_bust.jpg)
.jpg)
_003.jpg)
Posts
8 hours ago
Saturday, 18 April 2009
UNIVERSITY ISLAMIC CHAPLAIN - "DEATH TO ALL APOSTATES !"
Islam on Campus: Harvard Islamic Chaplain Endorses Death as a Punishment for Islamic Apostates
By MELODY Y. HU Crimson Staff Writer
CLARIFICATION APPENDED Harvard Islamic chaplain Taha Abdul-Basser ’96 has recently come under fire for controversial statements in which he allegedly endorsed death as a punishment for Islamic apostates. In a private e-mail to a student last week, Abdul-Basser wrote that there was “great wisdom (hikma) associated with the established and preserved position (capital punishment [for apostates]) and so, even if it makes some uncomfortable in the face of the hegemonic modern human rights discourse, one should not dismiss it out of hand.” The e-mail was forwarded over Muslim student e-mail lists and later picked up by the blogosphere, sparking debate and, in many cases, criticism of Abdul-Basser from those who have interpreted his statement as supporting the execution of those who leave the Islamic religion. “I believe he doesn’t belong as the official chaplain,” said one Islamic student, who asked that he not be named to avoid conflicts with Muslim religious authorities. “If the Christian ministers said that people who converted from Christianity should be killed, don’t you think the University should do something?”According to the student, many of Abdul-Basser’s other views are “not in line with liberal values, such as notions of human rights. He privileges the medieval discourse of the Islamic jurists, and is not willing to exercise independent thought and judgment beyond a certain limit,” the student said. Samad Khurram ’09-’10 said Abdul-Basser’s remarks conflicted with the Harvard United Ministry’s support of freedom of religion. “I support free speech, freedom of belief and association, so this came as a big shock to me,” Khurram said. “[His remarks] are the first step towards inciting intolerance and inciting people towards violence,” said a Muslim Harvard student, who requested that he not be named for fear of harming his relationship with the Islamic community. Aqil Sajjad, a Harvard graduate student, also said that Abdul-Basser’s statements were “totally wrong, definitely out of line for somebody in that position. I wouldn’t go and seek religious advice from one who is saying this.” A Muslim student at MIT, who also asked to remain anonymous to preserve his relationship with the Islamic community, said the chaplain’s remarks wrongly suggested that only Westerners and Westernized Muslims who did not fully understand Islam would find the killing of apostates objectionable. “If what he said was what I thought, then it is very shocking and not something that I would expect or want coming out of a chaplain at any major American university,” he said. Abdul-Basser wrote in a later e-mailed statement that he “never expressed the position that individuals who leave Islam or convert from Islam to another religion must be killed. I do not hold this opinion personally.” He explained that he was not advocating for the positions mentioned in his e-mail, but rather “addressing them in the context of the evolution of an Islamic legal doctrine.” “[Abdul-Basser] was speaking as a chaplain to a student in a private e-mail exchange. One of these e-mails was misinterpreted, misconstrued, and posted on the blogosphere,” said Harvard Islamic Society spokesperson Nafees A. Syed ’10, who praised Abdul-Basser for promoting diversity within HIS and the campus at large. “His immeasurable contributions should not be overlooked in this matter,” she said. —
Staff writer Melody Y. Hu can be reached at melodyhu@fas.harvard.edu.
taken from : B'NAI ELIM (http://bnaielim.blogspot.com/)
Friday, 17 April 2009
UNIVERSAL TORAH: SHEMINI
UNIVERSAL TORAH: SHEMINI
By Rabbi Avraham Greenbaum
Torah Reading: Parshas SHEMINI, Leviticus 9:1-11:47Haftara: II Samuel 6:1-7:17 (Sephardi ritual: II Samuel 6:1-19).
THE EIGHTH DAY
The "eighth day" with which our parshah of SHEMINI opens was the first day of the month of Nissan, one year since the Exodus from Egypt. This was the day marked out for the final inauguration of the Sanctuary following seven days of consecration of Aaron and his sons for service as priests. Those seven days had started on the 23rd of the preceding month of Adar. On each of those seven days, Moses had erected the Sanctuary in order to conduct the priestly consecration rituals, in which he himself served as the "high priest", only to dismantle the Sanctuary afterwards. However, on the Eighth Day -- the first of Nissan and first day of the New Year -- the Sanctuary was left standing, so to remain for as long as the Israelites stayed in the same desert encampment. On that day Aaron and his sons fully assumed the role of priests forever after.
The rabbis stated that the first day of Nissan "took ten crowns": It was (1) the first day of creation; (2) first day of the first of the months of the year; (3) the first day of the priesthood; (4) the first day of the Sanctuary service; (5) first day of the inauguration sacrifices of the princes of the twelve tribes; (6) first day for the descent of fire from heaven on the altar; (7) the first day that sacrifices were eaten; (8) the first day that all other altars (such as private altars) other than the Sanctuary altar became forbidden; (9) the first day that the Divine Presence dwelled in Israel; (10) the first day on which the priests blessed the people (Mechilta, Shemini 1).
