanction' to live. In fact, I refuse and utterly reject it. My life, and that of my people's, is our own by rights.
Be you a colleague, a friend, a teacher or a stranger, this is all I expect of you. I do not ask it, for it is not yours to refuse. I will state this clealy and emphatically: I am a Jew becaue it is my right, and because I choose to be. And if I become, at any point, a Christian- it will be nothing other than my choice, and my right. It is my life, not yours, that I must account for. And it is your life, not mine, that is your sole responsibility. Those who deny this fact, disrespect me as a Jew, and as a human being. And to this, I will not submit.
Your mom's not a community of saints
Here is where I declare to you: I'm a little egoist short and stout, I like bettering myself, so don't you pout. Don't you just love teapots?
But, seriously- what is an egoist, and why am I one?
Simply put- an egoist is just some who believes in pursuing his own interests. Now, this may sound callous, and this may sound cruel, but it really isn't. Why? Try the opposite on for size-altruism-and see what you get: a wasted life. But, you will argue, 'I want to help people, so how is that wasting my life?' It isn't. And you want to know why? Because it's what you consider to be a good use of your life. And so do I. But, I'm still keen on improving Bertram qua Bertram.
And guess what else? Every single one of you who are reading this is an egoist (Every third person who is not reading this blog is a Martian, and they are known to be altruists.) Doesn't that suck? Wouldn't life be so much better if we just did everything for everbody else and didn't care about ourselves?
I doubt it, and seriously. People think that wanting to pursue your own goals is selfishness. I think its what makes the world go round. The Talmud calls it the Yetzer HaRa (the evil inclination) and declares that no one would build house, marry women, chicken wouldn't lat eggs, and the world would generally suck if the were not self-interested. It's called progress, and it comes with all of our stamps of appoval.
Having goals and pursuing them isn't shameful- it's admirable. It's not the only thing in this world., but it is a major chunk of it.
For those who don't get the title, its a reference to John Rawls's essay 'Justice as Fairness' where he fantasizes about altruistic men, and a community of saints. But, neither you, nor your mom, is a community of saints.
But, seriously- what is an egoist, and why am I one?
Simply put- an egoist is just some who believes in pursuing his own interests. Now, this may sound callous, and this may sound cruel, but it really isn't. Why? Try the opposite on for size-altruism-and see what you get: a wasted life. But, you will argue, 'I want to help people, so how is that wasting my life?' It isn't. And you want to know why? Because it's what you consider to be a good use of your life. And so do I. But, I'm still keen on improving Bertram qua Bertram.
And guess what else? Every single one of you who are reading this is an egoist (Every third person who is not reading this blog is a Martian, and they are known to be altruists.) Doesn't that suck? Wouldn't life be so much better if we just did everything for everbody else and didn't care about ourselves?
I doubt it, and seriously. People think that wanting to pursue your own goals is selfishness. I think its what makes the world go round. The Talmud calls it the Yetzer HaRa (the evil inclination) and declares that no one would build house, marry women, chicken wouldn't lat eggs, and the world would generally suck if the were not self-interested. It's called progress, and it comes with all of our stamps of appoval.
Having goals and pursuing them isn't shameful- it's admirable. It's not the only thing in this world., but it is a major chunk of it.
For those who don't get the title, its a reference to John Rawls's essay 'Justice as Fairness' where he fantasizes about altruistic men, and a community of saints. But, neither you, nor your mom, is a community of saints.
Thursday 1 November 2007
The 'Real World' of Categorical Imperatives
In light of the Epigram's recent defense of Big Brother, I think I'm gonna pitch a mild defense on behalf of the Real World. Aside from the drama, it really is an interesting study in human relations. Btw, a very interesting show is Kid Nation- its contrived in a way that seems a bit detrimental to the experiment, but fascinating nonetheless. But back to the Real World.
I want to bring out a point that really pisses me off about people. In the episode I was watching (S18E3) there was a very interesting back and forth between Shavoun and Parisa. Shavoun was bitching that Parisa was judging her (which she really wasn't) and that the only 'person' that has a right to judge is G-d. Aside from the fact of how stupid it would be to reserve moral judgement only for G-d, Shavoun was doing more than her fair share of judging. Accusing Parisa of not having a personality was described in the show as 'blow beneath the belt.'
So basically, the people with the stupid names were accusing the other of doing what they in fact were doing. And further, they 'reserved' judgement as the right of G-d.
I think that there is an important psychological point to illicit here. People see in others the faults that they have in themselves. But, its something more than that. People set up defense mechanism for behavior that they know full well is incorrect, by simply passing the buck on others. Time and time again you can see this.
People wantonly accuse others of being intolerant, coercive, stifling, etc. when it is in fact what they would like to be.
It's so difficult to deal with people like this. I want to call them out on it. But of course, you can't- because they won't even even recognize it. But, how does this relate to the categorical imperative?
It's not quite what Kant meant, but I'm starting to realize that for almost all crap that goes on in this world there is one measuring stick. If you check to see if people are consistent in their 'condemnations' of others, and see how utterly inconsistent they in fact are, then you can tell that they are wrong. This is a method that Ayn Rand 'developed' to combat communism- taking it to its extreme, it is the negation of value for non-value.
Seriously people, introspect just a little into your own lives. See if you are remotely consistent in your opinions and reasoning. I think Ayn Rand was right that this world is filled with evaders, and people who consistently twist the facts to their own benefit. Further, there is an artificial construct which benefit those evaders, where reason is considered coercion, and straight-talk is damned.
I want to bring out a point that really pisses me off about people. In the episode I was watching (S18E3) there was a very interesting back and forth between Shavoun and Parisa. Shavoun was bitching that Parisa was judging her (which she really wasn't) and that the only 'person' that has a right to judge is G-d. Aside from the fact of how stupid it would be to reserve moral judgement only for G-d, Shavoun was doing more than her fair share of judging. Accusing Parisa of not having a personality was described in the show as 'blow beneath the belt.'
So basically, the people with the stupid names were accusing the other of doing what they in fact were doing. And further, they 'reserved' judgement as the right of G-d.
I think that there is an important psychological point to illicit here. People see in others the faults that they have in themselves. But, its something more than that. People set up defense mechanism for behavior that they know full well is incorrect, by simply passing the buck on others. Time and time again you can see this.
People wantonly accuse others of being intolerant, coercive, stifling, etc. when it is in fact what they would like to be.
It's so difficult to deal with people like this. I want to call them out on it. But of course, you can't- because they won't even even recognize it. But, how does this relate to the categorical imperative?
