Tuesday, November 17, 2009
The Two Kingdoms: Jewish/Israeli Ambiguity
Tracing the roots of the people known as Jews, biblically, it all started with the patriarch called Abraham. Then following through numerous biblical figures, such as Isaac, Jacob and his twelve sons, among them Judah. Historically, it ended up with two kingdoms.
Not delving deeply into details, a major upset among the leaders separated the one big state (The Kingdom of David) into two smaller, bordering nations called: The Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah.
According to the Bible, Israel is an alias given to Jacob by God. Therefore the people who are considered to be Jacob's descendants are named Sons of Israel or Israelites.
But I am not going to discuss the Bible here, rather I am going to talk about the modern definitions of Jewish (etymologically coming from Judah) and Israel. Judaism is the religion practiced by Israelites which originated in biblical times and has since then existed and evolved into modern times.
Israel, pre-dating the national term, is considered to be the land which the Jewish patriarchs and later on the Israelites inhabited. To distinct between Israel as a state and Israel as a land, the state is called "The State of Israel" and the land is called "The Land of Israel". This distinction is very close to the difference between Britannia which is the land and Britain which is the state (formally known as the United Kingdom).
There are several overlapping definitions of the identity of both Jews and Israelis. According to Halakha (which are the religious laws in Judaism), a Jew is a person whose mother is Jewish or a person who is a convert to Judaism. This definition goes against the idea of self-determination or religion by practice because even if a Jew converts to a different religion or does not consider himself or herself Jewish anymore, he or she is still considered to be Jewish. It also means that a Jew can be secular or even an atheist.
In addition to the religious definition of a Jew, there is also the national definition of a Jew through self-determination and/or recognition of Jewish nationality by the State of Israel. According to the State of Israel, a Jew is person who has at least one grandparent who is Jewish according to Halakha. This essentially means that a Jew through nationality can be a person whose paternal grandfather is Jewish exclusively, which means that neither his or hers parents are religiously Jewish. Ironically, this definition goes hand-in-hand with the Nazi definition of Jews or "Mischling" (a Jewish/German crossbreed) in Nuremberg Laws. The sense behind this rule is expressively "If a person is Jewish enough to be mistreated by the Nazis or worse yet, be sent to death camps, he is Jewish enough to be considered Jewish by the State of Israel". Jews by nationality or by faith (which in turn makes them recognized as Jews by nationality) can attain Israeli citizenship.
The definition of an Israeli is less complex, yet has implications and different meanings according to context and question in hand. In a flat term, an Israeli would be any person holding an Israeli citizenship. However, through self-determination, some residents in Israel may not consider themselves Israelis due to political and national reasons. Mainly those would be Arab citizens of Israel who don't at all consider themselves Israeli. In contrast to that, potential Israeli citizens such as Jews across the world or people during their conversion process to Judaism may, through self-determination, be considered Israelis.
An even stricter definition of an Israeli would be a person who was born in Israel with a national allegiance to the State of Israel, this excludes minorities in Israel who have political views opposing the State of Israel, it excludes Jews who were born outside of Israel (Jewish immigrants) but includes non-Jewish groups who align with the State of Israel and serve in the military, such as the Druze and Bedouins and even people who don't at all have an Israeli citizenship, such as those who were born in Israel to foreign workers (the law in Israel doesn't grant citizenship by virtue of geographical birth, but rather ethnically; an Israeli citizen would be a person born to at least one parent who holds Israeli citizenship, not considering the Jewish law of return).
Examining all of the above, we can assert there is a very complex ambiguity in the definition of Jews and Israelis. This ambiguity arises due to several criteria governing the definition.
Regarding Jews, the criteria would be:
1. Religion (Halakha).
2. Nationality (according to the State of Israel).
3. Self-Determination.
Regarding Israelis, the criteria would be:
1. Nationality (having Jewish nationally).
2. Citizenship (being born to at least one parent who holds an Israeli citizenship).
3. Strict definition with Self-Determination (being born in Israel with an Israeli allegiance).
The reason I bring this up is because ambiguity in national identity is very detrimental both to the person who holds the identity and the society giving the identity.
Ideally, Judaism would not be a nationality at all. It would simply be a religion as any religion. However, being a very small, antique religion with very strict regulations regarding conversion and no missionary whatsoever; Judaism can't share the same grounds regarding identity as other religions do. Judaism is in fact comparable to Roman cult religion (which no longer exists) in that aspect; both religions have a geographical attribution to a certain location in contrast to other religions which have minimal to none-geographical attribution.
Judaism is therefore a national identity, while holding certain cultural, religious, ethnical and racial (through external definitions) elements, it is primarily a national identity in lieu of the actual old identity the biblical Israelites held.
Israeli nationality is also a national identity, which holds certain cultural and ethnical elements with the strength of self-determination and modern aspects such as national service (primarily in the Israel Defense Force).
Yes, those two different identities align with each other, yet not completely. An Israeli is not necessarily Jewish; a Jew is not necessarily Israeli. Some people may consider themselves more Israeli than Jewish while others more Jewish than Israeli.
As I mentioned before, the major difference between those two identities is that one bases its strength on the alignment with the continuous roots of the Jewish people beginning three thousand years ago, following the Diaspora. While the other concentrates on the modern State of Israel as it is today, sometimes even disregarding completely the notion of an old Jewish people.
In conclusion, in modern day Israel, there are yet two different kingdoms living in correspondence with each other. One is the Kingdom of Israel which resembles modern day Israel; the other is the Kingdom of Judah which traces its roots back to biblical times.