In calling this the "eighth" day, the Torah alludes to the fact that, with the inauguration of the Sanctuary, it was the day on which the Israelites completely transcended the natural order, which was brought into being through the "seven days of creation". The latter correspond to the lower seven of the ten sefirot of which the Kabbalah speaks, corresponding to the "body" (as opposed to top three, which are the "head").
As long as man does not recognize his true mission in this world and spends his life trying to satisfy only his bodily needs and desires, he is locked within nature, like an animal. However, when he embraces his destiny, willfully configuring and using the material world as a means of drawing closer to G-d, building a Sanctuary and bringing the natural, the animal, as a KORBAN, a "sacrifice" (lit. "a drawing close"), man attains a level that transcends nature. This is the eighth level, that of BINAH (the eighth Sefirah counting up from Malchut, which is the bottom Sefirah). BINAH is the "gateway" to the "head", the brain and the soul (consisting of the top three Sefirot).
When we use our soul-powers -- our willpower, wisdom and understanding, to assert our control over the material and the animal, we can "pass through the gate" into the world of the spirit. This is governed by a law different from that which governs the natural order. The world of the spirit is governed by Torah law. When we pass through the gate, we can know and understand (with BINAH) that the natural order is nothing but an arena of challenge created by G-d in order for us to use it to connect back to the Source. As long as we are under the power of nature, this world stands as a barrier holding us back from G-d. But when we assert our spiritual power, this world turns into a gateway through which we can draw closer to Him.
* * *
THE PRICE OF CLOSENESS
So great is the significance of the day of the inauguration of the Sanctuary, the day of man's birth as a spiritual being, that the Torah returns to it in several portions in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. ("There is no 'before' and 'after' in the Torah"). In PEKUDEY at the end of Exodus, we had the account of how Moses erected the Sanctuary on 1st Nissan, drawing G-d's "cloud" to descend so that "His glory filled the Sanctuary". Our present parshah, SHEMINI, narrates how Aaron and his four sons inaugurated the Sanctuary with special sacrifices, and how G-d's fire descended onto the altar. SHEMINI continues with the dramatic story of the offering of "strange fire" in the Sanctuary by Nadav and Avihu, Aaron's first and second sons, leading to their death by fire from heaven. Finally, in NASO, second parshah of the book of Numbers, the Torah tells of the special offering of Nachshon, Prince of the tribe of Judah, on the first of Nissan, initiating the offerings of the princes of the twelve tribes, one by one on twelve consecutive days.
It is one of the profound paradoxes of the Torah that this auspicious day should have been so horribly marred by the death of the two older sons of the leading protagonist in the Sanctuary, Aaron. In the world in which we live, the world of nature and separation, there is no explanation of such a tragedy. As far as this world is concerned, death is the end: how can it be good? If any meaning is to be found in such an occurrence, it can only be through "the eighth day", the level of BINAH, understanding, which is the gateway to the transcendent realm of unity, where there is no separation and no death.
If closeness to G-d and entry into the realm of unity came cheap, we would not value them. They come at a price. In what currency can we pay G-d? He does not need our money, our oxen, sheep and other "sacrifices". The price is often paid in pain (LO ALENU -- not on us!!!). Pain robs man of his ability to feel comfortable in this world of separation to which he becomes so attached. Pain drives him to seek relief by trying to transcend the world. Pain is a teacher, a very harsh one.
An event as great as the erection of the Sanctuary and the drawing of G-d's presence into the world could not but come at a great price. The Sanctuary "will be sanctified by My glory" (Ex. 29:3) -- "by those who are my glorified ones" (Rabbinic drush, see Rashi on Lev. 10:3, "I will be sanctified by those who are close to Me"). The price was paid by Aaron precisely because his was the pivotal role in the Sanctuary project, which is to configure this refractory material world in such a way that it becomes a vessel holding and revealing G-dliness. Aaron had all the glory and splendor of this world (HOD), as represented in his gorgeous garments. He received the choicest share of the priestly gifts and portions. All this glory had to be elevated to G-d, it could not be allowed to stay in this world and turn into self-glorification.
When we use the wealth of this world for self-glorification, it turns into a golden calf. Aaron is on the very edge. He has all the glory, he wears the wealth of the world on his very person. In order to keep him from going out of his mind with pride, he is struck with a terrible blow, the loss of the flower of his children (their loss in this world, though not in the world of unity). The pain forces him to transcend the world of separation, the material world. Aaron must remain in the world of unity: he must not show mourning or rend his garments. He must stay in the Sanctuary, the Sanctuary of the soul, the world of unity: Keter-Chochmah-Binah. There, the language of our world, the world of separation and pain, does not apply. We can enter that exalted realm only through silent acceptance of G-d's decree. "And Aaron remained silent."
