Founder, The Israel Institute for Talmudic Publications
For more than 40 years, “On Faith” panelist Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz has devoted himself to the monumental undertaking of translating and reinterpreting the Talmud, the vast collection of rabbinic writings that constitute Jewish civil and religious laws. Steinsaltz, who lives in Jerusalem, began this task in 1965, when he founded The Israel Institute for Talmudic Publications. The Steinsaltz Edition of the Talmud, of which 37 volumes have been published so far, has made the Talmud accessible to tens of thousands of Hebrew speakers. In 1989, he began producing an English edition of 22 volumes. Since 1994, 15 volumes have been published in French, and four have appeared in Russian. The Talmud project has been described as the most important Jewish publication endeavor of the 20 th Century. Steinsaltz has written some 60 books and hundreds of articles on a wide variety of topics, including Hasidism and the Jewish mystical tradition of Kabbalah. One of his most popular books is The Thirteen Petalled Rose , which he describes as “a little book for the soul.” In 1989, Steinsaltz established a Russian branch of Mekor Chaim--the first Jewish institution to receive official recognition in the former Soviet Union . He also founded the Aleph Society, and the Mekor Chaim Educational Institutions. In 1988, Steinsaltz received the prestigious Israel Prize--his nation's highest honor. He has lectured at major universities and research institutions in the United States and Europe, including Princeton University , Yale University , Columbia University , the Woodrow Wilson Center , Oxford University and the Sorbonne.
Close.
Adin Steinsaltz
Founder, The Israel Institute for Talmudic Publications
For more than 40 years, “On Faith” panelist Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz has devoted himself to the monumental undertaking of translating and reinterpreting the Talmud, the vast collection of rabbinic writings that constitute Jewish civil and religious laws.
more »
Even Jesus said that we should flee evil,and the old testament says that you should not stand in an evil thing. I think you fight evil by letting it kill itself which it will do. Although I agree with self defense,We live in a nation where there is supposedly separation of church and state,why hasn't the church separated itself and demanded it's share of this country,I believe goverment should be a reflection of God's Word,which it will be soon,It's time we realized we don't need them,just God. As supposed follower's of God we should of course have the right to save as many people who want to live within the boundaries of the ten commandmants,but we spend all our money on bigger churches, when I feel we
could do more practical things,more service oriented toward people who want to devote their life to God,I guess I'm a protectionist and a separatist,we are of no value when they can't see what side your on.
A war may be just as defined Steinsaltz's post but, unfortunately, a war always results in "evil." Of course, evil is relative and what is classified as evil by some is not considered as such by others. Even worse, it is easy to encourage violence by calling something evil, which always results in even more evil. Violence is evil. Using the pretext of fighting evil creates evil. Evil is evil.
the only way to figth evil. it is to understand, who? he can be, he been a glorious angel, that fall into earth, because god send it to ther, because that glorious angel he were making experiment with the five star, to grow another life, diferent of the god's life, the star witcher persons them used to have energy, evil he change from heavenly life, to a human life, the humanity it is from the evil, but we are with the god's soul, because evil he take with the five star, energy from god to make this human life, many are some true, in about that, the god's angel he turn to be, as animal because he start to like it, the life as animals, that angel with the five star, he start to take energy from the animals, to become an animal, the humanity it is one part as animal and the other one as god.-
Faith is not only to deliver man from sin but to deliver man from ignorance. Freedom means that war has to be fought. But all religious leaders have forgotten that fanatics are not the only threat to man but what about other forms of slavery like sexual slavery in countries, poverty all these are also part of humanity.Each religion have been more concerned about purifying themselves but your purity is dirt in front of God.Serving God in the underprivileged will bring you more nearer than all your worship.Jehovah is a man of war he gives to each man, what man has taken. Justice and righteousness is his alone
J. Switzer-- The poster using "Ba'al" is a shortened version of "Ba'al Teshuva," someone returning/returned to jewish observance.
Did I read correctly? Is someone (or several people) *defending* honor killings????? Would they also condemn the town in Quebec for formalizing what we DON'T do here in Western fairly-free democracies?
Aren't there certain things that are *always* wrong?? Like trivilizing "honor" so much that the only way to save the concept is to kill a close relative?? Like sending your child to a school or camp where they are dressed up like homicide bombers and taught to love *death*? Like threatening an entire nation/people with destruction? Because, dear Friend, when Arabs in the territories talk about freeing 'palestine,' they mean "Kill Jews." But of course, if the 800K+ refugees from Middle Eastern countries in 1948 were to continue to make claims for their lost property and lives, well, no one would take up that cause. So, how are people who encourage their children to sacrifice themselves simply to kill people who have never harmed them, who fire rockets randomly in the HOPE of killing people they don't know, who kill people who are different than themselves.... if people who are the targets of this (including, btw, all Americans/Westerners) do not say-- "Enough," and step up to defend their right to exist and live.... What happens to those targets?
If the alters of Moloch are active, with people sacrificing their own children in 'religious' acts, do we walk by? "Oh, that's just their tradition...." Um, no. We don't even walk by people whose children die due medical intervention being against those parents' beliefs. People who falsely obtain homeless pets, promising to 'find them good homes,' and then kill them, dumping them in random dumpsters-- do we let that continue? Especially when the philosophy of said group states: a chicken is a dog is a child. What is next for that group? Driving up in a van to a nursing facility and promising to take patients on a nice vacation??? According to their beliefs, it wouldn't be wrong. No, we prosecute them.
we, as a society that is part of a tradition which celebrates intellectual inquiry and individual rights and freedoms, MUST call a spade a spade if our traditions are to survive. We cannot be so busy 'respecting' everything that we miss the blade headed for our own tradition's head. For me, another tradition's rights, like another individual's rights, end where mine begin. When another individual truly threatens my death, I will defend myself. When another tradition or community engages in violence against me and my community, I will defend this as well. This is allowed. Truly, I don't want to hate anyone, and even in defense, I will mourn lives lost in their wrongness. As Golda Meir state: "We can forgive the Arabs for killing our sons. But we cannot forgive them for making us kill their sons." You don't see civilized people holding out their hands, dripping with human blood, before a cheering, dancing crowd. THAT SCENE IS WRONG. THAT SCENE DEPICTS A SOCIETY TOO SICK TO SURVIVE. No matter whose blood it was.
How is it that so many on this post will deny any such thing as absolute evil and then turn around and say a good God would never allow it?
There is evil. No student of History denies this. God allows evil. No student of Theology denies this.
Why is this?
Because you and I are still unwilling to acknowledge that we are the guilty ones. It is my sin that hurts you and your neighbor. But if I admit that, then I might have to change.
The line between good and evil goes around the world and right through MY heart.
Should God force me to give up the evil I enjoy? Or is it right for Him to allow me to have my sin until I realize the harm I have caused to others?
How long should God withold his discipline for my hurting other people in my own sin? an hour, a day, months, years?
At what point would we like our Just God to come down require the world to come to terms with its injustice? Just a little longer, ya know...I'm still enjoying my sin. Of course, I don't call it sin, I call it "right to privacy."
Whatever it is. Let's not call it absolute evil. I don't like the conotation that I might have to change. I'd rather carry on about how other people need to change. (like God, how could he allow such evil anyway!?)
How is it that you can, in an apparent attempt to be cute, call yourself Ba'al. Are you aware that the worship of Ba'al included child and human sacrifice?
Then you will argue for peace in these lists?
Your historical ignorance has made you into a profoundly foolish caricature of what is most ugly in human history.
Or perhaps, you know that of which you mimick and would advocate for its return...
Bush and his crew - a herd of wolves ("might") in sheep skins ("right"). The phrase "might makes right" is sadly true, and not meant as a moral demand, on the contrary, as a sad observation of "evil" (I don't believe evil exists outside humans, just as "terror" can never be an enemy: It is a method! You cannot fight a method!)
And don't forget that might has the power to influence not only actions, but much worse: minds. When I was a 7 years old German boy, I was convinced that Hitler was the greatest moral authority: There was no other information available. He lured 99% of Germans easily into an almost religious feeling of patriotism, into the recovery of a destroyed self-esteem of this nation, with the most important parts (Rheinland, the industry sector) occupied by foreign (French) soldiers, huge amounts of reparations to be paid to the hated enemy. Feelings of revenge for the lost World WarI were so easy to create, even the top moral authorities like the philosopher Heidegger for some time hailed Hitler as the greatest. And the West cowtowed to him also, let us not forget it, not only during the Berlin Olympics in 1936!
