The weekly Torah portion of this week, Pinchas, provides an opportunity to discuss an important concept that applies today in many religious conflicts. The following discussion is based on my grandfather Yeshayahu Leibowitz's book Commentary on the Weekly Portion:
The beginning of this week's Torah portion Pinchas is a direct continuation of the end of the previous portion: the affair of the daughters of Moab, with whom the Israelites whored, and the worship of the idol Pe'or: the scandal which climaxed in the odious act of Zimri, who blasphemed the God of Israel and scorned His prophet, Moses, by having sexual relations in public with a Midyanite woman.
It was Pinchas, the grandson of Aaron the Cohen, who was zealous for God, for God's honor which had been desecrated, and who took the law into his own hands. In other words, he wanted to carry out God's judgment by himself carrying out the blasphemer's punishment. Here, at the beginning of the weekly portion, we are told that because of this Pinchas and his descendants have been granted a covenant of peace with God. The radical zealot, who in his zealotry for God sheds human blood, is the very same person who is granted God's covenant of peace. From this we can deduce that a person is not permitted to be zealous for God and carry out extreme measures such as these unless he is someone who deserves to be a man of peace - shalom - who is faithful to God and man.
In our world, can anyone claim that he was granted by God a notification that he is a "man of peace"? Of course not. Accordingly, the real meaning of this story is that no human has a right to carry out zealous acts of punishment in God's name. In other words, Pinchas was granted the covenant of peace to warn all others taht they should never attempt to carry out zealous acts in the name of God.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Obama on giving Israel green light for preemptive strike on Iran: "Absolutely Not"
From the Boston Globe:
Obama clarifies Biden on Iran
Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor July 7, 2009 11:21 AM
President Obama found himself today revising and extending remarks made by his number two on a hair-trigger topic -- Iran's apparent pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Vice President Joe Biden said Sunday on ABC's "This Week" that the administration wants to negotiate with Iran, but also seemed to suggest that the United States would not stop an Israeli pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.
"Look, Israel can determine for itself -- it's a sovereign nation -- what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else," Biden said. "Whether we agree or not," added the former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who has developed quite the reputation for misspeaking and straying off message.
Obama was asked on CNN this morning, "Are you giving Israel a green light?"
"Absolutely not," the president replied. "And I think it’s very important that I’m as clear as I can be, and our administration is as consistent as we can be on this issue."
"I think Vice President Biden stated a categorical fact which is we can't dictate to other countries what their security interests are," Obama added. "What is also true is that it is the policy of the United States to try to resolve the issue of Iran’s nuclear capabilities in a peaceful way through diplomatic channels. That is our policy, I have been talking about this for the last two years, we are going to continue to pursue this, and you know we have said directly to the Israelis that it is important to try and solve this in an international setting in a way that does not create major conflict in the Middle East.
"Now this is a tough job and nobody is under any illusions that it will be easy, and I've always said that we, the United States, preserve the right, and I as the commander in chief preserve the right to take whatever actions are necessary to protect the United States. But we are committed to a peaceful resolution to this conflict and I think it is still possible, but ultimately if we present an opportunity to the Iranians at some point, they've got to seize that opportunity."
Obama clarifies Biden on Iran
Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor July 7, 2009 11:21 AM
President Obama found himself today revising and extending remarks made by his number two on a hair-trigger topic -- Iran's apparent pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Vice President Joe Biden said Sunday on ABC's "This Week" that the administration wants to negotiate with Iran, but also seemed to suggest that the United States would not stop an Israeli pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.
"Look, Israel can determine for itself -- it's a sovereign nation -- what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else," Biden said. "Whether we agree or not," added the former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who has developed quite the reputation for misspeaking and straying off message.
Obama was asked on CNN this morning, "Are you giving Israel a green light?"
"Absolutely not," the president replied. "And I think it’s very important that I’m as clear as I can be, and our administration is as consistent as we can be on this issue."
