If you want to know what Canada with Justin Trudeau as prime minister would look like, you need look no further than my home province of Ontario, where the provincial Liberal Party has been in power since 2003. So what does Ontario look like after over a decade of Liberal rule? Do you really want to know the answer to that question? Okay, but don't say I didn't warn you.
Ontario under the Liberals has suffered from years and years of fiscal mismanagement and scandal after scandal. As soon as they came to power, the Liberals didn't waste any time in tearing the province apart. The first major blow came shortly after Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty was elected. One of his first moves was to bring in a very large new tax known as the Health Premium. According to the National Citizens Coalition, this amounted to the largest tax grab in Ontario's history - and from a party that promised not to raise taxes if it was elected. Then came the HST and skyrocketing hydro rates. Indeed, ever since the Liberals came to power, Ontarians just can't get a break from their seemingly endless money grabs. The results? Lost jobs, lost businesses and a lot of pain for the average Ontario taxpayer.
Worse still, the Liberals have squandered Ontarians' tax dollars in one fiasco after another. If you live in Ontario and follow provincial politics, terms like eHealth, gas plants and smart meters all provoke the memories of scandals that cost the province and its taxpayers billions of dollars. Ontario's debt has more than doubled, its debt-to-GDP ratio has risen significantly and its credit rating has been downgraded. But what does this have to do with Justin Trudeau and the federal Liberals? A lot, unfortunately.
Trudeau is basically pitching the same kind of tax and spend policies that have run Ontario into the ground for over a decade. He's announced plans to run budget deficits for the next four years if he becomes prime minister. Clearly, he's not afraid of a backlash by more fiscally prudent-minded voters. And why should he be? After all, running big deficits and racking up debt has unfortunately not hurt the Ontario Liberals. Heck, they went from a minority government to a majority in the last election! The question is, will all of Canada make the same mistake that Ontario voters have made three times already? I sincerely hope not, because just as the provincial Liberals under Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne have made Ontario a have-not province, their federal cousins under Justin Trudeau will make Canada a have-not country.
Sunday, August 30, 2015
Friday, August 28, 2015
Canada Votes 2015
Well Canada, it's that time again. Time to stand up and make your voices heard at the ballot box. So is anything different in this federal election than in previous ones? On the surface, not much. The issues are pretty much the same. The economy, health care, and so forth. Also the same are our choices. As in other elections prior, our choice is primarily between the three fat cat parties, the Conservatives, the Liberals and the New Democratic Party, whose leaders are all equally uninspiring. Yes, there are other players, such as the Green Party and the Bloc Quebecois, not to mention a bunch of other fringe parties that most Canadians have never heard of. But in a country that still uses the unfair and antiquated first-past-the-post, winner-take-all electoral system, none of these parties have a chance of forming the next government or even taking part in it. Most of them will be lucky just to win seats in the next parliament.
And as if our electoral system doesn't make our elections unfair enough, the current government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper has changed the rules so that this year's election might be the most unfair in Canada's recent history. For starters, the election campaign is a record eleven weeks long. Why does this matter? Because the Tories have more campaign funds than the Liberals and New Democrats combined, so they are much more capable of sustaining an effective, long-term campaign than their challengers. The Tories have also phased out the per-vote subsidy, public funds that were allocated to political parties based on the number of votes they garnered in the past election. This subsidy helped small parties like the Greens compete in an electoral system that heavily favours large parties with deep pockets. To make a long story short, the Conservatives have stacked the rules in their favour and made it a lot harder for the opposition parties to remove them from power, not to mention the fact that they've spent millions of our tax dollars on partisan government advertising that has essentially given them a giant head start over their challengers in winning the hearts and minds of Canadian voters. Still, the latest polls show a tight, three-way race between the main parties with many voters undecided, hence Stephen Harper, Justin Trudeau and Tom Mulcair, the leaders of the Conservatives, the Liberals and the New Democrats respectively, all have a chance to become Canada's next Prime Minister. So what do I have to say about these three uninspiring party leaders? Plenty, believe me.
Stephen Harper: The Increasingly Arrogant Incumbent
I have traditionally supported our current prime minister, especially in matters related to foreign policy. But over the last year or two, he's been trying my patience with his growing arrogance. He's been arrogant with our tax dollars, spending millions of them on partisan ads promoting his so-called Economic Action Plan. Some action plan, Mr. Prime Minister! You put all of Canada's eggs in one basket, relying solely on oil to fuel the country's economic growth. So now since the oil boom has become a bust, what's your plan for the future? I'm still waiting for an answer, and until I hear one, I'm going to assume that your arrogance has blinded you to the needs of anyone who lives and works outside of the oil patch.
Unfortunately, the only thing Prime Minister Harper has been good at of late is bribing Canadians with their own tax dollars, promising bigger tax cuts; tax cuts that will see more money flow mostly into the pockets of wealthy Canadians instead of into programs and initiatives that will give help to those who really need it. Universal prescription drug coverage? Affordable childcare? Dream on, Canada! Prime Minister Harper needs to feed his wealthy friends.
Justin Trudeau: The Little Boy Who Won't Grow Up
I want to be honest with everyone reading this. I hate the Liberal Party. I have for ages. Furthermore, I have never voted Liberal in any federal election and I don't know if I ever will, especially when the party is headed by a juvenile incompetent like Justin Trudeau. The current Liberal leader is essentially a wannabe. He seeks nothing more than to fill the shoes of his father, the late Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Personally, I think that if he didn't share his father's last name, he wouldn't even be on the map as far as Canada's political scene is concerned. Moreover, the only trait that Justin seems to have taken from his father is his arrogance. Yes, I believe that Justin is just as arrogant as his father was, if not more so. The big difference is that Pierre Trudeau actually had a vision for Canada, whereas his son Justin does not. Actually, having original ideas is very uncharacteristic of the federal Liberal Party outside of the Pierre Trudeau era. The federal Liberals have a history of stealing ideas from the New Democrats and Conservatives and winning election campaigns with them. So in a way, Justin Trudeau is the perfect leader for the Liberals. He is certainly not, however, a good candidate to be Prime Minister of this great country we call Canada.
Worst still, the young Trudeau knows nothing about what it takes to govern a country. He's never held a post in any government on any level. He can't even hack it as an ordinary Member of Parliament. If he could, he wouldn't have held the infamous distinction of having the worst attendance record of any MP. So inasmuch as you may be annoyed by those frequent Conservative ads saying that Justin Trudeau is "just not ready", the truth is that he isn't ready in any way, shape or form to be the next Prime Minister of Canada.
