Moral Clarity

Non-antisemitic antisemitism

Ilan — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:52:34 -0500

Yes, black is indeed white. From Jewish teen tortured in French town where Ilan Halimi was killed :

A police official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the words "dirty Jew" were written on the 19-year-old victim's face, but the incident, which took place two weeks ago, was not being treated as having a racial motive.

There really is no way to argue with that. As Christopher Hitchens would say, all you can do is underline it.

Jewish Burqas

Ilan — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 16:19:51 -0500

God help us:

From http://mominisrael.blogspot.com/2007/12/burkas-new-fashion.html

Happy Hannuka!

Ilan — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 09:57:47 -0500

It finally happened:

From http://nancykayshapiro.livejournal.com/35633.html?thread=54321

There is a God

Ilan — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:56:45 -0500

Beggars banned from Western Wall

For years, it has been almost impossible to reach the Western Wall without being accosted by a platoon of beggars rattling change or dangling ribbons for sale.

Visitors have been physically assaulted for giving "too little," while a donation - especially a sizable one - to one beggar often results in a swarm of others eager to get their share.

On Thursday, the beggars had been distanced from the Wall itself, but were still stopping visitors in the adjacent plaza, with their calls for a dollar or a euro in exchange for a red ribbon or a skullcap.

The Jerusalem Municipality has said the beggars usually do not accept assistance offered by city social workers.

These disgusting, harassing beggars were really annoying. I have no idea why it took so long, or why the guy in the article thought these people would stop harassing if he only asked nicely.

More Brilliant Insight from Aish HaTorah

Ilan — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 12:34:34 -0500

I love this quote, from Sara Yocheved Rigler:

Reacting to the Tsunami

A person stealing $100 in Tel Aviv lowers the moral fiber in Mexico City and could encourage massive embezzlement in Melbourne. Conversely, a person doing a mitzvah in Haifa may avert an auto accident in London or prevent complications during open-heart surgery in Los Angeles.

And this:

Maimonides asserts that one who fails to respond to suffering by doing teshuva is cruel. The implication is that we have it within our power to stop human suffering. How can we look at the pictures of bodies on the beaches -- each of whom is someone's beloved relative -- and not be willing to undertake whatever we can to ward off the next calamity?

And let's not forget this:

It is in our power, by the moral choices we make, to prevent the next disaster.

I thought such nonsense had been eradicated from human thought by, say, the Enlightenment, but apparently some stupid and false ideas die harder than others. And if we should do repentance everytime there is a tragedy, shouldn't we have been wearing sackcloth and ashes since for the entire 20th century?

How Pro-Israel is the Pro-Israel Lobby?

Ilan — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:52:14 -0400

A mighty fine op-ed in Haaretz: It's lobbying, but is it really pro-Israel?:

There is nothing pro-Israel about supporting policies that only promise that Israeli mothers will continue to dread their sons' 18th birthdays for another generation. For that we are supposed to be grateful?

Gotta love it...

My Condolences

Ilan — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 00:27:16 -0400

I would like to express my condolences to all the students of America who are starting school this week.

The Truest Thing Ever Said

Ilan — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:46:06 -0400

Yehuda Bauer gets it so exactly right in Haaretz:

"There is no truth to the well-known tradition that the Second Temple was destroyed due to baseless hatred or internecine rivalry. The Temple was destroyed because religious, messianic extremists forced the nation to rebel against a global empire that it had no chance of defeating. This time there may be a scenario (an imaginary one) in which a radical religious minority thwarts peace because the fanatic political assassins of the Second Temple period have found worthy successors."

The Stupidest Thing Ever Said, Part IV

Ilan — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:30:16 -0400

From Hamas wants prisoner release for Schalit video:

"...We treat Gilad Schalit in a humanitarian way that is in line with the Palestinians' morals," Hamas leader in Syria, Khaled Mashaal told a CNN reporter on Monday.

This means Gilad Schalit is fucked.

The Stupidest Thing Ever Said, Part III

Ilan — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:20:28 -0400

From Aksa Martyrs Brigades: Truce over

"Fatah's armed wing, the Aksa Martyrs Brigades, announced Tuesday it would no longer honor understandings reached with Israel."

A suicide-bombing, terrorist organization, established by a terrorist organization now led by a Holocaust denier, that has never kept an agreement with Israel and launched the second Intifada isn't going to keep its word? Who knew?

The Stupidest Thing Ever Said, Part II

Ilan — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:18:00 -0400

A professor at Bar-Ilan University, as quoted in the Jerusalem Post:

Bar-Ilan again forced to deal with the extremists in its midst

"I find it difficult to differentiate between the crimes committed in Vietnam in 1975 and the ethnic cleansing perpetrated by the IDF in the summer of 2005."

I too find it hard to differentiate between deep, pure black and blazing, shining, blinding white.

The Stupidest Statement Ever, Part I

Ilan — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 10:00:36 -0400

A West Bank settler has the following brilliant insight:

"We didn't come back here to live in exile," she said.