This is an entanglement not to be undermined. As the State of Israel grows older, so would the modern Israeli identity grow; it might turn to even negate the identity of the Jew on certain aspects.
The only solution is foreseeing those differences and making adjustments. For one, certain religious laws should be refuted; primarily those concerning marriage, Church should be completely separated from State. I also believe that, considering there is no longer a Jewish refugee problem as there was post-World War 2; the Jewish law of return should be heavily restricted in a manner that allows only Jews who are at risk (i.e. refugees) to immigrate to Israel.
As Israelis, we blame minority groups such as the Arabs for not assimilating completely in the state and identify themselves as Israelis. We however forget that they cannot identify themselves with an identity they don't share (old Jewish identity). We are fearful of letting go of our old Jewish roots, yet that fear is exactly the reason why many Israelis increasingly consider themselves primarily Israelis and not Jews; they do not wish to segregate themselves from a growing and changing society which creates a new identity.
As frightening as it sounds; Judaism should cease being a nationality and become solely a religion. Our nationality as Israelis is the Israeli nationality, not Jewish nationally. An Israeli nationality is a nationality which can be shared among minorities, and in being so, perhaps minorities would stop being called minorities; just as Jews in the United-States and Europe aren't considered minorities.
Due to political impression, I have to add that I do not at all believe that all minorities in Israel would begin considering themselves Israelis if the state drops the Jewish nationality. But some minorities definitely would do the mentioned; something they cannot proudly do today due to obvious reasons. The real question is, are we brave enough to do so?
Thanks for reading,
Avihoo Ilan, an amateur political author.
Not delving deeply into details, a major upset among the leaders separated the one big state (The Kingdom of David) into two smaller, bordering nations called: The Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah.
According to the Bible, Israel is an alias given to Jacob by God. Therefore the people who are considered to be Jacob's descendants are named Sons of Israel or Israelites.
But I am not going to discuss the Bible here, rather I am going to talk about the modern definitions of Jewish (etymologically coming from Judah) and Israel. Judaism is the religion practiced by Israelites which originated in biblical times and has since then existed and evolved into modern times.
Israel, pre-dating the national term, is considered to be the land which the Jewish patriarchs and later on the Israelites inhabited. To distinct between Israel as a state and Israel as a land, the state is called "The State of Israel" and the land is called "The Land of Israel". This distinction is very close to the difference between Britannia which is the land and Britain which is the state (formally known as the United Kingdom).
There are several overlapping definitions of the identity of both Jews and Israelis. According to Halakha (which are the religious laws in Judaism), a Jew is a person whose mother is Jewish or a person who is a convert to Judaism. This definition goes against the idea of self-determination or religion by practice because even if a Jew converts to a different religion or does not consider himself or herself Jewish anymore, he or she is still considered to be Jewish. It also means that a Jew can be secular or even an atheist.
In addition to the religious definition of a Jew, there is also the national definition of a Jew through self-determination and/or recognition of Jewish nationality by the State of Israel. According to the State of Israel, a Jew is person who has at least one grandparent who is Jewish according to Halakha. This essentially means that a Jew through nationality can be a person whose paternal grandfather is Jewish exclusively, which means that neither his or hers parents are religiously Jewish. Ironically, this definition goes hand-in-hand with the Nazi definition of Jews or "Mischling" (a Jewish/German crossbreed) in Nuremberg Laws. The sense behind this rule is expressively "If a person is Jewish enough to be mistreated by the Nazis or worse yet, be sent to death camps, he is Jewish enough to be considered Jewish by the State of Israel". Jews by nationality or by faith (which in turn makes them recognized as Jews by nationality) can attain Israeli citizenship.
The definition of an Israeli is less complex, yet has implications and different meanings according to context and question in hand. In a flat term, an Israeli would be any person holding an Israeli citizenship. However, through self-determination, some residents in Israel may not consider themselves Israelis due to political and national reasons. Mainly those would be Arab citizens of Israel who don't at all consider themselves Israeli. In contrast to that, potential Israeli citizens such as Jews across the world or people during their conversion process to Judaism may, through self-determination, be considered Israelis.
An even stricter definition of an Israeli would be a person who was born in Israel with a national allegiance to the State of Israel, this excludes minorities in Israel who have political views opposing the State of Israel, it excludes Jews who were born outside of Israel (Jewish immigrants) but includes non-Jewish groups who align with the State of Israel and serve in the military, such as the Druze and Bedouins and even people who don't at all have an Israeli citizenship, such as those who were born in Israel to foreign workers (the law in Israel doesn't grant citizenship by virtue of geographical birth, but rather ethnically; an Israeli citizen would be a person born to at least one parent who holds Israeli citizenship, not considering the Jewish law of return).
Examining all of the above, we can assert there is a very complex ambiguity in the definition of Jews and Israelis. This ambiguity arises due to several criteria governing the definition.
Regarding Jews, the criteria would be:
1. Religion (Halakha).
2. Nationality (according to the State of Israel).
3. Self-Determination.
Regarding Israelis, the criteria would be:
1. Nationality (having Jewish nationally).
2. Citizenship (being born to at least one parent who holds an Israeli citizenship).
3. Strict definition with Self-Determination (being born in Israel with an Israeli allegiance).
The reason I bring this up is because ambiguity in national identity is very detrimental both to the person who holds the identity and the society giving the identity.
