The State and Holocaust Survivors

In the past few weeks there has been a recent reports on how well or poorly Israel treats its Holocaust survivors. This is a recent JPost article on the matter. Its been reported that the government will give each survivor 85NIS per month. I've never been able to figure out how they came up with that figure coming to about $20/month. It's a ridiculously low number.

It seems to me that Israel has an obligation to provide for these people. The Nazi's brought them to the lowest of the low, a government dehumanized them; here in Israel, the Jewish state, we should re-humanize them. We should pay them whatever it should take just to survive. If it's 1500NIS/month then they should get it without any qualifications.

It occurred to me that we should also ask them to help Yad Vashem - tell their stories, whatever they can do to keep the historical account up to date and accurate. Write letters to convince others to tell their stories or speak to tourists. Do this and we'll give you another 500NIS/month. It's not a job, its a right that they get just for being who they are.

Anything less than giving them full support is tantamount to do what the Nazis did, dehumanized them.

So I've been in Israel for a Week

Now that I'm posting from Israel I guess that makes me an Israeli blogger - but since I'm not an Oleh, oh well, maybe not.

Anyway, the past week has been full of crazy adventures. Somethings don't sound so crazy, but with out lack of comfort with Hebrew they turn out to be. We bought an oven from this guy in Mea Shearim and had it delivered to Efrat. We bought some furniture from a couple leaving the Kollel, however, it was so heavy four Kollel guys couldn't move the lightest piece. We hired two Arab workers to move the three pieces for 100 shekels total. Insane.

My wife had interviews - for this year and next - at Midreshet Rachel and Pardes. I was impressed with both places but for very different reasons. I hope it all goes well for her there.

Israel's been really great, the adjustments are sometimes hard. We had no furniture in our apartment when we arrived and our lift is still tw0-weeks out so we've had to buy things one at a time. Dealing with Bezeq setting up DSL and then finding an internet provider. Next thing is to find bookshelves and start reading blogs again and then in two weeks class starts.

It's stress, but good stress. And I love the breeze here in Efrat.

Tisha B'Av and Moving to Israel

Tonight is erev Tisha B'Av. It's always been a very hard day for me; to understand the imagery that we find in Eicha. Two years ago I sat at the Kotel all day trying to feel the destruction - but I can't - it's so much easier for me to feel the destruction of the nation through the Holocaust, the descriptions provided in the megillah of what the populace went through during the siege. This is why most shuls watch Holocaust movies - because we cannot connect to the Temple - despite our best efforts most of us cannot do it.

XGH says that this phenomenon is proof that we don't really want the Temple back; I don't think so, it's been 2,000 hard years and we - today's Jews - don't really get it. So we take other aspects of Tisha B'Av the other calamities that have befallen us on this day and connect to those.

Is it bad to do so? No, I don't think so, since it's also an integral part of the day. But this year I'm going to make a concerted effort - like I've done in the past - to think about the Avoda in the Beit HaMikdash and what the Churban really was.

I found RWAC's post to be truly moving, because I feel that I will come out of Tisha B'Av feeling very like that. Today I will accept God's judgment, but I'm moving to Israel in a week. I have the pain of packing and moving boxes in my arms and legs; I can't forget that. There is a day after Tisha B'Av and on Tu B'Av I will move to Israel.

This year's Tisha B'Av promises to not be the average Tisha B'Av. It will be hard and special in it's own way.

Alan Dershowitz on Jimmy Carter

As I start Rabbinical School in less than a month I'm writing a number of posts on American politics so that I can exhaust that section for a while. Torah will become the focus of this blog soon.

This post is copied from The Huffington Post's blog:

When Jimmy Carter used the word "apartheid" in the title of his book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, he knew it would deeply offend many Israelis, Jews and other supporters of Israel's efforts to make peace with its Arab neighbors. Yet he deliberately chose that deeply offensive word precisely in order to provoke. As Jeffrey Goldberg of The Washington Post said, it was a case of "bait and switch," since in the text of the book, the word apartheid appears only three times and Carter goes out of his way to explain that what he believe Israel is doing "is unlike in South Africa -- not racism...."

