Tuesday, April 28, 2009
4/28/2009 01:35:00 PM | 
Posted by
JoeSettler
Lots of thoughts floating around, but none seem to have made it down to the keyboard.
One thing I always noted was the significance of Yom HaZikaron (Memorial Day) immediately preceding Yom HaAtzmaut (Independence Day).
Israel is a country that pays a high price to continue to exist and the placement of the memory of those who sacrificed for the country just ahead of the celebrations for the existence of Israel provides tremendous meaning to both days.
One thing I always noted was the significance of Yom HaZikaron (Memorial Day) immediately preceding Yom HaAtzmaut (Independence Day).
Israel is a country that pays a high price to continue to exist and the placement of the memory of those who sacrificed for the country just ahead of the celebrations for the existence of Israel provides tremendous meaning to both days.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
I recently had a strange discussion with an American liberal. She put forward the question as to why does the US have the right to try to stop other countries from acquiring the same nuclear weapons the US has?
At some point in the middle of answering that question, I realized that my answers would be meaningless to her.
I initially put forward the response that there is simply a moral yardstick that we can measure these countries by, and the US is at one end and Syria, North Korea, and Iran (for instance) are clearly at the other end.
A country that uses chemical weapons of mass destruction on its own citizens, a country that will keep its citizens permanently impoverished just to gain a WMD, and a country that openly declares it will use a nuclear weapon to commit genocide is simply not a country that should be allowed to have a nuclear weapon in its arsenal, and everyone has a right to prevent them from acquiring nukes.
But that argument fell on deaf ears as the question repeated itself, what right does the US have to make itself the nuclear policeman of the world and prevent others from acquiring nuclear weapons.
I tried again and asked if Iran had a bomb and planned to send one over in a cargo ship, doesn’t the US have a right to stop them before they get it.
Still no go.
It would appear that to the American Liberal, there is no relative or objective morality. Perhaps there is no morality at all. Or perhaps just a complete level of naïveté when it comes to accepting that there is good, and more relevantly, evil in this world, and what evil is willing to do.
Sort of like Obama meeting with Chavez.
At some point in the middle of answering that question, I realized that my answers would be meaningless to her.
I initially put forward the response that there is simply a moral yardstick that we can measure these countries by, and the US is at one end and Syria, North Korea, and Iran (for instance) are clearly at the other end.
A country that uses chemical weapons of mass destruction on its own citizens, a country that will keep its citizens permanently impoverished just to gain a WMD, and a country that openly declares it will use a nuclear weapon to commit genocide is simply not a country that should be allowed to have a nuclear weapon in its arsenal, and everyone has a right to prevent them from acquiring nukes.
But that argument fell on deaf ears as the question repeated itself, what right does the US have to make itself the nuclear policeman of the world and prevent others from acquiring nuclear weapons.
I tried again and asked if Iran had a bomb and planned to send one over in a cargo ship, doesn’t the US have a right to stop them before they get it.
Still no go.
It would appear that to the American Liberal, there is no relative or objective morality. Perhaps there is no morality at all. Or perhaps just a complete level of naïveté when it comes to accepting that there is good, and more relevantly, evil in this world, and what evil is willing to do.
Sort of like Obama meeting with Chavez.
I recently had a strange discussion with an American liberal. She put forward the question as to why does the US have the right to try to stop other countries from acquiring the same nuclear weapons the US has?
At some point in the middle of answering that question, I realized that my answers would be meaningless to her.
I initially put forward the response that there is simply a moral yardstick that we can measure these countries by, and the US is at one end and Syria, North Korea, and Iran (for instance) are clearly at the other end.
A country that uses chemical weapons of mass destruction on its own citizens, a country that will keep its citizens permanently impoverished just to gain a WMD, and a country that openly declares it will use a nuclear weapon to commit genocide is simply not a country that should be allowed to have a nuclear weapon in its arsenal, and everyone has a right to prevent them from acquiring nukes.