Ideally, Judaism would not be a nationality at all. It would simply be a religion as any religion. However, being a very small, antique religion with very strict regulations regarding conversion and no missionary whatsoever; Judaism can't share the same grounds regarding identity as other religions do. Judaism is in fact comparable to Roman cult religion (which no longer exists) in that aspect; both religions have a geographical attribution to a certain location in contrast to other religions which have minimal to none-geographical attribution.
Judaism is therefore a national identity, while holding certain cultural, religious, ethnical and racial (through external definitions) elements, it is primarily a national identity in lieu of the actual old identity the biblical Israelites held.
Israeli nationality is also a national identity, which holds certain cultural and ethnical elements with the strength of self-determination and modern aspects such as national service (primarily in the Israel Defense Force).
Yes, those two different identities align with each other, yet not completely. An Israeli is not necessarily Jewish; a Jew is not necessarily Israeli. Some people may consider themselves more Israeli than Jewish while others more Jewish than Israeli.
As I mentioned before, the major difference between those two identities is that one bases its strength on the alignment with the continuous roots of the Jewish people beginning three thousand years ago, following the Diaspora. While the other concentrates on the modern State of Israel as it is today, sometimes even disregarding completely the notion of an old Jewish people.
In conclusion, in modern day Israel, there are yet two different kingdoms living in correspondence with each other. One is the Kingdom of Israel which resembles modern day Israel; the other is the Kingdom of Judah which traces its roots back to biblical times.
This is an entanglement not to be undermined. As the State of Israel grows older, so would the modern Israeli identity grow; it might turn to even negate the identity of the Jew on certain aspects.
The only solution is foreseeing those differences and making adjustments. For one, certain religious laws should be refuted; primarily those concerning marriage, Church should be completely separated from State. I also believe that, considering there is no longer a Jewish refugee problem as there was post-World War 2; the Jewish law of return should be heavily restricted in a manner that allows only Jews who are at risk (i.e. refugees) to immigrate to Israel.
As Israelis, we blame minority groups such as the Arabs for not assimilating completely in the state and identify themselves as Israelis. We however forget that they cannot identify themselves with an identity they don't share (old Jewish identity). We are fearful of letting go of our old Jewish roots, yet that fear is exactly the reason why many Israelis increasingly consider themselves primarily Israelis and not Jews; they do not wish to segregate themselves from a growing and changing society which creates a new identity.
As frightening as it sounds; Judaism should cease being a nationality and become solely a religion. Our nationality as Israelis is the Israeli nationality, not Jewish nationally. An Israeli nationality is a nationality which can be shared among minorities, and in being so, perhaps minorities would stop being called minorities; just as Jews in the United-States and Europe aren't considered minorities.
Due to political impression, I have to add that I do not at all believe that all minorities in Israel would begin considering themselves Israelis if the state drops the Jewish nationality. But some minorities definitely would do the mentioned; something they cannot proudly do today due to obvious reasons. The real question is, are we brave enough to do so?
Thanks for reading,
Avihoo Ilan, an amateur political author.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
How I Met Your Grandmother
A short story I wrote... I have it in MS Office HTML format and therefore I cannot publish it as it is on the blog. so here's a link: http://www.geocities.com/avihooi/himyg.htm
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Vegeterianism (and also Veganism) - The extinction of (and not only) farm animals.
First of all, an introduction to to the concepts and terms that I will use in this article:
Animal Husbandry - also called "animal science", stockbreeding or simple husbandry, is the argicultural practice of breeding and raising livestock. (wikipedia)
–noun
the science of breeding, feeding, and tending domestic animals, esp. farm animals. (dictionary.com).
Natural Selection - is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in succesive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common. (wikipedia)
–noun
the process by which forms of life having traits that better enable them to adapt to specific environmental pressures, as predators, changes in climate, or competition for food or mates, will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than others of their kind, thus ensuring the perpetuation of those favorable traits in succeeding generations. (dictionary.com).
Domestication - refers to the process whereby a population of animals or plants become accustomed to human provision and control. (wikipedia).
At first, human beings relied on the food that was scattered around their locale; wild plants and wild animals (a part of them also carnivores) were their only source of food.
Human beings are in fact not natural carnivores, soley due to the fact we cannot digest uncooked meat (we can, of course, digest freshly picked vegetables and fruits), however, when fire was discovered (in the sense of making it), it was our primary step towards the top of the food chain, not only due to mental supremacy, but also due to the ability to cook and eat meat.
Just for the information, any natural carnivore, including a domesticated pet (cat, dog), can well digest fresh meat.
At the peak of civilization; human beings faced the problem of sufficient nutrition.
The number of persons per an organized group raised and the wilderness was naturally incapable of supporting them.
The solution: Animal Husbandry and Plant Domestication.
Here we will talk mostly about Animal Husbandry, but it must be noted that Plant Domestication was a very close relative to the process (also because animals required human controlled food themselves).
The process of animal husbandry was developed by sheperds, and later on farmers: Sheperds rely on a natural habitat of animals and their sense of direction while farmers, created artificial habitats which included the animal's nutrition base and of course the process of human controlled breeding.
Also to be noted, another form of animal husbandry in addition to vegeterian animal husbandry, was of course, carnivore animal husbandry (wolves were domesticated and renamed dogs, also cats, etc..).
The vegeterian animals with the vast exception of mount animals, were butchered and eaten by humans and their pets (dogs, cats, naturally lost their sense of hunting as they relied on human given food).
With the process of animal husbandry, domesticated/farm animals switched their evolutionary dependence.
Prior to human interference, those animals had natural, ecological feeds to their evolution and afterwards, their entire evolution process (both gene based and culture based) was handed to the control of human beings.