Carter was cautioned by friends not to use the inaccurate and provocative word apartheid, but he insisted on putting it in his title, knowing full well how deeply offensive it would be to so many.

Contrast Carter's insensitivity toward his Jewish readers with his extraordinary oversensitivity toward Muslim readers of Salmon Rushdie's controversial book, The Satanic Verses. When Rushdie was sentenced to death in absentia by the Ayatollah Khomeini, and when Khomeini offered "paradise" to anyone who would murder Rushdie, Carter did not leap to the defense of the threatened author. Instead, he condemned him for his "direct insult to the millions of Muslims whose sacred beliefs have been violated and are suffering in restrained silence..." To be sure, Carter recited the obligatory defense of freedom of speech ("while Rushdie's First Amendment freedoms are important ...), and the obligatory criticism of Khomeini ("it is our duty to condemn the threat of murder....), it is clear that his true sympathies lie with the offended Muslims. This is what he wrote in his article entitled "Rushdie's Book Is An Insult:"

"This is the kind of intercultural wound that is difficult to heal. Western leaders should make it clear that in protecting Rushdie's life and civil rights, there is no endorsement of an insult to the sacred beliefs of our Moslem friends.

We must remember that Iranian and other fundamentalists are not the only Moslems involved. Around the world there are millions of others who are waiting for a thoughtful and constructive response to their concerns."

Carter was relatively silent when millions of Muslims were on a rampage against the Danish cartoons that depicted Mohammed (some positively, others negatively).

His sensitivity seems limited to Muslims and Christians. This is what he said about the film, The Last Temptation of Christ:

...the sacreligious scenes were still distressing to me and many others who share my faith. There is little doubt that the movie producers and Scorsese, a professed Christian, anticipated adverse public reactions and capitalized on them.

Yet Carter fully "anticipated" and "capitalized" on the deliberately offensive title of his best-selling book. Nor do I recall any condemnation by him of Mel Gibson's film, The Passion of the Christ, that was deeply offensive to many Jews.

Jimmy Carter's sensitivities seem to have a gaping hole when it comes to Jews. There is a term for that.

It's a little late; okay, a lot late, but I think his observations are right on the money. It's errors of obmission that have plagued Carter's policies since he took the oath of office. Presidents and other politicians, however, are no super-humans they are allowed to make mistakes; but every so often they need to admit to them.

Carter - and I wrote my thesis on his public speeches regarding the Camp David Accords - has never tried to put Israel's interests first. It was always what would Israel give up to get Peace - as if peace was only desired on one side. During the Accords there was a lot of rhetoric tossed around trying to get Sadat to come to the table without looking weak, very little desire to court Begin. Carter never cared about what was good for Israel or the Jews; should we be surprised then that his book only cared for one side and not an honest look for the truth?

Alan Johnston is Free

Alan Johnston, the BBC reporter who was taken hostage in Gaza, has been freed by Hamas forces. I truly believe, and CNN speaks of it, that the only reason Hamas decided to do something was that they sorely need some good publicity.

The captors - the Army of Islam - have been connected to Fatah; which is curious since Abbas was not able to do anything about it.

Either way, I'm glad he's safe and unharmed.

What to do with Hamas? Part IV

Charles Krauthammer wrote a very interesting OpEd in Friday's Washington Post. Instead of crying about the situation in Gaza he provides, what seems to be, a good solution.

With Hamas now clearly in charge, Israel should declare that it will tolerate no more rocket fire -- that the next Qassam will be answered with a cutoff of gasoline shipments. This should bring road traffic in Gaza to a halt within days and make it increasingly difficult to ferry around missiles and launchers.

If that fails to concentrate the mind, the next step should be to cut off electricity. When the world wails, Israel should ask, what other country on Earth is expected to supply the very means for a declared enemy to attack it?

What do do with Hamas? Show them who's boss. If they really are there to provide leadership for the Palestinians, then now that they've consolidated power there, let them do something. If the attacks continue, cut off gas and then electricity.