* * *
SEPARATION AND DISTINCTION
Aaron and his surviving sons could not show mourning, because their role was to remain in the world of unity in order to connect others to it. But the Children of Israel had to mourn, because they are the ones who live in the world of separation from which Nadav and Avihu had been torn. It is said that the sin of Nadav and Avihu is that they wanted to dissolve the separation completely and bring the entire world back into immediate unity with G-d. They wanted to redeem evil. They wanted to break through all the barriers. They were drunk with the unity of G-d -- and they went beyond bounds until they were totally burned up inside with G-d's fire.
But G-d does not want us to go altogether beyond the bounds. We may not embrace evil, for G-d created it precisely so that we should reject it despite the temptations. G-d established the world of separation and evil as an arena of challenge for man, in which he must steadily refine and elevate his earthly materialism until he turns himself into a vessel fit to receive G-d's unity. This cannot be done all at once: it must be done step by step, stage by stage.
As an arena of challenge to man, the world consists of good and evil, pure and impure, holy and unholy. Man's task is to use his powers of mind and soul to discriminate between them, to embrace the good and holy while rejecting the impure and unholy. The world is a very deceptive place. The pig displays its cloven hoof as if to say, "I am pure". But the truth is that it is impure, for it does not chew its food over. It does not want to confront its food again, since it always has its nose in the filth.
We cannot allow ourselves to go by appearances in this world: we have to penetrate beneath the surface. The only means we have of doing so is with G-d's Torah, the Tree of Life, which teaches the truth about good and evil in every area of life -- be it what we eat, how we do business, whom we marry and all other areas. Only with objective, outside guidance can we sort out the confusion that came from Adam's eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. When man in his arrogance thinks that he knows -- when he relies on his personal judgments about what is good and bad -- he can go terribly wrong, because there is a serpent within him, the YETZER RA, that is liable to deceive him. Making the correct distinctions in this world is at the very center of what we must accomplish here.
Thus the middle letter of the entire Torah, which is in our parshah (the letter VAV -- signifying "connection" -- in the word "belly" Lev. 11:42), is in a word that alludes to the humiliation of the serpent, who was cut down to size and made to go on his belly (Gen. 3:14). Only by humiliating the serpent and rejecting evil is it possible to connect with G-d. There is no middle word in the Torah, since the total number of words in the Torah is even. The center of the Torah in terms of words comes between the words DAROSH DARASH (Lev. 10:16): "and Moses SEARCHINGLY SEARCHED". Only by searching very hard can we penetrate to the real truth!
The priest is not allowed to drink when he serves in the Sanctuary. Intoxicants and instant religiosity do not bring genuine connection with G-d. Similarly, the rabbi may not drink before giving an halachic ruling. It takes sobriety to distinguish between truth and illusion.
The latter half of our parshah teaches us to discriminate between pure and impure foods, while most of the remainder of the book of Leviticus is taken up with the detailed Torah code through which we separate and distinguish between good and evil in all other areas of life.
Through our assiduous study of the Torah and its teachings, may we find the spiritual strength to take our destiny in our hands and rise to our true mission: "And you shall sanctify yourselves and be holy, for I am holy..." (Lev. 11:44).
Shabbat Shalom!
Avraham Yehoshua Greenbaum
--
AZAMRA INSTITUTE
PO Box 50037 Jerusalem 91500 Israel
Website: www.azamra.org
Change address / Leave mailing list: http://ymlp67.com/u.php?YMLPID=gbmbwegsguqeuguhyHosting by YourMailingListProvider
Thursday, 16 April 2009
Wednesday, 15 April 2009
IAF- Israeli Air Force. The best air force in the world.
The opening movie of the IAF game in English. -Jane's Fighting Simulators
SUSAN BOYLE'S DREAM
I shall be shutting down soon for yet another installment of Pessach; after the holiday I expect to be very busy with a number of concurrent projects and probably will cut down blogging for a while (I know, I've said this in the past, too). So I'm leaving with a magnificent story, quite off topic, for which I got permission from the editorial board.
Last night we saw the 2006 German film Four Minutes (Vier Minuten). It's a powerful film about a deeply troubled young woman with a troubling story, a troubling old passive Nazi, and a troubled country. The young woman has the gift of magnificent music, though its true measure becomes clear only in the final four minutes of the film.Still, it's a film.