At first, an animal would naturally become more domesticated in the presence of human beings; that is to say, it's enough for the animal to grow with humans in order for it to get used to their presence and their leadership.
Later on, a new form of natural selection controlled the evolutionary process of those animals (being artificial, it was of course a lot faster than natural evolution).
Human beings noticed that by breeding a male and a female with certain desired traits, they will produce an offspring that had very similar desired traits; a process that was discovered in the form of science only in the 16-18th century... then evolution and darwinism in the 19-20th century.
And so, the desired traits that humans should look for were the mass of the animals (more mass, more food), greater life expectancy, lack of inclination to wilderness, and a lot more.
During that process, domesticated vegeterian animals became totally dependent on human control, and were frankly evolved into ingenious individuals in the form of human edible food.
Today, after many a millennia of human control, domesticated animals lost almost entirely their ability to survive in the wilderness.
And to our main topic of this article; Vegeterianism, Veganism and farm animal extinction:
A vegetrian or a vegan, should they expect everyone to follow suit and become Vegeterian or Vegan (due to moral reasons) would therefore expect the extinction of (and not only) farm animals.
That is because with the lack of requirement for those animals, if not kill them ourselves, we will have to release them to the wilderness; a habitat they would not stand a chance in due to carnivore threats and most importantly, lack of nutrition.
Also, pets, who are carnivore themselves and are physically unable to digest any form of vegeterian food or at least highly reliant on meat would also extinct, they are surely unable to go and hunt for the same reasons their vegeterian counterparts cannot forage for food in the wild.
Therefore, Vegeterianism (out of ideology) and Veganism are only moral as long as the majority of the population keeps eating meat, that is to stay, they are not a stand alone group and cannot compose most of society.
This brings up the question: What is more moral for us to do, cause farm animals (and not only) to extinct or butcher (a.k.a murder) and exploit them?
I don't know, but from an evolutionary point of view, I can definitely tell it's more important for a species to survive and pass on its genes than not bear any pain.
I do not judge anybody for their decision of diet, but I think being a carnivore myself at the time being, it is only fair to address Vegeterians and Vegans this very important moral dilemma.
It's not as simple as you think!
From other points of view, vegeterian diet can be very healthy and also very unhealthy... a carnivore diet can also be as long as some meats are avoided.
Meat factories around the world are very polluting.
People are individually disgusted from eating meat.
Personally I feel that meat in general should be eaten less frequently, as most of our diet should consist of vegetables and fruits.
Meat factories (and farms thereof) should focus on less pollutiing alternatives in their product and also aim to be a bit less pain inflicting towards animals.
Thanks for reading, any comments are welcome.
Animal Husbandry - also called "animal science", stockbreeding or simple husbandry, is the argicultural practice of breeding and raising livestock. (wikipedia)
–noun
the science of breeding, feeding, and tending domestic animals, esp. farm animals. (dictionary.com).
Natural Selection - is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in succesive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common. (wikipedia)
–noun
the process by which forms of life having traits that better enable them to adapt to specific environmental pressures, as predators, changes in climate, or competition for food or mates, will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than others of their kind, thus ensuring the perpetuation of those favorable traits in succeeding generations. (dictionary.com).
Domestication - refers to the process whereby a population of animals or plants become accustomed to human provision and control. (wikipedia).
At first, human beings relied on the food that was scattered around their locale; wild plants and wild animals (a part of them also carnivores) were their only source of food.
Human beings are in fact not natural carnivores, soley due to the fact we cannot digest uncooked meat (we can, of course, digest freshly picked vegetables and fruits), however, when fire was discovered (in the sense of making it), it was our primary step towards the top of the food chain, not only due to mental supremacy, but also due to the ability to cook and eat meat.
Just for the information, any natural carnivore, including a domesticated pet (cat, dog), can well digest fresh meat.
At the peak of civilization; human beings faced the problem of sufficient nutrition.
The number of persons per an organized group raised and the wilderness was naturally incapable of supporting them.
The solution: Animal Husbandry and Plant Domestication.
Here we will talk mostly about Animal Husbandry, but it must be noted that Plant Domestication was a very close relative to the process (also because animals required human controlled food themselves).
The process of animal husbandry was developed by sheperds, and later on farmers: Sheperds rely on a natural habitat of animals and their sense of direction while farmers, created artificial habitats which included the animal's nutrition base and of course the process of human controlled breeding.
Also to be noted, another form of animal husbandry in addition to vegeterian animal husbandry, was of course, carnivore animal husbandry (wolves were domesticated and renamed dogs, also cats, etc..).
The vegeterian animals with the vast exception of mount animals, were butchered and eaten by humans and their pets (dogs, cats, naturally lost their sense of hunting as they relied on human given food).
With the process of animal husbandry, domesticated/farm animals switched their evolutionary dependence.
Prior to human interference, those animals had natural, ecological feeds to their evolution and afterwards, their entire evolution process (both gene based and culture based) was handed to the control of human beings.
At first, an animal would naturally become more domesticated in the presence of human beings; that is to say, it's enough for the animal to grow with humans in order for it to get used to their presence and their leadership.
Later on, a new form of natural selection controlled the evolutionary process of those animals (being artificial, it was of course a lot faster than natural evolution).
Human beings noticed that by breeding a male and a female with certain desired traits, they will produce an offspring that had very similar desired traits; a process that was discovered in the form of science only in the 16-18th century... then evolution and darwinism in the 19-20th century.
And so, the desired traits that humans should look for were the mass of the animals (more mass, more food), greater life expectancy, lack of inclination to wilderness, and a lot more.
