Chabad: Den of Zionism

**Update: they finally posted my comment, several days after I had submitted it. Normally, my comments on other non-controversial articles have been posted within a few hours; thus, waiting several days to post this one seemed very suspicious.**

Naturally the conflict with Gaza has not only created a stir at Chabad, but also an entire new "War in Gaza" section. One pertinent Q&A was, "We are commanded to judge everyone positively, and with love. How do we apply this to the Palestinians, who wish to wipe Israel off the face of the earth?"

Within the answer was this gem: ". . . when a population is indoctrinated by its leaders, both political and spiritual, to do evil.... When a whole population is indoctrinated with hatred... Then those that this population is intent on destroying must take every measure to protect themselves."

I quoted that portion in a reply, and added that you can reread that statement and think of the Israelis. I added that name-calling (such as "terrorist" and "Nazi" [which was used in another comment]) were unproductive and that you cannot brush an entire population with a stereotype. I added that I pray for the innocent whoever and wherever they are.

The comment was rejected.

What does this tell us about the unwillingness to view things from any perspective other than the one already adhered to? It's funny how on the surface of studying Torah and Judaism in general, there is this near-myth of openness. That everything, including the existence of God, is open for question. Yet, there is a huge elephantine asterisk that ought not be overlooked: not all things and not all people can question/be questioned. Israel and the IDF are cases in point.

The crisis really does drip with irony. On Chabad, a breaking news story was "Palestinian Rocket Inflicts Heavy Damage on Chabad Rabbi’s Home"; compare that to the Washington Post article "Family Mourns 5 Daughters as Civilian Death Toll Mounts". Both are horrible realities of war, but there is an obvious disconnect when you lament the destruction of a home, and claim the family with five deceased girls somehow are not worthy of a mention and had it coming. Using Hamas as a scapegoat for acts such as this is ridiculous. By the same token, the blockade of Gaza and the refusal to recognize the democratically elected government in Gaza is just cause to launch rockets into people's homes in southern Israel. Innocence is innocence and the decisions of the leaders ought not be a scapegoat to free reign of destruction over the common people, period.

The inability to say so on Chabad's comments section just shows how much that quote of indoctrination really is apt for many Zionists. There is no middle ground, there is no relenting: there is only black and white, right and wrong, and they are more sure than they are about the existence of God that they are on the right side.

Gaza: They Asked for It?

The predominate reason espoused as to why civilian deaths are irrelevant in Israel's defense of its people is that when given the opportunity to elect a peaceful government or a militant government (Hamas), the citizens of Gaza elected the latter. Therefore, they are as responsible for the incessant rocket attacks into Israel as the terrorists themselves.

But by this logic, the people in the southern Israeli towns most affected by the onslaught are equally responsible for any decisions the Israeli government has made, such as the blockade of Gaza. True, Israel was not bombarding Gaza with homemade rockets, but blocking essential food, medicine, fuel, etc. from entering Gaza has equal ramifications, does it not?

Thus if the people of Gaza have brought this upon themselves, and Israel is guilt free, those in Gaza propelling rockets are also guilt free.

---

People continue to ask how this will bring about the cessation of rockets being fire into Israel, but that is to assume that the government wants a cessation of the violence. The amount of casualties brought on by the rockets is indeed minimal if any at all, but the rockets are PR gifts from heaven. Without them, their blockade of Gaza and the bombing of "Hamas targets" is illegitimate. The road to peace assuredly means a partition of Israel: is that a certain desire of the Israeli government?

We are now beyond sixty years of conflict. To an entire generation this is a normal existence; and they know nothing different. That is a scary reality hinting that there is – and perhaps will be – no end in sight.

Piracy: Back to Basics in Word Usage

Just a quick note: I keep having to pause for a moment after reading a headline including the words 'China' and 'piracy'. There was a time not so long ago when fake goods were at the heart of those articles and now we are back to the old meaning, thanks to some entrepreneurial Somalis.

Guinean Coup Highlights Cultural Disparity

It's difficult not to be judgmental of those involved in the bloody transition of power because whenever there is conflict, it's always those innocent in the middle who pay the highest price. It's all over the map in Africa: Mugabe running his nation into the ground; South Africa facing phenomenal AIDS and rape epidemics in the slums; Somalia fraught with over a decade of war and instability. Is there a fundamental difference in the Western idea of peace – at the very least among your own people – and what is going on in Africa today?

