For those of you following the events surrounding Russia's growing takeover of Ukraine, you've probably heard about Europe's dependence on Russian gas and how Russian dictator Vladimir Putin takes advantage of it. What you might not know, however, is that this dependence works both ways. The Russian economy is heavily dependent on gas exports, so not having customers to export their gas to would severely damage the Russian economy and Putin's regime, which relies significantly on support from rich oligarchs, many of whom are involved in the Russian gas industry. Putting an end to Russian gas exports would cost these oligarchs a fortune and so if they were threatened with the possibility that Europe would no longer depend on them for their gas supplies, they would likely press Putin to end his megalomaniac conquests. In fact, they may even be able to force him from power should they feel that keeping Putin in the Kremlin is no longer in their interests. So ironically, the gas exports that Putin uses as political leverage to continue his conquests can also be used against him. But in order for this to happen, Europe must expunge itself from dependence on Russian gas, and the only way to do this is for the continent to find other suppliers.
One potential supplier is Azerbaijan, a former Soviet state that seeks to take advantage of its own vast oil and gas reserves. The Azerbaijanis plan is to build a pipeline that would run from their country, through the former Soviet republic of Georgia, then through Turkey all the way to southern Europe. This pipeline would bypass Russian territory and give Europe a new alternative to importing gas from Putin's Russia. Click here for an article about this proposed pipeline.
Further to the south may lie another alternative in a country that up until recently few people would think of as a major gas exporter: Israel. Within the last decade, the search for oil and gas off the Mediterranean coast of the Jewish state has turned up huge reserves of natural gas; enough for Israel to become a major exporter. Indeed, there has been talk of building an undersea pipeline from Israel to Turkey. A recent article in the Israeli press discusses this possibility, along with the prospect of Russian opposition. Click here for the full article.
So there are potential alternatives to Europe's current dependence on Russian gas. But of course, pipelines take time to build and before any shovels get put in the ground, there needs to be political will on the part of the leaders of countries that have an interest in seeing these pipelines realized. I certainly hope that this political will materializes soon, because the sooner the politicians in the West decide that they no longer want to depend on Russian tyrant Putin for their gas supplies, the sooner the pipelines can be built and the gas can start flowing. There's no time to waste as Putin continues to use Russia's gas reserves as a blackmailing chip to further his conquests.
Friday, April 18, 2014
Thursday, April 17, 2014
How to Stop Putin Dead in his Tracks
After easily taking over Crimea, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin is ready to chalk up another conquest in eastern Ukraine. This time, the Ukrainian government is putting up some resistance, but it doesn't seem to be enough. Putin's grip on the eastern part of the country seems to be growing stronger by the day. And for all Putin's talk that he is fighting fascists in Ukraine, it's his supporters that seem to be the harbingers of fascism. Recently, a leaflet was distributed in the city of Donetsk calling on all members of the Jewish community there to register their religion and property with the government of the self-proclaimed "people's republic" of Donetsk, or face deportation and loss of citizenship. Click here for full details.
History tells us that a similar policy was carried out against Jews and other minorities in Germany before World War II. It was only the first step before the Nazi death machine began working in full swing. After all, a holocaust does not begin with mass extermination - it ends with it. In other words, threatening Jews and other minorities with deportation and loss of citizenship could just be the beginning of worse things yet to come, so it's important that those who have the power to stop Putin in his tracks do so immediately without wasting any more time.
U.S. President Barack Obama may be a modern-day Neville Chamberlain, but he was right about one thing. The Russia of today is not the Soviet Union of old and does not lead a large bloc of countries - yet. Indeed, Russia's military strength is not equal to what the Soviet Union once had and she is not ready to challenge the military might of NATO, which is why Putin will limit his conquests to non-NATO members, at least in the near future. Hence, NATO members' commitment to step up air and sea patrols in the Black Sea and beef up military deployments in NATO and EU members bordering Ukraine and Russia will do nothing to stop Putin as he will not pursue a head-on confrontation with the West anyways.
The only way to contain the Russian dictator is for NATO troops to deploy in Ukraine itself and any other country whose territory Putin has eyes on, such as Georgia or Moldova. Better yet, the West should fast-track countries threatened by Putin on the road towards full NATO and EU membership. In other words, there should be NATO boots on the ground wherever the Russian despot is likely to attempt additional land-grabs. The message to Putin will be loud and clear: If he wants to conquer more territory, he will have to go through NATO troops to get it.
But would doing this provoke a war with Russia? Not likely. Putin may be a tyrant and a murderer, but he is not insane and he is still capable of rational thinking. He knows that a war with the West now would be unwinnable and would most definitely lead to his downfall. And if there's at least one thing all dictators care about, it's staying in power, which is why Putin would be incredibly foolish to risk a military confrontation with NATO and its allies, for now.
As I said in a previous blog post, Battlefield Ukraine: Stop Putin Now!, force is the only thing that can put an end to a dictator's aggression. Hence, threatening Putin with force by placing NATO troops and hardware in countries and territories where he may try to make new conquests will ensure that he will not pursue those conquests. The bad news, however, is that this will only work for awhile. As long as Putin remains in control of Russia, he will be able to strengthen his military forces and solidify alliances with other friendly dictatorships, such as China and Iran, so that eventually he will be ready for a military confrontation with the West. In essence, containing Putin is only a temporary solution. The only permanent solution is to remove him from power. But how can this be done without provoking a war? I sincerely hope the leaders of the world's democracies will put their heads together and try to come up with an answer to this question. Otherwise, war could be inevitable.
History tells us that a similar policy was carried out against Jews and other minorities in Germany before World War II. It was only the first step before the Nazi death machine began working in full swing. After all, a holocaust does not begin with mass extermination - it ends with it. In other words, threatening Jews and other minorities with deportation and loss of citizenship could just be the beginning of worse things yet to come, so it's important that those who have the power to stop Putin in his tracks do so immediately without wasting any more time.
U.S. President Barack Obama may be a modern-day Neville Chamberlain, but he was right about one thing. The Russia of today is not the Soviet Union of old and does not lead a large bloc of countries - yet. Indeed, Russia's military strength is not equal to what the Soviet Union once had and she is not ready to challenge the military might of NATO, which is why Putin will limit his conquests to non-NATO members, at least in the near future. Hence, NATO members' commitment to step up air and sea patrols in the Black Sea and beef up military deployments in NATO and EU members bordering Ukraine and Russia will do nothing to stop Putin as he will not pursue a head-on confrontation with the West anyways.
The only way to contain the Russian dictator is for NATO troops to deploy in Ukraine itself and any other country whose territory Putin has eyes on, such as Georgia or Moldova. Better yet, the West should fast-track countries threatened by Putin on the road towards full NATO and EU membership. In other words, there should be NATO boots on the ground wherever the Russian despot is likely to attempt additional land-grabs. The message to Putin will be loud and clear: If he wants to conquer more territory, he will have to go through NATO troops to get it.
