I am a conservative Jew, politically, not religiously, and I see that as being perfectly in-line with justice-pursuing, peace-wanting, humanity-loving values, which I hold.

With me at least, but it seems with many Jews in the past couple of years that political conservativism has become more and more of a sensible political ideology, at least with regards to particular arenas. For me, it could have been the maturity that (supposedly) comes with age, but it could also have been the only proper response to a growingly Israel-hostile university climate, which I saw falling all around me like stink bombs. Yes, that was it, the hypocrisy I saw gleaming like bad rays from the intellegentsia liberalidad universitad which, once I Sherlocked my way into what was going on and had given them ample benefit of the doubt, the nonsense sent me flying from them with tracks of fire. It was unfortunate really, I used to be tight with the views of liberalism and to a large degree I think that I still am, it’s just that I saw that field of people begin to take up arms for causes that were associated with hate. In short, the way I saw it, hate was a dragon that the knights of the liberal round table and its disciples vowed to sleigh, but the more I saw them carrying anti-Israel signs, chanting venom, and planting seeds of hate, I realized that they had efficiently set the borders of that room in a way that just left me out of it. There was no more room for me to be a liberal and to join in that scheme as a Jew; my love for and alliance with Israel was an unacceptable firearm in the military of the liberal, and so I switched units.

Of course, just because the liberals whom I saw on campus, a territory like the West Bank where extremists make the most noise, were fools, it doesn’t mean that liberalism as an holistic ideology is wrong or even inherently flawed, it’s just that those people decided to stash Israel away in the “evil” file. This was liberal dogma, a mirage in the dunes where American was an evil empire and Israel was the bloody jewel in the crown. My views were my views and I would not shift them because some fools had mental issues. If I had liberal views they would remain, but if Israel could be filed and categorized away as an evil entity in the way that it was, knowing what I do about Israel, I cognized that there must be a problem with the functioning method of liberal thought. This caused in me a significant right shift and eventually lead me to rethinking the entire structure of the political spectrum.

One commandment is to "love your neighbor as yourself." If we try to understand the significance of this commandment, we get an instruction that tells us to include others in our purview of ourselves. Since we have the tendency to go out of our way (or is it in our way?) to make our lives easier and to care for ourselves, at least theoretically, the Torah is telling us, not asking us, to put others in the same place as we put ourselves. We are not to put ourselves in someone else's shoes, we are to put others in OUR shoes. Contemporary liberal politics has adopted this value as their own.

Another commandment is not to have sex before marriage. Nowadays, this life value is taken to be a more conservative value, indicative of traditional and puritanical views. However, it is from the same set of commandments and the same G-d Whom gives both commandments; it is out of the same Mouth from which we hear both. How do we reconcile the two? Apparently G-d wants us to do both of them, that's how we reconcile them. G-d has created a system in which both social and sexual values are primary, unlike the world view most people have today where either social justice or sexual morality are key, but not both simultaneously. Social justice is about fixing the world around you, sexual morality is about fixing your personal world. The two bleed into each other because how can you begin to nurture the world around you without nurturing your personal world? When you are able to do both you can begin to see how your personal world and the world around are one world, and this explains the unity that is expressed throughout the entire Torah, not to mention the very nature of G-d's existence, which is characterized by complete unity.

Life is too complex to isolate yourself into any one man-made ideological category such as taking a solely liberal or conservative stance on issues. The heart of any matter has to be understood and cognized and only then can a person try to reason how he/she should respond to the issue. If we do this, the result is that we usually get some amalgamation ideology that contains parts of each line of thought. If we take this further, it seems that each line of thought is actually part of a larger "ideology," a comprehensive stance of life, which tends to bend and finally transcend existing political lines of thought. But the key is not to destroy existing political ideologies, it is to understand how the values contained within each camp are actually part of a more coherent world view than each holds on its own. If we try to reach it from a human perspective it begins to look like a fanciful and idealistic illusion of an idea. But if we look at it from the perspective that there is a Being, G-d, Whom has a better understanding of things than we do and rationalize that He is the Source of these commandments, then our limited human understanding becomes less and less of an obstacle because we understand that His wisdom calls for this unity. It then becomes something that we can grasp and understand, not at all far-fetched or enigmatic.

Let us imagine a person who is as devoted to sexual morality as he is to bringing down oppressive regimes, or let us imagine a person who is as devoted to loving his neighbor as himself as he is to running a corporation; neither of these are inherent opposites. Often times people tie a set of values together just because they occur in the same person, but this is a fallacy. Each value has to be understood as an item on its own, for what it is, and then that value can be understood as one value in a larger set. Once this is done, values complement each other and then begin to form a bigger picture. For a Jew, that picture is the Torah and the 613 commandments in it. This is the "ideology of G-d," and can probably only be struck in a theocracy, which is a loaded word for a spiritual, legal, and institutionalized return to that holistic understanding of reality. i.e., Messianic Redemption.

The value of the human is compromised until it has a soul or until one believes that it has a soul – whichever comes first.

It is the soul that allows for the fusion of “liberal” and “conservative” politics, for if the human has a soul, then all human beings are equal; a liberal maxim, but if the human has a soul, then it has to adhere to a number of behaviors that indicate and maintain its endless value, of which sexual morality is just one. If souls exist as the core of the being called the “human being,” then indeed a set of both “liberal” and “conservative” values exist as part of a seamless expression of truth.

But if souls exist then G-d exists, because a soul cannot be the function of anything else other than G-d. It makes sense that G-d created all of this in a chronological manner, perhaps human souls, earth, human body, and then joined the soul with the body, but that Abraham discovered the existence of all this in the opposite order; that he was both soul and body, had a body that was separate from the soul, that the body was part of the earth, and since the soul is self that it had to be made first with the intent of putting it in a vessel. Since the soul exists, it must be that G-d exists.

Slice of Redemption ---------------------------------------------

I consider myself fortunate and blessed to be alive; this is an on-going blessing from G-d. However, every once in a while I catch a glimpse of something truly amazing, genuinely G-dly, (as if being alive isn’t), something that sets things into perspective.

We all know that the Torah is full of laws and commandments, telling us how to live and so forth. We sometimes want to be free from those laws, but occasionally something happens when we see their usefulness. Let us take simple traffic lights for example, which basically provide drivers and pedestrians with safe passage through otherwise dangerous intersections. It is a simple red light, an arbitrary law, that when observed creates a stronger force than can a tangible wall. The proof is that most people would feel horribly ashamed if they ran a red light; they would feel bad for endangering themselves and others, and further, they would receive the ostracizement of the driving community, a powerful force unto itself. This enough is to make the majority of people willfully stop driving when approaching a red light. It’s a law that we want to keep, it’s a line that we don’t want to cross over, and when we overshoot it we usually find ourselves backing up.

But this isn’t a story about shame, it’s a story about redemption.

One hot day I was driving home from a class at the University when I noticed that none the traffic lights of the entire intersection ahead of me were functioning. I inched my way up to the white lines and when I was a few cars back, I realized that there were no police officers there to regulate the flow of the traffic. It was as if neither the traffic lights nor the guidance-police existed, and we were left alone to get through the random forces on our own. The drivers had taken it into their own hands to get through the intersection, and I realized just how insanely dangerous this was; my turn was coming up and I became attentive.

However, as I approached the white line an amazing spectacle unfolded before my eyes; the drivers were getting through the intersection in peace and safety. For some odd reason, without the regulation of any police, the drivers had resorted to alternating between east-west and north-south traffic. About twenty or so cars heading north and south would drive through, and a few moments later the flow of traffic slowed to a halt and then the east-west flow would pick up, live for a few moments, then stop, and then alternate again. The catalyst in the process was usually one or two sole drivers whom would stop at the intersection’s line rather than drive through it. This would cause a chain reaction leading drivers on either side to stop, which would then lead drivers coming the opposite direction to stop, and open up the opportunity for the perpendicular flow of traffic. This was all carried out in a rather intuitive manner.

That day I caught a short and intense glimpse of the best in human behavior; I saw the G-dly side of humanity triumph over the hurriedness and ego that accompanies a large section of the human being; the Image of G-d shone through. The streets are usually breeding grounds for some of the worst in human behavior; greed, impatience, and ignorance of the rules. But this was almost surreal; human beings were functioning in harmony with each other as they needed without the aid of any regulative system – they had understood the rules and taken to applying them on their own, and succeeding – a wonderful display of the internalization of the rules. The most amazing thing about it was that I was not reading about or imagining it; it was happening in real time in the most mundane of settings; an intersection. This marvel led directly to harmony, to peace; the Shechina, G-d’s Presence, rested there potently, if only for a few slow moments. Occasionally a car would careen through the intersection, the one person that tried to make it, but most cars had already begun stopping by then, creating a few second lapse from the time that the next stream began and allowing him/her safe passage. This is precisely why both lights remain red simultaneously for a few moments, in case a rebel careens through the intersection. Somehow “we” had achieved this on our own.

