Thursday, 9 December 2010

From Torah.org

Torah.org Home
http://www.torah.org/learning/maharal/p2m5part2.html
Maharal


Chapter 2: Mishna 5: Part 2

Hillel says: Don't separate yourself from the "tzibbur" (community); and don't rely on yourself until the day of your death; and don't judge your friend until you reach his situation; and don't say something could never happen, for in the end it might happen; and don't say "When I have [free] time I will learn, lest you never have [free] time.
The Mishna then continues "don't say "When I have [free] time I will learn, lest you never have [free] time" for a person has no guarantee of existence and stability for even a short period of time. Therefore, he should not delay his learning for an hour or two "when he has time" with the confidence that in during such a short time frame he can be confident of the future. While a person may feel that in the next few hours there won't be any great distraction, so he can push of his learning for a little while, he must know that change is the nature of his existence. He may not have that time, for constantly changing circumstances may present unexpected distractions.
(Many people interpret this lesson as a Rabbinic version of "Don't put off till tomorrow what you can do today" or "A stitch in time saves nine." But the Maharal is going to the underlying, unifying principle being taught in this Mishna. Rather than simply a lesson in effective habits, we are being taught something about the essence of man's existence in this world. This is an example of the contrast between what the Rabbis are teaching us in Pirkei Avoth, and Benjamin Franklin's "Poor Richard's Almanac!")
All of these lessons are built on the principle that a person exists as a dynamic, constantly changing being. Therefore "don't rely on yourself (and the stability of your past accomplishments). "Don't judge your friend...don't say this thing could never happen" and don't say "When I have [free] time I will learn." An individual contrasts with the tzibbur: only the tzibbur, which is all encompassing, has an enduring and stable existence.
In this Mishna we have been taught all the possible transformations to which a person can be subjected. First, the fact that man is a physical, material being makes him causes change in his essence, which is in the nature of the material. Secondly, a person is subject to change due to changing circumstances that affect him. Thirdly, there is an element of the changing fortunes and times in the life of every individual. And finally, there is the simple unpredictability of the coming moments. Each of these dimensions of change are represented by a lesson of our Mishna.
Due to the changing nature of the physical, man should not be overly reliant on himself.
Due to the changing environmental circumstances that man can be subjected to, he should not judge his friends. He may have failed as his friend did, if he was subjected to the same circumstances.
Due to the changing cycles of fortune and historical periods, unexpected things happen, and a person should not say that something could "never happen."
The above are indicative of the forces of potentially significant change. But a person must recognize that there are constant, minor changes that can significantly affect him. Due to these changes, a person should not assume that an opportunity that exists now will still exist a short time from now. A person should not say that he will learn "soon," since a person's own situation is subject to potentially constant change.
All of these changes are due to the fact that man is a individual, as opposed being an element subordinated to the encompassing "klal." These lessons grow out of the lesson "Don't separate yourself from the 'tzibbur' (community)," which has enduring, stable existence. A person who separates himself from the encompassing "tzibbur" stands alone, simply as an individual, which is subject to all the changes we have discussed. One who has a clear vision can see that these lessons reflect the true reality of the person.
(The lessons here go to the heart of political philosophy. Does the community exist to serve the individual, which is the underlying principle of Western democracy and other many other political forms of government. Or does the individual exist to serve the community? (One can see how easy it was for Jews to develop communism and socialism...) Judaism is finely honed balance between the value of the individual -- "For me the world was created" -- and the need to be attached to the tzibbur.)
The class is taught by Rabbi Shaya Karlinsky, Dean of Darche Noam Institutions, Yeshivat Darche Noam/Shapell's and Midreshet Rachel for Women.

Wednesday, 8 December 2010

Del Centro Simon Wiesenthal


COMUNICADO DE PRENSA

Para difusión inmediata

Los Angeles, 6 de diciembre de 2010

Centro Wiesenthal: el reconocimiento por parte de Argentina, Brasil y Uruguay del Estado de Palestina con las líneas de armisticio de 1967 es apoyar “fronteras de Auschwitz” para Israel” 

El Centro Simon Wiesenthal criticó el reconocimiento formulado por Argentina, Brasil y Uruguay de un Estado de Palestina independiente dentro de las líneas de armisticio anteriores a 1967. 