What Krauthammer fails to mention - though I'm sure he knows - is that no matter what Israel does they're always blamed. But at least it's a plan that deserves thought.

I also found this interesting: "Historian Michael Oren points out that the Palestinian Authority has received more per capita aid than did Europe under the Marshall Plan." If true, than that's pretty telling of the political situation in Gaza. If there are still Hamas supporters out there, I think it's time for them to wake up.

Dairy during Shavuot

For the past two years when Shavuot comes up my wife and I have a whole argument about eating only dairy on Shavuot. She inevitably wins due to either a. "I'm cooking" or b. "We're going to my parents and they only eat dairy". I've tried to convince her that the custom doesn't meant only dairy during the holiday, but to no avail.

I'll show her this post by Harry, but I really don't think that it will have any effect. The next objection will be "But it's my family's minhag and I'm cooking". What can I do?

Well for the next few years we'll be in Israel and there'll only be two dairy meals but I'm lactose intolerant though that doesn't seem to be a reason to stop a minhag. If Harry's post is accurate (I'm assuming it is) most Jews I know are following a mistaken minhag of only having milhig meals and not having both.

I still wont win.

We're Moving to Israel

Well now it's official. Naomi and I are moving to Israel on July 30th. We bought our plane ticket today; they're one way. It's a very strange feeling, I've never gone to Israel before without known when I'd be leaving.

It's not "Aliyah" - she's only been there for a total of 20 days, so right now it's for one year to see how it goes likely it'll last about 4-5 years before we move back to the States. I'd like to stay in Israel and I'm hoping that after 4 years so will she.

We're going to a new program run by Darche Noam / Midreshet Rachel - their Married Couples Program. 12 Couples coming together and learning for the year. We know 3 other couples planning to do it and their mostly UMD graduates too, so watching the NCAAs next year should not be a problem.

After that year I'm planning to continue for Smicha, while Naomi's not quite sure just yet. She's got ideas of going to grad school there or continuing to learn someplace else (Nishmat?). We'll see, but July 30th is only 133 days away but who's counting?

Fine Line: Criticizing Israel Without Anti-Semitism

[I'm in the middle of writing down my thoughts on the diaspora community - especially the frum community - stifling debate on Israel. This seems to be part one of a series (not sure how long) on this topic.]

Adin Steinsaltz

Fine Line: Criticizing Israel Without Anti-Semitism

The term “anti-Semitism” is itself a euphemism for "anti-Jewishness," and it is therefore easy to replace it with other words that may have a similar meaning. In many places, to be “anti-Semitic” has become unacceptable and has thus been replaced with “anti-Zionism” or anti-Israel stances, which are easier to condone.

In my view, anyone, Jew and non-Jew alike, may criticize the State of Israel without being anti-Semitic, but it is walking a fine line. One’s criticism of Israel should be of a certain nature.

The critique must be honest and without other agendas. The first step in making such a critique, as in any other criticism, is to verify the facts. Misinformation and negative propaganda are in abundance today, particularly in this day and age of the Internet. Furthermore, anti-Semitism is not confined only to non-Jews; Jews can be - and sometimes actually become - quite anti-Semitic. Therefore, Jewish, and even Israeli, sources may be as unreliable as Iranian or Syrian sources. When criticizing Israel, one must be careful about truth vs. misinformation, reality vs. prejudice.

In addition to the issue of factuality, there are other, more subtle elements involved here. Anti-Zionism and anti-Israel positions may be a covert expression of a desire to eradicate any concentrated Jewish existence. This desire may not manifest itself in killing Jews physically, but merely as a wish that, somehow, the Jewish people should disappear. A critique of Israel with this intent is, by its very nature, an expression of anti-Semitism.

In a certain way, there is a widespread belief, even sometimes reluctant, in Jewish “superiority,” not only in mundane matters, but also in morality. This results in an attitude that holds Jews, and by extension, the Jewish state, to standards that are not expected of any other nation. One must be aware of this tendency when making a critique of Israel.

