Showing posts with label guest blogger. Show all posts
Showing posts with label guest blogger. Show all posts
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Why can Republicans undermine the president?
Guest post from "George"
Yesterday, GOP presidential front runner Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) led a news conference to attack President Obama’s Middle East policies, insisting that “as a Christian, I have aclear directive to support Israel.” Fellow candidate Mitt Romney jumped on the bandwagon, calling for the U.S. to cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority and re-evaluate funding U.N. programs if Palestinians gain recognition from the U.N. This morning on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, host (and former Republican Rep.) Joe Scarborough slammed Perry and Romney for “posing for political purposes and undermining our president.” “That is dangerous and it’s not good for our country,” he said. Watch it:
MSNBC’s First Read asks, “If Howard Dean or John Kerry had shown up in New York City while [President George W.] Bush was at U.N. in ’03 — and had accused Bush of ‘appeasement’ (with foreign nationals) at a time of tricky negotiations at the U.N. — wouldn’t that have drawn widespread condemnation
Yesterday, GOP presidential front runner Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) led a news conference to attack President Obama’s Middle East policies, insisting that “as a Christian, I have aclear directive to support Israel.” Fellow candidate Mitt Romney jumped on the bandwagon, calling for the U.S. to cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority and re-evaluate funding U.N. programs if Palestinians gain recognition from the U.N. This morning on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, host (and former Republican Rep.) Joe Scarborough slammed Perry and Romney for “posing for political purposes and undermining our president.” “That is dangerous and it’s not good for our country,” he said. Watch it:
MSNBC’s First Read asks, “If Howard Dean or John Kerry had shown up in New York City while [President George W.] Bush was at U.N. in ’03 — and had accused Bush of ‘appeasement’ (with foreign nationals) at a time of tricky negotiations at the U.N. — wouldn’t that have drawn widespread condemnation
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Obama takes second oath l'humra
by Lurker
[Cross-posted at The Muqata]
In the comments on DovBear's post yesterday about the flubbed oath, I raised the question of whether Obama might have to take the oath a second time. After all, the exact wording of the oath is specified in the Constitution, and Obama (due to Roberts' mess-up) said those words out of sequence. DovBear saw it as doubtful that Obama should have to redo it: "I don't see why we need to stand on ceremony. This isn't religion." But as Tzipporah pointed out, one can reasonably argue that it is: "Political pageantry IS America's secular religion, with the Constitution standing as the holy text." I would tend to concur.
Well apparently, the President's White House counsel sees it this way as well. Yesterday, he paskened that min hastam, Obama was yotzei b'di'avad with the first oath -- but nevertheless, so that there should be no hashash ("out of an abundance of caution"), he still had Obama take the oath a second time l'humra, in order to be yotzei l'khol hadei'ot.
Greg Craig's psak was presumably influenced by the rulings issued by many major poskim over the last two days, that Obama should have to do the oath over again: Constitutional scholar Jack Beermann of Boston University went so far as to say that there is a real hashash that Obama wouldn't actually have the halakha of "President" until he recites the oath using the proper nusah. He acknowledged that one could have a hava amina not to repeat the oath because doing so might cause embarrassment to the Chief Justice -- but concluded that the importance of the mitzva of the oath overrides the kavod of the Chief Justice.
Charles Cooper, former head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department, paskened unequivocally that Obama is hayav to retake the oath, and without delay. And Jonathan Turley, professor of Constitutional law at George Washington University, said that although Obama is not actually hayav to retake the oath, he should do so anyway to eliminate the safek.
A few interesting notes about Obama's second oath:
Buy DB's book. (I personally recommend it)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy DB's wife a gift (please)
[Cross-posted at The Muqata]
In the comments on DovBear's post yesterday about the flubbed oath, I raised the question of whether Obama might have to take the oath a second time. After all, the exact wording of the oath is specified in the Constitution, and Obama (due to Roberts' mess-up) said those words out of sequence. DovBear saw it as doubtful that Obama should have to redo it: "I don't see why we need to stand on ceremony. This isn't religion." But as Tzipporah pointed out, one can reasonably argue that it is: "Political pageantry IS America's secular religion, with the Constitution standing as the holy text." I would tend to concur.Well apparently, the President's White House counsel sees it this way as well. Yesterday, he paskened that min hastam, Obama was yotzei b'di'avad with the first oath -- but nevertheless, so that there should be no hashash ("out of an abundance of caution"), he still had Obama take the oath a second time l'humra, in order to be yotzei l'khol hadei'ot.
Obama retakes oath of office after Roberts' mistake(The article linked above contains an audio recording of the second oath, which was taken on Wednesday at 7:35 pm EST in the White House Map Room.)
