In Honor of Tisha B'av

Tisha B'av, for those that don't know, is a jewish holiday which remembers the dectruction of the first and second temple and the many horrible things that have befallen the jewish people; all of which either happened in the month of Av or began in it (see Jewish Calendar).

Perhaps the most interesting thing about this Holiday is that seems to fly in the face of belief in G-d. How can G-d allow bad things to happen to good people? How can G-d allow exiles? Pogroms? The Holocaust?

Some have rejected G-d entirely because of such events. I however will offer an alternative philosophy.

History isn't just a timeline; its a set, a story of interconnected events. In other words, there is rarely, if ever, an event in history that just purely a "cause" or just purely an "effect", as many events in history are both causes as well as effects.

For example, lets take an old jewish tale, and apply it to the grand-scale:
There was once a farmer, this particular farmer owned a horse. One day, the horse ran off. The entire village in which he lived in showed up at his doorstep and proclaimed "What a tragedy!" The farmer replied "maybe its a good thing, maybe it a bad thing." The next day, the horse returned but it returned with a pack of wild horses (it made friends). The whole village came to the farmer's doorstep and proclaimed "How wonderful!" The farmer replied "maybe its a good thing, maybe it a bad thing." The next day, the farmer's son was riding one of the wild horses and it bucked, and threw the farmer's son to the ground, breaking his leg. The whole village came to the farmer's doorstep and proclaimed "What a tragedy!" the farmer again replied "maybe it's a good thing, maybe it's a bad thing." The next day, a war was declared, and all able bodied men in the village were ordered to fight; except for the farmer's son, who was not of able body. The farmer then declared "It was a good thing my horse ran off."

The point of this tale is to highlight that what may be seen as a negative thing, can ultimately be positive (and alternately, visa-versa). One must be patient to see the full scope of events. The tale also highlights that what can be good on the microcosmic scale (the boy being injured prevents him from being drafted) can be bad on the macrocosmic scale (a war being declared). Of course, if one is a mercenary, then war is a good thing; so as always, it's a matter of perspective. So, how could all this apply to the destruction of the most holy site in judaism, Solomon's temple? How could the Holocaust be good?

Well, I don't think the Holocaust was good, in fact it was extremely evil, one of few cases in history where such a word could be applied accurately. However, the consequences of the Holocaust may not be evil. Greater acceptance, unity, and a commitment among nations to not allow such a thing to be forgotten, lest it happen once more. Some inaccurately point to the Holocaust as a point that created the State of Israel. The founding of Israel is actually rooted in the British Mandate of Palestine, approved in 1922 and put into effect in 1923 - nearly a decade before Kristalnacht and the first inklings of the Holocaust.
If we take a further look into history we can see a pattern: The Babylonian exile helped act as a cause for judaism to formalize the contents of the Tanach, and establish a coherent line of rabbinical thought. The destruction of the first temple showed that, in fact, the jewish people could live without it, and also effectively ended the era of direct prophecy from G-d. The time period during the re-building of the second temple, and eventual destruction showed that the jewish people could also live without a "direct-line to G-d" (though, at that time, not without the Temple and the sacrifices), and finally... without sacrifices (which already had strict limitations, and as some historians point out, were already considered "less than" simple prayer). I could go on and on, but I think you get the point.

Some of you may be wondering....but why would G-d have to torture people (or allow torture/exile/death)? Lets look at recent history: 9/11. America pulled together like never before or since. The fact is, tragedy can often breed the best, and worst in people; and there are few things quite as powerful as tragedy.

So...In honor of Tisha B'av, lets be patient.

Academia and Jews

Source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/711997.html

Being a student of History, and indeed having a passion for it isn't even a question for those that know me well. Surely, I take pride in my position as apart of academia.

Yet, I can help but shudder; and yes, even find myself agreeing with the political right after reading something by Chomsky or Judt, and their ilk. How can they despise Israel so, and yet ironically still call themselves jewish? Of course, that is a debate for another post; and not one I wish to focus on this time.

This time, I want to deal with a little (infamous) article by Judt "The Country that wouldn't grow up." This historically bereft article brought up some memories of a completely unrelated book called "Guns, Germs, and Steel." I remember digesting each and every page of word-vomit that this book containted. (Okay, okay, it wasn't all word vomit). However the tone of both were quite similar. "Guns, Germs, and Steel" was quick to posit it's thesis of explaining why western civilization has dominated the world thus far; yet continually provided P-C morsels of how "Americans are dumber..then the people of New Guinea" and even going on a diatribe about how white people really are devils. The tone of "The Country that wouldn't grow up" remains the same. Israelis are depicted as imperialistic, when nothing could be further from the historical evidence. In short, the general tone of both works of quasi-non-fiction is sneering; just short of juvenile ridicule.

