Jeremy Corbyn: Likes, Dislikes, Indifferences and Ambivalences: Nuclear Weapons

Jeremy Corbyn is, of course, an unacceptable force in British politics.  … It is also true that not everything he says is or will be bad or wrong… See full intro here

This one - Nuclear Weapons - was a toss up between a like and an ambivalence - which I suppose must, therefore, make it an ambivalence.

Let's start with a clear thing that I agree with:  There is absolutely no situation in which I would press the nuclear button.  None. Whatsoever.  Causing the loss of so many lives, taking the innocent along with the guilty, is unthinkable.

Let us also all be absolutely scared of the prospect of Donald Trump having his finger on that button!  Not to mention, Iran! Or, North Korea! It would be much

This brings me on to one of the reasons for ambivalence. One of Jeremy Corbyn's main focus areas in this regard is not Iran or North Korea.  As part of the campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in the Middle East, his main target is, of course, Israel.  The fact that his main interest lies with Britain and Israel - countries who are least likely to use it.

This in turn leads to another ambivalence.  While people that might actually use it, have it:  the illusion that a Western Power might use I on them, acts as a deterrent.  However, Jeremy Corbyn is (and I am) much to honest to foster such an illusion - because an illusion is all it is.  Even in the event of an evil attack by such a country, there would be zero benefit in retaliating with nuclear weapons.

What is more, it is an extremely expensive illusion which could be spend on better things.  It would be much better if the illusion could be the whole hog - we pretend to have the weapon, which we pretend to spend a ludicrous amount of money, which we pretend we might actually use - but which doesn't in fact exist.

Credo 3

There are a plurality values - all worth pursuing - but also can lead to contradictory conclusions in a real life situation. 

[Corollary: Doing 'good' isn't {just} about 'doing the right thing' but about the judgement, weighing and prioritising values in that particular situation]

Blood, Platelets & Begrudging Morality

Now I, as I’m sure a lot of people, do their best to do the right thing.  For some it comes easier than others.  Personally, I’m quite a begrudging sort of guy and it doesn’t ‘warm the cockles of my heart’ to help others.  The overriding emotion once I have ‘discharged my duty’ is probably relief.  Dissonance between what I should do and my natural resistance is a nuisance I am happy to be (temporarily) rid of.

One can understand how, for someone like me, it was the best of both worlds to get a letter from The National Blood Service saying that I couldn’t donate platelets.  Now I do give blood now and again and whilst it causes no great anguish, I am a bit squeamish.  It is not that it hurts but I don’t like the thought of a needle in me, am a bit scared in case I move, and finds the continual hand-pumping action a little uncomfortable.  However, it only takes 10 minutes and the second it is over, I feel no ill effect.  After my compulsory hot chocolate, I am on my way.

Last time I was in to give blood, the nurse asked whether I had considered giving platelets.  Is something I might like to do? Would I like to be tested for?  Of course, this isn’t something that I generally think about at great length.  Equally, it isn’t at the top of my ‘like’ list.  The key point here is that you cannot be a blood donor and a platelet donor at the same time.  As such, I would be (as I found out) swapping a 10 minute donation for 1 and a half hour donation, going in 8 - 10 times a year rather than 4, and have a machine strapped to me and not just a bag!

Not wanting to base my moral decision on what I feel like, I asked for information and also which would be the most useful thing to do.  After a few niceties about how both were incredibly valuable (which they are), I found out that it would probably be better to give platelets if I could.  Fewer people are able to donate them, not many people can commit that amount of time; and unlike blood, they cannot be stored as they only last a short time.  As such, I agreed to take test and if possible, become a platelet donor.

Recently, I got a letter from the National Blood Service with the results.  I was told that: “you have more than enough [platelets] for yourself, however not a sufficient amount extra to provide an adequate donation”.  I’d done the right thing- so to speak- and yet got out of having to take any further action.  Phew!  But is this the right way to feel?  This all depends on whether you subscribe to Aristotle’s view of ethics or Kant’s.

For Aristotle, ‘doing the right thing’ does not make you a moral person or the action a specifically moral one.  It is the role of the politicians to introduce legislation that encourage rational actions promoting the welfare of people and state, and early education to indoctrinate you into performing them.  However, the main role of education is to develop your character such that- like the rest of nature- you always follow the middle path.  You will, for example, develop compassion so that you will want to help people.  An action may be rational but it is only moral if it is a natural expression of a person’s virtuous character.