“Más allá de que tales pronunciamientos obstaculizan los esfuerzos liderados por los Estados Unidos para alcanzar una solución que contemple dos estados a través de negociaciones directas, el apoyo a un regreso de Israel a sus indefendibles ‘fronteras de Auschwitz’ de 1967 es inaceptable e inmoral”, manifestaron los rabinos Marvin Hier y Abraham Cooper (Decano y Fundador y Decano Adjunto, respectivamente, del Centro Simon Wiesenthal), haciendo referencia al pronunciamiento del estadista israelí Abba Eban del año 1969, cuando dijo que las líneas de armisticio anteriores a 1967 remitirían al “recuerdo de Auschwitz” para muchos israelíes. “Ningún líder israelí aceptaría volver a unas líneas que tuvieran apenas once kilómetros en el centro de Tierra Santa, ni tampoco volver a dividir Jerusalem, la capital eterna del pueblo judío”, agregaron. 

“Si los líderes políticos quieren contribuir al proceso de paz, deberían reclamar el desmantelamiento del mini-estado terrorista de Hamas en Gaza y la remoción de los 40.000 cohetes provistos por Irán con los que Hezbollah amenaza a Israel desde el norte”, concluyeron Hier y Cooper. 

El Centro Simon Wiesenthal es una organización judía internacional de derechos humanos con más de 400.000 miembros en todo el mundo. Tiene status de ONG ante la ONU, la UNESCO, la OEA, la OSCE, el Consejo de Europa y el Parlamento Latinoamericano.

Centro Simon Wiesenthal
E-mail: info@cswlatinoamerica.org

Tuesday, 7 December 2010

Un Israel que nos sorprende.

En su hospitalaria tienda, un viejo beduino me dijo hace cinco años: “Un beduino no puede vivir sin cigarros, café y su mujer”. Ismail Khaldi añade un cuarto ingrediente: la diplomacia. A sus 38 años, es el primer diplomático beduino israelí.
De una modesta tienda en su aldea natal de Khawalid (norte de Israel) a una selecta residencia de San Francisco donde en los últimos dos años ha sido vicecónsul de Israel. De un poblado sin electricidad a elegantes cóctels con líderes internacionales. De nómada en su tierra a nómada en el mundo.
Ismail tiene cierto aire al presidente norteamericano Barack Obama al que imita rompiendo moldes, superando obstáculos y cosechando curiosidad. Y, claro, escribiendo una biografía. “El diario de un pastor”, es el recorrido de un hombre que demuestra que es posible ser beduino, israelí, musulmán, árabe, pastor, académico y diplomático de Israel.  Como él mismo confiesa, “desde pequeño vivo entre el mundo musulmán y el judío, entre Occidente y Oriente, entre lo moderno y lo tradicional, entre lo secular y lo religioso”. 
¿Cómo le han tratado en Estados Unidos?, le preguntamos. “Muy bien aunque reconozco que mi historia personal desconcertó a muchos. Además no es fácil representar a Israel en un clima internacional tan hostil y basado en la propaganda”. Nunca olvidará, por ejemplo, su intervención en la Universidad de Berkeley: “Fui invitado a un debate con un profesor libanés que da clases en esa universidad.Su único discurso era atacar a Israel. Se negó incluso a darme la mano. Me quedé de piedra ya que el objetivo era intercambiar ideas. A muchos estudiantes les molestó que un árabe defendiera la democracia israelí. Las minorias aqui viven muchísimo mejor que en el resto de Oriente Medio".
Pero añade: “Ojo, yo no fui a Estados Unidos para decir que Israel es perfecto. No somos una democracia perfecta. Hay muchos defectos y desigualdades como en otros países y  en muchos casos los árabes israelíes no reciben el mismo trato.  Claro que hay diferencias y cosas que cambiar pero también hay mucha hipocresía y odio hacia Israel. Los medios de comunicación describen la realidad en base a prejuicios e ignorancia. Es evidente que hay un conflicto y que debemos solucionarlo.
 Ojalá haya paz en esta zona y los palestinos tengan un Estado democrático pero no entiendo por qué siempre hay un dedo acusador hacia Israel, pase lo que pase”.
Cuenta que “algunos estudiantes en Estados Unidos ignoraban que Israel goza de li berta d de credo. No toleraban que yo apoyara al Estado judío sin ser judío.
En algunos campus, intentaron silenciarme”.  Sonríe cuando recuerda el encuentro con una anciana judía de San Francisco. “Me preguntó cómo es posible que yo sea embajador israelí siendo musulmán y árabe. La señora no era del todo consciente que en el Estado de los judíos hay un 20% de árabes”.