But would doing this provoke a war with Russia? Not likely. Putin may be a tyrant and a murderer, but he is not insane and he is still capable of rational thinking. He knows that a war with the West now would be unwinnable and would most definitely lead to his downfall. And if there's at least one thing all dictators care about, it's staying in power, which is why Putin would be incredibly foolish to risk a military confrontation with NATO and its allies, for now.
As I said in a previous blog post, Battlefield Ukraine: Stop Putin Now!, force is the only thing that can put an end to a dictator's aggression. Hence, threatening Putin with force by placing NATO troops and hardware in countries and territories where he may try to make new conquests will ensure that he will not pursue those conquests. The bad news, however, is that this will only work for awhile. As long as Putin remains in control of Russia, he will be able to strengthen his military forces and solidify alliances with other friendly dictatorships, such as China and Iran, so that eventually he will be ready for a military confrontation with the West. In essence, containing Putin is only a temporary solution. The only permanent solution is to remove him from power. But how can this be done without provoking a war? I sincerely hope the leaders of the world's democracies will put their heads together and try to come up with an answer to this question. Otherwise, war could be inevitable.
Sunday, April 13, 2014
Israeli-Palestinian Peace Talks: It's About More Than Just Peace Between Two Nations
After another round of negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians under U.S. mediation, talks seem to have reached a dead end....again. Last year, Israel, the Palestinians and the U.S. all agreed on a deadline looming at the end of this month to lay the groundwork for a peace agreement that would give the Palestinians an independent state and give Israel peace, security and diplomatic recognition from its Arab neighbours. I don't have to tell anyone who has at least some general knowledge of the Israeli-Arab conflict that a lot is at stake with these talks. In fact, a lot more is at stake than many people would believe, because peace between Israel, the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world, or lack thereof will determine the balance of power for the world as a whole.
As I said in a previous blog post, a new cold war is on the horizon, one that is similar to the old cold war but is also different in respect to its major players (see The New-Old Cold War). The success or failure of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks will likely determine whether it is the new Western bloc, led by the U.S. and the European Union, or the new eastern bloc, led by Russian and China, who hold sway in the world's most significant oil-producing region. Should the talks succeed and a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement is eventually achieved, the result will be warming relations between Israel and most of the Arab world. The bulk of the Arab states will eventually form a strategic alliance with Israel supported by the U.S. and E.U. as a collective security arrangement to protect the region from Iranian aggression supported by Russia and China.
But, if the talks fail, there will be grave consequences for the West and the rest of the free world. The Americans will lose what little credibility they have left in the Middle East, most of it having already been lost by the Iraq War, the Obama Administration's misguided policy during the Arab Spring, and its perceived weakness against Iran. The failure of the Americans to broker a deal between Israel and the Palestinians will most likely push Arabs in the direction of the Russians and the Chinese. In fact, Russia is even now using the Americans' increased weakness in the Middle East to re-establish the foothold that the Soviet Union once had on the region (see, for example, this article in the Russian press, Egypt Seeks to Bring Friendship with Russia to "Soviet Level").
Russia currently has the power to blackmail much of Europe through its control of natural gas supplies. As Russian power in the Middle East grows and American power in the region wanes, it is very feasible to imagine a situation in which Russia could use the same kind of blackmail against the West by managing to withhold vital oil and gas supplies, thus bringing western economies to a crashing halt. Moreover, if this new, emerging cold war ever gets hot, we in the West would be at a significant and possibly fatal disadvantage should our military forces not have access to Middle Eastern oil and gas to fuel our planes, tanks and ships.
In fact, I believe that control of the Middle East and its vast oil and gas resources will determine who wins this new cold war, or for that matter a real war. Hence, for the sake of the entire free world, it is crucial that the Middle East, or at least the majority of it, remains firmly in the pro-Western camp. For this to happen, Israel and the Palestinians must continue negotiations, for however long it takes, until they can reach a permanent peace agreement, ending their conflict and the Israeli-Arab conflict as a whole. Yes, that's right, the fate of the free world may ultimately depend on two small nations whose people make up a tiny fraction of the world's population making peace. So in a way, the Israeli and Palestinian negotiators and the Americans mediating the talks between them hold the free world in the palm of their hands. As if they didn't already have enough to think about.
As I said in a previous blog post, a new cold war is on the horizon, one that is similar to the old cold war but is also different in respect to its major players (see The New-Old Cold War). The success or failure of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks will likely determine whether it is the new Western bloc, led by the U.S. and the European Union, or the new eastern bloc, led by Russian and China, who hold sway in the world's most significant oil-producing region. Should the talks succeed and a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement is eventually achieved, the result will be warming relations between Israel and most of the Arab world. The bulk of the Arab states will eventually form a strategic alliance with Israel supported by the U.S. and E.U. as a collective security arrangement to protect the region from Iranian aggression supported by Russia and China.
But, if the talks fail, there will be grave consequences for the West and the rest of the free world. The Americans will lose what little credibility they have left in the Middle East, most of it having already been lost by the Iraq War, the Obama Administration's misguided policy during the Arab Spring, and its perceived weakness against Iran. The failure of the Americans to broker a deal between Israel and the Palestinians will most likely push Arabs in the direction of the Russians and the Chinese. In fact, Russia is even now using the Americans' increased weakness in the Middle East to re-establish the foothold that the Soviet Union once had on the region (see, for example, this article in the Russian press, Egypt Seeks to Bring Friendship with Russia to "Soviet Level").
Russia currently has the power to blackmail much of Europe through its control of natural gas supplies. As Russian power in the Middle East grows and American power in the region wanes, it is very feasible to imagine a situation in which Russia could use the same kind of blackmail against the West by managing to withhold vital oil and gas supplies, thus bringing western economies to a crashing halt. Moreover, if this new, emerging cold war ever gets hot, we in the West would be at a significant and possibly fatal disadvantage should our military forces not have access to Middle Eastern oil and gas to fuel our planes, tanks and ships.
In fact, I believe that control of the Middle East and its vast oil and gas resources will determine who wins this new cold war, or for that matter a real war. Hence, for the sake of the entire free world, it is crucial that the Middle East, or at least the majority of it, remains firmly in the pro-Western camp. For this to happen, Israel and the Palestinians must continue negotiations, for however long it takes, until they can reach a permanent peace agreement, ending their conflict and the Israeli-Arab conflict as a whole. Yes, that's right, the fate of the free world may ultimately depend on two small nations whose people make up a tiny fraction of the world's population making peace. So in a way, the Israeli and Palestinian negotiators and the Americans mediating the talks between them hold the free world in the palm of their hands. As if they didn't already have enough to think about.
Thursday, April 3, 2014
Why Toronto Shouldn't "Chow Down" or "Drive a Ford"
If you're wondering why folks in Canada are so cynical about politics these days, look no further than the City of Toronto. This fall, Toronto's municipal elections will be held and the choices could not be more stark - or more uninspiring. The two frontrunners, Olivia Chow and current mayor Rob Ford, are two polar opposites, but they share one thing in common: the potential to destroy Toronto as we know it. It's just a question of how.