There are some Jews, she said, who do not believe that the land is holy and that it can be exchanged or given away. "It [the Land of Israel] is like a body. You do not divide it," she said.

I'm no historian, but I suspect something that analogizes land or a people or a nation to a living body is bound to end up very badly.

From http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1185893685577&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

Now We're All Safe!

Ilan — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:28:02 -0400

I was worried that haredim would not be able to pray any more to defend Israel, but fortunately this is not the case: Tal Law extended by Knesset committee. One question, though...... how did a hideous Intifada and a war with Hizballah and the increasing Iranian nuclear threat happen even though the haredim were busy praying? Maybe they weren't praying hard enough.

What Happened to Yitzhak Levy?

Ilan — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:29:49 -0400

Apparently Israeli MK Yitzhak Levy (of the National Religious Party and National Union, no less) is supporting the freeing of his daughters' killers in exchange for Gilad Shalit, on the condition that they don't return to Israel or the territories. I actually remember the bombing, which occurred when I was in the army. From 'Free my daughter's killers for Schalit' :

In an interview with Army Radio, Levy said that "there is only one way in which a prisoner release would be reasonable, and that is [by] sending them outside of the state of Israel and [the PA territories] and keeping them in another country."
He added that he was also prepared to release other prisoners with blood on their hands as part of a prisoner exchange, stressing that "Gilad's return home is more important than one prisoner or another sitting in jail."

Levy is the last person on Earth I would expect to propose this. As Levy should know, there is absolutely no way to insure than a terrorist will stay out of the territories even if they dump him in some foreign country. There is certainly some logic in releasing a prisoner to free Gilad Shalit, but not much. The purpose of imprisoning terrorists is to prevent them from operating in the future and to create a disincentive for terrorism. This cannot happen if terrorists who kill people are released at the rate of 250 for one Israeli soldier. As I have written elsewhere, Israel may need to reevaluate its policy of releasing massive amounts of terrorists for one soldier - it might not be worth it long term. In addition to legitimizing the kidnap of IDF soldiers, it will inevitably result in more attacks against Israel.

Israel already attempted to free the soldiers kidnapped on the northern border by attacking Lebanon - with horrific results. This is another example of Israel only thinking tactically, not strategically.

I suppose this is an attempt, somehow, by Yitzhak Levy to make his daughter death not in vain.

Shmuley Boteach Gets it Wrong

Ilan — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:05:23 -0400

Apparently Shmuley Boteach and Richard Dawkins had a debate on religion. I wish I had known because I would have loved to attend or watch a video stream. However, I'm really surprised by Boteach's approach, because he is usually so smart. Instead of highlighting all the good things about religion, he pins his thesis on the claim that evolution is not, or might not be, true. From Scientific Fundamentalists:

But religion is more than a useful myth. For me, my faith is true. I believe that God created the world. And yes, I said, I understood that modern science replaced creation with evolution. But the theory still had much explaining to do and many holes to fill.

...There are massive inconsistencies in the theory of evolution, which is why it remains just that - a theory.

...And then Boteach lists some of the standard religious apologetic objections to evolution. There are a number of things wrong with what he wrote. Two are strikingly, fundamentally wrong, however:

1) As usual for creationists, he misunderstands the meaning of "theory." The word as used in "theory of evolution" does not mean "hypothesis" or "guess." It is used in the same scientific sense as "theory of gravitation" or "theory of relativity" or "demand theory" in economics. That means it's an explanatory system that incorporates certain observations to make predictive claims about future phenomena and behavior. A good theory fits the data better than competing theories and will make more accurate predictions than competing theories. One could just as easily refer to the law of evolution and disprove Boteach using his own arguments. A claim has to be based on much more than word games.

2) Much more importantly, Boteach is using actual logic and facts and adducing evidence to make his point. But if logic and evidence are his criteria, he must be willing to accept the answer whatever it may be. In other words, he must be willing to say in advance that if facts prove evolution to be true, he will abandon religion. He can't have it both ways.

I have noticed a number of other painfully absurd things written by Boteach. Let's see:

- He writes that science "has enjoyed hegemony for so long that it has become its own orthodoxy and dare never be questioned..." What? Boteach is not referring to a particular scientific discipline or theory but "science" as a whole. So he and other religious fundamentalists are bravely daring to to question science? So all of science (by which I presume he means the scientific method, empricism, skepticism, and the actual scientific discoveries made since the rise the scienctific method in the 17th century) is just another theory and can be dismissed by someone who doesn't know what he is talking about? What creationists (or fundamentalists or whatever you want to call them) fail to realize is that the very nature of science is questioning, to challenge its own assumptions. If he is proposing that the theory of relativity is inadequate for explaining the observed data or is theoretically incompatible with an observed fact, and would like to propose an alternate theory that exlpains the data better and has better predictive validity, then let him say so. Einstein in fact did that with relativity, showing that Newton's laws of motion were only a special case of natural laws which were more accurately explained by relativity. More to the point, if he is proposing another theory for the existence of man, and life on earth, let him do it and subject it to the same process of inquiry that he is happy to do to evolution. And to be willing to accept the facts whereever they go. Somehow I think Bronze Age myth will fail at that task, and Boteach will not accept the results when they do so.