Ismail Khaldi en Jerusalén
Orgulloso de ser una persona “badiya” (del desierto), no oculta sus  orígenes. Todo lo contrario. Recuerda que de niño tenía que recorrer cada mañana a pie varios kilómetros para llegar al colegio. “Mi padre me decía que debía ir a la universidad y visitar la Casa Blanca. No estoy seguro que él sabía lo que era la Casa Blanca ”.  El hogar de los Khaldi era la atracción del pueblo ya que disponían de la única televisión. “14 pulgadas… funcionaba gracias a la batería del jeep ya que el pueblo no tenía electricidad”, evoca con nostalgia.
En un colegio árabe de Haifa, se sintió diferente. “Mis compañeros árabes no beduinos sentían hostilidad hacia el país en el que vivían y pertenecían a movimientos palestinos. Mi compañero de pupitre se consideraba ´un palestino árabe que vive en Israel´. Yo, en cambio,  me definía como beduino israelí. Entre los profesores había un sentimiento antiisraelí”, dice. Le gritaron “traidor” cuando respetó el minuto de silencio en el día de recuerdo de los muertos israelíes en las guerras y atentados.
Su primer viaje al extranjero fue nada más y nada menos que a Nueva York donde se sintió como Cocodrilo Dundee.  Al volver a su poblado,  su abuela le preguntó: “¿Tienen ovejas?”.
Tras hacer el servicio militar y graduarse en la Universidad de Tel Aviv, se presentó al curso diplomático.
 Al tercer intento, aprobó el examen y fue aceptado en el Ministerio de Exteriores donde defiende con pasión a Israel sin renunciar a su identidad beduina y árabe. A diferencia de Obama, no tiene aspiraciones políticas.
¿Considera que Israel tendrá algún día un jefe de Gobierno no judío? “Teóricamente es posible pero yo no veo que se produzca en los próximos años. Israel es un Estado con mayoría judía y con un carácter judío declarado”, nos responde.

En una conferencia (S.E)
Reconoce que “ser beduino en una sociedad tan moderna como Israel tiene sus complicaciones. No bebemos alcohol ni llevamos camisetas y pantalones cortos, tampoco vamos a discotecas. Yo nunca fui de joven al cine o un pub. Siempre comíamos en casa”. Se refiere a sus padres, abuelos, primos  y 10 hermanos.
A los 38 años, sigue sintiéndose un pastor: “Quizás haya visto más mundo que mis amigos de infancia pero yo nunca olvido las sabias lecciones que aprendí en Khawalid como hospitalidad, paciencia y fidelidad”.
Quizás Ismail ha elegido el trabajo más adecuado a sus orígenes. El diplomático es un nómada por antonomasia.  Con más electricidad y una casa habitualmente espaciosa  pero a fin de cuentas, un nómada. Como Ismail.

Sunday, 5 December 2010

El mensaje de Jánuka

El mensaje de Jánuka
Estamos acostumbrados a escuchar hablar de Jánuka como la guerra contra los griegos, o del milagro del aceite. Sin embargo, por alguna razón, hay una parte fundamental del levantamiento de los Macabeos que no es tan difundido y sobre el cual no se hace hincapié.
Como siempre en la historia del pueblo Judío, hubo quienes se integraron a la sociedad griega, tomaron sus valores y fueron poco a poco dejando de lado tradiciones y obligaciones de los Judíos en nombre  de la integración y del vivir en forma más cómoda, sin presiones de la sociedad circundante.
Estas personas (incluidos sacerdotes del templo) dejaron de lado la observancia en aras de la “modernidad” de ese momento y fue contra ellos que se enfrentaron en un primer momento Mathytiau y sus hijos, contra ellos y su camino elegido de motus propio de dejar de lado los principios básicos del Judaísmo.
Es extraño como la historia se repite una y otra vez sin que aprendamos nada de ella! En ese tiempo, los Judíos se sintieron atraídos hacia una forma de vida extraña pero menos exigente, hoy sucede lo mismo! Tanto entonces como hoy, muchos Judíos, principalmente en el Galuth, se “enamoran” de principios “universales” (griegos en aquel momento) y se olvidan de estudiar lo propio, tanto entonces como hoy, quienes pretenden un volver a las bases (no hablo de extremismos, que los hay), son tratados de primitivos y de no estar a tono con los tiempos.
Sin embargo, ese “primitivismo”, ese amor por lo intrínsecamente Judío, es lo que nos ha mantenido como una realidad y a la cultura helenística como un recuerdo.
Como decían grandes de nuestra historia como el Rambám y Rabbi Nachman de Breslev, la base de todo debe de ser el conocimiento, el intelecto, pero, siempre teniendo presente que primero debemos de educar a nuestros hijos como Judíos conscientes de su historia y de su pasado, conocedores de sus leyes (su Toráh) y observantes de sus obligaciones.
Todo Judío puede y debe estar actualizado y saber de lo que le rodea, tan solo que desde una base edificada sobre el Judaísmo y no sobre lo externo a el.