But that argument fell on deaf ears as the question repeated itself, what right does the US have to make itself the nuclear policeman of the world and prevent others from acquiring nuclear weapons.
I tried again and asked if Iran had a bomb and planned to send one over in a cargo ship, doesn’t the US have a right to stop them before they get it.
Still no go.
It would appear that to the American Liberal, there is no relative or objective morality. Perhaps there is no morality at all. Or perhaps just a complete level of naïveté when it comes to accepting that there is good, and more relevantly, evil in this world, and what evil is willing to do.
Sort of like Obama meeting with Chavez.
At some point in the middle of answering that question, I realized that my answers would be meaningless to her.
I initially put forward the response that there is simply a moral yardstick that we can measure these countries by, and the US is at one end and Syria, North Korea, and Iran (for instance) are clearly at the other end.
A country that uses chemical weapons of mass destruction on its own citizens, a country that will keep its citizens permanently impoverished just to gain a WMD, and a country that openly declares it will use a nuclear weapon to commit genocide is simply not a country that should be allowed to have a nuclear weapon in its arsenal, and everyone has a right to prevent them from acquiring nukes.
But that argument fell on deaf ears as the question repeated itself, what right does the US have to make itself the nuclear policeman of the world and prevent others from acquiring nuclear weapons.
I tried again and asked if Iran had a bomb and planned to send one over in a cargo ship, doesn’t the US have a right to stop them before they get it.
Still no go.
It would appear that to the American Liberal, there is no relative or objective morality. Perhaps there is no morality at all. Or perhaps just a complete level of naïveté when it comes to accepting that there is good, and more relevantly, evil in this world, and what evil is willing to do.
Sort of like Obama meeting with Chavez.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Defense Minister Barak is offering the residents of Ofra a deal.
Peace Now claims that 9 homes (from the hundreds) built in Ofra are illegally built on Arab land (the Left of course claims that almost all of Ofra is built on "stolen" land, but they have to start the ball rolling somewhere).
They have been pushing for those homes (to start off with) be destroyed.
The residents of Ofra of course claim that the land is legally theirs as Ofra was built on State-owned land given to them by the Rabin-Peres government, on what was once an IDF military base (and before that a state-owned Jordanian military base).
So now Ehud Barak is coming with a deal.
His deal is straightforward. If the residents of Ofra agree to a building freeze, then the government will recognize the disputed land ("disputed" - just like the State of Israel), as legally belonging to Ofra.
Amazing how he can do that. Makes you realize that there is really nothing illegal at all, besides the illegal lack of recognition of a Jew's right to live everywhere in Eretz Yisrael.
Of course it's not clear what Barak is defining as the borders of Ofra, or the rest of the fine print.
But the real problem (besides the concept of the settlement freeze itself) is that we've learned from experience that Barak simply can not be trusted when he cuts a deal.
So far he's cut a few famous deals with the Settlers, and each time he's openly lied and tricked us, and simply used the negotiations and deals as a deception tactic to get what he wanted.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Peace Now claims that 9 homes (from the hundreds) built in Ofra are illegally built on Arab land (the Left of course claims that almost all of Ofra is built on "stolen" land, but they have to start the ball rolling somewhere).
They have been pushing for those homes (to start off with) be destroyed.
The residents of Ofra of course claim that the land is legally theirs as Ofra was built on State-owned land given to them by the Rabin-Peres government, on what was once an IDF military base (and before that a state-owned Jordanian military base).
So now Ehud Barak is coming with a deal.
His deal is straightforward. If the residents of Ofra agree to a building freeze, then the government will recognize the disputed land ("disputed" - just like the State of Israel), as legally belonging to Ofra.
Amazing how he can do that. Makes you realize that there is really nothing illegal at all, besides the illegal lack of recognition of a Jew's right to live everywhere in Eretz Yisrael.
Of course it's not clear what Barak is defining as the borders of Ofra, or the rest of the fine print.