Let's say we re-elect Mayor Rob Ford. What would that mean for Toronto? Well, the first thing that comes to mind is another four years of circus acts and vulgar behaviour that will continue to tarnish the city's image as the last four years of Ford's antics already have. But this isn't even the worst of it. Throughout his term as mayor of Canada's largest city, Mr. Ford has shown a clear inability to work with others, weather that be city councillors or anyone else that doesn't agree with him. His arrogance is always on public display whenever he brags about what he thinks he's done for Toronto, like advocating for subways instead of LRTs. But of course, for all the hot air he's put out talking about how great subways are, he hasn't managed to build any. In fact, he hasn't even once told Torontonians how he's going to pay for all his glorious subways. Perhaps the one billion dollars Ford claims to have saved Toronto taxpayers would help? - That is, if he actually did save the city a billion dollars. Click here to find out what I mean.
Still, even if Ford saved just one dollar of Torontonians' hard-earned tax dollars, it would be more than I could say for Olivia Chow, who will no doubt lead Toronto on a path to bankruptcy. Electing Chow as Toronto's next mayor would spell disaster for the city's finances. Like all left-wing politicians, she means well, but can't keep her hand out of the pockets of Toronto's taxpayers. Whereas Ford, with all his arrogance and bad behaviour, still has the courage to say no to the multitude of special interest groups looking for free money, Chow always plays the yes-man when it comes to Torontonians' tax dollars. Click here for a sample of this spendaholic's record.
So basically, Toronto's upcoming election is very much a choice between allowing Rob Ford to continue his comedy tour and reign of arrogance, or letting Olivia Chow pig out at the trough filled with your tax dollars. Pick your poison, Toronto. But wait. Am I forgetting something? Oh right, there are other candidates in this election, like David Soknacki, the guy who was the budget chief under former mayor David Miller - the same mayor who presided over that seemingly never-ending garbage strike and who was the conductor of the gravy train that Rob Ford was elected to derail. Then there's Karen Stintz, the quintessential flip-flopper, who turned from Rob Ford's trusted ally into his arch nemesis overnight because she couldn't (and still can't) make up her mind as to whether she wants subways or LRTs. And let's not forget John Tory, who's hoping that the third time's the charm after already losing one mayoral vote where he was initially the frontrunner and also losing a provincial election. He failed to inspire twice and I'm not sure if he'll be any more inspiring this third time around. That being said, he may have a chance if he can get his message out about moving Toronto forward instead of to the right or left, like Ford and Chow respectively.
I'm not sure who will win this election, but whatever happens, I don't think Toronto should either "Chow Down" or "Drive a Ford". I just hope other voters feel the same way I do.
Let's say we re-elect Mayor Rob Ford. What would that mean for Toronto? Well, the first thing that comes to mind is another four years of circus acts and vulgar behaviour that will continue to tarnish the city's image as the last four years of Ford's antics already have. But this isn't even the worst of it. Throughout his term as mayor of Canada's largest city, Mr. Ford has shown a clear inability to work with others, weather that be city councillors or anyone else that doesn't agree with him. His arrogance is always on public display whenever he brags about what he thinks he's done for Toronto, like advocating for subways instead of LRTs. But of course, for all the hot air he's put out talking about how great subways are, he hasn't managed to build any. In fact, he hasn't even once told Torontonians how he's going to pay for all his glorious subways. Perhaps the one billion dollars Ford claims to have saved Toronto taxpayers would help? - That is, if he actually did save the city a billion dollars. Click here to find out what I mean.
Still, even if Ford saved just one dollar of Torontonians' hard-earned tax dollars, it would be more than I could say for Olivia Chow, who will no doubt lead Toronto on a path to bankruptcy. Electing Chow as Toronto's next mayor would spell disaster for the city's finances. Like all left-wing politicians, she means well, but can't keep her hand out of the pockets of Toronto's taxpayers. Whereas Ford, with all his arrogance and bad behaviour, still has the courage to say no to the multitude of special interest groups looking for free money, Chow always plays the yes-man when it comes to Torontonians' tax dollars. Click here for a sample of this spendaholic's record.
So basically, Toronto's upcoming election is very much a choice between allowing Rob Ford to continue his comedy tour and reign of arrogance, or letting Olivia Chow pig out at the trough filled with your tax dollars. Pick your poison, Toronto. But wait. Am I forgetting something? Oh right, there are other candidates in this election, like David Soknacki, the guy who was the budget chief under former mayor David Miller - the same mayor who presided over that seemingly never-ending garbage strike and who was the conductor of the gravy train that Rob Ford was elected to derail. Then there's Karen Stintz, the quintessential flip-flopper, who turned from Rob Ford's trusted ally into his arch nemesis overnight because she couldn't (and still can't) make up her mind as to whether she wants subways or LRTs. And let's not forget John Tory, who's hoping that the third time's the charm after already losing one mayoral vote where he was initially the frontrunner and also losing a provincial election. He failed to inspire twice and I'm not sure if he'll be any more inspiring this third time around. That being said, he may have a chance if he can get his message out about moving Toronto forward instead of to the right or left, like Ford and Chow respectively.
I'm not sure who will win this election, but whatever happens, I don't think Toronto should either "Chow Down" or "Drive a Ford". I just hope other voters feel the same way I do.
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Battlefield Ukraine: Stop Putin Now!
Having lost the fight to keep his stooge, Victor Yanukovich, in power in Ukraine, Putin has launched an outright invasion of the former Soviet republic. He's made it clear that despite the strong desire of the Ukrainian people to become part of the European Union and the democratic world as a whole, Ukraine will not be allowed to leave Russia's sphere of influence. But why should Putin care what the Ukrainian people want? He doesn't even care about what his own people want. That's why he routinely has folks who disagree with him beaten, jailed, or even killed. After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, many Russians believed that their country would finally be ruled by its people rather than by czars, oligarchs and other kinds of dictators. FAT CHANCE! Russia today is not the people's Russia - it's Putin's Russia. He, with the help of his allies, including a few wealthy business elites and the Russian Orthodox church now controls the country and he's determined not to let anyone change that.
But as with most power-hungry dictators, controlling one country simply isn't enough, even if that country is as large as Russia. And so it's no surprise to see Putin now trying to grab territory from his neighbours. It's not like he hasn't done it before. In 2008, Putin sent his troops into the breakaway territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, both formerly controlled by Georgia, under the guise of protecting the people of the two regions from Georgian aggression. But protection was not Putin's true intention. Rather, he was simply seeking to expand Russia's borders. Today, Abkhazia and South Ossetia are de facto Russian protectorates with puppet governments answering to Putin, not unlike the puppet states of Slovakia and Croatia created by Hitler's Nazi Germany. Yes, it's true that the Abkhazians and South Ossetians have legitimate aspirations towards independence, just as many Slovaks and Croats had during World War II. But these aspirations are not fulfilled by becoming tributary states of Russia.