...
The do-over was aimed at dispelling any confusion that might arise from Tuesday's take -- in which "faithfully" was said out of sequence -- and erase any question that Obama is legally the president.
...
"We believe that the oath of office was administered effectively and that the president was sworn in appropriately yesterday," White House counsel Greg Craig said Wednesday in a written statement.
"But the oath appears in the Constitution itself. And out of an abundance of caution, because there was one word out of sequence, Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath a second time," the statement read.
Greg Craig's psak was presumably influenced by the rulings issued by many major poskim over the last two days, that Obama should have to do the oath over again: Constitutional scholar Jack Beermann of Boston University went so far as to say that there is a real hashash that Obama wouldn't actually have the halakha of "President" until he recites the oath using the proper nusah. He acknowledged that one could have a hava amina not to repeat the oath because doing so might cause embarrassment to the Chief Justice -- but concluded that the importance of the mitzva of the oath overrides the kavod of the Chief Justice.
Charles Cooper, former head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department, paskened unequivocally that Obama is hayav to retake the oath, and without delay. And Jonathan Turley, professor of Constitutional law at George Washington University, said that although Obama is not actually hayav to retake the oath, he should do so anyway to eliminate the safek.
A few interesting notes about Obama's second oath:
- Roberts once again phrased "so help me God" as a question.
- The use of a Bible -- which is only a minhag and not specified as part of the hiyuv in the Constitution -- was dispensed with.
- The concern I raised yesterday, that a second oath might constitute a problem of a brakha l'vatala, apparently did not figure in Mr. Craig's psak.
Buy DB's book. (I personally recommend it)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy DB's wife a gift (please)
Monday, January 19, 2009
The murder of Palestinians in Gaza
by Lurker
Those who are shocked by the Palestinian death toll in Gaza might be interested in knowing that the figures being bandied about by Hamas and the Palestinian Red Crescent include dozens, possibly hundreds, of Fatah members who were murdered in cold blood by Hamas over the past three weeks.
Since the war began, Hamas has been rounding up Fatah members throughout the Gaza Strip. The ones who get off easy only get shot in the legs, have their eyes poked out, and/or have their hands smashed or cut off. Many others are simply murdered; sometimes in mass executions.
In this clip, Jamal Najar, a popular Palestinian singer in the West Bank, describes how some of his cousins in Gaza were murdered by Hamas over the last few days, including a father who was shot dead in front of his children, for the crime of having walked out of his house:
Hamas officials have been including these people, that they themselves wounded and killed, in the casualty figures that they distribute to the press -- based on the reasoning that these victims, too, were killed in the context of the Israeli offensive. It should be noted, however, that Hamas' policy of torturing and murdering Fatah members (and often members of their families as well) dates back to Hamas' takeover of the Gaza Strip in June 2007. Hamas does not always try to hide these killings -- to the contrary, they sometimes film them, and proudly broadcast them on television with rousing musical accompaniment, as you can see in the video below from Hamas TV:
[Note: I chose a clip that contains no closeups or visible blood. Nonetheless, some may find it disturbing.]
Those who are shocked by the Palestinian death toll in Gaza might be interested in knowing that the figures being bandied about by Hamas and the Palestinian Red Crescent include dozens, possibly hundreds, of Fatah members who were murdered in cold blood by Hamas over the past three weeks.
Since the war began, Hamas has been rounding up Fatah members throughout the Gaza Strip. The ones who get off easy only get shot in the legs, have their eyes poked out, and/or have their hands smashed or cut off. Many others are simply murdered; sometimes in mass executions.
In this clip, Jamal Najar, a popular Palestinian singer in the West Bank, describes how some of his cousins in Gaza were murdered by Hamas over the last few days, including a father who was shot dead in front of his children, for the crime of having walked out of his house:
Hamas officials have been including these people, that they themselves wounded and killed, in the casualty figures that they distribute to the press -- based on the reasoning that these victims, too, were killed in the context of the Israeli offensive. It should be noted, however, that Hamas' policy of torturing and murdering Fatah members (and often members of their families as well) dates back to Hamas' takeover of the Gaza Strip in June 2007. Hamas does not always try to hide these killings -- to the contrary, they sometimes film them, and proudly broadcast them on television with rousing musical accompaniment, as you can see in the video below from Hamas TV:
[Note: I chose a clip that contains no closeups or visible blood. Nonetheless, some may find it disturbing.]
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
"Land for Peace" < Life
A guest post by Lurker:
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."