In short, if Boteach is willing to question science, based on the evidence, he must be willing to question the creationist claim and indeed the divinity of the Torah.

-Boteach brings this insightful piece of analysis:

Surely, as part of a modern egalitarian society that rejects the divine right of kings, Dawkins ought to be inveighing as much against the British royal family as he does against vicars, rabbis, and priests! Unless, of course, he has decided that, even though the idea of royalty is a fictitious man-made construct, it was OK to keep it around given that it is a thousand-year-old British tradition and has positive social value.

What is Boteach talking about? Assuming that Boteach recognizes Dawkins does not believe in the divine right of kings and that a powerless monarchy serves a useful social role, it is Boteach himself who states "religion is more than a useful myth." He is saying the only possible reason for Dawkins to not inveigh against monarchy is to support its utilitarian value - then says religion has more than utilitarian value. This makes no sense. So why criticize Dawkins for not criticizing monarchy?

- Then comes this gem. A conversation partner of Boteach's said to him:

"I find it curious that someone as smart as you does not believe in unaided evolution."

I thanked her for her backhanded compliment and told her, "Imagine if I said to you, 'I find it curious that someone as smart as you doesn't believe in God. You would probably think that I was a close-minded, condescending, ideologue."

Well, there is quite a difference between the two, isn't there? Evolution is constantly subject to inquiry and has been repeatedly demonstrated empirically. Even if it wasn't proven it is capable of being proven or disproven. That is why it's suprising to find a smart person who doesn't believe it. God and the creationist account that Boteach advocates either 1) cannot meet the standards of proof if subject to inquiry, and in fact can be pretty damn close to disproved or 2) are stated in such a way that they are unfalsifiable and therefore meaningless.

- Boteach also says this: "For me, my faith is true." I'll let you figure out what's wrong with this at home.

Dismantle the PA part II

Ilan — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:05:34 -0400

I seldom agree with Michael Freund, but he's pretty much spot-on about what Israel needs to do now. Except the rebuilding the settlements.

From Take Back Gaza Now:

The time has come to stop fleeing and to face this threat head-on.

Indeed, thanks to the blundering of successive Israeli leaders, what was once just a thorny counterinsurgency problem has now become a full-blown strategic threat, as the rise of Hamastan before our very eyes makes abundantly clear.

The existence of a rogue, Taliban-style terrorist state along Israel's southern border is a recipe for disaster. If allowed to come to pass, the consequences will be felt far beyond the outskirts of Sderot and Ashkelon. Gaza will serve as a regional launching pad for terrorism, trouble and tribulation, and it will tempt the rest of our neighbors to think that the "liberation of Palestine" is near.

Of course it's not going to happen and things will only get worse.

Amoral Anti-modernism

Ilan — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 13:03:13 -0500

Sara Yocheved Rigler has a piece at Aish.com about how magical incancations work. Of course, she says "it's vital to emphasize that Judaism decries magic...and this verse is not a magical incantation" which is standard fare when discussing magic and how to use magical incantations. Her insightful description of an event in Lebanon:

Menachem thought, "For sure I'm dead." He quickly recited the verse, "Hashem is God; there is nothing besides Him," thinking, "Whatever God wants will happen. If He doesn't want it to happen, it won't."

Suddenly, a few meters in front of Menachem, the missile changed direction in midair, as if it had struck an invisible force field. In full view of Menachem and eight other soldiers stationed on adjoining hilltops, the missile veered upwards, against gravity, and flew 20 meters straight up, then made an arc over Menachem's head and landed behind his outpost.

The force of the explosion knocked Menachem and Donny off their feet, but the only injuries they sustained were some shrapnel in the back of their knees.

When the battle was over, the platoon held a debriefing. The eight soldiers, including a few top officers, who had witnessed the missile's astonishing trajectory were at a loss to explain what had happened. In their entire military careers, they had never seen a missile behave like this. Their unanimous appraisal was that it was... a miracle.

Persons not pre-committed to the idea of God changing laws of nature will identify this as the argument from incredulity. Rigler's point is that Judaism says God sustains the universe at all times so apparent breaches in the laws of nature are just God not sustaing the world in his usual way. But that is, of couse, unfalsifiable and therefore meaningless.

And this:

Menachem understood that the same God who makes missiles fly straight can make missiles do porpoise leaps in midair. So God did just that for Menachem.

If so, why doesn't God save other soldiers who are defending the Jewish state whom Rigler sees as semi-divine, based on what I've read of hers? Or did they read the wrong magical incantation? Or even better: why doesn't God keep missles from killing innocent Palestinian kids stuck in buildings when IDF forces legitimately attack terrorists in the same building? Honestly - if the IDF is doing God's work, killing terrorists who hide behind kids, shouldn't this nature-bending God magicially make bombs and bullets "do porpoise leaps in midair" to protect innocent kids?