Now, Putin is using the same kind of excuse to invade Ukrainian territory, saying that he is only trying to protect the country's large Russian-speaking minority and that he was invited to do so by Yanukovich, whom he still sees as Ukraine's legitimate leader. Putin believes that his fellow Russians in Ukraine are oppressed in the same way Kosovo's Albanians were by Serbia. Indeed, Serbia's actions against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo was what prompted Western intervention, which eventually led to Kosovo's independence. So Putin may argue that if the West saw fit to intervene to protect Kosovo's Albanians, he should have the right to do the same in Ukraine on behalf of its Russian minority. But this argument simply doesn't hold water. In Kosovo, Serbia's dictator, Slobodan Milosevic, who was also a strong ally of Russia, waged an all-out campaign of ethnic cleansing against Kosovo's Albanian population, killing thousands and driving thousands more from their homes. In Ukraine, there is no mass campaign of ethnic cleansing or genocide against Russian speakers. In fact, even a recent effort by some members of Ukraine's parliament to cancel the special status that the Russian language enjoys in regions where it is widely spoken was vetoed by the interim president. The vast majority of Ukrainians know that if they want their country to be a democracy and become part of a united Europe, they must respect the rights of minority communities. Yes, there are some extreme nationalists amongst the Ukrainians, but they are a minority. The same is true for Ukraine's Russian-speaking population where it is a minority of extreme Russian nationalists that are demanding unification with Russia. Many Russian-speaking Ukrainians actually oppose Putin's invasion. Unfortunately Putin, like all other dictators, will do what he wants and will not listen to anyone who tells him to do otherwise.
As I said before, Putin's actions should not surprise anyone and they certainly did not surprise me. In fact, even before Ukraine's popular will overthrow Putin's puppet, Yanukovich, I suggested how an invasion could be prevented - by allowing regions of the country in which Russian speakers form a majority to hold a referendum and choosing to remain part of Ukraine, seek independence, or seek a unification with Russia (see my post entitled, De-constructing Multi-ethnic States and Creating Real Nation-States: My Personal Take on Redrawing International Borders). But one former work colleague of mine, who I've found has much more knowledge of Ukrainian and Russian history than I do, told me that such as solution would be unjust because most of the Russian-speaking population that resides in Ukraine resides there because the south and east of the country was Russified by Stalin. In Crimea, for example, Stalin uprooted most of the population of the peninsula's indigenous Tatars, deporting them to central Asia and moving Russians in to replace them. So why should Putin be able to use the Russian-speaking population in Ukraine adjacent to Russia itself as an excuse to grab more territory? Thanks to my former colleague, I now know that the correct answer to this question: Putin must not be allowed to use such an excuse to invade Ukraine and annex its land. If anything, it's Russia that owes Ukraine territory since, as my former colleague also informed me, some of what is now part of Russia was once part of Ukraine and was also subject to Russification.
In fact, Russia has no legitimate claim over most of the land it has jurisdiction over. All the territories that Russia holds east of the Ural mountains and near the Caucus mountain range is land conquered over the centuries by Russian despots - land that once belonged to the Yakuts, the Tatars, the Cherkassians, the Chechens and several other peoples who have been living under the boot of Russia for centuries. It is these people that have the legitimate right to have their territory - and their independence - returned to them. For now, however, we must concentrate on ensuring that Putin's Russia does not encroach further onto Ukrainian territory.
Unfortunately, I have little faith that a strong international response is forthcoming. Europe is extremely dependent on Russian gas for its energy needs, so a tough response from the European Union is unlikely. As for the Americans, their Neville Chamberlain-esque president, Barack Obama, has already surrendered to Putin's growing clout on the issue of Syria's civil war, which is why Bashar Al-Assad is allowed to continue butchering his own people. Hence, I find it highly unlikely that the Americans will mount a strong response, opting instead for a lot of talk and perhaps some economic sanctions, which have generally proven ineffective when dealing with aggressive dictators, like Putin. At the end of the day, there is only one thing that can stop a dictator dead in his tracks - force.
But neither the U.S. nor Europe is ready for any new armed confrontation, especially with a nuclear-armed Russia. Europe is still going through its worst economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. As for the U.S., although its economy is showing signs of recovery, the world's lone superpower (at least for now) is still facing a mountain of debt, which American politicians are now planning to pay off, in part, by reducing the size of their military. And as the Americans weaken their military, Russia, along with other major U.S. rivals, like China and Iran, will strengthen theirs.
What is now happening in Ukraine is only the beginning. The Crimea and eastern Ukraine are for Putin what Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland was for Hitler. And anyone who knows their history knows that allowing Hitler to take the Sudetenland did not prevent him from taking the rest of Czechoslovakia and eventually conquering most of Europe, nor will allowing Putin to take the Crimea and eastern Ukraine prevent him from taking over the entire country...and perhaps waging further conquests in the future.
But as with most power-hungry dictators, controlling one country simply isn't enough, even if that country is as large as Russia. And so it's no surprise to see Putin now trying to grab territory from his neighbours. It's not like he hasn't done it before. In 2008, Putin sent his troops into the breakaway territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, both formerly controlled by Georgia, under the guise of protecting the people of the two regions from Georgian aggression. But protection was not Putin's true intention. Rather, he was simply seeking to expand Russia's borders. Today, Abkhazia and South Ossetia are de facto Russian protectorates with puppet governments answering to Putin, not unlike the puppet states of Slovakia and Croatia created by Hitler's Nazi Germany. Yes, it's true that the Abkhazians and South Ossetians have legitimate aspirations towards independence, just as many Slovaks and Croats had during World War II. But these aspirations are not fulfilled by becoming tributary states of Russia.
Now, Putin is using the same kind of excuse to invade Ukrainian territory, saying that he is only trying to protect the country's large Russian-speaking minority and that he was invited to do so by Yanukovich, whom he still sees as Ukraine's legitimate leader. Putin believes that his fellow Russians in Ukraine are oppressed in the same way Kosovo's Albanians were by Serbia. Indeed, Serbia's actions against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo was what prompted Western intervention, which eventually led to Kosovo's independence. So Putin may argue that if the West saw fit to intervene to protect Kosovo's Albanians, he should have the right to do the same in Ukraine on behalf of its Russian minority. But this argument simply doesn't hold water. In Kosovo, Serbia's dictator, Slobodan Milosevic, who was also a strong ally of Russia, waged an all-out campaign of ethnic cleansing against Kosovo's Albanian population, killing thousands and driving thousands more from their homes. In Ukraine, there is no mass campaign of ethnic cleansing or genocide against Russian speakers. In fact, even a recent effort by some members of Ukraine's parliament to cancel the special status that the Russian language enjoys in regions where it is widely spoken was vetoed by the interim president. The vast majority of Ukrainians know that if they want their country to be a democracy and become part of a united Europe, they must respect the rights of minority communities. Yes, there are some extreme nationalists amongst the Ukrainians, but they are a minority. The same is true for Ukraine's Russian-speaking population where it is a minority of extreme Russian nationalists that are demanding unification with Russia. Many Russian-speaking Ukrainians actually oppose Putin's invasion. Unfortunately Putin, like all other dictators, will do what he wants and will not listen to anyone who tells him to do otherwise.
