The Best Dvar Torah I've Heard Yet
This past Shabbat I was in Scottsdale, Arizona, a suburb of Phoenix, which I spent with my sister's to-be fiance's family. I was sitting in the back of the shul across the street from their house (I always like to sit in the back for some reason) when one of the Rabbi's step-father gave an amazing dvar Torah, which with his permission I will try to recapture here. This is the summary:
Every week Jews read a section of the Torah in chronological order. The section comes from the first five books of the Torah and each section is assigned a parallel section from the Writings and Prophets (the latter two sections of the Tanakh, Jewish Bible), which are called "Haftarah." The assignment is based on a similar ideological subject matter. The rabbi touched on many political issues applying to us today and it is rare that I hear political issues being brought up in a dvar, at least not this openly.
One of the verses in the Haftarah of the past Shabbat very relevantly reads, with the words of G-d, "U'levanon ein day ba'er," which means "The Lebanon is insufficient kindling" and can also be read "Lebanon is not burning enough." (Isaiah 40:16) Lebanon is full of cedars, of which the Torah speaks about sporadically. In King David's Psalm 29, it says, "The voice of Hashem is majesty! The voice of Hashem breaks the cedars of Lebanon! He makes them prance about like a calf; Lebanon and Siryon (Syria) like young 're'eimim (probably a one-horned animal, but maybe a type of other animal)! The voice of Hashem cleaves with shafts of fire!"
We look at what's going on in Lebanon right now, but in the Haftarah that corresponds exactly with this point in time reads "The Lebanon is insufficient kindling." In the words of the Rabbi whom gave the dvar, if we do not understand that this is blatantly related to what's occuring now in Lebanon, we are "spiritually hearing impaired." Mind you, every week we read from the next section in the Torah and this was just happened to be this week's section.
Hezba-llah wants a ceasefire, they want the fire to cease. But not just the external fire, they want the internal fire, the fire inside that the Jews possess, to cease, they want our fire to cease.
He then mentioned that in the upcoming sections, we see that Moshe (Moses) is punished and is not allowed to step foot into Israel. He pleads with G-d to be let in but G-d still says no. The rabbi asked the question, "Why would Moshe, who's had the closest relationship to G-d that any human has, want even more and to be let into Israel, the land to which he brought the Jews? What more spirituality could he want than that of the relationship he has with G-d, which was "face to Face?" In the Parsha (section) it says that he wants to see "Levanon." The Midrash (commentary) says that "Levanon," sharing a root with "lavan," (white) here refers to the site of the Temple, which whitens our sins. Why did he want to see that site? Because he knows that the Temple is the bridge, the connecting point, between Heaven and Earth. Moses was the representation of the bridge between Heaven and Earth through the close contact he had with G-d, Whom told him the Torah directly. Moses wanted to see the essence of that connecting place, which was the site of the Temple in Jerusalem, but was not allowed to.
Moses knew, and Israel's current neighbors know, that Jerusalem stands for the connection between Heaven and Earth, and it is this, not a Palestinian state, which they want. In 1995 Israel, under Ehud Barak, wanted to give Yasser Arafat 90% of the land he wanted to make a Palestinian state, from which Arafat walked away. The Palestinians said that they wanted a united Jerusalem as their capital. So Barak offered East Jerusalem, which Arafat refused because he wanted all of Jerusalem. So Barak offered the upper section of the site of the Temple and Israel could have the lower section, but Arafat refused because he wanted the entire section, so the deal was called off. This was "Oslo." Arafat turned down a Palestinian state, which would have given the Palestinians a state (and alleviated their suffering) but he refused because of the issue of Jerusalem. He rather have no state for his people than to have a state without the entirety of Jerusalem as it's capital, and that's the truth.
Why? Because the Muslims are very similar to the Jews religiously. We both know that our actions and our soul are connected. One religion (and this is how the Rabbi put it, not naming the religion) believes that the soul and the body are totally unconnected, or should be unconnected. The joys of the body are deemed evil and from Satan and the joys of the soul are deemed from G-d, therefore they must refrain from the joys of the body. The Muslims however are like the Jews in this sense, they understand that the joys of the body and of the soul are related and connected. That is why they want Jerusalem, because they understand that the Temple is the site of the connection where Heaven meets Earth.
So what is the difference between us and them if that's how similarly we view things? The answer is that Muslims want to bring the Earth up to Heaven, which explains the seventy two virgins, but Jews want to bring Heaven down to Earth, which explains the rebuilding of the Temple.
This is why Jews are at the front line of a battle, and not necessarily a physical battle. It is the battle to bring Heaven down to Earth and therefore Israel, and Jerusalem, is at the center of our battle. This is why we are ecstatic and rejoice when good and holy things occur in Israel and why we are hurt and grieve when tragedy occurs there, because we are Jews and are connected to Jerusalem in this way, here in America and everywhere.
The Rabbi also mentioned that he went on a trip one time but deliberately didn't know where he was going. He bought a ticket and only found out the destination once he was on the plane. He went with no money and no food and had to find out, once he got there, how to obtain kosher food and where to stay, etc... The point is that he was trying to remove himself from his sphere of comfort because one grows an incredible amount when they are removed from that sphere. Everybody has a different sphere of comfort, but the battle of the Jewish people is to step out of that sphere of comfort, which for many Jews means mitzvahs, the commandments in the Torah, and to grow from stepping out of it. That is the front line of the battle of the Jewish people.
Mind you, the Muslims have this fire inside them; they understand that that line is the front line of the battle, and like I told my friend, Rotem, that same Shabbat, it is not like we have to be like the Muslims with their fire, it is actually that we did have that fire before them and we just forgot how to have it. The Israelites whom fought for Israel when the Temple was standing, they had that fire. It is not uniquely and solely a Muslim thing, and we say that we do not want to be like our enemies, but it is par excellence a Jewish thing to have that fire! We do not need to learn it from them, they need to learn it from us! The only difference between our fire and their fire is that, excellently put by the Rabbi, we have the fire to bring Heaven down to Earth, while Muslims want to bring Earth up to Heaven. The fire can burn strong and bright but not be murderous; that is our type of fire, a holy fire.
G-d says that "Lebanon is not sufficient kindling," and the fire will continue to burn until G-d decides that it is enough. We are in our Father's Hands now, thank G-d.
** My aside; a year ago, almost to the day (if not the day) occurred the Gaza Pullout where Israel pulled out settlements from Israeli territory in the Gaza Strip - the punishment is terrorism, for it was from the Gaza Strip where the three Jewish soldiers were captured. Had Israel not given them that land it would have not become the security risk that it did, and had it not become the security risk that it did, the terrorists from the Gaza Strip would have not kidnapped the Jewish soldiers, and had they not kidnapped the Jewish soldiers, Israel would not have asked for them back, and had not Israel asked for them back, Hezba-llah would have not said "no," and had not Hezba-llah said "no," Israel would have not attacked Lebanon and the situation that we are seeing today would have not have happened. But "dayeinu," that would have been sufficient for us! This is how the Gaza Pullout was the indirect/direct cause of Israel's bombing of Lebanon. G-d does what He wants and obviously this is G-d's will.
That date (the Pullout and the Kidnapping a year later) was also Tisha B'Av, the date of the destruction of both the first and second Temple, which Jews commemorate by fasting and reading Eicha, or Lamentations; the Prophet Jeremiah's account of the destruction. How is this related to Lebanon? Hezba-llah won't release the Jewish prisoners until Israel trades thousands of terrorists from Israeli prisons. Hashem's voice speaking? Absolutely. We give G-d's Holy Land to the people who want to dominate Israel and they rise up against us. The pullout was also global in scope, for Katrina hit right after the pullout, and just like innocent Jews in Israel were left homeless (and some are still living in refugee tents), thousands of innocent Americans were left homeless (and still are) in Louisianna. When G-d wants something to happen, it happens, as it says in Psalm 29, "The voice of Hashem frightens the hinds, and strips the forests bare; while in His Temple all proclaim, 'Glory!' Hashem sat enthroned at the Deluge; Hashem sits enthroned as King forever. Hashem will give might to His people, Hashem will bless His people with peace." Note: peace is the product of Israel's might; what is the product of Islam's might?
**I used to be a big-time Bob Marley fan. Marley says something amazing in his song "Ride Natty Ride." He says, "No judgement can ever be with water. No water can put out this fire." Years ago in high school before I became observant, this statement rang to me as being "Jewish."
Monday, August 07, 2006
I just want to ensure everybody that Islam is actually a religion of peace but that it is being hijacked by extremists, such as these. Of course, these people and their ideas have nothing to do with real Islam, they are the silent, marginal, extremist minority and the rest of the Muslim community actually shuns them. The Temple Mount that the Ummayad Muslim Dynasty built on top of the site of the Temple holy to Jews in Jerusalem in 715 has nothing to do with real Islam; it was Muslim radicals that built it there. That Islam deems Judaism to be a surpassed religion therefore foreclosing all rights to Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel has nothing to do with real Islam but rather with its extremist counterpart. That Arabs and Muslims want to see the creation of a Palestinian state with the entirety of Jerusalem as its capital is really an ideology composed up of the extremist elements in Islam; it is not the real Muslims that want Jerusalem to be the capital of a Palestinian state. The real Muslims want to see Jewish sovereignty flourish within the State of Israel, enabling Jews full rights to their holiest site (the “Jewish equivalent” of Mecca) and to worship their G-d freely there, the same G-d Whom is known as “A-llah” in Arabic. The real Muslims know that Jews are people that honestly and truly worship G-d in the manner told to them by G-d in the Torah and that the site of the Temple in Jerusalem is the site of the holiest “transaction” in the entire world, where Heaven meets Earth. The real Muslims don’t want to see the creation of a Palestinian state, much less with Jerusalem as its capital (for the aforementioned reasons) because they know that it will be an obstacle to the fulfillment of the Torah’s prophecies concerning the Redemption of the entire world and its entire inhabitants. It is the extremists that want to see the destruction of the State of Israel, not the general Muslim population in accordance with the Qur’anic teachings of Islam. They are the loud minority, while the real Muslims are the ever-silent and invisible majority.
And on another topic, Orthodox Jews have sex through a hole in a sheet: not true, but very indicative of childish bias. Whoever wrote this also gave it an awesome title.