After the catastrophy, of course, everybody hurried to maintain that he had always known that Hitler represented evil: The view of the beholder had changed!
The Bush manichaeism of "good vs. evil" is pure stupidity (as stupid and archaic as the concepts of "Heaven" vs. "Hell"), complete ignorance of history, of the complexity of the world and of the human mind.
These simplifying mental mechanisms, alas, work independently of which administration of which country employs them, as we can witness so clearly today.
very amusing, Rabbi, all this talk of good and evil, but i put to you that the real world is not so simple.
remember your audience is mostly americans. and remember the response of america, when in the final months of WWII, the camps were liberated and the death chambers with all their carnage and suffering were thus revealed.
remember how the americans responded to all this horror: not to be outdone, they did the nazis one better (or two rather). they invented a bomb that was nothing more than an incinertion chamber turned inside out and set it off above hiroshima. and then they did it again.
good and evil. very funny rabbi. now tell me again how you tell 'em apart?
It seems that many of your readers reacted rather negatively to your comment. I've arrived by chance, researching another topic, but I thought I would express agreement with your basic premise.
Many responses seem to assert that, because "evil" is in some sense subjective, there is no proper use for the term. Then they proceed to blast you for having a mindset that they perceive to be very harmful, treating you exactly as if they thought you were "evil".
It is sadly ironic.
We should set aside the issue of war for a moment, and scale it back to individuals. To the readers: Is there *any* action by *any* person that you feel should be stopped, even by force if necessary? A person killing their loved ones? A person killing *your* loved ones? Is there any restriction you'd ever place on their freedom of movement or action?
If the answer is "no" -- then you have indeed lived up to your ideal of consistent non-violence and non-judgmental action.
For the rest, though -- if you would stop or interfere with such a killer, then you have employed your own subjective notions of good and evil, as you have learned them through your society and your own thinking. And you've already considered a war against it, at the retail level rather than the Rabbi's wholesale.
Michael Karg: When I began this journey of enlightenment, some 50 years ago, my common sense informed me that might means right -- good and evil having nothing to do with it.
Sick. So, if your daughter is raped by a powerful man, all is well?
if our greed and sloth in this generation are the cause of global warming in the next generation, that is just their tough luck.
Sir, you are not part of the "Enlightened". Yours is the mindset that dragged down civilization into the Dark Ages centuries ago.
You have to be a Republican. Cheney is your hero, right?
Yes, when one reads all their books, and all the books about their books, one realizes that they all follow the God of Abraham. Christianity was founded by a dozen Jews; Islam by one man who first learned Judaism, trying to improve it.
Soon after Moses, the Jews began rationalizing the rules and regulations of the God of Abraham, and they are still at it. Soon after Jesus, Peter, Paul and the others, Christians began rationalizing the new rules and regulations, and some are still at it. And since Mohammed, the Muslems have been attempting to rationalize the divorce settlement, or something (and I mean no disrespect).
When I began this journey of enlightenment, some 50 years ago, my common sense informed me that might means right -- good and evil having nothing to do with it. Nothing I have experienced, nor any history have I read, has provided any information to change my common sense information.
So, I have always wondered how the Buddhists do it. How do their traffic patrol officers write a citation for speeding, without a .45 strapped to their hip?
A just war is the one my people win. And, like the man said, "Let the devil take the hindmost."
unfortunately some and maybe most people will only reconize evil when it's in their own back yard...the media has added to the illusion that politics and power are the only evil entities. Rabbi, keep up the good thoughts...we need voices of wisdom like yours.
I agree... Although one of the greatest evils we must destroy is war itself. Which can only be destroyed through peace. Learn more at the Activist Resource Group here: http://www.resourcesforlife.com/groups/activist/
It is heartening that the majority of the commenters here seem to be more enlightened than the Rabbi's. It is the very ideas of "evil," just wars, and self-defense that have created Iraq, Vietnam... and the Holocaust. Our political leaders use these ideas to market and sell wars to the civilian populace, while our religious leaders defend them - because it takes great courage to do otherwise, and to extend understanding & tolerance to those who have hurt us before. It seems that many leaders such as Mr. Bush & Rabbi Steinsaltz are so used to positions of power & influence, that they have lost touch with ordinary citizens... many of whom I now believe may be more qualified for leadership than the leaders we have now.
The blood of tens or 100s of thousands of innocent Iraqis + 3,000 American soldiers is on our hands. I am pretty sure that within the eyes of God & Heaven, there was probably a better way to solve our problems. Calling it a "just war" is just a license to kill.
As for solutions, I support partitioning the country into 3 states for each of the 3 major ethnic groups. Leave open the option of reunification until later. Of course, Mr. Bush totally dismisses this idea because the US would lose its regional leverage & control of oil.
Norrie Hoyt, just to be technically correct, there was a small, undeclared war fought between the US and Nazi Germany in the North Atlantic prior to the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
One of Nazi Germany's many justifications for thier attrocities was the American genocide of the Native Americans.
You wrote: "... I must have missed that part of history when Germany attacked us in WWII..."
You missed it because it didn't happen.
Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor, not Germany. There was never an equivalent attack on the U.S. by Germany.
The first real military engagement with Germany was when the U.S. invaded North Africa. Before that there were German submarine attacks on U.S. shipping but that was after the U.S. had declared war on Germany.
As all the above amply demonstrates, the destruction of evil is impossible. You need another goal, and with it a rational strategy, and with that a rational set of tactics.
You certainly have the credentials to tackle this problem. Why shouldn't we conclude that you need to re-think your conclusion?
The Rabbi - like most of the theists posting on this blog - don't offer real answers to the questions or solutions to the problems. Rather, they reveal thinking that is part of the problem.
Posted January 12, 2007 11:42 AM"
Well put.
EVIL is LIVE spelled backwards.
I'm sure the good Rabbi would agree the world exists because there IS both a dark and light side to it.
Much opposite of LIVE has been done in the name of Organized Religion.
I'll be damned if I'm going to allow it to take the earth to the edge of extinction because of their male egos.
But.. Iraq is an example of an immoral unnecessary war, fought in the guise of a moral, necessary war...
Religion was used in justifying the latter. Bush afterall talked to his "Father" about those WMD and the "wisdom" of attacking Iraq...
________________________________________-
"A Tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious." --Aristotle, Greek philosopher (384-322 BCE)
“As long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities.”
—Voltaire
ANYONE CAN DO A SIMPLE SEARCH AND GET PAGES AND PAGES AND PAGES OF THIS-
AS LONG AS WE ARE DISTRACTED FIGHTING THE EVIL MUSLIMS-WE DONT HAVE TO BOTHER OURSELVES ABOUT THESE SILLY TRILLIONS
This is an estimate by Thomas Stauffer, a consulting economist in Washington. For decades, his analyses of the Middle East scene have made him a frequent thorn in the side of the Israel lobby.
Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid. It is already due to get $2.04 billion in military assistance and $720 million in economic aid in fiscal 2003. It has been getting $3 billion a year for years.
Adjusting the official aid to 2001 dollars in purchasing power, Israel has been given $240 billion since 1973, Stauffer reckons. In addition, the US has given Egypt $117 billion and Jordan $22 billion in foreign aid in return for signing peace treaties with Israel.
another estimate
Recently Americans have begun to read and hear that “Israel receives $3 billion in annual U.S. foreign aid.” That's true. But it's still a lie. The problem is that in fiscal 1997 alone, Israel received from a variety of other U.S. federal budgets at least $525.8 million above and beyond its $3 billion from the foreign aid budget, and yet another $2 billion in federal loan guarantees. So the complete total of U.S. grants and loan guarantees to Israel for fiscal 1997 was $5,525,800,000.
the congressional report itself was waaay to long so im trying to be brief-
While it is commonly reported that Israel officially receives some $3 billion every year in the form of economic aid from the U.S. government, this figure is just the tip of the iceberg. There are many billions of dollars more in hidden costs and economic losses lurking beneath the surface. A recently published economic analysis has concluded that U.S. support for the state of Israel has cost American taxpayers nearly $3 trillion ($3 million millions) in 2002 dollars.