During that process, domesticated vegeterian animals became totally dependent on human control, and were frankly evolved into ingenious individuals in the form of human edible food.
Today, after many a millennia of human control, domesticated animals lost almost entirely their ability to survive in the wilderness.
And to our main topic of this article; Vegeterianism, Veganism and farm animal extinction:
A vegetrian or a vegan, should they expect everyone to follow suit and become Vegeterian or Vegan (due to moral reasons) would therefore expect the extinction of (and not only) farm animals.
That is because with the lack of requirement for those animals, if not kill them ourselves, we will have to release them to the wilderness; a habitat they would not stand a chance in due to carnivore threats and most importantly, lack of nutrition.
Also, pets, who are carnivore themselves and are physically unable to digest any form of vegeterian food or at least highly reliant on meat would also extinct, they are surely unable to go and hunt for the same reasons their vegeterian counterparts cannot forage for food in the wild.
Therefore, Vegeterianism (out of ideology) and Veganism are only moral as long as the majority of the population keeps eating meat, that is to stay, they are not a stand alone group and cannot compose most of society.
This brings up the question: What is more moral for us to do, cause farm animals (and not only) to extinct or butcher (a.k.a murder) and exploit them?
I don't know, but from an evolutionary point of view, I can definitely tell it's more important for a species to survive and pass on its genes than not bear any pain.
I do not judge anybody for their decision of diet, but I think being a carnivore myself at the time being, it is only fair to address Vegeterians and Vegans this very important moral dilemma.
It's not as simple as you think!
From other points of view, vegeterian diet can be very healthy and also very unhealthy... a carnivore diet can also be as long as some meats are avoided.
Meat factories around the world are very polluting.
People are individually disgusted from eating meat.
Personally I feel that meat in general should be eaten less frequently, as most of our diet should consist of vegetables and fruits.
Meat factories (and farms thereof) should focus on less pollutiing alternatives in their product and also aim to be a bit less pain inflicting towards animals.
Thanks for reading, any comments are welcome.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Two Bowls of Shit
One of my favourite political comedians is American: Lewis Black made quite a good point when he said that choosing between two canditates for president is like choosing between two bowls of shit; http://youtube.com/watch?v=zGgR0BvvwM4.
Now, I am not American but I share the same views when it comes to choosing between political parties in America, or Israel or anywhere else.
Today's politicians are a joke... they are people who have one, fixed and polished agenda that is mostly based on what the voters want to hear.
For instance, let's take the last elections for presidency in the United States: George W. Bush was already in office and he was already in the middle of two wars (Afghanistan and Iraq); something that should have significantly decreased his popularity among the American people, but apparently not; he was re-elected.
Now, I am not saying that the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan aren't justified, that is not what my arguement is about.
However, let's take a glance at what really happened: There were elections, it was obvious that Bush was much less popular than before, yet, the results showed he actually did better the second time, so what really happened?.
He addressed the issue of gay-rights; the idea of opposing gay-marriage suddenly was a major factor of what people would vote for.
George Bush, in the middle of two wars and many more issues, addressed the logically unimportant issue of gay rights in order to gain the enough votes that would allow his second term.
Now, it's not that the voters were right or wrong when electing Bush in favour of his gay rights ideology; it's the fact that people do not have the ability to come up with the right list of priorities, and politicans unfortunetly exploit that.
The same thing happened in Israel after Ariel Sharon became incapacitated due to a stroke:
Ehud Olmert immediately took charge and gained baseless popularity that would allow him to become a prime minister; so baseless that nowdays his approval rating is about 3%.
So I am thinking, whose fault is it, people who vote for bad leaders, or bad leaders who enter the political system in the first place?.
I don't know the answer, but I believe that countries are unnecessarily damaged because of those incompetent political systems; and I can only blame the ideology-based agendas that sorround us, both in the media and the common consensus.
To sum it all up, I think that there should not be fixed ideologies anymore and political systems should be more dynamic and more professional.
Thanks for reading.
Now, I am not American but I share the same views when it comes to choosing between political parties in America, or Israel or anywhere else.
Today's politicians are a joke... they are people who have one, fixed and polished agenda that is mostly based on what the voters want to hear.
For instance, let's take the last elections for presidency in the United States: George W. Bush was already in office and he was already in the middle of two wars (Afghanistan and Iraq); something that should have significantly decreased his popularity among the American people, but apparently not; he was re-elected.
Now, I am not saying that the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan aren't justified, that is not what my arguement is about.
However, let's take a glance at what really happened: There were elections, it was obvious that Bush was much less popular than before, yet, the results showed he actually did better the second time, so what really happened?.
He addressed the issue of gay-rights; the idea of opposing gay-marriage suddenly was a major factor of what people would vote for.
George Bush, in the middle of two wars and many more issues, addressed the logically unimportant issue of gay rights in order to gain the enough votes that would allow his second term.
Now, it's not that the voters were right or wrong when electing Bush in favour of his gay rights ideology; it's the fact that people do not have the ability to come up with the right list of priorities, and politicans unfortunetly exploit that.
The same thing happened in Israel after Ariel Sharon became incapacitated due to a stroke:
Ehud Olmert immediately took charge and gained baseless popularity that would allow him to become a prime minister; so baseless that nowdays his approval rating is about 3%.
So I am thinking, whose fault is it, people who vote for bad leaders, or bad leaders who enter the political system in the first place?.
I don't know the answer, but I believe that countries are unnecessarily damaged because of those incompetent political systems; and I can only blame the ideology-based agendas that sorround us, both in the media and the common consensus.