Fiction. Susan Boyle's story, which exploded onto the Internet this week, is true. A few elements must have been contrived, television being what it is, but the fundamentals can't have been. The woman was set up as a fool to be laughed at but didn't lose her dignity; once she blew us all away she didn't, either. So set aside 8 minutes and watch (the embedding has been disabled, so follow the link). And then watch again.
taken from: Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations (http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com)
A RIGHT WAR, WRONGLY WAGED
According to the NYT, an airstrike by NATO forces - that would mean Americans, since who else has air power - yesterday killed six Afghani civilians. NATO officials denied killing civilians, in the face of confirmation from the local governor - keep in mind that NATO and the local government are on the same side, or supposed to be.
The bottom of the item tells of an unrelated Taliban atrocity elsewhere. The Times wants us to remember who the Good Guys are, and which the Bad Ones.
They are right of course, but wrong. The Taliban are a blot on the face of humanity, and they and their ilk are the mortal enemies of any reasonable person, including many of their own people and just about all their own women. Yet being at war with monsters doesn't mean you needn't think about how you're waging it; the two are quite separate levels of morality and have been recognized as such for centuries. The distinction is being removed by Useful Idiots and pacifists who would condemn all wars, the just with the criminal, because of their inevitable human price; losing the will and ability to wage just wars means condemning far greater numbers of innocents to far worse. By blurring the discussion the NYT strengthens those who would appease, obstruct, apologize and look away.
It is a sign of the weakness of the American public discussion that we need Juan Cole to call our attention to an article on a Pakistani website tallying the figures from American air strikes in Pakistan (not Afghanistan), and they're not pretty: 14 dead al-Qaida to 687 innocent Pakistani civilians. 14 to 687.
I can think of a theoretical scenario in which killing 14 exceptionally potent mass murderers might justify killing 687 innocents, if by killing the 14 one were saving a million. Is that what the Americans are claiming? Then they should say so and the public should have the discussion. Personally I'd be skeptical: the Islamist murderers are part of a deeply sick culture, and I doubt any specific 14 of them are irreplaceable. So far as I can see, however, that's not what anyone is claiming; rather, no-one is having the discussion at all. I don't even know if the numbers are correct, but there again, you need an open, public discussion to reveal if someone is systematically disseminating bald lies about casualties (a not unheard of phenomenon).
Of course I'm holding this up as a demonstration of the fundamental hypocrisy with which Israel is consistently treated. Yet I'm also calling for a real discussion on the merits of the discussion itself, not only so as to level some rhetoric field. The war against the Islamists is the most important war of our day because of the dimensions of the threat; it's necessary and moral. It must be waged morally, too.
Finally, back to Israel: Israelis are often castigated by their detractors for claiming to be morally superior to anyone else in waging war. Some antisemites pretend this claim is the root of their hatred - an unconvincing pretense. Yet this is precisely what we mean. The Danny Zamirs of Israel are not the Juan Coles of America, and IDF spokesmen generally wait until their fellow officers really have investigated before denying false allegations - or trying to learn from authentic ones.
taken from:Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations (http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com/)
THOUGHT PROCESSES OF A HAMAS APOLOGIST
Paul McGeough of the Sydney Morning Herald, a popular Australian Guardian-lite newspaper, has an op-ed up at the New York Times. I have the impression that since the NYT bureau chief in Israel is the reasonable Ethan Bronner, the editors back in New York are trying to balance him with ever more foolish commentators.I don't normally fisk people, but this one cries out for it, starting with his title, "Hamas Comes Out of Hiding", where it has busily been killing Palestinians and doing its best to kill Israelis.
JUST a year and a half ago, visiting Khalid Mishal, the supreme leader of Hamas, was a cloak-and-dagger affair. In September 2007, I climbed into the back of a curtained Mercedes to make the dash from central Damascus to the southern suburbs, where the Palestinian group operated from a high-security enclave reserved for senior officials of the Syrian government...
So Mishal doesn't only reside in Damascus, he lives in the top security area where the apparatchiks are protected from their people. Nice regime, the Syrian one.
As I was subjected to a thorough physical search, one of Mr. Mishal’s aides told me that there was a battery of antiaircraft guns buried deep in a nearby hillside. All my possessions were confiscated, and I gained access to Mr. Mishal’s grand reception room through an airport-style security scanner.
Actually, I rather doubt the antiaircraft batter is deep underground, where it wouldn't do much good, would it. But Mishal obviously lives in style, with his grand reception room.
Today the mood has become much lighter in the Hamas hideout. Mr. Mishal’s calendar is so full that he might soon need a parking lot for the vehicles bringing foreign delegations to visit. My most recent appointment with him, on March 18, was pushed far into the night because Mr. Mishal was busy greeting a group of Greek lawmakers, who were then followed by an Italian delegation. In the preceding days, visitors had come from the British and European Parliaments.
Of course, none of those many European delegations is even remotely connected with any past present or future negotiations between Israel and Palestinians. They're not American officials, after all, or Egyptians. They're malicious fools, probably of the Left, who que up on pilgrimage to the top Jew-killer they can find, so as to express their adoration. So long as we're clear about they dynamics here.