“The Costs to American Taxpayers of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: $3 Trillion” is a summary of economic research done by Thomas R. Stauffer. Stauffer’s summary of the research was published in the June 2003 issue of The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
Stauffer is a Washington, D.C.-based engineer and economist who writes and teaches about the economics of energy and the Middle East. Stauffer has taught at Harvard University and Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service. Stauffer’s findings were first presented at an October 2002 conference sponsored by the U.S. Army College and the University of Maine.
'Fighting Evil' sounds good, but what is 'evil'? I consider Israel's policies against the Palestinians to be evil. But I do not believe that Israel must be attacked (and by whom for that matter) because of them.
To those who are adherent to the God of Abraham, would you find it in your heart, faith and intellect to ask your fellow believers to please stop killing each other and those of us who don't believe in the God of Abraham lets us be Buddhist, Hindu or atheist, etc?
I ask this of you for you have a pulpit and seem to represent the Christian/Catholic ,Jewish and even Islam because even with my some what limited understanding of all three faiths your common denominator is your belief in the God of Abraham. For you and your fellow believers are freighting me and my children to death, as well as scarring humanity with your internal dislike (hatred?), disagreements and cycles of violence.
Believe me, if it was Buddhists or New age mystics committing these atrocities this message would be sent to a Buddhist and so on.
Anonymous writes: The shortness of the human memory never ceases to amaze me. Everyone has conveniently forgotten the 100,000 - 200,00 Kurds (including women and children) that Saddam exterminated, in 1988 and then again in 1991.
The National Security Archives note that
"By the summer of 1983 Iran had been reporting Iraqi use of using chemical weapons for some time. The Geneva protocol requires that the international community respond to chemical warfare, but a diplomatically isolated Iran received only a muted response to its complaints. It intensified its accusations in October 1983, however, and in November asked for a United Nations Security Council investigation. The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations."
But later we learn that
"Rumsfeld returned to Baghdad in late March 1984. By this time, the U.S. had publicly condemned Iraq's chemical weapons use, stating, "The United States has concluded that the available evidence substantiates Iran's charges that Iraq used chemical weapons". Briefings for Rumsfeld's meetings noted that atmospherics in Iraq had deteriorated since his December visit because of Iraqi military reverses and because "bilateral relations were sharply set back by our March 5 condemnation of Iraq for CW use, despite our repeated warnings that this issue would emerge sooner or later". Rumsfeld was to discuss with Iraqi officials the Reagan administration's hope that it could obtain Export-Import Bank credits for Iraq, the Aqaba pipeline, and its vigorous efforts to cut off arms exports to Iran. According to an affidavit prepared by one of Rumsfeld's companions during his Mideast travels....
Although official U.S. policy still barred the export of U.S. military equipment to Iraq, some was evidently provided on a "don't ask - don't tell" basis. In April 1984, the Baghdad interests section asked to be kept apprised of Bell Helicopter Textron's negotiations to sell helicopters to Iraq, which were not to be "in any way configured for military use". The purchaser was the Iraqi Ministry of Defense. In December 1982, Bell Textron's Italian subsidiary had informed the U.S. embassy in Rome that it turned down a request from Iraq to militarize recently purchased Hughes helicopters. An allied government, South Korea, informed the State Department that it had received a similar request in June 1983 (when a congressional aide asked in March 1983 whether heavy trucks recently sold to Iraq were intended for military purposes, a State Department official replied "we presumed that this was Iraq's intention, and had not asked.")
i agree with you if you believe that a multinational state which contains Israel and Palestina can not be created unless one of the counries will be erased of the onternational map or both countries will integrate in one unity.
Will defenders of this war ever stop running to the "Saddam was baaaaaad!!!" defense? We all know that Saddam was a monster, but how has our intervention improved life in Iraq? Have fewer people died under our administration than Saddam's? Life in Iraq is every bit as deadly under the current US-created regime as under Hussein, if not more so. What is the use of replacing a tyrant with chaos?
The infantile view of war as a battle of good versus evil, a view shared by Mr. Steinsaltz and President Bush, is the primary reason we are in this mess. The belief that we represent the forces of righteousness allowed Bush to justify fabricating the reason for war and undoubtably blinded him to the internal divisions within Iraq that are now tearing that country apart with the eager assistance of Iran, Syria, and other neighboring countries.
Hitler, Pol Pot and Mao caused millions of death not by themselves alone but with the help of millions of their countrymen. So we should add millions more names to our lists of people that we should have killed. By the way, if Bush had the same power as Hilter or Stalin (without having to answer to the Congress and can wage war at will), it is quite possible that great many civilians (Koreans, Iranian or Syrians) and American soldiers would not be alive today.
The shortness of the human memory never ceases to amaze me. Everyone has conveniently forgotten the 100,000 - 200,00 Kurds (including women and children) that Saddam exterminated, in 1988 and then again in 1991. Eveyone has also fogotten the 100,000 Shiites he exterminated on his way out from having invaded Kuwait. They forget the murder, torture, and rape of his citizens. In every way, Saddam was, figuratively and literally, raping his country.
Let's say you came upon a man raping a woman at knife point, and you are the only one around who can stop him. You ask him to stop, but he just keeps at it. Would you let him finish, then afterwards "offer him mutual respect" through "dialogue," or would you take out your gun and shoot him?
Moral choices are much more difficult to make when you are the only thing staning between good and evil.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the U.S. founded on war? And I must have missed that part of history when Germany attacked us in WWII, because I seem to remember a U.S. General kicking their Nazi tails back to uberville.
Could you imagine another Clinton in the White House? The NSA Chief tells Socialist Hillary, "Ma'am, terrorists have just bombed the Sears Tower in Chicago and have destroyed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania!" Hillary responds, "Let's see if we can get the terrorists to come to Camp David for a peace conference. If that doesn't work, let's convene the U.N. and see if we can get their approval for action within two years. If all else fails, threaten the terrorists with a cruise missile strike on a medical plant in Egypt. That should show them!" Comical, but sadly, it's true.
Who is evil in this case? The ruling government or the innocent child killed just for being unlucky enough to be born where there is a history of political instability? War is a terrible thing to wage on the innocents. It should be a choice of last resort. We have only fanned the flames of hatred and continuing bloodshed by not exhausting other avenues for resolution. Are we morally better than a dictator who kills his own people yet maintains some order and safety in an unstable environment? Our war of choice has created more chaos, more death, more hate, less tolerance for other religions and beliefs. There does not seem now that there is much hope of a peaceful Iraq, or a peaceful middle east for that matter. I feel sorry for the average citizen who is just trying to live, raise a family, and survive.
Mr. Steinsaltz seems to think that certain sections of world are either evil or administered by evil people and therefore such evil must be destroyed. At the same time, he says that self-defense is human nature.
Therefore, US, Israel and Britain and other such caucasian /Christian/Jewish states must destroy the muslim states, and the muslim states must in turn destroy whoever invades them. Similarly, India and Pakistan must destroy each other, and the same applies to all quarreling neighbors.
Good. That will end the world and there will be peace.
I wonder why people like this guy are allowed even to write.
I would say Hitler qualifies as evil. Ditto for Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung (I hope I spelled that right) Stalin, Saddam Huiseen etc. And all the Rabbi said was that sometimes you have to fight evil was to destroy it. He made no specific mention of Iraq so it is impossible to concretly say he was in favor of the war.
2) Fighting against evil. That fight should begin waged within before one attempts to wage it without...moral justification. Any way you want to look at it Rabbi, Iraq is NOT as just war. Your apparent desire to cast it as such only serves to cast doubt on you. Give it up Rabbi. It is all over but the Neo-Cons are too stupid to realize it yet.
Self defence is a reflex, a matter of natural law. That's why, "don't nobody make no sudden moves" is so important. Make a sudden move and get yourself shot, a matter of natural consequence and not something people think their way through, a reaction to an action, a saddam move.
When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor that came with a promise of more of the same and they wasted no time getting to it. Then how one defends one's self can be contemplated a little more but don't take forever, you don't have that long to think about it.