Rudolph, you're fired!
And on another topic, Orthodox Jews have sex through a hole in a sheet: not true, but very indicative of childish bias. Whoever wrote this also gave it an awesome title.
Rudolph, you're fired!
Friday, August 04, 2006
Just some concepts that ran through my mind on the drive up from Tucson to Phoenix with my sister, where I'll be spending Shabbat with her, her fiance (my friend), and his family.
Everything humanity creates is in its own image. Two good examples are cars and computers. We make cars in the image of our bodies; the parts and liquids in the car are parallels to our organs and the fluids in our body, which the organs need to function, or to function well. A car's body is very much like the human body, which is probably why it's called a "body." Since the human body is so universal to humanity, and we have a hard time thinking outside the norm of the body (and don't need really), we create cars (and other things) in our image.
This goes for computers are well, which are fashioned after our brains. A computer, like a human brain, is able to store, retrieve, recollect, and recognize information. It's no wonder that we began to make the computer only once we started to understand how the human brain functions.
The real question is how we explain the mind, which is associated with but not entirely inseparable from the brain, for if the brain and mind were totally connected to each other then by simply making a brain we would also happen to be making a mind. But the reality of the matter is that we have not created a mind, i.e., a consciousness, by creating and attaching the physical parts that make up a computer. Granted, a computer has a sort of "consciousness" if we consider that we give it commands, which it recognizes and then follows. However, this is merely rule-following, and it is the same set of rule-following that causes a rock to break when you smash it against the ground, yet can we say that just because the rock is following rules (of physics) that it possesses a consciousness? If it had a consciousness then we would be forced to conclude that we could throw a rock against the ground and in the event the rock did not want to follow the rules (of physics) that it could fight against the rules and keep itself from breaking completely, or if it was an experienced rock it could keep itself from breaking altogether. If a rock had consciousness it could resist the rules. However since this is not the case we know that simple rule-following is not indicative whatsoever of consciousness, and therefore we must conclude that there is more to a mind than intelligence. What this means is that there is much more to creating a mind than creating a functioning, thinking brain (which is what a computer is).
When we turn this question to ourselves, we are forced to ponder the existence of our own consciousness. We have a brain, that is clear, but does the existence of a brain necessitate the existence of our mind, i.e., our consciousness? Like I demonstrated, a brain, like the computer created in its image, has no consciousness and simply follows a set of rules, although in the brain's case the rules are much more intricate and complex. This is moot though, a brain does what it is "told to do." If you pick up a hot potatoe your brain will tell your hand to move your fingers so that you drop it. This happens against your will, and in reality without the knowledge of your will; it happens before your mind, your consciousness, has processed the event. What this means is that your brain is acting without your mind and that your mind and your brain are seperate entities.
To demonstrate it more simply, if you removed a brain from a head, it would clearly not have a consciousness of its own; it would be reduced to a fleshy organ not much different than a liver or a piece of muscle, incapable of functioning outside of its attachment to the rest of the body. It just so happens that the brain is the organ upon which all other organs rely on for functioning, but in the end it too is just a piece of meat. The most amazing thing about the brain is that it is a piece of meat able to hold information. Nevertheless, in all its amazing ability, and it is truly amazing, the brain cannot explain the human consciousness. It might be possible that the brain's ability to place a person in a three dimensional setting, i.e., situates the person in the world, is not much different from its ability to make fingers drop a hot potatoe; both are indications that the brain recognizes external stimuli.
But even if we were to concede this, the brain's functioning cannot account for the notion of the meaning of self. It also can't account for philosophy or thoughts about the world external to the external world (the spiritual world), unless of course we assume that the world external to the external world, i.e., the spiritual world, is a world that affects the human being as much as or more than the physical world. Since the reality of the self is almost like navigating a terrain, we have to wonder how it is the brain that is able to, through the sum of its parts, create an identity, a mind. Try to locate your mind; where in you is your mind? Is it in your head, your brain? Or maybe your heart, or a different organ in the body? If you look around enough you'll realize that your mind is not located anywhere specific in your body, but rather, you are your mind.
The spiritual world is a reality that affects the human being in a relevant way, the brain actually contains an area designed to be receptive to activity in that external area, and that "section" of the brain is the mind.
Everything humanity creates is in its own image. Two good examples are cars and computers. We make cars in the image of our bodies; the parts and liquids in the car are parallels to our organs and the fluids in our body, which the organs need to function, or to function well. A car's body is very much like the human body, which is probably why it's called a "body." Since the human body is so universal to humanity, and we have a hard time thinking outside the norm of the body (and don't need really), we create cars (and other things) in our image.
This goes for computers are well, which are fashioned after our brains. A computer, like a human brain, is able to store, retrieve, recollect, and recognize information. It's no wonder that we began to make the computer only once we started to understand how the human brain functions.
The real question is how we explain the mind, which is associated with but not entirely inseparable from the brain, for if the brain and mind were totally connected to each other then by simply making a brain we would also happen to be making a mind. But the reality of the matter is that we have not created a mind, i.e., a consciousness, by creating and attaching the physical parts that make up a computer. Granted, a computer has a sort of "consciousness" if we consider that we give it commands, which it recognizes and then follows. However, this is merely rule-following, and it is the same set of rule-following that causes a rock to break when you smash it against the ground, yet can we say that just because the rock is following rules (of physics) that it possesses a consciousness? If it had a consciousness then we would be forced to conclude that we could throw a rock against the ground and in the event the rock did not want to follow the rules (of physics) that it could fight against the rules and keep itself from breaking completely, or if it was an experienced rock it could keep itself from breaking altogether. If a rock had consciousness it could resist the rules. However since this is not the case we know that simple rule-following is not indicative whatsoever of consciousness, and therefore we must conclude that there is more to a mind than intelligence. What this means is that there is much more to creating a mind than creating a functioning, thinking brain (which is what a computer is).
When we turn this question to ourselves, we are forced to ponder the existence of our own consciousness. We have a brain, that is clear, but does the existence of a brain necessitate the existence of our mind, i.e., our consciousness? Like I demonstrated, a brain, like the computer created in its image, has no consciousness and simply follows a set of rules, although in the brain's case the rules are much more intricate and complex. This is moot though, a brain does what it is "told to do." If you pick up a hot potatoe your brain will tell your hand to move your fingers so that you drop it. This happens against your will, and in reality without the knowledge of your will; it happens before your mind, your consciousness, has processed the event. What this means is that your brain is acting without your mind and that your mind and your brain are seperate entities.
To demonstrate it more simply, if you removed a brain from a head, it would clearly not have a consciousness of its own; it would be reduced to a fleshy organ not much different than a liver or a piece of muscle, incapable of functioning outside of its attachment to the rest of the body. It just so happens that the brain is the organ upon which all other organs rely on for functioning, but in the end it too is just a piece of meat. The most amazing thing about the brain is that it is a piece of meat able to hold information. Nevertheless, in all its amazing ability, and it is truly amazing, the brain cannot explain the human consciousness. It might be possible that the brain's ability to place a person in a three dimensional setting, i.e., situates the person in the world, is not much different from its ability to make fingers drop a hot potatoe; both are indications that the brain recognizes external stimuli.
But even if we were to concede this, the brain's functioning cannot account for the notion of the meaning of self. It also can't account for philosophy or thoughts about the world external to the external world (the spiritual world), unless of course we assume that the world external to the external world, i.e., the spiritual world, is a world that affects the human being as much as or more than the physical world. Since the reality of the self is almost like navigating a terrain, we have to wonder how it is the brain that is able to, through the sum of its parts, create an identity, a mind. Try to locate your mind; where in you is your mind? Is it in your head, your brain? Or maybe your heart, or a different organ in the body? If you look around enough you'll realize that your mind is not located anywhere specific in your body, but rather, you are your mind.
The spiritual world is a reality that affects the human being in a relevant way, the brain actually contains an area designed to be receptive to activity in that external area, and that "section" of the brain is the mind.
(Very) Old News
Pictures from the Gaza Pullout. Sure, extremists are extremists, some of you might say, and that's fine, I won't argue that; some of these Jews here were definitely extremists. I am just proud the way our extremists act in relation to that of the Palestinians, and I also think that our cause is much more worthy. Most of these pictures are amazing, but there are a couple that just give you chills, such as the older woman asking the line of Israeli soldiers why they were making them leave.
Look at her, she's Mizrachi (a Middle Eastern Jew) and probably just some 50 years ago an Arab government made her leave the Arab country in which she lived, now she has to move again to make room for Arab Palestinians.
Some of them make you angry, like seeing the line of Israeli soldiers protecting the Palestinian house - Palestinians, that's what a true free and open government looks like!
And some make my heart warm and wish that I had been there but also upset me, such as this one. Nevertheless, this is exactly the way a just and proper government deals with internal dissidents, even if the action is improper, and this is exactly the humane way for a dissident to behave towards a member of the State; this picture makes me proud to belong to the Jewish people and to Israel!
And then you have touching ones, which give you a feeling you can't explain, like this soldier who had to evict his friend.
A very complex picture; one soldier comforting another who is emotionally distraught during the pullout. Perhaps she sympathizes with the settlers. Perhaps she knows some. Perhaps she was mistreated by them. Perhaps she agrees with them but has to serve her country. Perhaps she understands that Israeli history is Jewish history. Perhaps she doesn't like to see people cry.
The men have their issues as well.
Some Nachman Chassidim making the best of the situation; another reason I am proud to be Jewish.
Sometimes Jews throw rocks too.
Interesting statement.
Understanding.
Who knows what's going through this kid's mind?
A picture that might as well be from the pages of the Tanakh (Jewish Bible) during time of internal strife in the Jewish monarchies or during exiles. Again, gives you a real grasp of our history.
Reading T'hillim (Psalms).
*Disclaimer: if you are a person who is of the opinion that this is happening because we haven't accepted Jesus, you need to rethink all of your paradigms on existence.
Pictures from the Gaza Pullout. Sure, extremists are extremists, some of you might say, and that's fine, I won't argue that; some of these Jews here were definitely extremists. I am just proud the way our extremists act in relation to that of the Palestinians, and I also think that our cause is much more worthy. Most of these pictures are amazing, but there are a couple that just give you chills, such as the older woman asking the line of Israeli soldiers why they were making them leave.
