Israel Denial, part 2

Denying the State of Israel's existence has always been the vogue among Muslim and other hostile states. But recently we have begun to witness Israel denial tolerated in the mainstream.

Israel has been omitted from maps by NPR, Harper Collins, BMW and Air France, to name a few. (Links below)

Incredibly, this bizarre phenomenon has been predicted and mapped out (pun intended) nearly three thousand years ago in the Hebrew Scriptures.


Psalms chapter 83 describes a time when the nations will clamor for Israel's destruction. In an uproar, the nations will seek crafty pretexts with which to eliminate G-d's treasured people.

In verse 5, "They will say: 'Come, let us erase them from being a nation, and that the name Israel never be mentioned again.'"

אָמְר֗וּ לְ֭כוּ וְנַכְחִידֵ֣ם מִגּ֑וֹי  וְלֹֽא־יִזָּכֵ֖ר שֵֽׁם־יִשְׂרָאֵ֣ל עֽוֹד׃

In this context, the phrase "ונכחידם מגוי" has been traditionally translated "let us destroy them from being a nation." However, the verb כחד usually denotes to erase, omit, conceal or deny. It can be read, "Let us deny them from being a nation," or "Let us deny their statehood."

Alternatively, it can be read, "Let's hide or ignore the fact that they are a nation," or "Let's omit them from being among the nations," so that "Israel not be mentioned again."

The Midrash points out that the nations are referred to here as "Your enemies," i.e. the enemies of G-d, and that their war on Israel is in fact a war on G-d. "As long as Israel survives," the nations reckon, "He is called 'G-d of Israel.' But once Israel is uprooted, then whose G-d is He?"

The Psalm begins:

1. A Psalm, a song of Asaph.
2. O God, have no silence, do not be silent and do not be still, O God.

(This implies that the world stands by silently as hostile nations raise their heads insolently and call for Israel's destruction, or omission.)

3. For behold, Your enemies uproar, and those who hate You raise their heads.
4. Against Your people they scheme cunningly, and they plot against Your hidden ones  ("ויתיעצו על צפוניך").

Our Sages comment on "Your hidden ones" that just as G-d is a mystery, so is G-d's people a mystery. Indeed, they are "hidden" in "Your" inscrutable mystery.

(See previous discussion of the true definition of Israel)

5. They will say: "Come, let us erase them from being a nation, and that the name Israel never be mentioned again."

The nations' effort to erase Israel is due to the fact that G-d is concealed ("צפוניך"), and consequently the true value of Israel as G-d's people is likewise concealed.

Some commentaries explain that the Psalm refers to the world's hostile attitude toward Israel in the last days of exile prior to the Final Redemption.

It is obvious to me that we are witnessing the unfolding of a three-thousand-year-old Biblical prophecy and the arrival of the Final Redemption.

Let's hope and pray that the end of the chapter be speedily realized:

17. Fill their faces with shame, and they will seek Your countenance, O Lord...
19. Let them know that You-Your name alone is God, Most High over all the earth.

Meanwhile, the surest way to usher the final Redemption is by "putting Israel back on the map" by increasing in Torah and mitzvot, by living up to our lofty name, Israel. By summoning our secret reservoirs of self sacrifice ("צפוניך") to study Torah and observe Mitzvot, we effectively make G-dliness known all over the earth.

And then, even our biggest enemies will come to know the truth.

וְיֵדְעוּ כִּי אַתָּה שִׁמְךָ ה' לְבַדֶּךָ עֶלְיוֹן עַל כָּל הָאָרֶץ

Links:

http://honestreporting.com/npr-erases-israel-from-the-map/
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/01/02/erased-from-map-harpercollins-atlas-omits-israel.html
http://www.jta.org/2015/11/26/news-opinion/israel-middle-east/cnn-omits-israel-from-middle-east-map
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/05/middle-east-atlas-israel-anger
http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/318522/air-france-deeply-regrets-for-omitting-israel-from-map/
http://www.jpost.com/International/Air-France-wipes-Israel-off-of-the-mapliterally-410999
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/noisrael.asp
http://www.haaretz.com/news/u-k-airline-bmi-must-explain-its-omission-of-israel-from-maps-1.275417

Israel is real.