It's not quite what Kant meant, but I'm starting to realize that for almost all crap that goes on in this world there is one measuring stick. If you check to see if people are consistent in their 'condemnations' of others, and see how utterly inconsistent they in fact are, then you can tell that they are wrong. This is a method that Ayn Rand 'developed' to combat communism- taking it to its extreme, it is the negation of value for non-value.
Seriously people, introspect just a little into your own lives. See if you are remotely consistent in your opinions and reasoning. I think Ayn Rand was right that this world is filled with evaders, and people who consistently twist the facts to their own benefit. Further, there is an artificial construct which benefit those evaders, where reason is considered coercion, and straight-talk is damned.
Wednesday 31 October 2007
Journalists don't just report the news.
Journalists don't just report the news, they make it too. Now, I've given you two heavy posts, and this sounds like another one- but its really much lighter.
A-Rod is the best player in the game today. Possibly the best player to ever play the game. He does EVERYTHING well. And he makes money because of it. Some people don't like A-Rod because he doesn't cause the teams he's on to automatically win. Others don't like him because he's kinda sulky. Others don't like him because he knows that he's good.
But now Jeff Passan had gone out and called him Barry Bonds. You know, the most arrogant and rude player in the game today. The one with a personal entourage that completely dominates the clubhouse. And admitedly took steriods.
A-Rod is nothing like Bonds. But because Passan says so, and because A-Rod will be chasing, reporters will be making the comparision. And when they pop that question- how can A-Rod respond? No matter how he responds, he only 'proves' their point. Unless he gives them a hug, says 'I Love You' and looks like a general twat.
That's the power of propaganda.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-arod103007&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
A-Rod is the best player in the game today. Possibly the best player to ever play the game. He does EVERYTHING well. And he makes money because of it. Some people don't like A-Rod because he doesn't cause the teams he's on to automatically win. Others don't like him because he's kinda sulky. Others don't like him because he knows that he's good.
But now Jeff Passan had gone out and called him Barry Bonds. You know, the most arrogant and rude player in the game today. The one with a personal entourage that completely dominates the clubhouse. And admitedly took steriods.
A-Rod is nothing like Bonds. But because Passan says so, and because A-Rod will be chasing, reporters will be making the comparision. And when they pop that question- how can A-Rod respond? No matter how he responds, he only 'proves' their point. Unless he gives them a hug, says 'I Love You' and looks like a general twat.
That's the power of propaganda.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-arod103007&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
The 'problem' with free speech
Every once and a while someone comes out and effectively says that they like free speech except that it grants bad people the right to say stupid things. And from that follows destruction of moral values etc. Now, that may (or in my opinion may not) be a good point, but I think there is a more insidious problem latent in free speech- and one that does not have to be there at all.
The well known proverb is that though I may disagree with what you say, I will fight to the death for your right to say it. What does that mean? Why do I disagree? This last question is the important one: What are the content and value of my own opinions, that I am willing to 'agree to disagree' with you?
More often than not, the value of these opinions is worthless. And I don't mean the people opposed, I mean the people 'granting' the free speech. Free speech is a very simple notion. It means everyone gets to voice their opinion. It doesn't mean that I have to forget about me and mine.
But that is how most people take free speech nowadays. Look at the well know proverb- the person responds that he will fight for someone's right to say something not liked. Now, it may not be everyone's first reaction, but for many the structure of this proverb is telling. The reaction is to blanketly assert the other person's right to free speech, with a dim disapproval, and NO REBUTTAL.
That's the egregious sin- no one, except apparently offensive people, gives a crap about anything today. They only care about letting everyone have rights. Which is nice, but not sufficient. Life is not about the 'right' way to live, but about the 'good' way to live. Making space for other people's conception of the good DOES NOT entail that you forfeit your own. Unfortunately, most people don't think this way. They confuse the rights provided in liberal society with a moral ideal.
Surely they are right that it is moral to uphold free speech, and immoral to suppress it. But the speech of free speech is not, in itself, of any value. It is only a vehicle, a means, to the ends of expressing, demonstrating, arguing, eloborating, mocking, crying about, etc., your conception of the good. People indeed have a right to vacuous free speech, but that does not make such speech moral.
I think it is this underlying point that affects another central problem evident within the 'free speech arena' today- that of public 'censure.' I take it as axiotomic that everyone realizes that free speech grants them the right to formulate an opinion about the good. It also grants everyone the right to dissent. The latter is the more important part of free speech. Free speech, as a right, is worthless where people agree. It only comes into effect where there is disagreement. And it allows both parties to disagree. And that disagreement is just that- disagreement. Not coercion, not stifling. Nothing more.
Why have I brought that up? One broader, older issue, and one more narrow, and more recent issue. The broader issue is the arguments of the book the Israel Lobby, and Jimminey Carter. Well, not their arguments per se, but their concurrent arguments that they are being stifled. What's the stifling exactly? 1) People have written exposes trying to show factual error 2) People have written exposes trying to show bias and misinterpretation. 3)People have played the evil evil 'Anti-Semite' card.
The first two, unless you're a dumbass, are not stifling debate. They are contributing towards it. So, it's only the last one that warrants any appraisal of whether its called stifling. Sadly, I've seen many cases where types of responses such as the first two (not only with regards to Israel, and more specifically other subjects) are called stifling. That's right- argument is called stifling. Having a counterposing opinion is deemed stifling. Why? I'll get back to that one.
But what, about the third answer- the 'anti-Semite' card? Well, first comes a simple question- are the positions espoused anti-Semitic? Well, what would that mean?- that after 1) and 2) some people have come to the conclusion that the reason for the 'errors' is not good faith, but pure bias. In other words, more often than not, the anti-Semite card is an outgrowth of the first two charges. And here it becomes important to go through the data and see why point 3) is even raised. If there is clearly no bias, and people are just being stupid- that's important to note. But many people take the mere appearance of the word 'anti-semite' as proof that the accused is right. Why? Why not investigate? (This is a rhetorical question, we both know the answer)
But there is a much more basic and fundamental point to be made here. What purpose does proclaiming 'anti-Semitism' serve? It serves the purpose of moral disapproval. Effectively- 'go ahead and say that, but you're being a bigot.' Now comes the fundamental issue- is (and does) this stifling (or stifle for those of you on the 'does' track) debate? Certainly people feel stifled- why? Because being a bigot is a cultural taboo- the one broken more than any other. How does this affect my point? Simple- it is only stifling debate because the person on the other side has already accepted the premises of the accuser. In other words, the only reason any 'stifling' is going on is because the 'stifled' lets himself be. How could he not be, you may ask. Repeat after me, 'Nu-uh!' That simple. If someone calls you a bigot, say no you're not. That easy- it's only stifling because you let it be. You have the right to your opinion, and so too do others. You have the right to make moral judgements on them, and they the very same right on you. And it's not stifling. Its a moral judgement. On the other hand, crying like a baby that you are being stifled every time someone disagress with you IS a attempt to stifle. You are shifting the burden of proof from neutral to the other person. You are 'silencing' the other person, because everybody loves a martyr, and noone like high-handedness. So, good job- you've learned propaganda 101. And guess what- its not called stifling when everyone's talking about it.