Look at her, she's Mizrachi (a Middle Eastern Jew) and probably just some 50 years ago an Arab government made her leave the Arab country in which she lived, now she has to move again to make room for Arab Palestinians.
Some of them make you angry, like seeing the line of Israeli soldiers protecting the Palestinian house - Palestinians, that's what a true free and open government looks like!
And some make my heart warm and wish that I had been there but also upset me, such as this one. Nevertheless, this is exactly the way a just and proper government deals with internal dissidents, even if the action is improper, and this is exactly the humane way for a dissident to behave towards a member of the State; this picture makes me proud to belong to the Jewish people and to Israel!
And then you have touching ones, which give you a feeling you can't explain, like this soldier who had to evict his friend.
A very complex picture; one soldier comforting another who is emotionally distraught during the pullout. Perhaps she sympathizes with the settlers. Perhaps she knows some. Perhaps she was mistreated by them. Perhaps she agrees with them but has to serve her country. Perhaps she understands that Israeli history is Jewish history. Perhaps she doesn't like to see people cry.
The men have their issues as well.
Some Nachman Chassidim making the best of the situation; another reason I am proud to be Jewish.
Sometimes Jews throw rocks too.
Interesting statement.
Understanding.
Who knows what's going through this kid's mind?
A picture that might as well be from the pages of the Tanakh (Jewish Bible) during time of internal strife in the Jewish monarchies or during exiles. Again, gives you a real grasp of our history.
Reading T'hillim (Psalms).
*Disclaimer: if you are a person who is of the opinion that this is happening because we haven't accepted Jesus, you need to rethink all of your paradigms on existence.
Nasra-llah Getting Ready to Throw in the Towel
Nasra-llah is so predictable. He attacked Israel without thinking that they would have a strong reaction. He thought that they would be bullied into peace talks, which are to no avail with terrorist groups like Hezba-llah (and Hamas). He was caught off guard big time when Israel started launching missiles like crazy, but his war face had already been put on and he had to continue fighting lest he look like a weak loser and be ousted by terrorists more extreme than him (this is a great way to end your career and is a terrorist's worst dream). He held on as long as he could, and still is, perhaps thinking that international pressure or Israeli desires to negotiate would cause the bombing to stop and allow him to continue his own bombing. Tonight I saw that Nasra-llah had said that he will continue to bomb Israel, but said immediately after that he will stop bombing cities and towns if Israel does. It would be damaging to his career to go out without a bang, so he had to get one last threat in there before getting in his request for the bombings to stop. Rule number one with Arab terrorists; don't believe the hype. The news also said that Iran has asked him to cease firing. Perhaps the Arab states have a say in this pressure, or perhaps the death count in Lebanon has finally gotten high enough for him to call it off. In other words, he is saying "Please stop bombing us," his bluff has reached its end.
Or has it? This could also be a part of his lying campaign; once Israel stops, he might start up again (although that would be extremely stupid but let's not overestimate this terrorist). Israel says that it won't pull its ground troops out of southern Lebanon (they have reached the Litani River, relatively north) until the UN steps in to fill the vaccuum that they'll leave. One potential problem with the UN solution; it's peacekeepers are not allowed to fire, which in effect makes their presence symbolic and not very useful, and this would mean that the UN is not a solution. It might even mean that the UN peacekeepers will be attacked by Hezba-llah and will have to leave. All in all, if the UN goes in there it better have some bite or the fighting will continue; sometimes peacekeepers have to fight too. There is no way to predict for sure what will happen when and if the UN goes in there, but there was an instance three years ago when Hezba-llah kindnapped three different Israeli soldiers and the UN peacekeepers were filmed reportedly allowing Hezba-llah fighters to put the soldiers in a van and to drive away.
People were beginning to get antsy with and crictical of Israel's bombing in Lebanon but I said then that it had to continue and eventually Nasra-llah's bluff would be called and he would back out, and tonight that began to occur.
My mom, a native of Israel and raised there, seems to dish up some amazingly accurate analyses of Israeli politics, and she is not a student of politics or extremely interested in it. Rather, she has been through the '56, '67, '73, and '82 wars with Egypt ('56), Egypt, Syria, and Jordan ('67), Egypt ('73), and Lebanon ('82) respectively and also served for three years when she turned 18, like all Israeli's. She just got back here after moving back to Israel following my parents' divorce about a year ago for my sister's wedding (in two weeks, todah la'Kel). She said that Israel made a mistake with Lebanon; every two years or so they bomb Lebanon so that they can't load up on their stockpile of weapons; this time around they went six years without doing that and this is the result. What? She's been counting the years? Is the two year period that reliable? Turns out that my mom has been internally waiting for the two-year period, like some kind of barometer -- I pail in comparison to the coolness of my mom. She's not even rightwing but rather quite apolitical, but she has been though four wars with the Arab states starting with the year of her birth. She also said that the border with Lebanon and even with Gaza used to be such a safe border (I visited it with my family when I was thirteen) and shows that Israel has "been sleeping" due to the fact that Hezba-llah was able to snatch a soldier after crossing that border and the blue line. She said the same about Gaza. Yashar ko'ach, Mom, and yasar ko'ach G-d for listening to my prayers this Tisha B'Av and before, which were as follows:
Please let this be the last war and let the Meshiach come.
Let all our soldiers come back safely.
Put your Hand on the innocent Lebanese.
Kill the members of Hezba-llah.
May Israel continue to bomb Lebanon until Nasra-llah backs down, no ceasefire and no listening to useless criticism.
May Nasra-llah die quickly.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Car Accidents
I'm driving down the street and I run a red light but get through safely. A cop pulls me over and I get a ticket and a court date. When I arrive in court the judge pardons me for my illegal infraction. The next week I speed down the street fifteen miles per hour over the speed limit. A cop pulls me over gives me a ticket and I get a court date. I arrive in court and the judge pardons my illegal infraction. The next week I am speeding by fifteen miles an hour and run a red light at the same time but get through safely. A cop pulls me over and gives me a ticket and a court date. I arrive in court and the judge pardons me for my illegal infraction.
You see, the man sitting in the corner of the court, he's my friend and he has the insides with the judge, they're real good friends, in fact they're even family. I look over and give a wink to my friend 'cuz he has an agreement with the judge, who is his father, and the judge pardons me. It works every time. I leave the court and as I'm pulling out of my spot, some guy hits me with his car! A cop happens to be nearby and he sees that the guy is clearly at fault, so he gives him a ticket and a court date. Later I find out that the judge pardoned him too, I guess the guy who hit me knows my friend too. Man, that guy in the corner of the courtroom is real friendly! Perhaps too friendly 'cuz now I gotta deal with this car accident.
Later I find out that the man in the corner of the room has some real power because his dad, the judge, has got some real power in the city I live in. My friend decided that he's gonna take away all the red lights, all the speed limit signs, and all the lines on the road; ya'll can do whatever you want as long as you show love to the other people on the road, like letting 'em pass you when they're in a hurry. Man, that guy in the courtroom, my friend, yah he's real nice and all but I don't think that what he did was such a good idea.
You see, I was on my way to work the other day in my car when I saw a big ol' traffic jam. I was like, "Man, what's going on?" Then I realized that there were all these accidents in the intersection and cops were everywhere. Apparently all these people ran through the intersection at once because there were no more traffic lights and they all hit each other. On top of that, they were all speeding because there was no more speed limit. And to make it worse, they all cut each other off because there were no more lines on the street. There was this huge accident and many people were hurt. Then I couldn't believe my eyes; that same cop was giving 'em all tickets and court dates and they were all standing in line at the court room.
Later that day after work when I finally got home (it was just as bad on the way back from work) I found out that the judge pardoned each and everyone of those people for their illegal infractions. Turns out that they all know my friend in the courtroom, the judge's son; he pardoned them all! I was thinking to myself, "Man, I don't know what's going on here, but this judge and his son are up to some weird stuff." They take all the traffic lights and speed limit signs down and they erase all the lines off the road. OK, they left some of the lights, signs, and lines where they were, but only in certain parts of the city. Man, I don't understand what they're thinking. Tomorrow I'm going to that courtroom and having a talk with that judge, or maybe I'll call his son, my friend, on the phone and have a little talk with him because it's a jungle out there and I don't even feel safe leaving my house!
*You see, the world is like a crowded street and the Torah is like the driver's manual. When we're driving and we see a red light, we know that we have to stop. When we see a green light, we know we have to go, and when we see those lines on the road, we know that we can't pass 'em or only can pass 'em at certain times. We obey the rules of the road because we know that if we didn't that we would be endangering our lives and the lives of others around us. The rules of the street are there to protect us. Whether or not we understand their purpose, we know that they have a purpose.
I'm driving down the street and I run a red light and hit someone, G-d forbid, or someone runs a red light and hits me, G-d forbid, one of us is gonna be real hurt, G-d forbid. That's why red lights exist and the rule that says not to run them. Now, let's say that I run the red light and get through the intersection fine and a cop catches me, I'm gonna be in big trouble. I'm gonna get pulled over, the cop's gonna give me a ticket, and I'm gonna have a court date, and to be honest, I'm probably gonna get a fine or worst. If I don't have the common sense or insight not to run a red light, at least the rules will deter me.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Myspace Discussion about Israel and Lebanon............
This is a forward I received from someone on Myspace and my response. It is about the UN Observer's Post hit by Israel and the sender's opinions on the ceasefire. Enjoy, or quite possibly, get heated. She is a person I met on Myspace and changed her name on here to "Melissa" for fairness purposes.
Meslissa says:
This was orig. posted by a friend...I thought it important to repost...
Israel Hits U.N. Post; Casualties Reported
Jul 25 5:10 PM US/Eastern
Email this story
BEIRUT, Lebanon
A U.N. observer post was hit by an Israeli airstrike in south Lebanon Tuesday and there were casualties, a U.N. spokesman said. He could not specify how many or their condition.
A bomb directly impacted the building and shelter of an Indian patrol base from the observer force in the town of Khiyam near the eastern end of the border with Israel, said Milos Struger, spokesman for the U.N. peacekeeping force in Lebanon known as UNIFIL.