As I said before, Putin's actions should not surprise anyone and they certainly did not surprise me. In fact, even before Ukraine's popular will overthrow Putin's puppet, Yanukovich, I suggested how an invasion could be prevented - by allowing regions of the country in which Russian speakers form a majority to hold a referendum and choosing to remain part of Ukraine, seek independence, or seek a unification with Russia (see my post entitled, De-constructing Multi-ethnic States and Creating Real Nation-States: My Personal Take on Redrawing International Borders). But one former work colleague of mine, who I've found has much more knowledge of Ukrainian and Russian history than I do, told me that such as solution would be unjust because most of the Russian-speaking population that resides in Ukraine resides there because the south and east of the country was Russified by Stalin. In Crimea, for example, Stalin uprooted most of the population of the peninsula's indigenous Tatars, deporting them to central Asia and moving Russians in to replace them. So why should Putin be able to use the Russian-speaking population in Ukraine adjacent to Russia itself as an excuse to grab more territory? Thanks to my former colleague, I now know that the correct answer to this question: Putin must not be allowed to use such an excuse to invade Ukraine and annex its land. If anything, it's Russia that owes Ukraine territory since, as my former colleague also informed me, some of what is now part of Russia was once part of Ukraine and was also subject to Russification.
In fact, Russia has no legitimate claim over most of the land it has jurisdiction over. All the territories that Russia holds east of the Ural mountains and near the Caucus mountain range is land conquered over the centuries by Russian despots - land that once belonged to the Yakuts, the Tatars, the Cherkassians, the Chechens and several other peoples who have been living under the boot of Russia for centuries. It is these people that have the legitimate right to have their territory - and their independence - returned to them. For now, however, we must concentrate on ensuring that Putin's Russia does not encroach further onto Ukrainian territory.
Unfortunately, I have little faith that a strong international response is forthcoming. Europe is extremely dependent on Russian gas for its energy needs, so a tough response from the European Union is unlikely. As for the Americans, their Neville Chamberlain-esque president, Barack Obama, has already surrendered to Putin's growing clout on the issue of Syria's civil war, which is why Bashar Al-Assad is allowed to continue butchering his own people. Hence, I find it highly unlikely that the Americans will mount a strong response, opting instead for a lot of talk and perhaps some economic sanctions, which have generally proven ineffective when dealing with aggressive dictators, like Putin. At the end of the day, there is only one thing that can stop a dictator dead in his tracks - force.
But neither the U.S. nor Europe is ready for any new armed confrontation, especially with a nuclear-armed Russia. Europe is still going through its worst economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. As for the U.S., although its economy is showing signs of recovery, the world's lone superpower (at least for now) is still facing a mountain of debt, which American politicians are now planning to pay off, in part, by reducing the size of their military. And as the Americans weaken their military, Russia, along with other major U.S. rivals, like China and Iran, will strengthen theirs.
What is now happening in Ukraine is only the beginning. The Crimea and eastern Ukraine are for Putin what Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland was for Hitler. And anyone who knows their history knows that allowing Hitler to take the Sudetenland did not prevent him from taking the rest of Czechoslovakia and eventually conquering most of Europe, nor will allowing Putin to take the Crimea and eastern Ukraine prevent him from taking over the entire country...and perhaps waging further conquests in the future.
Saturday, February 22, 2014
Competition Makes the World Go Round.....But Not in Canada
At the heart of freedom, capitalism and democracy is competition and the right to choose. But unfortunately in Canada, this is all too often not the case. In the Great White North, various levels of government, big corporations and powerful interest groups are out to make sure you don't get to make the choices that you deserve to make on everything from booze to what you watch on TV. And personally, I'm sick of it.
You don't have to be an avid follower of politics or current events to know when someone high up is trying to dictate the choices that you make. For example, any person who has ever purchased a case of beer or a bottle of wine in Ontario, the country's most populous province, knows that he or she can only get that case of beer or bottle of wine from the Beer Store and LCBO monopoly. Any suggestion of allowing other sources, such as supermarkets or convenience stores, to sell alcohol to the Ontario public is quickly quashed by the usual suspects: the left-wing Liberals and NDP and their big union friends who cringe at the idea of competition, because as long as Ontarians can only buy their booze from one source, the source that only employs their members, the union coffers will be full and the union bosses can continue to pig out at the trough financed by the average Ontarian.
Oh well, if we can't choose where we buy our beer and wine, maybe we'll have better luck choosing what to watch on TV....FAT CHANCE, Joe Canadian. Every one of us who has cable or satellite knows that when we pick the channels we want to watch, we don't usually get to pick and pay. Nope, the big wigs at Rogers, Shaw, Bell or Telus present us with "bundles" of channels that we have to choose from. Are you a big hockey fan who just wants to watch hockey on TV and nothing else? Tough luck, because not only will you be paying top dollar for all that hockey, but you'll also be paying for a bunch of other channels that you'll never watch. The folks at the big cable and satellite companies don't mind this arrangement because they know they'll never see competition from the likes of Time Warner or DirecTV (at least on a legal basis) since their friends in the federal government will never open the Canadian market to non-Canadian competition. It's pretty much the same with cellphone service providers. You have the big three companies, Rogers, Bell and Telus all selling plans and contracts at some of the highest rates in the industrialized world. Good luck to upstarts like Wind Mobile trying to break into the Canadian market since government red tape and foreign ownership restrictions pretty much guarantee that the big Canadian companies will continue to gouge us.
But before we blame the federal government and big cable and satellite companies for our high-priced telecommunications, we should first look at some of the interest groups that are also making our bills skyrocket. Do you think that you have to pay for channels you don't want to watch just because Rogers makes you? Think again! Government regulations require TV providers to force you to pay for channels you don't want. Why? Because powerful lobby groups, like the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting want to make sure that the folks in this country who make TV series, films and music don't have to compete with their fellow entertainment providers abroad. These folks say they're out to promote and protect Canadian content, or Can-Con for short. The problem is that they don't care how good or bad that content is, nor do they want to have to compete with content from the U.S. or any other country that might be more appealing to consumers. That's why instead of watching Comedy Central, we're stuck watching an inferior, Canadianized version called The Comedy Network. Want American channels, like the USA Network or TNT? Good luck getting them legally as long as the Can-Con watchdogs are on patrol and as long as people in government are beholden to them.