Within these limits, anyone – including a faithful Jew – has the right to criticize Israel, even if sometimes the criticism may not be completely right.

On Faith: Washington Post Online February 24, 2007

The Torah of Eretz Yisrael

Rav Kook on Bereishit 2:12:

"And the gold of that land is good" [Gen. 2:12].

Why is the Torah suddenly interested in the quality of gold? Was this verse written for prospectors of rare metals?

The Midrash explains that the land referred to is Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel), and the precious commodity is none other than the Torah itself. The Midrash then declares,

"This teaches that there is no Torah like the Torah of the Land of Israel" [Bereishit Rabbah 16:4].

This is a pretty remarkable statement. Is there really a different Torah in the Land of Israel? And in what way is it superior to the Torah outside of Israel?

Details and General Principles

According to Rav Kook, the Torah of Eretz Yisrael is fundamentally different in its method and scope. The Torah of the Diaspora focuses on the details — specific laws and rules. The Torah of the Land of Israel, on the other hand, uses a more holistic approach. It connects those details with their governing moral principles.

This approach is particularly needed in our time of national renascence. We must reveal the truth and clarity of our Divine treasure. We must demonstrate the beauty and depth of practical mitzvot, by endowing them with the light of the mystical and philosophical side of the Torah. And the true depths and foundations of Torah can only be experienced in the Land of Israel.

Naomi is applying for scholarships to help us finance our move to Israel, one particular one asked why she'd rather study in Israel and not in the US. We had discussions about it and I could not explain myself to her. Much like a conversation I had with a woman waiting by the trempiada on the way to Gush Etzion at 3am. All I could say was unintelligible sentences about Torah feels different in Israel. I think this statement by Rav Kook (as Rav Morrison explains) explains exactly what I was feeling.

On the Bus Beating

ADDeRabbi and Harry have posted great comments on the recent Bus Beating. I don't think she was doing - as Harry termed it - a Rosa Parks style sit-in. First off, she wasn't doing anything contrary to the signs on the bus. Rosa was a hero, this woman did even more.

I am copying the comments I left on Harry's post because I feel very strongly that this needs to be spread to as many people as possible so that the outrage becomes known; to hopefully prevent this Chillul HaShem from ever happening again.

There are many comments in this thread that as an Orthodox Jew I find truly disturbing. It is no wonder that the Chiloni world hates Charedim so much. For all of the Ahavas Yisroel that we're supposed to have we can't even treat a woman - who may or may not be in the wrong -with simple Kavod HaBrios. Explain to her why the community has the feelings it does, talk to her. Treat her with dignity - she'll listen.

Egged is not a Halachic company - it is however a company that will abide by Halacha if the community demands it. If the bus wasn't a Mehadrin bus then it wasn't a Mehadrin bus and the Community obviously doesn't care enough to go through the process of getting it fixed.

That's the end of the story. Whatever wrong she did shouldn't even be discussed; the community has decided it doesn't care enough to prevent something like this from happening.

Two Men and a Movie

It's been a tradition in my family for quite some time now that we all go catch a matinée on the Friday after Thanksgiving. When we were younger it was always whatever new Disney movie was out, but this year we went to see Bobby. If you haven't heard, Bobby is Emilio Estevez's new movie about the assassination of Bobby Kennedy in 1968.

The reason that I bring all of this up is that it's a fantastic movie. Unlike most movies about a single event, Bobby is focused on 22 characters who are in the Ambassador Hotel on that day. There are politicians, a young couple on the day of their wedding, superstars, cooks, and managers. But the overall theme, and Estevez was particularly good at getting this across, was what Bobby Kennedy meant to people in 1968 - the hope that he promised.

I could not but help think at the end of the movie that there really needs to be a movie about Yitzhak Rabin made in a similar format. When Rabin was assassinated twelve years ago I was too young to understand his politics, but I saw the look on my mother's face when we heard that he had died. I do not agree with Rabin's politics - and neither did my mother - but on that day, as in 1968, the hope was killed a long with the person. I'm not totally sure that it can be regained either, well not very easily at least.