-- Albert Einstein
A few days ago, DovBear presented an argument that since the mitzva of living in the Land of Israel is not categorized as yahareg v'al y'avor (a mitzva for which one is required to sacrifice one's life), it would therefore be appropriate to surrender land to the Palestinians, rather than endanger lives.
He also noted that this is not simply his own personal view, but rather, the view of a number of halakhic authorities. And in fact, he is quite correct about this: R. Ovadiah Yosef has ruled that due to the halakhic imperative of pikuah nefesh (preservation of life), it is permissible to cede parts of Eretz Yisrael in order to save lives. The late R. Eliezer Schach also issued a similar ruling.*
DovBear is also correct that anyone who would accuse him of being a "heretic" for embracing this particular legitimate opinion, is simply a fool.
Where DovBear is wrong is in his belief that lives can, in fact, be saved by giving land to the Palestinians. This assumption has been tried, and has failed completely, multiple times over the past fifteen years. The idea has been done to death, quite literally: The plain, harsh reality is the exact opposite: Giving land to the Palestinians endangers the lives of Jews, and has resulted in the deaths of thousands of them.
It is for this reason that R. Ovadiah -- who still stands by his halakhic ruling in principle -- has stopped supporting the surrender of land to the Palestinians in practice.
Here is a question to which not many people know the answer: How many suicide bomb attacks there were before the Rabin government signed the Oslo Accords with the PLO?
Answer: ZERO (0). Yes, really. Suicide bombings first began only following the signing of Oslo.
In 1993, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres (now President) inaugurated a complete reversal of prior Israeli policy: They decided to negotiate with terrorists, and to arm them with land, money, and weapons. Plenty of Israelis were aghast, and wondered how this could possibly lead to anything other than disaster. Unfortunately, their fears were borne out in spades: The September 1993 Oslo Accords sparked a massive wave of terrorist attacks in Israel, of unprecedented proportions: Immediately following the signing, terrorism skyrocketed to levels that had been previously unknown. Regardless of this, the Rabin government was undeterred: Ignoring the mounting carnage, they negotiated and then signed the Oslo II agreement in 1995 -- in spite of the constant suicide bombings, which had become a matter of routine by then. And not surprisngly, the rate of terror death climbed even higher with Oslo II.
In the 30 months beginning with the Oslo signing, more Israelis were killed by terrorists (213) than in the entire preceding decade (209 from January 1983 to September 1993). You can find graphs illustrating this phenomenon here. [Note: These graphs cover the relatively "quiet" period prior to the much bloodier "Second Intifada" period, which began in October 2000.]
This massive explosion of terror attacks continued until Binyamin Netanyahu came to power in 1996. Netanyahu had campaigned on a platform that precluded any further territorial concessions as long as the terror onslaught continued. And interestingly, as soon as he assumed office, the terror attacks dropped dramatically, for the very first time since the Oslo Accords had been signed. Netanyahu's term in office marked the first time that the level of terror attacks dropped back down to pre-Oslo levels. (You can see this visually, along with the figures, on the graphs cited above.)
This respite didn't last very long, unfortunately. In 1999, Netanyahu was succeeded by Ehud Barak (now Defense Minister), who declared his intention to continue the policies of Rabin and Peres. True to his word, at Camp David, he offered Arafat a final-status deal that included the entire Gaza Strip, 97% of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. Arafat's response was to angrily reject the offer, and to launch a new terror war (the infamous "Second Intifada") that dwarfed even the monstrous levels of bloodshed that had hit Israel during the Rabin and Peres governments.
More Israeli civilians -- men, women, and children -- were slaughtered in the years since Oslo than in all the years since the founding of the state in 1948 up until the accords were signed in 1993. The numbers speak for themselves.
Many were certain that the Second Intifada spelled the end of Israel's policy of "land for peace". After all, it had become painfully clear -- even to many on the left, who had originally advocated this policy -- that it garnered nothing for Israel other than bloodshed and death. However, in 2004, the Sharon government announced its plans for a unilateral "Disengagement", which would entail the forced expulsion of 10,000 Jews from their homes in Gush Katif and northern Shomron, and turning over this land to the Palestinians. Surprisingly -- or perhaps not so surprisingly -- this announcement was promptly greeted by an enormous barrage of rocket and mortar fire from the Gaza Strip into Sderot and other border areas, as well as Gush Katif itself. This, however, did not deter Sharon, who carried out the Disengagement (over his own electorate's stanch opposition) in 2005. Every single last Israeli -- every civilian resident and soldier -- was removed from the Gaza Strip.