"I think Vice President Biden stated a categorical fact which is we can't dictate to other countries what their security interests are," Obama added. "What is also true is that it is the policy of the United States to try to resolve the issue of Iran’s nuclear capabilities in a peaceful way through diplomatic channels. That is our policy, I have been talking about this for the last two years, we are going to continue to pursue this, and you know we have said directly to the Israelis that it is important to try and solve this in an international setting in a way that does not create major conflict in the Middle East.
"Now this is a tough job and nobody is under any illusions that it will be easy, and I've always said that we, the United States, preserve the right, and I as the commander in chief preserve the right to take whatever actions are necessary to protect the United States. But we are committed to a peaceful resolution to this conflict and I think it is still possible, but ultimately if we present an opportunity to the Iranians at some point, they've got to seize that opportunity."
Monday, July 6, 2009
Haifa University Lecturer Bashes York University Conference on Israel/Palestine
York University in Toronto recently held a fascinating conference titled "Israel/Palestine: Mapping Models of Statehood and Paths to Peace."
The goals and aims of the conference:
Focusing on religion, culture and state, the conference featured my friend Professor Yakov Rabkin (Evolution of Jewish Identities and Its Effects on the One-State Solution) as well as former Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem Meron Benvenisti (The Durable Status Quo), Hebrew University law professor David Kretzmer (Reclaiming Human Rights: Alternative Paths to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict) and University of California Professor George Bisharat (Between Utopianism and Realism: Evaluating Obstacles to the One and Two State Solutions).
These are but samples from the plethora of lectures that were presented in the conference by a wide variety of speakers, most of whom were Israeli or Jewish. They analyzed the two-state vs. one-state debate from many different angles, delving into legal, political and economic analyses, and raising eye-opening arguments that are seldom heard in the mainstream press.
It is deeply disappointing, though, that after this important conference ended, the Toronto Star published a screed against this conference, penned by a disgruntled Israeli Zionist law professor who actually participated in the conference and was given a full opportunity to present her views.
Dr. Naama Carmi, a lecturer at Haifa University Law School who writes her own blog [Hebrew only], accepted an invitation from the conference organizers to present her paper - "Palestinian Return and the Resolution of the Israel/Palestine Conflict." She proposes denying the Palestinians' right to repatriation in their homeland:
How do we know this? Because just after the conference ended, after she had given her paper and did not like the audience's reaction, she published this oped in the Toronto Star publicly blasting the conference. In what can only be described as a stab in the back of the people who just a moment ago hosted her and listened to her, she bashed the other participants and the organizers because...they did not agree with her position and dared to argue with her!
Carmi starts by lumping together all the other speakers into one line of argument and ridiculing "the Palestinian arguments that have been around for decades." Though even a cursory glance at the conference itinerary shows there was a diverse group of speakers including many Jews and Israelis who have divergent views on modern-day Zionism and Israel, these nuances and differences are all erased. Carmi apparently sat in the conference with ear plugs because all she heard were age-old, worn-out "Palestinian arguments." All you need to do is take a brief look at the conference schedule to realize the sheer chutzpah of such a statement. But in her world, in the closed-information environment in which many Zionists are living, these are the only viewpoints she heard:
Carmi continues to complain, and even when acknowledging that she was able to present her arguments and that people listened to her, has this observation:
She concludes with this baseless accusation:
Dear Dr. Carmi:
Your article in today’s Toronto Star reinforces the theme that is promoted by B’nai Brith, the JDL, and the Canadian Jewish Congress, to wit: that York University is a hostile and dangerous place for Jewish people.
This theme is calculated to make Jewish people feel marginalized and threatened, to alienate them from enlightened public opinion, and to make them feel dependent on the State of Israel and its Zionist apologists. This is a time-tested Zionist strategy, which is also the time-tested strategy of the antisemites: to marginalize Jewish people and segregate them and make them feel threatened.
I wonder why the organizers of the Conference at York University invited you. Could it be that you represent a unique perspective? Hardly. You argue for the position that the Palestine refugees have no “right of return”, that the State of Israel has the “right to exist” beyond the borders of the Partition Resolution, and that human rights are subordinate to state sovereignty and “cultural-demographic” hegemony. This is the position that justifies a regime of ethnic supremacy and ethnic cleansing. This is the position that emanates ad nauseam from all the spokespersons of Zionism and the State of Israel. You must know this very well. You must know that these bigoted and reactionary views arouse the derision of solidarity-conscious advocates for human rights in all countries.