Tom Mulcair: A Liberal Pretending to be a New Democrat?
If I didn't know better, I'd swear that NDP leader Tom Mulcair was actually a Liberal. Much to the chagrin of some NDP faithful, Mulcair is probably the most centrist of leaders in the history of the party. In fact, he used to be a Liberal, at least at the provincial level, having served as a member of Quebec's National Assembly since the mid-90's and eventually making his way into the provincial cabinet. He actually became a New Democrat less than ten years ago, winning a federal by-election in a Quebec riding in 2007. Now of course, it is certainly not uncommon for politicians to switch allegiances, but the question I have to ask is, does Mulcair actually believe in the traditional left-wing principles of the NDP, or is he just disguising himself, campaigning like a New Democrat, but planning on governing like a Liberal if he wins the election?
Pick Your Poison, Canada
Well, there you have it. We get to choose between an incumbent prime minister, who doesn't seem to care about anyone without deep pockets, an inexperienced young buck who is so bereft of ideas on how to run this country that he makes everything up on the fly, and a guy who wraps himself in NDP orange, perhaps only to cover up the Liberal red underneath. Isn't democracy great!?
And as if our electoral system doesn't make our elections unfair enough, the current government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper has changed the rules so that this year's election might be the most unfair in Canada's recent history. For starters, the election campaign is a record eleven weeks long. Why does this matter? Because the Tories have more campaign funds than the Liberals and New Democrats combined, so they are much more capable of sustaining an effective, long-term campaign than their challengers. The Tories have also phased out the per-vote subsidy, public funds that were allocated to political parties based on the number of votes they garnered in the past election. This subsidy helped small parties like the Greens compete in an electoral system that heavily favours large parties with deep pockets. To make a long story short, the Conservatives have stacked the rules in their favour and made it a lot harder for the opposition parties to remove them from power, not to mention the fact that they've spent millions of our tax dollars on partisan government advertising that has essentially given them a giant head start over their challengers in winning the hearts and minds of Canadian voters. Still, the latest polls show a tight, three-way race between the main parties with many voters undecided, hence Stephen Harper, Justin Trudeau and Tom Mulcair, the leaders of the Conservatives, the Liberals and the New Democrats respectively, all have a chance to become Canada's next Prime Minister. So what do I have to say about these three uninspiring party leaders? Plenty, believe me.
Stephen Harper: The Increasingly Arrogant Incumbent
I have traditionally supported our current prime minister, especially in matters related to foreign policy. But over the last year or two, he's been trying my patience with his growing arrogance. He's been arrogant with our tax dollars, spending millions of them on partisan ads promoting his so-called Economic Action Plan. Some action plan, Mr. Prime Minister! You put all of Canada's eggs in one basket, relying solely on oil to fuel the country's economic growth. So now since the oil boom has become a bust, what's your plan for the future? I'm still waiting for an answer, and until I hear one, I'm going to assume that your arrogance has blinded you to the needs of anyone who lives and works outside of the oil patch.
Unfortunately, the only thing Prime Minister Harper has been good at of late is bribing Canadians with their own tax dollars, promising bigger tax cuts; tax cuts that will see more money flow mostly into the pockets of wealthy Canadians instead of into programs and initiatives that will give help to those who really need it. Universal prescription drug coverage? Affordable childcare? Dream on, Canada! Prime Minister Harper needs to feed his wealthy friends.
Justin Trudeau: The Little Boy Who Won't Grow Up
I want to be honest with everyone reading this. I hate the Liberal Party. I have for ages. Furthermore, I have never voted Liberal in any federal election and I don't know if I ever will, especially when the party is headed by a juvenile incompetent like Justin Trudeau. The current Liberal leader is essentially a wannabe. He seeks nothing more than to fill the shoes of his father, the late Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Personally, I think that if he didn't share his father's last name, he wouldn't even be on the map as far as Canada's political scene is concerned. Moreover, the only trait that Justin seems to have taken from his father is his arrogance. Yes, I believe that Justin is just as arrogant as his father was, if not more so. The big difference is that Pierre Trudeau actually had a vision for Canada, whereas his son Justin does not. Actually, having original ideas is very uncharacteristic of the federal Liberal Party outside of the Pierre Trudeau era. The federal Liberals have a history of stealing ideas from the New Democrats and Conservatives and winning election campaigns with them. So in a way, Justin Trudeau is the perfect leader for the Liberals. He is certainly not, however, a good candidate to be Prime Minister of this great country we call Canada.
Worst still, the young Trudeau knows nothing about what it takes to govern a country. He's never held a post in any government on any level. He can't even hack it as an ordinary Member of Parliament. If he could, he wouldn't have held the infamous distinction of having the worst attendance record of any MP. So inasmuch as you may be annoyed by those frequent Conservative ads saying that Justin Trudeau is "just not ready", the truth is that he isn't ready in any way, shape or form to be the next Prime Minister of Canada.
Tom Mulcair: A Liberal Pretending to be a New Democrat?
If I didn't know better, I'd swear that NDP leader Tom Mulcair was actually a Liberal. Much to the chagrin of some NDP faithful, Mulcair is probably the most centrist of leaders in the history of the party. In fact, he used to be a Liberal, at least at the provincial level, having served as a member of Quebec's National Assembly since the mid-90's and eventually making his way into the provincial cabinet. He actually became a New Democrat less than ten years ago, winning a federal by-election in a Quebec riding in 2007. Now of course, it is certainly not uncommon for politicians to switch allegiances, but the question I have to ask is, does Mulcair actually believe in the traditional left-wing principles of the NDP, or is he just disguising himself, campaigning like a New Democrat, but planning on governing like a Liberal if he wins the election?
Pick Your Poison, Canada
Well, there you have it. We get to choose between an incumbent prime minister, who doesn't seem to care about anyone without deep pockets, an inexperienced young buck who is so bereft of ideas on how to run this country that he makes everything up on the fly, and a guy who wraps himself in NDP orange, perhaps only to cover up the Liberal red underneath. Isn't democracy great!?
Monday, July 20, 2015
Are Jews and Arabs Really So Different?
I think it's ironic that Jews and Arabs currently find themselves in such a divisive conflict, because the truth is that we're not that different from one another. In fact, we share several attributes in common, starting with our origins. For those of you who know your Bible, you're probably familiar with the story of Abraham, which is found in the Book of Genesis. Abraham is considered a patriarchal figure by both Jews and Arabs. Why? Because both Arabs and Jews are descendants of Abraham's offspring. The Arabs are the direct descendants of Ishmael, Abraham's first born son. The Jews are the direct descendants of Jacob, whose father was Isaac, Abraham's second born son. Hence, the Jews and Arabs are cousins.