There were two immediate effects: (1) With the IDF and their deterrent effect gone, Hamas quickly siezed full political and military control of the Gaza Strip, ousting their Fatah rivals. (2) The western Negev was innundated by a massive, unprecedented increase in rocket attacks, that soon spread far beyond the Sderot area, and into Netivot, Ofakim, Ashkelon, Ashdod, and other cities.
This dramatic increase in rocket attacks caused by Israel's concession of the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians can be seen graphically here and here. [Note: These graphs do not cover the last three months.]
It should be painfully obvious to any objective person that the main reason for not giving land to enemy terrorists is not the sanctity of Jewish land. It is the sanctity of Jewish life.
The situation in the West Bank today is essentially the same as that of the Gaza Strip five years ago: Hamas already has large caches of mortars, and Katyusha and Grad missles. Hamas is far more powerful -- and popular -- than their Fatah rivals, and they are poised to sieze control. The only thing currently standing in their way is the presence of the IDF. If Israel were to withdraw from the West Bank, Hamas would sieze full control within a matter of weeks. Within a few months, missles would be raining down on Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and Netanya, just as they have been raining down into the western Negev. And with the dense urban population of Israel's central region (about 80% of the population lives there) -- as opposed to the sparsely populated Negev -- the casualties would far surpass anything ever seen before.
In spite of this, there are plenty of Jews -- in Israel and abroad -- who advocate surrendering the West Bank to the terrorists. These Jews are fueled by a fervent, messianic faith that making territorial concessions will somehow usher in the dawn of a new era, in which Israel will finally live in peace. They are completely undeterred by the enemy's own unabashed declarations that they will do everything in their power to annhilate Israel. But even more incredibly, these Jews are undeterred by the fact that their idea was already tried several times, and the result was not peace, but rather massive death and bloodshed. They remain steadfastly certain and true to their "religion", which preaches that the past should be ignored: Regardless of what has come before -- or what is happening right now -- they have complete faith that the next time Israel makes concessions to its terrorist enemies, peace will finally come.
In a bizarre inversion of reality, these Jews often deride their ideological rivals, who oppose such suicidal concessions, as being "fanatic messianists". They blithely dismiss the dire warnings of what will result, insisting that their rivals offer no viable "alternative". As though their own plan, which has already failed multiple times with deadly consequences, does constitute a viable "alternative".
So, honestly: How far does Israel need to continue this suicidal "experiment"? Can any sane person still believe that if we once again give land (and money, and weapons) to the Palestinians, this time it will bring peace, rather than the deaths of more and more Jews?
According to Einstein's definition of insanity above, the answer is obvious.
[*] I am compelled to point out the logical fallacy in this position -- as has been pointed out by several other halakhic authorities, including R. Avraham Shapira and R. Shlomo Goren: There exist certain mitzvot which, by their inherent nature, entail danger to one's life, and therefore cannot logically be overriden by considerations of pikuah nefesh. The classic example of this is the mitzva to go to war to conquer or defend the Land of Israel: Obviously, going into battle involves risking one's life. On that basis, everyone should be able to say that pikuah nefesh overrides his own obligation to fulfill this mitzva. That would clearly be an absurd argument, since it would mean that nobody at all would ever participate in such a war, and the mitzva to do so would become meaningless. The only logical conclusion, therefore, is that pikuah nefesh does not apply in the case of such a mitzva.
Nevertheless, this argument doesn't negate the undeniable fact that there do exist halakhic authorities who say that pikuah nefesh allows for giving up parts of Eretz Yisrael, as DB noted.
Buy DB's book. (I personally recommend it)
Buy DB's wife a gift (please)
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."
-- Albert Einstein
A few days ago, DovBear presented an argument that since the mitzva of living in the Land of Israel is not categorized as yahareg v'al y'avor (a mitzva for which one is required to sacrifice one's life), it would therefore be appropriate to surrender land to the Palestinians, rather than endanger lives.
He also noted that this is not simply his own personal view, but rather, the view of a number of halakhic authorities. And in fact, he is quite correct about this: R. Ovadiah Yosef has ruled that due to the halakhic imperative of pikuah nefesh (preservation of life), it is permissible to cede parts of Eretz Yisrael in order to save lives. The late R. Eliezer Schach also issued a similar ruling.*
DovBear is also correct that anyone who would accuse him of being a "heretic" for embracing this particular legitimate opinion, is simply a fool.
Where DovBear is wrong is in his belief that lives can, in fact, be saved by giving land to the Palestinians. This assumption has been tried, and has failed completely, multiple times over the past fifteen years. The idea has been done to death, quite literally: The plain, harsh reality is the exact opposite: Giving land to the Palestinians endangers the lives of Jews, and has resulted in the deaths of thousands of them.