Just as Holocaust denial is not tolerated in respectable circles, Nakba denial is becoming intolerable.
...
As you know, under the rule of the Jews’ worst tormentors, regime-loyal academics played a shameful role, with rare and important exceptions. Under apartheid rule in South Africa, regime-loyal academics played a shameful role, with rare and important exceptions. Under Zionist rule in Palestine, the same appears to be the case. In all cases, the oppressor regimes were dismantled, eventually -- by war, revolution, or negotiations -- and the oppressed people were freed. The same will happen, eventually, in Israeli-ruled Palestine. The Palestine refugees will then have the opportunity to return to their communities, and will be able to rebuild their lives and to live at peace with their neighbours. To bring that day closer, peace-seeking and pro-democracy Israelis should be speaking out now and demanding from the Israeli government: Let Gaza live! Tear down the segregation Wall! The refugees are our partners for peace - Let them return!
Regards,
Henry N. Lowi
The goals and aims of the conference:
Despite the current diplomatic focus on the two-state model, the continued failure to achieve peace in the region highlights the necessity of rigorously examining whether the two-state approach is indeed the only way, or the best way, beyond the impasse. The horrific toll division and violence takes on Jews and Palestinians adds moral urgency to the need to explore alternative political futures in the region.Among the speakers were Professor Chaim Ganz from Tel Aviv University (Ethno-cultural Nationalism, Sub-statist Self-determination, and a Two-State Model for Israel/Palestine), Professor Jeff Halper, Executive Director of ICAHD (Working Around the Occupation: Towards a Two State-Plus Approach - A Middle East Economic Confederation), and Professor Mazin Qumsiyeh from Bethlehem University (One State: Durable and Achievable Peace).
The conference seeks to systematically measure models based on two states or a single binational state, federal and con-federal approaches, and other models in between and beyond. The framework of the conference invites robust academic critique of the deficiencies, promise, and perils of the range of prospective models of statehood.
Focusing on religion, culture and state, the conference featured my friend Professor Yakov Rabkin (Evolution of Jewish Identities and Its Effects on the One-State Solution) as well as former Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem Meron Benvenisti (The Durable Status Quo), Hebrew University law professor David Kretzmer (Reclaiming Human Rights: Alternative Paths to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict) and University of California Professor George Bisharat (Between Utopianism and Realism: Evaluating Obstacles to the One and Two State Solutions).
These are but samples from the plethora of lectures that were presented in the conference by a wide variety of speakers, most of whom were Israeli or Jewish. They analyzed the two-state vs. one-state debate from many different angles, delving into legal, political and economic analyses, and raising eye-opening arguments that are seldom heard in the mainstream press.
It is deeply disappointing, though, that after this important conference ended, the Toronto Star published a screed against this conference, penned by a disgruntled Israeli Zionist law professor who actually participated in the conference and was given a full opportunity to present her views.
Dr. Naama Carmi, a lecturer at Haifa University Law School who writes her own blog [Hebrew only], accepted an invitation from the conference organizers to present her paper - "Palestinian Return and the Resolution of the Israel/Palestine Conflict." She proposes denying the Palestinians' right to repatriation in their homeland:
Supporting the demand to return means seeking to abolish the State of Israel as a state where the Jewish people exercises its recognized right to self-determination, and to change the state's character radically. Whether this is the explicit goal of the supporters of Palestinian return or "just" its inevitable outcome, it means asking a state to dismantle itself, and giving up its national character as preferred by most of its citizens.There is no doubt she is entitled to present her opinion and argue for it - which she did. But the problem is that she believes that she is entitled to much more. Carmi claims, shockingly, that she is entitled to a supportive audience and to have a majority of conference participants agree with her views!
How do we know this? Because just after the conference ended, after she had given her paper and did not like the audience's reaction, she published this oped in the Toronto Star publicly blasting the conference. In what can only be described as a stab in the back of the people who just a moment ago hosted her and listened to her, she bashed the other participants and the organizers because...they did not agree with her position and dared to argue with her!