Do yourself a favor, go see Bobby.

Shmuley Boteach on Evangelical Politics

Shmuley Boteach wrote an Op-Ed piece for the Jerusalem Post on the need to bridge the gaps between Jews and Evangelical Christians with regards to Israel. It's a very well written article arguing that we should get past our dislike for their ulterior motives, it is "the survival of God's chosen people" that we should ultimately be concerned with and therefore accept Evangelical support with open arms.

The thing is that this argument makes too much sense. I've posted before about this issue and my dislike for the Evangelical movement. I don't believe that their ultimate desire - for the conversion of Jews and acceptance of Jesus - fits in very well with our system of beliefs.

Israel could use a good friend, money is always a good thing, but this isn't 1952 with a poor Israel, we are talking about the most advanced economy in the Middle East. Israel's economy is doing very well and while some of that has to do with Evangelical money, we should not be doing what Shmuley Boteach is preaching - proactively looking for their support. I would not suggest divesting from them, not only for practical reasons, but mainly because I think their delusional and that their understanding of Armageddon will not come true.

It is an Arab proverb that states "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Until someone shows me that verse in Mishlei I don't think we should be accepting any more help.

The Elections and Musings on Politics in General

I knew that these elections would stir things up, but I didn't quite expect them to be as interesting as they've become. Rumsfeld's resignation was unexpected, though I have to give Bush credit for waiting till after the election to announce the news, it would have been seen as a political move. Now for sure, it could be viewed as, "Well, we did poorly in the election, time to show the world we're moving on too". And it may be, but I don't believe that to be the primary reason - in my honest opinion Bush knew even before the elections took place that Rumsfeld needed to go.

I was unable to vote in this election, I forgot to change my voter registration address in time and also forgot to request an absentee ballot. I take voting very seriously and I feel ashamed for not voting. It is a civic duty and those that do not vote should have little say in the repercussions of the elections (unless of course for no fault of their own). Therefore, I hope I can live up to my own principles and keep my critiques to a minimum. It's a good thing that the people I would have voted for won anyway.

For those that are interested I wanted Martin O'Malley and Ben Cardin to win - they did. Even though I am no longer a resident of Pennsylvania I would have voted for Rendell over Lynn Swan (despite the fact that I am a die-hard Steelers fan); I am ecstatic that Bob Casey defeated Rick Santorum.

Harry has a great post on the elections. I don't like the post title, though I think his commentary is quite good. I am not a fan of one issue politics - the effects of elections are greater than any one single issue, Israel included.

What also disturbs me is Haaretz's Israel Factor page. It's a ranking on which candidates are more pro-Israel than the other. What describes one as better than another, and can you really put that into a point total? Is a candidate that would blindly support Israel under all circumstances really what we want? Sure it might be if you're the guy in charge, but if you don't happen to support Olmert 100% then you shouldn't support blind support.

What we need is responsible support. An American President to tell Olmert when he's not acting appropriately. One with the intelligence to understand that he'd act the same way if he was the Prime Minister of Israel. Also one to know when certain actions are out of line (e.g. Amona) though also to know the balance between friendly advice and over reaching. These are among the reasons why I do not understand why people believe Bush was good for Israel. Good how? No, he was the blind supporter. We do not need that.

Sometimes I wish I could vote Bartlet.

UN Ambulances

If you haven't seen these two videos that have recently surfaced (thanks to JoeSettler for bringing them to my attention) showing UN Ambulances involved in transporting Hezbollah terrorists to and from the staging areas for rocket attacks.

Here is a direct link to the first one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqGjz7iJTns

And the second:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cmk3BEKziJU

While it is easy to attempt to negate the evidence portrayed in the videos - be they fakes or stolen UN vehicles - what is necessary is to try to create a situation much like the falsified Reuters photos where an investigation is necessary. To create enough notice that the UN looks into them. If they are stolen - an answer that I can accept - the UN should have reported that day if not the next that an ambulance was stolen and possibly used for attacks against Israel. If they are fakes then shame on the people that made them.