Wisdom

Torah.org Home
http://www.torah.org/learning/maharal/p2m5part1.html
Maharal


Chapter 2: Mishna 5: Part 1

Hillel says: Don't separate yourself from the "tzibbur" (community); and don't rely on yourself until the day of your death; and don't judge your friend until you reach his situation; and don't say something could never happen, for in the end it might happen; and don't say "When I have [free] time I will learn, lest you never have [free] time.
It needs to be asked why this lesson of Hillel is located here, rather than with the earlier lessons of Hillel (Ch. 1, Mishna 12-14)?! Furthermore, what is the connection between the various lessons of this Mishna, like separating yourself from the community and not relying on yourself. There doesn't seem to be any common denominator! It should have taught one lesson, and then written "He used to say..." to introduce the next one. This is what we find in the coming Mishnayoth (also quoting Hillel, yet divided from the lessons of our Mishna; as well as in the Mishnayoth in Ch. 1).
Because we were taught at the end of Mishna 2 the value of the tzibbur ("those who are involved with the community...") Hillel's lesson is placed here, teaching us the importance of the community and the shortcoming of the individual in relation to the community.
Therefore, we are taught "Don't separate yourself from the tzibbur," for the tzibbur, which is the klal, stands with stability (this was developed in the earlier Mishnayoth and will be somewhat elaborated on here). Someone who separates himself from the tzibbur is separating away from something that has stable endurance. Additionally, the klal embodies within it the totality of all the elements that make it up, making it encompassing. One who separates from that stands alone, isolated and transitory.
This principle is concretized by our Rabbis in the following way. Included in the group of heretics and apikorsim (Rosh HaShana 17a) are both those who deviate from the way of the tzibbur, in addition to those who deny the Divinity of Torah and the resurrection of the dead (fundamental principles of Judaism). Those who deny these eternal truths remove themselves from the klal, just as do those who behave in ways that are at odds with the behavior of the klal, and as such neither group has a part in the enduring existence of the klal.
The klal is the foundation, while the individual is transitory. The individual is in a state of constant change and transformation, while the klal has stability and endurance.
Which leads us to the next lesson of the Mishna, "...don't rely on yourself until the day of your death." In other words, as righteous as you are at any time, you can never have confidence that you won't become a person who sins, since as an individual you are always subject to variation. Whatever your spiritual level is at the moment, an individual is controlled by the movement of time, which subjects you to the constant possibility of change.
A further consequence of being an individual is that it is not fitting to be judgmental a person due to his actions. "...don't judge your friend until you reach his situation." There many causes for a person's behavior, and it is possible that had you been subjected to all the circumstances of your friend, you would have behaved in exactly the same way. Due to the constant fluctuations that are the nature of an individual, a person can't be overly confident about his success, and cannot pass judgment on the perceived failure of another. As strange and unlikely as a friend's behavior seems to a person, since that person himself can change, and if can also be subject to differing circumstances which may lead him to behave in a way similar to his friends. An individual, who is inherently in a state of change, should never take his own behavior for granted.
The next lesson is not to take any situation for granted, which would be the result of saying that a certain event our outcome could never take place. This attitude can lead a person to be overconfident in his opinion about how to deal with a certain situation. If he had observed a certain outcome, he may suspect that his situation could lead to such an outcome. But being sure that such an outcome is impossible could lead him to behave in an arrogant, and possibly irresponsible, way. For example, a very wealthy person relies on his wealth to behave as he wants, without being forced to consider the opinions of others (if it isn't in his interest). He never entertains the idea that a person of his financial means could lose his wealth, since this appears very unlikely. The Mishna is teaching us to refrain from the attitude that "this could never happen." Because a human being is a transitory individual, even things that appear to him to be unlikely can occur. (The example the Maharal gives is very important in our society, where "money talks," and a person "with the bucks" is allowed to "call the shots." Additionally, the assumption is that there is a level of wealth a person can reach that makes him immune from losing it. Without going in to specific details, we have seen over the past decade how misleading this perception is.)
The Mishna's lessons are developmental. First we are taught not to judge another person on his actions, even if appears unlikely that you would behave in a similar way. Even though it would take a change in your situation to lead you behave as he did, that change could take place. Therefore, you are taught not to judge him "until you reach his situation," representing an imaginable change in the present reality. But one may still feel that a really monumental change can be discounted. So the Mishna continues with the next lesson "Don't say it could never happen -- for it may happen," referring to even very significant departures from the present situation. Due to the constantly changing nature of the physical world, no situation can be discounted.
(We have witnessed this just in our century a number of times. A recent example is the disappearance of the Soviet Union virtually overnight. A person who had been reading the weekly newsmagazines faithfully for years, with that as his only source of news, would have been sure that he missed at least a couple of years of issues when he picked up the issue announcing the disintegration of what was assumed to be a Superpower. The radical change in the situation in Israel and the government's relationship to Yasser Arafat and the Palestinians between July and October 1993 was something that everyone said was impossible. Things happen in history that would have been dreamed unthinkable. But they happen, and they are accepted, due to the constantly changing state of individuals.)
(To briefly connect the principles taught in this section of the Maharal with Shavuoth: The Jewish people arrived at Sinai completely united as one person, with one heart. See Rashi on Shemoth Ch. 19 Verse 1. This is a prerequisite for the receiving of the Torah. Commitment to the Torah cannot exist when each person, as an indiviudal, is pulling in his own direction, with his own agenda. It requires individuals to be united in a "klal" and devoted to the needs of that klal in the service of a purpose transcending the agenda of any individual. This commitment is the essence of receiving the Torah.)