It is for this reason that R. Ovadiah -- who still stands by his halakhic ruling in principle -- has stopped supporting the surrender of land to the Palestinians in practice.
Here is a question to which not many people know the answer: How many suicide bomb attacks there were before the Rabin government signed the Oslo Accords with the PLO?
Answer: ZERO (0). Yes, really. Suicide bombings first began only following the signing of Oslo.
In 1993, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres (now President) inaugurated a complete reversal of prior Israeli policy: They decided to negotiate with terrorists, and to arm them with land, money, and weapons. Plenty of Israelis were aghast, and wondered how this could possibly lead to anything other than disaster. Unfortunately, their fears were borne out in spades: The September 1993 Oslo Accords sparked a massive wave of terrorist attacks in Israel, of unprecedented proportions: Immediately following the signing, terrorism skyrocketed to levels that had been previously unknown. Regardless of this, the Rabin government was undeterred: Ignoring the mounting carnage, they negotiated and then signed the Oslo II agreement in 1995 -- in spite of the constant suicide bombings, which had become a matter of routine by then. And not surprisngly, the rate of terror death climbed even higher with Oslo II.
In the 30 months beginning with the Oslo signing, more Israelis were killed by terrorists (213) than in the entire preceding decade (209 from January 1983 to September 1993). You can find graphs illustrating this phenomenon here. [Note: These graphs cover the relatively "quiet" period prior to the much bloodier "Second Intifada" period, which began in October 2000.]
This massive explosion of terror attacks continued until Binyamin Netanyahu came to power in 1996. Netanyahu had campaigned on a platform that precluded any further territorial concessions as long as the terror onslaught continued. And interestingly, as soon as he assumed office, the terror attacks dropped dramatically, for the very first time since the Oslo Accords had been signed. Netanyahu's term in office marked the first time that the level of terror attacks dropped back down to pre-Oslo levels. (You can see this visually, along with the figures, on the graphs cited above.)
This respite didn't last very long, unfortunately. In 1999, Netanyahu was succeeded by Ehud Barak (now Defense Minister), who declared his intention to continue the policies of Rabin and Peres. True to his word, at Camp David, he offered Arafat a final-status deal that included the entire Gaza Strip, 97% of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. Arafat's response was to angrily reject the offer, and to launch a new terror war (the infamous "Second Intifada") that dwarfed even the monstrous levels of bloodshed that had hit Israel during the Rabin and Peres governments.
More Israeli civilians -- men, women, and children -- were slaughtered in the years since Oslo than in all the years since the founding of the state in 1948 up until the accords were signed in 1993. The numbers speak for themselves.
Many were certain that the Second Intifada spelled the end of Israel's policy of "land for peace". After all, it had become painfully clear -- even to many on the left, who had originally advocated this policy -- that it garnered nothing for Israel other than bloodshed and death. However, in 2004, the Sharon government announced its plans for a unilateral "Disengagement", which would entail the forced expulsion of 10,000 Jews from their homes in Gush Katif and northern Shomron, and turning over this land to the Palestinians. Surprisingly -- or perhaps not so surprisingly -- this announcement was promptly greeted by an enormous barrage of rocket and mortar fire from the Gaza Strip into Sderot and other border areas, as well as Gush Katif itself. This, however, did not deter Sharon, who carried out the Disengagement (over his own electorate's stanch opposition) in 2005. Every single last Israeli -- every civilian resident and soldier -- was removed from the Gaza Strip.
There were two immediate effects: (1) With the IDF and their deterrent effect gone, Hamas quickly siezed full political and military control of the Gaza Strip, ousting their Fatah rivals. (2) The western Negev was innundated by a massive, unprecedented increase in rocket attacks, that soon spread far beyond the Sderot area, and into Netivot, Ofakim, Ashkelon, Ashdod, and other cities.
This dramatic increase in rocket attacks caused by Israel's concession of the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians can be seen graphically here and here. [Note: These graphs do not cover the last three months.]
It should be painfully obvious to any objective person that the main reason for not giving land to enemy terrorists is not the sanctity of Jewish land. It is the sanctity of Jewish life.
The situation in the West Bank today is essentially the same as that of the Gaza Strip five years ago: Hamas already has large caches of mortars, and Katyusha and Grad missles. Hamas is far more powerful -- and popular -- than their Fatah rivals, and they are poised to sieze control. The only thing currently standing in their way is the presence of the IDF. If Israel were to withdraw from the West Bank, Hamas would sieze full control within a matter of weeks. Within a few months, missles would be raining down on Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and Netanya, just as they have been raining down into the western Negev. And with the dense urban population of Israel's central region (about 80% of the population lives there) -- as opposed to the sparsely populated Negev -- the casualties would far surpass anything ever seen before.