"There are casualties among the observers. UNIFIL immediately dispatched a rescue and medical team and they're currently on the location but unable to clear the rubble," Struger told The Associated Press late Tuesday.
He also said there were 14 other incidents of firing close to this position from the Israeli side Tuesday afternoon. "The firing continued even during the rescue operation," he said.
Since Israel launched a massive military offensive against Lebanon and Hezbollah guerrillas July 12, an international civilian employee working with UNIFIL and his wife have been killed in the crossfire between Israeli forces and Hezbollah guerrillas in the southern port city of Tyre.
Five UNIFIL soldiers and one military observer have also been wounded
My response:
Does the sender have an opinion? Anyway, these are some things that I've written that might interest you. Enjoy, Yaniv... (I sent her some links to some of the posts on this blog)
Her response:
thank you..i will check the links out ..I am just so drained from thinking about this conflict..I can not even imagine having to live it every day..it is just so very sad...I will write back tomorrow..I just sat through an hour of Charlie Rose, whom I love, but the whole thing seems so far gone at this moment. Shimon Peres was on tonight, and also a guy from the New Yorker, then a guy from NYT in damascas, and the under-secretary of state...and after listening to it all, it seems that the bar for approving a cease-fire has been set so impossibly high..I just dont think the US and Israel are at all serious about a cease-fire. I read or heard that there is arguing in the Knesset lately...some calling for an immediate cease fire, etc...have you heard much about that? I guess I could look it up, but I feel lazy at the moment..or, is it depressed that I feel..
Anyway, I'll talk to you tomorrow :)
Peace
My response:
Melissa,
Really, I just don’t understand your world view. What ceasefire are you talking about? Let me give you a little bit of a background on what “ceasefire” has always meant between Israel and many of the Arab states and sub-state entities with which it’s dealt. “Hudna,” (Arabic) loosely translated as “ceasefire,” is based on a conceptual agreement/truce introduced by Muhammad in dealing with conflict. This article does a very good job explaining how hudna has played out between Israel and the Palestinians. I don’t care about what the essential truth of what hudna means, because this isn’t a philosophical discussion, but how it has been used is to take advantage of an enemy during hostilities to take a breather before resuming combat. It’s a bit silly for Arab Muslims, for whom hudna is a part of their culture and religion (theoretically) to invoke hudna with Israel, which is majority Jewish and does not have a similar religious or cultural military “law of engagement.” Of course, that’s just the key; this makes it so Israel is bound to violate the hudna (for any convenient infraction) and therefore justify continued violence from Muslim terrorists. You have to get past the linguistic/cultural/religious gap; you say “ceasefire” and Hezba-llah says “hudna” – you’re thinking like a secular liberal American and they’re thinking like rightwing fascist Muslims. You don’t like the neo-cons here in the States and that’s fine, but you are unknowingly taking “ideological sides” with the Lebanese Muslim version of fanatic religious neo-cons; do you understand what I’m saying? It means that you’re a hypocrite, whether or not it’s your fault. These terrorists live in their own little cultish world and don’t care what anyone says or does – they really are sociopathic people, kind of like a person caught up in a cult or a neo-nazi group, or in terms you can understand, the Republican Party.
Melissa said, “I just dont think the US and Israel are at all serious about a cease-fire.” Melissa, please wake up, do you know who Israel is dealing with? Obviously not, you’re just talking to make yourself feel good. Put yourself in Hezba-llah’s shoes; why would you make an honorable ceasefire with an entity (Israel) of which you do not approve existing? You know, I have become pretty sure over the last few years talking to people with your ideology that people like Nasra-llah trust in Americans (and other Westerners) with that ideology; they know that anarchist-type liberals will offer a defense for them if it means getting to talk smack about America. The phrase “ignorant Americans” applies to both neo-cons and neo-liberals; they’re both Americans and they’re both dangerous. In the end, neo-cons benefit greatly from mind-controlling small-minded liberals; look at the Holocaust. They actually count on them for their propaganda machine to work; without knowing it, you have signed up for the American wing of Hezba-llah supporters. You feel depressed? You should. Please don’t act like your nobility and inherent love of peace are harmed by this war.
I don’t live in Israel, but I’ve been there when bombs have fallen and when suicide bombers have blown themselves up in areas nearby, in buses, which I used to travel there. I once took a train from Haifa to Tel-Aviv. On the way, dumped in some empty field were the remains of a bus in which a Palestinian blew himself up. Put a small explosive inside of sardine can full of ants and see what happens, its sides and top were ripped and blown open. This is metal; imagine what happens to the flesh of a human. I can tell you exactly what it’s like to live with this day-in and day-out; you develop a thick skin towards haters and learn how to talk to them. I can tell you exactly what it’s like to hear the childish rants of “heal the world-niks” that cry and fuss about the evils of Israel when they in fact have no clue what’s going on, when most of them can’t even point out Israel on a map. When all is said and done, after you’ve realized how hateful these people are, you learn how to love, hopefully. Jew-haters have been a dime a dozen in history, and Israel is their new (fifty six year-old) pinata. That’s the world I live in.
Her response:
you know what...I find it completely appalling that anyone could look at the devastation befalling lebanon and say that to want an end to violence is somehow "choosing sides" or "hating jews". Just so you know, I can ideed point quite well to Israel on a map and can tell you a thing or two about the geograhy of that region as well. Look, I will not choose sides. I refuse. But I do know this..Israel is not going to make itself safer by dropping bombs, just as the Bush admin has not made us any safer by dropping bombs..in fact, it has an opposite effect....
Public opinion is not looking good...Hezbollah is gaining great strides in popularity..and even the mainstream moderates are starting to side with hezbollah. I am sorry..but I dont see how any one can make so many "mistakes" in a campaign...bombing the UN observer post was just small compared to the pre-school and now this tragic event yesterday. If Israel was so interested in working to strengthen the lebanese military so that it can oust hezbollah, why did Israel in fact drop a bomb on the lebanese forces..just days ago? Nothing makes sense, why cant you see that?
Look, I have never suffered from any sort of violent attack..nor have I seen one first hand as you have. I can not imagine what sort of horrible affect such a thing would have. But the problem is not islam, nor is it judaism. It is not arab either. The problem is a handful of radical extremists who take religious texts out of context (suicide is BANNED in Islam) ...
and then there is the whole issue of nationalism ..based on common beliefs, language, geography,shared experience, etc..
But the main thing to remember is that these radical elements get stronger when we feed them, but it is never enough..and it saddens me deeply that so much hate seems to buiild upon itself..feeding the anger..I am going to sleep..I cant write any more..I'll write tomorrow
Peace (I mean it!) your friend, Melissa
My response:
Melissa said, "But I do know this..Israel is not going to make itself safer by dropping bombs, just as the Bush admin has not made us any safer by dropping bombs..in fact, it has an opposite effect...."
You're wrong; Israel is not America and Hezb-allah is not Al-Qaeda - Israel's attacker is on its border, not across an ocean and a stretch of land. Dropping bombs will make Israel safer and it will continue to do so until the a-hole in Lebanon, who doesn't give a rat's anything about his own people or anybody else, understands this or is killed. He is the textbook definition of a murderous raging lunatic, he makes the American neo-cons that you resent seem like teletubbies, yet Israel is the bad guy. I understand, I understand.
Melissa said, "Public opinion is not looking good...Hezbollah is gaining great strides in popularity..and even the mainstream moderates are starting to side with hezbollah."
This is where you're also wrong, the mainstream moderates are not starting to side with Hezba-llah, that's not the way everybody sees it.
Melissa said, "I am sorry..but I dont see how any one can make so many "mistakes" in a campaign...bombing the UN observer post was just small compared to the pre-school and now this tragic event yesterday. If Israel was so interested in working to strengthen the lebanese military so that it can oust hezbollah, why did Israel in fact drop a bomb on the lebanese forces..just days ago? Nothing makes sense, why cant you see that?"
The Israeli army has pretty good intelligence, especially from dealing with Hezba-llah and scores of other terrorist groups for basically the span of its existence. I'm sure that there was a reason to attack the military, especially, um, when they might be aiding. Do you really think that there is such a clear-cut distinguishing line between the Lebanese military and the Lebanese terrorist groups? They are composed of people from the same society. Anyway, I honestly don't know why the IAF (Israeli Air Force) attacked the Lebanese military, but I am willing to bet that they had a good reason. Under normal circumstances I would try to find out why Israel bombed the Lebanese military forces. Israel is interested in strenthening the Lebanese military so that it can oust Hezba-llah, but you asked a fallacious question; if their military is aiding Hezba-llah, which we would have to determine but is not unprecedented, then there would be reason to bomb a specific cell, let's say. In essence, if a certain part of the military is aiding Hezba-llah, they ARE Hezba-llah.
This is not a rhetorical question -- why do you begin to say that "nothing makes sense" only once the Israeli attacks start on Lebanon? Why didn't "nothing make sense" when Lebanon, after years of peace with Israel, kidnap three Israeli soldiers? Didn't they know that this would potentially start trouble? Hahaha, Nasra-llah said that he didn't expect such a response -- why the HECK not, because Israel is a chump? Why didn't "nothing make sense" when Nasra-llah REFUSED to return the soldiers to Israel, threatening an escalation to a war? Why didn't it make sense when Iranian and Syrian-backed terrrorist groups are operating within Lebanon and helping them against Israel? You're telling me that that makes sense? You're telling me that those countries HAD to do what they did, that they HAD to break relatively peaceful situations and to bring what's going on now on? Come on, what is your basis for when you choose to say "this doesn't make sense?"
Melissa said, "Look, I have never suffered from any sort of violent attack..nor have I seen one first hand as you have. I can not imagine what sort of horrible affect such a thing would have. But the problem is not islam, nor is it judaism. It is not arab either. The problem is a handful of radical extremists who take religious texts out of context (suicide is BANNED in Islam) ..."