"Israel is not a state."

Not surprisingly, Iran recently articulated a view held by thirty-five other mostly-Muslim nations, some 17% of United Nation member states who do not recognize Israel's statehood. The Iranian nuclear chief was asked whether or not he thinks an Israeli-Iranian war could arise as a result of last year’s nuclear deal between Iran and world powers. He responded: “We essentially do not see [Israel] as a state, therefore it’s not a threat to Iran.”(article)

Of course, the absurd remark bespeaks a total escape from reality. Israel is undeniably a sovereign state with a stable government and formidable military that Iran certainly reckons with. Yet nevertheless, Israel-denial seems to be a hallmark of the irrational world of depraved fundamentalist Islamists. The very notion that a "Jewish State" could possibly exist is unacceptable to them, so it's ideologically easier to simply pretend it doesn't. Perhaps even more absurdly, the State of Israel has in the past been ready to concede vast stretches of territory to hostile Arab terrorists, thereby compromising it own security, all in exchange for a mere piece of paper in which the nominal "peace partners" simply agree to recognize Israel's existence! And yet in spite of Israel's best efforts to achieve recognition, Iran and others do not acknowledge its statehood.

However, as delusional as the above statement is, I must confess that there is deeper significance in these words that we ought to consider.

In fact, in a strange way I actually agree! Israel is not a state.

Wait! Before your feathers get ruffled, please hear me out.

Israel is not really a state. There happens to be a modern sovereign state called "Israel," but that state is not Israel, at least not in the truest sense of the word Israel. You heard me right. The "State of Israel" is not really Israel.

To illustrate: is the Milky Way a candy bar? Or an amusement park? Or one of numerous songs or movies? Or an overpriced chic kosher restaurant on West Pico Boulevard in Los Angeles?

No. The candy bar may have been named after a galaxy, but the candy bar is not a galaxy, just as a mobile device called "Galaxy" isn't a galaxy either. It's just a puny, soon-to-be-obsolete mobile device. An infinitesimally tiny speck of dust in an incomparably vast galaxy.

Wikipedia gives us disambiguation choices for these secondary contextual meanings.

However, Wikipedia and the world make a colossal error when it comes to Israel. They define Israel primarily as a modern state, while the true meaning of Israel is barely mentioned among their numerous disambiguated offerings.

What does Israel really refer to? Who (or what) is Israel?

Let's go back to the original and primary source. Throughout the Bible, the name "Israel" refers to G-d's chosen people, also referred to as "the children of Israel," the descendants of our patriarch Jacob, the original person who was named Israel. So Israel refers to all Jews.


"Hear O Israel, G-D is our G-d, G-d is one." (Deuteronomy) Hear O Jew. When I declare these words twice daily, I am calling upon myself to hear/understand/take to heart that G-d is one. Israel is me.

The Prophets exclaimed in awe: "Who is like Your people Israel, one nation on earth?" (Samuel and Kings) Israel is a people, Your (G-d's) people. Israel is a people and an individual, and many individuals. Israel is all and each of us.

The Talmud relates that when Israel below dons tefillin that proclaims the Shema, that G-d is one, G-d metaphorically dons tefillin above that proclaims the latter verse, that Israel is one.

Deuteronomy: את ה' האמרת היום וה' האמירך היום להיות לו לעם סגולה -- "You have declared G-d's singularity in this world on this day, and G-d has declared your singularity in the world on this day, that you may be His treasured nation..."

Who is Israel? Israel is you and me. Your Jewish neighbor down the street, the one you talk to and the one you don't talk to. The Hareidi Jew who makes you feel uncomfortable. The agnostic Jew, the marginal Jew, the committed and the uncommitted Jew, the cosmopolitan Jew, the ghetto Jew and the "settler" Jew. The inspired Jew and the disillusioned Jew. The chassidic and the unchassidic, Sephardic, Ashkenazic or Mizrachi. The Schlimiel Jew the Schlimazel Jew and the Nudnik Jew. They, we, are all Israel.

We are one because G-d is one.