And why the hell didn't God use his Superman powers to prevent the 1982 invasion of Lebanon in the first place so Menachem woudn't be there?

Yes, mysterious are the ways of God who saves some innocent people but could give a fig about others.

Update 8/28/2007:

Upon re-reading the article, I realized I forgot to list my favorite line: "In other words, oil does not burn because it has combustible properties. Oil burns because God wills it to burn. "

I love that quote.

Belligerent Ignorance at Wikipedia

Ilan — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:16:33 -0500

Among the many outrages arising from Iran's Holocaust denial conference (and the ignorant reporting of it), I choose to point out this: Wikipedia, which probably has more readers than the New York Times, has the following news item on its front page:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (pictured) opens a conference aiming to "review the Holocaust".

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page.

This is the problem with such a conference - ignorant reporters reprint things verbatim without being aware of the need to think. This is what I call "belligerent ignorance" - not all sides of a story are legitimate and giving equal time to one can be a concession to evil. You can follow the debate here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page, at the bottom of the page.

Who was it that referred to "the moral duty to be intelligent"? We need that now more than ever.

Can Someone Please Explain This to Me?

Ilan — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:30:12 -0500

I checked several times, and despite all appearances, today is NOT April 1: New York Plans to Make Gender Personal Choice.

Separating anatomy from what it means to be a man or a woman, New York City is moving forward with a plan to let people alter the sex on their birth certificate even if they have not had sex-change surgery.

..."Surgery versus nonsurgery can be arbitrary," said Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city's health commissioner.

And to show how screwed we are in the future:

Would an adoption agency be able to uncover the original sex of a proposed parent? (Not without a court order.) Would a woman who becomes a man be able to fight in combat, or play in the National Football League? (These areas have yet to be explored.)

And to show how our entire social agenda is implemented not to inconvenience confused six-year-olds:

The thing is, I don't even remember what it's like to be a boy," Ms. Lopez said, adding that she received a diagnosis of transgender identity disorder at age 6. She asked to be identified as a woman for this article.

How on earth can a six-year-old be credibly diagnosed with such a disorder, if it even exists?

Suprisingly, some shrinks have realized that this approach may have, ahem, "problems":

But some psychiatrists said that eliminating identification difficulties for some transgender people also opened the door to unwelcome advances from imposters.

"I've already heard of a 'transgendered' man who claimed at work to be 'a woman in a man's body but a lesbian' and who had to be expelled from the ladies' restroom because he was propositioning women there," Dr. Paul McHugh, a member of the President's Council of Bioethics and chairman of the psychiatry department at Johns Hopkins University , wrote in an e-mail message on the subject. "He saw this as a great injustice in that his behavior was justified in his mind by the idea that the categories he claimed for himself were all 'official' and had legal rights attached to them ."

Based on everything else written in the article, what is wrong with being a male lesbian in the woman's bathroom? If you read the whole article, you notice there is no attempt to even deal with the question, rather than just printing the quote as a curiosity.

I honestly give up - when the New York Times becomes The Onion and you can virtually script the South Park Episode, then there's not much point in paying attention

Israel's Next War

Ilan — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 12:28:21 -0500

John Keegan, the great military historian, has a very good piece on Israel's confrontation with Hizballah and why it will lead to a new war, soon: Why Israel Will Go To War Again - Soon. He points out an aspect I hadn't considered yet, namely the role of tunnels in Hizballah's tactics.

Hizbollah has now reconstructed the fortified zone and is replenishing its stocks of missiles there. Hamas is also creating a fortified zone in the Gaza Strip and building up its stocks of missiles. Israel, therefore, faces missile attack on two fronts. When the Israel general staff decides the threat has become intolerable, it will strike.

...What allowed Hizbollah to appear successful was its occupation of the bunker-and-tunnel system that it had constructed since June 2000, when the IDF gave up its presence in south Lebanon, which it had occupied since 1982.

Although the IDF had got into south Lebanon, the casualties it had suffered in entering the fortified zone had alarmed the government and high command, since Israel's tiny population is acutely vulnerable to losses in battle. Israel's plan was to destroy Hizbollah's tunnels and bunkers, but the sending of a United Nations intervention force did not allow the destruction to be completed before the IDF was forced to withdraw.

Tunnel systems have played a crucial part in many modern campaigns, without attracting much attention. That is a serious oversight. The success of the Viet Cong in sustaining its war effort in Vietnam in 1968-72 depended heavily on its use of the so-called War Zone B, a complex of deep tunnels and underground bases north of Saigon, which had been begun during the war against the French in 1946-55.