That's apologetic, and you're comparing theory to practice, which is a fallacy. In THEORY Islam is a hunky-dory sensible and peaceful enough religion. If you're going to say that the "version" of Islam that is responsible for these attacks is a different type of Islam and that the "real Islam" is silent and sitting in the corners, you aren't right. You'd be hardpressed to say that there is a verifiable categorical difference. Here's the evidence; where are the peaceful Muslims, the "real Muslims?" Why aren't they making public protests? Where are they? We know that there are religious Jews that make public protests against the State of Israel and even for Palestinians (something I severely disagree with). The reason Muslims don't do this is because they don't express their opinions loudly at fear of death (which is documented), or they simply AGREE with the mainstream. There is a group of Orthodox Jews that get up and say the worst things about Israel but other Orthodox Jews don't kill them. They are the minority group and their ideas are shunned, that is a way to silence them. Muslims silence Orthodox Muslim opposition with fear.
The fact is that Islam would not be producing such violence if there was not a precedent for it in Muslim thought, i.e., the Qur'an and the Hadiths. A person versed in the Qur'an can identify which verses call for peace and which call for war, and you know what, human interpretation and dynamics is part and parcel of having a religious text; it is left relatively open to be interpreted in a manner convenient to a situation. So it's a big time fallacy to say that whoever is carrying out suicide bombing for example is violating the Qur'anic injuction not to kill one's self; if you die in a battle against an oppressive enemy you are not killing yourself even if you have chosen to fight but you are a martyr. I have yet to hear a Muslim scholar bemoan suicide bombing as suicide. No, they too believe that it is a justifiable war tactic. Some Hamas leaders (and Hezba-llah as well) have - scary huh? Some have actually extended the definition of martyrdom to innocent Muslims who die in crossfire. It's was even extended to Israeli Arabs who died in a suicide bombing. A Palestinian blew himself up in a restaurant and some Israeli Arabs who were dining there died; they were recognized as martyrs. We cannot see religion in a two-dimensional way if we are to understand it.
What do you think of this paragraph from an article I have?
"The proposal to give UNIFIL sensitive monitoring tasks attests to how uncertain it is that the international force will manage to prevent Hezbollah's activity as a militia, as stipulated by Security Council Resolution 1559 from 2004. Tasking UNIFIL with sensitive missions is a recipe for disaster and trouble. One striking example was when three Israel Defense Forces soldiers were kidnapped by Hezbollah from Israeli territory in October 2000. The abduction was organized not far from a UNIFIL outpost, and the UN troops watched as the three were transfered to a car with Lebanese plates that fled the scene."
The whole article is here: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/745274.html
I would like to hear your thoughts on the probability that Hezba-llah is Lebanon's version of religious fanatic neo-cons and why you are not as outspoken against them as you are against Israel.
Melissa responds:
I only have a moment..but let me just respond wuickly to one of your points..
This is not a rhetorical question -- why do you begin to say that "nothing makes sense" only once the Israeli attacks start on Lebanon?
Because, kidnapping is more of a tit for tat kind of thing...there is some twisted logic to it, in a very childish and foolish way...it is saying.."you have sopmething of mine, so I have something of yours...you want yours back, I want mine back.." (rememeber that seinfeld episode where george costanza takes a womans clock because he thinks she stole his $7000 hat).."shall we swap?"... Going to a fullscale war over a kidnapping is not logical, becauyse look at how many lives in both Israel and Lebanon have been lost over three kidnapped soldiers. Is it really worth all that? In my humble opinion, it is not. There were other roads that could have been taken..diplomatic roads..etc.
Why didn't "nothing make sense" when Lebanon, after years of peace with Israel, kidnap three Israeli soldiers?
I did...I stated IN MY BLOG that the kidnapping was idiotic. It was very weird for many reasons, but especially timing. I stated that it made NO SENSE whatsoever that hezbollah would do such a thing, especially in light of what happened in Gaza after a similar event.
Didn't they know that this would potentially start trouble?
kidnappings have occurred for years..even israel has used the tactic before, I am fairly certain..and, until now, I do not recall such tactics ever resulting in fullscale war. That said, Gaza should have been a big hint to anyone desiring to test Ohlmert 's(sp?) resolve, that they should not antagonize israel..but, hezbollah stupidly did..and Israel seemed poised and ready for a confrontation, as did hezbollah..so there you go..Chaos. Now, what about chaos should make anyone happy? Nothing.
Melissa
Yaniv responds:
Alright, you brought up some good points. Hehe, I didn't see that episode of Seinfeld, and if you can believe it I've only seen three or four episodes.
Anyway, this kidnapping is not a tit for tat measure, it is part of a larger policy to test Israel's response to being terrorized and stripped of the morale of the civlian and government population. The effect of three of your soldiers being taken, and G-d knows what is being done to them, especially when service is manadatory, can shaken a society - that's exactly what Hezba-llah wanted to do. Your mandatory service starts when you are eighteen, and if you can scare someone enough who's about to enter a new phase in life then you should do that. Government-wise it works too, it was a political tactic that's been enacted several times before to try to get Israel to put its head down and to back into diplomatic talks (as you mentioned) with terrorists, who really don't want anything but to terrorize Israel more and take more land. Nasra-llah said it himself, he didn't expect Israel to react in such a way, he thought they were going to get all mushy on him and try to make peace. I know that Israel's decision is going to be blasted as unpopular, as it already has begun, but it's the only solution.
Israel has kidnapped people before, but they were known terrorists, not "nobodies." Hezba-llah doesn't mind it when people die, either Israeli or Lebanese, because in their kind of war all Israeli casualties are fair game and all Muslims are martyrs. Hezba-llah needs to understand that it has something very, very grave and valuable to lose with war, the lives of Lebanese. The Lebanese people will keep dying until either they or Israel ousts Hezba-llah; whichever is more capable. Maybe that's why Israel didn't mind attacking the Lebanese military.
There are two main arguments critical of Israel I'm considering here. The first is one is that people (and Israel) don't want Israel to start a long and drawn out offensive in Lebanon. Even though Israel isn't America and Lebanon isn't Iraq, many Israeli's are opposed to a long return to Lebanon for their own national and historical reasons. I have a feeling that Israel is going to honor that and will not be in Lebanon for a long time. This brings us to the next criticism; people don't want Israel to bomb the crap out of Lebanon. This is my response; either Israel can have a thought out and longer stay in Lebanon, or it can really go all out with the military campaign to destroy Hezba-llah's infrastructure, which will also some with many casualties on both sides, but it will take less time and avoid a long stay. But should Israel take action in Lebanon? Absolutely. Either way, both ways will come with many deaths, but nobody told Hezba-llah to capture those soldiers. They did and this is the result and now we both have to deal with it.
From a cultural perspective, symbols are very important, and while yes, I do think that symbols should give way to practicality and reality, symbols are VERY real for Hezba-llah (and yes, for Israeli's) and if you won't be deterred from taking hostages (for no reason, as you mentioned), then you'll do more. Nasra-llah didn't think he was taking any chances when he took those soldiers, it was a bluff and Israel called it and raised him one. Now he rather run away with his tail between his legs but the whole international community (and Arab world) is looking on and he has to keep his cool and act like he's the tough guy; let's see how long he can last. Shimon Peres said basically the same thing in more diplomatic terms than I and said that Nasra-llah's bluff is beginning to weaken as Lebanon has had many casualties. If Israel continues on the same path it's taking, this should be over relatively soon, and it might even help fix/end the Hezba-llah occupation of Lebanon.
Politics aren't a game of poker, I know, but neither lives nor the quality of lives are clocks or $7,000 hats. Yaniv...
This is a forward I received from someone on Myspace and my response. It is about the UN Observer's Post hit by Israel and the sender's opinions on the ceasefire. Enjoy, or quite possibly, get heated. She is a person I met on Myspace and changed her name on here to "Melissa" for fairness purposes.
Meslissa says:
This was orig. posted by a friend...I thought it important to repost...
Israel Hits U.N. Post; Casualties Reported
Jul 25 5:10 PM US/Eastern
Email this story
BEIRUT, Lebanon
A U.N. observer post was hit by an Israeli airstrike in south Lebanon Tuesday and there were casualties, a U.N. spokesman said. He could not specify how many or their condition.
A bomb directly impacted the building and shelter of an Indian patrol base from the observer force in the town of Khiyam near the eastern end of the border with Israel, said Milos Struger, spokesman for the U.N. peacekeeping force in Lebanon known as UNIFIL.
"There are casualties among the observers. UNIFIL immediately dispatched a rescue and medical team and they're currently on the location but unable to clear the rubble," Struger told The Associated Press late Tuesday.
He also said there were 14 other incidents of firing close to this position from the Israeli side Tuesday afternoon. "The firing continued even during the rescue operation," he said.
Since Israel launched a massive military offensive against Lebanon and Hezbollah guerrillas July 12, an international civilian employee working with UNIFIL and his wife have been killed in the crossfire between Israeli forces and Hezbollah guerrillas in the southern port city of Tyre.
Five UNIFIL soldiers and one military observer have also been wounded
My response:
Does the sender have an opinion? Anyway, these are some things that I've written that might interest you. Enjoy, Yaniv... (I sent her some links to some of the posts on this blog)
Her response:
thank you..i will check the links out ..I am just so drained from thinking about this conflict..I can not even imagine having to live it every day..it is just so very sad...I will write back tomorrow..I just sat through an hour of Charlie Rose, whom I love, but the whole thing seems so far gone at this moment. Shimon Peres was on tonight, and also a guy from the New Yorker, then a guy from NYT in damascas, and the under-secretary of state...and after listening to it all, it seems that the bar for approving a cease-fire has been set so impossibly high..I just dont think the US and Israel are at all serious about a cease-fire. I read or heard that there is arguing in the Knesset lately...some calling for an immediate cease fire, etc...have you heard much about that? I guess I could look it up, but I feel lazy at the moment..or, is it depressed that I feel..