It is probably no coincidence then, that Jews and Arabs have similar languages. Any linguistics expert who is familiar with the languages of Africa and the Middle East will tell you that Hebrew and Arabic are both in the same family of languages - the Semitic family. And as someone who has studied both Hebrew and Arabic, I can tell you that the two languages are very often quite similar to each other. Many of the words are either the same or at least somewhat similar. I can still remember how much easier it was for me to learn Arabic than it was for the others I studied it with since I already had a working knowledge of Hebrew at the time. I also had a work colleague from Egypt who said that she took a Hebrew course and achieved a grade in the high 90s because, as she told me, the two languages are very similar and knowing one makes it a lot easier to learn the other. Those of you who have studied languages probably know that studying a new language is a whole lot easier if you already know a language of the same linguistic family.
So Jews and Arabs clearly have commonalities in both origins and language, but our similarities don't stop there. Jews and Arabs also share various cultural traits and values. For example, both Jews and Arabs in general have the frequent tendency to use hand gestures to communicate. This is a cultural trait that is common not just amongst Jews and Arabs, but amongst all Mediterranean cultures, including the Italians, Maltese and Greeks. Jews and Arabs also share another commonality with other Mediterranean cultures in that both peoples have a very special relationship with food. If you've ever been to a meal in a Jewish or Arab home, you'll understand what I mean. Indeed, if you do get the opportunity to be hosted by a Jewish or Arab family, you'll quickly find out that food is big part of our common tradition of hospitality. Now of course, being hospitable is not something distinct to Jews and Arabs, but I would say that the two peoples are more well-known for it than others. Jews and Arabs also both have a long tradition of being very family-oriented. I can tell you from personal experience that for many Jews and Arabs, the family is the number one priority.
The fact of the matter is that Jews and Arabs have more similarities than they do differences. Unfortunately, it is the differences between the two peoples that the Arab-Israeli conflict has magnified. These differences are mainly political, though there is one other important factor that has divided the children of Abraham: The fact that while the Arabs have remained in their homeland, we the Jews were largely exiled from ours for approximately two thousand years. Why is this important? Well, a lot can happen to a people when they are dispersed and largely absent from their original homeland for two millennia. One thing that happen was that the Jewish people, particularly those of us who lived in the Western world, went through cultural, linguistic and even racial changes. We were also exposed to modern, Western ideas that had largely not yet made their way to the Middle East. Hence, by the time we Jews began returning to the Land of Israel, we and our Arab cousins didn't recognize each other anymore. The Arabs looked at us and saw just another wave of European colonizers, while we looked at them and saw a primitive people who had no grasp of modern civilization as it was understood in the eyes of Europeans. So what should have been a joyful family reunion instead became the beginning of a long and bitter family feud - a feud that I hope will soon come to a peaceful end.
It is probably no coincidence then, that Jews and Arabs have similar languages. Any linguistics expert who is familiar with the languages of Africa and the Middle East will tell you that Hebrew and Arabic are both in the same family of languages - the Semitic family. And as someone who has studied both Hebrew and Arabic, I can tell you that the two languages are very often quite similar to each other. Many of the words are either the same or at least somewhat similar. I can still remember how much easier it was for me to learn Arabic than it was for the others I studied it with since I already had a working knowledge of Hebrew at the time. I also had a work colleague from Egypt who said that she took a Hebrew course and achieved a grade in the high 90s because, as she told me, the two languages are very similar and knowing one makes it a lot easier to learn the other. Those of you who have studied languages probably know that studying a new language is a whole lot easier if you already know a language of the same linguistic family.
So Jews and Arabs clearly have commonalities in both origins and language, but our similarities don't stop there. Jews and Arabs also share various cultural traits and values. For example, both Jews and Arabs in general have the frequent tendency to use hand gestures to communicate. This is a cultural trait that is common not just amongst Jews and Arabs, but amongst all Mediterranean cultures, including the Italians, Maltese and Greeks. Jews and Arabs also share another commonality with other Mediterranean cultures in that both peoples have a very special relationship with food. If you've ever been to a meal in a Jewish or Arab home, you'll understand what I mean. Indeed, if you do get the opportunity to be hosted by a Jewish or Arab family, you'll quickly find out that food is big part of our common tradition of hospitality. Now of course, being hospitable is not something distinct to Jews and Arabs, but I would say that the two peoples are more well-known for it than others. Jews and Arabs also both have a long tradition of being very family-oriented. I can tell you from personal experience that for many Jews and Arabs, the family is the number one priority.
The fact of the matter is that Jews and Arabs have more similarities than they do differences. Unfortunately, it is the differences between the two peoples that the Arab-Israeli conflict has magnified. These differences are mainly political, though there is one other important factor that has divided the children of Abraham: The fact that while the Arabs have remained in their homeland, we the Jews were largely exiled from ours for approximately two thousand years. Why is this important? Well, a lot can happen to a people when they are dispersed and largely absent from their original homeland for two millennia. One thing that happen was that the Jewish people, particularly those of us who lived in the Western world, went through cultural, linguistic and even racial changes. We were also exposed to modern, Western ideas that had largely not yet made their way to the Middle East. Hence, by the time we Jews began returning to the Land of Israel, we and our Arab cousins didn't recognize each other anymore. The Arabs looked at us and saw just another wave of European colonizers, while we looked at them and saw a primitive people who had no grasp of modern civilization as it was understood in the eyes of Europeans. So what should have been a joyful family reunion instead became the beginning of a long and bitter family feud - a feud that I hope will soon come to a peaceful end.
Sunday, July 19, 2015
Building a True Peace Between Israel and its Arab Neighbours
In my last blog post, Iran Nuclear Deal is Bad, Bad, Bad!, I concluded that now is the time for Israel and the Arab world to bury the hatchet for the sake of collective security against an Islamic Republic of Iran that will surely emerge much stronger and much more dangerous after sanctions are lifted. So how can the decades-old Israeli-Arab conflict be brought to an end? Most people who have at least a general understanding of politics in the Middle East will probably say that the key to resolving the conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbours lies in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I do agree that without an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, a comprehensive peace between Israel and the Arab states is unachievable, but I also believe that even if and when such an agreement is reached, there will still not be true peace between Jews and Arabs. What do I mean by "true peace"? I mean a peace in which Jews and Arabs respect not just their mutual borders, but also each other.
