Israelblog.org

Barack Obama, Pilpulist

Aron — 2008-05-11

Pilpul [which probably derives from the Hebrew word pilpel-- pepper] refers to a technique of Talmudical study. To find out what pilpul has to do with Obama, we need to go on a bit of a side track. More beneath the fold.

According to Rabbinic Judaism, God gave Moses two Torahs - a written text and an oral text. The written text is preserved in the first five books of the Jewish Bible. The oral text, according to the Rabbis, was handed down from generation to generation, until it too was written down in the time of the Mishnah (second century CE). Since it is the word of God, the oral text must be perfect. However, the long years of oral transmission apparently led to various and contradictory traditions of the text. The Talmud is essentially a commentary on the Mishnaic text which attempts to find the "true" version of the oral law.

Since any human attempt to find perfection is ultimately doomed to failure, the Talmud itself is rife with contradictions. Over the centuries, Jewish scholars continued their Sisyphean task, adding commentary upon commentary in an attempt to reach the perfect and divine version of the oral law. In the late fifteenth and sixteenth century, a technique was developed which involved complex textual analysis and intellectual pyrotechnics -- not unlike post-modern textual deconstruction, except the goal of pilpul is to expose the absolute truth beneath the text.

Daniel Jeremy Silver, in his book A History of Judaism argues that the rise of pilpul actually became a motivating factor in the rise of Hassidism. Pilpul came to be seen as a barren intellectual exercise, completely detached from the day to day reality of most Jews in the 17th and 18th century and lacking any connection to devotional practice. The simple parables and songs that the Hassidic movement placed at the center of devotional life had universal appeal and was accessible to every Jew, not just the scholarly and learned. In time, pilpul became a mostly derogatory term referring to a barren intellectual exercise in hair splitting which is detached from the truth.

The term came to mind when reading an article today in the NY Times, about a McCain attack on Obama. Ahmed Yousef, a political adviser to the Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyah, recently said in an interview "We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the election. I do believe that Mr. Obama is like John Kennedy, a great man with great principles. He has a vision to change America, to make it in a position to lead the world community, but not with domination and arrogance.”

Playing off these comments, McCain said: “I think it is very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States, If Senator Obama is favored by Hamas, I think people can make judgments accordingly.” McCain also said: “Well, Iran is obviously an important supporter of Hamas. Senator Obama wants to sit down and have negotiations and discussions with the person who just yesterday called Israel a quote ‘stinking corpse,’ [quoting Iran's President Ahmadinejad] who continues to advocate quote ‘wiping Israel off the map.’”

McCain (again, according to the NY Times) is trying to appeal to those "hard working Americans, white Americans" Hillary was talking about the other day. According the the Times these "hard working" Americans don't have too much truck with smart people, whom they see as "city slickers." Which might explain why they might find McCain and his comments about Hamas so appealing. And of course, a Black smart person must be really unappealing to them, especially if said Black person is beloved by "terrorist" ragheads.

One would think that said Harvard educated Black person could come up with an intelligent response to such inanities. More precisely, one would hope that Obama would live up to Yousef's flattering comments and show that he is indeed a man of great principles, with a vision to change America. But unfortunatly, Obama and his campaign resorted to pilpul. More from the Times:

"Susan E. Rice, a former State Department and National Security Council official who is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic candidate, said that 'for political purposes, Senator Obama’s opponents on the right have distorted and reframed' his views. Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet 'unconditionally' with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called 'rogue' state. Mr. Obama believes 'that engagement at the presidential level, at the appropriate time and with the appropriate preparation, can be used to leverage the change we need,' Dr. Rice said. 'But nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work.'

Ok, so let me get this straight. When Obama says "America has to talk with its enemies" (and he has said that quite often) he doesn't necessarily mean that he has to talk with its enemies. Sure he'll talk with enemies, say like the President of France. But enemies which are "rogue" states, those he won't talk to. Not without a whole lot of preparation and not unconditionally. So say if he can twist Ahmadinejad's arm and get him to sing the "ha'Tikvah" then maybe he will talk to him. But wait, there is more:

"Mr. Obama has been clear in making a distinction between his willingness to talk 'not just to countries we like, but those we don’t,' as he puts it, and Hamas and other political movements similar to it. 'Hamas is not a state,' Mr. Obama told a Jewish group last month. 'Hamas is a terrorist organization.'"