I had felt, for a moment, that this was a tear in the normal “space-time continuum” of galut, exile, and that the time of the Meshiach would surely be like this, except always. For those that who don’t believe that the time of the Meshiach can happen or find the redemptive promises in the Torah hard to fathom and imagine, you are not alone, I too find myself trying to find new and creative ways to grasp it. However, that day, for a few extended moments, I and everybody who passed through that intersection, some hundreds of cars or more, all simultaneously experienced the same thing, something that I can only explain as a slice of ge’ulah, Redemption. It was nothing short of a pure miracle, and it happened in front of everybody’s eyes. Considering the drawn out nature of the occurrence, I am quite sure that there is nobody who drove through that intersection in those moments without being shocked into a state of curiosity.

When my turn came to go through the intersection, I didn’t want to; I wanted to stay back and to experience the wonder of that spectacle for a while longer, this “natural” phenomenon, but I could not fathom putting a break into the flow of events that was occurring. Once through, I considered turning around and going back, like a gleeful child to a water slide, but time constraints pushed me onward to my destination. When the time of the Meshiach comes, and may Hashem will it to be soon, I won’t have to make a U-turn to experience those few moments again; they won’t end.

Reliable heksher list, never leave home without it, or leave home without but memorize it, or write some of them down, the ones that apply to you and then leave your home.

http://www.mazornet.com/jewishcl/Kosher/kosherorgs.htm

An article from the Jerusalem Post; absolutely amazing and well said.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885956191&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


Here is the article in text.
---------------------------------------------


Jul. 9, 2006 23:26 | Updated Jul. 10, 2006 4:44
The Region: Palestinian suicide strategy
By BARRY RUBIN


Understandably, most people in the world fail to understand Palestinian ideology and strategy today largely because it is so bizarre compared to politics as usual.

Before examining the basic principles of the Palestinian approach it is useful to consider how things usually work, and thus what people who don't know much about Palestinian politics think they are like.

Normal politics features realizable goals, paying keen attention to the balance of forces, avoiding losing conflicts, and seeking a stable state.

They also include such things as putting a high priority on raising living standards and building effective institutions to serve the people.

Every day Western governments, media and academics try to impose this model on Palestinian behavior, politics and ideology. Yet it just doesn't work. The things many in the West think motivates Palestinians - getting a state, ending the occupation - are of no interest in their own right. Indeed, the only way to maintain the pretense is a combination of amnesia and abandoning of the kind of rational analysis used to view any other political situation in the world.

I must add that in private (though virtually never in public) Palestinian intellectuals sound a lot like me. Over and over again, one hears disgust, despair and profound cynicism along the lines described below.

Given the current Palestinian ideology and strategy the conflict is unsolvable, and there is no way to stop the violence. On the other hand, as a result, Palestinian tactics are unworkable, politics are disorganized, and military strategy is self-defeating. The Palestinians can harass Israel, but not much more.

HERE ARE the basic points for understanding Palestinian politics:

There are hardly any moderate Palestinians in public life and even those few generally keep their mouths shut, or echo the militant majority. With few exceptions - countable on your fingers - a Palestinian moderate in practice can usually be defined as someone who apologizes for terrorism in good English. The mantra of "helping the moderates" cannot work under these conditions.

Fatah and PLO strategy rests on the belief that defeat is staved off as long as you keep fighting. Their only true victory is to continue the struggle. Of course, the cost of this is not only violence, suffering and disruption, but also a failure to achieve anything material. This is why the "cycle of violence" concept is useless. Palestinians don't attack Israel because Israel attacks them, but because that is their sole program.


Whatever the common people think privately, the vast majority of activists believe everything must be subsumed to the struggle. Democracy, living standards, women's rights and so on have no value outside contributing to the battle against Israel. This is why the idea of appealing to Palestinian material interests or finding some leader who puts the priority on achieving peace and plenty fails.


The interim goal is to be able to claim phony victories, which are actually costly defeats. If after 40 years of armed struggle the movement's great triumphs are destroying one Israeli outpost a year or kidnapping a single soldier, this shows its remarkable weakness on the battlefield. Inflicting damage on Israel via rocket attacks serves no Palestinian strategic objective except to make people feel good about damaging Israel (even while they suffer far more damage themselves). Celebrating martyrs simply means bragging about your own casualties.

The movement's social policy is remarkably reactionary. Despite its leftist veneer it does not activate the masses except as an audience to cheer on the heroes. Fatah has no economic or social policy; Hamas seeks to turn Palestine into Iran or Afghanistan.
They have more in common with the world view of the Middle Ages than with Chinese or Cuban visions of guerrilla war. Palestinian groups use only a tiny proportion of the potential for large-scale social mobilization, a feature far more characteristic of the supposedly soft Israeli society.


Not only is infrastructure unimportant, it interferes with waging all-out struggle. If Palestinians become obsessed with job creation, educational or health systems or a successful economy this makes them satisfied with their lot and less willing to fight and die for the cause.

This concept, jarring for Western observers, is common in the Middle East. Consider Saddam Hussein's irresponsible aggressions and the Syrian rulers' preference for stagnation over reform.


Use your people's suffering to win international support. No fear of destruction or popular suffering deters Palestinian leaders. After it was charged that Hamas laid mines on a Gaza beach killing civilians last month, an American newspaper opined that Hamas would never do this to its own people. On the contrary: There is a long pattern of sacrificing Palestinian lives and welfare for propaganda gains. Children are encouraged by the official Palestinian media to become terrorists and hence martyrs.


Lie endlessly, not only to everyone else but to yourself, portraying Israel as always wrong and America as always hostile. Their inability to transcend propaganda and the incessant demonization has ensured - except for rare times during the Oslo process - that the Palestinians cannot maneuver successfully in dealing with these countries.
THIS IS A losing strategy: Destroy your infrastructure, subvert international and even Arab support through extremism - no one is now even surprised that Arab states do nothing to help the Palestinians out of their mess - throw away chances for interim gains (like getting a state) to avoid compromising the chance for total victory, repeat old mistakes, rejoice over defeats as producing martyrs, taunt the world's sole superpower, exalt anarchy, and forfeit any chance of winning sympathy on the other side.

Such a suicide strategy, like suicide bombing, can inflict losses on the enemy but cannot defeat it. Indeed, by sacrificing so many possible benefits it ensures that the gap steadily widens in favor of the other side.

Far from any sign of resistance to this disastrous approach it seems capable of providing decades more of glorious defeat and martyrdom. Maybe it will even go on long enough for those in the West who keep expecting something different to understand what's going on.
---------------------------------------------

The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs.

Check the Bangitout.com blog -- "kosher comedy for the circumcised".

Did I break my life or was my life already broken?
Did I speak all words possible or were those words already spoken?
It cracked like an egg and I, hate-filled me, spilled out the contents
It was a shell of a life and I was living on the surface
And when I dipped in the liquid yoke, all that meant lifted to the surface

In a world and time where we have to argue endlessly just to show that what is ours is ours, how long will I have to share with my theives?
I have adopted them, they are mine, those checkered caped crusaders
My sons with knives to my throat
The nation still raises it sword and sinks it into its plowshare, into my throat
My soul and blood pour all over the canvas which is the Land
Are we painting a good picture?
To see their eyes is enough, they are still learning war
Gilad ben Aviva, Gilad Shalit
The windows to the soul, and their soul and their blood poured all over the Land
The windows to the shul, and their soul and their blood all over them
Free Israel from its Land
How can the believers not be sad?
How can the believers not be mad?
The unbelievers revel in liberation as we are all liberated from our Land
In the world where I will lift every city and town in my Land above my greatest desires
I will not forget Jerusalem, nor Tel-Aviv, nor Ashkelon
Nor the buses that drive down the holy streets
Nor the holy people whom sell food in shops
Nor the smell of the exhaust of the buses, the sounds of the salesmen, the green uniforms, the shining black metal of the guns in which I used to see myself
Now I have a black kippah on my head, though it not shines, with it I try to reflect Heaven
The bricks of Israel, the stones of Jerusalem
They belong in walls and not in the hands of youngsters
They belong in the Wall, not in my head
I belong alive, not dead
I need to go there before I die
G-d send me there!
The sounds of shouts in Hebrew
I will forget none of the cities for they are all holy lands
For how is it that they are not worthy?
We beg for every small town when we realize their value
We want Akko and Haifa and Eilat before Jerusalem
I need to leave here before I die
The body is below the head
How can I throw trash on those streets?
How can I say dirty words in their vicinities?
How can I give them to Arabs?
Arabs who spit on me in my Land
Arabs who respect nothing and want everything, though nothing is theirs
How long can I be choked away from my land like a fish out of water?
How long can I simmer in their hot spit?
How long can I take this s**t?
I need to leave here before I die
G-d send me there!
Why, why, this painful exile?
I cannot endure this mile!
I cannot hold this smile!
My power amounts to nothing; send me Home!
Yours is the dome
I am becoming like a dry bone
Send me to my room, I don't want to leave it; what a beatiful prison
Where Your light shatters through the Prism
I do not know if it is in my power to retrieve it but I know that
I don't have it in my heart to leave it
I fear the future, I know not my sustenance
But I trust in You for it is Yours
Please, just a share
Mistakes I have made, but how can they be paid?
I am a dry bone here, a dry bone I am becoming
I fear the future, I know not my sustenance
But I know that here I cannot be sustained
Send me on that flying train, my L-rd!
Free me from this pain
You've done it once, now do it again
I beg
I have emptiness here, I need a touch of fulness
I realize my weakness, I realize my love for Your Land
I realize the richness of Your Hand
Blame me for I love what I see and what I touch
I fail from iconoclasm with Your Land
There there are spiritual spasms I have
Even in lowliness let me sit on Your Couch
Live to see not die to be free
It's soft pillows enveloping me
I here can barely stand reality
That boost, I need it, four years too long!
I long
I want genuine joy in my songs, from where will it come?
Please, please Hashem, please and give me some
To please I want and now I want
The melancholy of this longing
I see pictures of Your Land and have fits
I have to put them away
I have to deny joy, for all joy opens up to the joy of your Land
But I am far away
All joy opens up to the joy of your land
Like every river ends up in the ocean
What a predicament, what a Land!
For this land I am in is NOTHING!
Even molecules of memory I cannot withstand
I cannot function with images of that Place in my head
I have to imagine all day of its intense beauty
For one sweet drop of its honey
I have to feel nothing just to get by
I don't want to die
I want to live and there
I shake violently to go there
I grab air in front of me, I try to pull myself up
"Please, please," is all I can say
"Please, please, please, please, please"
I am an empty vessel of cracking clay
What is there to be inside?