As a historian this gets me into an area that I wish I knew more about - how do we know that anything really happend?. I hope to post on this eventually as my thoughts come together and I do some more research. Sufice it to say that the argument regarding the dinosaur bones, ma'aseh bereshis and testing our emunah will be discussed.

Israel's War

I loved Charles Krauthammer's recent Op-Ed called 'Disproportionate' in What Moral Universe? I've been reading a lot of negative critiques (not just by those who would be labeled anti-Israel) that the military response to Hezbollah is disproportionate. I could not disagree anymore with them anymore.

When the United States was attacked at Pearl Harbor, it did not respond with a parallel "proportionate" attack on a Japanese naval base. It launched a four-year campaign that killed millions of Japanese, reduced Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki to cinders, and turned the Japanese home islands into rubble and ruin.

Disproportionate? No. When one is wantonly attacked by an aggressor, one has every right -- legal and moral -- to carry the fight until the aggressor is disarmed and so disabled that it cannot threaten one's security again. That's what it took with Japan.

It would be easy to respond that indeed WWII was one big Human rights violation by today's standards. Dresden, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, etc. These are notorious for Allied bombings that killed thousands of civilians, but the Allied Forces believed that it was necessary to purposefully inflict these damages to end the war.

Even if Israel is purposefully inflicting civilian casualties they might be justified according to Krauthammer, but I refuse to believe that the IDF would do that. We've seen evidence for the last four years (Jenin, Gaza, etc.) that shows that the IDF is willing to risk the lives of their soldiers to prevent civilian deaths. As Krauthammer explained we're dropping leaflets warning of an impending attack giving Hezbollah time to evacuate, but we must be the or l'goyim - we must show the world how to properly deal with terrorists cowardly hiding among civilians.

So is Israel disproportionate? No. It seems to me that Israel has a stronger moral backing than the Allied forces had in WWII. It will not be easy and more soldiers (like my friend Michael Levin) h"vs will be killed, but we must defend ourselves.

What Olmert needs to explain to the world that we cannot give up while our civilians are still being attacked. If it takes another week to destroy Hezbollah, go for it. But do not stop this campaign until the threat is finished.

Baruch Dayan HaEmet

I received word tonight from my sister that a friend of mine (I'm closer with his twin sister - who was working with my sister at the time) was killed today in Lebanon in the village of Aita al-Shaab. He is one of the (so far) unnamed Sanchanim that were killed today in His name has not been released by the IDF (though the family has been contacted) yet - I assume because he is a Chayal Boded.

I have not seen my friend in nearly two years since I randomly ran into him on Ben Yehuda Street a year after he made Aaliyah and joined the army. He could not have been happier then when he was fighting for his country. The only consolation I can offer his family is that he died doing exactly what he wanted to do with his life. I truly believe that had he known what was going to happen to him - to be killed by Hezbollah defending his country - he would have joined the army anyway.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1153292058280&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Qana: Who is this Man? What really happened?

In the wake of the Qana catastrophe there have been lots of reports of dead children due to the Israeli airstrike there. While Israel has accepted the responisbility for this attack it seems that there is something fishy going on.

EU Referendum posts about this man:





He seems to be everywhere in Qana, a super-man of sorts, or is he?

Bluke posts about an article he read regarding the "catastrophe" - I'm not exactly sure what happened in Qana, but it is definitely not what was reported by the media nor accepted by Israel. AlanLaz responding to Bluke's post suggests that Israel need not appologize for anything, whiel I understand his sentiment, I disagree - Israel should appologize for every civillian killed - but that should not stop them from doing what is necessary for the good of the country.

One Israeli's View

I came across this article and I immediately thought I needed to copy it in it's entirety. Read and enjoy.

One Israeli's View

The great Yogi Berra once said, "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is."

I am not a columnist - just an ordinary American citizen living in Israel - but I have gained some insight into both cultures, some might say mentalities. Here is what many Israelis are feeling nowadays.

The first point concerns some unwritten American values I grew up with:

* Problems are solvable.
* Good will is returned in kind.
* In general, favor the underdog over the top dog (unless you're the top dog).
* If two sides are fighting, they must both have some justification.
* Be reasonable; split the difference.