Of course, this kind of useless protectionism is not unique to the film, TV and music industries. For instance, chances are that when you have to do your banking, you'll be doing it with one of this country's big five banks: TD Canada Trust, the Bank of Montreal, CIBC, Scotiabank and Royal Bank of Canada. And as long as these big five monsters have control over the Canadian market, you'll continue having to pay outrageous fees to access your own money. Granted, we should all be thankful that our laws prevented the type of banking crises that have recently occurred in the U.S. and Europe, but I'm pretty sure that keeping the Big Five almost immune from competition was not part of what saved us from such dire circumstances.
The fact of the matter is that Canadians are sick of being gouged and having their choices limited when it comes to how they bank, watch TV or use their cellphones. So what do we do about it? Well, as in any democratic country, our first inclination is to use our hard-won right to vote to elect leaders who will bring about changes so that our bills will be lower and our choices greater. Unfortunately, it's not so simple because even our electoral choices are severely restricted by a system that discourages principle-based politics and encourages one-party government.
For those of you who don't know about how our elections work, we have what is called a winner-take-all or first-past-the-post system in which whoever gets the most votes in any riding wins the right to represent the riding in parliament, and whoever wins the most ridings gets to form the government. As for the folks who didn't vote for the winning candidates in each riding - well, their votes basically don't count. And since our system rewards parties who can manage to win the most ridings rather than the most votes, what we get are manufactured majority governments. Yes, that's right. Stephen Harper and his Conservatives have a majority in the House of Commons, but only because they won the most ridings. The majority of Canadians did not actually vote the Tories into power. In fact, Canada is one of the very few countries in the modern, democratic world that still uses this antiquated electoral system (the other two prominent examples are the U.S. and U.K.). Most other industrialized democracies use proportional representation or some kind of system that mixes proportional representation with geographical representation. I won't go into details about how these other electoral systems work. What you really need to know is that in these systems, every vote counts and the popular vote is represented fairly and accurately in national legislatures. They also produce multiparty systems with many different political groups on both ends of the political spectrum. Here in Canada, we've historically had to choose between either the Liberals or the Conservatives. Basically, it's like choosing between dumb or dumber, and it's up to you to decide which is which. Yes, the NDP is there too, but they've never taken power federally and they never will unless they water down their principles or merge with the Liberals, just like the folks in the Reform Party did when they merged with the Progressive Conservatives to form today's much less principled Conservative Party. The point is that our electoral system discourages real choice so that we only get to choose from what amount to different shades of the same colour. Sound familiar? If it does, it's probably because we have to make the same kind of choice when it comes to how you watch TV, do your banking or use your cellphone. In other words, whatever choice we're making, we always have to choose from among a few fat cats that at the end of the day are all pretty much the same.
Now I know that lately, the folks in both the government and opposition parties have talked about doing things to alleviate the lack of choice that Canadians have to deal with on several fronts. Hence, for example, new regulations putting an end to those annoying 3-year cellphone contracts. But these kinds of changes are merely cosmetic. What Canada needs is more competition so that we have more, better and cheaper options for how we watch TV, use our cellphones, do our banking, buy our booze or elect our politicians. The question is, will this ever happen? Will there be a freer market for goods, services and ideas in Canada any time soon? Not unless we take action.
I wrote this because writing is my way of taking action. There's no reason why many other people can't do the same thing. And if writing isn't your thing, there are other things you can do. For instance, if you don't like government, special interests, or big cable and satellite companies telling you what to watch on TV, cut the cord and stream your TV programs and movies from the internet. Don't like paying a fortune to the cellphone providers? Use free or cheaper services, like Skype or WhatsApp. And if you don't like bank fees, there are a growing number of outlets providing banking services without them. The point is that there are ways to get around the restrictions placed on our choices. Do some of these ways involve breaking the law? Perhaps, but as the great philosopher, Plato once said, those who are just disobey unjust laws, and in my mind, any laws that limit the choices of Canadians without a good reason are clearly unjust.
You don't have to be an avid follower of politics or current events to know when someone high up is trying to dictate the choices that you make. For example, any person who has ever purchased a case of beer or a bottle of wine in Ontario, the country's most populous province, knows that he or she can only get that case of beer or bottle of wine from the Beer Store and LCBO monopoly. Any suggestion of allowing other sources, such as supermarkets or convenience stores, to sell alcohol to the Ontario public is quickly quashed by the usual suspects: the left-wing Liberals and NDP and their big union friends who cringe at the idea of competition, because as long as Ontarians can only buy their booze from one source, the source that only employs their members, the union coffers will be full and the union bosses can continue to pig out at the trough financed by the average Ontarian.
Oh well, if we can't choose where we buy our beer and wine, maybe we'll have better luck choosing what to watch on TV....FAT CHANCE, Joe Canadian. Every one of us who has cable or satellite knows that when we pick the channels we want to watch, we don't usually get to pick and pay. Nope, the big wigs at Rogers, Shaw, Bell or Telus present us with "bundles" of channels that we have to choose from. Are you a big hockey fan who just wants to watch hockey on TV and nothing else? Tough luck, because not only will you be paying top dollar for all that hockey, but you'll also be paying for a bunch of other channels that you'll never watch. The folks at the big cable and satellite companies don't mind this arrangement because they know they'll never see competition from the likes of Time Warner or DirecTV (at least on a legal basis) since their friends in the federal government will never open the Canadian market to non-Canadian competition. It's pretty much the same with cellphone service providers. You have the big three companies, Rogers, Bell and Telus all selling plans and contracts at some of the highest rates in the industrialized world. Good luck to upstarts like Wind Mobile trying to break into the Canadian market since government red tape and foreign ownership restrictions pretty much guarantee that the big Canadian companies will continue to gouge us.
But before we blame the federal government and big cable and satellite companies for our high-priced telecommunications, we should first look at some of the interest groups that are also making our bills skyrocket. Do you think that you have to pay for channels you don't want to watch just because Rogers makes you? Think again! Government regulations require TV providers to force you to pay for channels you don't want. Why? Because powerful lobby groups, like the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting want to make sure that the folks in this country who make TV series, films and music don't have to compete with their fellow entertainment providers abroad. These folks say they're out to promote and protect Canadian content, or Can-Con for short. The problem is that they don't care how good or bad that content is, nor do they want to have to compete with content from the U.S. or any other country that might be more appealing to consumers. That's why instead of watching Comedy Central, we're stuck watching an inferior, Canadianized version called The Comedy Network. Want American channels, like the USA Network or TNT? Good luck getting them legally as long as the Can-Con watchdogs are on patrol and as long as people in government are beholden to them.
Of course, this kind of useless protectionism is not unique to the film, TV and music industries. For instance, chances are that when you have to do your banking, you'll be doing it with one of this country's big five banks: TD Canada Trust, the Bank of Montreal, CIBC, Scotiabank and Royal Bank of Canada. And as long as these big five monsters have control over the Canadian market, you'll continue having to pay outrageous fees to access your own money. Granted, we should all be thankful that our laws prevented the type of banking crises that have recently occurred in the U.S. and Europe, but I'm pretty sure that keeping the Big Five almost immune from competition was not part of what saved us from such dire circumstances.
