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.

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?

Al Gore: Soothsayer of Truth...

Al Gore: Soothsayer of Truth...
by Michelle Kraus

The debacle of the Scooter Libby conviction and sentence commutation further "assaults" our Democracy

The popularity of Barack Obama finally makes sense after this week's Scooter Libby events. Al Gore is right again. There is an "assault on reason." We are living in a country starved for a vision: one of democracy and hope.

The stage is set for Barack Obama: Speaker for the Gospel of Hope. He speaks the words that call the discouraged and disheartened to contribute to him empowered to hope one more time. His voice has truly become the Voice of Hope, as Al Gore's is the Voice of Reason. It is in this context that his broad popularity finally makes sense. His words nourish those starving for these words.

As we listen to these two great men, a possible and hopeful future takes shape in stark contrast to the bleak and amoral present -- an America whose people are reeling from the daily "assaults" on our morality from the war on the Constitution and, in particular, our Constitutional rights, or the insane war on terror with its huge daily costs in green dollars and spilled red blood.

Democrats and Republicans alike, now is the time for you to stand up and speak the Truth from your hearts and minds. The only candidate to talk about the loss of the Constitution in the last series of debates was Senator Chris Dodd.

Where were you all before this week?

Inspire. Give voice to those who hunger for it.

Bring power back to the American people. Let them believe again!

It is time to hear all the voices of the Democratic candidates for President and for the media to encourage them to be heard.

It time for our candidates to stop politicking and posturing, and talk to the American people. Give them a vision. Give them hope. Show them the roadmap back to prosperity. Return their dignity.

Why is Obama the only one who has figured out how to give voice to the thirst of the American people for what is truly "right"?

Why is Ann Coulter still on the air? She's a purposeful and inflammatory distraction.

Are we missing the basics or being so distracted that the people are not really hearing the voices of Senator Hillary Clinton, former Senator John Edwards, Governor Bill Richardson, Senator Joe Biden, Senator Chris Dodd and all of the others?

Alas, why is Gore still the only soothsayer of the truth?

That's really it for me; America has lost it's vision. We've been lead astray - unpurposefully IMO - by Presidents, unmotivated Congressman, and even political commentators. I don't necessarily think that Obama is the hope that America needs, but that's only one small facet of her column. The crazy thing is that a first term Senator from Illinois is one of the two frontrunner's for the Democratic ticket.

All I know is this, with the current state of affairs in the US, it's time for a change. I don't care if you like Hillary or not, but if she's elected it will be 28 years of Bush-Clinton rule. America doesn't need that.

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.

Michael Moore's new film SiCKO

Visual Vendetta has Michael Moore's new film online so you can view it here.

It boggles my mind why we can't have Socialized Health care. I think Moore's point is long overdue. Al Gore after you're done with The Assault on Reason do you think you can take on American and give us real democracy - a democratic health care?

I'm moving to Israel and as a non-citizen I have to pay for health care - $1 a day. That's insane. My wife and I pay over $200 a month. Do that math. I pay nearly $4 a day in the US and still have deductibles and co-pays; all in a country that I'm a taxpaying citizen of.

I'm not some crazy socialist, in fact I have arguments with my Marxist kibbutznik cousins all the time, but democratic health care seems like a basic human right to me.

No health care system is going to be perfect; it can't be. But after needing an emergency room visit on the second day of Shavuot for an infection I shouldn't have to pay hundreds of dollars after I pay my monthly bill.

Watch the movie. It's well worth your time.

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.

On the Libby Verdict

Scooter Libby has been sentenced to 30 months in jail and fined $250,000 for lying under oath to a Grand Jury. I've been reading the newspaper and listening to the radio and I've heard some really disturbing notions. One, the verdict is not harsh enough. Two, that Bush should pardon him.

The case revolves around the leaking of a CIA operatives name to the press and a cover up of the leak. Some commentators would like Libby to serve a life sentence or to be hung for treason. I don't understand what people can't get their heads around - he was not charged nor convicted of treason. He lied to FBI Investigators and the Grand Jury. 30 Months is a lot of jail time - a lot more time than other similar cases that have happened in the past.