I understand that every nation faces corruption and the greed of those who are in power, but in Africa, that seems to be magnified. How can the leaders of some of the poorest nations take so much from their people? Certainly, that can be seen in other parts of the globe, like North Korea, but it is more widespread in Africa. Even in relatively peaceful countries (by African standards) such as Kenya, there has been election violence.

And what of the military? In most if not all Western nations, the military has a sense of purpose: to protect and defend the nation and its people. In so many African nations, however, the military is a tool of repression for the leader or themselves. Either way, too often they are involved in brutalizing the populace or ethnic/political subsections of it.

How? Why? I am aware that my view is colored by my culture, but I struggle to comprehend the actions of a nation against its people. I am even more worried when, for example, a former Rwandan Hutu or a ZANU-PF/Mugabe supporter expresses remorse for the killings they took part in. Perhaps it isn't cultural after all. I have heard many Nazi-like "I didn't want to do it, but I obeyed orders" explanations as to why they committed such heinous atrocities, but that sentiment only further fuels the question of how this can happen, and why/how on such a large scale across a massive continent.

I disagree with a lot of what Thabo Mbeki has said, but one thing I do agree with: Africa needs to solve Africa's problems. Foreign intervention, however well-intentioned, will not result in lasting change. Unfortunately, that realization chills me to the bone. How long will it take for those with even a modicum of power to think first about the people without power instead of using it as a springboard to grabbing even more power and taking as much as possible from those without?

Shoe-Thrower: Who Says He Hasn't the Right?

Rachel Maddow, on her December 16, 2008 show, said that one stage of her reaction was that the shoe-thrower did not have the right to lob his footwear at the President because despite everything, he still is the President of her country and, "I don't care who he is, that's out of line, you don't throw shoes at an American President."

Say what?!

Even if she changed her opinion thereafter, that is not only shocking, but also callously disturbing. People like Laura Logan and Michael Ware could argue far better than I could, but that is a ridiculous attitude considering what Americans – and the American President – have done to the nation of Iraq. Ok, imagine Russia invaded America, waging a war of "liberation" resulting in untold numbers of dead, and an upheaval/loss of one's stability and security in daily life. Would an American have a right, after more than five years, to throw a shoe at the Russian leader at the time?

To hear a Progressive spit out an opinion so non-progressive and unempathetic (to create a new word) towards the reality and plight of the Iraqi people is nauseating. That sentiment of country before humanity is precisely what progressives ought to be fighting against. Indeed, as we have learned of the Bush administration's desire to go to war with Iraq even prior to 9/11, Dave Chappelle's satire of a black Bush may well carry the same sentiment as Maddow: you can't do that to my daddy!

Could it be that Muntader al-Zaidi's actions will help galvanize the American public behind Bush after all? Did he unwittingly stoke the "my country, right or wrong" feeling at the core of Americans? I don't know, but it is telling when someone as well informed as Rachel Maddow sides with the President and the state over humanity; when she sits in a cozy studio in judgment of a man (and the nation he represents) who has seen first-hand the ravages of America's war of liberation, and can no longer bear the cacophony of emotions it has brought with it.

Unprogressive Progressives

From light-weights such as Cenk Uygur, to heavy-weights like Bill Maher, it is increasingly offensive to religious progressives to hear religious inanity and dispersion from one's home base, the left. To take Cenk as an example, on today's show – The Young Turks – he had Newsweek's Lisa Miller on to discuss homosexuality, marriage, and the Bible. In that interview he stated that it's an abomination to mix materials (actually it's wool and linen) and that 100% of people don't follow this law. Really Cenk? Because I know a heck of a lot of Orthodox Jews who would argue that law has been observed for thousands of years. Now, Cenk would argue that he is referring to Christians, but therein lies the problem with the progressive movements antipathy for religion: most of the time they are talking out their asses and haven't a clear understanding of that which they berate. They are just as guilty as the right-wing Christians they castigate by capriciously picking and choosing examples from the Bible to support their claims without any understanding of the depth and history behind it. Does Cenk even know that the Torah is in two parts: written and oral? Want to bet that's 'no'?