In spite of this, there are plenty of Jews -- in Israel and abroad -- who advocate surrendering the West Bank to the terrorists. These Jews are fueled by a fervent, messianic faith that making territorial concessions will somehow usher in the dawn of a new era, in which Israel will finally live in peace. They are completely undeterred by the enemy's own unabashed declarations that they will do everything in their power to annhilate Israel. But even more incredibly, these Jews are undeterred by the fact that their idea was already tried several times, and the result was not peace, but rather massive death and bloodshed. They remain steadfastly certain and true to their "religion", which preaches that the past should be ignored: Regardless of what has come before -- or what is happening right now -- they have complete faith that the next time Israel makes concessions to its terrorist enemies, peace will finally come.
In a bizarre inversion of reality, these Jews often deride their ideological rivals, who oppose such suicidal concessions, as being "fanatic messianists". They blithely dismiss the dire warnings of what will result, insisting that their rivals offer no viable "alternative". As though their own plan, which has already failed multiple times with deadly consequences, does constitute a viable "alternative".
So, honestly: How far does Israel need to continue this suicidal "experiment"? Can any sane person still believe that if we once again give land (and money, and weapons) to the Palestinians, this time it will bring peace, rather than the deaths of more and more Jews?
According to Einstein's definition of insanity above, the answer is obvious.
[*] I am compelled to point out the logical fallacy in this position -- as has been pointed out by several other halakhic authorities, including R. Avraham Shapira and R. Shlomo Goren: There exist certain mitzvot which, by their inherent nature, entail danger to one's life, and therefore cannot logically be overriden by considerations of pikuah nefesh. The classic example of this is the mitzva to go to war to conquer or defend the Land of Israel: Obviously, going into battle involves risking one's life. On that basis, everyone should be able to say that pikuah nefesh overrides his own obligation to fulfill this mitzva. That would clearly be an absurd argument, since it would mean that nobody at all would ever participate in such a war, and the mitzva to do so would become meaningless. The only logical conclusion, therefore, is that pikuah nefesh does not apply in the case of such a mitzva.
Nevertheless, this argument doesn't negate the undeniable fact that there do exist halakhic authorities who say that pikuah nefesh allows for giving up parts of Eretz Yisrael, as DB noted.
Buy DB's book. (I personally recommend it)
Buy DB's wife a gift (please)
Monday, September 01, 2008
Not such a happy Labor Day at Agriprocessors
A guest post by Juggling Frogs
In celebration of the Labor Day, the New York Times published an article today about Agriprocessors busting unions at its Brooklyn plant.
What a mess.
I accept and appreciate the various thoughtful and reasoned stands that defend the OU for not forming their own INS. I see great value in deferring to the investigative authority in the context of a (just and fair) government. This is a parallel argument to requiring reporting domestic or sexual abuse to police, rather than conducting an "in house" investigation.
But the arguments reportedly offered by the company echo that old joke, where the suspect accused of patricide asks for the court's mercy because he's an orphan.
One wonders, however, why nobody takes the Meatpacker's Union to task for enrolling illegal immigrants. Not only is it illegal, it's counter to the union's stated goals.
I'd like to be dan l'chaf zchut, but my imagination is running dry. If someone has an exculpatory scenario that would give chizzuk to those whose "innocent until proven guilty" and "benefit of the doubt" muscles feel strained, please share it.
(Extra points for creativity and difficulty of execution.)
(Disclaimer: Our family is not a customer of Agriprocessors for personal reasons that are unrelated (and predate) the alleged labor practice issues. Our lack of use of their products has nothing to do with a boycott, and if we suddenly did want to participate in one, it would be meaningless, as it would not change their sales at all.)
---------
Buy his book. (Or he'll go on strike. Please don't call us guest posters "scabs".)
In celebration of the Labor Day, the New York Times published an article today about Agriprocessors busting unions at its Brooklyn plant.
What a mess.
I accept and appreciate the various thoughtful and reasoned stands that defend the OU for not forming their own INS. I see great value in deferring to the investigative authority in the context of a (just and fair) government. This is a parallel argument to requiring reporting domestic or sexual abuse to police, rather than conducting an "in house" investigation.
But the arguments reportedly offered by the company echo that old joke, where the suspect accused of patricide asks for the court's mercy because he's an orphan.
One wonders, however, why nobody takes the Meatpacker's Union to task for enrolling illegal immigrants. Not only is it illegal, it's counter to the union's stated goals.