G-d is undefinable, and Israel is undefinable. We are G-d's and G-d is ours.

כל הנוגע בהם כאילו נוגע בבת עינו של הקב"ה
Israel's enemies are enemies of G-d. Those who love Israel love G-d.

Israel is not a state nor even a land. The land is referred to as "Eretz Yisrael," the "Land of Israel," i.e. the Land that belongs to Israel. Israel is the people to whom the land belongs, whether they reside in their Land yet or not.

Israel is a Jew, a diaspora Jew just as much as a Jerusalemite Jew.

Israel is not a state nor a government. The modern sovereign state that happens to be called Israel is not Israel. But the Jew in Madagascar, in Massachusetts or Tehran -- he (or she) is Israel, every bit as much as the Jew who lives in Tel Aviv.

Being "Israeli" or a citizen of the modern state of Israel does not make one Israel. Being a Jew makes one Israel.

A Jew who lives in Judea and Samaria doesn't just live in Israel. He (or she) IS Israel.

(Parenthetically, Judea and Samaria are both part of the Land that G-d bequeathed to His people Israel. No government or official has the right to cede any inch of that territory to foreign occupiers who are not Israel. Even a majority vote in the State of Israel does not give the democratically elected Israeli official any mandate to cede this territory, since it is the personal inheritance of all Israel, ie every Jew on earth. The Knesset is only authorized to safeguard the Land, but in no way to relinquish it to any foreigner, Heaven forfend. The Knesset is NOT Israel. One can be a member of the Israeli Knesset and not be Israel.)

The mitzva (commandment of the Torah) referred to as "Ahavat Yisrael" ("Love of Israel") does not mean to love a state, political entity, or even the Land, as holy as it is. It means to love your fellow Jew. Once you appreciate the inestimable value of a Jew, once you can truly love your fellow as yourself, then you can appreciate how precious is the sacred and eternal Land promised to G-d's people.

An Canadian is Canadian because of the state. So is a Frenchman or an American. The state gives him his national identity. But Israel is not Israel because of a state. A Jew is Israel because G-d is one. And the state is called Israel only because Israel is Israel.

To define Israel as a state is to define the Milky Way as a candy bar and worse.

It is to reduce the pinnacle of Creation, an unfathomable part of G-d from above, as it were, to nothing more than a cheap video game at Walmart.

Please don't get me wrong. I do not wish to denigrate or minimize my appreciation for the State of Israel. It is a state that deserves our support and assistance and even sacrifice. But it is nothing more than a man-made state like all others. Greece and Cyprus are also states, as is the United States.

The State of Israel is a vitally important state, as it funds a military that defends six million Israels who dwell in its midst. It regulates the economy and provides social services for its citizens, Israels and non-Israels alike. But it exists as a means to a greater end. It is not the ends in itself. It is not really Israel. It exists to serve Israel. We pray that it will endure and flourish until the ultimate sovereignty of Israel is restored, the era of Moshiach ben David Melech Yisrael, chai v'kayam. We pray that until that time, it will fulfill its purpose and protect its citizens from harm by ousting or eliminating the dangerous and hostile elements in its midst and near its borders.

So, to conclude, Israel is not a state. It is a part of G-d from above, an awesome Cosmic force that is transforming the world into the Dwelling Place for the Creator that it was intended to be. Israel is every Jewish man, woman and child who are poised to achieve their glorious destiny. Israel is the heart and soul and hands and feet of the Jew, the ambassador for G-d in this world. Israel is the People of the Book, G-d's book, who are ordained by G-d to impart His wisdom to the world as a Light unto the Nations. Israel is G-d's gift to mankind, entrusted with the mission of teaching the Seven Noahide Laws to humanity, Iranians and Arabs included.

Once we understand and truly acknowledge what Israel is, ie who we are as individuals and as a people, we can then appreciate the great need for a State for Israel. But please let's not confuse our ends with our means. Let's not reverse our definitions, as Wikipedia might have us believe, that Israel is a modern state that Jews ought to pride themselves in because of its great modern achievements, and that this modern state somehow justifies or validates the Jewish people as "nation among the nations," since we now have a soccer team and a national flag to hoist up high like Greece and Cyprus, etc. If we make this grave error, then we have lost sight of who we are and have trivialized why we are here.