So, what's the more recent and narrow event? Apparently there is a group on Facebook (and possibly other places) called 'Mayim.' It defines itself as group for religious (meaning here in Judaism) pluralism and against religious coercion. The first point is probably obvious, and I think rather laudable. The second point is stupid. They aren't talking about Israeli politics- where groups (both religious and anti-religious) hijack real issue for their own gains. And they arent talking about violence. And they arent talking about NRP youth settling in the hilltops of Judea and Samaria forcing Israeli policy.
So what are they talking about? Well, I saw two basic points- 1) That religious groups offer gifts (meaning free, or cheap trips mostly) in order to provide a forum to 'sell' Judaism. 2) That religious people say things that make people feel guilty.
Well, wtf? 1) Don't go on the f***ing trips if you don't want to hear what they are going to say. Simple as that. Don't borrow money from a bank if you don't want to pay interest. Are they supposed to give you the trip for no reason? And don't answer me that its just an opportunity for propaganda. No sh** sherlock. Of course it is. And you still don't have to buy into. If you want to go for the free stuff and space out, go ahead. Guess what- they aren't brainwashing, they are propagandizing. What's the difference. Well, everything is some form or another of propaganda. It's just spouting your view. And it happen every time anyone says anything. Granted that most stuff isnt only propaganda, but it certainly works as that also. And we deal with all the time, every day. The only remedy is having the cahones to have your own opinion.
Brainwashing is actively manipulating a situation so that only a certain view CAN register. Forcing people to stay up till really late is one tactic, so is discouraging ANY dissent. Neither of those happen on these trips. The point of these things is SPECIFICALLY to question things- your own opinion.
And what about 2)? It's this simple again- don't accept guilt for things that you don't feel guilt for. Are religious people not allowed to make a metaphysical claim about normativity? And especially one thats in the F*****g Bible? (That G-d does also punish) Tell them that they are wrong. And why they are wrong. A person can't guilt you into something unless you accept that guilt in the first place.
So why don't you? Because you hold vacuous opinions. Notice I didn't say you were wrong. Just that your opinions are valueless. You could be right. In fact, a lot of the time you probably are right. But your opinions are so little invested to you that all you can do is shout 'stifling', or 'coercion' or 'it's my right.' Does your opinion matter to you? If so, did you spend a lot of time thinking about why you are right, and the other position is wrong? If not, how the held can you hold a strong opinion- unless you yourself are the dogmatist? And if you have invested enough thought and energy into forming your opinion, why do you shirk so cowardly from defending it? If your opinion holds water, then show people why.
You know why you don't- free speech. You think that because other people have the right to an opinion, that your opinions are questionably. And it is because of that disrespect you put on yourself, that you feel the need to stifle others. Because you don't see how you could be right, you need to just tell people they are coercing you, or stifling you- instead of proving your point.
If you're perceptive, you might have picked up a really deep, and important, point here. Tyranny doesn't just coming from thinking you are right. It also comes from cultural relatively. When rights replace content, you become a dictator on rights. You herald your right to have a meaningless opinion, and announce your insecurities by calling out everyone who dissents.
The well known proverb is that though I may disagree with what you say, I will fight to the death for your right to say it. What does that mean? Why do I disagree? This last question is the important one: What are the content and value of my own opinions, that I am willing to 'agree to disagree' with you?
More often than not, the value of these opinions is worthless. And I don't mean the people opposed, I mean the people 'granting' the free speech. Free speech is a very simple notion. It means everyone gets to voice their opinion. It doesn't mean that I have to forget about me and mine.
But that is how most people take free speech nowadays. Look at the well know proverb- the person responds that he will fight for someone's right to say something not liked. Now, it may not be everyone's first reaction, but for many the structure of this proverb is telling. The reaction is to blanketly assert the other person's right to free speech, with a dim disapproval, and NO REBUTTAL.
That's the egregious sin- no one, except apparently offensive people, gives a crap about anything today. They only care about letting everyone have rights. Which is nice, but not sufficient. Life is not about the 'right' way to live, but about the 'good' way to live. Making space for other people's conception of the good DOES NOT entail that you forfeit your own. Unfortunately, most people don't think this way. They confuse the rights provided in liberal society with a moral ideal.
Surely they are right that it is moral to uphold free speech, and immoral to suppress it. But the speech of free speech is not, in itself, of any value. It is only a vehicle, a means, to the ends of expressing, demonstrating, arguing, eloborating, mocking, crying about, etc., your conception of the good. People indeed have a right to vacuous free speech, but that does not make such speech moral.
I think it is this underlying point that affects another central problem evident within the 'free speech arena' today- that of public 'censure.' I take it as axiotomic that everyone realizes that free speech grants them the right to formulate an opinion about the good. It also grants everyone the right to dissent. The latter is the more important part of free speech. Free speech, as a right, is worthless where people agree. It only comes into effect where there is disagreement. And it allows both parties to disagree. And that disagreement is just that- disagreement. Not coercion, not stifling. Nothing more.
Why have I brought that up? One broader, older issue, and one more narrow, and more recent issue. The broader issue is the arguments of the book the Israel Lobby, and Jimminey Carter. Well, not their arguments per se, but their concurrent arguments that they are being stifled. What's the stifling exactly? 1) People have written exposes trying to show factual error 2) People have written exposes trying to show bias and misinterpretation. 3)People have played the evil evil 'Anti-Semite' card.
The first two, unless you're a dumbass, are not stifling debate. They are contributing towards it. So, it's only the last one that warrants any appraisal of whether its called stifling. Sadly, I've seen many cases where types of responses such as the first two (not only with regards to Israel, and more specifically other subjects) are called stifling. That's right- argument is called stifling. Having a counterposing opinion is deemed stifling. Why? I'll get back to that one.