In our discussion last month, Mr. Mishal spoke for the first time of the challenges confronting Hamas in the post-Bush era: Barack Obama’s presidential victory; Mr. Netanyahu’s return; the Gaza war; and Washington’s new drive for “dialogue” with Hamas’s regional sponsors — Syria and Iran.
Mr. Mishal rejected the notion that Hamas could get squeezed in any nascent power plays in the region. He interpreted Washington’s pitch to Syria and Iran as an admission of past errors, an acceptance that the United States had to deal with “parties that have proved themselves.”
Proved themselves as what, exactly? As brutal thugs eager to kill whoever's in their way, and to set up their own civilians to be killed when they manage to provoke Israel? Mr. McGeough, clearly enamored of Mishal, never does get around to mentioning any of this nor explaining.
“Hamas is not a card in anyone’s hand,” he insisted. But at the same time, he warned that Washington should not seek to “isolate certain parties at the expense of other parties."So now he's threatening America, unchallenged by his fawning interviewer.
Pressed on policy changes that Hamas might make as a gesture to any new order, Mr. Mishal argued that the organization has already shifted on several key points: “Hamas has already changed — we accepted the national accords for a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, and we took part in the 2006 Palestinian elections.”That's change, for sure: rather than sulk in the corner, Hamas is willing to participate in Palestinian elections. Whether they'll ever allow future elections to remove them from power is not a question this interviewer might ask. As for the matter of recognizing Israel, McGeough engages in some clumsy acrobatics:
On the crucial question of rewriting the Hamas charter, which calls for the destruction of Israel, he was unbending: “Not a chance.” Khalid Mishal is not Yasir Arafat — he is not looking for a Nobel Peace Prize. Among the Hamas articles of faith is a belief that in renouncing violence and in recognizing Israel’s right to exist in 1993, Mr. Arafat sinned against his people. (Nonetheless, others to whom he speaks have told me that Mr. Mishal has said that “when the time comes,” Hamas will make some of the moves demanded of it by the West.)Let's see: the charter calls for the death of all Jews. Removing Israel is merely a sub-set of that. Still, the interviewer couldn't say Mishal will agree to Israel's existence since Mishal told him the opposite and he want's to maintain his access to the man; so he admits Mishal told him Hamas would never recognize Israel, but then turns around and reassures us that other people told him the opposite, or at any rate, the told him Mishal has allowed them to have the impression that he might perhaps do something demanded by the West, so long as it doesn't impinge upon his fundamental antisemitism and determination to destroy Israel. Which of course raises the question why travel from Syndey all the way to Damascus, if you're going to believe unidentified people anyway. Those, you can invent in the comfort of your kitchen.
Curiously, amid rising calls from politicians and policy makers around the world for Hamas to be given a seat at the Middle East negotiating table, Mr. Mishal made clear that he was willing to bide his time. His message is, “Watch what we do, not what we say.”
I suppose there's a connection between the beginning of the paragraph and its end, a full sentence later, but I can't see what it might be.
While it is impossible for many in the West to grasp the calculus in the Hamas strategy of war and terror, the movement has demonstrated that it is disciplined in holding its fire, as it did in the summer and fall of 2008. Likewise, it has proved itself capable of negotiating with Israel — albeit through third parties.
Yes, it's quite inscrutable, isn't it. Hamas can't possibly really mean they want a Judenrein world, yet they keep on saying they do, and insist on killing Jews - ah, but then, when it suits them they refrain... it's so complicated.
Over the long term, Hamas accepts the concept of two states in the Levant, which arguably puts Mr. Mishal’s terrorist movement closer to Washington than Netanyahu is — he now proposes only “economic peace” between Jews and Palestinians.Did you see that? While there's literally no evidence whatsoever for the idea Hamas accepts Israel's existence, and if there were rest assured McGeough would be trumpeting it, at the end of the day it's enough to say they have (long term, mind you), and then turn on Netanyahu as the greater evil, the one whose positions are more war-like and conflicting with American policies than those of Hamas. Hey, I met the man, in Damascus, right after those Italian folks; trust me on this one, otherwise I wouldn't be a journalist.
As for finding himself at center stage with the man who ordered him killed, Mr. Mishal insisted that in the broad scheme of things, Mr. Netanyahu is just one more in a succession of prime ministers. “It’s fate, God’s destiny, but we can’t set policy on the basis of personal grudges,” he told me.
True. Were Israel to elect Gideon Levy its prime minister, with Amira Hass as minister of defense, Mishal still wouldn't change his mind about the need for an end to Israel and the Jews. It's nothing personal.