Right now only two Arab states, Egypt and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, have peace agreements with Israel and have since established diplomatic and economic relations. But it is a cold peace at best. The fact of the matter is that Israel is still viewed as the enemy by the general public in both Egypt and Jordan just as it is in the other Arab states that do not recognize Israel. Ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may bring peace between the Israeli and Arab governments, but it won't immediately bring peace between the Jewish and Arab peoples. For Jews and Arabs to be at peace with each other, both peoples will have to change how they see each other.
Promotion of Discriminatory and Racist Attitudes Must End
Unless you've been living under a rock, you probably know that Jews and Arabs in the Middle East don't view each other very fondly. In the Arab world, for example, it is quite easy to get a hold of anti-Jewish writings, such as Hitler's Mein Kampf or the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Holocaust denial in the Arab world is also rampant. Television and newspapers in the Arab states are full of anti-Jewish stereotypes. Worse still, it is not uncommon for Arab media outlets to promote and encourage the killing of Israelis and Jews in general. The amount of Jew-hatred in the Arab world is actually ironic since very few Jews now live in the Arab states where there were once hundreds of thousands of them. The reason for this? Repeated campaigns in various Arab countries to murder Jews, expel them and seize their property. Indeed, the Jewish exodus from the Arab states following the creation of the State of Israel is just as worthy of attention as the plight of Palestinian refugees, if not more so. Unfortunately, the international community doesn't see it that way.
Anti-Arab racism certainly exists in Israel, but not to the extent that Jew-hatred exists in the Arab world. Whereas those who advocate expelling Arabs from Israel or killing them just because they are Arabs are on the margins of Israeli society, those who advocate killing Jews and Israelis and wiping Israel off the map are considered mainstream in the Arab world. Hence, although Israel does have to make more of an effort to root out racism amongst its people, the Arab states have a far greater task in erasing Jew-hatred from the minds of their citizens. Until now, unfortunately, the governments in the Arab states have only been fueling Jew-hatred, and this has to end if Arabs are ever to view their Jewish cousins with respect.
Historical Narratives Must be Respected
Both the Jews and the Arabs have a different view of history in regards to the creation of Israel and the Israeli-Arab conflict. For example, Jews view the creation of Israel as the fulfillment of the Zionist enterprise to restore Jewish independence for the first time in two thousand years. The Arabs, in contrast, view the creation of the State of Israel as a tragedy, or Nakba, in which hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs were expelled from their homes and made into refugees. The fact is that although ethnic cleansing was certainly not the agenda of the leaders of the new State of Israel, expulsions did take place, crimes were committed against the Palestinian Arab population and much of their property was seized. It is also true that throughout Israeli history, different Israeli governments have sought to erase the country's Arab heritage through various means. Many Palestinian villages were destroyed and replaced with Jewish communities. More recently, some Israeli politicians have sought to prevent Palestinian Arab citizens in Israel from commemorating what they view as the Nakba.
Meanwhile, the Arab world still refuses to recognize any modern Jewish connection to what they call Palestine. Many Arabs, for instance, refuse to acknowledge that the holy Jewish temple that once housed the Ark of the Covenant once stood on the grounds where the Muslim Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa mosque are now. And whereas Israel has accepted the principle of compensation for Palestinian refugees, I have yet to hear even one statement from a leader in the Arab world acknowledging the crimes committed against hundreds of thousands of Jews in Arab countries who were murdered, expelled and/or deprived of their property, let alone talk of compensation for these people.
For a true peace between Arabs and Jews to exist, both peoples must acknowledge the crimes that they have committed against each other. In fact, if and when Israel does establish relations with the Arab states, both sides should look to set up a truth and reconciliation commission similar to that of post-Apartheid South Africa, so that witnesses can come and testify as to the crimes allegedly committed against them, and the alleged perpetrators can acknowledge their wrongdoings without fear of prosecution. There must also be fair compensation and/or restitution not just for the Palestinian refugees, but also for the Jews who were expelled from Arab countries and deprived of their land and possessions.
Both Arabs and Jews must also stop trying to negate the heritage of one another in the Holy Land. For the Arabs, this means recognizing that the Jewish people have the right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland and that the State of Israel is the embodiment of that right. It also means acknowledging the historical legacy of Jews in the Arab states, including the future state of Palestine. For Jews, it means making efforts to acknowledge the history of the Palestinian Arabs in parts of Israel where they are no longer present. For example, it would be a good idea for Israel to create a memorial at the site where the village of Deir Yassin used to be in order to acknowledge the existence of the previous Palestinian Arab inhabitants and the massacre that occurred there at the hands of Zionist militia.
I believe that the Jewish and Arab peoples both have the right to their own perspectives on history, especially as it concerns the Israeli-Arab conflict. So if, for example, the Arabs want to view the creation of the State of Israel as an event that brought misery to the Palestinian people, then they should be entitled to this opinion, just as much as Jews should be entitled to view Israel's creation as a positive event in their history. The Arabs cannot and must not, however, use the way they see Israel's creation as pretext to delegitimize the existence of the state, for it is the embodiment of the Jewish people's inalienable right to self-determination. They also cannot and must not deny historical fact, which includes but is not necessarily limited to denying the fact that the Holocaust did take place. In the same respect, Jews cannot and must not deny that crimes were committed against the Palestinian Arabs during efforts to create and maintain the State of Israel. The fact of the matter is that there can only be true peace between the children of Abraham once Jews and Arabs are prepared to respect and tolerate the way each of them perceives their history.
When True Peace Between Jew and Arab Comes, so will Collective Security
Creating an environment in which Jews and Arabs view each other with respect will allow Israel and the Arab states to form a strategic alliance against the terrorist menace that is the Islamic Republic of Iran. Such an alliance is vital as Iran presents an existential threat to all the independent states of the Middle East region. It is my hope that upon ending their conflict once and for all, Israel and its Arab neighbours, or at least those not under the proxy control of Iran, will unite to form this alliance - a military alliance similar to NATO. One that obligates each of its members to defend one another from external threats, whether those threats come from Iran or anywhere else. If the countries of the Middle East can put aside their differences and create this strategic military pact, it will be much harder for the Islamist regime in Iran to achieve the dominance of the region that it seeks. If they fail to do so, however, the Iranians can start picking off each independent Middle Eastern state one by one, and before you know it, the flags of Iran's Islamo-fascist rulers will be flying over the capitals of Baghdad, Riyadh, Jerusalem and so forth. So I sincerely hope that the leaders of the Middle East will choose to pursue unity over division.