Kant, on the other hand, disagrees and thinks emotions (or ‘how you feel’ about an action) are not a good guide to morality.  They are transient and will mean different choices on different occasions.  Also, dependant as they are on external circumstances, they are heteronomous and so, not a good guide to character.  Instead, actions must be based on categorical reason, which is the only thing that is truly autonomous.  As such, if someone who doesn’t want to something with every fibre of his being, yet does it because it is rational, it is a truly moral action. This is because it is based on the moral will alone.

It would therefore be very convenient if I Kant was absolutely right, as it would vindicate me.  However, he is not!  I agree that our actions can only be rationally justified.  Equally, I’m very distrustful of those who do what they happen (due to historical accident) to consider the most ‘loving’ thing to do.  Nonetheless, we can only be a truly moral person if we develop our character so that we will naturally follow the dictates of reason.  A begrudging person cannot be truly virtuous!  Oh well.

Leeches Suck and ECT is Shocking

New Scientist had an intriguing article about Leeches and their use in modern medicine. Apparently, they are very helpful in preventing problems when limbs are reattached. They help remove excess blood that could be life-threatening, and also inject a chemical that prevent blood-clotting. Who would have thunk it?

These poor leeches, however, have a very disreputable reputation, and probably through no fault of their own. It is not as if leeches deliberately prey on human beings, hide in your cornflakes or wait on street corners for an unsuspecting vein to walk past. Who can blame a leech for not looking a gift horse in the mouth and gorging itself on blood until it is six or seven times its normal size? After all, humans in our decadent West gorge themselves on cupcakes until they are six or seven times their normal size!

Yet, one cannot blame someone who would be weary of the use of leeches as part of their medical treatment. For almost 2000 years they were used as a catch-all treatment by ‘doctors’ who may have killed more patients than they cured. This is nicely summed up from a scene from Blackadder:

Edmund: Never had anything you doctors didn't try to cure with leeches. A leech on my ear for ear ache, a leech on my bottom for constipation.
Doctor: They're marvellous, aren't they?
Edmund: Well, the bottom one wasn't. I just sat there and squashed it.
Doctor: You know the leech comes to us on the highest authority?
Edmund: Yes. I know that. Dr. Hoffmann of Stuttgart, isn't it?
Doctor: That's right, the great Hoffmann.
Edmund: Owner of the largest leech farm of Europe.
Doctor: Yes. Well, I cannot spend all day gossiping. I'm a busy man. As far as this case is concerned I have now had time to think it over and I can strongly recommend a [in chorus] course of leeches.
Edmund: Yes. I'll pop a couple down my codpiece before I go to bed ?

For much of the time, this proliferate use of leeches was based on the belief that our body was composed of four basic substances or humours (blood, phlegm, black bile, and yellow bile) that corresponded to the four Greek elements (fire, earth, air and water). Disease was caused by an imbalance of these humours and significant blood-letting could redress the balance.

Now that, post 19th Century, we do not believe in this theory, how come we still have leeches being used in medicine? Sure, it is not done on the basis of a discredited theory and it would be wrong to discard something just because of a chequered past, but is anachronistic nonetheless. After all, surgeons have great trouble preventing the leeches from straying and there is no guarantee that they will latch on and suck. Equally, if they know the combination of chemicals that stop blood-clotting why don’t they administer it in a different way? And if they don’t, why are we comfortable administering something we don’t have an understanding of?

The same goes for ECT (Electro-convulsive therapy), a commonly used technique in the 1940s and 50s, that passes an electric current through a patient and produces a seizure in the patient. It was used to ‘cure’ a large range of mental illnesses, often without the consent of the patient and sometimes was administered as a form of abuse. Yet, this is still in use today!

There are far more controls to its use, is limited to fewer illnesses, and is more monitored. Interestingly enough, in my psychology course, I learnt that the research shows that ECT is (slightly) more effective in treating schizophrenia than any of drugs currently available. Schizophrenia has a mainly biological rather than psychological cause, and passing current through the brain ‘does something’ to temporarily reset the brain. However, the ‘does something’ is not very well understood. Are we really happy to administer this when we don’t really understand it or its long-term effects just because it seems to work? Couldn’t scientific and medical funding be better directed elsewhere?

This is where the chequered past of a medical method comes in. After all, which modern scientist would a priori think of leeches or electricity as a great way to solve illness based on what we know? We only use it because of a direct link to a past where medicine was more barbaric. After all, the farm that breeds the leeches has been in operation from 1845, when the theory of humours was still believed. Given that it is the only licensed farm, Blackadder’s criticism of Dr. Hoffman of Stuttgart is prescient.