Perhaps. But not since the personal bitterness between Mr. Arafat and the former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon have Palestinians and Israelis faced such a leadership dynamic. Once again, personal enmity could swamp the more pressing complexities of the Middle East crisis.Remember those two, Arafat and Sharon? They really really disliked each other, which is why they refused to make peace at Camp David that time in 2000 when (Bill) Clinton almost thought he might salvage his mediocre reputation and land a Nobel peace prize. Why do Israelis keep on electing folks for whom authentic Palestinian leaders have personal grudges, what with all the pressing complexities in that area?
taken from: Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations (http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com/)
Tuesday, 14 April 2009
SONIA MUCZNIK - THE AZULEJOS OF LISBON
SONIA MUCZNIK - THE AZULEJOS OF LISBON: ART ANDDECORATION, A SHORT SURVEY
IRON DOME : FOLLY OR BRILLIANCE ?
The Iron Dome anti-missile system being developed by Refael, an Israeli military-systems organization, is chugging along. It passed an important milestone last month, is expected to be finally tested sometime soon, and if it passes, full-scale production and deployment will begin. By next summer it may be operative, protecting Sderot and Ashkelon from Hamas rockets, and later on protecting the Galilee from Hezbullah's tender attentions. Add this to the Arrow long-range anti-missile system which is already operative and being upgraded all the time, and Israel is on its way to being protected from what-ever its neighbors will be able to throw at it except mortars and artillery. Mortars either have a very short range (about a mile) or they're large and cumbersome enough, as is all artillery, that drones can identify and destroy them; it's hard to set them up in a school-yard, shoot them off and disappear so quickly the UN personnel can pretend they were never there.
All of which means that each day that passes without rocket attacks brings us closer to the end of that chapter of our relations with our neighbors. They will of course find other ways to attack us, and we'll have to figure out an adequate response etc etc etc. The Palestinians and Hezbullah are very resourceful in such matters; it's in participating in the modern world that they're so dismally inept.
The Arrow anti-ballistic system is a fine thing. If we assume that sometime soon Iran will have nuclear weapons - a reasonable assumption, it seems to me - it will still be useful that they won't know if they have the ability to deliver through our defense systems, while they themselves have no such systems and our nuclear punch is harder. Who knows, maybe five or ten years from now we'll offer our defensive capabilities to the Saudis or the Egyptians or the Germans, heh.
The Iron Dome thing, however, isn't obviously such a fine thing. According to that article, each missile will cost $50,000m, or perhaps less in some scenarios - say, $49,800. A Kassam rocket probably costs $500, and a Katyusha, I'd guess, $2,500. Do the math and you'll see it will be worth the Palestinian's effort simply to get us to shoot Dome missiles in large numbers, for the financial burden. I'm also leery about a defensive strategy that relies completely on technology (I know about technology) rather than deterrence or, even better, the ability to disarm ones' enemies. (The option of making peace doesn't exist).
On the other hand, at the moment it's not obvious what the alternative is. I was in Sderot yesterday, and they've got these concrete mini-shelters strewn all over town; that's clearly not acceptable. Moreover, the law of unexpected consequences could kick in here, too. The Palestinian's most potent weapon agains Israel is the occupation, which is why most Israelis have long since decided to end it. Yet it can't be ended if every time we relinquish control over some territory it immediately becomes a launching pad for missiles against our civilians. Should the Iron Dome system put an end to that tactic, we could go back to the strategy most of us had already agreed upon, of dismantling most settlements and moving back to the barrier. The Palestinians, the Guardian, and Haaretz will continue to squawk that the occupation goes on, but most sensible people will disregard them, and Israel's position will be strengthened in many ways.
taken from:Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations (http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com/)
Monday, 13 April 2009
Sunday, 12 April 2009
THE REDEMPTION FROM EGYPT AND TODAY'S REDEMPTION
Posted by Mordechai Friedfertig
12 Apr 2009
[Opening words from Rabbi Shlomo Aviner's radio program]
1. Similarity and DifferenceWe are fortunate that we have merited the Redemption from Egypt and the Redemption we are currently experiencing. There is both a similarity and a difference between these two Redemptions, as our revered teacher Ha-Rav Kook explained in the article "The Pesach of Egypt and the Future Pesach" which appears in the book "Maamrei Ha-Re'eiyah" (pp. 164-166). The similarity is the great wonder is which each of the Redemptions occurred. In Egypt, we were slaves, downtrodden and persecuted, and we were instantly transformed into an exalted, strong and courageous Nation. This is an historical wonder which has no parallel. The same applies to our Redemption: we were in Exile, a Nation scattered and separated among the nations, downtrodden, expelled, suffering pogroms, persecutions and the Holocaust. There are no words to describe the suffering we experienced. And we were suddenly transformed into a free Nation in our Land: a courageous Nation, a wealthy Nation, a Nation of Torah – an unbelievable wonder. This is similarity but there is also a difference. The Redemption from Egypt was performed "in haste" (Devarim 16:3). The Gemara in Berachot (9a) emphasizes that we were redeemed in an instance, a miracle of miracles. But the prophet Yeshayahu (52:11) writes regarding the Redemption of our time: It will not occur in haste. It will occur slowly, with difficulties, problems and complications. Our Redemption even goes backwards at times, occurs slowly, not a miracle of miracles, through natural means. Nature moves at its own pace, without revealed miracles.