So our partner in Heaven, our Divine Creator, sends a vile arch-terrorist to insolently declare that Israel is not a state to remind us that indeed, we are not a state. The state is a state only because we are Israel. If Israel is nothing more than a state, then there's nothing to justify its existence. Hence the state-denial by the Islamists.

Pardon my elaboration, but I hope the message is now clear. You are Israel. So now get out there and tell the world who you are.


PS: Israel means "the one who struggled with angels and with man and prevailed." Curiously, even our most egregious and implacable foes (like Iran, Hamas, et al)  call us Israel, thereby acknowledging our ascendancy. Subconsciously they concede that we will ultimately prevail.

The world's first "Halfie" (or "Half-Selfie")

After all my recent ranting about the deplorable phenomenon of so-called "Selfie" preoccupation, I finally bit the bullet and activated the self-photo option on my mobile device. Here it is, my very first and one-and-only self photo.

Why did I do it? Well, I'll attempt to explain the significance of this photo.

It was a typically busy Friday afternoon, and I was rushing to complete some last-minute shopping before Shabbos. I had just picked up my two sons, Mendy and Moishe, who had arrived for a weekend home after month of Yeshiva -- they attend a Yeshiva high school for boys out of town.To their credit, they chose not to accompany me shopping inside the store, and instead decided to meander the parking lot asking Jewish passers-by if they'd like to put on tefillin.

I must admit that at first, I wasn't pleased with their plan. "Listen guys," I said impatiently, "please be ready at the car when I arrive with the packages. We're in a hurry."

When I arrived some twenty minutes later, they were nowhere to be found. Needless to say I was annoyed. After circling the parking lot, I spotted the boys under an awning intended for shopping carts. Apparently they had set up an impromptu tefillin booth. My initial reaction was to yell out to call them in to our van. No time to waste. My wife was waiting for our groceries, and I was typically running late. However, as my car approached, I noticed another person inside their "mitzva booth" wearing tefillin, reciting the Shema with Mendy. So I pulled up along side the awning and silently waited for them to conclude. He was clearly having a tough time with the Hebrew. It had probably been a long time since this fellow had recited the Shema.

As I watched them through our vehicle's tinted glass, my impatience gradually turned to amusement. Before long, I was brimming with pride that my boys choose to spend their vacation helping other Jews do mitzvos, when they could have easily been in the store with me shopping for snacks and goodies most teenagers their age crave.

Initial photo taken traditionally, but through
closed window. My fingers and phone
reflected off tinted glass.

I was also inspired by a Jewish fellow who took off time from his errands to put on tefillin at the behest of an unfamiliar black-hatted Yeshiva boy, a bizarre spectacle for Framingham, Massachusetts.

It suddenly occurred to me that I ought to capture this memorable and inspiring image in a photograph. But how? The window glass was tinted and skewed the image. It didn't seem respectful to lower the window and take a photo of them. I certainly didn't want this man to feel self-conscious or uncomfortable by an amused onlooker photographing him in tefillin in a supermarket's parking lot, nor did I want to disturb his concentration during Shema.

Then I thought of the perfect idea. I'd pull up a bit ahead, roll down the window and inconspicuously take a self photo of myself in the foreground and them in the background. He'd have no reason to suspect I was photographing him. After all, taking self photos is a perfectly normal activity that Americans indulge in all day long, in the car, at work, home, just about anywhere. Self photography has become a ubiquitous hallmark of Western culture.

Hence the half-self photo. I wasn't really interested in photographing myself. I know what I look like already. It was just a pretext with which to photograph an awesome act of a Jew bonding with his Creator in the most unlikely of places, along with the selfless devotion of a young Jewish teenager who could think of nothing better to do than share the beauty and light of Yiddishkeit with a fellow Jewish shopper.

So there you have it, folks. The world's first "halfie," or "half-selfie," if you would.