Anyway, I'll talk to you tomorrow :)
Peace
My response:
Melissa,
Really, I just don’t understand your world view. What ceasefire are you talking about? Let me give you a little bit of a background on what “ceasefire” has always meant between Israel and many of the Arab states and sub-state entities with which it’s dealt. “Hudna,” (Arabic) loosely translated as “ceasefire,” is based on a conceptual agreement/truce introduced by Muhammad in dealing with conflict. This article does a very good job explaining how hudna has played out between Israel and the Palestinians. I don’t care about what the essential truth of what hudna means, because this isn’t a philosophical discussion, but how it has been used is to take advantage of an enemy during hostilities to take a breather before resuming combat. It’s a bit silly for Arab Muslims, for whom hudna is a part of their culture and religion (theoretically) to invoke hudna with Israel, which is majority Jewish and does not have a similar religious or cultural military “law of engagement.” Of course, that’s just the key; this makes it so Israel is bound to violate the hudna (for any convenient infraction) and therefore justify continued violence from Muslim terrorists. You have to get past the linguistic/cultural/religious gap; you say “ceasefire” and Hezba-llah says “hudna” – you’re thinking like a secular liberal American and they’re thinking like rightwing fascist Muslims. You don’t like the neo-cons here in the States and that’s fine, but you are unknowingly taking “ideological sides” with the Lebanese Muslim version of fanatic religious neo-cons; do you understand what I’m saying? It means that you’re a hypocrite, whether or not it’s your fault. These terrorists live in their own little cultish world and don’t care what anyone says or does – they really are sociopathic people, kind of like a person caught up in a cult or a neo-nazi group, or in terms you can understand, the Republican Party.
Melissa said, “I just dont think the US and Israel are at all serious about a cease-fire.” Melissa, please wake up, do you know who Israel is dealing with? Obviously not, you’re just talking to make yourself feel good. Put yourself in Hezba-llah’s shoes; why would you make an honorable ceasefire with an entity (Israel) of which you do not approve existing? You know, I have become pretty sure over the last few years talking to people with your ideology that people like Nasra-llah trust in Americans (and other Westerners) with that ideology; they know that anarchist-type liberals will offer a defense for them if it means getting to talk smack about America. The phrase “ignorant Americans” applies to both neo-cons and neo-liberals; they’re both Americans and they’re both dangerous. In the end, neo-cons benefit greatly from mind-controlling small-minded liberals; look at the Holocaust. They actually count on them for their propaganda machine to work; without knowing it, you have signed up for the American wing of Hezba-llah supporters. You feel depressed? You should. Please don’t act like your nobility and inherent love of peace are harmed by this war.
I don’t live in Israel, but I’ve been there when bombs have fallen and when suicide bombers have blown themselves up in areas nearby, in buses, which I used to travel there. I once took a train from Haifa to Tel-Aviv. On the way, dumped in some empty field were the remains of a bus in which a Palestinian blew himself up. Put a small explosive inside of sardine can full of ants and see what happens, its sides and top were ripped and blown open. This is metal; imagine what happens to the flesh of a human. I can tell you exactly what it’s like to live with this day-in and day-out; you develop a thick skin towards haters and learn how to talk to them. I can tell you exactly what it’s like to hear the childish rants of “heal the world-niks” that cry and fuss about the evils of Israel when they in fact have no clue what’s going on, when most of them can’t even point out Israel on a map. When all is said and done, after you’ve realized how hateful these people are, you learn how to love, hopefully. Jew-haters have been a dime a dozen in history, and Israel is their new (fifty six year-old) pinata. That’s the world I live in.
Her response:
you know what...I find it completely appalling that anyone could look at the devastation befalling lebanon and say that to want an end to violence is somehow "choosing sides" or "hating jews". Just so you know, I can ideed point quite well to Israel on a map and can tell you a thing or two about the geograhy of that region as well. Look, I will not choose sides. I refuse. But I do know this..Israel is not going to make itself safer by dropping bombs, just as the Bush admin has not made us any safer by dropping bombs..in fact, it has an opposite effect....
Public opinion is not looking good...Hezbollah is gaining great strides in popularity..and even the mainstream moderates are starting to side with hezbollah. I am sorry..but I dont see how any one can make so many "mistakes" in a campaign...bombing the UN observer post was just small compared to the pre-school and now this tragic event yesterday. If Israel was so interested in working to strengthen the lebanese military so that it can oust hezbollah, why did Israel in fact drop a bomb on the lebanese forces..just days ago? Nothing makes sense, why cant you see that?
Look, I have never suffered from any sort of violent attack..nor have I seen one first hand as you have. I can not imagine what sort of horrible affect such a thing would have. But the problem is not islam, nor is it judaism. It is not arab either. The problem is a handful of radical extremists who take religious texts out of context (suicide is BANNED in Islam) ...
and then there is the whole issue of nationalism ..based on common beliefs, language, geography,shared experience, etc..
But the main thing to remember is that these radical elements get stronger when we feed them, but it is never enough..and it saddens me deeply that so much hate seems to buiild upon itself..feeding the anger..I am going to sleep..I cant write any more..I'll write tomorrow
Peace (I mean it!) your friend, Melissa
My response:
Melissa said, "But I do know this..Israel is not going to make itself safer by dropping bombs, just as the Bush admin has not made us any safer by dropping bombs..in fact, it has an opposite effect...."
You're wrong; Israel is not America and Hezb-allah is not Al-Qaeda - Israel's attacker is on its border, not across an ocean and a stretch of land. Dropping bombs will make Israel safer and it will continue to do so until the a-hole in Lebanon, who doesn't give a rat's anything about his own people or anybody else, understands this or is killed. He is the textbook definition of a murderous raging lunatic, he makes the American neo-cons that you resent seem like teletubbies, yet Israel is the bad guy. I understand, I understand.
Melissa said, "Public opinion is not looking good...Hezbollah is gaining great strides in popularity..and even the mainstream moderates are starting to side with hezbollah."
This is where you're also wrong, the mainstream moderates are not starting to side with Hezba-llah, that's not the way everybody sees it.
Melissa said, "I am sorry..but I dont see how any one can make so many "mistakes" in a campaign...bombing the UN observer post was just small compared to the pre-school and now this tragic event yesterday. If Israel was so interested in working to strengthen the lebanese military so that it can oust hezbollah, why did Israel in fact drop a bomb on the lebanese forces..just days ago? Nothing makes sense, why cant you see that?"
The Israeli army has pretty good intelligence, especially from dealing with Hezba-llah and scores of other terrorist groups for basically the span of its existence. I'm sure that there was a reason to attack the military, especially, um, when they might be aiding. Do you really think that there is such a clear-cut distinguishing line between the Lebanese military and the Lebanese terrorist groups? They are composed of people from the same society. Anyway, I honestly don't know why the IAF (Israeli Air Force) attacked the Lebanese military, but I am willing to bet that they had a good reason. Under normal circumstances I would try to find out why Israel bombed the Lebanese military forces. Israel is interested in strenthening the Lebanese military so that it can oust Hezba-llah, but you asked a fallacious question; if their military is aiding Hezba-llah, which we would have to determine but is not unprecedented, then there would be reason to bomb a specific cell, let's say. In essence, if a certain part of the military is aiding Hezba-llah, they ARE Hezba-llah.
This is not a rhetorical question -- why do you begin to say that "nothing makes sense" only once the Israeli attacks start on Lebanon? Why didn't "nothing make sense" when Lebanon, after years of peace with Israel, kidnap three Israeli soldiers? Didn't they know that this would potentially start trouble? Hahaha, Nasra-llah said that he didn't expect such a response -- why the HECK not, because Israel is a chump? Why didn't "nothing make sense" when Nasra-llah REFUSED to return the soldiers to Israel, threatening an escalation to a war? Why didn't it make sense when Iranian and Syrian-backed terrrorist groups are operating within Lebanon and helping them against Israel? You're telling me that that makes sense? You're telling me that those countries HAD to do what they did, that they HAD to break relatively peaceful situations and to bring what's going on now on? Come on, what is your basis for when you choose to say "this doesn't make sense?"
Melissa said, "Look, I have never suffered from any sort of violent attack..nor have I seen one first hand as you have. I can not imagine what sort of horrible affect such a thing would have. But the problem is not islam, nor is it judaism. It is not arab either. The problem is a handful of radical extremists who take religious texts out of context (suicide is BANNED in Islam) ..."
That's apologetic, and you're comparing theory to practice, which is a fallacy. In THEORY Islam is a hunky-dory sensible and peaceful enough religion. If you're going to say that the "version" of Islam that is responsible for these attacks is a different type of Islam and that the "real Islam" is silent and sitting in the corners, you aren't right. You'd be hardpressed to say that there is a verifiable categorical difference. Here's the evidence; where are the peaceful Muslims, the "real Muslims?" Why aren't they making public protests? Where are they? We know that there are religious Jews that make public protests against the State of Israel and even for Palestinians (something I severely disagree with). The reason Muslims don't do this is because they don't express their opinions loudly at fear of death (which is documented), or they simply AGREE with the mainstream. There is a group of Orthodox Jews that get up and say the worst things about Israel but other Orthodox Jews don't kill them. They are the minority group and their ideas are shunned, that is a way to silence them. Muslims silence Orthodox Muslim opposition with fear.
The fact is that Islam would not be producing such violence if there was not a precedent for it in Muslim thought, i.e., the Qur'an and the Hadiths. A person versed in the Qur'an can identify which verses call for peace and which call for war, and you know what, human interpretation and dynamics is part and parcel of having a religious text; it is left relatively open to be interpreted in a manner convenient to a situation. So it's a big time fallacy to say that whoever is carrying out suicide bombing for example is violating the Qur'anic injuction not to kill one's self; if you die in a battle against an oppressive enemy you are not killing yourself even if you have chosen to fight but you are a martyr. I have yet to hear a Muslim scholar bemoan suicide bombing as suicide. No, they too believe that it is a justifiable war tactic. Some Hamas leaders (and Hezba-llah as well) have - scary huh? Some have actually extended the definition of martyrdom to innocent Muslims who die in crossfire. It's was even extended to Israeli Arabs who died in a suicide bombing. A Palestinian blew himself up in a restaurant and some Israeli Arabs who were dining there died; they were recognized as martyrs. We cannot see religion in a two-dimensional way if we are to understand it.
What do you think of this paragraph from an article I have?
"The proposal to give UNIFIL sensitive monitoring tasks attests to how uncertain it is that the international force will manage to prevent Hezbollah's activity as a militia, as stipulated by Security Council Resolution 1559 from 2004. Tasking UNIFIL with sensitive missions is a recipe for disaster and trouble. One striking example was when three Israel Defense Forces soldiers were kidnapped by Hezbollah from Israeli territory in October 2000. The abduction was organized not far from a UNIFIL outpost, and the UN troops watched as the three were transfered to a car with Lebanese plates that fled the scene."