But what, about the third answer- the 'anti-Semite' card? Well, first comes a simple question- are the positions espoused anti-Semitic? Well, what would that mean?- that after 1) and 2) some people have come to the conclusion that the reason for the 'errors' is not good faith, but pure bias. In other words, more often than not, the anti-Semite card is an outgrowth of the first two charges. And here it becomes important to go through the data and see why point 3) is even raised. If there is clearly no bias, and people are just being stupid- that's important to note. But many people take the mere appearance of the word 'anti-semite' as proof that the accused is right. Why? Why not investigate? (This is a rhetorical question, we both know the answer)
But there is a much more basic and fundamental point to be made here. What purpose does proclaiming 'anti-Semitism' serve? It serves the purpose of moral disapproval. Effectively- 'go ahead and say that, but you're being a bigot.' Now comes the fundamental issue- is (and does) this stifling (or stifle for those of you on the 'does' track) debate? Certainly people feel stifled- why? Because being a bigot is a cultural taboo- the one broken more than any other. How does this affect my point? Simple- it is only stifling debate because the person on the other side has already accepted the premises of the accuser. In other words, the only reason any 'stifling' is going on is because the 'stifled' lets himself be. How could he not be, you may ask. Repeat after me, 'Nu-uh!' That simple. If someone calls you a bigot, say no you're not. That easy- it's only stifling because you let it be. You have the right to your opinion, and so too do others. You have the right to make moral judgements on them, and they the very same right on you. And it's not stifling. Its a moral judgement. On the other hand, crying like a baby that you are being stifled every time someone disagress with you IS a attempt to stifle. You are shifting the burden of proof from neutral to the other person. You are 'silencing' the other person, because everybody loves a martyr, and noone like high-handedness. So, good job- you've learned propaganda 101. And guess what- its not called stifling when everyone's talking about it.
So, what's the more recent and narrow event? Apparently there is a group on Facebook (and possibly other places) called 'Mayim.' It defines itself as group for religious (meaning here in Judaism) pluralism and against religious coercion. The first point is probably obvious, and I think rather laudable. The second point is stupid. They aren't talking about Israeli politics- where groups (both religious and anti-religious) hijack real issue for their own gains. And they arent talking about violence. And they arent talking about NRP youth settling in the hilltops of Judea and Samaria forcing Israeli policy.
So what are they talking about? Well, I saw two basic points- 1) That religious groups offer gifts (meaning free, or cheap trips mostly) in order to provide a forum to 'sell' Judaism. 2) That religious people say things that make people feel guilty.
Well, wtf? 1) Don't go on the f***ing trips if you don't want to hear what they are going to say. Simple as that. Don't borrow money from a bank if you don't want to pay interest. Are they supposed to give you the trip for no reason? And don't answer me that its just an opportunity for propaganda. No sh** sherlock. Of course it is. And you still don't have to buy into. If you want to go for the free stuff and space out, go ahead. Guess what- they aren't brainwashing, they are propagandizing. What's the difference. Well, everything is some form or another of propaganda. It's just spouting your view. And it happen every time anyone says anything. Granted that most stuff isnt only propaganda, but it certainly works as that also. And we deal with all the time, every day. The only remedy is having the cahones to have your own opinion.
Brainwashing is actively manipulating a situation so that only a certain view CAN register. Forcing people to stay up till really late is one tactic, so is discouraging ANY dissent. Neither of those happen on these trips. The point of these things is SPECIFICALLY to question things- your own opinion.
And what about 2)? It's this simple again- don't accept guilt for things that you don't feel guilt for. Are religious people not allowed to make a metaphysical claim about normativity? And especially one thats in the F*****g Bible? (That G-d does also punish) Tell them that they are wrong. And why they are wrong. A person can't guilt you into something unless you accept that guilt in the first place.
So why don't you? Because you hold vacuous opinions. Notice I didn't say you were wrong. Just that your opinions are valueless. You could be right. In fact, a lot of the time you probably are right. But your opinions are so little invested to you that all you can do is shout 'stifling', or 'coercion' or 'it's my right.' Does your opinion matter to you? If so, did you spend a lot of time thinking about why you are right, and the other position is wrong? If not, how the held can you hold a strong opinion- unless you yourself are the dogmatist? And if you have invested enough thought and energy into forming your opinion, why do you shirk so cowardly from defending it? If your opinion holds water, then show people why.
You know why you don't- free speech. You think that because other people have the right to an opinion, that your opinions are questionably. And it is because of that disrespect you put on yourself, that you feel the need to stifle others. Because you don't see how you could be right, you need to just tell people they are coercing you, or stifling you- instead of proving your point.
If you're perceptive, you might have picked up a really deep, and important, point here. Tyranny doesn't just coming from thinking you are right. It also comes from cultural relatively. When rights replace content, you become a dictator on rights. You herald your right to have a meaningless opinion, and announce your insecurities by calling out everyone who dissents.
The innocuous Bristol I-Soc
I joined the I-Soc this year to learn more about Islam and Muslims. I figured it was safe here (in Brizzie) because the I-Soc is meant to be rather 'innocuous', 'moderate', and whatever other adjectives you care to throw around. I had been told that the I-Soc and the J-Soc have had good relations, even if not perfect.Strangely enough, the I-Soc and J-soc stalls at Fresh were located next to one another. Thus any possible contrast between the two would be easy. I figured that neither would have particularly strong words to say about Israel or Palestine (being a public forum), but that neither would leave their 'version' unmentioned. I was wrong about that. On the J-Soc side there were only two mentions of Israel 1) subsidized trips 2)a case for peace between Israel and the Palestinians and Arabs. Seemingly missing an opportunity to in some way defend the legitimacy of Israel, but I supposed it was felt that the J-soc should be as dovish as possible.Not so on the I-soc front.They had ready and visible material pleading for the Palestinian cause. Fair enough, and I should certainly hope they care about their brethren. Of course, I looked in the pamphlets and saw a great deal of half-truths, outright lies, and outright incitement. Suffice it to say, not what I expected from a 'innocuous' group. Nonetheless, I realize how important and pervasive the conflict is within Arab and Islamic society, and why it pushes so many buttons. Maybe it wasnt the best place for it, but still- the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a sensitive and passion-filled subject, and it must e hard for Muslims not to continually show their support. I only wished they'd do it just a little more 'politely.'So, all in all, stuff I didn't expect, but also didn't blow me out the water. Muslims don't like Israel? Muslims think Israel is evil and commits tons of crimes? Well, duh. That's nice for them. Besides, I was more bothered by crap that the 'Respest' people put in their pamphlets at the UWE fresh. This seemed....almost innocent.But why I am I writing about this now????Why a month later? Was I really busy starting the semester? Ha!- I wish that was my excuse.Our flat (or rather, my flat-mates) was doing some cleaning to impress the people who might give us a new sofa tomorrow. And one of my flat-mates discovered a pamphlet I picked up at the Fresh- 'The Hijab Why.' Why did I pick it up? I know the basic reasoning behind it- the same as why Orthodox women will dress more modestly and cover their hair when married. Simple, huh? Well, I wanted to know if there was more to it. Islam isnt a different form of Judaism/Christianity. There is a good deal in common, but a great deal of divergence. The creation story, the volition of angels, the order of the Prophets, etc. I wanted to know any additional reasons.But that wasn't my only motivation. I am fascinated by the psychology and process of belief- how do beliefs form, why are some arguments persuasive and others not,etc. I've looked at Jewish pamphlets trying to do similar things (like get people to marry Jewish, believe in G-d, etc) and wanted to see about similarities and differences. Basically, how do they convince people to wear the Hijab?So, about 40 minutes ago, I opened to the middle, as is my wont, a found a nice suprise in the justification of Hijab. (p. 29)
" (10) Tabar'roj is the way of the Jews
"Jews have an important role in the destruction of nations through the Fitna (seduction/temptation) of women. The spread of Tabar'roj is an effective weapon of their widespread establishments. They have an extensive experience in this field. One should look around only to see who runs Hollywood and famous Houses of 'Fashions' and 'Magazines' as well as the world of advertisement."