Halfie's make much more sense than Selfie's do. When counting the Children of Israel, the Torah enjoined every individual to donate a half shekel. This reminds us that every individual is in truth half a person. One is only complete when we unite with another Jew. Nothing is more wholesome than a selfless act of kindness for a fellow. Halfie's rule!

Experience the joys of Halfie's!

Yours truly,
Rabbi Green :)


Afterthought:
Everything in the world exists for a Divine purpose. The same is true for technology and all products of human ingenuity. As such, there must be a altruistic and selfless application for "selfie" technology too. Maybe this is it!

The "Selfie" Syndrome

What in the world is a "selfie?" Does that describe a person, or a photo, or both?

Some "selfies" are somewhat necessary, like
when no one else is present to capture the image.
Say, for example, you happen to be floating in
outer space...

As I mentioned in the previous post, I tend to encounter these new-age expressions and the technologies they represent at the end of the curve, by the time they're already old hat.

Having just recently seen this "word" in print for the first time, I was rather taken aback. Okay, it wasn't in "print" in the conventional sense. But it was used without italics in an article on CNN.

I instinctively opened a new "window" (no, my real windows all remained closed. It's 9 degrees outside. Sheesh!) and attempted to "navigate" to Google.com to search for a definition of this unfamiliar expression. Unfortunately, in my great haste I omitted the second "g" and found myself reading all about a quaint seaside city in Eastern England call Goole. (Read all about it on Goole.com, and no need to Laugh Out Loud.)

Fortunately, I soon realized that I took a wrong turn and navigated my way back to Google with two g's. (I've always been lousy at navigation, and thanks to GPS, have no need for it anymore.)

As it turns out, "selfie" appears in respectable dictionary sites. According to Merriam Webster, a "selfie" is "an image of oneself taken by oneself using a digital camera especially for posting on social network."

Something about this word made me uneasy. I couldn't articulate it at the time.

Shortly thereafter, in family discussion, I mentioned my aversion for this new term, not just the word but the idea it represents. Taking photos of yourself strikes me as self-obsessed and self-absorbed. Whom are you smiling for? Whom are you posing for?

My daughter was quick to show me that my very own mobile device has a self photo option. That means there's a camera lens in front too. 

Needless to say, I have not made use of this option, and have asked my family members not to use it in my presence.

Something profoundly disgusted me when I heard that our president had allowed himself to be filmed taking "selfies" of himself and broadcasted publicly.

When I view examples of "selfies" on the web, there's something oddly different in the eyes of the individual photographing himself. Or maybe it's the way they position their eyes, chin, face. 

Well, in my opinion, a photograph is primarily a means for others to view and remember you, not a means for you to view yourself. If you are so concerned with how others view you and crave flattering photos of yourself, then for crying out loud, let the "other" take the photo.

When one takes self photos and posts it on his profile, he is beckoning me, the "other," to view him as he views himself, with ostensible self-flattery and self adoration. On a more extreme level, an individual who experiences delusions of grandeur believes that the whole world views him in the same "larger than life" manner as he views himself.

When I pose and smile for another, I allow the "other" to view me and capture that viewpoint on photograph. I make room for the other. It is not about me viewing myself. It's not about self-aggrandizement. This is a photo worth keeping. There's benefit in knowing how others view you so you can have a more balanced view of yourself.

Furthermore, the very word "selfie" in somewhat offensive, or at least its inflection. Nouns with "ie" or "y" on the end are typically diminutive or endearing. "Selfie" implies "your little self" or your "cute little self."

Is that how we define a healthy perspective of self? To have self esteem means to appreciate and validate oneself as a self respecting human being. Just as there is something inherently objectionable about someone with an inflated sense of self, so too there is something wrong with having a diminished sense of self.

Referring to a self-captured image as a "selfie" implies that you define yourself by your appearance as depicted in the photo you have just taken. It also implies that you view yourself as a cute little "selfie," nothing more than an object of people's attention or admiration.

Perhaps the deeper lesson here is that "selfie" obsession relates to your more diminutive or "lower" self, a step down from your "higher" self, your more expansive adult mind.

In Hebrew, we refer to this more objective, healthier state of mind as מוחין דגדלות (mochin d'gadlut), your larger mind, as opposed to the  מוחין דקטנות (mochin d'katnut), the subjective "smaller mind."