The whole article is here: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/745274.html
I would like to hear your thoughts on the probability that Hezba-llah is Lebanon's version of religious fanatic neo-cons and why you are not as outspoken against them as you are against Israel.
Melissa responds:
I only have a moment..but let me just respond wuickly to one of your points..
This is not a rhetorical question -- why do you begin to say that "nothing makes sense" only once the Israeli attacks start on Lebanon?
Because, kidnapping is more of a tit for tat kind of thing...there is some twisted logic to it, in a very childish and foolish way...it is saying.."you have sopmething of mine, so I have something of yours...you want yours back, I want mine back.." (rememeber that seinfeld episode where george costanza takes a womans clock because he thinks she stole his $7000 hat).."shall we swap?"... Going to a fullscale war over a kidnapping is not logical, becauyse look at how many lives in both Israel and Lebanon have been lost over three kidnapped soldiers. Is it really worth all that? In my humble opinion, it is not. There were other roads that could have been taken..diplomatic roads..etc.
Why didn't "nothing make sense" when Lebanon, after years of peace with Israel, kidnap three Israeli soldiers?
I did...I stated IN MY BLOG that the kidnapping was idiotic. It was very weird for many reasons, but especially timing. I stated that it made NO SENSE whatsoever that hezbollah would do such a thing, especially in light of what happened in Gaza after a similar event.
Didn't they know that this would potentially start trouble?
kidnappings have occurred for years..even israel has used the tactic before, I am fairly certain..and, until now, I do not recall such tactics ever resulting in fullscale war. That said, Gaza should have been a big hint to anyone desiring to test Ohlmert 's(sp?) resolve, that they should not antagonize israel..but, hezbollah stupidly did..and Israel seemed poised and ready for a confrontation, as did hezbollah..so there you go..Chaos. Now, what about chaos should make anyone happy? Nothing.
Melissa
Yaniv responds:
Alright, you brought up some good points. Hehe, I didn't see that episode of Seinfeld, and if you can believe it I've only seen three or four episodes.
Anyway, this kidnapping is not a tit for tat measure, it is part of a larger policy to test Israel's response to being terrorized and stripped of the morale of the civlian and government population. The effect of three of your soldiers being taken, and G-d knows what is being done to them, especially when service is manadatory, can shaken a society - that's exactly what Hezba-llah wanted to do. Your mandatory service starts when you are eighteen, and if you can scare someone enough who's about to enter a new phase in life then you should do that. Government-wise it works too, it was a political tactic that's been enacted several times before to try to get Israel to put its head down and to back into diplomatic talks (as you mentioned) with terrorists, who really don't want anything but to terrorize Israel more and take more land. Nasra-llah said it himself, he didn't expect Israel to react in such a way, he thought they were going to get all mushy on him and try to make peace. I know that Israel's decision is going to be blasted as unpopular, as it already has begun, but it's the only solution.
Israel has kidnapped people before, but they were known terrorists, not "nobodies." Hezba-llah doesn't mind it when people die, either Israeli or Lebanese, because in their kind of war all Israeli casualties are fair game and all Muslims are martyrs. Hezba-llah needs to understand that it has something very, very grave and valuable to lose with war, the lives of Lebanese. The Lebanese people will keep dying until either they or Israel ousts Hezba-llah; whichever is more capable. Maybe that's why Israel didn't mind attacking the Lebanese military.
There are two main arguments critical of Israel I'm considering here. The first is one is that people (and Israel) don't want Israel to start a long and drawn out offensive in Lebanon. Even though Israel isn't America and Lebanon isn't Iraq, many Israeli's are opposed to a long return to Lebanon for their own national and historical reasons. I have a feeling that Israel is going to honor that and will not be in Lebanon for a long time. This brings us to the next criticism; people don't want Israel to bomb the crap out of Lebanon. This is my response; either Israel can have a thought out and longer stay in Lebanon, or it can really go all out with the military campaign to destroy Hezba-llah's infrastructure, which will also some with many casualties on both sides, but it will take less time and avoid a long stay. But should Israel take action in Lebanon? Absolutely. Either way, both ways will come with many deaths, but nobody told Hezba-llah to capture those soldiers. They did and this is the result and now we both have to deal with it.
From a cultural perspective, symbols are very important, and while yes, I do think that symbols should give way to practicality and reality, symbols are VERY real for Hezba-llah (and yes, for Israeli's) and if you won't be deterred from taking hostages (for no reason, as you mentioned), then you'll do more. Nasra-llah didn't think he was taking any chances when he took those soldiers, it was a bluff and Israel called it and raised him one. Now he rather run away with his tail between his legs but the whole international community (and Arab world) is looking on and he has to keep his cool and act like he's the tough guy; let's see how long he can last. Shimon Peres said basically the same thing in more diplomatic terms than I and said that Nasra-llah's bluff is beginning to weaken as Lebanon has had many casualties. If Israel continues on the same path it's taking, this should be over relatively soon, and it might even help fix/end the Hezba-llah occupation of Lebanon.
Politics aren't a game of poker, I know, but neither lives nor the quality of lives are clocks or $7,000 hats. Yaniv...
Monday, July 31, 2006
Discussion Between Michael Rubin and Aaron Miller about Israel and Lebanon....
I just caught the last few moments of a discussion about the Israel-Lebanon situation on KUAT’s (channel six in Tucson) Online News Hour with Jim Lehrer. Michael Rubin, to paraphrase, said that Lebanon needs to reign in on and remove Hezba-llah and to fill that vacuum. The host (not Jim Lehrer) asked him if Lebanon has the capability to do this and Rubin promptly answered with another question, which I paraphrase; “Was Lebanon able to end the Syrian occupation? No, but with the help and support of the international community this was accomplished.” Rubin’s parallel between Hezba-llah’s hijacking of Lebanon and Syria’s occupation of Lebanon is right on the money, and it also demonstrates the general Arab society’s passivity when faced with destructive terrorist regimes thriving within the borders of their very own countries. Aaron Miller, whom was debating Rubin, had a quick and defensive/apologetic response, along the lines that such a thing would take too long. Too long for what? On the surface, he’s saying that a quick solution is better, but what this is really just a rejection of Rubin’s proposition, and means that Miller is saying that Israel is responsible for bettering the situation and not Lebanon.
I just caught the last few moments of a discussion about the Israel-Lebanon situation on KUAT’s (channel six in Tucson) Online News Hour with Jim Lehrer. Michael Rubin, to paraphrase, said that Lebanon needs to reign in on and remove Hezba-llah and to fill that vacuum. The host (not Jim Lehrer) asked him if Lebanon has the capability to do this and Rubin promptly answered with another question, which I paraphrase; “Was Lebanon able to end the Syrian occupation? No, but with the help and support of the international community this was accomplished.” Rubin’s parallel between Hezba-llah’s hijacking of Lebanon and Syria’s occupation of Lebanon is right on the money, and it also demonstrates the general Arab society’s passivity when faced with destructive terrorist regimes thriving within the borders of their very own countries. Aaron Miller, whom was debating Rubin, had a quick and defensive/apologetic response, along the lines that such a thing would take too long. Too long for what? On the surface, he’s saying that a quick solution is better, but what this is really just a rejection of Rubin’s proposition, and means that Miller is saying that Israel is responsible for bettering the situation and not Lebanon.
The Problem with Al-Aqsa Mosque (al Masjid al Aqsa) and False History
Here is a picture of where the the Al-Aqsa Mosque stands today. Take a close look at the picture; the walls which create the platform upon which the Mosque stands are the walls to the old Jewish Temple. Normally, and this is how it was in the past, there was something inside the walls, not on top of it. The Mosque, literally and figuratively, rests on top of the site of the Temple. Here is a (rendered) picture of where the Beit Hamikdash, or
While we are all scrambling to understand the core reasons of the problem in the
The erection of the Dome of the Rock (the gray dome to the left) and the Al-Aqsa Mosque (the golden dome to the right), with the Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade acting in its name in the 7th Century was completed to establish political control over . They act as an encroachment and obstacle to Jews, now for Israelis, and now for peace, for both political and religious reasons. This should be deemed intolerable violation and probably deserves a UN Resolution on its own.
Kotel Ha-ma'aravi Pipes notes that passage 17:1 in the Qur’an reads, “Glory to He who took His servant by night from the Sacred Mosque to the furthest mosque. (Subhana allathina asra bi-‘abdihi laylatan min al-masjidi al-harami ila al-masjidi al-aqsa.)” and “When this Qur'anic passage was first revealed, in about 621, a place called the Sacred Mosque already existed in
here.
Yet another Arab woman speaks out. Yashar koyach!...............
Brigitte Gabriel, yet another Arab woman, speaks out against some of the fundamental problems with Muslim terrorism occurring in the . Oh yes, the times, they are a changin’.
Absolute Truth and G-d
The best things about humanity were not invented by humanity. In short, to the stance that G-d is a human invention is my attempt to show that G-d is not a human invention but in fact real. If G-d were a human invention, He would clearly be the best human invention, but then if we consider for a moment that G-d is not a human invention, we can see the world in a perspective that gives value to everything.
We must consider some things before delving into this. Firstly is the matter of subjective vs. objective reality, or truth. We can liken it to a tree in the middle of a jungle with an array of people standing around it; that the tree exists is no question, everybody attests to its existence. Truth is like this, it is not a matter of subjective reality or perspective, because even although each person standing around the tree sees it from a different angle, in respect to his/her specific location in relation to it, each agrees that in fact there is a tree in the middle of the jungle and that it is a tree.
Truth is not the same thing as each individual’s subjective perspective on life and reality, it is an object external to the human mind, as real as the tree. We cannot say that the tree exists in the person’s mind, i.e., is a product of that person’s individual and subjective consciousness, because it is perceived by all. Something about the process of a human’s coming into existence endows, which can also be said “traps,” the human being in a shell of his/her own perspective, his subjective reality. This is what creates each person’s “own truth.” His life becomes a product of his own truth.