Right now only two Arab states, Egypt and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, have peace agreements with Israel and have since established diplomatic and economic relations. But it is a cold peace at best. The fact of the matter is that Israel is still viewed as the enemy by the general public in both Egypt and Jordan just as it is in the other Arab states that do not recognize Israel. Ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may bring peace between the Israeli and Arab governments, but it won't immediately bring peace between the Jewish and Arab peoples. For Jews and Arabs to be at peace with each other, both peoples will have to change how they see each other.
Promotion of Discriminatory and Racist Attitudes Must End
Unless you've been living under a rock, you probably know that Jews and Arabs in the Middle East don't view each other very fondly. In the Arab world, for example, it is quite easy to get a hold of anti-Jewish writings, such as Hitler's Mein Kampf or the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Holocaust denial in the Arab world is also rampant. Television and newspapers in the Arab states are full of anti-Jewish stereotypes. Worse still, it is not uncommon for Arab media outlets to promote and encourage the killing of Israelis and Jews in general. The amount of Jew-hatred in the Arab world is actually ironic since very few Jews now live in the Arab states where there were once hundreds of thousands of them. The reason for this? Repeated campaigns in various Arab countries to murder Jews, expel them and seize their property. Indeed, the Jewish exodus from the Arab states following the creation of the State of Israel is just as worthy of attention as the plight of Palestinian refugees, if not more so. Unfortunately, the international community doesn't see it that way.
Anti-Arab racism certainly exists in Israel, but not to the extent that Jew-hatred exists in the Arab world. Whereas those who advocate expelling Arabs from Israel or killing them just because they are Arabs are on the margins of Israeli society, those who advocate killing Jews and Israelis and wiping Israel off the map are considered mainstream in the Arab world. Hence, although Israel does have to make more of an effort to root out racism amongst its people, the Arab states have a far greater task in erasing Jew-hatred from the minds of their citizens. Until now, unfortunately, the governments in the Arab states have only been fueling Jew-hatred, and this has to end if Arabs are ever to view their Jewish cousins with respect.
Historical Narratives Must be Respected
Both the Jews and the Arabs have a different view of history in regards to the creation of Israel and the Israeli-Arab conflict. For example, Jews view the creation of Israel as the fulfillment of the Zionist enterprise to restore Jewish independence for the first time in two thousand years. The Arabs, in contrast, view the creation of the State of Israel as a tragedy, or Nakba, in which hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs were expelled from their homes and made into refugees. The fact is that although ethnic cleansing was certainly not the agenda of the leaders of the new State of Israel, expulsions did take place, crimes were committed against the Palestinian Arab population and much of their property was seized. It is also true that throughout Israeli history, different Israeli governments have sought to erase the country's Arab heritage through various means. Many Palestinian villages were destroyed and replaced with Jewish communities. More recently, some Israeli politicians have sought to prevent Palestinian Arab citizens in Israel from commemorating what they view as the Nakba.
Meanwhile, the Arab world still refuses to recognize any modern Jewish connection to what they call Palestine. Many Arabs, for instance, refuse to acknowledge that the holy Jewish temple that once housed the Ark of the Covenant once stood on the grounds where the Muslim Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa mosque are now. And whereas Israel has accepted the principle of compensation for Palestinian refugees, I have yet to hear even one statement from a leader in the Arab world acknowledging the crimes committed against hundreds of thousands of Jews in Arab countries who were murdered, expelled and/or deprived of their property, let alone talk of compensation for these people.
For a true peace between Arabs and Jews to exist, both peoples must acknowledge the crimes that they have committed against each other. In fact, if and when Israel does establish relations with the Arab states, both sides should look to set up a truth and reconciliation commission similar to that of post-Apartheid South Africa, so that witnesses can come and testify as to the crimes allegedly committed against them, and the alleged perpetrators can acknowledge their wrongdoings without fear of prosecution. There must also be fair compensation and/or restitution not just for the Palestinian refugees, but also for the Jews who were expelled from Arab countries and deprived of their land and possessions.
Both Arabs and Jews must also stop trying to negate the heritage of one another in the Holy Land. For the Arabs, this means recognizing that the Jewish people have the right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland and that the State of Israel is the embodiment of that right. It also means acknowledging the historical legacy of Jews in the Arab states, including the future state of Palestine. For Jews, it means making efforts to acknowledge the history of the Palestinian Arabs in parts of Israel where they are no longer present. For example, it would be a good idea for Israel to create a memorial at the site where the village of Deir Yassin used to be in order to acknowledge the existence of the previous Palestinian Arab inhabitants and the massacre that occurred there at the hands of Zionist militia.
I believe that the Jewish and Arab peoples both have the right to their own perspectives on history, especially as it concerns the Israeli-Arab conflict. So if, for example, the Arabs want to view the creation of the State of Israel as an event that brought misery to the Palestinian people, then they should be entitled to this opinion, just as much as Jews should be entitled to view Israel's creation as a positive event in their history. The Arabs cannot and must not, however, use the way they see Israel's creation as pretext to delegitimize the existence of the state, for it is the embodiment of the Jewish people's inalienable right to self-determination. They also cannot and must not deny historical fact, which includes but is not necessarily limited to denying the fact that the Holocaust did take place. In the same respect, Jews cannot and must not deny that crimes were committed against the Palestinian Arabs during efforts to create and maintain the State of Israel. The fact of the matter is that there can only be true peace between the children of Abraham once Jews and Arabs are prepared to respect and tolerate the way each of them perceives their history.
When True Peace Between Jew and Arab Comes, so will Collective Security
Creating an environment in which Jews and Arabs view each other with respect will allow Israel and the Arab states to form a strategic alliance against the terrorist menace that is the Islamic Republic of Iran. Such an alliance is vital as Iran presents an existential threat to all the independent states of the Middle East region. It is my hope that upon ending their conflict once and for all, Israel and its Arab neighbours, or at least those not under the proxy control of Iran, will unite to form this alliance - a military alliance similar to NATO. One that obligates each of its members to defend one another from external threats, whether those threats come from Iran or anywhere else. If the countries of the Middle East can put aside their differences and create this strategic military pact, it will be much harder for the Islamist regime in Iran to achieve the dominance of the region that it seeks. If they fail to do so, however, the Iranians can start picking off each independent Middle Eastern state one by one, and before you know it, the flags of Iran's Islamo-fascist rulers will be flying over the capitals of Baghdad, Riyadh, Jerusalem and so forth. So I sincerely hope that the leaders of the Middle East will choose to pursue unity over division.
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
Iran Nuclear Deal is Bad, Bad, Bad!