A reader of the original article made a very astute comment, in my opinion:

Israeli and the IDF are very astute tactically but strategically they have been total failures. Israel has be at almost constant war since 1948 a situation that has brutalised not only Israel's neighbours but her own population. An end to this conflict will only come when Israels' political elite raise their eyes from the short term goals of defeating all neighbouring threats and holding on to every scrap of land possible. The objective should be peace and normalised relations with her neighbours. This cannot be achieved by proxy regimes such as the South Lebanese Army or by destroying all potential threats. If Hezbollah is destroyed that vacuum will be filled, just like Hezbollah filled the vacuum left by the expulsion of the PLO.
John Keegan's comment, whilst being from a pro-Israel point of view is probably a fair assessment of the tactical situation as it perceived by IDF but he shows no realisation that in attacking again they will be just repeating history and the price will be paid again most heavily by they young, the poor and the old.

This does not bode well for the near - term, and I fear that the next confrontation will witness a more entrenched Hizballah, now protected by the U.N. and international observers.

Oh This Is Just Great

Ilan — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 10:45:59 -0500

Apparently, Israel is currently negotiating with Hizballah for the release of the two prisoners kidnapped in July, which sparked the Second Lebanon War: Hezbollah confirms Israel talks . So the entire war was completely for naught apparently - Israel could have just negotiated and got the soldiers back without 150 Israelis getting killed, and killing God-knows-how-many Lebanese civilians (I dont care how many Hizballah terrorists Israel killed, since they worship death anyway). What the hell is wrong with Ehud Olmert? There should be a no-confidence motion in the Knesset because of this.

And I wonder how many terrorists Israel will release for the two soldiers. The going rate is about 200 terrorists per Israeli soldier. How many more people will die in attacks that these terrorists will commit in a few months or years? And how is this not rewarding terror? Is Israel really willing to give up more security for two soldiers.

I think Israel needs to reevaluate its categorical commitment to getting prisoners back - more people seem to die in the long run for the sake of a few individuals. Painful, but true.

UPDATE 11/02/06: David Schenker at the CT Blog has more on this: http://counterterrorismblog.org/2006/11/and_the_negotiations_start.php

Insert Your Own Joke Here

Ilan — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 11:21:19 -0400

How can this not be from The Onion?: Peres prepares to pursue presidency.

I mean, honestly, how many elections can Shimon Peres lose? If he loses, won't it be like his 10th time losing election for Prime Minister or President?

I wish I had that audio clip floating around Israel in 2000 of Peres saying "There are those who say that Peres is a loser. Did I lose?"

Well, I tried

Ilan — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:41:25 -0400

Michael Cutler has a post on the Counterrorism Blog which mentions how our CT efforts are damaged by the lack of competent translators:

Clearly it is critical to provide language training to employees of BOP and ICE, as well as other agencies whose employees might be able to use foreign language ability to help prevent future terrorist attacks. This is not a new issue. After the attacks of September 11 much was made about the inability of the FBI to translate a mountain of intercepts and other material that might have helped them to prevent the attacks of 9/11. Yet, even this obvious strategy of providing appropriate foreign language is not being pursued. So while the debates about the use of torture to extract intelligence and information from detainees at Guantanamo has made the headlines, other non-controversial methods of securing intelligence have been ignored!

Well, I personally tried to do my part for my country. My advanced Arabic skills were good enough to get an offer from a government agency for a position requiring an advanced level of Arabic. However, I was dinged for a security clearance, presumably due to my service in the Israeli Military. So don't blame me when we get attacked because we missed something obvious.

Of course, if I had associated with designated terrorist entities, then I would be invited to work in Congressman Jim McDermott's office, as was Mustafa Khalfi. Maybe I should try it.

In the meantime, at least my colleagues at the Terror Finance Blog are helping to keep Tariq Ramadan out of the country.

And yet more insightful theology

Ilan — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:26:32 -0400

I just came across the site Jewish Philosopher. It attempts to justify religion, or more accurately Jewish orthodoxy, but does the opposite. It does this by offering atrocious arguments.

Take this example, arguing against a straw-manned atheist: http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2006/07/questions-for-atheists.html

Watch me fisk it:

Questions for Atheists

Ten Questions No Atheist Can Answer Convincingly

#1 - If no supernatural Creator exists, how did the universe originate?
Jewish answer: God created the universe.

---Vaguely plausible. But just because you don't understand it does not mean the answer you give is therefore true. You might as well say the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. And that's assuming the universe has an origin.

#2 - If no supernatural universal Designer exists, why is the universe suitable for the existence of life?
Jewish answer: God deliberately designed the universe to be suitable for life.

---That's the anthropomorphic principle, or whatever it's called. It's been repeatedly disproven philosophically. And again, because something is inexplicable by current science does not mean that an alternate answer is true. This is a God-of-the-gaps argument.

#3 - If no supernatural universal Designer exists, how did life originate?
Jewish answer: God created life.

---Vaguely plausable, as current scientific knowledge has a problem explaining the origins of the universe and life, though same answers as #1 and #2 apply.

#4 - If no supernatural universal Designer exists, what caused the repeated disappearance of more primitive forms of life and the appearance of new more advanced forms of life?
[For example, at the beginning of the Mesozoic and Cenozoic.]
Jewish answer: God created and destroyed several previous worlds before the current one.