Of course, it’d be all worth it if we could make it up to leeches as a reparation for a history where we have abused their talents! Their life starts well being fed on sheep blood served in a sheep-gut condom. Yum! Alas, as soon as they are used, the surgeon drops the leech into a tub of alcohol and thrown into “Medical Waste”. Neither the leeches or the humans are being given the chance they properly deserve!

G-d’s response to the Israeli Settlers

Finally, leaders of pro-Israel countries such as America are taking on the settlers. If only were it the case that a) more countries were strongly pro-Israel and b) countries that are, take a stand against the settlers. Thankfully Netanyahu, if only for reasons of self-interest, is playing along to a certain extent. As a result of this, Gush Emunim are revealing their true colours as some of the great anti-Zionists of our time. Not only are they intent on pursuing a course of action that can only lead to the destruction of Israel in the long-term, they are now advocating soldiers refuse to obey Israeli orders.

R’ Eliezer Melamed, a leading (and I use the words reservedly:) ‘Religious-Zionist’ rabbi has incited soldiers not to follow IDF orders to remove people from illegally constructed houses or settlements in West Bank. Due to this, his Har Bracha Yeshiva has been quite rightly removed from the Hesder Yeshivot programme that allows participants to spend part of their time studying and part of their time serving. People like this only support or see value in the State of Israel so long as it does what they want and serves their particular interests. They don’t support Israel; they only want Israel to support them.

His excuse is that the army is there to protect against its enemies and not against their own countrymen. Surely he cannot mean that the army can never be used against Jews. What if powerful Jewish drug barons started to run a well-armed drug empire from there neighbourhood? He can only mean the army cannot be used against Jewish interests and in this case, expelling Jews from their homes. Well, it is not their homes to start with! The ban is only applicable to new houses that are set up without permission. They are most definitely illegal according to the Israeli government and according to international law. Even (or especially) from the point of view of halacha, it is highly doubtful that Jews should be there in the first place.*

Maybe they would say (and I have heard many people say) that as Jews they say that the land is our natural inheritance given to us by G-d. ‘Greater Israel’ is our possession regardless of Israeli or international law; no-one else should have any of it; and no-one has the right to remove us. Well, fortunately G-d got his response in early (through the mouth of Ezekiel):

Then the word of G-d came to me saying, Son of man, They that inhabit these waste places of the land of Israel speak, saying, Abraham was one man and yet he inherited the land, but we are many; the land is given us for inheritance. Therefore we say to them, thus says the L-rd G-d: You eat with the blood and lift up your eyes towards your idols, and shed blood: and shall you possess the land? You stand upon your sword, you carry out disgusting deeds, and you defile every man his neighbour’s wife; and you shall possess the land?

The land is unequivocally not ours to do what we want with. We may say along with Leibowitz that: “To speak of the divine promise to Abraham and his issue as a gratuitous gift, to ignore the condition of the promise, and to disregard the obligations it confers on the receivers is a degradation and desecration of the religious faith”.

The settlers have an attitude that “it’s ours, not yours, so get out”. Yet G-d’s response is that if you do not conduct yourself with morality, you the ‘land will spit you out’. This shown by the first Rashi which Religious Zionists often use, but which says the opposite of what they want it to say. No human and no Jews has a ‘right’ to any the land- it is G-d’s land and plays by his rules. That is, it is only for those who are Yashar be’einei Hashem- straight in the eyes of the L-rd. According to Rashi, He can take it away from the Canaanites (due to their lack of morality) and give it to the Jews. However, he can take it away from them and given it to the Romans or Ottomans when the Jews weren’t moral.

In summation, let us quote the Netziv who talks about just this eventuality in the time of the Second Temple:

Regarding this came the justification of the divine judgment, because the Holy One, blessed be He, is a yashar, and He cannot tolerate righteous people like this unless they also function with decency in their dealings with the world

Apart from all the political reasons for being against the settlers, and the universal moral ones, let us say it is an affront to G-d.

------

* A Milchemet Reshut, such as a war of conquest, could only be sanctioned by a Sanhedrin, which we don’t have. Thus, when the six day war turned from a defensive war (Milchemet Mitzvah) into one of conquest, the government (and rabbis who supported it) broke Jewish law.