(Tabar'roj being defined as 'display of woman's charm' p. 20)
NICE!!! Always a little jew-roasting to rouse up support for your religious practice that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TINY TINY AMOUNT OF JEWS IN THE WORLD.
'Nuf said.
Seriously, if want to see it- come ask me and I will you show where it says it.
" (10) Tabar'roj is the way of the Jews
"Jews have an important role in the destruction of nations through the Fitna (seduction/temptation) of women. The spread of Tabar'roj is an effective weapon of their widespread establishments. They have an extensive experience in this field. One should look around only to see who runs Hollywood and famous Houses of 'Fashions' and 'Magazines' as well as the world of advertisement."
(Tabar'roj being defined as 'display of woman's charm' p. 20)
NICE!!! Always a little jew-roasting to rouse up support for your religious practice that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TINY TINY AMOUNT OF JEWS IN THE WORLD.
'Nuf said.
Seriously, if want to see it- come ask me and I will you show where it says it.
Saturday 20 October 2007
Blasting bias
I'm taking political philosophy this semester, so I thought it would be a good idea to read up on the relevant material on the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Specifically, I was reading an article on 'authority,' which, in political philosophy, is not taken for granted as legitimate. The article was an enjoyable to and fro, until the very end- when the writer 'decided' that democracy had legitimacy above and beyond any question. Now, even taking for granted that Churchill's assertion that democracy is the 'lesser of all evils' when it comes to government, that does not, in and of itself provide justification. However, this myth- the supremacy of democracy- is so entrenched in our society, that some (apparently) believe it beyond any kind of question.
This rather inane point leads me to a much larger one. The West views itself as proud heirs to the Greeks- ethical philosophers who pondered the wonders of the universe and were generally freedom loving. However, this premise seems to be completely false. The Greeks may have been philosophers, but they hardly seem to conform to our standard of ethics. What say you, that 'of course not, they were ancient'?- grant that, but understand just how brutal they were. Even in Athens, oh so wonderful Athens, only about 5-6% of the denizens were allowed to vote. And this was within a 'democratic,' and not 'aristocratic' conception of the polis. In truth, even after the reforms of Solon that saved the poor from revolting, the paupers still had no 'effective' power.
Greek treatment of slaves was horrendous. I know that you are probably shocked by what I mean by this- isn't all slavery bad? Yes, but there is bad and worse- Jewish treatment of slaves, or general Eastern treatment of slaves. Now, there are significant differences between the two, each one being, in some ways, 'better.' The Jewish slave had more 'rights' as a human, but the Eastern (for example Persian) slave could own property, and was usually actually paid. Yup, paid.
This only goes to show that you can't simply answer for the Greeks that "everybody thought it was okay back then." They simply didn't.
It goes deeper than this. Every now and again, there was a slave revolt and the ruling aristocrats were driven out. Usually these revolts, although resulting in the deposition of the aristocrats, did not result in their murder, but rather their banishment. The leaders of these revolts would pass legislation to ease and equalize economic burden. And they were called tyrants.
What gives? It's easy to explain ancient Greece's horrible view of 'freedom,' and their lies about 'tyranny,' but why do we accept their labels?
At http://www.hirhome.com/israel/cruxcontents.htm, Prof. Gil-White tries to explain that the writers of history are generally aristocrats themselves, and therefore 'buy into' (although he might be a bit more cynical than that) the hype. I don't buy it. It's an easy conclusion, especially given his Marxist assumptions.
I think it clearly is a case of historians buying into the hype, but I think it has more to do with perception-formation, and concept-formation, than outright bias. This is a current fascination of mine: just how do perceptions form, how do they change, and what does it mean to believe. To sum up, propaganda. Or, at least I think that has a large part of it.
When I say propaganda, you probably think Goebbels or Stalin, or if you're a moonbat, the 9/11 commission. And I do mean those things, as well. But here's the rub- what is the difference between what Stalin did and any acquired information? I don't mean in truth-value, but in how that information comes to be believed. I think they are the same, and I think that's a rather intuitive postulation. It explains why propaganda is no less believable than regular information- because the assimilation process of all information is done, is essentially (except through one's own 'research' and 'insight', and yes, I am being purposely vague) no more than propaganda.
But to highlight my point let's look at the flip side of what I am saying- human being are very gullible. They believe what they are told, often without questioning it. And, even after questioning, they still tend to hold convictions. Take religions. There certainly aren't all true. (in the strong sense) That means that most people are definitely wrong about religion. Further, religion seems to have little, or no, evidence whatsoever. But, do people believe any less? Indeed, intellectually I'm a veritable sceptic when it comes to religion. Yet, I still believe in (have a conviction might be a better way to phrase it) Judaism. And, it's a belief I cannot, for the life of me, shake.