Now if Mr P had have made a Rosevelt type reply to 9-11-2001 then we would have gone to a "just war" with whom? Maybe that's the problem everyone knows about but is afraid to talk about? Why? Does faith have anything to do with it? The 911 attack was more damaging than Pearl. So what's the problem with the self defence knee jerk reaction? Who was the attacker? It was a God named Allah that attacked us.
We now know the Bible is a proved hoax. How about the Koran? Is it really God's word? Really? Gods can get away with things people can't I suppose.
"Gods don't pay no taxes" is what Rastas said. And I said, "they pay no taxes" and he replied, "that's right." Rastas didn't get much of a degree but he got a good education at the school of hard knocks.
I take it that 'just war' is a moral justification by categories of self defence, and expected outcome to be greater than evil. The trouble is, evil is only seen from one side of the fence. Extend this beyond the focus of the pro-West allies and you may find that Capitalism is inherent of evil. Why is there a need to have an accumulation of poverty at the one end of the economic scale, or why is the cost of the means of sustaining and saving lives unaffordable in the third worlds? The imposition of political and economic standards is where evil has penetrated the basis of moral decisions.
And according to the rabbi's definition, fighting evil or those responsible for decisions resulting with poverty and restricting access to medicine and therapy by any means necessary is just. And that justifies the terrorists' cause.
The Rabbi - like most of the theists posting on this blog - don't offer real answers to the questions or solutions to the problems. Rather, they reveal thinking that is part of the problem.
Would you not agree that "evil" is in the eye of the beholder? If so, then many wars will be started because of an erroneous perception of evil in the eye of the warrior.
The Inquisition, Hitler, Stalin, and other innumberable tyrants and sadists waged war on what they saw as "evil".
From a Buddhist perspective, nothing in this world has a real, inherent identity. "Things are other than they appear." So a warrior who raises his spear to impale an "evil" opponent is actually slicing at a phantom.
So, if there is such a thing as a just war, which is certainly questionable, it can only be your type-one war: a war of self-defence. But President Bush thinks that his Iraq war is a war of self-defence. Again a misperception by the warrior.
So where does that leave us? Probably to conclude that there are no just wars.
For the innocent, every war is like a lightning strike: a random act of destructive violence not involving justice.
I understand the usage of the word "evil" to describe really rotten people, ideas. I wonder if anyone understands what is being said when we set out to destroy evil?
Evil, as it was originally coined meant matter, substance, that which occupied space and posessed weight. I want to credit the Greeks as the first to "misunderstand" the word but Shakespear was probably the one.
If I sacrifice, (definitely Greek and means totally burned up) then I give whatever it is up to God, make it holy, transfer it to the spirit world where God can enjoy it. But then there is some ash left over. That's the part of the human anatomy that ends up in hell buring forever the part that is so evil it won't burn.
A famout Jew, Einstein said that was a pack of nonsense. It can be turned into energy. Harry Truman said energy was handy and used it to end evil. When all evil is eliminated the world will be destroyed, total burned up. Will there be any ashes left so Devil can get what he wants or will everything go to heaven? Looks like it's on the way to hell if you ask me but then what do I know.
The best way to destroy evil is to starve it into non-existence. If you allow hate into your heart, evil has a foothold. We do what we must of course, but be certain that you must if you are talking about taking life. God Bless you and yours.
I would expect a more thoughtful response from an 8th grader. The vagueness of this response and its use of terms that are entirely subjective is disturbingly similar to Mr. Bush talk about an "Axis of Evil", and we see where that has gotten us. These are the rhetorical devices of idiots.
By dismissing the consequences, or "effectiveness" of a war as mere "tactics", and divorcing it from the moral realm, the Rabbi reveals himself to be entirely insensitive to the massive suffering caused by "collateral damage". These kinds of tactics have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (and many many Palestinians and Lebanese). Of course, the grotesque mistakes of the Bush administration have also led to the deaths and dismemberments of tens of thousands of Americans, and it is not clear that their sacrifice will be for anything of value.
If one does not consider the moral nature of tactics, then it bears noting that terror is a tactic. How can you fight a war against a tactic?
There is absolutely NO case in which man (as individual, community or nation) has the right to attack or endanger another man's life. Why? Because he can't give it back once it is taken.
1. Self-defense is an inborn right of any creature, but as newborn children of God we have to evolve from creature-like behaviour to a truly human-like conduct, following the example of Jesus, the forerunner of a new humanity.
2. As to the identification of evil, who will cast the first vote? Our judgements are distorted by human nature, limited by ignorance, biased by cultural and social prejudices.
Resuming:
If your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them a drink... These are words of the Hebrew Bible (Proverbs 25:21-22), filled with the Spirit of Christ (Matthew 5:44-48) and enfatized as Christian practice (Romans 12:20).
Surely, an unbelieving world is driven by other principles. It puts its faith in military power and "preventive" war. Again, as Christians, we aren't part of this game although affected by its consequences. But this doesn't mean that we are exposed and unprotected. As the Koran says [4.45]:
"And Allah best knows your enemies; and Allah suffices as a Guardian, and Allah suffices as a Helper."
The West, US and Isreal has nukes, Iran does not. There are US bases in countries around Iran ready to bomb that country back to the stone age if it even sneeze.
Iran's nuclear programme is for energy. It is running out of oil in 10 to 15 years. If you have even read or pay attention to news on Iran even before 9/11, they are already sounding off about developing nuclear energy to meet domestic needs.
Iran is still a member of the IAEA. Israel is not and thus, not subject to international conditions, compliance and inspections of its nukes and nuclear programme.
The Middle Easterners always like to say, "It is not the Arabs driving the Israelis out to sea, but the Israelis pushing the Arabs into the desert".
Let's not get so intellectual that we forget to be practical. Iran is clearly planning to remove Israel from the face of the earth, on its way to destroying the West. That satisfies both of the Rabbi's conditions. Anhialating one ethnic/religious group is evil and could justify war to defend oneself. Wake up, people!
Simplistic jibberish . . . who pays any attention to this kind of shadrool? Where's Woody Allen when you need him?
Rabbi, what's your take on the Iraeli government killing innocent Palestinian women and children? An eye for eye? A child for a child? A woman for a woman?
All Comments (58)
Even Jesus said that we should flee evil,and the old testament says that you should not stand in an evil thing. I think you fight evil by letting it kill itself which it will do. Although I agree with self defense,We live in a nation where there is supposedly separation of church and state,why hasn't the church separated itself and demanded it's share of this country,I believe goverment should be a reflection of God's Word,which it will be soon,It's time we realized we don't need them,just God. As supposed follower's of God we should of course have the right to save as many people who want to live within the boundaries of the ten commandmants,but we spend all our money on bigger churches, when I feel we
could do more practical things,more service oriented toward people who want to devote their life to God,I guess I'm a protectionist and a separatist,we are of no value when they can't see what side your on.
July 26, 2008 10:47 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 26, 2008 10:47
A war may be just as defined Steinsaltz's post but, unfortunately, a war always results in "evil." Of course, evil is relative and what is classified as evil by some is not considered as such by others. Even worse, it is easy to encourage violence by calling something evil, which always results in even more evil. Violence is evil. Using the pretext of fighting evil creates evil. Evil is evil.
So please, don't try to justify war.
February 1, 2008 10:40 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 1, 2008 10:40
the only way to figth evil. it is to understand, who? he can be, he been a glorious angel, that fall into earth, because god send it to ther, because that glorious angel he were making experiment with the five star, to grow another life, diferent of the god's life, the star witcher persons them used to have energy, evil he change from heavenly life, to a human life, the humanity it is from the evil, but we are with the god's soul, because evil he take with the five star, energy from god to make this human life, many are some true, in about that, the god's angel he turn to be, as animal because he start to like it, the life as animals, that angel with the five star, he start to take energy from the animals, to become an animal, the humanity it is one part as animal and the other one as god.-
October 22, 2007 7:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 22, 2007 19:31
Faith is not only to deliver man from sin but to deliver man from ignorance. Freedom means that war has to be fought. But all religious leaders have forgotten that fanatics are not the only threat to man but what about other forms of slavery like sexual slavery in countries, poverty all these are also part of humanity.Each religion have been more concerned about purifying themselves but your purity is dirt in front of God.Serving God in the underprivileged will bring you more nearer than all your worship.Jehovah is a man of war he gives to each man, what man has taken. Justice and righteousness is his alone
March 24, 2007 6:37 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 24, 2007 06:37
J. Switzer-- The poster using "Ba'al" is a shortened version of "Ba'al Teshuva," someone returning/returned to jewish observance.