The fact of the matter is that Canadians are sick of being gouged and having their choices limited when it comes to how they bank, watch TV or use their cellphones. So what do we do about it? Well, as in any democratic country, our first inclination is to use our hard-won right to vote to elect leaders who will bring about changes so that our bills will be lower and our choices greater. Unfortunately, it's not so simple because even our electoral choices are severely restricted by a system that discourages principle-based politics and encourages one-party government.
For those of you who don't know about how our elections work, we have what is called a winner-take-all or first-past-the-post system in which whoever gets the most votes in any riding wins the right to represent the riding in parliament, and whoever wins the most ridings gets to form the government. As for the folks who didn't vote for the winning candidates in each riding - well, their votes basically don't count. And since our system rewards parties who can manage to win the most ridings rather than the most votes, what we get are manufactured majority governments. Yes, that's right. Stephen Harper and his Conservatives have a majority in the House of Commons, but only because they won the most ridings. The majority of Canadians did not actually vote the Tories into power. In fact, Canada is one of the very few countries in the modern, democratic world that still uses this antiquated electoral system (the other two prominent examples are the U.S. and U.K.). Most other industrialized democracies use proportional representation or some kind of system that mixes proportional representation with geographical representation. I won't go into details about how these other electoral systems work. What you really need to know is that in these systems, every vote counts and the popular vote is represented fairly and accurately in national legislatures. They also produce multiparty systems with many different political groups on both ends of the political spectrum. Here in Canada, we've historically had to choose between either the Liberals or the Conservatives. Basically, it's like choosing between dumb or dumber, and it's up to you to decide which is which. Yes, the NDP is there too, but they've never taken power federally and they never will unless they water down their principles or merge with the Liberals, just like the folks in the Reform Party did when they merged with the Progressive Conservatives to form today's much less principled Conservative Party. The point is that our electoral system discourages real choice so that we only get to choose from what amount to different shades of the same colour. Sound familiar? If it does, it's probably because we have to make the same kind of choice when it comes to how you watch TV, do your banking or use your cellphone. In other words, whatever choice we're making, we always have to choose from among a few fat cats that at the end of the day are all pretty much the same.
Now I know that lately, the folks in both the government and opposition parties have talked about doing things to alleviate the lack of choice that Canadians have to deal with on several fronts. Hence, for example, new regulations putting an end to those annoying 3-year cellphone contracts. But these kinds of changes are merely cosmetic. What Canada needs is more competition so that we have more, better and cheaper options for how we watch TV, use our cellphones, do our banking, buy our booze or elect our politicians. The question is, will this ever happen? Will there be a freer market for goods, services and ideas in Canada any time soon? Not unless we take action.
I wrote this because writing is my way of taking action. There's no reason why many other people can't do the same thing. And if writing isn't your thing, there are other things you can do. For instance, if you don't like government, special interests, or big cable and satellite companies telling you what to watch on TV, cut the cord and stream your TV programs and movies from the internet. Don't like paying a fortune to the cellphone providers? Use free or cheaper services, like Skype or WhatsApp. And if you don't like bank fees, there are a growing number of outlets providing banking services without them. The point is that there are ways to get around the restrictions placed on our choices. Do some of these ways involve breaking the law? Perhaps, but as the great philosopher, Plato once said, those who are just disobey unjust laws, and in my mind, any laws that limit the choices of Canadians without a good reason are clearly unjust.
Monday, February 17, 2014
American Jewry Not Going Anywhere, So Stop the Panic Attacks Already!
I recently came across an article in an Israeli publication saying that American Jewry could cease to exist within a generation:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4488219,00.html
The headline is very unnerving, especially if you don't go on and read the whole article, which doesn't actually say that U.S. Jewry won't exist within the next generation, but rather that the majority of U.S. Jews will not be considered Jewish under the Halacha, or Jewish religious law. This law requires that a person have a Jewish mother for him or her to be considered Jewish. My immediate reaction to this impending reality is this: so what!?
Now, you may be asking why I'm so dismissive of this issue and why I'm not worried about the fate of U.S. Jewry (or Canadian Jewry for that matter). One reason is simply that the Jewish communities in both the U.S. and Canada have never been stronger and more vibrant. Only Israel has a larger Jewish community than the U.S. In fact, it was only a few years ago that Israel's Jewish population eclipsed that of American Jews.
Another reason is that in this day and age, I don't think we need rabbis telling us who is a Jew and who isn't, and I think there are many American (and Canadian) Jews who will agree with me on this. Unfortunately, there are still quite a few people that still think that there is only one way to be Jewish. This is particularly the case in Israel where Orthodox Judaism continues to retain a monopoly on the personal status of the country's Jewish citizens. I am Israeli myself and I honestly can't stand the fact that my country gladly accepts the moral and financial support of Diaspora Jews, but then says to these Jews that the State of Israel does not consider them Jewish because they belong to a non-Orthodox congregation. Such hypocrisy is beyond me. In fact, all non-Orthodox Jews in the Diaspora could conceivably withhold their support for Israel based on the fact that the way they practice Judaism is not accepted by the Jewish state, and this withdrawal of support would be legitimate. But of course, neither I nor any other person who values the continued existence of the Jewish nation would advocate such a boycott because we know how important Israel is to the present and the future of the Jewish people, despite its shortcomings.
Yes, I understand that many Jews are concerned about preserving Jewish identity. All peoples of the world are concerned with maintaining their identities, especially peoples whose very existence has been historically threatened. I still contend, however, that as Jews, we need to be less rigid about who we consider to be members of our community. So I reject the notion that to be Jewish is to shun everything that is not Jewish. Such intolerance and rigidity leads not to the continued growth and prosperity of a people, but rather to its demise. I point to the dwindling Samaritan community in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) as a case in point. Because of their refusal to welcome others into their community and their refusal to be less rigid about who they consider to be members of their community, their ability to grow and replenish their population has been extremely impaired, even to the extent that birth defects among their people are becoming more and more common since the members of the sect refuse to intermarry. This is certainly not the future that we want for the Jewish people.
For those of you who are having a panic attack because you hear about growing rates of intermarriage and Jews with Christmas trees in their homes, your extreme anxiety is unwarranted, and I'll explain why. Some of you may be old enough to remember the when you were forced to say the Lord's Prayer in school and when saying, "Merry Christmas", was a lot more common than the more politically correct "Happy Holidays". Ask yourself, did saying the Lord's Prayer or partaking in the celebrations of another religion's holidays make you any less of a Jew? My mother recited the Lord's Prayer when she went to school. In fact, she even allowed the nannies who lived with us during my childhood to have a Christmas tree in our home, and she didn't have any issue taking me or my siblings to the mall during the holidays to sit on Santa's knee. Yet, my mother is a strong advocate of preserving Jewish traditions, whether that means celebrating Jewish holidays, like Passover and Rosh Hashana, or simply remembering to light candles on Friday nights. My point is that being immersed in other cultures and traditions does not have to make you less Jewish, unless of course you allow it to.