Carmi starts by lumping together all the other speakers into one line of argument and ridiculing "the Palestinian arguments that have been around for decades." Though even a cursory glance at the conference itinerary shows there was a diverse group of speakers including many Jews and Israelis who have divergent views on modern-day Zionism and Israel, these nuances and differences are all erased. Carmi apparently sat in the conference with ear plugs because all she heard were age-old, worn-out "Palestinian arguments." All you need to do is take a brief look at the conference schedule to realize the sheer chutzpah of such a statement. But in her world, in the closed-information environment in which many Zionists are living, these are the only viewpoints she heard:
Although the extreme manner in which they were presented was sometimes hard to hear, I was not surprised by the same Palestinian arguments that have been around for decades. Thus, we heard that Israel is a racist, apartheid state; that the Palestinians are the "indigenous" and Zionists the colonials; that the only reason for the unwillingness of Jewish Israelis to give up a Jewish national state is their unwillingness to surrender power and privileges; and that Zionism has an inherent tendency toward war crimes.Carmi does not devote even one word to the plight of the Palestinian refugees - people who are, in Ehud Olmert's words, "living in camps, disconnected from the environment in which they grew, wallowing in poverty, neglect, alienation, bitterness, and a deep, unrelenting sense of deprivation." Instead, Carmi is the victim. Why? Because - and this will blow your mind away-she did not receive the same amount of applause as other speakers:
But if all this was quite an expected scenario, not in my worst dreams did I imagine an atmosphere that was totally incompatible with academic discourse...There were attempts at the conference itself to silence unpopular views. A hostile atmosphere toward people with different views generally, and Jewish-Zionist Israelis in particular, was created. Anyone who challenged the Palestinian perspective was intimidated or even labelled [sic] a racist. The audience vocally applauded those whose views it approved. At times, those presenting a different view were subject to abuse and ridicule.The Palestinian refugee problem - an open and festering wound - has disappeared. Now it's all about Carmi being victimized because she did not "feel" loved by the audience. How pathetic!
Carmi continues to complain, and even when acknowledging that she was able to present her arguments and that people listened to her, has this observation:
Note the inherent contradiction: At the same time people were stepping forward to thank Carmi, an Israeli Zionist speaker, for her speech, people were "deterred from stepping forward and expressing a different voice." Wow!After my presentation, people approached me to thank me for presenting an alternative view. They admitted that in the prevailing atmosphere they were deterred from stepping forward and expressing a different voice.
She concludes with this baseless accusation:
The universities that sponsored this conference should give themselves an accounting. While the JDL demonstrated outside the campus, a pro-Palestinian demonstration took place inside the conference itself, from the floor, under an academic disguise. This was not an academic conference, but an "academic" version of Durban.Jewish peace activist Henry Lowi wrote a lengthy response to her attack, sending her the following letter:
Dear Dr. Carmi:
Your article in today’s Toronto Star reinforces the theme that is promoted by B’nai Brith, the JDL, and the Canadian Jewish Congress, to wit: that York University is a hostile and dangerous place for Jewish people.
This theme is calculated to make Jewish people feel marginalized and threatened, to alienate them from enlightened public opinion, and to make them feel dependent on the State of Israel and its Zionist apologists. This is a time-tested Zionist strategy, which is also the time-tested strategy of the antisemites: to marginalize Jewish people and segregate them and make them feel threatened.
I wonder why the organizers of the Conference at York University invited you. Could it be that you represent a unique perspective? Hardly. You argue for the position that the Palestine refugees have no “right of return”, that the State of Israel has the “right to exist” beyond the borders of the Partition Resolution, and that human rights are subordinate to state sovereignty and “cultural-demographic” hegemony. This is the position that justifies a regime of ethnic supremacy and ethnic cleansing. This is the position that emanates ad nauseam from all the spokespersons of Zionism and the State of Israel. You must know this very well. You must know that these bigoted and reactionary views arouse the derision of solidarity-conscious advocates for human rights in all countries.