Did I read correctly? Is someone (or several people) *defending* honor killings????? Would they also condemn the town in Quebec for formalizing what we DON'T do here in Western fairly-free democracies?
Aren't there certain things that are *always* wrong?? Like trivilizing "honor" so much that the only way to save the concept is to kill a close relative?? Like sending your child to a school or camp where they are dressed up like homicide bombers and taught to love *death*? Like threatening an entire nation/people with destruction? Because, dear Friend, when Arabs in the territories talk about freeing 'palestine,' they mean "Kill Jews." But of course, if the 800K+ refugees from Middle Eastern countries in 1948 were to continue to make claims for their lost property and lives, well, no one would take up that cause. So, how are people who encourage their children to sacrifice themselves simply to kill people who have never harmed them, who fire rockets randomly in the HOPE of killing people they don't know, who kill people who are different than themselves.... if people who are the targets of this (including, btw, all Americans/Westerners) do not say-- "Enough," and step up to defend their right to exist and live.... What happens to those targets?
If the alters of Moloch are active, with people sacrificing their own children in 'religious' acts, do we walk by? "Oh, that's just their tradition...." Um, no. We don't even walk by people whose children die due medical intervention being against those parents' beliefs. People who falsely obtain homeless pets, promising to 'find them good homes,' and then kill them, dumping them in random dumpsters-- do we let that continue? Especially when the philosophy of said group states: a chicken is a dog is a child. What is next for that group? Driving up in a van to a nursing facility and promising to take patients on a nice vacation??? According to their beliefs, it wouldn't be wrong. No, we prosecute them.
we, as a society that is part of a tradition which celebrates intellectual inquiry and individual rights and freedoms, MUST call a spade a spade if our traditions are to survive. We cannot be so busy 'respecting' everything that we miss the blade headed for our own tradition's head. For me, another tradition's rights, like another individual's rights, end where mine begin. When another individual truly threatens my death, I will defend myself. When another tradition or community engages in violence against me and my community, I will defend this as well. This is allowed. Truly, I don't want to hate anyone, and even in defense, I will mourn lives lost in their wrongness. As Golda Meir state: "We can forgive the Arabs for killing our sons. But we cannot forgive them for making us kill their sons." You don't see civilized people holding out their hands, dripping with human blood, before a cheering, dancing crowd. THAT SCENE IS WRONG. THAT SCENE DEPICTS A SOCIETY TOO SICK TO SURVIVE. No matter whose blood it was.
February 1, 2007 12:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 1, 2007 12:10
How is it that so many on this post will deny any such thing as absolute evil and then turn around and say a good God would never allow it?
There is evil. No student of History denies this. God allows evil. No student of Theology denies this.
Why is this?
Because you and I are still unwilling to acknowledge that we are the guilty ones. It is my sin that hurts you and your neighbor. But if I admit that, then I might have to change.
The line between good and evil goes around the world and right through MY heart.
Should God force me to give up the evil I enjoy? Or is it right for Him to allow me to have my sin until I realize the harm I have caused to others?
How long should God withold his discipline for my hurting other people in my own sin? an hour, a day, months, years?
At what point would we like our Just God to come down require the world to come to terms with its injustice? Just a little longer, ya know...I'm still enjoying my sin. Of course, I don't call it sin, I call it "right to privacy."
Whatever it is. Let's not call it absolute evil. I don't like the conotation that I might have to change. I'd rather carry on about how other people need to change. (like God, how could he allow such evil anyway!?)
January 16, 2007 2:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 16, 2007 14:50
Ba'al,
How is it that you can, in an apparent attempt to be cute, call yourself Ba'al. Are you aware that the worship of Ba'al included child and human sacrifice?
Then you will argue for peace in these lists?
Your historical ignorance has made you into a profoundly foolish caricature of what is most ugly in human history.
Or perhaps, you know that of which you mimick and would advocate for its return...
January 16, 2007 2:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 16, 2007 14:33
Bush and his crew - a herd of wolves ("might") in sheep skins ("right"). The phrase "might makes right" is sadly true, and not meant as a moral demand, on the contrary, as a sad observation of "evil" (I don't believe evil exists outside humans, just as "terror" can never be an enemy: It is a method! You cannot fight a method!)
And don't forget that might has the power to influence not only actions, but much worse: minds. When I was a 7 years old German boy, I was convinced that Hitler was the greatest moral authority: There was no other information available. He lured 99% of Germans easily into an almost religious feeling of patriotism, into the recovery of a destroyed self-esteem of this nation, with the most important parts (Rheinland, the industry sector) occupied by foreign (French) soldiers, huge amounts of reparations to be paid to the hated enemy. Feelings of revenge for the lost World WarI were so easy to create, even the top moral authorities like the philosopher Heidegger for some time hailed Hitler as the greatest. And the West cowtowed to him also, let us not forget it, not only during the Berlin Olympics in 1936!
After the catastrophy, of course, everybody hurried to maintain that he had always known that Hitler represented evil: The view of the beholder had changed!
The Bush manichaeism of "good vs. evil" is pure stupidity (as stupid and archaic as the concepts of "Heaven" vs. "Hell"), complete ignorance of history, of the complexity of the world and of the human mind.
These simplifying mental mechanisms, alas, work independently of which administration of which country employs them, as we can witness so clearly today.
.
January 15, 2007 4:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 15, 2007 16:37
mr karg- im not sure what it is you are saying-
is yours a pacific viewpoint? or just anti-abrahamic religion viewpoint?
are you saying that ethics or morality dont enter into your decision making?
might makes right seems an awfully simplistic worldview-
or am i wrong in assuming you were complienting the poster mr gasso on his pacifism but just his own anti-abrahamic views-
i dont mean to imply youre without morals- just not sure what youre saying-
the man with the best toys wins?
peace
January 15, 2007 3:24 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 15, 2007 03:24
ANONYMOUS- what is the point of posting a travel advertisement about northern iraq and the kurds?
do you have any idea who the kurds are or how they got to where they are right now?
what is the point of an advertisement? its an advertisement!
are you going over to spend your american dollars on vacation in northern iraq anytime soon?
January 15, 2007 3:00 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 15, 2007 03:00
Michael Karg,
Buddhist traffic cops write traffic tickets the same way British cops do - neither have 45's on their hips.
January 14, 2007 7:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 14, 2007 19:48
one can never fight and win against an abstract "evil", one can only fight against those things that cause folks to act in ruinous ways.
the enemies of the world are and have always been greed, ill-will and ignorance and all the forms they take.
that is the fight -- that is the only "just war".
January 14, 2007 7:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 14, 2007 19:46
ASHLEY asks: "We all know that Saddam was a monster, but how has our intervention improved life in Iraq?"
For one answer, try this:
www.theotheriraq.com
January 14, 2007 3:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 14, 2007 15:56
very amusing, Rabbi, all this talk of good and evil, but i put to you that the real world is not so simple.
remember your audience is mostly americans. and remember the response of america, when in the final months of WWII, the camps were liberated and the death chambers with all their carnage and suffering were thus revealed.
remember how the americans responded to all this horror: not to be outdone, they did the nazis one better (or two rather). they invented a bomb that was nothing more than an incinertion chamber turned inside out and set it off above hiroshima. and then they did it again.
good and evil. very funny rabbi. now tell me again how you tell 'em apart?
January 14, 2007 9:19 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 14, 2007 09:19
Dear Rabbi,
It seems that many of your readers reacted rather negatively to your comment. I've arrived by chance, researching another topic, but I thought I would express agreement with your basic premise.
Many responses seem to assert that, because "evil" is in some sense subjective, there is no proper use for the term. Then they proceed to blast you for having a mindset that they perceive to be very harmful, treating you exactly as if they thought you were "evil".
It is sadly ironic.
We should set aside the issue of war for a moment, and scale it back to individuals. To the readers: Is there *any* action by *any* person that you feel should be stopped, even by force if necessary? A person killing their loved ones? A person killing *your* loved ones? Is there any restriction you'd ever place on their freedom of movement or action?