Superficial faces of Facebook and mindless tweets of Twitter have already distanced us from meaningful relationships in the real world. As we have pointed out numerous times on this blog, iPhones have already given us a phoney and diminutive sense of self. A small and petty i, attached to an upper-case and prominent Phone, implies that the two have morphed into one inseparable entity. I am defined by my phone.*

"Sefie-ness" now brings us to a new low, ever more immersed in the morass of pettiness and lower self, further detached from higher self. I am now defined by a mere image on my phone (or social media page), and even more so by how many "likes" it generates.

In conclusion, I propose we eschew the word "selfie" along with the self-oriented behavior it represents, with all due respect to Merriam Webster. Let's all strive to become less self-preoccupied and more self-effacing. Selfless giving sure beats being self serving. Self sacrifice is far more personally rewarding than self photography.

Parenthetically, it recently occurred to me that the term "cell phone" pronounced quickly actually sounds like "self-phone." Can it be that the phonetic "self" encrypted into the expression "cell phone" explains why its use has become so prevalent in modern parlance? I  have been told that "cell" is abbreviated from "cellular," supposedly referring to short-range radio towers that somehow resemble biological cells. Plus, "mobile phone" or "wireless phone" are both multi-syllabic, as opposed to "cell." But perhaps there's a deeper reason, a subliminal connotation to "self" in the ubiquitous "cell phone" that accounts for its wide appeal.

Come to think of it, maybe there's phonetic significance in both words. "Cell phone" = "self own." Hmm. This raises another questions. Do you own your phone, or does your phone own you?

Okay, enough rambling for one day.

Time to get back to work in the real (non-virtual) world.

Mikey doesn't like it!

As mobile phone technology races ahead at an ever-dizzying speed, I find myself becoming increasingly unfamiliar with new-fangled idioms, expressions and pseudo words.

Some of this new terminology is simply inaccurate.

For example, when my daughter writes "LOL," which presumably means "laugh out loud," did she really laugh aloud? Usually not. Not even a quiet chuckle.

(Oops, I meant "when my daughter 'types.'" No one writes anymore. On further thought, she doesn't really "type" either. What's the correct verb? Texts? Swipes? Punches keys? Actually, it's more like screen tapping. Another correction: she doesn't write "LOL," but "lol." Who uses capitals anymore?)

When you "friend" someone on social media, are you truly befriending him or her? Or are you merely giving that individual permission to view a virtual profile, which really amounts to no more than some electronic ones and zeroes on some unknown computer server somewhere in the world. Does that constitute "friendship?"

Conversely, I recently "unfriended" a certain individual because of some images she had been posting that I deem inappropriate and immodest. Was that "unfriendly" of me? She happens to be a dear friend. Needless to say, our friendship survived the "unfriending" intact. She probably never even became aware of it.

When you "like" someone's post, do you really like it? Someone recently posted frightening information about a gruesome terror attack. I was shocked to read below that this posting received numerous "likes" from well-intentioned individuals who are obviously repulsed by the content of the article.

When you originally "like" something but on second thought "unlike" it, does that mean you dislike it?

Hey, this just gave me a great idea for a new television commercial for Life Cereal, new-and-improved for the internet era. Instead of all the time-consuming footage of Mikey eating the cereal and being observed incredulously by his brothers, the scene can present Mikey "liking" it on social media. "Hey! Mikey 'likes' it!" That's much more cool and contemporary, anyhow.

This hits rather close to home for me, as I grew up in the '70s being called Mikey, and by default, "liked" everything. (Everything except for avocado, that is. Yuck. I never cared much for Life Cereal, either.) But now, over a third of a century later, I cannot get myself to "like" anything, even posts that I do in fact like.

Speaking of unlikeable phraseology, here is the one I find least likeable, or shall I say, most detestable: "selfie." Read more about it in my next post.

Sincerely,
A disgruntled Mikey

Real Antidote to "Radical" Islam

"Radical Islam is the problem, moderate Islam is the solution," asserts Daniel Pipes. Others argue that the only antidote to Radical Islam is secularism.