So, people form beliefs that are transmitted to them from others, and they often cannot shake those beliefs. Sometimes this is despite a conscious struggle. Other times, it is through cognitive dissonance, whereby people simply blank out the evidence. But more frequently, people simply do not register evidence- not because it contradicts their preconceived notions, but because it does not even fit into their frame of reference. Quick example: could the concept of dharama be true? Yes. Is there any evidence for it? I have absolutely no idea- because it just simply isn't my frame of reference. Now, I could spend years assimilating the concept. And that would probably help, but I would have to look in the first place. Otherwise, it's rose coloured glasses from here on out. (Ha! the Britishness is seeping into me, which, btw, only validates my point)
How does this relate? Simple- who do we get (most of) Greek history from? The aristocrats- who else would have time to sit and write in the ancient world? So, our shared legacy of Greece is seen through the people who considered the aristocrats 'fair' and 'just.' In other words, our conception of Greece necessarily starts from an aristocratic point of view.
But it's more than that, and here a little feminist Bible-criticism will provide an good parallel. One of the main critiques of feminist writers is that the Bible is andro-centric- it is written from a man's perspective. Why does this matter? Because it does not distort femininity, but rather makes it so that it is never heard! The world painted in the Hebrew Bible (so those critics claim) is not anti-woman, rather is one where woman are on the outside. The narrator is conveying the story of the men, through the eyes of the men, and as such the story we receive is only of men. As such, we associate with the 'male side of the story,' and we don't even think to ask the question, 'well, what about the women.' In Yeshivish there is a phrase called 'E Gores,' meaning that it is so irrelevant that it is not in anyone's conception.
So too with the Greeks. We see history through the eyes of the aristocrats- where the slaves and the women weren't even playing the game. They are so off to the side that it is incredible hard to realize how much of a slanted view we are getting- especially if it is the only view we are getting.
Now, I don't want you to think I in cahoots with post-modernism, or deconstructionism, etc. I certainly believe that there are facts, and that we can use our faculty of reason to sort through them. But, just because we can swim doesn't mean that water is shallow, or that there isn't a strong tide.
This rather inane point leads me to a much larger one. The West views itself as proud heirs to the Greeks- ethical philosophers who pondered the wonders of the universe and were generally freedom loving. However, this premise seems to be completely false. The Greeks may have been philosophers, but they hardly seem to conform to our standard of ethics. What say you, that 'of course not, they were ancient'?- grant that, but understand just how brutal they were. Even in Athens, oh so wonderful Athens, only about 5-6% of the denizens were allowed to vote. And this was within a 'democratic,' and not 'aristocratic' conception of the polis. In truth, even after the reforms of Solon that saved the poor from revolting, the paupers still had no 'effective' power.
Greek treatment of slaves was horrendous. I know that you are probably shocked by what I mean by this- isn't all slavery bad? Yes, but there is bad and worse- Jewish treatment of slaves, or general Eastern treatment of slaves. Now, there are significant differences between the two, each one being, in some ways, 'better.' The Jewish slave had more 'rights' as a human, but the Eastern (for example Persian) slave could own property, and was usually actually paid. Yup, paid.
This only goes to show that you can't simply answer for the Greeks that "everybody thought it was okay back then." They simply didn't.
It goes deeper than this. Every now and again, there was a slave revolt and the ruling aristocrats were driven out. Usually these revolts, although resulting in the deposition of the aristocrats, did not result in their murder, but rather their banishment. The leaders of these revolts would pass legislation to ease and equalize economic burden. And they were called tyrants.
What gives? It's easy to explain ancient Greece's horrible view of 'freedom,' and their lies about 'tyranny,' but why do we accept their labels?
At http://www.hirhome.com/israel/cruxcontents.htm, Prof. Gil-White tries to explain that the writers of history are generally aristocrats themselves, and therefore 'buy into' (although he might be a bit more cynical than that) the hype. I don't buy it. It's an easy conclusion, especially given his Marxist assumptions.
I think it clearly is a case of historians buying into the hype, but I think it has more to do with perception-formation, and concept-formation, than outright bias. This is a current fascination of mine: just how do perceptions form, how do they change, and what does it mean to believe. To sum up, propaganda. Or, at least I think that has a large part of it.
When I say propaganda, you probably think Goebbels or Stalin, or if you're a moonbat, the 9/11 commission. And I do mean those things, as well. But here's the rub- what is the difference between what Stalin did and any acquired information? I don't mean in truth-value, but in how that information comes to be believed. I think they are the same, and I think that's a rather intuitive postulation. It explains why propaganda is no less believable than regular information- because the assimilation process of all information is done, is essentially (except through one's own 'research' and 'insight', and yes, I am being purposely vague) no more than propaganda.
But to highlight my point let's look at the flip side of what I am saying- human being are very gullible. They believe what they are told, often without questioning it. And, even after questioning, they still tend to hold convictions. Take religions. There certainly aren't all true. (in the strong sense) That means that most people are definitely wrong about religion. Further, religion seems to have little, or no, evidence whatsoever. But, do people believe any less? Indeed, intellectually I'm a veritable sceptic when it comes to religion. Yet, I still believe in (have a conviction might be a better way to phrase it) Judaism. And, it's a belief I cannot, for the life of me, shake.
So, people form beliefs that are transmitted to them from others, and they often cannot shake those beliefs. Sometimes this is despite a conscious struggle. Other times, it is through cognitive dissonance, whereby people simply blank out the evidence. But more frequently, people simply do not register evidence- not because it contradicts their preconceived notions, but because it does not even fit into their frame of reference. Quick example: could the concept of dharama be true? Yes. Is there any evidence for it? I have absolutely no idea- because it just simply isn't my frame of reference. Now, I could spend years assimilating the concept. And that would probably help, but I would have to look in the first place. Otherwise, it's rose coloured glasses from here on out. (Ha! the Britishness is seeping into me, which, btw, only validates my point)
How does this relate? Simple- who do we get (most of) Greek history from? The aristocrats- who else would have time to sit and write in the ancient world? So, our shared legacy of Greece is seen through the people who considered the aristocrats 'fair' and 'just.' In other words, our conception of Greece necessarily starts from an aristocratic point of view.
But it's more than that, and here a little feminist Bible-criticism will provide an good parallel. One of the main critiques of feminist writers is that the Bible is andro-centric- it is written from a man's perspective. Why does this matter? Because it does not distort femininity, but rather makes it so that it is never heard! The world painted in the Hebrew Bible (so those critics claim) is not anti-woman, rather is one where woman are on the outside. The narrator is conveying the story of the men, through the eyes of the men, and as such the story we receive is only of men. As such, we associate with the 'male side of the story,' and we don't even think to ask the question, 'well, what about the women.' In Yeshivish there is a phrase called 'E Gores,' meaning that it is so irrelevant that it is not in anyone's conception.