I was cleaning up popcorn today in the darkness of a movie theatre, one of my summer jobs, when I had the opportunity to meditate and get lost in thought, or should I say "found?" I realized something interesting; Christianity and Islam are "messianic" religions in that they both were founded as religions by individuals whom deemed themselves the harbingers of Messianic redemption. Both religions were simultaneously founded on the belief that the End Times were right around the corner, if not already in process, and both stand on the notion that they somehow are the literal fulfillments of all previous prophecies and expectations. That they are "messianic" religions in this sense explains the certain kind of "extroverted" energy that both contain, the felt need to evangelize their points of view to help bring about the redemption that (they believe) began with the life of their respective figure. That after 2,006 and 1,284 years respectively that Messianic redemption has not reached full circle yet has necessitated theological explanations as to why it has not occured yet, or that it had already begun and will be completed at a later date, or that the Messiah figure (Jesus in Christianity and the Hidden Imam in Shi'a Islam) is scheduled to return or already has.

Judaism is also a "messianic religion," but it did not spring up as a religion based on a Messianic figure whom announced that the arrival of the Messiah was imminent or had been fulfilled with him. This figure was Abraham, the starter of the Jewish religion (to whom Christians and Muslims also attribute spiritual and literal fatherhood). Perhaps that Judaism was not born out of Messianic fervor unlike Christianity and Islam does alot to explain the different attitude inherent to Judaism regarding prosletyzing. The only prosletyzing in Judaism to convince people of the existence of the One G-d, but not to have them convert to Judaism. Judaism does not believe in the imminent presence of the Messiah, but believes him to be scheduled to arrive any day. Indeed, it would be a lie to say that Messianic fervor does not exist in Judaism, for it surely does and can be felt with many people, but the widely-held belief in Judaism is that the arrival of the Messiah is not open to opinion or interpretation, meaning that when he arrives it will be as clear as day and not a belief held by a group of people. Islam and Christianity are in a state of constant Messianic fervor; Judaism is in a state of constant Messianic longing, which Jews believe will be broken at a certain point in history at which point the truths of G-d, life, and reality are revealed to humanity.

Most importantly is the Jewish view that Messianic redemption is a continuously occuring process, perhaps even after the arrival of the Messiah, which moderates some of the "absolutism" that are part and parcel of Christianity and Islam, the absolute conviction that the Messianic age is here (and has been here). The belief that he is already here makes the "nothing to lose, everything to gain" mentality quite fitting, and imagine being locked into that mentality for 2,000 and 1,284 years respectively. The reality is that there is always much to gain and much to lose; one cannot give away his estates as long as the Messiah has not arrived, and who is to say that one should give away his estates once the Messiah HAS arrived? If Messianic redemption is based on humanity's conviction that G-d is One and rules all, then that revelation is a steadily-occuring and continuous revelation, like an envelope being opened inch-by-inch, not being torn open in one violent act, in which humanity harnesses its best potentialities and learns to moderate its worst, and understands the ever-deep significance that G-d is the King of everything.

"Dogma" is a word that some immature people use instead of the words "truth" and "regularity." Truly there is such thing as dogma, but you have to understand what truth is, and that it exists, before you can understand what dogma is. Until then you can't even be sure that dogma exists.

On the Nature of Atonement

This post is basically about human nature and whether it is good or evil, according to Judaism and Christianity. It started off as a writing on Christianity's view of human nature ("Notzriut" means "Christianity" in Hebrew), but eventually meshed into something else. Anyway, hope you enjoy, and please leave a comment.



Thoughts on Notzriut:

If G-d can forgive Christians without their having to do anything to receive that forgiveness, then G-d can surely forgive Jews as they do something to receive that forgiveness, even if it is not up to par with the way they originally atoned. The basis of G-d’s forgiveness of Jews is their recognition of G-d’s Law and at least a show of effort to improve, and if not, then at least a recognition that they need to improve. The basis of G-d’s forgiveness of Christians is that they cannot improve. The atonement that Christians believe G-d provided for them calls into question the way in which G-d made the entire universe and the nature of man, with free will to either sin or be obedient. The atonement of Christianity believes itself to have triumphed over that innate human tendency to sin, but not by steering the free will in the proper direction to avoid sin, but to provide a perpetual sin offering. To use an analogy, human nature is like water and sin is a contaminant in that water. The atonement of sin is the drain in the tub down which all of the contaminant goes. The concept of a perpetual sin offering is like expressing no concern over how much contaminant actually goes into the water because it is constantly going down the drain. The Jewish concept of sin is that the drain does not exist, but that each individual (and group) must reach into the water and remove the contents on their own. Therefore, they share in the process of atonement with G-d, for even though they have removed the transgression on their own, it is G-d Who has forgiven them for committing it. Every once in a while, as we see in the Torah, G-d forgives the Jews “randomly,” He is moved to mercy, for whatever reason, to forgive the Jews, and those instances can be likened do the drain down which G-d sends all the contamination. Sometimes it is their worthiness that motivates Him and sometimes it is their inability to be worthy, but in Christianity, it is always their inability to be worthy that has caused G-d to create that perpetual drain for their sin. In this view, the attempt to improve is futile because the human nature is a nature of sin, even though that is not the view expressed in Genesis and other parts of the Torah and Jewish thought. How can the nature of the human be a nature of sin when Adam was made in the image of G-d? It does not say that Adam was made in the image of Satan, but only that Satan tempts him. Therefore, ideally and theoretically, Man’s being made in the image of G-d triumphs over his being tempted by Satan; if Man meditates and concentrates on in Whose image he was created, he can at least move in the direction of avoiding sin. So often do Christians act as if humanity has been made in the image of Satan. If it is really no question of who is stronger, G-d or Satan, then being made in the image of the stronger should triumph over the temptations of the weaker. If G-d is stronger than Satan, then G-d’s urgings should be more influential and persuasive over the human being than Satan’s. Satan is powerful, there is no question there, but the relationship between Man and G-d is infinitely more intimate than the relationship between Man and Satan, ideally and theoretically, but essentially and literally. It is Christianity’s view which makes it a fatalistic religion, fearing human nature and accordingly shunning the most human of behaviors, associating them with the essence of evil (and therefore death, for evil brings death, if not physical then spiritual). Sex is the most potent example of this. If not sex itself, then it is the powerful drive for sex which a human possesses which is said to be evil, or to cause evil. It is for that reason that we see repeated associations between sex, sin, and Satan, and why in Christian thought, if culturally and not directly religious, sex is usually a vessel for evil, a tool of Satan. Mind you, Judaism too recognizes the powerful potential for sex to bring evil, but takes the stance that it is not sex that is inherently evil, but the desire for sex, which is designed to ideally lead one to union with one’s mate, which causes a human being to yearn for sex and to lose control. It is this yearning when acted upon out of control and without boundary and guidance which causes evil to occur, but is not sex itself that is evil. Remember, it was G-d that created sex, not Satan, and it was G-d that told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply, not Satan. Therefore, it is not Satan whom gives one the desire to have sex, it is G-d. However, it is Satan that leads us to misuse sex, and misusing sex is evil. It was G-d that gave humanity the ability to procreate, not Satan, for if it was Satan, then humankind is the progeny of Satan, not G-d, for it is to Satan that we can attribute prolonged existence, not G-d. This is not true. We see in Christianity that the figure associated with the highest good is not just G-d but Jesus, and Jesus, in accordance with the theology of the evil nature of sex, is a virgin figure without children. The idea here is that sex corrupts, and since Jesus never had sex (which is evidenced by his not having children), he is purely good. In Catholicism his mother is considered to be a virgin, and in the Christian tradition the only one partaking in the act of “be fruitful and multiply” is G-d Himself, the giver of the commandment! At once this makes absolute sense and absolutely no sense. It makes sense because we should expect that G-d follows His own commandments, but it makes no sense because He holds the virgins higher than those who know and therefore, Himself knowing, debases Himself. Perhaps sex has such an evil effect on the mind of Man that only G-d can partake in it without becoming damaged. In other words, sex is for G-d and not for humanity. Every act in the Torah attributed to G-d, “He heard, He saw, He took the Jews out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm” is an example of anthropomorphism. The only corporeal act attributed to G-d is found in the New Testament, and it is that He quite literally impregnated a human being.