So it turns out that U.S. President Barack Obama is the 21st century's Neville Chamberlain after all, just as I said he was. He's going to go down in history as the man who opened Pandora's Box by signing an agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran that basically gives them a free pass to continue its efforts to dominate the entire Middle East. This is an agreement that as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly said does not prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons, but rather paves the way for them to the bomb. Actually, it does even worse than that.
I won't go into details about the agreement itself, but you can get a better idea of why it is an epic mistake by clicking here. Now just to be fair, the agreement on Iran's nuclear program that was just signed in Vienna is not all Obama's doing. He was joined by the leaders of five of the world's other most powerful countries, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China. They all must be patting themselves on the back right now, believing that they have brought "peace in our time." Sorry, but all you appeasement-lovers brought upon the world is fear and terror.
Yes, it's true that Iran's big market will open up once sanctions are lifted so that folks around the world can start striking those billion dollar oil deals that they've been dreaming about since the talks with Iran started. And what do you think the regime in Iran will use the billions more in revenue that it stands to gain once they are no longer curtailed by sanctions? Will the ayatollahs use the extra money to benefit their people? Nope. They'll use it to buy more missiles for Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip so that they can rain fire on millions of Israeli civilians. They'll use it to strengthen their military back home to prepare for the day when they can conquer their neighbours; countries like Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. Heck, even with the sanctions still in force, they've managed to take control of much of Iraq (whatever parts are not controlled by the Islamic State and the Kurds) and most of Yemen. Just think of what they'll be able to do once they don't have any economic sanctions stopping them. Their latest deal with Russia to buy advanced anti-air missiles is just the beginning. There will be more arms deals to come, I can assure you. Unfortunately, none of these aforementioned arguments, whether they are put forth by me or even by a world leader as intelligent and experienced as Prime Minister Netanyahu, seem to matter to the leaders of the big powers, which is why they fell right into Iran's trap and signed off on the worst agreement since the one Chamberlain made with Hitler in 1938.
Believe it or not, however, there could be one good thing that comes out of this agreement, though it won't come from the agreement itself. The Iran nuclear deal gives Israel and the Sunni Arab states a golden opportunity to make arrangements amongst themselves that will strengthen their collective security. The reality is that Israel is not the only country in the Middle East that views this agreement with immense skepticism. Most of the Sunni Arab states, especially those in the Persian Gulf region, like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates are extremely skeptical if not fearful of what the Iran nuclear agreement will mean for them. And I believe that their fears are well-founded, because contrary to what many may assume, Israel isn't the only country that Iran's regime wants to wipe off the map. Indeed, Iran's ayatollahs yearn for the destruction of all the Sunni regimes in the Middle East as much as they yearn for Israel's demise. Hence, Israel and the Sunni Arab states have a common enemy in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and you know how the old saying goes: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
What needs to happen now is that Israel and the Sunni Arab states need to make peace with each other and do it as soon as possible. I understand that this is easier said than done since the Israeli-Arab conflict has dragged on for almost seventy years. But it can be done and it must be done, because Iran poses a bigger threat to both Israel and the Sunni Arab states than they pose to each other.
I won't go into details about the agreement itself, but you can get a better idea of why it is an epic mistake by clicking here. Now just to be fair, the agreement on Iran's nuclear program that was just signed in Vienna is not all Obama's doing. He was joined by the leaders of five of the world's other most powerful countries, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China. They all must be patting themselves on the back right now, believing that they have brought "peace in our time." Sorry, but all you appeasement-lovers brought upon the world is fear and terror.
Yes, it's true that Iran's big market will open up once sanctions are lifted so that folks around the world can start striking those billion dollar oil deals that they've been dreaming about since the talks with Iran started. And what do you think the regime in Iran will use the billions more in revenue that it stands to gain once they are no longer curtailed by sanctions? Will the ayatollahs use the extra money to benefit their people? Nope. They'll use it to buy more missiles for Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip so that they can rain fire on millions of Israeli civilians. They'll use it to strengthen their military back home to prepare for the day when they can conquer their neighbours; countries like Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. Heck, even with the sanctions still in force, they've managed to take control of much of Iraq (whatever parts are not controlled by the Islamic State and the Kurds) and most of Yemen. Just think of what they'll be able to do once they don't have any economic sanctions stopping them. Their latest deal with Russia to buy advanced anti-air missiles is just the beginning. There will be more arms deals to come, I can assure you. Unfortunately, none of these aforementioned arguments, whether they are put forth by me or even by a world leader as intelligent and experienced as Prime Minister Netanyahu, seem to matter to the leaders of the big powers, which is why they fell right into Iran's trap and signed off on the worst agreement since the one Chamberlain made with Hitler in 1938.
Believe it or not, however, there could be one good thing that comes out of this agreement, though it won't come from the agreement itself. The Iran nuclear deal gives Israel and the Sunni Arab states a golden opportunity to make arrangements amongst themselves that will strengthen their collective security. The reality is that Israel is not the only country in the Middle East that views this agreement with immense skepticism. Most of the Sunni Arab states, especially those in the Persian Gulf region, like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates are extremely skeptical if not fearful of what the Iran nuclear agreement will mean for them. And I believe that their fears are well-founded, because contrary to what many may assume, Israel isn't the only country that Iran's regime wants to wipe off the map. Indeed, Iran's ayatollahs yearn for the destruction of all the Sunni regimes in the Middle East as much as they yearn for Israel's demise. Hence, Israel and the Sunni Arab states have a common enemy in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and you know how the old saying goes: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
What needs to happen now is that Israel and the Sunni Arab states need to make peace with each other and do it as soon as possible. I understand that this is easier said than done since the Israeli-Arab conflict has dragged on for almost seventy years. But it can be done and it must be done, because Iran poses a bigger threat to both Israel and the Sunni Arab states than they pose to each other.
Monday, July 13, 2015
Capitalism Needs a Makeover
For better or for worse, capitalism has allowed us to achieve the level of civilization that we find ourselves at today, because it has allowed us to use one of the most inherent elements of human nature - greed - in order to produce better products and better ways of doing things that ultimately benefit multitudes of people - and make someone very wealthy. Try to ask yourself if many of the products and services that you use today would exist if not for capitalism. For example, would many of us be carrying iPhones if the folks at Apple thought they couldn't make a fortune selling them all over the world? How about the car you drive, the soda you drink, or the food that you eat? The fact is that these things and many others would not exist if the people who invented them didn't think they could get rich off their creations. Unfortunately, I can't really think of any example of someone creating something so innovative that it changed the world without first asking himself or herself, "What's in it for me?" The truth is that capitalism and the greed upon which it is based is the key driver of civilization. It is ironic then that what is driving our civilization is also destroying it.