I'd like to be dan l'chaf zchut, but my imagination is running dry. If someone has an exculpatory scenario that would give chizzuk to those whose "innocent until proven guilty" and "benefit of the doubt" muscles feel strained, please share it.
(Extra points for creativity and difficulty of execution.)
(Disclaimer: Our family is not a customer of Agriprocessors for personal reasons that are unrelated (and predate) the alleged labor practice issues. Our lack of use of their products has nothing to do with a boycott, and if we suddenly did want to participate in one, it would be meaningless, as it would not change their sales at all.)
---------
Buy his book. (Or he'll go on strike. Please don't call us guest posters "scabs".)
Thursday, August 28, 2008
What’s a nice girl like me doing in a snark tank like this?
(A guest post by Juggling Frogs)
That’s the gist of a couple of e-mails I received shortly after DovBear put my name up as a contributor to this blog, even before my first submission.
One person* felt mischaracterized and insulted by some of DovBear’s comments, and characterized this blog’s contentiousness as full of motzei sheim ra and lashon harah, and said it’s “as treif as a ham and shrimp sandwich”.
In another e-mail message, I was urged to use this guest posting gig as an opportunity to set right a whole list (complete with links) of perceived offenses perpetrated by various contributors over the years.
My response to both of these messages was similar. I respectfully disagreed (is that allowed?) that any of the diverse contributors on this blog have the responsibility to defend positions with which they’ve never identified. Alluding to the Streisand effect, I suggested that even if I accepted such a challenge, the results would be counterproductive.
Yet another person, upon learning that I agreed to do this, said “don’t worry, just be funny.”
Yeah. Well. Thanks. No pressure, right?
So is there a place for a gefilte fish to swim with the snarks?
I’ve seen a disturbing trend, equating unpleasant or disagreeable statements with lishon harah. We must be careful, when making protective fences, that the area enclosed not become so large as to become indefensible.
I take Lishon Harah very seriously, and actively (if not always successfully) do my best to disengage from, disrupt, and disagree with it. Calling disagreement and disapproval of ideas in the public forum “lishon harah” degrades the meaning and import of these laws.
It’s forbidden to embarrass a person. But shouldn't we also endeavor not to be too easily embarrassed?
Cutting an argument to shreds is not murder. It’s not forbidden to speak negatively about someone’s ideas. It’s possible to be a genuinely nice person, and still enjoy an incisive and biting debate.
DovBear once mused about the Rambam’s blogroll. This got me wondering what the Chofetz Chaim’s blog would have looked like.
I can’t imagine a snarky Chofetz Chaim. But then again, I doubt the Chofetz Chaim’s blog would have made everyone feel warm and fuzzy. He might not have linked to everyone. Or anyone.
I imagine he’d stir things up, intentionally making the reader uncomfortable. One is rarely moved to action, improvement, or growth in an atmosphere of complacency.
Yet, I’m torn. Besides being “treif”, ad hominem attacks are like poker tells. They indicate weakness. And some people try to make others squirm.
Gratuitously making someone uncomfortable is, well, not nice.
In this cafeteria of ideas, I’m going to try to eat my homemade tuna sandwich on a paper plate, and enjoy the company of those with whom I might disagree.
So I put the question to you, dear DovBearniks: Is “snarkiness” treif?
======================================
* This is someone I respect and care about. I agree with her, that DovBear used an unkind adjective to describe a public comment of hers. I think he misinterpreted her remark and her intent. But his wasn’t a personal attack.
---------
Buy his book. (Because he said "please".)
That’s the gist of a couple of e-mails I received shortly after DovBear put my name up as a contributor to this blog, even before my first submission.
One person* felt mischaracterized and insulted by some of DovBear’s comments, and characterized this blog’s contentiousness as full of motzei sheim ra and lashon harah, and said it’s “as treif as a ham and shrimp sandwich”.
In another e-mail message, I was urged to use this guest posting gig as an opportunity to set right a whole list (complete with links) of perceived offenses perpetrated by various contributors over the years.
My response to both of these messages was similar. I respectfully disagreed (is that allowed?) that any of the diverse contributors on this blog have the responsibility to defend positions with which they’ve never identified. Alluding to the Streisand effect, I suggested that even if I accepted such a challenge, the results would be counterproductive.
Yet another person, upon learning that I agreed to do this, said “don’t worry, just be funny.”
Yeah. Well. Thanks. No pressure, right?
So is there a place for a gefilte fish to swim with the snarks?