In the times after my finding I have experienced times when I was searching
I soared to heights after I found and became found
Being found is the foundation of humanity
To be found is to be grounded
The maximum is our minimum
G-d's expectations are our standards
His standards are our requisites
Our requisites should be our expectations - and no other
And only the grounded can fly
They begin to occupy a space not in place or time
And they ask, and it rains dimes
That land on their plates and in their minds
From the Most High
Times when I've been searching since then
Even then the valleys were higher than the peaks
Which I reached before I saw and understood
My lowest day in the past four years
Has been higher than my highest day beforehand
When life was crisis
Those days are shattered to me, I can't even fathom them
They have sunk to uncountable fathoms
Who dare say that G-d doesn't exist?!
A man cannot rise out of despair by his own volition
G-d is a Savior and He lives forever
And it is the Gentle Hand of our L-rd, Hashem ha-Kadosh Baruch Hu
Who flings a soul up with the bend of His Finger
Don't you know that men cannot fly?

I could not touch joy; I thought there was something wrong with me
The deep sadness that pervaded my vision, fading everything to gray
My heart imploded inside me, my sensation drained like blood from a vein
Joy was vain
Now I know what it was
I hated the drugs and sexual recreation of those my age
Once I knew of the latter, I let it go for Jacob's ladder
Only to know it later when the time has arrived to know
For those who don't know don't glow

It was not joy that I could not touch
It was falsehood, and our generation's folly is
The mixing of joy with falsehood
The idols with the healthy breasts -- see Isis
The idols with the clean-shaven chests and faces -- see Greek row
See 21st Century paganism there
In our institutions of higher learning
Who there has a higher yearning, a higher burning?
They are paving the paths of the future
We have been shown the pure way and more
We have been commanded it
G-d is our Light and Savior
He is our Lightsaver, our Lifesaver
The Floaty in the torrential ocean
And the evil past has been bound, choked, and drowned, murdered mercilessly
Beneath the waves of that ocean
Like a Titanic that won't ever be resurrected
Killed and broken in the depths of the ocean
Where there is no light

One day I can't write anything
All I absorb or that I exude has to stay fresh in my mind
This is the most real state in which one can live
And that day is a sign of the future days
When all the world is the World to Come
Only now can I jot them down
This is the way one should live, not resorting to paper for his memory's sake
But life should be written in the world
When this world has become the World to Come
The sun was dropping below the horizon to the west/northwest
Making a mockery of the luminescence of everything
A degree of brilliance not attainable
It shot me back to my childhood
When things were felt with such naturally-occuring charisma
To a place far away in space, to the holiest of lands
It reminded me of something that I saw there
And I can't quite place my finger on it, all I know is that it reminded me
Inside every adult is the version of the person whom they were
The child who saw things unhindered, unobstructed by... what is the word?
Life? No, for they saw life
Practicality? No, for only ideals are practical
Reality? No, their version is reality
Perhaps a word for which there is none
Maybe falsehood
They are proof that the truth of G-d is euphoric
But only because it is G-d and truth is it euphoric
Those who know this are with G-d and they stay children forever
And then, how can the world grow old or anything in it?
Our King Solomon said, "Nothing is new under the sun."

Good point. An article from Ha'aretz. Just to give a bit of background on this for those who don't know. In 1967 there was a war between Israel and three Arab countries, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. It's also known as the Six Day War. Israel ended up winning that war, taking the Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights, and part of Jordan, which is now known as the West Bank. Israel's border with Jordan before that war (the pre-1967 war border) made Israel a disrespectfully small country with an area of land nine miles wide. Israel has since pulled out of the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank, and Hamas wants Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders. The Gaza Strip and West Bank are labeled "the territories," referring not to Israel's sovereingty but to Palestinian. Who should rationally care what Hamas wants? But this is Israel 2006 and the world 21st Century, so go figure. So much for progress; it's the progressives that support the pullout for the most part. The Palestinian leadership, now replaced with Hamas, patterned its policies on threatening Israel to withdraw from "territories" or for more attacks to come. However, after Israel's withdrawal and the continuance of attacks, we understand that withdrawals do not stop the attacks. In other words, the Palestinian leadership said, "Leave the areas and we'll stop because we want those areas in which to build a Palestinian state." Israel leaves the areas and the attacks dont' stop, they only get moved into the areas in which Jews still live. What will happen next? "Leave the areas in which you live now (they'll have to fabricate some false reason) and we'll stop the attacks." Will Israel do it? G-d forbid no, but the Palestinians will want them to, at which point Israel can either attack them or actually leave. That' what it comes down to; those two options. Anyway, that's my explanation, enjoy the article.



Tie a blue ribbon for Gilad and Eliyahu (By Bradley Burston) from Haaretz.com

There's an inexplicable calm regarding Gilad Shalit.

Must be the way the world works.

When the missile hit his tank, Gilad Shalit was guarding our pre-1967 war border.

The border that Hamas has been talking about for months. The one to which, should we withdraw, they would make peace with us for generations.

Or until Sunday morning, whichever came first.

When the missile hit his tank, two of his crewmates, Hanan Barak and Pavel Slutzker, were killed in the blast. A third was seriously injured.

And there was Gilad, this kid, bleeding, alone, dragged off into the Gaza Strip by men who would probably rather kill him than look at him.

There's this heartbreaking photograph of a kid not 20 years old. The wide, unspoiled smile, doubtless unchanged from when he was small.

There is this lovely family, their guard let down because they believed him to be serving in the north, far from danger. A father who, in the depth of his dread, can say to the kidnappers, "We believe that those who are holding him also have families and children, and that they know what we are feeling."

The world can't give a fallen fig.

When the missile hit, there was this kid, stationed at a quiet IDF position, not in the territories, nowhere near Palestinians.

And here is this kidnapping of a soldier in an army which has withdrawn from the internationally recognized whole of the once-occupied Gaza Strip.

The world cares not at all.

Perhaps we should care more. Perhaps it's time people made a small statement in as many places as possible.

Now there is another kid being held, by the celebrants of horrible death, under threat of horrible death: Eliyahu Asheri, even younger than Gilad.

Tie a blue ribbon on a tree for Gilad, and for Eliyahu. So that people will ask what it's for, and you can tell them.

So that they won't be left alone, nor their family.

Ignore the voices - you can hear them already - saying that Gilad had it coming, as a member of a military that attacks Palestinians - the Palestinians that fire Qassams into homes, schools and medical clinics, the Palestinians that fire Qassams every single day, sometimes as many as seven times a day.

Ignore the voices - you know what they're going to spit at you, saying that Eliyahu had it coming, just because his parents decided to raise him on the wrong side of the Green Line.

The world doesn't give a fallen fig.

The world has washed its hands of the Palestinians. The world has washed its hands of Hamas. The world is tired of our troubles as well.

There's a sense that this is a kidnapping that even Hamas would rather not think about.

The answer may well lie somewhere between the Twin Towers and Faluja. Mass murder in the name of God, beheadings in the name of God, bombing after bombing after bombing after bombing in the name of God, gets to us after a while. Our ability to care, our very ability to notice, has been compromised by a reign of terror of such enormity, of such horror, of such duration, that the threshold of our emotional attention has become all but unreachable.

But just this once ...

We should tie a blue ribbon for Gilad, and for Eliyahu. For the sake of their families. For our own sake. For the sake of the world.

So that people will ask what it's for. And so they'll find out.

A link showing what goes in to the types of
bombs that Palestinian suicide bombers strap onto themselves. Notice the screws in picture five and the four-inch long nails in picture eight; these could be more useful in building a house. That however, implies infrastructure, so it's much more suggestable to lodge them into an Israeli. Use your imagination.

OK, I'll use it for you...

Picture 1

Picture 2

Picture 3 - not for the weak-stomached

Picture 4

Picture 5 - not for the weak-stomached!

Picture 6 - not for the weak-stomached!

Pictures 7-21 - not for the weak-stomached!

Picture 8

Does humanity have the right to argue or debate over what the value of the human being is? What is the need for organized religion? Is it control, or perhaps, is it an organized understanding of unchangeable truth-expressing values?