But the real problem (besides the concept of the settlement freeze itself) is that we've learned from experience that Barak simply can not be trusted when he cuts a deal.
So far he's cut a few famous deals with the Settlers, and each time he's openly lied and tricked us, and simply used the negotiations and deals as a deception tactic to get what he wanted.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
I'm wondering if there isn't an advantage to the Ichud Leumi not being in the government right now. Right now they can say what really needs to be said and should be said without fear of official reprisal against Israel.
It would be hard to describe Rahm Emanuel as a great (or even a secret) supporter of Israel, and when he made a recent remark to the effect of, "In the next four years, there will be a peace agreement with the Palestinians on the basis of two states for two peoples, and it does not matter to us who is the prime minister" there is certainly serious cause for concern.
Katzeleh responded to this remark with a letter that included "For many Israelis, this report is a cause for worry because it reveals a condescending attitude toward our prime minister and Israeli public opinion. This is an attitude that Israel does not expect from a real friend such as the US, and all the more so from an Israeli Jew who has succeeded in being appointed White House chief-of-staff."
And he continued with, "For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father's family will perish. And who knows but that you have come to royal position for such a time as this?" quoting from the Book of Esther (4:14).
Unfortunately, while Katzeleh was right to write this, it was kind of wasted.
I honestly don't think Rahm sees Mordechai or Esther as the actual heroes to be emulated from Megillat Esther - if you know what I mean.
I suspect that in this case Revach v'Hatzalah will be coming from another place.
It would be hard to describe Rahm Emanuel as a great (or even a secret) supporter of Israel, and when he made a recent remark to the effect of, "In the next four years, there will be a peace agreement with the Palestinians on the basis of two states for two peoples, and it does not matter to us who is the prime minister" there is certainly serious cause for concern.
Katzeleh responded to this remark with a letter that included "For many Israelis, this report is a cause for worry because it reveals a condescending attitude toward our prime minister and Israeli public opinion. This is an attitude that Israel does not expect from a real friend such as the US, and all the more so from an Israeli Jew who has succeeded in being appointed White House chief-of-staff."
And he continued with, "For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father's family will perish. And who knows but that you have come to royal position for such a time as this?" quoting from the Book of Esther (4:14).
Unfortunately, while Katzeleh was right to write this, it was kind of wasted.
I honestly don't think Rahm sees Mordechai or Esther as the actual heroes to be emulated from Megillat Esther - if you know what I mean.
I suspect that in this case Revach v'Hatzalah will be coming from another place.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Who cares about an Obama seder when you can have Jerry Garcia.
With Jameel on vacation, I just couldn't leave the blog unattended, especially after I heard rumors (by a DovBear commenter) that the Grateful Dead used to run a Seder on Pesach during intermissions backstage.
As Jerry was a veggie (and not Jewish), I wonder what they did about the shank bone and Matzah Ball soup (especially as it was catered by Lou G. Siegels - wasn't that place awesome).
Anyway, I've been doing a lot of research on it, and so far I found out the following.
First of all, there is an article about the rumors from 1996.
Second, there are apparently Grateful Dead Kipas and Haggadot somewhere in the world, but I haven't been able to find any pictures.
Not an original
So readers, if you can find a picture of the Grateful Dead Haggada or Kipa, send us a link and I'll post it. Or better yet, send us the Haggadah or Kipa - that would be so cool.
In the meantime I found other interesting things, like this Tel Aviv bikers bar that ran a Grateful Dead Tu B'shvat event.
And then there is the Grateful Yid.
So if anyone knows more, the more you tell over, the bigger the mitzvah.
With Jameel on vacation, I just couldn't leave the blog unattended, especially after I heard rumors (by a DovBear commenter) that the Grateful Dead used to run a Seder on Pesach during intermissions backstage.