2. Which Redemption is Greater?It would seem that the Redemption from Egypt was greater with its revealed miracles and wonders. After all, our current Redemption seems like a pauper riding on a horse. Our Sages teach however that this is not so. They say that the future Redemption is much greater than the Redemption of Egypt. The Mishnah in Berachot 1:5 relates that Rabbi Elazar Ben Azaryah said: I am like a man of 70 years, but I never merited proving why one is obligated to mention the Exodus at night until Ben Zoma explained: It says in the Torah (Devarim 16:3), "In order that you shall remember the day when you came out of the land of Egypt, all the days of your life" – "The days of your life" refers to the days; "All the days of your life" refers to the nights. Ben Zoma's proof is from the word "all." The Sages disagree and say that the extra word "all" refers to something else: "'The days of your life' refers to this world; 'All the days of your life' indicates the time of the Messiah." According to their opinion, we mention the Exodus from Egypt in this time and in the days of the Messiah, but not at night. Ben Zoma says to the Rabbis: But the prophet Yirmiyahu says: "Therefore, behold, days are coming, says Hashem, when they will no longer say, 'As Hashem lives, who brought the Children of Israel out of the land of Egypt,' but 'As Hashem lives, Who raised and returned the seed of the house of Israel from out of the northern lands and from every country into which I had driven them, and they will dwell on their own Land'" (Yirmiyahu 23:7-8). We thus learn that in the days of the Messiah, we will not recall the Exodus, because the future Redemption will be so great that its light will hide the miracle of the Exodus. The Rabbis answer that these verses from Yirmiyahu do not mean that the remembrance of the Exodus will be forgotten, but the great miracle of liberation from the oppression of the kingdoms of the world will be the main remembrance, and the Exodus will be the secondary one (Bereachot 12b). Ben Zoma and the Sages therefore both agree that the future Redemption will be greater than the Redemption from Egypt. The only dispute is whether the Exodus from Egypt will be mentioned in the days of the Messiah.
3. The Future RedemptionWhy is the Future Redemption so much greater than the Redemption from Egypt? – After all, the Exodus from Egypt is the miracle of miracles and our Redemption is through a natural process. This recalls the letter of Ha-Rav Yaakov Moshe Charlap to Maran Ha-Rav Kook, found in the book "Hed Harim": I am disappointed by the Zionist movement. I greatly value the building of the Land and the return to Zion but we lost out on the miracle of miracles on account of them, since a person receives from heaven what he expects. Now that we have toiled to build the Land, we have lost out on the strength of miracles and only receive weakness. But – Ha-Rav Charlap says – I have seen that his honor does not agree. Maran Ha-Rav Kook responds to him in his letters (Igrot vol. 3, p. 20): His honor must be very careful regarding this thought that you had. The Redemption which comes "Kim'a Kim'a - slowly, slowly" is the strength of fortitude and not weakness. In truth, miracles show us that Hashem has the ability to perform anything beyond nature. But the Redemption through nature – through man - is greater. Hashem is not under "pressure." Hashem does not want to transverse nature. This is the strength of fortitude. Hashem performed the Redemption from Egypt and we were like babies for which everything was done. Now, we are no longer babies. The Master of the Universe brings the Redemption through us. There are therefore difficulties and complications. This is does not mean that it is not the Redemption, but because this is the Redemption through natural means. It is not that we are not on the right path. We are on the right path, but we are not at the end.
From : Torat HaRav Aviner
LEARNING TO WAGE WAR
Haaretz has an interview with three Duvdevan soldiers recently awarded medals of bravery for... sparing civilians. It's quite a story.
The fundamental challenge is that Palestinian murderers and planners of mass murder aren't identified as soldiers, as international law requires, nor do they act from military installations. They act from within the civilian society all around them. Which means, either you kill them with some civilians near them, or you don't harm them for fear of doing so, or you figure out how to pinpoint them in their kitchen, say, and nab them while sparing the other family members in the same kitchen. This is the policy Israeli chose for the West Bank, though it's the hardest of the three. A special unit, Duvdevan, was set up to do just that. Since no other army in the world knows how to do this, there weren't any international manuals or training camps, so Duvdevan had to learn on its own, by trial and error; initially, back in the first Intifada, there were too many errors. But the determination to succeed (understandable, given the alternatives), combined with an ever-rising level of professionalism, has forged a unit unparalleled anywhere, that in most cases succeeds:
A.: "There was an alley in the marketplace - all the stores were open and you hurry through the passageway, in order to maintain surprise and not to be 'burned' [identified] along the way. We broke into the house. He didn't understand where we had come from. Mabruk was sitting on the floor. He immediately jumped on his wife, using her as a shield."