The Death Penalty

Today, amazingly, a man was released from prison after 27 years incarceration for a crime he never committed. Sean Hodgson was convicted of rape and murder but DNA testing of the sperm at the scene has revealed that it was not his. Possibly, and this is a matter for an inquiry, the court should not have accepted the confession of a 'pathological liar'. However, they cannot be faulted for overlooking forensic evidence, as DNA testing didn't exist then (or at least not in the way it is now). As such, it may be that locking him up was the just thing to do, on the basis of what was known at the time.

One thing that it does confirm in my mind is the unacceptability of the death penalty and my relief and being under English rule where it no longer exists. Had the death penalty been in effect, an innocent man would have been put to death and a subsequent 'clearing of his name' wouldn't have been unable to undo this. Of course, far back in English history, the death penalty could be given for something as small as stealing bread. With the advent of the Human Rights Act, however, not even High Treason is punishable in this way.

This is not to say that 'in theory' death is not the appropriate response to particular crimes (not stealing bread though!). If I couldn't reconcile myself, in some way, to the idea of the death penalty, it would most certainly put me at odds with Judaism. Biblical law prescribes death for a large array of different crimes. The Hebrew Bible is a seemingly gruesome book suggesting stoning, strangling, drowning etc. We pray on Yom Kippur, in an inappropriately happy tune, for our sins that deserve these punishments to be commuted.

The logic of the death penalty- at least in the case of murder- is clear. The value of a person's life is the potential to do good deeds and, where one has done wrong, do teshuva (repentance). Repentance in the bible is "eye for an eye": like-for-like reparation is needed to undo the effects of the sin. In certain cases, the perpetrator further needs to experience the wrongdoing themselves. As such, certain forms of stealing require paying double- undo the sin by paying back the money and to then feel what it is like to be without that amount.

Here the law aims not at being punitive but at educating the perpetrator and arousing a sense of sympathy with the victim. They will then be able to go on and live a meaningful life. Bad actions can only be counteracted by good actions, and not by the grace of G-d. Murder, however, is the ultimate crime where the effects of the sin cannot be undone and where the wrong can not be 'righted'. Here, the murderers life is forfeit as there is no potential to do good deeds that can outweigh the evil done. Not even G-d can forgive such a sin.

Despite this "theory", it was never thought to be practically workable proposal for most of those convicted of murder. The Talmud records the following opinions:

"a Sanhedrin [highest law court] that effects an execution once in seven years is branded a destructive tribunal." Rabbi Eliezer Ben Azariah said "once in seventy years." Rabbis Tarfon and Akiba said, "If we were members of a Sanhedrin, nobody would ever be put to death."

The conditions put on the death penalty were so hard that it was virtually impossible to put someone to death this way.

If 2000 years ago they were circumspect about the standard of evidence in murder cases, how much more so should we be? The technological advances we have seen can lead one generations "safe cases" to be overturned in the next. This should not lead to impotence in carrying out justice. As I started by saying, it may have been absolutely the right thing to do, to lock this person up. However, it should lead those who advocate the death penalty to think twice about doing something that cannot be undone.

What is Hamas?

Theft is Hamas.  Murder is Hamas. Taking women simply because they are 'fair' is Hamas. Brutality to creatures with inferior strength to your own is Hamas.  Eating meat (outside of sacrificial use) is technically Hamas.

Hamas, in a funny turn of events, is  a halachic category that encompasses all the sins above: 

This going after something which is beyond one's jurisdiction and ontic sphere is called hamas.  Hamas is the universal act of interfering with somebody else's right and prerogatives, usurping something that is not mine, the act of overreaching oneself and reaching out to the non-self. (Soloveitchik, EEM, 33)

And what is the biggest act of Hamas?

Murder is hamas, for if I rob another person of his life which was granted to him by G-d... [he] takes illegitimate possession of divine rights. (Soloveitchik, EEM, 43)

Now, names are certainly signs in identifying the spiritual characteristic of the thing named.  This leads us to ponder which organisation we know whose acts fall under the sin that is Hamas?

Primark: Too good to be true?

I

I don't like ethical decisions.  They take me away from the path I admire the most... that of least resistance.

This is a problem given that I shop at Primark a lot.  Maybe it's because I'm tight with money or maybe because I'm a man of simple tastes.  Whilst it's probably a mix of the two, I hope it is more the latter.  What is the point of getting something fancy when you are going to look back in ten years time "Why was I wearing that?".  Why go for something that is five times the price just because it has a brand name on it?  I suppose an argument can be brought that other shops are better quality.  However, just like M & S vegetables, they may be better but not five times better, so don't be a snob.  Also, no matter how good the quality is, my trousers will always develop a hole in the crotch.  It's natural law.