As Jerry was a veggie (and not Jewish), I wonder what they did about the shank bone and Matzah Ball soup (especially as it was catered by Lou G. Siegels - wasn't that place awesome).
Anyway, I've been doing a lot of research on it, and so far I found out the following.
First of all, there is an article about the rumors from 1996.
Second, there are apparently Grateful Dead Kipas and Haggadot somewhere in the world, but I haven't been able to find any pictures.
Not an originalSo readers, if you can find a picture of the Grateful Dead Haggada or Kipa, send us a link and I'll post it. Or better yet, send us the Haggadah or Kipa - that would be so cool.
In the meantime I found other interesting things, like this Tel Aviv bikers bar that ran a Grateful Dead Tu B'shvat event.
And then there is the Grateful Yid.
So if anyone knows more, the more you tell over, the bigger the mitzvah.
One thing that has bothered me (only one?) with Pesach in Israel is the water issue.
As you might know (or not), the country's water supply from the Kinneret is shut off and all water comes from underground aquifers.
The reason?
Certain groups claim that if a drop of Chametz falls in the Kinneret then the entire Kinneret becomes Chametz as there is no legal concept of "Batel b'shishim" when it comes to Chametz, and therefore you can't drink the water!
The only problem is that this is such a strange ruling, and worse, I couldn't find any real source for it (not that I looked very hard). Yet the country does it.
Finally, I found something on Treppenwitz (of all places) that discusses this question.
Rav Dov Lior writes:
A Bit of Chametz in the Kinneret Sea
Even a tiny amount of Chametz which mixes into food or drink on Pesach causes all of it to be forbidden. (This is true whether the Chametz mixes with food similar to itself or dissimilar.) However, all of this is relevant when the food or drink is detached from the ground, as in the case of a crumb of Chametz falling into a large pot or into a water reservoir (which the water was drawn into.) However, whatever is attached to the ground does not become forbidden. Therefore, there is absolutely no basis to be stringent and not to drink water from the Kinneret or any other natural body of water.
As you might know (or not), the country's water supply from the Kinneret is shut off and all water comes from underground aquifers.
The reason?
Certain groups claim that if a drop of Chametz falls in the Kinneret then the entire Kinneret becomes Chametz as there is no legal concept of "Batel b'shishim" when it comes to Chametz, and therefore you can't drink the water!
The only problem is that this is such a strange ruling, and worse, I couldn't find any real source for it (not that I looked very hard). Yet the country does it.
Finally, I found something on Treppenwitz (of all places) that discusses this question.
Rav Dov Lior writes:
משהו חמץ במי כנרת
חמץ בפסח אוסר במשהו בין במינו ובין שלא במינו. אולם כלל זה אמור דווקא בדבר תלוש, כגון פירור חמץ שנפל לתוך סיר גדול או לבור מים, אך מחובר לקרקע אינו נאסר.[21] ולכן אין מקום כלל להחמיר שלא לשתות מי כינרת וכיוצא בזה.
חמץ בפסח אוסר במשהו בין במינו ובין שלא במינו. אולם כלל זה אמור דווקא בדבר תלוש, כגון פירור חמץ שנפל לתוך סיר גדול או לבור מים, אך מחובר לקרקע אינו נאסר.[21] ולכן אין מקום כלל להחמיר שלא לשתות מי כינרת וכיוצא בזה.
A Bit of Chametz in the Kinneret Sea
Even a tiny amount of Chametz which mixes into food or drink on Pesach causes all of it to be forbidden. (This is true whether the Chametz mixes with food similar to itself or dissimilar.) However, all of this is relevant when the food or drink is detached from the ground, as in the case of a crumb of Chametz falling into a large pot or into a water reservoir (which the water was drawn into.) However, whatever is attached to the ground does not become forbidden. Therefore, there is absolutely no basis to be stringent and not to drink water from the Kinneret or any other natural body of water.