Just as Holocaust denial is not tolerated in respectable circles, Nakba denial is becoming intolerable.
...
As you know, under the rule of the Jews’ worst tormentors, regime-loyal academics played a shameful role, with rare and important exceptions. Under apartheid rule in South Africa, regime-loyal academics played a shameful role, with rare and important exceptions. Under Zionist rule in Palestine, the same appears to be the case. In all cases, the oppressor regimes were dismantled, eventually -- by war, revolution, or negotiations -- and the oppressed people were freed. The same will happen, eventually, in Israeli-ruled Palestine. The Palestine refugees will then have the opportunity to return to their communities, and will be able to rebuild their lives and to live at peace with their neighbours. To bring that day closer, peace-seeking and pro-democracy Israelis should be speaking out now and demanding from the Israeli government: Let Gaza live! Tear down the segregation Wall! The refugees are our partners for peace - Let them return!
Regards,
Henry N. Lowi
Friday, July 3, 2009
Kidnapped Human Rights Workers Rightly Refuse to Sign Deportation Orders
A surprisingly even-handed report from Fox News about the situation of the kidnapped human rights workers in Israel reveals that Israel is trying to trick the detainees into signing deportation orders that will jeopardize their rights in the future:
Under Israeli laws, if they agree to be deported pursuant to a "deportation order," they will be barred from entering Israel in the next ten years. It is the height of hypocrisy to apply this bar to human rights workers who were sailing in international waters on a humanitarian mission to Gaza, and were kidnapped and dragged into Israel by Israeli frogmen in an outrageous violation of international law. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, Nobel laureate Mairead Maguire and the other detained human rights workers must insist that the Israeli government guarantee in writing that their release and removal from Israel - however it is called - does not trigger the 10-year bar.
While you celebrate the ideals of freedom and democracy on this Fourth of July weekend, think of Congresswoman McKinney and the other Americans aboard the ship who will be spending their holiday in Israeli captivity. Their crime? They dared to stand up to forces of tyranny and bring medical supplies and reconstruction aid to millions of human beings trapped in a siege that UN Special Rapporteur Richard Falk, who is Jewish, called a "continuing crime against humanity."
Former U.S. lawmaker and Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney and several other human rights activists remained in an Israeli prison Thursday after refusing to sign a deportation form that they claim is self-incriminating. In a press release from the Green Party, McKinney said the form states that the Spirit of Humanity, a Greek-flagged relief boat carrying 21 activists, medical supplies, cement, olive trees and children's toys en route to Gaza, was violating the Israeli blockade and trespassing the country's territorial waters.
"We were in international waters on a boat delivering humanitarian aid to people in Gaza when the Israeli Navy ships surrounded us and illegally threatened us, dismantled our navigation equipment, boarded and confiscated the ship," she said in a statement, adding that they were immediately taken into custody. "Immigration officials in Israel said they did not want to keep us, but we remain imprisoned," she said. "State Department and White House officials have not effected our release or taken a strong public stance to condemn the illegal actions of the Israeli Navy of enforcing a blockade of humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians of Gaza, a blockade that has been condemned by President Obama."
Under Israeli laws, if they agree to be deported pursuant to a "deportation order," they will be barred from entering Israel in the next ten years. It is the height of hypocrisy to apply this bar to human rights workers who were sailing in international waters on a humanitarian mission to Gaza, and were kidnapped and dragged into Israel by Israeli frogmen in an outrageous violation of international law. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, Nobel laureate Mairead Maguire and the other detained human rights workers must insist that the Israeli government guarantee in writing that their release and removal from Israel - however it is called - does not trigger the 10-year bar.
While you celebrate the ideals of freedom and democracy on this Fourth of July weekend, think of Congresswoman McKinney and the other Americans aboard the ship who will be spending their holiday in Israeli captivity. Their crime? They dared to stand up to forces of tyranny and bring medical supplies and reconstruction aid to millions of human beings trapped in a siege that UN Special Rapporteur Richard Falk, who is Jewish, called a "continuing crime against humanity."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