If the answer is "no" -- then you have indeed lived up to your ideal of consistent non-violence and non-judgmental action.
For the rest, though -- if you would stop or interfere with such a killer, then you have employed your own subjective notions of good and evil, as you have learned them through your society and your own thinking. And you've already considered a war against it, at the retail level rather than the Rabbi's wholesale.
===|==============/ Level Head
January 13, 2007 6:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 13, 2007 18:59
Warp10 sir:
Yes, I have experienced everything you mentioned in your retort, and I do mean everything -- sorry to say. It changes nothing.
January 13, 2007 6:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 13, 2007 18:13
Michael Karg: When I began this journey of enlightenment, some 50 years ago, my common sense informed me that might means right -- good and evil having nothing to do with it.
Sick. So, if your daughter is raped by a powerful man, all is well?
if our greed and sloth in this generation are the cause of global warming in the next generation, that is just their tough luck.
Sir, you are not part of the "Enlightened". Yours is the mindset that dragged down civilization into the Dark Ages centuries ago.
You have to be a Republican. Cheney is your hero, right?
Yours,
WarpTen
January 13, 2007 5:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 13, 2007 17:20
Michael Grasso: great post.
Yes, when one reads all their books, and all the books about their books, one realizes that they all follow the God of Abraham. Christianity was founded by a dozen Jews; Islam by one man who first learned Judaism, trying to improve it.
Soon after Moses, the Jews began rationalizing the rules and regulations of the God of Abraham, and they are still at it. Soon after Jesus, Peter, Paul and the others, Christians began rationalizing the new rules and regulations, and some are still at it. And since Mohammed, the Muslems have been attempting to rationalize the divorce settlement, or something (and I mean no disrespect).
When I began this journey of enlightenment, some 50 years ago, my common sense informed me that might means right -- good and evil having nothing to do with it. Nothing I have experienced, nor any history have I read, has provided any information to change my common sense information.
So, I have always wondered how the Buddhists do it. How do their traffic patrol officers write a citation for speeding, without a .45 strapped to their hip?
A just war is the one my people win. And, like the man said, "Let the devil take the hindmost."
January 13, 2007 5:05 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 13, 2007 17:05
unfortunately some and maybe most people will only reconize evil when it's in their own back yard...the media has added to the illusion that politics and power are the only evil entities. Rabbi, keep up the good thoughts...we need voices of wisdom like yours.
January 13, 2007 4:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 13, 2007 16:42
I agree... Although one of the greatest evils we must destroy is war itself. Which can only be destroyed through peace. Learn more at the Activist Resource Group here:
http://www.resourcesforlife.com/groups/activist/
January 13, 2007 1:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 13, 2007 13:42
It is heartening that the majority of the commenters here seem to be more enlightened than the Rabbi's. It is the very ideas of "evil," just wars, and self-defense that have created Iraq, Vietnam... and the Holocaust. Our political leaders use these ideas to market and sell wars to the civilian populace, while our religious leaders defend them - because it takes great courage to do otherwise, and to extend understanding & tolerance to those who have hurt us before. It seems that many leaders such as Mr. Bush & Rabbi Steinsaltz are so used to positions of power & influence, that they have lost touch with ordinary citizens... many of whom I now believe may be more qualified for leadership than the leaders we have now.
The blood of tens or 100s of thousands of innocent Iraqis + 3,000 American soldiers is on our hands. I am pretty sure that within the eyes of God & Heaven, there was probably a better way to solve our problems. Calling it a "just war" is just a license to kill.
As for solutions, I support partitioning the country into 3 states for each of the 3 major ethnic groups. Leave open the option of reunification until later. Of course, Mr. Bush totally dismisses this idea because the US would lose its regional leverage & control of oil.
January 13, 2007 1:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 13, 2007 13:13
Norrie Hoyt, just to be technically correct, there was a small, undeclared war fought between the US and Nazi Germany in the North Atlantic prior to the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
One of Nazi Germany's many justifications for thier attrocities was the American genocide of the Native Americans.
January 13, 2007 10:40 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 13, 2007 10:40
Buckhead,
You wrote: "... I must have missed that part of history when Germany attacked us in WWII..."
You missed it because it didn't happen.
Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor, not Germany. There was never an equivalent attack on the U.S. by Germany.
The first real military engagement with Germany was when the U.S. invaded North Africa. Before that there were German submarine attacks on U.S. shipping but that was after the U.S. had declared war on Germany.
January 13, 2007 10:10 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 13, 2007 10:10
Rabbi:
As all the above amply demonstrates, the destruction of evil is impossible. You need another goal, and with it a rational strategy, and with that a rational set of tactics.
You certainly have the credentials to tackle this problem. Why shouldn't we conclude that you need to re-think your conclusion?
January 13, 2007 9:35 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 13, 2007 09:35
well if evil is personified by saddam hussein- wasnt he just destroyed? does that mean everyone can go home now rabbi?
January 13, 2007 4:30 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 13, 2007 04:30
Free Palestine!
January 13, 2007 3:55 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 13, 2007 03:55
Buckhead asks:
"Could you imagine another Clinton in the White House?"
Sounds like heaven to me!
Reminder - 9/11 happened on BUSH'S watch.
'Nuff said.
January 13, 2007 1:32 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 13, 2007 01:32
"Mr Mark:
The Rabbi - like most of the theists posting on this blog - don't offer real answers to the questions or solutions to the problems. Rather, they reveal thinking that is part of the problem.
Posted January 12, 2007 11:42 AM"
Well put.
EVIL is LIVE spelled backwards.
I'm sure the good Rabbi would agree the world exists because there IS both a dark and light side to it.
Much opposite of LIVE has been done in the name of Organized Religion.
I'll be damned if I'm going to allow it to take the earth to the edge of extinction because of their male egos.
January 12, 2007 9:38 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 12, 2007 21:38
Yes.. WW II is an example of a just war.
But.. Iraq is an example of an immoral unnecessary war, fought in the guise of a moral, necessary war...
Religion was used in justifying the latter. Bush afterall talked to his "Father" about those WMD and the "wisdom" of attacking Iraq...
________________________________________-
"A Tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious." --Aristotle, Greek philosopher (384-322 BCE)
“As long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities.”
—Voltaire
January 12, 2007 9:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 12, 2007 21:02
ANYONE CAN DO A SIMPLE SEARCH AND GET PAGES AND PAGES AND PAGES OF THIS-
AS LONG AS WE ARE DISTRACTED FIGHTING THE EVIL MUSLIMS-WE DONT HAVE TO BOTHER OURSELVES ABOUT THESE SILLY TRILLIONS
This is an estimate by Thomas Stauffer, a consulting economist in Washington. For decades, his analyses of the Middle East scene have made him a frequent thorn in the side of the Israel lobby.
Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid. It is already due to get $2.04 billion in military assistance and $720 million in economic aid in fiscal 2003. It has been getting $3 billion a year for years.
Adjusting the official aid to 2001 dollars in purchasing power, Israel has been given $240 billion since 1973, Stauffer reckons. In addition, the US has given Egypt $117 billion and Jordan $22 billion in foreign aid in return for signing peace treaties with Israel.
another estimate
Recently Americans have begun to read and hear that “Israel receives $3 billion in annual U.S. foreign aid.” That's true. But it's still a lie. The problem is that in fiscal 1997 alone, Israel received from a variety of other U.S. federal budgets at least $525.8 million above and beyond its $3 billion from the foreign aid budget, and yet another $2 billion in federal loan guarantees. So the complete total of U.S. grants and loan guarantees to Israel for fiscal 1997 was $5,525,800,000.
the congressional report itself was waaay to long so im trying to be brief-
While it is commonly reported that Israel officially receives some $3 billion every year in the form of economic aid from the U.S. government, this figure is just the tip of the iceberg. There are many billions of dollars more in hidden costs and economic losses lurking beneath the surface. A recently published economic analysis has concluded that U.S. support for the state of Israel has cost American taxpayers nearly $3 trillion ($3 million millions) in 2002 dollars.