We live in such an individualistic age that it is almost considered rude for a person to discuss with another as to what the value or meaning of human life is. To think that in an age of such apparent free-mindedness that for people to discuss such a topic would be acceptable is sadly with weak evidence; “free society” labels those whom are open-minded about discussing the deepest natures of the human being, and actually believing what they say and living according to it, as “fundamentalists.” This is to show that the definition of the word “fundamentalist” is misunderstood. A “fundamentalist” is one whom believes in certain fundamental truths, hence “fundamentalist,” and is not to be misunderstood with “extremist,” which is a person whom carries fundamentals to extreme conclusions. Granted, the confusion between the words, the mistake made that turns them into synonyms, has a lot to do with the fierce individualism that is bothered by notions of fixed values. It is a civilization that tries to wriggle its way out of fixed (and therefore limiting) values that seeks to define “fundamentals” as “extremist.” It is a social mechanism of freedom. A society that cannot even understand what “fundamentals” are damages itself and others when it begins to pass value judgments on what “extremism” is; if it is not comfortable, then it is extremism. This is not to say that extremism does not exist, because it does, but a civilization with a moral compass in need of readjusting cannot accurately discern between the two, which has negative repercussions for everyone.

If the members of society cannot openly, freely, and genuinely discuss the deepest and most essential values in an honest manner, are they not then cursed to shallow, superficial living, existing on the surface of the human experience but never delving below into its actual value? Is the lack of desire, or the hesitation to speak about such things in fact a social ailment, which has the ability to severely incapacitate society and all its members? We have the wrong impression that a damaged society dies. This is not true, society continues to trudge along albeit in a damaged state, for as long as human beings exist, then so does society. In a time in American society (at least American society) when it has once again become a value for citizens to question authority and politics, why is it the deepest searchers of political truths that turn a blind eye to the matters of the human spirit and the powerful effect that society has on our being? How can and do they justify the political paradigms and values for which they stand and not the spiritual and religious paradigms of humanity? How can they leave the entire search for human meaning in the hands of politics and not in the hand of spirit? Why do people, intelligent, value-driven people, neglect the soul? Where does the soul meet politics? Is there an intersection? Why is it chic to don bumper stickers with radical political messages but not with radical religious messages? Does politicalism trump religiosity?

We take for granted that murder is something which all humanity considers to be morally objectionable. We fail to see that perhaps “humanity” is a word that does not accurately reflect the human population; if the human population is made up of civilizations which are in debilitating disagreement with each other about the meaning of human existence and its role, then is not the word “humanity” a terrible misnomer? It would be like using the word “brotherhood” when people do not believe that they are family, or “Pan-Arabism” when Arab countries are not unified by any real ideological unity. Which society is to be correct in saying that murder is wrong, and which society provides the authorative definition? Is it by some “nature” that all societies happen to object to murder, or is the concept that murder is wrong an idea that flourishes within the body of humanity and which reaches the corners of the Earth? Is it, to make a contemporary analogy, one of the oldest forms of media in humanity; a value that spreads through some kind of channel, perhaps the ability to speak?

We take for granted that there are fixed values in humanity and fail to understand that there is not much separating what we consider to be fixed values and what are able to change. For example, it has happened countless times in human history when a civilization or society took to murdering another, despite the apparently fixed human value that murder is wrong. To the society, it was clear, a word other than “murder” was appropriate; perhaps “cleansing,” “defense,” or “retaliation.” To the murdered, however, it was just as clear or perhaps more that “murder” was in fact the only appropriate word. We get offended when we are told what is right and wrong and what the inherent value and meaning of the human being is, which means that there are inherently right and wrong behaviors and ways of thinking, but we do not get offended when we are told that murder is wrong; why not? Is that “murder is wrong” not just another value “imposed” on us through our inherited status as human beings and not animals? Is the immorality of murder a human tradition? Are we not free to disagree that murder is wrong? What if we are able to prove it, are we then free to murder? Have their not been several “historical superstars” whom have tried to prove that murder is not wrong? Do we not take that murder is wrong on faith?

The above picture is an original from the www.capmag.com website

Arab/Iranian/Pakistani/Tunisian/Muslim/Christians of Peace-----------------------------

It's time that we added some new names to the lexicon of the Israeli-Palestinian-Arab conflict, because the only ingredient we are truly missing for three-dimensional conversation to occur about what's going is the Muslim/Arab voice of self-criticism; G-d knows that such a voice thunders from the Jewish and Israeli camp. Like "Salt & Pepa" said, "I give props to those who deserve it." Hopefully, with them, we'll be one step to "burning all illusion tonight," like Bob Marley said. May we show some respect to these righteous Gentiles and sons and daughters of Ishmael. Therefore, and in no particular order, I present to you these nine stunning individuals.

Nonie Darwish - An Egyptian Muslim (turned Christian) whose father died fighting Israel. An avid supporter of the change that she believes Islam needs to see in its dealing with terrorism from a first-hand perspective.

Walid Shoebat - A Palestinian from Ramallah turned Christian. As a boy he almost carried out a shooting attack on Israel but changed his mind at the last moment. Exposes the truth of what Palestinian children are taught from a young age from a first-hand perspective.

Ismail/Ishmael Khaldi - an Israeli Bedouin and his thoughts on the State of Israel.

Sheikh Abdul Palazzi - an Italian Muslim Sheikh who demonstrates that the Qur'an is not anti-Jewish at all.

Irshad Manji - Author of "The Trouble with Islam" and a public speaker about issues pertinent to Muslims and Arabs.

Reza Aslan - Public speaker and educator, author of "No G-d but G-d," intellectually honest about problems pertaining to Muslims and Arabs.

Wafa Sultan - Very outspoken Tunisian-born Arab Muslim woman about "the clash of civilizations" between Islam and "the West."

Tashbih Sayyed - Muslim Pakistani psychologist speaks about issues related to Islam.

Joseph Farah - A Christian Arab with a fresh perspective on Middle Eastern issues.


At the bottom of the page you can find audio and video tracks of a few of the aforementioned people.


It seems that for quite a long time has there been a loud anti-Israel Jewish voice lodged deep in the sinuses of the anti-Israel intelligentsia, causing great migraines to the Jewish people. Intelligentsia, if that’s what it can really be called without inciting a chuckle, has been leading the march against Israel’s morale. Now, we all know that the relief for such aches and pains is not a political solution in and of itself, but rather one tempered with that special nasal decongenstant Jews know as "Torah." But the voices coming from the aforementioned noble souls act as does a hot sauce when ingested, clearing the nasal cavity. One and all, together, let us stick our fingers into our noses and remove all malcontent blockages! Okay, okay, enough with the shnoz analogies!

Seriously now, the events since 9/11 opened up a path for Arab Muslims and Christians, not to mention Muslims of other nationalities, to speak confidently and publicly about issues of concern regarding Islam and the politics surrounding it. Some of these people are traditionalists and religious while others are liberal and secular; some are Arabs, some are Pakistani, and some are Iranian, but all see the importance of new paradigms that are able to snap into place with Islam and the Muslim people. Just like it was not good for Adam to be alone, it is not good for Jews to be alone in bringing a voice of reason; these Muslims and Arabs represent the new “arsenal,” if you so wish to call it, in bringing about healthy and intellectual changes for the Arab and Muslim people from the inside out, the only way that the ever-important and most highly-held values of the Arab and Muslim people can be kept intact (which is not something that the liberal Jewish intelligentsia is concerned with regarding Israel). Now, instead of Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein being silently prayed from the lips of the enlightened “prophets” of academia, let them as well utter the names “Darwish,” “Shoebat,” “Palazzi,” Khaldi,” “Manji,” “Sayyed,” “Aslan,” “Farah,” and “Sultan”; the “Dream Team.” May many young and concerned Muslims be allowed to follow and follow, and maybe some of the old too.

As the list grows and as I find more people, I will add them on to here with a short description of who they are and perhaps some of their writings. So like Bob Dylan said, or was it Carlie Simon (?), "You better start swimming or you'll sink like a stone, cuz the times they are-a changing."

*You can also check out these clips.


Nonie Darwish



Walid Shoebat



Reza Aslan



I have found some audio interviews with many of the aforementioned people and I will post more soon. Here are a few to hold you over.

And these interviews with the aforementioned people and more, from the Tovia Singer Show:

You can also go here to listen to interviews with Tarek Abdelhamid one and two and Walid Shoebat in parts one and two.

Professor Khaleel Muhammad being interviewed about the Qur’an’s mention of the Land of Israel and the Jews in parts one and two.

An earlier Walid Shoebat interview here in parts one and two.

Ishmael Khaldi and Nonie Darwish in parts one and two.

An older interview with Walid Shoebat in parts one and two.


The original Nonie Darwish interview in parts one and two.

A debate between Walid Shoebat and Shaykh Yassir Fazaga is found here in parts one and two.


The original interview with Walid Shoebat back on July 15th of 2003 is here in parts one and two.


An interview with Joseph Farah, a Christian Arab, is here in parts one and two.


An interview with Sheikh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi is here.


A May 28th 2002 interview with Ehud Olmert here.


An earlier interview with Sheikh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi is here in parts one, two, and three.


An earlier Joseph Farah interview is found here in parts one and two.