R.: "Half a meter away was an M-16 with a magazine of ammunition inside. Ostensibly we had full legitimization to shoot him, because he was endangering us. But his wife was near him and he wasn't holding the weapon in his hand, so we didn't fire. There was a room there of two to three square meters, with his wife and a lot of children inside. He's an older man, but nobody's fool. He only had to roll over to reach the weapon. All he had to do was turn around with the weapon on automatic and mow down three or four soldiers. A less experienced soldier, who has not been trained for this mission, would have opened fire and killed several children.
"A.: "The guys remained calm. The weapon was on the floor. One of us took it from Mabruk. We attacked. He went wild, but we handcuffed him. In the end, the trick was to use selective firing. The fighters identified a woman and children and didn't shoot. It's a matter of a momentary decision. Now another complicated stage begins - leaving the refugee camp with him. It's already 10 A.M. Lots of people are outside. All the punks in the neighborhood had already heard that we came. He had collaborators and friends who would have fired on us as we were leaving. We got out of there very cautiously with the guy."
Sometimes the wanted men escape:
When they broke into the house, the man's wife was inside. "Although the house looked terrible afterward, the woman was not hurt," says A. "Her only injury was from being punched by the wanted man before he escaped. He apparently suspected her of informing on him."
Inevitably, sometimes people get killed - Israeli soldiers, for example:
In another operation, in February 2008, the same fighters arrested Majdi Mabruk, the head of the Popular Front in the Ein Beit Ilma refugee camp in Nablus. Among other things, Mabruk managed to smuggle an explosive belt into Tel Aviv, to be used to launch an attack on Yom Kippur in 2007; the device was confiscated by security forces. During the manhunt, another terrorist, his partner, killed Paratroops commando fighter Ben Zion Henman. In another incident, while trying to arrest Mabruk, an officer from the Givati commando unit was shot in the neck.
At the time, I wrote about Hanemann's death here.
Interestingly, according to the article, the IDF doesn't generally want to kill these murderers, preferring to arrest them and interrogate them for further information, even though this means that sometime in the future they'll probably be freed, either as part of that bogus peace project we keep hoping will lead somewhere (I certainly do), or in return for a kidnapped IDF soldier at the rate of 1:1000. I was also tickled to see that an important impetus for developing the methods of Duvdevan came from that well-know IDF consultant, Amira Hass:
About five years ago, Maj. Gen. Gadi Eisenkot was serving as the commander of the IDF forces in the West Bank. Eisenkot, now the head of Northern Command, then called the military approach in the West Bank "an M-16 instead of an F-16." The ability of the IDF to reach the operatives everywhere, to pull them out of their hiding places by the hair, he claimed, is a far greater deterrent to the terror organizations and the Palestinian population than mass shows of Israeli strength.
The West Bank commander based himself on a surprising source: articles by Amira Hass in Haaretz, in which senior Palestinian operatives said that they felt a certain "professional respect" for the enemy only when the soldiers engaged in face-to-face combat with them. The Palestinians considered the use of tanks and helicopters as a demonstration of cowardice on the part of an enemy that surpasses them in its military capability.
taken from:Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations (http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com/)
IDF TESTS ARROW II MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM
IDF Makes Technological Advancements for Missile Defense System
07 April 2009 , 17:00
Arrow Missile. Photo: IAF Website On Tuesday (April 7), the IDF carried out a test launch of the Arrow II Missile Defense System; this system is a part of a program that is designed to improve security methods in Israel and in the United States. During the test, a missile that simulates a possible threat to Israel was launched and shortly thereafter, the system's radar identified the missile and sent the data to the Data Management Center, who then fired the Arrow in order to intercept it.
During the test launch, representatives from the Ministry of Defense, the U.S. Department of Defense, and representatives from relevant industries, were present. Sources from within the Ministry of Defense clarified that the success of the project constitutes an important step in the long term plan to develop operational capabilities that are able to provide a solution to the threat of ballistic missiles being launched at Israel.
The Minister of Defense, Ehud Barak, was briefed regarding the results of the test launch and said, "This is a project that is important for the State of Israel. The integration of the Arrow System together with the 'Iron Dome,' which also produced successful results during a test launch last week, will provide the best protection for immediate strategic threats. The security apparatus works intensively in order to provide a defense system against missiles and thus to ensure the safety of Israeli citizens."
Two weeks ago, there was a successful test launch of the Iron Dome, which is designed to provide protection against short-range missiles and rockets such as Qassams and Grad rockets, while the Arrow system is intended for long-range, ballistic missiles that can come from enemy countries.
taken from the IDF site (http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/the_Front/09/4/0701.htm)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