“The Costs to American Taxpayers of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: $3 Trillion” is a summary of economic research done by Thomas R. Stauffer. Stauffer’s summary of the research was published in the June 2003 issue of The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
Stauffer is a Washington, D.C.-based engineer and economist who writes and teaches about the economics of energy and the Middle East. Stauffer has taught at Harvard University and Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service. Stauffer’s findings were first presented at an October 2002 conference sponsored by the U.S. Army College and the University of Maine.
January 12, 2007 8:54 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 12, 2007 20:54
Self-defense is the only justification for war.
'Fighting Evil' sounds good, but what is 'evil'? I consider Israel's policies against the Palestinians to be evil. But I do not believe that Israel must be attacked (and by whom for that matter) because of them.
January 12, 2007 8:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 12, 2007 20:00
Is this war "just"?
well i pose this question:
To those who are adherent to the God of Abraham, would you find it in your heart, faith and intellect to ask your fellow believers to please stop killing each other and those of us who don't believe in the God of Abraham lets us be Buddhist, Hindu or atheist, etc?
I ask this of you for you have a pulpit and seem to represent the Christian/Catholic ,Jewish and even Islam because even with my some what limited understanding of all three faiths your common denominator is your belief in the God of Abraham. For you and your fellow believers are freighting me and my children to death, as well as scarring humanity with your internal dislike (hatred?), disagreements and cycles of violence.
Believe me, if it was Buddhists or New age mystics committing these atrocities this message would be sent to a Buddhist and so on.
January 12, 2007 5:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 12, 2007 17:06
Anonymous writes: The shortness of the human memory never ceases to amaze me. Everyone has conveniently forgotten the 100,000 - 200,00 Kurds (including women and children) that Saddam exterminated, in 1988 and then again in 1991.
The National Security Archives note that
"By the summer of 1983 Iran had been reporting Iraqi use of using chemical weapons for some time. The Geneva protocol requires that the international community respond to chemical warfare, but a diplomatically isolated Iran received only a muted response to its complaints. It intensified its accusations in October 1983, however, and in November asked for a United Nations Security Council investigation. The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations."
But later we learn that
"Rumsfeld returned to Baghdad in late March 1984. By this time, the U.S. had publicly condemned Iraq's chemical weapons use, stating, "The United States has concluded that the available evidence substantiates Iran's charges that Iraq used chemical weapons". Briefings for Rumsfeld's meetings noted that atmospherics in Iraq had deteriorated since his December visit because of Iraqi military reverses and because "bilateral relations were sharply set back by our March 5 condemnation of Iraq for CW use, despite our repeated warnings that this issue would emerge sooner or later". Rumsfeld was to discuss with Iraqi officials the Reagan administration's hope that it could obtain Export-Import Bank credits for Iraq, the Aqaba pipeline, and its vigorous efforts to cut off arms exports to Iran. According to an affidavit prepared by one of Rumsfeld's companions during his Mideast travels....
Although official U.S. policy still barred the export of U.S. military equipment to Iraq, some was evidently provided on a "don't ask - don't tell" basis. In April 1984, the Baghdad interests section asked to be kept apprised of Bell Helicopter Textron's negotiations to sell helicopters to Iraq, which were not to be "in any way configured for military use". The purchaser was the Iraqi Ministry of Defense. In December 1982, Bell Textron's Italian subsidiary had informed the U.S. embassy in Rome that it turned down a request from Iraq to militarize recently purchased Hughes helicopters. An allied government, South Korea, informed the State Department that it had received a similar request in June 1983 (when a congressional aide asked in March 1983 whether heavy trucks recently sold to Iraq were intended for military purposes, a State Department official replied "we presumed that this was Iraq's intention, and had not asked.")
January 12, 2007 4:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 12, 2007 16:22
i agree with you if you believe that a multinational state which contains Israel and Palestina can not be created unless one of the counries will be erased of the onternational map or both countries will integrate in one unity.
January 12, 2007 4:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 12, 2007 16:09
Will defenders of this war ever stop running to the "Saddam was baaaaaad!!!" defense? We all know that Saddam was a monster, but how has our intervention improved life in Iraq? Have fewer people died under our administration than Saddam's? Life in Iraq is every bit as deadly under the current US-created regime as under Hussein, if not more so. What is the use of replacing a tyrant with chaos?
The infantile view of war as a battle of good versus evil, a view shared by Mr. Steinsaltz and President Bush, is the primary reason we are in this mess. The belief that we represent the forces of righteousness allowed Bush to justify fabricating the reason for war and undoubtably blinded him to the internal divisions within Iraq that are now tearing that country apart with the eager assistance of Iran, Syria, and other neighboring countries.
January 12, 2007 3:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 12, 2007 15:08
Hitler, Pol Pot and Mao caused millions of death not by themselves alone but with the help of millions of their countrymen. So we should add millions more names to our lists of people that we should have killed. By the way, if Bush had the same power as Hilter or Stalin (without having to answer to the Congress and can wage war at will), it is quite possible that great many civilians (Koreans, Iranian or Syrians) and American soldiers would not be alive today.
January 12, 2007 3:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 12, 2007 15:06
AA, is that a matter of forgetting or not knowing what to do about it. Suggestions?
January 12, 2007 2:53 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 12, 2007 14:53
The shortness of the human memory never ceases to amaze me. Everyone has conveniently forgotten the 100,000 - 200,00 Kurds (including women and children) that Saddam exterminated, in 1988 and then again in 1991. Eveyone has also fogotten the 100,000 Shiites he exterminated on his way out from having invaded Kuwait. They forget the murder, torture, and rape of his citizens. In every way, Saddam was, figuratively and literally, raping his country.
Let's say you came upon a man raping a woman at knife point, and you are the only one around who can stop him. You ask him to stop, but he just keeps at it. Would you let him finish, then afterwards "offer him mutual respect" through "dialogue," or would you take out your gun and shoot him?
Moral choices are much more difficult to make when you are the only thing staning between good and evil.
January 12, 2007 2:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 12, 2007 14:31
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the U.S. founded on war? And I must have missed that part of history when Germany attacked us in WWII, because I seem to remember a U.S. General kicking their Nazi tails back to uberville.
Could you imagine another Clinton in the White House? The NSA Chief tells Socialist Hillary, "Ma'am, terrorists have just bombed the Sears Tower in Chicago and have destroyed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania!" Hillary responds, "Let's see if we can get the terrorists to come to Camp David for a peace conference. If that doesn't work, let's convene the U.N. and see if we can get their approval for action within two years. If all else fails, threaten the terrorists with a cruise missile strike on a medical plant in Egypt. That should show them!" Comical, but sadly, it's true.
January 12, 2007 2:24 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 12, 2007 14:24
Who is evil in this case? The ruling government or the innocent child killed just for being unlucky enough to be born where there is a history of political instability? War is a terrible thing to wage on the innocents. It should be a choice of last resort. We have only fanned the flames of hatred and continuing bloodshed by not exhausting other avenues for resolution. Are we morally better than a dictator who kills his own people yet maintains some order and safety in an unstable environment? Our war of choice has created more chaos, more death, more hate, less tolerance for other religions and beliefs. There does not seem now that there is much hope of a peaceful Iraq, or a peaceful middle east for that matter. I feel sorry for the average citizen who is just trying to live, raise a family, and survive.
January 12, 2007 2:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 12, 2007 14:12
Sir,
Mr. Steinsaltz seems to think that certain sections of world are either evil or administered by evil people and therefore such evil must be destroyed. At the same time, he says that self-defense is human nature.
Therefore, US, Israel and Britain and other such caucasian /Christian/Jewish states must destroy the muslim states, and the muslim states must in turn destroy whoever invades them. Similarly, India and Pakistan must destroy each other, and the same applies to all quarreling neighbors.
Good. That will end the world and there will be peace.
I wonder why people like this guy are allowed even to write.
Thanks
Suresh Rao
January 12, 2007 2:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 12, 2007 14:04
Using self-defense as an excuse to KILL is just UGLY. it is not neccessary to kill someone else to protect oneself.
Observing that EVIl exists in someone/somewhere else, rather than your OWN MINBD is EVIL in itself.
Both Good and Evil can be found in the mind of people. To Kill Evil Kills Good as well.
Perhaps mutual respect is a beter place to start for this author.
Soft Power; dialogue; solves more problems and saves more lives than hard power; killing/War.
Perhaps the Rabbi might consider dialogue with his enemies before he Kills everyone first.