Shalom, Shlam, Salaam, Paz, Peace

Little Donkey Carry Mary.... Through Roadblocks and Tanks ---------------------------

The other day I ran by this article about trying to understand what Jesus' life might have been like in the 1st Century. The author went around trying to place himself in this context by consulting Palestinian "refugees" in Israel and attempting to understand how they felt crossing through all those checkpoints.




Dear webmaster, I am shocked at what I read in this article. http://www.cms-uk.org/news/2005/bethlehem_231205.htm

It has already been a propaganda ploy to equate the State of Israel with the Nazi regime. This "effort" has largely been lead by Palestinian propaganda outlets, eager to weaken Israel's integrity by attempting to demostrate that Israeli's (Jews) are guilty of doing to others what was done to them. Ironically, it is only when the propagandists need to compare Israel to Nazi Germany when they concede that the Holocaust did in fact occur. Other than that, they deem it an exaggeration or an all-out lie. Needless to say, the analogies are weak and improbable, to say the least. Your usage of "the suffering Palestinian" narrative, actually heeding the grievances of Fassed, to try to place yourself in the life and times of Jesus is quite grotesque. Jesus was a Jew, "Palestine" was his home, not the home of Muslim Arab invaders that came and snatched from it their hands generations later. In the name of historical accuracy, it would be more fitting to compare the oppressive and aggressive occupying Roman force to the Arab invaders of the 7th century, whom were the first Muslims. The Jews have regained some control of their rightful sovereignty in their homeland, Israel, which you call "Palestine," only to be obstructed by problem-ridden Arab countries whom wish to see Israel go away. If you realize the backwardness of this situation momentarily, you might start crying. Israel is the Jewish Holy Land, only holy to Islam as a means to garner political control. The Palestinians are not refugees in Israel, they are the remnants of invaders, belonging to Arab countries that didn't succeed in military attempts to destroy Israel (such as the 1948 and 1967 wars). Your analogy between Jesus and a Palestinian crossing through checkpoints is bizarre; Jesus was a Jew, not an Arab Muslim labeled a "Palestinian." It is a better analogy to compare it to a Jew whom is spit upon by Arabs as he walks through the "wrong parts" of Jerusalem, those parts dominated by Arabs. It takes a lot of chutzpah for an Arab to spit on a Jew while the Jew walks through the holiest site in his Land. The line of reasoning in this article justifies that chutzpah (audacity), turning Jesus, which Islam considers to be a prophet, into a suffering Palestinian figure, thereby confirming the entire "Palestine was invaded by Jews" myth. The Palestinians kill innocent people by blowing themselves up in cafe's, crowded streets, and clubs, the major reason for this restricted access. Jesus, the Jew, nor any of his family, tried to do this to any of the Romans. Had the Palestinians lived in 1st Century Israel, they would have most definitely resorted to the disgusting tactics applied on Israel today. Are you sure that you want to make this spiritual link between Jesus and Palestinian nationalism?

Yaniv...


His response:

Dear Yaniv

The CMS webmaster Alister McLeod has passed on your email. It's always helpful to get feedback so thanks for your comments. I haven't heard from you before. Do you read our website regularly?

On you comments:

1. I don't see any evidence for suggesting that this article compares Israel to Nazi Germany.

2. I don't think we are saying there is a spiritual link between Jesus and Palestinian nationalism. Jesus was not a 'nationalist' and that categorisation doesn't shed meaningful light on who he was or what he did.

3. It's plausible to suggest that the Holy Family might have encountered Roman checkpoints and this probably was not a comfortable experience. I'd suggest there's no military checkpoint anywhere that isn't somewhat intimidating and I know from first hand experience that the same is true of Israeli checkpoints.

4. We could discuss forever the historical details. I think history is important but I'm not sure it helps much with micro issues that arise when ordinary people, Israeli and Palestinian alike, get caught at the sharp end of wider circumstances and suffer as a result.

Kind regards


John Martin

John Martin
Head of Communication
CMS Partnership House, 157 Waterloo Road, London SE1 8UU
Switchboard: (020) 7928 8681; Fax: (020) 7401 3215
Direct Line: (020) 7803 3311
E-mail: john.martin @cms-uk.org
www.cms-uk.org
CMS is a community of mission service
· living a mission lifestyle
· equipping people in mission service
· sharing resources for mission work



My response:

You're right, you made no comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany, but you tried to understand Jesus' life through the scope of what some people call "the Palestinian struggle." This is rich in political implications. Not to mention, that "struggle" is one of the most vociferous, Jew-hating movements around; it seeks to undermind Jewish rights at their very core. Like I said, the roadblocks are there to keep Palestinians from entering "Israeli territory" (technically it's all Israeli territory) and blowing themselves up, something that the Jews of 1st Century Israel were not doing to the Romans. It seems that the Jewish and Muslim attitudes towards oppression are quite different. You didn't compare Israel to Nazi Germany, but you compared, in effect, Israel to the Roman occupying army, which is essentially the same thing if we view Rome as a Nazi-type power, which it was. Either way, you fell into the trap of equating Israel to its oppressor and comparing the Palestinians to the Jews. Why can't you compare Israel to Israel; Israel is a sovereign state right now, why can't you compare that to King David's reign over the Land of Israel?

Mrs. McLeod said:

Jesus was not a 'nationalist' and that categorisation doesn't shed meaningful light on who he was or what he did.

Agreed. So why make the comparison between Jesus and the attempt of Palestinians to get through Israeli roadblocks? The Palestinians are nationalists, and the "roadblock experience" is something they deem as part of their obstructed national aspirations. Can you not see the implications here?

As for the third point, that is true, but remember that it is Israeli land, it was not Roman land, and similarly it is not Arab land.

And you are correct about point four. However, it is specific macro issues that give rise to these micro issues. I don't expect a Palestinian child to look out his window, see Israeli soldiers, and love them; that's the micro. I also don't expect the Arabs known as Palestinians to understand that they are a part of a larger Arab predicament, incapable of dealing with internal societal problems and projecting those problems externally, and Israel is the target of that projection; that's the macro. It is not micro issues that give rise to the macro issues; you have the situation reversed. In your heart of hearts, how do you think that Jesus, were he alive today, would react to witnessing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? What would he think?

Thank you, Yaniv...




His response with mine intertwined:

I responded in the same manner you did, within the text, but I can't change the color of the text here so I made spaces between the responses.


You're right, you made no comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany, but you tried to understand Jesus' life through the scope of what some people call "the Palestinian struggle." This is rich in political implications. Not to mention, that "struggle" is one of the most vociferous, Jew-hating movements around; it seeks to undermind Jewish rights at their very core. Like I said, the roadblocks are there to keep Palestinians from entering "Israeli territory" (technically it's all Israeli territory)

[John Martin] there are people who would debate with you on that point.

That’s fine, they are free to debate this, which can be done on a political basis. Religiously however, if you want to put it that way, the Torah says that Israel is the Land of the Jews.

and blowing themselves up, something that the Jews of 1st Century Israel were not doing to the Romans.

[John Martin] Yes, they had no explosives. But by the time you get the lead-up to the fall of the Temple and Masada from AD70, Jewish Zealots taking desperate (and usually futile) measures.

Great point. The only difference is that the Jewish Zealots killed themselves on Masada, rather than to surrender to Roman rule and become essential slaves and probably forced to worship idols. When it comes down to it, it is more noble to kill yourself for purposes of ideology, conviction, and suffering than to kill another. Technically, you don’t have the right to kill yourself either, but I would imagine that it is more “proper” to kill yourself than another, because the other might not want to die. Very generally, the Jewish concept of martyrdom is to kill yourself while the Muslim concept of martyrdom is to kill others (which could be accomplished by killing yourself). We need to keep in mind that the Muslim Arab practice of suicide bombing did not come into existence until this century. This coincides perfectly with the first time in history that the Arabs have fighting a battle from below rather than from a dominating position. This has directly led to the advent of suicide bombing, a play on the Muslim ideal of martyrdom but with a twist of bleakness rather than triumph, and wallah, suicide bombing. Those who simply label it “desperation” are missing large historical background information.

It seems that the Jewish and Muslim attitudes towards oppression are quite different.

[John Martin] This might be true. Of course, our main interest as CMS is with Arab Christians and I don't think on the whole they are associated with suicide bombings, etc. There is, moreover, a range of expressions and viewpoints.

And it is not Arab Christians killing Jews, but it is Arab Christians suffering from the acts of the Muslim Palestinians; there is no way to “filter” through Christians while the Muslims have to stay back, unless of course Israel forces them to wear some kind of physical symbol to be able to distinguish between them. Perhaps you should go to the problem at the root cause. The Palestinian Muslims sometimes treat the Christians horribly, as I have seen a documentary or two on this.

You didn't compare Israel to Nazi Germany, but you compared, in effect, Israel to the Roman occupying army, which is essentially the same thing if we view Rome as a Nazi-type power, which it was.