[21] ריטב"א מס' ע"ז דף עג. לגבי איסור הנאה מעבודה זרה, שאף היא אוסרת במשהו, כדתנן 'מים במים במשהו' קובע הריטב"א, שבאופן עקרוני מחובר אינו יכול להאסר, ומתיר באר של ישראל שגוי שפך לתוכה מים של ע"ז. וה"ה לחמץ בפסח, וכן כתב ערוך השולחן בהל' פסח סי' תס"ז סעיף ל"ג, שכל מקום שכתוב חמץ שנפל לבור, הכוונה דווקא בור של מים מכונסים ולא באר שהם מים הנובעים מן האדמה.
Again, one can only hope those calling to boycott Israel are faithful to their message.
Israeli scientists at Tel Aviv University working together with scientists at the Weizmann Institute may have found the first step to curing certain types of deafness caused by aging, noise, drugs and genetic influences.
The solution they found involves something called microRNA and the small hair follicles that help receive and transmit sound in the inner ear.
Israeli scientists at Tel Aviv University working together with scientists at the Weizmann Institute may have found the first step to curing certain types of deafness caused by aging, noise, drugs and genetic influences.
The solution they found involves something called microRNA and the small hair follicles that help receive and transmit sound in the inner ear.
Monday, April 13, 2009
While the saving of the Merchant Marine captain from the Somali pirates was a success (and thoroughly amazing in that the Navy snipers hit their targets from a rolling boat at sea with one bullet each), the rescue operation as a whole revealed a fundamental flaw that ran through the entire operation.
The US Navy trailed the lifeboat holding the pirates and the hostage for days.
Two times before the Navy believed the life of the captain to be in “imminent danger” and received explicit permission from President Obama to utilize “lethal force” to save the captain ("act only if the captain’s life was in imminent danger, and the opportunity of having clear shots at each captor"). The third time the same thing, and this time they were able to act and killed 3 pirates, capturing a fourth while saving the shipping captain.
Jeez. It sounds like an episode of 24.
And that’s what is exactly wrong.
If the Navy had only been waiting for the perfect opportunity to kill the pirates without harming the hostage, that would have been one thing.
But that wasn’t the case.
The Navy was waiting until the captain’s life was in “imminent danger” – 3 times, until they felt it was legally legal for them to act. And even then they needed explicit permission from the President.
Isn’t it enough that the Captain’s life was in danger once (or even twice) that he would be in danger again. Or isn’t it enough that his ship was boarded by pirates in the High Seas (or Low Seas) and he was kidnapped?
How ridiculous can you get? These are pirates!
If that is how the US is going to react to piracy, and obviously to terrorism, and worse, to Iranian nuclear warheads, then there is a serious problem. There is a failure to act when needed.
And that is going to be a problem for all of us.
The US Navy trailed the lifeboat holding the pirates and the hostage for days.
Two times before the Navy believed the life of the captain to be in “imminent danger” and received explicit permission from President Obama to utilize “lethal force” to save the captain ("act only if the captain’s life was in imminent danger, and the opportunity of having clear shots at each captor"). The third time the same thing, and this time they were able to act and killed 3 pirates, capturing a fourth while saving the shipping captain.
Jeez. It sounds like an episode of 24.
And that’s what is exactly wrong.
If the Navy had only been waiting for the perfect opportunity to kill the pirates without harming the hostage, that would have been one thing.
But that wasn’t the case.
The Navy was waiting until the captain’s life was in “imminent danger” – 3 times, until they felt it was legally legal for them to act. And even then they needed explicit permission from the President.
Isn’t it enough that the Captain’s life was in danger once (or even twice) that he would be in danger again. Or isn’t it enough that his ship was boarded by pirates in the High Seas (or Low Seas) and he was kidnapped?
How ridiculous can you get? These are pirates!
If that is how the US is going to react to piracy, and obviously to terrorism, and worse, to Iranian nuclear warheads, then there is a serious problem. There is a failure to act when needed.
And that is going to be a problem for all of us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