Indeed, it is capitalism that is causing us to destroy our environment and fight wars over increasingly scarce resources. So what do we do about it? Do we ditch capitalism in favour of some other alternative? Well, for those you who know your history, you'll know that we've tried to ditch capitalism before - and failed miserably. In the last century, a large part of the world embraced the ideology of communism because they thought it was the path to a utopian society where everyone was equal and poverty didn't exist. But of course, the communist experiment failed because the masses had no incentive to create or innovate when they knew that whatever they produced would ultimately become the property of the state. After all, what's the point of creating something new or making something that already exists better when you know that the communist party bosses are going to reap all the benefits anyway?
Okay, so communism was a flop. Any other bright ideas? Maybe we don't need an alternative to capitalism. Maybe we just need to make capitalism better. But how do we do that? Well, let's start by asking ourselves, what's wrong with capitalism today? If I ask a bunch of people this question, I think I can predict what some of the answers will be. Someone might say to me, for example, that it's unfair that such a tiny percentage of people control the vast majority of the wealth in any given economy. Another person might mention the fact that there are a few tycoons out there zipping around the world in private jets while billions of people don't even have enough food to eat. And perhaps someone else will tell me that it's wrong for big company bosses to be raking in millions or even billions while their rank-and-file employees struggle to get by on what passes for a minimum wage. But of course, all of these people would be referring to the same problem, and if they wanted to, they could just tell me what the problem is in one word: inequality.
Yes, the fact of the matter is that although capitalism's rising tide may lift all boats, it doesn't lift many of them enough and it lifts a few of them so high that they ultimately drown the poor folks in the boats below them. Now don't get me wrong. I'm actually a very staunch capitalist. I firmly believe that people who work harder or smarter should get more than those who don't work as hard or are not as smart in the way they work. However, I do not believe in the kind of capitalism that creates a world in which people must choose between feeding the kids or paying the rent, or worse, a world where one's very survival is threatened by simply not having enough food to eat.
As I've already said, we do not need to find an alternative to capitalism. We just need to make it better, just like any good capitalist who wants to get rich makes a product that already exists better. The capitalism that I espouse is one in which people can still get rich, but not to the extent that they can accumulate so much wealth that they inhibit the ability of democratically-elected governments to ensure that people who are not rich can at least have enough food to eat, a safe home, a good education and all the rest of the social and economic rights that everyone is supposed to be entitled to.
There are already countries in the industrialized world that have made great strides towards the kind of capitalism that I'm talking about. But it is not enough for just some countries to move towards a more humane, socially just capitalism, because their ability to maintain it will always be curtailed by having to compete with economies that do not strive for more equality. So for example, as long as there are countries like China and India, where workers are not paid a living wage, it will be very difficult for workers in developed countries like the U.S. and Canada to acquire a living wage when the businesses that would have to pay that wage can just pick up and move to a country where workers aren't paid what they deserve. Hence, for a more just capitalism to permanently take hold anywhere, it must take hold everywhere.
Indeed, it is capitalism that is causing us to destroy our environment and fight wars over increasingly scarce resources. So what do we do about it? Do we ditch capitalism in favour of some other alternative? Well, for those you who know your history, you'll know that we've tried to ditch capitalism before - and failed miserably. In the last century, a large part of the world embraced the ideology of communism because they thought it was the path to a utopian society where everyone was equal and poverty didn't exist. But of course, the communist experiment failed because the masses had no incentive to create or innovate when they knew that whatever they produced would ultimately become the property of the state. After all, what's the point of creating something new or making something that already exists better when you know that the communist party bosses are going to reap all the benefits anyway?
Okay, so communism was a flop. Any other bright ideas? Maybe we don't need an alternative to capitalism. Maybe we just need to make capitalism better. But how do we do that? Well, let's start by asking ourselves, what's wrong with capitalism today? If I ask a bunch of people this question, I think I can predict what some of the answers will be. Someone might say to me, for example, that it's unfair that such a tiny percentage of people control the vast majority of the wealth in any given economy. Another person might mention the fact that there are a few tycoons out there zipping around the world in private jets while billions of people don't even have enough food to eat. And perhaps someone else will tell me that it's wrong for big company bosses to be raking in millions or even billions while their rank-and-file employees struggle to get by on what passes for a minimum wage. But of course, all of these people would be referring to the same problem, and if they wanted to, they could just tell me what the problem is in one word: inequality.
Yes, the fact of the matter is that although capitalism's rising tide may lift all boats, it doesn't lift many of them enough and it lifts a few of them so high that they ultimately drown the poor folks in the boats below them. Now don't get me wrong. I'm actually a very staunch capitalist. I firmly believe that people who work harder or smarter should get more than those who don't work as hard or are not as smart in the way they work. However, I do not believe in the kind of capitalism that creates a world in which people must choose between feeding the kids or paying the rent, or worse, a world where one's very survival is threatened by simply not having enough food to eat.
As I've already said, we do not need to find an alternative to capitalism. We just need to make it better, just like any good capitalist who wants to get rich makes a product that already exists better. The capitalism that I espouse is one in which people can still get rich, but not to the extent that they can accumulate so much wealth that they inhibit the ability of democratically-elected governments to ensure that people who are not rich can at least have enough food to eat, a safe home, a good education and all the rest of the social and economic rights that everyone is supposed to be entitled to.
There are already countries in the industrialized world that have made great strides towards the kind of capitalism that I'm talking about. But it is not enough for just some countries to move towards a more humane, socially just capitalism, because their ability to maintain it will always be curtailed by having to compete with economies that do not strive for more equality. So for example, as long as there are countries like China and India, where workers are not paid a living wage, it will be very difficult for workers in developed countries like the U.S. and Canada to acquire a living wage when the businesses that would have to pay that wage can just pick up and move to a country where workers aren't paid what they deserve. Hence, for a more just capitalism to permanently take hold anywhere, it must take hold everywhere.
Thursday, July 9, 2015
Is Jewishness Possible Without Judaism?
One thing I don't understand is why so many Jews think that in order to be Jewish, you have to be Jewish from a religious perspective. Here in Canada, there are a lot of Jews, including many members of my family, who think it is necessary to at least be members of a synagogue. I think the reason for this is that many Jews living in Canada or elsewhere in the Diaspora believe that if they don't join a synagogue and attend services at least on the so-called High Holidays, they'll forget they're Jewish. Personally, I think this is silly. Moreover, I believe that it is possible to be Jewish and have little or nothing to do with Judaism. I understand that although the Jewish people and Judaism are heavily intertwined, they are not synonymous.