Also, contrary to what many Jews still believe, I do not feel that it is necessary to belong to a synagogue to maintain your Jewishness in the Diaspora. Yes, the synagogue is still a main focal point for Jewish communal life, but it certainly isn't the only one. There are countless Jewish clubs, societies, associations and other groups throughout the U.S. and Canada that Jews can be participate in if they want to feel part of the greater Jewish community. Hence, it is not necessary for a Jewish individual or family to spend a small fortune every year to be members of a synagogue.
In fact, I even think it is possible to be a Jew without being one from a religious aspect. Yes, that means I think it is possible for someone to be a Jew while adhering to another religion or without adhering to any religion at all. For those of you who are familiar with Jewish history, you know that in ancient times, Jews adhered to other religious traditions aside from their own and yet remained Jews in an ethnic and cultural sense. I should also mention that intermarriage was not shunned, even by our greatest leaders. King Solomon, for example, married the daughter of Egypt's Pharaoh to cement an alliance with his kingdom's southern neighbour. And let's not forget his famous love affair with the Queen of Sheba. Coming back to our own time, we should remember that many leaders and organizations in the Zionist movement shunned religious traditions and preferred to focus on the cultural aspects of being Jewish. So if our ancestors, both in the ancient and near past, could define being Jewish as something other than observing religious traditions, why can't we?
Don't get me wrong, I think being concerned about the continued existence of the Jewish people is perfectly reasonable. But the threats to our existence come from dictators who talk of wiping our country off the map and from terrorists and antisemites who attack us and our cultural and religious institutions, not from people who aren't going to synagogue enough or who marry non-Jewish spouses.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4488219,00.html
The headline is very unnerving, especially if you don't go on and read the whole article, which doesn't actually say that U.S. Jewry won't exist within the next generation, but rather that the majority of U.S. Jews will not be considered Jewish under the Halacha, or Jewish religious law. This law requires that a person have a Jewish mother for him or her to be considered Jewish. My immediate reaction to this impending reality is this: so what!?
Now, you may be asking why I'm so dismissive of this issue and why I'm not worried about the fate of U.S. Jewry (or Canadian Jewry for that matter). One reason is simply that the Jewish communities in both the U.S. and Canada have never been stronger and more vibrant. Only Israel has a larger Jewish community than the U.S. In fact, it was only a few years ago that Israel's Jewish population eclipsed that of American Jews.
Another reason is that in this day and age, I don't think we need rabbis telling us who is a Jew and who isn't, and I think there are many American (and Canadian) Jews who will agree with me on this. Unfortunately, there are still quite a few people that still think that there is only one way to be Jewish. This is particularly the case in Israel where Orthodox Judaism continues to retain a monopoly on the personal status of the country's Jewish citizens. I am Israeli myself and I honestly can't stand the fact that my country gladly accepts the moral and financial support of Diaspora Jews, but then says to these Jews that the State of Israel does not consider them Jewish because they belong to a non-Orthodox congregation. Such hypocrisy is beyond me. In fact, all non-Orthodox Jews in the Diaspora could conceivably withhold their support for Israel based on the fact that the way they practice Judaism is not accepted by the Jewish state, and this withdrawal of support would be legitimate. But of course, neither I nor any other person who values the continued existence of the Jewish nation would advocate such a boycott because we know how important Israel is to the present and the future of the Jewish people, despite its shortcomings.
Yes, I understand that many Jews are concerned about preserving Jewish identity. All peoples of the world are concerned with maintaining their identities, especially peoples whose very existence has been historically threatened. I still contend, however, that as Jews, we need to be less rigid about who we consider to be members of our community. So I reject the notion that to be Jewish is to shun everything that is not Jewish. Such intolerance and rigidity leads not to the continued growth and prosperity of a people, but rather to its demise. I point to the dwindling Samaritan community in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) as a case in point. Because of their refusal to welcome others into their community and their refusal to be less rigid about who they consider to be members of their community, their ability to grow and replenish their population has been extremely impaired, even to the extent that birth defects among their people are becoming more and more common since the members of the sect refuse to intermarry. This is certainly not the future that we want for the Jewish people.
For those of you who are having a panic attack because you hear about growing rates of intermarriage and Jews with Christmas trees in their homes, your extreme anxiety is unwarranted, and I'll explain why. Some of you may be old enough to remember the when you were forced to say the Lord's Prayer in school and when saying, "Merry Christmas", was a lot more common than the more politically correct "Happy Holidays". Ask yourself, did saying the Lord's Prayer or partaking in the celebrations of another religion's holidays make you any less of a Jew? My mother recited the Lord's Prayer when she went to school. In fact, she even allowed the nannies who lived with us during my childhood to have a Christmas tree in our home, and she didn't have any issue taking me or my siblings to the mall during the holidays to sit on Santa's knee. Yet, my mother is a strong advocate of preserving Jewish traditions, whether that means celebrating Jewish holidays, like Passover and Rosh Hashana, or simply remembering to light candles on Friday nights. My point is that being immersed in other cultures and traditions does not have to make you less Jewish, unless of course you allow it to.
Also, contrary to what many Jews still believe, I do not feel that it is necessary to belong to a synagogue to maintain your Jewishness in the Diaspora. Yes, the synagogue is still a main focal point for Jewish communal life, but it certainly isn't the only one. There are countless Jewish clubs, societies, associations and other groups throughout the U.S. and Canada that Jews can be participate in if they want to feel part of the greater Jewish community. Hence, it is not necessary for a Jewish individual or family to spend a small fortune every year to be members of a synagogue.
In fact, I even think it is possible to be a Jew without being one from a religious aspect. Yes, that means I think it is possible for someone to be a Jew while adhering to another religion or without adhering to any religion at all. For those of you who are familiar with Jewish history, you know that in ancient times, Jews adhered to other religious traditions aside from their own and yet remained Jews in an ethnic and cultural sense. I should also mention that intermarriage was not shunned, even by our greatest leaders. King Solomon, for example, married the daughter of Egypt's Pharaoh to cement an alliance with his kingdom's southern neighbour. And let's not forget his famous love affair with the Queen of Sheba. Coming back to our own time, we should remember that many leaders and organizations in the Zionist movement shunned religious traditions and preferred to focus on the cultural aspects of being Jewish. So if our ancestors, both in the ancient and near past, could define being Jewish as something other than observing religious traditions, why can't we?
Don't get me wrong, I think being concerned about the continued existence of the Jewish people is perfectly reasonable. But the threats to our existence come from dictators who talk of wiping our country off the map and from terrorists and antisemites who attack us and our cultural and religious institutions, not from people who aren't going to synagogue enough or who marry non-Jewish spouses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)