January 12, 2007 1:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 12, 2007 13:55
I would say Hitler qualifies as evil. Ditto for Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung (I hope I spelled that right) Stalin, Saddam Huiseen etc. And all the Rabbi said was that sometimes you have to fight evil was to destroy it. He made no specific mention of Iraq so it is impossible to concretly say he was in favor of the war.
January 12, 2007 1:54 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 12, 2007 13:54
2) Fighting against evil. That fight should begin waged within before one attempts to wage it without...moral justification. Any way you want to look at it Rabbi, Iraq is NOT as just war. Your apparent desire to cast it as such only serves to cast doubt on you. Give it up Rabbi. It is all over but the Neo-Cons are too stupid to realize it yet.
January 12, 2007 1:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 12, 2007 13:42
Self defence is a reflex, a matter of natural law. That's why, "don't nobody make no sudden moves" is so important. Make a sudden move and get yourself shot, a matter of natural consequence and not something people think their way through, a reaction to an action, a saddam move.
When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor that came with a promise of more of the same and they wasted no time getting to it. Then how one defends one's self can be contemplated a little more but don't take forever, you don't have that long to think about it.
Now if Mr P had have made a Rosevelt type reply to 9-11-2001 then we would have gone to a "just war" with whom? Maybe that's the problem everyone knows about but is afraid to talk about? Why? Does faith have anything to do with it? The 911 attack was more damaging than Pearl. So what's the problem with the self defence knee jerk reaction? Who was the attacker? It was a God named Allah that attacked us.
We now know the Bible is a proved hoax. How about the Koran? Is it really God's word? Really? Gods can get away with things people can't I suppose.
"Gods don't pay no taxes" is what Rastas said. And I said, "they pay no taxes" and he replied, "that's right." Rastas didn't get much of a degree but he got a good education at the school of hard knocks.
January 12, 2007 12:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 12, 2007 12:26
I take it that 'just war' is a moral justification by categories of self defence, and expected outcome to be greater than evil. The trouble is, evil is only seen from one side of the fence. Extend this beyond the focus of the pro-West allies and you may find that Capitalism is inherent of evil. Why is there a need to have an accumulation of poverty at the one end of the economic scale, or why is the cost of the means of sustaining and saving lives unaffordable in the third worlds? The imposition of political and economic standards is where evil has penetrated the basis of moral decisions.
And according to the rabbi's definition, fighting evil or those responsible for decisions resulting with poverty and restricting access to medicine and therapy by any means necessary is just. And that justifies the terrorists' cause.
January 12, 2007 11:59 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 12, 2007 11:59
The Rabbi - like most of the theists posting on this blog - don't offer real answers to the questions or solutions to the problems. Rather, they reveal thinking that is part of the problem.
January 12, 2007 11:42 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 12, 2007 11:42
Rabbi,
Would you not agree that "evil" is in the eye of the beholder? If so, then many wars will be started because of an erroneous perception of evil in the eye of the warrior.
The Inquisition, Hitler, Stalin, and other innumberable tyrants and sadists waged war on what they saw as "evil".
From a Buddhist perspective, nothing in this world has a real, inherent identity. "Things are other than they appear." So a warrior who raises his spear to impale an "evil" opponent is actually slicing at a phantom.
So, if there is such a thing as a just war, which is certainly questionable, it can only be your type-one war: a war of self-defence. But President Bush thinks that his Iraq war is a war of self-defence. Again a misperception by the warrior.
So where does that leave us? Probably to conclude that there are no just wars.
For the innocent, every war is like a lightning strike: a random act of destructive violence not involving justice.
January 12, 2007 11:36 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 12, 2007 11:36
I understand the usage of the word "evil" to describe really rotten people, ideas. I wonder if anyone understands what is being said when we set out to destroy evil?
Evil, as it was originally coined meant matter, substance, that which occupied space and posessed weight. I want to credit the Greeks as the first to "misunderstand" the word but Shakespear was probably the one.
If I sacrifice, (definitely Greek and means totally burned up) then I give whatever it is up to God, make it holy, transfer it to the spirit world where God can enjoy it. But then there is some ash left over. That's the part of the human anatomy that ends up in hell buring forever the part that is so evil it won't burn.
A famout Jew, Einstein said that was a pack of nonsense. It can be turned into energy. Harry Truman said energy was handy and used it to end evil. When all evil is eliminated the world will be destroyed, total burned up. Will there be any ashes left so Devil can get what he wants or will everything go to heaven? Looks like it's on the way to hell if you ask me but then what do I know.
January 12, 2007 11:36 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 12, 2007 11:36
We were very close to starving it in Iraq. Too bad we had only faith in ourselves. Would you agree Rabbi?
January 12, 2007 11:22 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 12, 2007 11:22
The best way to destroy evil is to starve it into non-existence. If you allow hate into your heart, evil has a foothold. We do what we must of course, but be certain that you must if you are talking about taking life. God Bless you and yours.
January 12, 2007 11:21 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 12, 2007 11:21
I would expect a more thoughtful response from an 8th grader. The vagueness of this response and its use of terms that are entirely subjective is disturbingly similar to Mr. Bush talk about an "Axis of Evil", and we see where that has gotten us. These are the rhetorical devices of idiots.
By dismissing the consequences, or "effectiveness" of a war as mere "tactics", and divorcing it from the moral realm, the Rabbi reveals himself to be entirely insensitive to the massive suffering caused by "collateral damage". These kinds of tactics have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (and many many Palestinians and Lebanese). Of course, the grotesque mistakes of the Bush administration have also led to the deaths and dismemberments of tens of thousands of Americans, and it is not clear that their sacrifice will be for anything of value.
If one does not consider the moral nature of tactics, then it bears noting that terror is a tactic. How can you fight a war against a tactic?
January 12, 2007 11:18 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 12, 2007 11:18
There is absolutely NO case in which man (as individual, community or nation) has the right to attack or endanger another man's life. Why? Because he can't give it back once it is taken.
1. Self-defense is an inborn right of any creature, but as newborn children of God we have to evolve from creature-like behaviour to a truly human-like conduct, following the example of Jesus, the forerunner of a new humanity.
2. As to the identification of evil, who will cast the first vote? Our judgements are distorted by human nature, limited by ignorance, biased by cultural and social prejudices.
Resuming:
If your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them a drink... These are words of the Hebrew Bible (Proverbs 25:21-22), filled with the Spirit of Christ (Matthew 5:44-48) and enfatized as Christian practice (Romans 12:20).
Surely, an unbelieving world is driven by other principles. It puts its faith in military power and "preventive" war. Again, as Christians, we aren't part of this game although affected by its consequences. But this doesn't mean that we are exposed and unprotected. As the Koran says [4.45]:
"And Allah best knows your enemies; and Allah suffices as a Guardian, and Allah suffices as a Helper."
January 12, 2007 9:57 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 12, 2007 09:57
Anonymous, you're being ironic right? If not.
The West, US and Isreal has nukes, Iran does not. There are US bases in countries around Iran ready to bomb that country back to the stone age if it even sneeze.
Iran's nuclear programme is for energy. It is running out of oil in 10 to 15 years. If you have even read or pay attention to news on Iran even before 9/11, they are already sounding off about developing nuclear energy to meet domestic needs.
Iran is still a member of the IAEA. Israel is not and thus, not subject to international conditions, compliance and inspections of its nukes and nuclear programme.
The Middle Easterners always like to say, "It is not the Arabs driving the Israelis out to sea, but the Israelis pushing the Arabs into the desert".
It is all about perceptions.
January 11, 2007 8:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 11, 2007 20:55
Let's not get so intellectual that we forget to be practical. Iran is clearly planning to remove Israel from the face of the earth, on its way to destroying the West. That satisfies both of the Rabbi's conditions. Anhialating one ethnic/religious group is evil and could justify war to defend oneself. Wake up, people!
January 11, 2007 8:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 11, 2007 20:04
Simplistic jibberish . . . who pays any attention to this kind of shadrool? Where's Woody Allen when you need him?
Rabbi, what's your take on the Iraeli government killing innocent Palestinian women and children? An eye for eye? A child for a child? A woman for a woman?
Wake up.
January 11, 2007 7:57 PM | Report Offensive Comments </