In fact, Jews from ancient times right up until today have remained Jews with precarious ties to Judaism, or none at all. In ancient Israel, for example, it was not uncommon for Israelites to worship pagan gods in addition to the God of Israel. One interesting tidbit from Biblical times is that King Solomon, one of the most significant figures in Jewish history, both from a political and religious perspective, was not as strict about intermarriage as many Jews are today, which is why he had no problem marrying the daughter of an Egyptian pharaoh, even though the Egyptians at that time worshiped pagan gods. Fast forward to the 19th century CE and you'll find one Jew who wanted nothing to do with Judaism or any religion for that matter: Karl Marx, the founding father of communism. And he would not be the first Jewish person to swear off his religion while remaining aware of their Jewish identity. Indeed, Jews have historically been very well-represented in communist movements, from the days of Karl Marx to the days of Leon Trotsky.
I would also contend that Israel exists today because someone, namely Theodor Herzl, believed that the Jews were a people, not simply a religious denomination. Had Herzl interpreted Jewishness as being something solely attached to Jewish religiosity, he probably would not have founded the nationalist movement that we call Zionism, and we wouldn't have a State of Israel today. I also think that if Herzl could see the State of Israel today, he would be quite upset at the kind of power and influence that the narrow-minded religious establishment has therein. After all, he wanted Jews to have a country that kept its rabbis in their synagogues just as much as he wanted one that kept its army in their barracks. I believe, therefore, that if he were alive in Israel today, he would probably be one of those Israeli citizens who, like me, would like to see the Chief Rabbinate and other state-religious institutions abolished so that Israelis could do things like take a bus on Shabbat and marry whomever they please regardless of their national or religious identity.
Now I hope that while you're reading this, you don't think that I hate people who consider themselves to be observant or religious Jews. On the contrary, I respect the right of all Jews to live as they please, regardless of how they choose to observe Judaism, or not observe it. In fact, I especially admire the people that call themselves religious Zionists because even though they are strongly committed to their Judaism, they are just as strongly committed to the State of Israel, and they contribute significantly to the state's defense and prosperity. What I resent is the fact that some Jews try to impose their version of Judaism onto me and anyone else who would prefer to maintain a Jewish identity that is more cultural than religious.
Why does being Jewish always have to do with synagogue and prayer? It doesn't. It is just as possible to be culturally Jewish as it is to be religiously Jewish. Take our holidays, for example. Many of them have just as many historical and cultural roots as they do religious roots. Passover, for instance, is as much about celebrating our ancestors' freedom from bondage and freedom in general as it is about God's covenant with Moses and the divine events that led to the liberation of the Israelites. Shavuoth, which falls not too long after Passover, actually has its roots in a harvest festival, hence its significance is not solely related to when God gave the Ten Commandments to the people of Israel. How about Rosh Hashana? Although it is considered one of the so-called High Holidays, there's no reason it can't be celebrated as a secular holiday, the same way as New Year's Day is celebrated in much of the rest of the world. My point is that Jews can choose how they celebrate their Jewish heritage. They can choose to celebrate it culturally, religiously or both. Why should Jewishness only be measured by one's commitment to Judaism? My answer is that it shouldn't and that we as Jews ought to broaden our perspective on what being Jewish means.
In fact, Jews from ancient times right up until today have remained Jews with precarious ties to Judaism, or none at all. In ancient Israel, for example, it was not uncommon for Israelites to worship pagan gods in addition to the God of Israel. One interesting tidbit from Biblical times is that King Solomon, one of the most significant figures in Jewish history, both from a political and religious perspective, was not as strict about intermarriage as many Jews are today, which is why he had no problem marrying the daughter of an Egyptian pharaoh, even though the Egyptians at that time worshiped pagan gods. Fast forward to the 19th century CE and you'll find one Jew who wanted nothing to do with Judaism or any religion for that matter: Karl Marx, the founding father of communism. And he would not be the first Jewish person to swear off his religion while remaining aware of their Jewish identity. Indeed, Jews have historically been very well-represented in communist movements, from the days of Karl Marx to the days of Leon Trotsky.
I would also contend that Israel exists today because someone, namely Theodor Herzl, believed that the Jews were a people, not simply a religious denomination. Had Herzl interpreted Jewishness as being something solely attached to Jewish religiosity, he probably would not have founded the nationalist movement that we call Zionism, and we wouldn't have a State of Israel today. I also think that if Herzl could see the State of Israel today, he would be quite upset at the kind of power and influence that the narrow-minded religious establishment has therein. After all, he wanted Jews to have a country that kept its rabbis in their synagogues just as much as he wanted one that kept its army in their barracks. I believe, therefore, that if he were alive in Israel today, he would probably be one of those Israeli citizens who, like me, would like to see the Chief Rabbinate and other state-religious institutions abolished so that Israelis could do things like take a bus on Shabbat and marry whomever they please regardless of their national or religious identity.
Now I hope that while you're reading this, you don't think that I hate people who consider themselves to be observant or religious Jews. On the contrary, I respect the right of all Jews to live as they please, regardless of how they choose to observe Judaism, or not observe it. In fact, I especially admire the people that call themselves religious Zionists because even though they are strongly committed to their Judaism, they are just as strongly committed to the State of Israel, and they contribute significantly to the state's defense and prosperity. What I resent is the fact that some Jews try to impose their version of Judaism onto me and anyone else who would prefer to maintain a Jewish identity that is more cultural than religious.
Why does being Jewish always have to do with synagogue and prayer? It doesn't. It is just as possible to be culturally Jewish as it is to be religiously Jewish. Take our holidays, for example. Many of them have just as many historical and cultural roots as they do religious roots. Passover, for instance, is as much about celebrating our ancestors' freedom from bondage and freedom in general as it is about God's covenant with Moses and the divine events that led to the liberation of the Israelites. Shavuoth, which falls not too long after Passover, actually has its roots in a harvest festival, hence its significance is not solely related to when God gave the Ten Commandments to the people of Israel. How about Rosh Hashana? Although it is considered one of the so-called High Holidays, there's no reason it can't be celebrated as a secular holiday, the same way as New Year's Day is celebrated in much of the rest of the world. My point is that Jews can choose how they celebrate their Jewish heritage. They can choose to celebrate it culturally, religiously or both. Why should Jewishness only be measured by one's commitment to Judaism? My answer is that it shouldn't and that we as Jews ought to broaden our perspective on what being Jewish means.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)