--- God-of-the-gaps argument
#5 - If no God exists who can work miracles and communicate with men, how did the Jewish people come to believe that their ancestors experienced the Exodus and the Revelation at Mt. Sinai?
Jewish answer: The Exodus and Mt. Sinai Revelation did occur.

---How is this an answer? He's just asserting something.

#6 - If God did not give the Torah at Mt. Sinai, why is Jewish literature divided into five levels and scholars in later levels universally considered themselves to be inferior to scholars in earlier levels? [The levels are: prophets, rabbis of the Mishnah, rabbis of the Talmud, earlier Talmudic commentaries and later Talmud commentaries.]
Jewish answer: The Jewish people were raised to a very high spiritual level at Mt. Sinai, and then gradually declined.

--- Ditto #5

#7 - If we have no soul, why do we feel conscious of ourselves?
Jewish answer: We have a soul.

--- What?

#8 - If we have no free will, why do we feel that we are making free choices?
Jewish answer: We have free will.

--- What? What the hell kind of loaded question is that? What does it have to do with atheism or Judaism?

#9 - If no God exists, why are we obligated to be nice other people?
Jewish answer: God obligates us to do to others as we want them to do to us.

--- That's not an answer.

#10 – If no covenant exists between God and the Jews, stipulating that the Jews must observe the Torah or be killed, why did the Germans kill 6 million Jews?
Jewish answer: The Jews made such an agreement with God as recorded in Leviticus 26. When European Jews ceased observing the Torah, they broke the agreement and suffered the consequences.
---"What an asshole" is my response to this.

Considering how poorly atheism, compared to Judaism explains the world one wonders how atheism can possibly be more popular than Judaism.
---Right, just asserting that everything came from God proves it.

The answer seemingly is quite simple. A rabbi will tell people that they must limit themselves with all sorts of rules. An atheist will tell people that they can do whatever feels good. Who will most people rather listen too?

--------

Thank you, Jewish Philosopher, for turning intelligent people off to Judaism. The sad part is that he actually believes he has proven his point.

Now this is chutzpah!

Ilan — Mon, 11 Sep 2006 10:43:28 -0400

I've written about this earlier, but it's worth mentioning again. According to Israeli sources, Iran exploited humanitarian aid during the December 2003 earthquake to ship weapons to Hizballah. That is about the most cynical thing I can think of:

During the past few years the Iranians have exploited the opportunities which presented themselves, such as the humanitarian aid flights for the victims of the earthquake at Bam in southeastern Iran (December 2003-January 2004). On at least nine separate occasions, the Qods Force used the Iranian and Syrian cargo planes bringing humanitarian aid, loading the return flights with large amounts of weapons and other equipment for Hezbollah.

The entire report is here.

The war profiteers of Cafe Press

Ilan — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:32:44 -0400

Cafe Press frequently advertises on right wing blogs with pro-Israel and generally conservative T-Shirts and mugs and other kitchy items. I sort of assumed that they were run by a right-wing organization having fun and making a buck while playing a role in the good fight. That was until I discovered today that they are whores:

Notice how they have an anti-Hizballah logo and a pro-Hizballah logo. Elsewhere on the same page (http://www.cafepress.com/cp/search/poe/?i=13793006&q=israel&st=&opt=&fpt=&c=&pg=2&rpp=18&sort=by_score_desc) they have a "Remember Qana" image, literally next to a "Support Israel" image. What a bunch of whores!

Plus, I think it is illegal to have pro-Hizballah propaganda.... there should be an investigation into this.

Ohr Somayach is getting on the comedy bandwagon

Ilan — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 19:56:41 -0400

Ohr Somayach is also getting on the comedy bandwagon, by giving hilarious reasons for not serving in the IDF. Rabbi Yirmiyahu Ullman gives it a go in the real knee-slapper, Divine Draft Dodgers. Rabbi Ullman's resume is impressive but contains no mention of serving in the IDF. I can't really improve on the comedy content of the article, so here is the whole article. Please go to the Ohr Somaych site for more comedy.

Religious people do in fact serve in the Israeli Army. Plenty of nationalistic-religious and even ‘charedi’ Jewish men serve as regular duty soldiers and in the reserve.
If you mean to ask why many yeshiva students and Torah scholars don’t serve (some do), that is a complicated question which needs much study. The following is not an exhaustive explanation, but rather a general overview.

Ideally, there should be no need for war and armies, as in the verse: “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, nor shall they learn war anymore”. Unfortunately, humankind has yet to be unified in their service of G-d and thereby reach this ideal state of peace. Until then, war and conflict will continue to be a paradoxically painful part of life.