To sum it all up, I think that there should not be fixed ideologies anymore and political systems should be more dynamic and more professional.
Thanks for reading.
Friday, August 04, 2006
To the future International Force in Lebanon-Israel border.
The world believes in an international peacekeeping force that will guarantee a quiet Israel-Lebanon border; this force shall engage any side which will try to cross it illegaly.
As an Israeli person, I don't believe there is any chance that IDF will try to cross this border if it knows that it will have to engage the UN, I just don't see it happening.
However, there comes the question: What if the UN is not doing its job?
And by not doing its job, I mean, what if Israel is being fired at from Lebanon just like now, the peacekeeping force guarantees to destroy the launcher; what about the other launchers? what about the entire war machine that Hizballah or organizations like Hizballah will build under the nose of the UN, can you cope that?
I know that such international force would not want Israel to be under attack, but doing something about it is another question, you think you can do better than Israel by guaranteeing the safety of the Israeli citizens? do so, act, send your troops to disarm those sides, as long as you do that you have the full consent of Israel, and by that, I mean that IDF is not going to be jumping from APCs if you know what I mean.
Remember what your goal is: keep peace.
If you are going to let Hizballah fire rockets at Israel without them being disarmed, we anticipate another war, just don't let that happen.
As an Israeli person, I don't believe there is any chance that IDF will try to cross this border if it knows that it will have to engage the UN, I just don't see it happening.
However, there comes the question: What if the UN is not doing its job?
And by not doing its job, I mean, what if Israel is being fired at from Lebanon just like now, the peacekeeping force guarantees to destroy the launcher; what about the other launchers? what about the entire war machine that Hizballah or organizations like Hizballah will build under the nose of the UN, can you cope that?
I know that such international force would not want Israel to be under attack, but doing something about it is another question, you think you can do better than Israel by guaranteeing the safety of the Israeli citizens? do so, act, send your troops to disarm those sides, as long as you do that you have the full consent of Israel, and by that, I mean that IDF is not going to be jumping from APCs if you know what I mean.
Remember what your goal is: keep peace.
If you are going to let Hizballah fire rockets at Israel without them being disarmed, we anticipate another war, just don't let that happen.
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Anti-Israel criticism.
In addition to my last post about the Israel-Hizballah conflict (press link to go to the other post), I'd like to talk about criticism against Israel and why they are not benefitting any side, not to mention a two-sided solution.
So let's examine the types of criticism Israel as a government and as a people gets:
Neo-Nazi/Anti-Semetic (when I say Anti-Semetic, I mean Anti-Jewish, despite other people being of that same category):
Now, you are probably asking "why address this kind of group in the first place, they are not going to change", but I want introduce you to all types and you can decide what is just, what is democratic, what is inciting, what is damaging, etc...
So, those groups not only do they believe in the destruction of Israel, they also believe in hurting Jews as much as they can.
Examples of their ideologies: denial of the Jewish Holocaust, seeing Jews and other people as sub-human or instead see themselves superior next to the said people, facsism (not democratic, the strong one rules) and a few other anti-Democratic ideologies.
I believe that Anti-Semetism in 19th-20th century in Europe evolved from ignorance, simply people like to hate other people - hatred generates national identity 'us against them'.
However, some more radical Anti-Semetic groups, namely Nazis evolved from desperation, Hitler needed a quick, easy, powerful national identity to make sure things work well, and it worked for him at first.
However, there aren't so many Jews in Europe currently, so Anti-Semetism and Neo-Nazism also naturally became an Anti-Israel ideology, considering that the Nazis actually wanted the Jews out of Europe in the first place, quite ironic.
Radical Anti-Zionism:
There are groups, even Orthodox Jewish among them who claim that the creation of Israel was a mistake for the many reasons (Palestinian problem, can't really have a state for Jews before the Messiah comes, etc...).
Now, being more moderate and at least not openly Anti-Semetic, those groups claim that (despite being impossible) the state of Israel time needs to end.
You probably sense the vagueness of this ideology, as long as Israel exists it will be criticised by that group but also it is impossible to go 60 years back, therefore this ideology does not promote anything but more hatred to Israel which creates racism and discrimination towards Israelis around the world (hence "Boycott Israel", "Jews Against Zionism", etc...).
Also, I find this ideology to be racist because being Israeli is ethnic.
If you think this ideology is just, try to figure how many people you are hurting.
Anti-Israeli occupation/Pro-Palestinian state solution:
Now, this ideology is generally ok; being anti-war and looking for the safety of people is a good thing.
However, some people who share this ideology forget that they are criticising actions rather than intentions; Israel does not intend to gain any benefit from occupying land, it intends to silence terrorism and civilians are being hurt.
After all, the purpose of the Israeli government is to protect its people.
Let's look at it differently, what would your country do if it's being terrorised by a neighbour nation? normally, they'd go on an offensive to silence the source of terrorism, the means are never just because it's war, but the intention is pure and legitimate: guarantee the safety of your people.
To make it simple, the cause of this criticism is terrorism in the first place, Israel is being criticised for going to war, can you suggest any other solution?
Generally speaking, in my opinion, this type of criticism does not help anybody, it may generate a more extreme type of ideology (see below), and it isn't realistic, countries go to war, if you want to criticise war, do it in general, don't criticise Israel.
So if you look for something that can benefit our region, try my diplomatic ideology which is guaranteed to be the best solution and to make the middle east a peaceful place:
1. Israel, Palestine and the Middle East people are victims of all the hatred.
2. Terrorist organizations (i.e. unauthorized, non-democratic, civilian targetting groups) should be criticized and banned.