Time and again through out Judt's article, he posits how the USA is being controlled by Israel; or more preciesly, jews. Just like the media, eh? As apart of academia, I urge Dr. Judt to re-examine his hysterical conspiracy theories.

The reason America and Israel support and agree with each other is both are democracies; both share a liberal set of rights guaranteed to their citizens. It is NOT due to some scant evidence supporting a blantly anti-semetic theory. The US, after all, gives even more money to Egypt then Israel; yet not an academic alive would dare posit that Egypt is under US control; preceisly because such a position is patently absurd. There is, after all, much more evidence of the overpowering effect of oil rich Saudi influence on American government policy then there is of Israeli influence.

Through out the article Judt frequently posits just how powerful Israel is. We all like to size up folks; in this case however he's making Israel seem like a veritable super-power. Full of what polical scientists call "Hard Power" (that is military power, as opposed to "Soft Power" that being cultural power). The fact is, Israel has a good sized arsenal, but lets disspell the myth that Israel is *the* bad boy on the block. Israel is the size of New Jersey; and the twenty-two other states in the mid-east are equivalent in size to the lower forty-eight states of the US. Israel has won every fight she's had. Lets keep in mind that Israel HAS to win every war that she's confronted with; because even a single loss against her Arab neighbors means her total destruction. It's like a matter of initiative; if you know your community could face the very real possibility of slaughter if it losses, you'll fight harder and be cogniscent of prepardness (It was prepardness that's saved Israel, NOT weapons - that is, constant training, and constant strategy). Just a side note; in terms of "Soft Power" Israel has a nearly infinite amount: it's the cradle of western religion; of western morals, of western values, of western courts, of literally, nearly all things western - and a signficant contributor of philosophy and concepts of equality (equality being a component of democracy). The only other nation that comes close in terms of sheer Soft Power would be Greece - indeed western europe and much of the rest of the western world comes to a distant third, fourth, fifth, etc. Perhaps that's a reason modern europeans seem to have such a jealous distaste for Israel.

Now, for a particularly ludicrous claim: "Charles De Gaulle realized that France's settlement in Algeria, which was far older and better established than Israel's West Bank colonies, was a military and moral disaster for his country."
No, your eyes don't deceive you.
Yes, that drivel actually came from someone that teaches.

First, France's occupation of Algeria was much more brutal then Israel with the West Bank. Lets also keep in mind that the jewish settlements are not "Israel's West Bank colonies," indeed, the Israeli government doesn't even have control over those persons that willingly move into area; and certainly don't encourage it. Additionally, referring to the jewish persons living in these settlements as "settlers" much less "colonists" is highly innaccurate and out-right pejorative. Why? The "West Bank" occupies land that is traditionally known as Judea/Judah, and Samaria. In other words, as jews, they have a historical right to exist and live in the land. Much more so then the French did in north africa.

The more discerning may note, however, that Judt states "Israel's West Bank colonies" not "Jewish West Bank colonies" (because Judt knows if he did say that he would be asked to leave History to people that can actually understand it). The fact is, however, "Jewish" doesn't just refer to religion, it's also an ethnicity. Israel is dominated by pracitioners of a particular religion, that being Judaism; this particular religion is practiced by a jewish people, an ethnic group unto themselves. Thus, Israel, like every other nation, is dominated by a particular majority ethnic group; such as Britain by Anglos, and China by Han-chinese.

Jackass for May 2007

After a long mindful musing; with the power invested in my by the Internet, I herebyhand over the prestigous award of Jackass of the Month to Tom.

You may be wondering, Tom? Tom who?

Tom, as in the guy you see on myspace.

It's not as if I know him personally; but I know his hated product.

I know it lacks adequate bandwith, and I know it has an even greater lack of persons who aren't complete fucktards.

Those astonishingly useless bulletins.

Those creepy old men.

Those spam messages you find in your email.

Of course, the point of myspace isn't actually to keep up with friends. Afterall, you could actually have a much more fulfilling conversation over the phone, or, dare I say...in person. The actual point of myspace is to get as many people in your douchebags (friends) list as possible.

Its always entertaining to see someone with more friends in there are days in the year. Perhaps she requires her friends to only interact with her in groups of two or more.

I'm not saying myspace is all bad; after all it does allow bands a media outlet. I mean, I love nothing more then receiving a fresh email from a crappy local band about how "I must be cool" so I should add them.

Let us pray that in a few months, when not a single soul can load a myspace webpage; it will finally die.