Within this context, Judaism recognizes the unfortunate need for self-protection that may involve both defensive and offensive war. There are many examples of this in the Torah involving such righteous individuals as Abraham (Gen. 14), the sons of Jacob (Gen. 34), Moses (Ex. 2:12), Joshua (Ex. 17), Saul and Samuel (I Sam. 15), David, Solomon and many more. However, just as the Torah regulates other physical needs such as eating, working, procreation etc., G-d delineates a particularly Jewish way of warring.

The first principle is that a Jewish army, including every soldier, must place its trust in G-d for success. The Torah relates, "Amalek came and fought with Israel in Rephidim. So Moses said to Joshua, Pick men for us, and go out and fight against Amalek...When Moses would raise his hand, Israel would prevail, and when he would lay down his hand, Amalek would prevail" (Ex. 17:8-11). Our Sages remarked, do Moses’ hands make or break war? Rather, when he would lift his hands, the soldiers would look upward and subjugate their hearts to their Father in Heaven and they would succeed (Rosh Hashanah 29a).

A second principle is that Torah learning is vital for military success: “If you toil in Torah study [see Rashi]…you will pursue your enemies, and they will fall by the sword before you. Five of you will pursue a hundred, and a hundred of you will pursue ten thousand, and your enemies will fall by the sword before you” (Lev. 26:3-8). Furthermore, the Talmud relates that the captain of the host of G-d appeared to Joshua criticizing him for having had the soldiers sleep on the night before the battle of Jericho instead of learning Torah. Joshua later corrected the situation by having the soldiers learn all night before combat, resulting in their subsequent miraculous victories (Megilla 3a). Similarly, during the siege of Sancherib on Jerusalem, King Hezekiah placed a sword at the entrance of every synagogue and house of study saying, “Whoever doesn’t learn Torah will be stabbed with this sword” (Sanhedrin 94b). Afterwards the Jews merited a miraculous victory and the enemy was slain overnight.

A third principle is that the draft to the Jewish army must be based on the preceding ideas - namely that a portion of the eligible soldiers be drafted for the specific purpose of praying and learning Torah for the benefit of the combat units. This is derived from the following verse, "So Moses spoke to the people saying, 'Arm from among you men for the army...A thousand for each tribe, a thousand for each tribe, from all the tribes of Israel you shall send into the army'. From the thousands of Israel one thousand was given over for each tribe, twelve thousand armed for battle" (Num. 31:3-5). The Midrash (Mattot 22:3) explains that the three-fold mention of thousand indicates that in fact three thousand were drafted from each tribe: 1000 for combat, 1000 for logistic support and 1000 for Torah study and prayer.

This reveals that a full third of eligible soldiers occupied spiritual units that are considered no less important for the war effort than logistic and combat units. This inter-dependency is apparent in the teaching of our Sages (Sanhedrin 49a), “If it weren’t for David’s Torah study, Yoav would not have succeeded in war; and if not for Yoav’s effort in battle, David would not have been able to learn Torah, as in the verse, ‘David administered justice and charity for all his people, and Yoav was over the host' (II Sam. 8:15)”. In fact, the contribution of spiritual soldiers is considered so valuable that the exile in Egypt was blamed on Abraham’s mobilizing scholars for battle rather than for prayer and Torah study (Nedarim 32a). According to Rambam, the entire tribe of Levi was also exempt from combat for this purpose, and he concludes that anyone who dedicates himself to a life of Torah study is also in this category (Shemita 13:12,13).

A fourth principle is that the combat soldiers should be free of sin. In addition to those exempt from military service because of a new house, a new vineyard or a new wife, the Torah also exempts the “fearful and fainthearted” (Deut. 20:8). Our Sages explained that this includes a soldier who fears that his transgressions will hinder Divine Providence for success, and will adversely affect his fellow fighters. He is allowed to return with the others to save him embarrassment as a sinner. However, Rashi there (20:3) explains that merely saying the ‘Shema’ is enough to merit Divine protection.

Based on the above, the early founders of Israel and its military recognized the importance of full-time Torah study to Jewish survival and continuity. Although they didn’t draft soldiers for that purpose, they agreed to defer service to anyone who was committed to serving the Jewish people world wide and in Israel by learning Torah and praying, thereby fulfilling the Torah dictate for ‘spiritual’ units. Most observers of Israel’s military history, while considering the great effort, self-sacrifice, courage and perseverance of the nation, still consider Israel’s victories to be miraculous. This is a phenomenon that is unparalleled in history and is the result of the unique combination of David and Yoav - Torah and military prowess – in our days as in days of old. The yeshiva students and Torah scholars are doing their job. We await the day when all Jews will be committed soldiers in the army of G-d, free of sin and prepared to proudly proclaim, “Hear O Israel, Hashem is our G-d, Hashem is One!”

This is just stupid. I think I had greater respect for the Haredim when they admitted they were milking the state and making other people die to defend them, simply because they could, rather than blaming it on God. I can't beleive Rabbi Orlofsky believes this nonsense, though I do remember him being very funny,

More insightful commentary from Aish HaTorah

Ilan — Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:09:22 -0400

Rabbi Noson Weisz of Aish has an article explaining why the Jewish people are so unique that their country cannot be like any other. It contains this gem:

Peace in Israel is possible, but ultimately not through the force of arms. Our forefathers who were driven out of Israel twice knew this well, and Divine Providence treated them with greater severity then it treats us. Instead of sending them a wake-up call, Divine Providence banished them altogether.