They are both wrong.

They are wrong not only in their proposed solutions. They are wrong about the problem.

Radical Islam is not the problem. Rather, radical Islam is a problem, albeit a rather formidable one. To be more precise, it is a mere symptom of the problem.

What is the problem?

The problem is the human condition itself, the inexorable human potential for evil.  Radical Islam is merely the most salient manifestation of evil in current times, but by no means the only one.

Islamism in any form, moderate or radical, is a product of human authorship, and hence, subject to human error.

By definition, morality must be based on absolute values, not flimsy man-made doctrine. When a fervently religious society has gone amuck and lost its moral compass, it is because their morals were predicated on an erroneous belief system. As radicals, their values have now become radically erroneous. Their behavior now spirals out of control.

According to conventional thinking, the problem is their radicalism. In reality, however, the root cause is their inherently flawed belief system to begin with. (See my past blog post about "extremism.")

After all, extreme Islam did not develop in a vacuum, but is incontrovertibly rooted in original historic Islam, its dogma and writings. The so-called extremists maintain, and perhaps rightfully so, that their version is in fact the authentic Islam.

It follows that "moderate" Islam is not a solution. It is part of the problem.

Radical Islam has given its misled adherents a cause for which to die and murder, even mass murder. We need to give these morally bankrupt individuals a cause for which to live and help others live.

If our proposed cause for life is on the same footing as the puritan Islamists' cause for death, i.e. it's just another interpretation of the same man-made belief system, but merely a more moderate one, then we are leaving room for more errors. Some people err moderately, some err radically. In a Muslim world racing toward nuclear weapon potential (thanks to our current president's foreign policy), there is no margin for error, even little errors.

What we need here is a complete paradigm shift, a radically new approach (pun intended). Something that will make false dogma irrelevant, not by a weak attempt to modify or reinterpret it, nor by replacing it with some other man-made ideology, like "secularism," for example.

Parenthetically, my grandmother used to admonish us: "Beware the 'isms." She grew up in turbulent times in the early twentieth century during which time many newfangled ideologies were touted as the end to all problems... Socialism, Marxism, Fascism and nationalism, to name a few. But the 'isms failed. In fact, the larger and more glorious the movement, the bigger the failure.

Yes, beware the 'isms. They may be based on lots of good intentions, aspirations and lofty ideals. But they're man-made, subject to the frailty of the human condition cited above.

Replacing one 'ism with another has not proven to work. In fact, the results have been disastrous.

In the Middle Ages, when "extreme" Catholicism reigned supreme, humanity did not fare well. Besides for the dismal conditions of the depraved and largely illiterate masses of Christian Europeans, this era brought untold suffering to our people: wholesale slaughter at the hand of the Crusaders, incitement to violence by the fanatic clergy, blood libels, forced conversions, inquisitions and expulsions, to cite some of the numerous examples that stain the pages the European history.

The Dark Ages were succeeded by reformation and renaissance, followed by revolutions and emancipation that transformed the masses. Or did it? Age-old religious prejudices were replaced with nationalist and ethnocentric ones. Nationalist movements gave rise to extreme nationalist movements. Indeed, the modern era brought us horrific pogroms, widespread persecution and ultimately the Holocaust. More recently, atheist regimes like the former Soviet Union succeeded in creating G-dless societies, replete with totalitarianism, gulags, mass murder, Iron Curtain, extreme human rights abuses, etc.

The Muslim world is still submerged in a Dark Ages of its own. Is our goal to secularize or democratize the Muslim masses? Will that solve their problems? Bear in mind that Hitler initially ascended to power democratically,* as did Hamas, Fatah and Arafat, may all their memories be erased. "Cannibals tend to elect a cannibal king," my mother commented.

No, neither moderate Islam nor secularism are viable solutions. They are still part of the problem. Man-made religions and ideologies invariably end in failure and corruption, often on an Orwellian scale.

What we need here is something different and completely out of the box. Something Divine and immutable, invulnerable to the perils of human subjectivity. Refreshingly new but ever timeless and eternal.