When they say things like "anyone who believes in the literal Bible is crazy/stupid" it serves the same function as those who claim that the only path to God and salvation is Jesus. Absolutes are dangerous and often times divisive. Cenk said yesterday that he doesn't care about Joe the Plumbers views on the economy and the bailout; what makes Cenk's opinion on religion any more valuable than that?

Obama and Blagojevich: What They Aren't Saying

I have heard from several news outlets that Obama was not involved and knew nothing of Blagojevich trying to sell the Senate seat. At the same time, they are quoting Blagojevich about Obama not playing ball. How could he not play ball and not know anything at the same time? Surely someone in the Obama camp – if not Obama himself – must have rebuked Blagojevich, creating his frustration, and therefore someone ought to have known something.

Concurrent Progress

It amazes me every time people ask Obama and those who will be in Obama's administration if it is feasible to expect change on a variety of fronts simultaneously. It's as if fixing the economy, getting out of Iraq, seeing to health care, advancing a new industry of green energy, etc. cannot all be accomplished without needing to set one aside. It's true that money as a resource is finite, but it's very 20th century to imagine that money is the only and absolute resource. The greater resource is the integration of ongoing forces to achieve a unified result, particularly in the case of transforming energy, which would have a knock on effect to the economy and foreign reliance on oil. The true resource is the management of varied but connected networks and ideas, which Obama proved he could do in the campaign.

There was no talk of having to pull out of North Carolina if they wanted to be competitive in Colorado; it is agreed that the 50-states approach was what won the election for Obama. But with such a grassroots organization, full of amateurs and part-time if not volunteer staffers, they are sure to have a sloppy campaign, right? Well, the results are in and obviously that wasn’t the case. The Obama campaign established a modern, post-corporate, 21st century framework that focused on managing networks. The same can and will be done in governance. Obama, as a CEO of the world’s largest corporation – the United States of America – will use his managerial know-how and simultaneously guide the various aspects mentioned above. Just as a CEO of a multinational must face managing sprawling companies over a variety of industries and nations, so too must the President manage policy and strategic vision for the nation, and one aspect does not need to take a back seat in order to achieve success in another: that’s called management.

Rules of Engagement

Josh Marshall, over at TalkingPointsMemo, recently bemoaned the fact that Congressional Quarterly bemoaned the lack of Republicans in the newly formed Obama administration.  Marshall pointed out that Obama is perhaps the most progressive ever in the lengths he has gone to choose people not firmly aligned with his own party, and I would like to expand upon why it seems that Republicans are incessantly critical and unsatisfied, even before Obama has taken office.  They are the baddies.

The Republican leadership over Bush's term in office has solidified its role as the bad guys, the rule breakers, and the cry babies.  They are known as liars and cheaters.  All of America and the world now know that the basis for the Iraq invasion was cooked up and was sold to the American people as a greasy used car salesperson sells a lemon to a naive, first-time car buyer.  If a news story broke tomorrow that *gasp*, Republicans lied, would anyone be shocked?  Therefore, they needn't follow any rules.

Progressives and liberals, on the other hand, have been trying to call out Republicans left and right for these indiscretions and have set themselves up as guardians of the constitution and fair play.  The problem is the Republicans are willing to hold Democrats to the Democrats' rules, all the while disregarding the rules themselves, because, hey, it wasn't as if they agreed to any rules.  If I can use a boxing metaphor, it's as if the man in the red trunks is simultaneously pounding the man in the blue trucks squarely in the groin all the while calling foul when the man in the blue trunks lands a punch that even grazes his belt line.  We saw this in the election: McCain and Palin would unapologetically insinuate Obama was a terrorist (or friend of), yet demanding Obama apologize for what was being said about McCain by people outside the Obama campaign.

So, after being trounced at every level in the election, Republicans are screaming foul as a means of maintaining some grip on power after the electorate clearly said, "No!"  After all, they are the baddies.  I would wager there are many in the Republican Party hoping and praying that the Obama years will be disastrous, which would equal them praying for America to further its downward spiral, all so they can reclaim power in four years.  Does that sound far-fetched to you?  Probably not.  They are the baddies.