But what if you are living in a neighborhood where they are not quite as reasonable as you? Where your attempts to reason and split the difference backfire? Or worse, where concession is laughed at as weakness.

The second point concerns Israel in particular. We are 6.6 million people, toughened but pragmatic. At 8,020 square miles, we have an area 25% smaller than Maryland. The difference is that, unlike America's vast power, with oceans and peaceful neighbors on all sides, the Jewish state is surrounded on several sides with people who actually want to kill us. Not subdue us - destroy our country.

It would be convenient to think that this must be because of something we did. But Hamas and Hezbollah say it out loud and crystal clear. The "occupation" is the whole works. Their final solution is the total destruction of Israel. Iran, a member state of the UN, holds conferences called "A World Without Israel."

This is the backdrop against which most civilized countries would have us turn the other cheek. As social writer Eric Hoffer once said, "We really do expect the Jews to be the only good Christians in the world."

To put things in perspective, imagine, if you can, that Arlington lobbed 1,000 shells at Georgetown. Or sent suicide bombers. How exactly would you react? Imagine that Mexico was calling for the destruction of the United States, backing it up with cross-border raids and missiles.

The third point is that Israel already withdrew from every last inch of southern Lebanon and Gaza, as the international community demanded. But the provocations and terror - violence aimed intentionally against civilian targets - continued. This is why we entered this conflict. Enough is enough.

This is a horrible situation to be in, fighting Hezbollah behind its human shields. But before bombing southern Lebanon and the Hezbollah neighborhoods of Beirut, Israel dropped leaflets encouraging evacuation. Confronted with terrible choices, we are trying to fight while minimizing civilian casualties.

It was wishful thinking to hope that joining the government would make Hamas and Hezbollah more responsible. Sometimes putting the bully in charge of the playground works, and sometimes it doesn't.

The operative emotion in Israel right now is sadness, sadness for what is being done to us, sadness for what we must do to defend ourselves. The missiles shot at Haifa landed a few miles from the research labs of Intel, IBM, Microsoft and Google. Israelis would much rather continue working on desalination, stroke treatment, and alternative fuels (see www.israel21c.org). We would rather that our adversaries developed their own economies pragmatically.

We hate this conflict, but we will not commit suicide. As Golda Meir said, "We will have peace when our enemies love their children more than they hate ours."

My father was a survivor of Auschwitz and Buchenwald, was the most optimistic person I ever knew, but he once taught me, "Above all else, when someone threatens to kill you or your loved ones - just believe him!"

The lesson for America is simple. Do not hide from international responsibility. Do not assume the oceans offer protection. Iran is behind Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, and, of course, the insurgents in Iraq. If Iran gets nuclear bombs, do you want to bet they won't sponsor a radical Islamic group to eradicate American cities?

You want to know what Israelis are thinking? Theory and practice are intertwined. We are on the front line, but we will show patience and strength. That's why 89% of Israelis, Left, Right and Center, support the army right now. A mere 61 years and 10 weeks after V-E day, we know that evil and blind hatred exist. And that they can be beaten.

-- Bob Rosenschein is CEO of Answers.com (NASD:ANSW); he can be reached at rrosenschein at gmail.com; this piece reflects his own views

This post originally came from rishon-rishon.com and is also featured on The Washington Post.

On the Horizon

So it looks like war is on the horizon or at least that's what the American news is making the developing situation seem to be. Katusha's in Haifa and Sfat. I can hardly believe that the day came so quickly when that sentence is true.

Since I wrote the previous post Hizbu'allah (after threatening just that they're not denying it) has escalated the violence. What else can Israel do but attack? Yet the UN, the EU, and the Japanese Prime Minister are telling Israel to be careful. Right, if those North Korean rockets landed in Japan I doubt the Japanese would be restraining themselves.

It seems that Iran is more likely to be behind this Hizbu'allah attack then Assad. Or maybe it's Iran through Assad but either way Matt may have been correct.