My disdain for Bush would grow tremendously if the President pardoned Libby. Presidential pardons can happen for any number of reasons, usually for some failing of the judicial system or other external factors. Libby was trying to protect the Vice President and lied to do so. It would reek of partisan corruption for Bush to pardon or otherwise commute the sentence. For the health of the nation and our ability to re-instill trust in our Government I truly hope Bush will ignore the Libby's pleads for a pardon.

Al Gore and Why I'd Vote for Him

I was too young to vote in the 2000 Presidential Election but I do remember liking Gore much more than Bush, I don't remember why. What I do remember is thinking that Bush was acting like a whiny 7 year old in contesting the election. That is the past - and I haven't really checked up on Al Gore's actually politics but my initial reaction is that America needs a President who is
1. Presidential
2. Articulate
3. Well Read
4. Trustworthy

For the most part American Politicians have been sorely lacking in these fields for some time. We have a few in the past 40 years that hit on most of these but not all. My gut reaction when I think of Al Gore and the image he's presented himself in the past eight years is all of these things.

I'd almost vote for him on that basis alone. I never expect to find a faultless politician and attempts at mudslinging are just foolish. We are human, not perfect, why do we expect that our leaders are faultless? What we do/should expect from our leaders is that they exemplify what we try to be. We deserve a President who tries his best to do the difficult job a head of him with the most common sense. It isn't a Republican vs. Democrat issue here for me, I'd be just as likely to vote for a Republican fulfilling all of these criteria as a Democrat.

On a side note, I have a relative who has started a "Write in Al Gore" blog.

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

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.

David Brown goes back to work

Thanks to the enormous outpouring of support for David, Towson University reached an agreement with him to allow him to return to work as a University Police Officer. If you don't live in the Baltimore/DC area you probably haven't heard about him, and if you do I'd be shocked if you haven't.

David Brown has been in the Jewish Times, Campus Newspapers, Local TV, and on the radio. The Jewish community put aside their differences and came out and supported him and forced Towson to rethink their strategy.

Here's the Baltimore Sun's article:

But while Brown was celebrating the Sabbath, he was also missing shifts with the Towson University police department. In a dispute that inspired protests and petitions from students, Brown accused the school of religious discrimination, while the school suspended him from his job.

Yesterday, a day before a hearing that Brown feared would have led to his termination, he reached an agreement with the university. Although supervisors will still assign Brown to work during the Sabbath, they will give him more freedom to find other officers to cover his shifts, and even allow him to skip some.

Towson is allowed to save face though Brown does not get everything he wanted and deserved it's still a win in his eyes. It's times like these when I see communal support that books like Jew Vs. Jew are not 100% accurate. Jews are still - despite their religious, political, philosophical differences - Jews, willing to help each other out when it's necessary.

Jack Abramoff starts his prison sentence

CNN is reporting that Jack Abramoff started his six-year prison sentence today:

CUMBERLAND, Maryland (AP) -- Disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, convicted of federal charges after using expensive gifts, campaign donations and exotic trips to win access to the powerful in Washington, went to prison Wednesday.

Abramoff arrived at about 6:30 a.m. EST at a relatively secluded prison facility in western Maryland and began to serve a nearly six-year prison sentence for a fraudulent deal to buy a fleet of casino ships in Florida.

Abramoff was delivered out of sight of waiting reporters and camera crews and his arrival was announced in a two-paragraph statement by a prison representative.

The part of the camp where Abramoff will be kept is a 334-bed minimum security facility located near an industrial park along the north branch of the Potomac River.

The camp is all male. It consists of a number of two-story dormitories that are light red cinderblock structures. Each dormitory contains a number of six-bed cubicles, and Abramoff was being assigned to one of those. The prison is nearly surrounded by Appalachian Mountain ridges rising along either bank of the Potomac on the Maryland and West Virginia sides of the river.