Sunday, 28 November 2010

El pueblo elegido

Es importante explicar el porque somos el pueblo elegido.  Esto no viene de ser una raza distinta (se puede uno convertir al Judaísmo sin problemas sea uno africano, esquimal, chino o europeo) ni de ser mejores que nadie.
HaShem nos eligió para cumplir con sus obligaciones impuestas a quien fuera el elegido! Para cumplir con ellas y renunciar a muchas cosas que están permitidas a los demás. Pero, aún allí, no somos ni mejores ni superiores a nadie, ya que cualquier no Judío que cumpla con las 7 leyes de Noé, es también considerado un hombre justo.
HaShem nos eligió para cumplir nuestro rol en su plan (la Toráh) y nos dio esta tierra de Israel para vivir en ella. En eso somos distintos, no mejores, no iguales, distintos, tan distintos como un violín y un clarinete, ambos son instrumentos musicales y ambos integran la orquesta, pero tocan distintas partituras y no siempre al mismo tiempo.
Somos distintos y sin vergüenza de serlo, muy al contrario, con orgullo de serlo!

Wednesday, 24 November 2010

A rogue state


Why Israel is a Rogue State 
by Gabriel Latner
A nation unlike any other in the world.
On October 21, 2010, the prestigious Cambridge Union Society held a debate on the motion that "Israel is a rogue state."
In the end, the proposition was defeated, but the event didn't proceed without an unusual twist. Nineteen-year-old Gabriel Latner, one of the debaters “in favor” of the proposition, argued that, yes, Israel is a rogue state – but he spun it into a decidedly pro-Israel position.
Opening Statement
This issue is too polarizing for the vast majority of you not to already have a set opinion. I'd be willing to bet that half of you strongly support the motion, and half of you strongly oppose it... I'm tempted to do what my fellow speakers are going to do – simply rehash every bad thing the Israeli government has ever done in an attempt to satisfy those of you who agree with them. And perhaps they'll even guilt one of you rare undecided into voting for the proposition, or more accurately, against Israel. It would be so easy to twist the meaning and significance of international “laws” to make Israel look like a criminal state. But that's been done to death.
It would be easier still to play to your sympathy, with personalized stories of Palestinian suffering. And they can give very eloquent speeches on those issues. But the truth is, that treating people badly, whether they're your citizens or an occupied nation, does not make a state “rogue.” If it did, Canada, the U.S. and Australia would all be rogue states based on how they treat their indigenous populations. Britain's treatment of the Irish would easily qualify them to wear this sobriquet…
So I'm going to try something different, something a little unorthodox. I'm going to try and convince the die-hard Zionists and Israel supporters here tonight, to vote for the proposition. By the end of my speech – I will have presented five pro-Israel arguments that show Israel is, if not a “rogue state,” then at least “rogue-ish.”
Let me be clear. I will not be arguing that Israel is “bad.” I will not be arguing that it doesn't deserve to exist. I won't be arguing that it behaves worse than every other country. I will only be arguing that “Israel is rogue.”
The word “rogue” has come to have exceptionally damning connotations. But the word itself is value-neutral. The Oxford English Dictionary defines rogue as “Aberrant, anomalous; misplaced, occurring (esp. in isolation) at an unexpected place or time,” while a dictionary from a far greater institution gives this definition “behaving in ways that are not expected or not normal, often in a destructive way.”
These definitions, and others, center on the idea of anomaly – the unexpected or uncommon. Using this definition, a rogue state is one that acts in an unexpected, uncommon or aberrant manner. A state that behaves exactly like Israel.
Related Article: Jose Maria Aznar: Supporting Israel
Darfurian Refugees