In contrast, the typical modern Israeli is ignorant of the need to hold on to the Covenant of Abraham in order to hold on to his country. Providence will not banish him; it will provide him with stimuli to prompt a series of soul-searching questions that if taken to heart, could provoke genuine change.

What is he talking about? History shows that peace, everywhere, is ultimately only possible (if it is possible) through force of arms. Israel is facing a religiously-motivated enemy at this point, who will be unlikely to give up its goal unless completely defeated. Whatever the inadequacies of Israel's current military strategy to deal with the threat, that does not mean that "force of arms" is insufficient. Weisz seems to be criticizing modern secular Israeli for not having an obscurantist religious view of the conflict. How hypocritical: based on the bio on the Aish site, which lists Weisz's educational acheivements, there is not a word about serving in the IDF.

This seems me to be another subtle attempt by the Orthodox to minimize the importance of actually fighting and dying for the state they worship. I'm still trying to work out the reasons they do so.

Do people such as Weisz give any consideration to the fact that Israel was started by radically socialist, athiest, anti-religious ideologues? Or that the Orthodox were almost uniformly opposed to the existence of the state?

And why do Aish writers keep spewing this out:

Much of the intellectual progress made in the 20th century was fueled by the ideas of three Jewish thinkers: Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx.

More people have probably been killed in the name of Karl Marx than any other human being. Not something to trot out that often.

Again, it seems to be the same theme: Criticise those who fight and die, while praising those who do not fight but choose to talk and pray.

Wal-Mart Will Save You From Exploitation

Ilan — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 12:42:17 -0400

In an attempt to improve its image in the inner cities so it can open its stores which ruin entire communities, Wal-Mart hired former Atlanta Mayor and U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young to head a front organization. Young explains Wal-Mart's advantages as such:

But you see, those are the people who have been overcharging us, selling us stale bread and bad meat and wilted vegetables. And they sold out and moved to Florida. I think they've ripped off our communities enough. First it was Jews, then it was Koreans and now it's Arabs; very few black people own these stores.

The Washington Post mentions these as "remarks seen as racially offensive." How ignorantly neutral can you get? How can anyone else interpret this as not racially offensive? Who is the Post afraid of offending by telling the truth - the anti-semitic, anti-Korean, and anti-Arab lobbies?

Despite resigning his position, Young still doesn't get it: ""Things that are matter-of-fact in Atlanta, in the New York and Los Angeles environment tend to be a lot more volatile," he is reported as saying. The New York Times has this post-resignation explanation:

Explaining his comments about Koreans, Jews and Arabs, Mr. Young said he was referring to the history of retail ownership in the neighborhood where he lives in southwestern Atlanta.

“Almost everyone who has come into my community has moved in, made money and moved out and moved up,” he said. “That process is still continuing.”

I wonder if this puts Andrew Young's 1979 meeting with the PLO in a new light. It frightens me that the former mayor of a major city and diplomat can be saying or thinking such nonsense. I might only be seeing Young as racially insensitive, though, according to the Washington Post.

How to help Israel without really trying

Ilan — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:51:23 -0400

Aish.com has an article about some genuinely good people in Israel who are doing a lot to help the country. We, too, in America can also apparently help:

A campaign is currently underway to match up "fighting pairs" of Israeli soldiers with Jews in Israel and the Diaspora. The soldier's job is to fight the war; the civilian's job is to pray, learn Torah, and do mitzvot so as to protect that soldier. This was the practice in the time of King David, whose successful military campaigns created the Kingdom of Israel.

How very easy - they risk their lives and get killed while we sit on our asses and pray! What an insult to the actual people who are going through hell and risking their lives to defend the state. I shudder to think that one of the people who chooses to be the praying side of the fighting pair actually thinks that s/he is an any way comparable to a soldier. How about spending one's time actually doing something for that soldier? Donate to Friends of the IDF, at least, so soliders can have good resort villages and free orange juice, which is what I remember FIDF doing when I was in the IDF.

And then the author goes on to mention the following, referring to a very well-intentioned charity organization:

But in the Jewish worldview, it is entirely conceivable that Avi Amsalem's 180 meals to shut-ins last Thursday could have created 180 angels who deflected Katyusha rockets heading toward Jewish homes and sent them into empty courtyards instead.

No, it's not conceivable. If I were a savvier political sociologist, I would propose that there is something in all this nonsense that subtly tries to diminish the importance of the IDF.

UPDATE, 8/18: I wonder what happens if the soldier you're praying for gets killed. Do you go into mourning? Do you need to do repentance for the fact that your prayers didn't work? Do you personally go into battle to fill the shoes of your lost comrade? Something's gotta give if people take this nonsense seriously.