So too with the Greeks. We see history through the eyes of the aristocrats- where the slaves and the women weren't even playing the game. They are so off to the side that it is incredible hard to realize how much of a slanted view we are getting- especially if it is the only view we are getting.
Now, I don't want you to think I in cahoots with post-modernism, or deconstructionism, etc. I certainly believe that there are facts, and that we can use our faculty of reason to sort through them. But, just because we can swim doesn't mean that water is shallow, or that there isn't a strong tide.
Friday 19 October 2007
my evil computer, and why I blog so little
I just had 50 minutes worth of effort deleted by a single, and irrevocable, stroke of misfortune. This is not the first time this has happened, and its part of why I blog so sporadically. I think I will start writing my posts in word first, so that this does not happen again.
Sunday 19 August 2007
Left's self-immolation
The Left of Israel is laying the seeds for it's own destruction. Perhaps not in the simple way that many on the Right would have you believe. It's not the peace process that destroys Israel- grant the premises of the Right, that Israel needs to show strength, and you can still seek peace creatively. It is not the Left's placating of the Palestinians, or their drive to understand the 'other side' of the story- a State of Israel need not be a zero-sum game where Israel only benefits when the Palestinians do not. It is not the left's inability to think about physical security- the Security Fence, which has dropped the rate and ease of attacks infinitely, was the Left's idea. Further, the pullout from Gaza, done as disastrously and ill-conceived as it was, was Sharon's baby, as a reactionary to 'demographic issues' and not the Left's.
And it's not the Post-Zionist segment that dooms itself. Yes, if it sees it's goals to the end, that will be the end of Israel as a Jewish state- but by its nature Post-Zionism would welcome that. Be it a blazing end of being expelled 'back to Europe where all the Jews came from' (where do the Sephardi Jews go?) or a simple dominance by the 'original owners' of Palestine (all 250,000-350,000 of them, including those in Jordan, which was the population total of Israel and Jordan circa 1850, i.e. before the Jooos came in to modernize.....eh, let's not get to far off track....)
No, the Left's defeat will not come from those who follow their principles to their extreme ends. Nor will it come from its following the more 'moderate' version of those principles. Rather, the Left's immolation will come from betraying itself, and selling it's soul. Those who will be damned will not be the Post-Zionist, but the ardent Zionist. It will be those who, in their attempt to empathize with the Palestinian struggle for nationhood forget their own.
It will be those who universalize the principle of 'nationalism' to include the Palestinians, but forget that their reason to 'universalize' is not only in reference to their 'particular' nationalism, but because of. If, as the argument goes, the validity of Jewish nationalism depends on the validity of nationalism in general, and therefore Palestinian nationalism in particular, then to the extent which the subsequent is true, the antecedent is just as true. In other words, to the extent that Palestinian rights become important to Israel, Jewish right are as well. When FM Tzipi Livni claims that the creation of a Palestinian state is the highest aim of Israel, what she means is as a result of Zionism, Palestinian nationalism must be achieved. What she misses is that it is not a result of Zionism, but rather concurrent with Zionism. Not only is enthusiasm for a independent Palestine not simply a result of Zionism, it is also necessarily limited to the range of Zionism itself.
It is in this particular principle that Left of Israel is practicing unbridled hypocrisy. Any Jew who proposes to transfer Arabs from Israeli land is marked a racist, and perhaps rightly so. But, if he is, any Arab, or Jew even, who proposes to transfer Jews from 'Arab' land is a racist as well. Grant that a someone who claims that only Jews have a right to the land of Israel is racist, no matter what Israel he refers to, and you are left with the subsequent fact that someone who claims that Palestine belongs only to those who are not Jews is racist as well, no matter what those borders are. The left should stop giving its sanction to clearly unacceptable position
It is this halfway thinking that will destroy Israel in the end. Grant that we need to get rid of the territories for demographic issues, but that can only come with actually realizing demographic issues. Instead of Chareidi bashing for having so many kids, the Zionest left ought to start having more kids themselves.
But, more importantly, if it is a hallmark of enlightenment to give space and breathing-room for someone else's culture, it is just as important to give space and room for your own.
And it's not the Post-Zionist segment that dooms itself. Yes, if it sees it's goals to the end, that will be the end of Israel as a Jewish state- but by its nature Post-Zionism would welcome that. Be it a blazing end of being expelled 'back to Europe where all the Jews came from' (where do the Sephardi Jews go?) or a simple dominance by the 'original owners' of Palestine (all 250,000-350,000 of them, including those in Jordan, which was the population total of Israel and Jordan circa 1850, i.e. before the Jooos came in to modernize.....eh, let's not get to far off track....)
No, the Left's defeat will not come from those who follow their principles to their extreme ends. Nor will it come from its following the more 'moderate' version of those principles. Rather, the Left's immolation will come from betraying itself, and selling it's soul. Those who will be damned will not be the Post-Zionist, but the ardent Zionist. It will be those who, in their attempt to empathize with the Palestinian struggle for nationhood forget their own.
It will be those who universalize the principle of 'nationalism' to include the Palestinians, but forget that their reason to 'universalize' is not only in reference to their 'particular' nationalism, but because of. If, as the argument goes, the validity of Jewish nationalism depends on the validity of nationalism in general, and therefore Palestinian nationalism in particular, then to the extent which the subsequent is true, the antecedent is just as true. In other words, to the extent that Palestinian rights become important to Israel, Jewish right are as well. When FM Tzipi Livni claims that the creation of a Palestinian state is the highest aim of Israel, what she means is as a result of Zionism, Palestinian nationalism must be achieved. What she misses is that it is not a result of Zionism, but rather concurrent with Zionism. Not only is enthusiasm for a independent Palestine not simply a result of Zionism, it is also necessarily limited to the range of Zionism itself.
It is in this particular principle that Left of Israel is practicing unbridled hypocrisy. Any Jew who proposes to transfer Arabs from Israeli land is marked a racist, and perhaps rightly so. But, if he is, any Arab, or Jew even, who proposes to transfer Jews from 'Arab' land is a racist as well. Grant that a someone who claims that only Jews have a right to the land of Israel is racist, no matter what Israel he refers to, and you are left with the subsequent fact that someone who claims that Palestine belongs only to those who are not Jews is racist as well, no matter what those borders are. The left should stop giving its sanction to clearly unacceptable position
It is this halfway thinking that will destroy Israel in the end. Grant that we need to get rid of the territories for demographic issues, but that can only come with actually realizing demographic issues. Instead of Chareidi bashing for having so many kids, the Zionest left ought to start having more kids themselves.