(1) The first argument is statistical. The fact that Israel is a Jewish state alone makes it anomalous enough to be dubbed a rogue state. There are 195 countries in the world. Some are Christian, some Muslim, some are secular. Israel is the only country in the world that is Jewish. Or, to speak mathmo for a moment, the chance of any randomly chosen state being Jewish is 0.0051 percent. In comparison, the chance of a UK lotto ticket winning at least 10 British pounds is 0.017 percent – more than twice as likely. Israel's Jewishness is a statistical aberration.
(2) The second argument concerns Israel's humanitarianism, in particular, Israel's response to a refugee crisis. Not the Palestinian refugee crisis – for I am sure that the other speakers will cover that – but the issue of Darfurian refugees. Everyone knows that what happened, and is still happening in Darfur, is genocide, whether or not the UN and the Arab League will call it such. There has been a mass exodus from Darfur as the oppressed seek safety. They have not had much luck.
Blame it on Israel's cultural memory of genocide.
Many have gone north to Egypt – where they are treated despicably. The brave make a run through the desert in a bid to make it to Israel. Not only do they face the natural threats of the Sinai, they are also used for target practice by the Egyptian soldiers patrolling the border. Why would they take the risk? Because in Israel they are treated with compassion – they are treated as the refugees that they are – and perhaps Israel's cultural memory of genocide is to blame. The Israeli government has even gone so far as to grant several hundred Darfurian refugees citizenship. This alone sets Israel apart from the rest of the world.
But the real point of distinction is this: The IDF sends out soldiers and medics to patrol the Egyptian border. They are sent looking for refugees attempting to cross into Israel. Not to send them back into Egypt, but to save them from dehydration, heat exhaustion, and Egyptian bullets.
Compare that to the U.S. reaction to illegal immigration across their border with Mexico. The American government has arrested private individuals for giving water to border crossers who were dying of thirst – and here the Israeli government is sending out its soldiers to save illegal immigrants. To call that sort of behavior anomalous is an understatement.
Talking with Terrorists
(3) My third argument is that the Israeli government engages in an activity which the rest of the world shuns – it negotiates with terrorists. Forget the late PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, a man who died with blood all over his hands – they're in the process of negotiating with terrorists as we speak. Yasser Abed Rabbo is one of the lead PLO negotiators that has been sent to the peace talks with Israel. Abed Rabbo also used to be a leader of the PFLP, an organization of “freedom fighters” that, under Abed Rabbo's leadership, engaged in such freedom promoting activities as killing 22 Israeli high school students. And the Israeli government is sending delegates to sit at a table with this man, and talk about peace. And the world applauds.
You would never see the Spanish government in peace talks with the leaders of the ETA. The British government would never negotiate with Thomas Murphy. And if President Obama were to sit down and talk about peace with Osama Bin Laden, the world would view this as insanity. But Israel can do the exact same thing – and earn international praise in the process. That is the dictionary definition of rogue – behaving in a way that is unexpected, or not normal.
Most countries in the Middle East are theocracies and autocracies.
(4) Another part of dictionary definition is behavior or activity “occurring at an unexpected place or time.” When you compare Israel to its regional neighbors, it becomes clear just how roguish Israel is. And here is the fourth argument: Israel has a better human rights record than any of its neighbors. At no point in history, has there ever been a liberal democratic state in the Middle East – except for Israel.