Yes that's true, Hamas is not a state, just like the Likud is not a state. It's a political party. just like the Likud. It engages in terrorist activities, but so did Herut (a major component of the Likud) before israel became a State. And so did the PLO, of which Abbas is a member, and yet with whom both Israel and the US are engaged in a "peace process." Note too, that Ismail Haniya, whom Ahmed Yousef advises, is the duly elected Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority. He was in fact elected in a process endorsed by the United States and which all objective observers declared to be a fair and honest election. While the PA is not a full fledged state like Israel, it is a recognized political entity, and not a terrorist organization. Under Haniyeh's rule, Obama may view it as a "rogue" political entity, but it far more than a terrorist organization.

"Responding to Mr. McCain’s accusations in an interview with CNN on Thursday, Mr. Obama elaborated on that position. He again called Hamas a terrorist group and said that 'we should not talk to them unless they recognize Israel, renounce violence and are willing to abide by previous accords' that Israel has negotiated with its neighbors and with the Palestine Liberation Organization."

So Obama is all for talking with enemies, except when those enemies are heads of "rogue" states, in which case he won't talk to them unconditionally and without groundwork. But if those enemies are elected officials in political entities which are not yet states, then we will never talk talk to them or even prepare to talk to them until they unconditionally surrender to our demands. In other words, we will never talk to them. And by the way, why should Hamas have to abide by accords signed with Egypt and Jordan? Does the United States abide by treaties signed by Canada and Mexico? And why should Hamas have to abide by treaties signed by the PLO, which is not a state, but a terrorist organization, by Obama's definition? How can a terrorist organization sign a treaty?

But enough on this topic. All this pilpul is giving me a headache.

Hillary Clinton Advocates Genocide

Aron — 2008-05-01

I know there is more important news around (like Myley Shmyley's bare shoulder/scary Incest Father/scary Angry Black Man). So it is not surprising that this little tidbit from Hillary Clinton got so little comment: “I want the Iranians to know, if I am the president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to understand that, because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society, because at whatever stage of development they might be with their nuclear weapons program in the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

While Hillary wants to obliterate Iran and Iranian society, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad merely wants to eliminate the "Zionist" regime, not obliterate Israel: "Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented." And yet when he came to visit in the US and talk at Columbia all kinds of people accussed him of advocating genocide. In fact, looking at his comments in context, he was actually calling for a negotiated solution, even though he wants more. Hillary doesn't even mention negotiations.

And lest anyone defend Hillary by saying she is merely pandering to a specific audience, well the same could be said of Ahmadinejad. No political leader should ever talk about "obliteration" as an option in resolving conflicts. Here is an excellent commentary on this subject.

Nos Tienen Miedo Porque No Tenemos Miedo

Aron — 2008-04-25

Watch this video. Thanks to the blog owner Roberto Lovato for sharing something so beautiful.

Still More KLA War Crime Allegations

Aron — 2008-04-11

I know I seem to be harping on this topic, but it truly annoys me how the US media totally ignores this issue. Another article in the Guardian about alleged KLA war crimes.

Right-wing pundits in the US are not altogether wrong in their claims about the "biased liberal media." Of course, the media is far from liberal, its just biased in bizarre ways. The NY Times is really getting worse and worse. Take this quote from "pundit" (do they really pay this guy for writing this crap) Roger Cohen, in an article he wrote extolling the wonders of Kosovo "independence":

"But, Serbs protest in their blind pursuit of an untenable moral equivalency, the Kosovo Liberation Army were no kittens. Nor, once the Serbian genocide against Bosnian Muslims of April to September 1992 was completed, was the emergent Bosnian army. That’s right: persecute a people with enough savagery and they will in the end unite, rise up, fight and go their own way."

Hmm. Now re-read this paragraph with some simple substitutions:

"But, Israelis protest in their blind pursuit of an untenable moral equivalency, the Hamas were no kittens...That’s right: persecute a people with enough savagery and they will in the end unite, rise up, fight and go their own way."