But, more importantly, if it is a hallmark of enlightenment to give space and breathing-room for someone else's culture, it is just as important to give space and room for your own.
Tuesday 17 July 2007
Assimilation, oh what a show...
The Conference on the Future of the Jewish People met recently to discuss the current problem of assimilation amongst Diaspora Jewry. Their solution is to stress Jewish education and further connection to Israel via Birthright. Both of these are good ideas as far as they go. Jewish education has always been the solution to assimilation (see Max I. Dimont's Jews, God and History)- Ezra instituted tri-weekly Torah readings, the Rabbis of the Talmud provided free universal education (circa the 1st century C.E.)- so it should come as no surprise that education might again be a valuable tool in the preservation of Jewish identity. Indeed, and not to sound at all bitter, the Torah itself seems to stress this point- ' and these words shall be on your heart, and you shall teach them to your children.' If it is on your heart, (i.e. you identify with them) the only way forward, the only way to inculcate the next generation, is to TEACH THEM.
The Birthright trip has shown certain results of increasing active Zionism, and Jewish affiliation, but I think think tanks need to be aware of two points that are dangerous in these statistics. Firstly, many of those who go on Birthright are already highly identifiable Jewishly. Not all, perhaps not most; the some who are, are also the most likely to be affected by it. Secondly, while identification with Israel as the Jewish homeland, and home to many Jews, may be a positive attribute, it is still a rather hollow identification as it pertains to Jewish identity. Many Diaspora Jews who associate with Israel associate with Israeli, and not Jewish culture. Furthermore, many Diaspora Jews come to think of Tel Aviv as the only city, and the only mentality, that exists in Israel.
A show of these effects is the hollow worship that many Diaspora Jews have for hummus, falafel, schwarma and the like. None of these are even Israeli, (except that Israel, then still Palestine, was the first to put falafel into pita) but to the Diaspora Jew who has fallen in love with Israel, they are adopted as quickly as possible. Many cultural affinities are Middle Eastern and not Israeli at all. Granted, they are certainly part of the culture of Israel, but to the extent that Israel has absorbed its culture from other sources.
What is the problem, then, if Israel has already absorbed these foreign cultures into their own? Why can't Jewish identity be extended to Israeli identity. For two main reasons- Israel does not negate the existence of the Diaspora, and Israeli culture is often the possession of those who are Jews by virtue only of their blood. I admit to falling trap towards part of the first fallacy, in that, though I don't identify with Tel Avivian culture, I still fail to see anywhere outside of Israel as my home. However, and this is the important part to emphasize, that does not negate the truism that is the existence of a Diaspora. A Diaspora has existed almost as long as the Jewish people have, and it is naive to declare its end with one fell swoop of regaining nationhood. American Jewish culture, for example, is something that can AND DOES exist completely outside the confines of Israeli culture.
But perhaps more important that the narrow definition of identity achieved by Birthright, is the false identity achieved by birthright. As noted before, much of Israel's culture has nothing to do with Jewish culture. By this, and I cannot stress this enough, I do not mean that Israel is not religious enough for it to count as Jewish culture. Although I think it is a truism that Jewish culture (and therefore identification) can never be wholly divorced from Judaism, my point here is something much simpler- many Israelis identify themselves as Jews only by heritage. This is a further emphasis of the point made above-that much in Israel culture is not Israeli-but now the point is that much in Israeli culture, even though adopted by Jews, is not Jewish. Israel, to a certain extent, was founded by those who wanted to cast a completely non-'Jewish' identity for Jews. The common perception is that Zionism is the movement for a Jewish homeland; that is one angle, taken by the likes of Ahad Ha'Am. However, Herzlian Zionism is considerably different. Herzl's aim, having realized that non-Jews would never accept Jews, even assimilated, in their countries, wanted the Jews to have their own country in order that they be like all other nations. Indeed, his goal was that Israel should end up feeling completely like Switzerland.
If Herzl's vision had succeeded, Israel, and the Jewish identity contained within, would be nothing more than an extension of Western identity. However, surely whatever identity Jews choose to attach to themselves, ought to be 'good' enough to be considered Jewish identity? Such an objection, however, fails to understand that the underlying assumption of the conference is precisely the opposite- why should anyone bother about keeping Jewish identity distinctive, if it does not contain anything original, anything unique? Certainly Jewish continuity for the very sake of Jewish continuity is pointless. What do Jews bring to the table? The religious dimension is an obvious answer, but just as obviously not a solution that the majority of Jewry will accept- a cultural identity, based on the conscious, and unconscious, decision of Jews, unique from non-Jewish culture, is the only possible answer. Granted, culture does not develop in a box, and Jewish culture, inevitably, will always have 'outside' influences; outside influences are different than the sum totality of the culture.
Luckily, Herzl's vision has not, so far at least, succeeded. However, to deny that it is a strong current within Israeli society actively misses the point. For many Israelis Israel is the some total of Jewish identity. If that translates to Diaspora Jews, and forges the sum total of their identity, they might as well be Japanese, or Greek. Furthermore, identifying one's Jewishness with Israel may work fine for an Israeli- he's there, it's kind of hard to throw it aside- but for a Diaspora Jew, such identity is only flimsy. Why should he not cast aside this country identity in order to identify with America, or France, etc.? The very fact that this Jew isn't immigrating to Israel shows how very weak this identity is. Nonetheless, the Birthright trips certainly have their place, and are quite valuable for what they do accomplish- reinforcing an already present Jewish identity.
But far from this rant against the division within Israeli society, and vacuousness that occur when people overemphasize 'Israel as Jewish identity,' there is a much more serious issue that this conference seems to have completely failed to address. The conference was framed in (basically) these terms- assimilation is rampant, as evidence by lack of synagogue affiliation, (most Jews are not affiliated with any synagogue) intermarriage, (more than half of all Jews intermarry) etc., and what can be done to stop assimilation. The damning evidence actually points to a conclusion wholly different from the one they have drawn. Or rather, a more important battle needs to be fought.
The battle, in the conference's terms, is a battle against assimilation. By definition that battle is only concerned with those that already associate themselves with the Jewish community- how do we stem the tide of expatriation? However, the figures used in support of asserting rampant assimilation also tell the dark story of those for who this battle has already been lost. Over 50% of Jews already don't associate with the broader Jewish community. The more important question, as it is much wider in scope, and perhaps more of an immediate threat, ( as someone who barely registers their Jewish identity as part of their life can hardly be expected to pass that on to the next generation) is what to be done to bring those Jews, those myriads of Jews, back into the fold.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