Israel's protection of its citizens' civil liberties has earned international recognition. Freedom House is an NGO that releases an annual report on democracy and civil liberties in each of the 195 countries in the world. It ranks each country as “Free,” “Partly Free,” or “Not Free.” In the Middle East, Israel is the only country that has earned designation as a “free” country. Not surprising given the level of freedom afforded to citizens in say, Lebanon – a country designated “partly free,” where there are laws against reporters criticizing not only the Lebanese government, but the Syrian regime as well.
Iran is a country given the rating of “not free,” putting it alongside China, Zimbabwe, North Korea and Myanmar. In Iran, there is a special “Press Court” which prosecutes journalists for such heinous offences as criticizing the ayatollah, reporting on stories damaging the “foundations of the Islamic republic,” using “suspicious (i.e. Western) sources,” or insulting Islam. Iran is the world leader in terms of jailed journalists, with 39 reporters (that we know of) in prison as of 2009. They also kicked out almost every Western journalist during the 2009 election.
I guess we can't really expect more from a theocracy. Which is what most countries in the Middle East are: theocracies and autocracies. But Israel is the sole, the only, the rogue, democracy. Out of every country in the Middle East, only in Israel do anti-government protests and reporting go unquashed and uncensored.
Debating One’s Legitimacy
(5) I have one final argument – the last nail in the opposition's coffin – and its sitting right across the aisle. Ran Gidor's presence here is the all evidence any of us should need to confidently call Israel a rogue state. For those of you who have never heard of him, Mr Gidor is a political counselor attached to Israel's embassy in London. He's the guy the Israeli government sent to represent them to the U.N. He knows what he's doing. And he's here tonight. And it's incredible. Consider, for a moment, what his presence here means. The Israeli government has signed off, to allow one of their senior diplomatic representatives to participate in a debate on their very legitimacy.
That's remarkable. Do you think for a minute, that any other country would do the same? If the Yale University Debating Society were to have a debate where the motion was, “This house believes Britain is a racist, totalitarian state that has done irrevocable harm to the peoples of the world,” that Britain would allow any of its officials to participate? No. Would China participate in a debate about the status of Taiwan? Never. And there is no chance that an American government official would ever be permitted to argue in a debate concerning its treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. But Israel has sent Ran Gidor to argue tonight against myself, a 19-year-old law student who is entirely unqualified to speak on the issue at hand.
Israel’s rogue action destroyed Saddam's nuclear plans.
Every government in the world should be laughing at Israel right now because it forgot rule number one: You never add credence to crackpots by engaging with them. It's the same reason you won't see Stephen Hawking or Richard Dawkins debate David Icke. But Israel is doing precisely that. Once again, behaving in a way that is unexpected, or not normal. Behaving like a rogue state.
That's five arguments that have been directed at the supporters of Israel. But I have a minute or two left. And here's an argument for all of you – Israel willfully and forcefully disregards international law. In 1981 Israel destroyed Osirak – Saddam Hussein's nuclear bomb lab. Every government in the world knew that Hussein was building a bomb. And they did nothing. Except for Israel. Yes, in doing so they broke international law and custom. But they also saved us all from a nuclear Iraq.
That rogue action should earn Israel a place of respect in the eyes of all freedom loving peoples. But it hasn't. But tonight, while you listen to us prattle on, I want you to remember something; while you're here, Khomeini's Iran is working toward the Bomb. And if you're honest with yourself, you know that Israel is the only country that can, and will, do something about it. Israel will, out of necessity act in a way that is the not the norm, and you'd better hope that they do it in a destructive manner. Any sane person would rather a Rogue Israel than a Nuclear Iran.