[John Martin] I'm not sure my point is the same as the original writer, but I wanted to suggest that wherever there is a military presence it is often intimidating for civilians even when miltiray duties are exercised with empathy and compassion.

And it is equally intimidating to know that you might die on the night out on the town with some friends or while taking a bus to school or work. Something had to be done about the suicide bombing, and up until the fence/wall was built, road blocks did the job. They were, perhaps, and inhumane response to an even more inhumane cause. Actually, I don’t believe that road blocks are inhumane; history shows that much worst things can be done to a group of people, and ironically, we can look back into Jewish history to find some example, and even more ironically, we have a hard time finding examples in Muslim and Arab history. Random chance has it that women will give birth and things like at the checkpoints, but no human has caused that to happen. Now you have people condemning the wall as apartheid – I guess the conclusion is that Israel does not have the right to defend itself and should just perish and/or be soaked into the larger Muslim population, the Umma.

Either way, you fell into the trap of equating Israel to its oppressor and comparing the Palestinians to the Jews. Why can't you compare Israel to Israel; Israel is a sovereign state right now, why can't you compare that to King David's reign over the Land of Israel?

[John Martin] That's an interesting line of thought. You would have more idea than me what the Israel to Israel might look like. I suspect from reading between the lines of 1 Samuel-2 Kings that the rule of the ancient kings at least sometimes had oppressive dimensions.

Yes, that is true as well, but the oppressive dimensions were from the Israelite/Judean king over his subjects, whom were largely Israelite/Judean as well, not over another population. There were, however, other peoples living in the Kingdoms, and that is exactly my point. The Palestinians can be those people, but they can’t revolt and rebel against the Kingdom; the Kingdom would have not tolerated it, but the State does, and might just be the State’s downfall (I’m no prophet). Similarly, to take a cue from Muslim history, Jewish subjects of Muslim societies and empires were expected to remain docile and appreciative, which in fact, usually was the case (those Jews are so much easier to get along with, no?). There is a correlation; they had a special (second class) status called “dhimmitude,” whereby they were afforded certain rights, along with a lower civil class. They didn’t rebel or complain, and everything was fine. If there was a civil law suit between Jew and Muslim, the Muslim would always win (this is not the case with the Israeli Supreme Court). They would also be required, like all subjects, to pay a special tax affording them the protection that a dhimmi received, called the “jizya tax,” which was sometimes collected in a harsh way, such as with slapping and pulling his beard, to remind the person of his submissive status in Muslim society. If he didn’t submit to Al-lah, then he would have to submit to the Muslim people. When Israel became a state, the Arab societies when bogus and expelled nearly 100% of their Jewish populations! Clearly, Israel does not treat its Palestinian subjects in this way, and much of the harsh treatment they receive is directly related to suicide bombing. Mind you, if Jews in Muslim lands had done anything remotely similar to what the Palestinians do today, they would have been either expelled immediately or killed. I sense a real passive-aggression on the part of the Palestinian people and Arab Muslims in general, and maybe Christians too; they don’t respect Israel because Israel doesn’t have the same values as they do, i.e., it lets them get away with things that the Muslim society would never dream of letting the Jews get away with. Truly, Israel is too nice to them, but does that mean that we have to be savages like them in order to get their respect? There is nothing that we can do that will get their respect; even giving them land doesn’t get their respect, they see it as a state-supported form of military plunder, while your liberal Israeli sees it as an attempt to make peace – it’s a joke. The truth is that none of this would have happened if Israel had expelled the Jordanians and Egyptians from Israel in 1967. It didn’t and they eventually became known as “Palestinians.”

Mrs. McLeod said:

Jesus was not a 'nationalist' and that categorisation doesn't shed meaningful light on who he was or what he did.
Agreed. So why make the comparison between Jesus and the attempt of Palestinians to get through Israeli roadblocks? The Palestinians are nationalists, and the "roadblock experience" is something they deem as part of their obstructed national aspirations. Can you not see the implications here?

[John Martin] You could be right. But at a less ideological level, what about the stresses on ordinary Arab people who for example need to cross a road block to get medical care, and find it takes hours?

As for the third point, that is true, but remember that it is Israeli land, it was not Roman land, and similarly it is not Arab land.

[John Martin] As I said, some people might debate that point. But to take a parallel to the point I think you are making from somewhere else: Is Australia a European land of should indigenous Australians have the right of sovereignty? If the answer is yes, what should happen to people who have settled there since 1788?

Well, the Jews were definitely the indigenous population at the time of the spread of Islam in the 7th Century when Muslim forces took control over the area and turned all (Jewish and Christian) sites into Muslim sites. The Jewish population has remained alive in Israel since, but as a super-minority (in its own land!). The Arabs should have made room for the Jews, for a variety of purposes, but clearly this is an irrational expectation. The result is war; sometimes you have to fight for what is right and for what is yours. Clearly, that is silly to say to a degree because people eventually get sick of fighting, but the Arabs show no sign of easing up, at least not the militants, and they control everybody.

And you are correct about point four. However, it is specific macro issues that give rise to these micro issues.

[John Martin] True.

I don't expect a Palestinian child to look out his window, see Israeli soldiers, and love them; that's the micro. I also don't expect the Arabs known as Palestinians to understand that they are a part of a larger Arab predicament, incapable of dealing with internal societal problems and projecting those problems externally, and Israel is the target of that projection; that's the macro. It is not micro issues that give rise to the macro issues; you have the situation reversed. In your heart of hearts, how do you think that Jesus, were he alive today, would react to witnessing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? What would he think?

[John Martin] That is a profoundly important question and those of us who follow Jesus have to work that out every day. I suggest: 1. Jesus would be interested in questions of justice and how this worked out in the micro. 2. Jesus would have been full of compassion, so he would take account of the Israeli national experience; and he would have been compassionate towards Arab individuals caught up in the accidents of history. 3. He would have raised the question of forgiveness, though I don't know how Jewish or Muslim mindsets would be able to apply this.

It is a profoundly important question but the answer is profoundly amalgable to one’s own presuppositions. It seems, from the text, that Jesus had an hostility towards the Romans, the civilians as well. I don’t know exactly, but when the Gentile woman went to Jesus to ask for a blessing, he replied to her by saying something along the lines of, “Why should I give the food to the dog and not the crumbs?” He had an “anti-Gentile” and “pro-Jewish” attitude. It might be fair to say that many Jews there had that attitude because of their treatment and because it was their land, but it is also fair to say that Jesus was a bit of a hateful figure. Then the text has him take a 180 in the other direction. I believe Jesus was a man, and even if I concede that he was a great man with some very great teachings, I still believe that his humanity would have revealed an end to his patience and compassion and he, like the prophets of the Torah, would have held some bitter resentment towards “the enemy.” In the end, he would have seen himself as one of his people, suffering under the yoke of the Romans as they were, he would not be so quick to “love the Palestinian” when all that the Palestinian is doing to the Israeli is hating and plundering him. I’m not sure how much of what is said about Jesus in the New Testament is a construction of a narrative rather than fact. You could say that this makes me a skeptic, but I am not, I am simply trying to understand the Jewish response to things by comparing them to real-life Jewish responses as I experience them, and the Jesus narrative just doesn’t add up.

Thank you, Yaniv...

-----
That’s fine, they are free to debate this, which can be done on a political basis. Religiously however, if you want to put it that way, the Torah says that Israel is the Land of the Jews.

[John Martin] Yes, the Torah makes that promise but on my reading the granting of the land was conditional on keeping the Covenant, refraining from idol worship etc.



And it is not Arab Christians killing Jews, but it is Arab Christians suffering from the acts of the Muslim Palestinians; there is no way to “filter” through Christians while the Muslims have to stay back, unless of course Israel forces them to wear some kind of physical symbol to be able to distinguish between them. Perhaps you should go to the problem at the root cause. The Palestinian Muslims sometimes treat the Christians horribly, as I have seen a documentary or two on this.

[John Martin]
I think we have some common ground here, though not all Arab Christians avoid nationalist rhetoric. Maybe they don't appreciate how tough life would be under a radical Muslim state.


And it is equally intimidating to know that you might die on the night out on the town with some friends or while taking a bus to school or work.

[John Martin]
Agree


Something had to be done about the suicide bombing, and up until the fence/wall was built, road blocks did the job. They were, perhaps, and inhumane response to an even more inhumane cause. Actually, I don’t believe that road blocks are inhumane; history shows that much worst things can be done to a group of people, and ironically, we can look back into Jewish history to find some example, and even more ironically, we have a hard time finding examples in Muslim and Arab history.

[John Martin]
True


Random chance has it that women will give birth and things like at the checkpoints, but no human has caused that to happen.

[John Martin]
But if this is not handled humanely it's a bad propaganda loss to those who staff the roadblocks, etc


Now you have people condemning the wall as apartheid – I guess the conclusion is that Israel does not have the right to defend itself and should just perish and/or be soaked into the larger Muslim population, the Umma.

[John Martin]
I'm not sure if I'd label the wall apartheid, but I'm not yet convinced that it's a strategy that will achieve the hopes attached to it.