Let's  look back to the beginning of time and rediscover the Code, the Divine Code authored by our Creator that applies to all of Creation, irrespective of race, ethnicity, creed or societal trends.

This Code is know as the Seven Noahide Laws, the seven commandments enjoined by G-d to Noah and his descendants for all times.

1. There is one G-d Who creates all of existence. Don't worship idols.
2. Don't blaspheme G-d.
3. Respect the sanctity of human life, created in G-d's image. Do not murder. Period. Murder is wrong, never justifiable for any religious, pseudo-religious or political objective.
4. Do not engage in immoral (i.e. incestuous, adulterous, homosexual or bestial) sexual unions.
5. Respect human property. Do not steal, rob or deliberately damage another's property. Kidnapping, torture and mutilation are strictly forbidden.
6. Do not eat of a live animal.
7. Establish competent courts/legal system to ensure law and order.

In the words of President Ronald Reagan, this Code is "the historical tradition of ethical values and principles, which have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws, transmitted through God to Moses on Mount Sinai."

The Code can be taught in any language, culture or milieu. It automatically resonates with healthy human conscience. It is inherently ingrained in our spiritual DNA.

To teach it effectively, one does not need to engage in philosophical debate or negate religious dogma or any other belief system. We are simply presenting the Seven Laws as commanded by G-d, or Allah, or how ever the individual refers to our Creator. We ought to underscore that the Seven Commandments are immutable, cannot be revoked or modified by any subsequent prophet or religious leader.

When an individual comes to understand that murder of any kind is abhorrent to Allah, he will automatically reject the violent doctrine of jihad. Armed with the knowledge of what our Creator really wants, he or she has the moral clarity and fortitude to challenge the injustices of the corrupt society in which he or she lives. Individuals empowered with knowledge of the Seven Laws will have no sympathy or tolerance for murder of any kind, nor any other barbaric behaviors rampant in the Muslim world (suicide bombings, honor killings, female mutilation, misogyny, slavery, repression, to name but a few.) They will undoubtedly repudiate theologians and politicians who preach hate and violence, or any other violations of the Code.

Individuals who embrace the Seven Noahidic Commandments are liberated from the oppressive mores of the Islamic world. Together, they can depose corrupt leaders and strive to rebuild a peaceful and free society. Arabs who accept the Code will eagerly make peace with their Jewish neighbors and find enough common ground to live peacefully and respectfully alongside members of other faiths, nationalities and ethnic backgrounds.

To be sure, this will be a drastic departure from the Muslim world of today and will need to be a gradual process, perhaps similar to the growing movement of Noahide communities in the United States.

The Seven Commandments were given in the wake of the Great Food which nearly destroyed mankind and engulfed the entire world. The sole survivors, Noah and his descendants were entrusted with safeguarding future societies from the degeneracy that had led to the world's collapse prior to the Flood.

Today's world appears to be on the verge of collapse once more. Imperiled by depraved genocidal Islamists and a dangerous policy of appeasement, apathy and moral relativism in the West, the future of human civilization hangs in the balance. Now more than ever before, we need the Seven Noahide Laws to safeguard our world from the societal ills that threaten to destroy it. Let's start teaching the Code to all Noah's descendants. Together we can reverse the tide and instead create a deluge of good, flooding the world with acts of goodness and kindness. "And the world shall be filled with knowledge of G-d as water covers the ocean bed."


* Hitler's Nazi Party won a stunning thirty eight percent of German votes and became the largest party in the Reichstag. This led to his appointment as Chancellor and ultimate coup.

More on Obama's Random Remark

Nothing is random.

Not even Obama's seemingly random remark about the mass murderous shooting spree at Hyper Cacher last month.

It is consistent with his agenda of marginalizing and delegitimizing Israel. Jews are denied victimhood. How can they be victims? They are the bullies. Any seemingly antisemitiic attack had to have been random or incidental.

It's fascinating how this whole drama plays out around the time of Purim, the "random" casting of the lots and the reversal that led to the downfall of Haman the Amalekite and his co-conspirators in Ancient Persia, of all places.

Read here or the inner correlation of Amalek and randomness (a past blog post).