3. Israel overreaction shall be condemned, NOT Israel itself.
4. Understanding that the people in the region have strong ideologies, some are justified and some are not, the sources of those ideologies shall be condemnded (i.e. propganda, education) and that people should strive to avoid hatred in general; understand your enemy, do not hate it.
Thank you very much for reading, I hope we will all be entitled to diplomacy, and that peace and love will overcome hate (real peace, not on paper).
So let's examine the types of criticism Israel as a government and as a people gets:
Neo-Nazi/Anti-Semetic (when I say Anti-Semetic, I mean Anti-Jewish, despite other people being of that same category):
Now, you are probably asking "why address this kind of group in the first place, they are not going to change", but I want introduce you to all types and you can decide what is just, what is democratic, what is inciting, what is damaging, etc...
So, those groups not only do they believe in the destruction of Israel, they also believe in hurting Jews as much as they can.
Examples of their ideologies: denial of the Jewish Holocaust, seeing Jews and other people as sub-human or instead see themselves superior next to the said people, facsism (not democratic, the strong one rules) and a few other anti-Democratic ideologies.
I believe that Anti-Semetism in 19th-20th century in Europe evolved from ignorance, simply people like to hate other people - hatred generates national identity 'us against them'.
However, some more radical Anti-Semetic groups, namely Nazis evolved from desperation, Hitler needed a quick, easy, powerful national identity to make sure things work well, and it worked for him at first.
However, there aren't so many Jews in Europe currently, so Anti-Semetism and Neo-Nazism also naturally became an Anti-Israel ideology, considering that the Nazis actually wanted the Jews out of Europe in the first place, quite ironic.
Radical Anti-Zionism:
There are groups, even Orthodox Jewish among them who claim that the creation of Israel was a mistake for the many reasons (Palestinian problem, can't really have a state for Jews before the Messiah comes, etc...).
Now, being more moderate and at least not openly Anti-Semetic, those groups claim that (despite being impossible) the state of Israel time needs to end.
You probably sense the vagueness of this ideology, as long as Israel exists it will be criticised by that group but also it is impossible to go 60 years back, therefore this ideology does not promote anything but more hatred to Israel which creates racism and discrimination towards Israelis around the world (hence "Boycott Israel", "Jews Against Zionism", etc...).
Also, I find this ideology to be racist because being Israeli is ethnic.
If you think this ideology is just, try to figure how many people you are hurting.
Anti-Israeli occupation/Pro-Palestinian state solution:
Now, this ideology is generally ok; being anti-war and looking for the safety of people is a good thing.
However, some people who share this ideology forget that they are criticising actions rather than intentions; Israel does not intend to gain any benefit from occupying land, it intends to silence terrorism and civilians are being hurt.
After all, the purpose of the Israeli government is to protect its people.
Let's look at it differently, what would your country do if it's being terrorised by a neighbour nation? normally, they'd go on an offensive to silence the source of terrorism, the means are never just because it's war, but the intention is pure and legitimate: guarantee the safety of your people.
To make it simple, the cause of this criticism is terrorism in the first place, Israel is being criticised for going to war, can you suggest any other solution?
Generally speaking, in my opinion, this type of criticism does not help anybody, it may generate a more extreme type of ideology (see below), and it isn't realistic, countries go to war, if you want to criticise war, do it in general, don't criticise Israel.
So if you look for something that can benefit our region, try my diplomatic ideology which is guaranteed to be the best solution and to make the middle east a peaceful place:
1. Israel, Palestine and the Middle East people are victims of all the hatred.
2. Terrorist organizations (i.e. unauthorized, non-democratic, civilian targetting groups) should be criticized and banned.
3. Israel overreaction shall be condemned, NOT Israel itself.
4. Understanding that the people in the region have strong ideologies, some are justified and some are not, the sources of those ideologies shall be condemnded (i.e. propganda, education) and that people should strive to avoid hatred in general; understand your enemy, do not hate it.
Thank you very much for reading, I hope we will all be entitled to diplomacy, and that peace and love will overcome hate (real peace, not on paper).
Thursday, July 27, 2006
The Israeli-Hizballah conflict - my view.
Due to the intensity and seriousness of the conflict in Israel (against Hizballah - an armed party in Lebanon), I'd like to share what I think about the situation.
A brief to this conflict: about two weeks ago Hizballah decided to launch a military-political operation called "True Promise", an operation which its goals were to rescue Lebannese prisoners who are kept by Israel, Samir Kuntar among them.
The operation conisted of infiltration to Israeli territory, kidnapping two Israeli soldiers (and killing a few others) who were on patrol and on top of it, they launched Katyusha rockets on Israel as a diversion.
The kidnapped soldiers shall be used for prisoner exchange - it's not the first time Hizballah launches such operation, it is one of the fewest times however that Israel responds by attacking without negotiating at all, as they feel Hizballah is pulling Israel's strings, and Israel is tired of it.
Israel responded with an immediate military operation, bombing Lebannese territory which they claim is being used by Hizballah as infrastructure and recently launching limited ground attacks on southern Lebanon - the goals of the Israeli operation are vague but are known to A) cause Hizballah to be disarmed and B) return the kidnapped soldiers.
As for now, the conflict is in its stat-quo situation which is consistent attacks from the air on Beirut and southern Lebanon, plus a small ground military operation (Israel), and about one-hundred missiles a day being fired from Lebannese territory towards Northern Israel (Hizballah), the Lebannese government however demands cease fire.