This puts the individual and his personal subjective reality in tension with something that everyone perceives, an existence outside of himself. The tension is a product of his relationship with it; he knows that there is something outside of him, something perceivable, and that that thing strikes a chord of transcendence. The tension is created when he realizes within himself that he did not create this thing, that this thing is simply there and that it relates to everybody. He can take his own personal and individualized stance on this thing, but he is aware, and this is what troubles him, that he did not create this thing – it is not a figment of his imagination, although it is blurred by his imagination and personal experiences. It is like seeing a light through a multi-faceted prism; the light is bent and produces an indecipherable image, but it is clear that it is still light.
Not only does he realize that he did not create this thing, he realizes that the creation of such a thing would be an impossible task for him. He cannot create something better than him that tells him how to live life, for from where did that thing obtain the information other than its source? It is like creating a computer program that explains things to you; a computer program can only know what it has been programmed; there is no computer program that knows more than its designer. Nobody can create a computer that teaches its designer. Every computer is created with a fraction of the knowledge held by its designer. If it were possible to create a computer with knowledge surpassing that of its designer, it means that the person whom created that computer endowed it with the ability to obtain information from the world, which means that the person has all the knowledge of the computer already and therefore the computer is useless.
A person eventually realizes that, despite, or in compliment to his personal and subjective perspective on existence, that he exists in tension with a truth that he cannot shake and that he did not create, i.e., as a whole, and that it is not a product of his own mental creation. It is a law of sorts, a law of existence. It is no wonder that all societies develop laws with stark similarities to each other and that most human beings have certain, if very few, innate understandings of wrong and right. This is nothing less than the human ability, on the macro and micro level, to perceive that such a thing truly exists outside of the human mind. Every societal law and every personal maxim is a reflection of this external truth, this law.
Now the question becomes, “What is the source of this law?” We can try to reason that it is a compendium, an average, of subjective truths and that for some reason that subjective truths tend to align themselves with each other. But this is impossible, or highly unlikely, because the permutations of existence and their effect on a human mind are innumerable; it is virtually impossible that two different people develop similar subjective truths if they were not developing them based on some objective truth. That all drops of water fall from the clouds to the ground is not a coincidence; there is a force of gravity that draws them all to it.
This is the purpose of societies, to bring objective truth into the realm of livability. This is the purpose of law and of order, to try to catch a glimpse of that objective truth and to apply it to the human condition.
However, there is no human that has ever existed that was able to completely break through the tension of himself with that of the perception of absolute truth. Therefore, that humanity seems to be anchored in some notion of absolute truth means that, in some way, absolute truth found its way to us. There is no human that is able to, solely by his own reasoning and perception, state an absolute truth that at once, for all people, and for all time, applies and does not change; this above and beyond the range of human capability.
So the question now becomes, “How did air of this absolute truth reach humanity?” and the answer is that it was told to us, that it reached us not by way of our ability to masterfully tear through all of the world’s illusion, which we possess only in small and to imperfect degrees, but that it was given to us. Firstly, that it was given to us means explicitly that there is a knowledgeable Being whom willed to give it to us. It must be a Being and not a force because forces are neutral and mindless, possessing no will or forethought. Secondly, the person whom merited such a union with such a Being must have been sufficiently able to tear through the aforementioned illusion of existence; this individual was Abraham. It is fitting that Abraham was the first person to fully realize the existence of absolute truth, and with that the existence of the One G-d. Once he accomplished this, by way of his own reason, G-d came the rest of the way and broke that gap; He communicated with Abraham. Abraham reached the brink of human understanding, leading him to be absolutely sure that G-d existed, at which point G-d said, “You’re right, here I am.” What Abraham could not know, G-d informed him.
There is a term in Hebrew, in the Jewish lexicon, known as “bitul,” which is loosely translated as “nullification (of the self).” In Muslim thought there is a very similar parallel, if not the same concept altogether, known as “submission,” or the Arabic word “islam,” which shares a root with the Hebrew word “shalem,” whole, (shalom, peace). Abraham gave the world this concept and that is why he is the revered father of all monotheism and absolute truth today. Suffice it to say that Abraham reasoned that kindness was the Divine pillar of human interaction with each other; so monotheism, absolute truth, and kindness are inseparable.
To say that we created G-d is to say that we are able to create the notions, laws, that spew forth from G-d, but again, if we were able to create the thing that informs us, we would not need to create it because we would be able to inform ourselves. That all human groups throughout time and history have formed idols, imagined gods and goddesses, and had religions with cultural and societal laws is proof that we perceive that a Truth exists and that He gave us life and truth vs. our giving it to Him. Abraham’s recognition was the Identity of this Oneness, a Being, G-d, HaKadosh Baruch Hu.
The best things about humanity were not invented by humanity. In short, to the stance that G-d is a human invention is my attempt to show that G-d is not a human invention but in fact real. If G-d were a human invention, He would clearly be the best human invention, but then if we consider for a moment that G-d is not a human invention, we can see the world in a perspective that gives value to everything.
We must consider some things before delving into this. Firstly is the matter of subjective vs. objective reality, or truth. We can liken it to a tree in the middle of a jungle with an array of people standing around it; that the tree exists is no question, everybody attests to its existence. Truth is like this, it is not a matter of subjective reality or perspective, because even although each person standing around the tree sees it from a different angle, in respect to his/her specific location in relation to it, each agrees that in fact there is a tree in the middle of the jungle and that it is a tree.
Truth is not the same thing as each individual’s subjective perspective on life and reality, it is an object external to the human mind, as real as the tree. We cannot say that the tree exists in the person’s mind, i.e., is a product of that person’s individual and subjective consciousness, because it is perceived by all. Something about the process of a human’s coming into existence endows, which can also be said “traps,” the human being in a shell of his/her own perspective, his subjective reality. This is what creates each person’s “own truth.” His life becomes a product of his own truth.
This puts the individual and his personal subjective reality in tension with something that everyone perceives, an existence outside of himself. The tension is a product of his relationship with it; he knows that there is something outside of him, something perceivable, and that that thing strikes a chord of transcendence. The tension is created when he realizes within himself that he did not create this thing, that this thing is simply there and that it relates to everybody. He can take his own personal and individualized stance on this thing, but he is aware, and this is what troubles him, that he did not create this thing – it is not a figment of his imagination, although it is blurred by his imagination and personal experiences. It is like seeing a light through a multi-faceted prism; the light is bent and produces an indecipherable image, but it is clear that it is still light.
Not only does he realize that he did not create this thing, he realizes that the creation of such a thing would be an impossible task for him. He cannot create something better than him that tells him how to live life, for from where did that thing obtain the information other than its source? It is like creating a computer program that explains things to you; a computer program can only know what it has been programmed; there is no computer program that knows more than its designer. Nobody can create a computer that teaches its designer. Every computer is created with a fraction of the knowledge held by its designer. If it were possible to create a computer with knowledge surpassing that of its designer, it means that the person whom created that computer endowed it with the ability to obtain information from the world, which means that the person has all the knowledge of the computer already and therefore the computer is useless.
A person eventually realizes that, despite, or in compliment to his personal and subjective perspective on existence, that he exists in tension with a truth that he cannot shake and that he did not create, i.e., as a whole, and that it is not a product of his own mental creation. It is a law of sorts, a law of existence. It is no wonder that all societies develop laws with stark similarities to each other and that most human beings have certain, if very few, innate understandings of wrong and right. This is nothing less than the human ability, on the macro and micro level, to perceive that such a thing truly exists outside of the human mind. Every societal law and every personal maxim is a reflection of this external truth, this law.
Now the question becomes, “What is the source of this law?” We can try to reason that it is a compendium, an average, of subjective truths and that for some reason that subjective truths tend to align themselves with each other. But this is impossible, or highly unlikely, because the permutations of existence and their effect on a human mind are innumerable; it is virtually impossible that two different people develop similar subjective truths if they were not developing them based on some objective truth. That all drops of water fall from the clouds to the ground is not a coincidence; there is a force of gravity that draws them all to it.
This is the purpose of societies, to bring objective truth into the realm of livability. This is the purpose of law and of order, to try to catch a glimpse of that objective truth and to apply it to the human condition.
However, there is no human that has ever existed that was able to completely break through the tension of himself with that of the perception of absolute truth. Therefore, that humanity seems to be anchored in some notion of absolute truth means that, in some way, absolute truth found its way to us. There is no human that is able to, solely by his own reasoning and perception, state an absolute truth that at once, for all people, and for all time, applies and does not change; this above and beyond the range of human capability.
So the question now becomes, “How did air of this absolute truth reach humanity?” and the answer is that it was told to us, that it reached us not by way of our ability to masterfully tear through all of the world’s illusion, which we possess only in small and to imperfect degrees, but that it was given to us. Firstly, that it was given to us means explicitly that there is a knowledgeable Being whom willed to give it to us. It must be a Being and not a force because forces are neutral and mindless, possessing no will or forethought. Secondly, the person whom merited such a union with such a Being must have been sufficiently able to tear through the aforementioned illusion of existence; this individual was Abraham. It is fitting that Abraham was the first person to fully realize the existence of absolute truth, and with that the existence of the One G-d. Once he accomplished this, by way of his own reason, G-d came the rest of the way and broke that gap; He communicated with Abraham. Abraham reached the brink of human understanding, leading him to be absolutely sure that G-d existed, at which point G-d said, “You’re right, here I am.” What Abraham could not know, G-d informed him.
There is a term in Hebrew, in the Jewish lexicon, known as “bitul,” which is loosely translated as “nullification (of the self).” In Muslim thought there is a very similar parallel, if not the same concept altogether, known as “submission,” or the Arabic word “islam,” which shares a root with the Hebrew word “shalem,” whole, (shalom, peace). Abraham gave the world this concept and that is why he is the revered father of all monotheism and absolute truth today. Suffice it to say that Abraham reasoned that kindness was the Divine pillar of human interaction with each other; so monotheism, absolute truth, and kindness are inseparable.
To say that we created G-d is to say that we are able to create the notions, laws, that spew forth from G-d, but again, if we were able to create the thing that informs us, we would not need to create it because we would be able to inform ourselves. That all human groups throughout time and history have formed idols, imagined gods and goddesses, and had religions with cultural and societal laws is proof that we perceive that a Truth exists and that He gave us life and truth vs. our giving it to Him. Abraham’s recognition was the Identity of this Oneness, a Being, G-d, HaKadosh Baruch Hu.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