I’ve seen a disturbing trend, equating unpleasant or disagreeable statements with lishon harah. We must be careful, when making protective fences, that the area enclosed not become so large as to become indefensible.
I take Lishon Harah very seriously, and actively (if not always successfully) do my best to disengage from, disrupt, and disagree with it. Calling disagreement and disapproval of ideas in the public forum “lishon harah” degrades the meaning and import of these laws.
It’s forbidden to embarrass a person. But shouldn't we also endeavor not to be too easily embarrassed?
Cutting an argument to shreds is not murder. It’s not forbidden to speak negatively about someone’s ideas. It’s possible to be a genuinely nice person, and still enjoy an incisive and biting debate.
DovBear once mused about the Rambam’s blogroll. This got me wondering what the Chofetz Chaim’s blog would have looked like.
I can’t imagine a snarky Chofetz Chaim. But then again, I doubt the Chofetz Chaim’s blog would have made everyone feel warm and fuzzy. He might not have linked to everyone. Or anyone.
I imagine he’d stir things up, intentionally making the reader uncomfortable. One is rarely moved to action, improvement, or growth in an atmosphere of complacency.
Yet, I’m torn. Besides being “treif”, ad hominem attacks are like poker tells. They indicate weakness. And some people try to make others squirm.
Gratuitously making someone uncomfortable is, well, not nice.
In this cafeteria of ideas, I’m going to try to eat my homemade tuna sandwich on a paper plate, and enjoy the company of those with whom I might disagree.
So I put the question to you, dear DovBearniks: Is “snarkiness” treif?
======================================
* This is someone I respect and care about. I agree with her, that DovBear used an unkind adjective to describe a public comment of hers. I think he misinterpreted her remark and her intent. But his wasn’t a personal attack.
---------
Buy his book. (Because he said "please".)
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
introducing new guest blogger
A guest post by RAFI G.
Hey boys and girls. Good morning, afternoon, evening or night - whatever it is wherever you are..
DovBear has invited me to guest post here for a bit. I am not really sure why - maybe he is running out of topics to write about..., but when you get an invitation from one of the Big Boys, you just don't pass it up..
So, I just want to quickly introduce myself before I post anything of substance (or some of you might think of lacking substance - I know this is a tough crowd).
Some of you might already know me. DovBear has linked to my posts on a number of occasions. Based on the spike I get in my stats counter whenever he does link to me, I think it is a safe assumption that many of you have seen my blog, Life in Israel.
[But many of you probably have not and have no idea who I am. I know almost none of you comment on my site - an inane post of DBs with one line and only a link can generate tens to hundreds of comments on this site, while the most controversial of posts on my own site generates comments in the single digits to the teens, and my best posts often go by with just a few comments.]
But I digress. I am the blogger guy who lives in RBS. I blog mostly about life in Israel (that was obvious, wasn't it?), but also about interesting tidbits in Judaism..
Not really that much about me, but I am not that interesting anyway...
I already have a couple of interesting posts (I am not interesting, but some of my posts are) ready to put up here, and will do so shortly...as well, tomorrow morning I am planning on going to Sderot for another solidarity visit, and this one will also have some more to it than just a quick visit to Sderot..
So, raise your schnapps glasses and say L'Chaim, and hopefully I will not disappoint...
Hey boys and girls. Good morning, afternoon, evening or night - whatever it is wherever you are..
DovBear has invited me to guest post here for a bit. I am not really sure why - maybe he is running out of topics to write about..., but when you get an invitation from one of the Big Boys, you just don't pass it up..
So, I just want to quickly introduce myself before I post anything of substance (or some of you might think of lacking substance - I know this is a tough crowd).
Some of you might already know me. DovBear has linked to my posts on a number of occasions. Based on the spike I get in my stats counter whenever he does link to me, I think it is a safe assumption that many of you have seen my blog, Life in Israel.
[But many of you probably have not and have no idea who I am. I know almost none of you comment on my site - an inane post of DBs with one line and only a link can generate tens to hundreds of comments on this site, while the most controversial of posts on my own site generates comments in the single digits to the teens, and my best posts often go by with just a few comments.]
But I digress. I am the blogger guy who lives in RBS. I blog mostly about life in Israel (that was obvious, wasn't it?), but also about interesting tidbits in Judaism..
Not really that much about me, but I am not that interesting anyway...
I already have a couple of interesting posts (I am not interesting, but some of my posts are) ready to put up here, and will do so shortly...as well, tomorrow morning I am planning on going to Sderot for another solidarity visit, and this one will also have some more to it than just a quick visit to Sderot..
So, raise your schnapps glasses and say L'Chaim, and hopefully I will not disappoint...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)