Needless to say how deadly this operation is, we'll skip to the point.
Hizballah - I don't have any problems with the ideologies of this group, if they want to hate Israel, they can hate it how much they like and their local affairs shouldn't bother me, I do not sympathize their ideology, just feel that they have right to believe in what they want.
On the other hand, being a political party in a country which claims to be democratic, they have NO right to have their own military, they have no right to control Lebannese territory and most importantly, they have no right to attack Israel on the behalf of Lebanon, they weren't democratically selected to do so, I feel that Lebanon is paying the price for this; Hizballah IS the major problem in this conflict and should be disarmed or at least lose their military control in Lebanon.
Israel - I believe that the operation against Hizballah is necessary, Hizballah is not going to stop bothering Israel and they are surely not going to be disarmed on their own.
Many people think that the Israeli operation is not justified, in reply to only 2 soldiers being kidnapped and a few missile attacks, however, let us not forget that the above aggression is the last straw in this whole Israeli-Hizballah conflict, all of the diplomatic attempts were failed, a UN force which was sent to Lebanon to silence Hizballah is not doing its job, something the UN is very good at, watching as an observer and never really risk their forces.
Israel had no choice but to launch an offensive to mute Hizballah once and for all, and for this I support the government in full.
I do not however think the means, specifically the air raids are the right tool for the job, not only many innocent people are being hurt- hundreds of dead Lebannese civilians and hundreds of thousand people being evacuated out of Lebanon, this is not going to benefit Israel;
I think the large scale air campaign was selected because Israel fears of another Israeli-Lebanon war and rightly so, the said war costed over six-hundred Israeli soldiers (about 25% the casualty size of Israel's deadliest war - Kipur... this is a catastrophic size).
So therefore Israel has full legitimacy to act in Lebanon, the means might not be just, but that's beside point... Israel had ENOUGH of it.
I'd like to add that from my knowledge about military operations, air attacks are not a good tool against terrorist/guerilla infrastrcuture simply because the infrastructure is mostly civilian, the air force, no matter how precise it is can never pinpoint the exact targets.
Next time I'll talk about how and why Israel is being internationally criticised and what are the consequences of it.
A brief to this conflict: about two weeks ago Hizballah decided to launch a military-political operation called "True Promise", an operation which its goals were to rescue Lebannese prisoners who are kept by Israel, Samir Kuntar among them.
The operation conisted of infiltration to Israeli territory, kidnapping two Israeli soldiers (and killing a few others) who were on patrol and on top of it, they launched Katyusha rockets on Israel as a diversion.
The kidnapped soldiers shall be used for prisoner exchange - it's not the first time Hizballah launches such operation, it is one of the fewest times however that Israel responds by attacking without negotiating at all, as they feel Hizballah is pulling Israel's strings, and Israel is tired of it.
Israel responded with an immediate military operation, bombing Lebannese territory which they claim is being used by Hizballah as infrastructure and recently launching limited ground attacks on southern Lebanon - the goals of the Israeli operation are vague but are known to A) cause Hizballah to be disarmed and B) return the kidnapped soldiers.
As for now, the conflict is in its stat-quo situation which is consistent attacks from the air on Beirut and southern Lebanon, plus a small ground military operation (Israel), and about one-hundred missiles a day being fired from Lebannese territory towards Northern Israel (Hizballah), the Lebannese government however demands cease fire.
Needless to say how deadly this operation is, we'll skip to the point.
Hizballah - I don't have any problems with the ideologies of this group, if they want to hate Israel, they can hate it how much they like and their local affairs shouldn't bother me, I do not sympathize their ideology, just feel that they have right to believe in what they want.
On the other hand, being a political party in a country which claims to be democratic, they have NO right to have their own military, they have no right to control Lebannese territory and most importantly, they have no right to attack Israel on the behalf of Lebanon, they weren't democratically selected to do so, I feel that Lebanon is paying the price for this; Hizballah IS the major problem in this conflict and should be disarmed or at least lose their military control in Lebanon.
Israel - I believe that the operation against Hizballah is necessary, Hizballah is not going to stop bothering Israel and they are surely not going to be disarmed on their own.
Many people think that the Israeli operation is not justified, in reply to only 2 soldiers being kidnapped and a few missile attacks, however, let us not forget that the above aggression is the last straw in this whole Israeli-Hizballah conflict, all of the diplomatic attempts were failed, a UN force which was sent to Lebanon to silence Hizballah is not doing its job, something the UN is very good at, watching as an observer and never really risk their forces.
Israel had no choice but to launch an offensive to mute Hizballah once and for all, and for this I support the government in full.
I do not however think the means, specifically the air raids are the right tool for the job, not only many innocent people are being hurt- hundreds of dead Lebannese civilians and hundreds of thousand people being evacuated out of Lebanon, this is not going to benefit Israel;
I think the large scale air campaign was selected because Israel fears of another Israeli-Lebanon war and rightly so, the said war costed over six-hundred Israeli soldiers (about 25% the casualty size of Israel's deadliest war - Kipur... this is a catastrophic size).
So therefore Israel has full legitimacy to act in Lebanon, the means might not be just, but that's beside point... Israel had ENOUGH of it.
I'd like to add that from my knowledge about military operations, air attacks are not a good tool against terrorist/guerilla infrastrcuture simply because the infrastructure is mostly civilian, the air force, no matter how precise it is can never pinpoint the exact targets.
Next time I'll talk about how and why Israel is being internationally criticised and what are the consequences of it.