Well, the Jews were definitely the indigenous population at the time of the spread of Islam in the 7th Century when Muslim forces took control over the area and turned all (Jewish and Christian) sites into Muslim sites. The Jewish population has remained alive in Israel since, but as a super-minority (in its own land!). The Arabs should have made room for the Jews, for a variety of purposes, but clearly this is an irrational expectation. The result is war; sometimes you have to fight for what is right and for what is yours. Clearly, that is silly to say to a degree because people eventually get sick of fighting, but the Arabs show no sign of easing up, at least not the militants, and they control everybody.

[John Martin]
This is very complex. I agree that the Arabs have done wrong and even stupid things but I'm not sure they are without grievances which won't be able to be addressed until hostilities end.


You could say that this makes me a skeptic, but I am not, I am simply trying to understand the Jewish response to things by comparing them to real-life Jewish responses as I experience them, and the Jesus narrative just doesn’t add up.

[John Martin] I'm glad you present a reasonably consistent position on Jesus. I don't think its very helpful for a Jewish person to say Jesus was a great teacher because his vision for the Jewish faith and its future sits very uncomfortably with mainstream expressions of the Jewish faith. Putting that aside, I would suggest: (a) he was a Jew and his worldview was informed by his Jewishness. He believed himself to be David's son and that somehow his death would be the route that ushered in the rule of God and a new era for the Jewish people (this is a standard Christian interpretation of the Prophecies of Isaiah) . (b) By comparison with the Zealots he could look as if he was bordering on being pro-Roman (eg the saying "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and to God the things which are God's". (c) In the end his real problem was with the religious parties of his day and both the Pharisees and Sadducees in the end combined in opposition to him and negotiated his death with the Romans. (d) It's interesting that Christian narrators were willing to preserve the story of Jesus and the woman you mention. It's one of the strengths of the Christian (and also the Jewish) traditions over against Muslims resist the temptation to massage a point where Jesus found himself shifting ground once the inconsistency of his original statement dawned on him.


Hi, I only want to respond to your second and last points.

The Covenant is eternal. In Christian thought, I am aware that there is a particular line of thought which explains how an eternal Covenant can be abrogated. As far what I've heard, it goes like this: G-d made an eternal Covenant, the Jews broke it time after time, G-d, perhaps realizing that it was impossible to keep, abrogated, or as Christian thought says, "added" on a section to it that would complete it. Somehow, this addition was manifested as an omission, or taking out of large sections of the Law that were originally there. Now, we both speak English, and we both know that the concepts of "add" and "omit" are actually opposites; unless we fudge the facts can we find a way to reconcile these two opposite concepts. What I mean is, we have to go through a series of unlikely loopholes in order to align such concepts. That is why I am of the opinion that the writings of the Christian texts, which seek to show how these two inherently different concepts are the same, are a product of human ingenuity, yes ingenuity, but not Divine revelation in the sense of the revelation of the Law. What this would mean then is, the Jews can break the Covenant over and over and over again, but it cannot be broken, i.e., from G-d's side, He won't break it. Now, unless we want to believe that the Covenant had a "dormant" manifestation hidden within it, set to emerge forth only a certain time, and did, according to your belief, with Jesus, there is absolutely no intonation of that "hidden" covenant in the text of the Tanakh. I am aware that there are many verses in the Tanakh that Christians take to be allusions to it, but many of them have a separate "Jewish interpretation" that renders an entirely separate conclusion. It might be accurate to say that these interpretations precede the Christian interpretations. Having said that, if the Covenant cannot be broken, then neither can the Land aspect of it.

However, we see time and time again that G-d's wrath was turned against the Jews and that they were removed from their Land. This is not to mean that the Covenant had been abrogated because we also see their return upon certain points in history; do we ascertain from this that the Covenant was "re-cast" and then broken again? This seems like a sadistically playful G-d, not to mention, confused. It doesn't matter very much, I mean, the point is moot and doens't need evidence because of the declaration upon G-d's making the Covenant with the Jews that it was eternal. Since He said that, there is not much of a need for logical evidence to show that the Covenant doesn't change. It is a matter of faith, but moreover, knowledge, because it was told.

Did you know that Islam shares the same exact line of reasoning as Christianity as far as the removal of the Jews from the Land is concerned? It is actually that same line of reasoning that has removed the Christians from the grace of G-d and has replaced them with Islam. I'm not saying you're doing this, but it would be difficult to say that G-d made that type of change one time but that He didn't make it again, yet the belief that He did that opens up the path for saying that He can do it again and again and again. Today, the procession goes as follows; Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Seikhism, and B'hai (and I think others), all of which declare the same thing, that they are the new covenant between G-d and humanity. Why not, maybe they're right?


As far as for the last point, we have to understand what mainstream Judaism is, or what it says. There is some room to see the similarities between elements of mainstream Judaism and things Jesus was saying, or at least some of them. One example that goes unexamined by many (Christians and sometimes Jews) is what Jesus said about 'it's not what goes in, but what goes out." There is a specified teaching in the Talmud, the Jewish Oral Law, explaining the high importance of proper speech, and it is one of the fundamental things taught to Jewish children to this day. Now if you ask me, Jesus was making an allusion to that, i.e., he was drawing from the large body of Jewish Oral Law, or in other words, bringing attention to a very well-known matter of Jewish principle. It was the Pharisees, not the Sadducees, that recognized the validity of the Jewish Oral Law, and so Jesus was "siding" with the Pharisees. There is reason to believe that Jesus was quite close to "mainstream" Judaism. If you ask me, he was saying that, in accordance with the teaching, that one must not neglect proper speech when he is keeping the Law. "Kashrut," keeping kosher, is such a basic part of the Law that it can serve as a basic symbol of it, that to make a reference to it is to make a reference to the letter of the Law. Again, my thought here, he was saying that the spirit of the Law cannot be abandoned just because the letter of the Law is observed. I don't believe that he actually was telling people not to keep kosher, or that G-d somehow changed His mind, but that it is one of the elements of the human ingenuity which found reason in changing the religion. As a Jewish emphasis, it is not that radical, and it is found in mainstream text. Mind you, this occurred under the auspices of Rome and by relatively Rome-friendly individuals and religionists. Therefore, I don't think that it was intended to be a "grafting" on to Judaism, but a movement set against Judaism and which had nothing to do with it. In other words, I don't believe that Jesus said those words, as no Jew, no matter how radical (and if you want to see radical check out Jeremiah), ever said anything along the lines of removing Kashrut from the Covenant. Even Jeremiah, with his "famous" quote about the new covenant, actually makes reference to statutes and decrees in reference to the Covenant in the same way that the other prophets also made reference to statutes and decrees – what statutes and decrees?. The Jewish interpretation is that G-d will again make the Covenant with the Jews in End Times, and that that time they will accept it (again). It is "not like the Covenant I made with your fathers in Egypt" because maybe it won't come with fanfare and splitting seas and a huge exodus, but it will be made and understood. It will be "written on their hearts," they will have an internal understanding of what G-d wants from them, adherence to Torah. If the Christian interpretation makes sense, then the Jewish one also makes sense, maybe more.

If he was G-d, then he had no worldview, because he was G-d. Only humans have worldviews. Maybe "render unto Ceasar's" means "let man take care of manly things," or "let political leaders take care of political things and let religious people take care of G-dly matters." Maybe it was a reference to separate religious authority from state authority, maybe. Do you know to whom he directed that statement? Were there Caesar's in his time?

Maybe there is reason to believe that the Pharisees and Sadduccees, who couldn't stand each other and almost considered each other heretics, found unity in resenting one Jew so much that they bent to Roman rule and asked them to kill that Jew. That would be like two opposing Jewish "sects" in the camps, upon seeing a Jew being tortured by the Nazi's, a Jew who was perhaps disliked, viciously turn him over to the Nazi's to be hanged on the gallows. Maybe the analogy of the camps and the Romans aren't exactly perfect, but it makes sense still. And then, according to the way Pontius Pilate reacts in the text, to imagine the S.S. solider publicly expressing remorse about having to kill a vermin. It makes no sense, but it's what the text wants us to believe. They should, G-d forbid, be destroyed just for that. The prophets also were tortured at times, but most likely, as the text says, it was against the will of the Jews and according to the will of whomever was ruling.

Hmm, wow, that's very interesting what you said about Jesus changing his mind and that being preserved in the text and being one of its strengths. I'm not exactly sure if that's the reason that it was kept, and if it wasn't, then why was it? I would actually like to find out, could you find out for me? It could be the reason though, I wouldn't know. But Jesus was supposed to be G-d, so it wouldn't make sense that he made a mistake and then corrected it. That seems like a human trait, not the trait of G-d. I could see a man troubled by his surroundings, believing that he had something to offer, going through an ideological development, but only a human. Maybe, like you said, they kept in the text on purpose to show that development, as a way to convince readers. However, if Jesus was G-d, he knew that he was G-d and trial and error wouldn't really be realistic. It's almost as if to say that Jesus was a man whom discovered that he was G-d, but that just doesn't make sense, for what would be G-d’s role in that?.