Do you think Cohen could have gotten away with writing such an incendiary sentence justifying murder and barbaric war crimes, if he had been writing about Hamas and not the KLA? Somehow the KLA gets a pass even though they are more brutal than Hamas and unlike the latter, currently involved in the horrible crime of human trafficking.

Follow up on Kosovo

Aron — 2008-04-03

A while back I did a piece on Kosovo's "declaration of independence." I am particularly appalled by the double standard applied by Western governments, who give the Kosovo government leadership, members of the criminal KLA, a pass.

Today's NY Times had an article about several KLA leaders who were acquitted by the UN War Crimes Tribunal. The main reason they were acquitted was because of witness intimidation, which essentially undermined the prosecution's case. But what was truly disturbing, and reinforces the points I made in the previous article, was this line:

"The case against Mr. Haradinaj was fraught with difficulties from the start. Western diplomats tried to dissuade Carla Del Ponte, who was the chief prosecutor, from indicting Mr. Haradinaj, arguing that he was a respected political leader who played an important role in stabilizing Kosovo."

Baghdad: City of Walls

Aron — 2008-03-30

The big lie of Bush and Co is meant to cover up a horrifying truth: the endless suffering of the Iraqi people caused by the US invasion. Calling this invasion a criminal act doesn't properly describe the vast injustice of every day the US stays in Iraq.

The Guardian, a UK newspaper, provides us with a bit of insight into what is really happening. A series of film snippets by an Iraqi photo journalist, Ghaith Abdul-Ahud illuminates a little bit of the heart-breaking truth that is the war in Iraq.

From the start of the war, the NY Times has served has a propaganda arm for Bush & Co. Today they printed an analysis which strongly implies that the current fighting is proving the success of the US approach. Mainly quoting "Western officials" and US-based analysts, they claimed that the attack on the Mahdi army indicates that the Iraqi government is finally having the backbone to act on its own, without US prodding, and stand up to militants. Such action is a necessary step for political stability and for strengthening the central government. They further claim that Sadr is losing popularity amongst the Shia populace which makes this an opportune time to attack him. The also imply that undermining Sadr, helps undermine Iranian influence.

By contrast, the Christian Science Monitor spend some time speaking to Arab analysts, and not just US government officials. They paint a completely different picture. One analysts argues that the US was behind this push from the beginning, and it was the US and al-Maliki who underestimated the implications of their actions, rather than Sadr. Moreover, Iran has its fingers in all the pies, and if in the highly unlikely event Sadr goes down, Iran will not lose. Finally, this is not about the central Iraqi government asserting power, but one Shia faction trying to rest control from another, as part of a chess game for a Shia takeover of Iraq's largest oil resource.

The irony here is that should the ISCI, the faction behind the attack on Sadr, succeed in forming an autonomous Shi'a region on the Kurd model, the Sunni's are sure to rise up again. This time they will have US arms and training (having recently "allied" themselves to the US military). The blood bath will be immensely worse than prior to the surge. The mess just gets messier and the Iraqi people's suffering just gets worse.

The Big Lie regarding the "success of the Surge."

Aron — 2008-03-28

Like many people I suppose, I always assumed Goebbels first articulated the propaganda technique we now call "the big lie." According to this article, that isn't the case. However, his definition is quite apt: "...the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous." This definition exactly fits the big lie being promulgated by Bush & Co and the media regarding the "success" of the US "surge" of troops in Iraq. In the face of all the bombings, killings, fighting and unmitigated violence that gets reported on a daily basis, the lie just gets repeated over and over. What is ridiculous is that anyone with a modicum of intelligence can believe this absurd claim.

Patrick Cockburn gives a more nuanced view of the situation in Iraq, in an interview over at Democracy Now:

"This month, we’re probably going to have 1,500, 1,600 civilians killed. So, you know, in a sense, things have got better. We’ve gone from 3,000 to 1,600. But, you know, we’ve gone from 100 percent bloodbath to 50 percent bloodbath, but it’s still a bloodbath, so I think it’s really ludicrous for Vice President Cheney or Senator McCain to say, you know, we’re on the verge of victory, things are good. "