A friend of mine recently spent Shabbos with then and had nothing but rave reviews of Jack and his family - he was quite pleased with the food. To Jack, I hope you will come out of this a better man.

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.

The Conservative Movement and Homosexuality

In March the Committee for Jewish Laws and Standards (CJLS) of the Conservative Movement postponed their decision on the allowance of Homosexuality in the movement to December. I posted a few times previously regarding my feelings on the issue (here, here, and here).

In deference to a few former roommates and friends that currently attend JTS (one of whom is a very outspoken supporter of the proposal) I try to be as civil as I can. In short I think the issue is very clear: accepting Gays and Lesbians into Rabbinic positions is tantamount to rewriting the Torah.

I re-stumbled across KeshetJTS's website (the Pro-Gay group at JTS) and noticed this article entitled: Does the Old Testament Really Condemn Homosexuality? by Rabbi Michele Brand Medwin of Binghamton, NY.

Quoting the obvious psukim (Vayikra 18:22 etc.) she looks at how the word Toeva (abhorrence) is used in other contexts. They all seem to deal with Avoda Zara. Since, she concludes, "Homosexuality was used as a pagan ritual. God was not condemning the act of homosexuality itself. God was condemning the pagan ritual act of homosexuality and all that is associated with it." But the homosexual act is actually allowed according to Brand.

"In today’s world this prohibition now has no meaning. We are no longer threatened by Canaanite pagan religion and homosexuality today is not a pagan ritual. Homosexuality in Biblical terms is no longer an issue for us today."

I'm sure it's clear that I think she's completely off base here, but this has always been the problem of finding Ta'amei HaMitzvot (reasons for the commandments) - once you "find" the reason, if it no longer applies then what good is it? As was pointed out to me once (maybe in the name of Rav Hirsch) that Ta'amei Hamitzvot really should be translated as flavors of the Commandments. Instead of trying to figure out what God was commanding this for, we've come to understand what the mitzvah means to us. A subtle but importance difference.

Rabbi Brand believes she's figured it all out, and in only four pages too, something that no other Torah scholar in the previous three thousand plus years has been able to do either. Sorry for the sarcasm, but I don't know how else to react.

NJ Rules in favor of Gay Marriages

CNN is reporting that the New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that the state must change its laws within six-months to provide for same sex marriages.

TRENTON, New Jersey (CNN) -- In a decision likely to stoke the contentious election-year debate over same-sex marriage, the New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that state lawmakers must provide the rights and benefits of marriage to gay and lesbian couples.

The high court on Wednesday gave legislators six months to either change state marriage laws to include same-sex couples, or come up with another mechanism, such as civil unions, that would provide the same protections and benefits.

The court's vote was 4-to-3. But the ruling was more strongly in favor of same-sex marriage than that split would indicate. The three dissenting justices argued the court should have extended full marriage rights to homosexuals, without kicking the issue back to legislators.

I'm not going to get into a Halachic debate on this one, but rather that I 100% support this decision. It's clear what the Torah's position is on homosexuality and studies showing that kids need a mother and a father don't really matter in this debate - this is about the law.

Reread the second paragraph from the article. New Jersey must create same sex marriages or "come up with another mechanism, such as civil unions, that would provide the same protections and benefits." This is the position that I've been advocating for years. Marriage, I believe, can only be between a man and a woman but in a society that has removed the inherent religiosity from the equation by allowing a Justice of the Peace to marry two people then we must allow same sex unions - Civil Unions - to include homosexual couples.

I also believe that this is fundamentally a state's rights issue and that a state (e.g. Texas) does not have to allow these unions if the legislature and judiciary decide not to. But - in defiance of the Defense of Marriage Act - I do not believe that states can ignore the Constitutional Full Faith and Credit clause. That law - signed by Clinton in 1996 - is wrong and should never have been allowed to pass. Where's Judicial Review when you need it?

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.

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.