So Primark it is.... or is it?As the saying goes: "If it looks too good to be true, it probably is".  If the clothes are that cheap, there must be something wrong. 

However, just imagine that you have just had a whole menagerie of Jewish festivals, you are coming up to the last one and you have no shirts that are simultaneously both clean and dry.  Never happened, of course, but just imagine.  Now whilst in general you don't need a new shirt, you just want to buy something cheaply and quickly to avoid looking like a vagabond and vagrant in synagogue.  Here, old adages fly out the window and plenty of reasons come to reassure me:

• They probably have automated machines which cut down on costs
• Plus... they must buy in bulk which'll make them inexpensive
• Reasonable quality clothes are bound to be that cheap if they are part of last year's line and other shops will no longer stock them.
• They explicitly state on their website that they ensure all their suppliers are ethical
• They are regulated and so wouldn't be able to get away with unethical practices

So go on then.  Let's get a nice plain shirt for a few pounds.  After all, G-d will probably love me more in a Primark shirt than if I turn up in a "Shit Happens" T-Shirt.

II

Today however, Primark- again- have been found to source from unethical suppliers. 

Once before they were found to have imported clothes made in Indian slums where children laboured in poor conditions.  At the time, Primark investigated promptly and decided to stop using these factories once they were aware of the problem.  This is exemplary company policy- and I don't mean that in a sarcastic way.  Companies make mistakes and it would be unfair to accuse them of knowing what is happening.  This is especially so if they have done everything they can- such as send out auditors- to find out if the suppliers are kosher.  The mark of morality is not that you don't make mistakes but that you say sorry and correct the mistake instantly.

Yet, today BBC news reports in this link  about their undercover report into conditions at a TNS Knitwear factory, who make clothes for Primark.  The workers get paid as little as £3.50 an hour (a long way below the minimum wage) and for as much as twelve hours a day, seven days a week.  All the money gets paid out in cash and there is no paperwork.  This is just as well because many of the employees wouldn't be allowed on the books.  Amongst the workers are illegal immigrants and people claiming unemployment benefit.

Once again,  I'm sure there was no intentional wrongdoing on Primark's part.  They are part of the 'Ethical Trading Initiative' and they have a precise code of conduct suppliers should follow.  However, it makes one very uneasy that, rather this unethical practice being detected by their procedures, the scandal only emerged after an undercover investigation.  It makes one wonder how many other dodgy suppliers they have on their books.

III

I'm not usually one to advocate boycotts of anyone or anything.  They are ineffectual, firstly, because unless everyone boycotts them, then your action is merely symbolic.  No-one is going to listen to your voice and you won't be able to affect change.  Secondly, even if everyone did boycott a particular firm and they went bust, what would that achieve?  You will be scapegoating someone without doing anything about the problem.  It's like the police arresting an insignificant drug dealer when a) they haven't cut off the supply and b) there are plenty of insignificant drug dealers to take their place. 

In this case, the public will have got on their high horse about Primark, thought how wonderfully moral they are, and move on to the next cheap retailer.  That is, until they have been caught in an act of indiscretion, at which point you have another scapegoat. 

No, given that such retailing isn't on its way out soon, the best thing for regulators to do is help tighten up Primark's procedures and to help them enforce the policies they already have .  The right thing for the kind of people that will continue to bargain-shop is:  demand that wrongs are righted, and then shop in a place committed to an ethical policy (which Primark seem to be).

However, having said this, I will boycott Primark products and stop buying there.  This will be coupled with not buying from similar stores.  I realised that this incident hasn't taught me anything about Primark per se, but about this kind of trading in general.  When you look for the cheapest mass-produced products from anywhere in the world, you are bound to run into trouble. 

To use another drug metaphor, no matter how careful you are, if you are going to buy your ecstasy from a man in the club, you'll eventually end up with a dog pill.  No matter how good Primark's procedures are, when dealing with these types of firms, you are going to run into unethical suppliers.  While there is still a demand for these clothes, then these scandals will always arise.  My boycott then, one which ideally others would follow, is to stop going for financial shortcuts.  Go to a shop and pay a bit more money, but where you know the worker's will get a fair deal.  Cut off the demand.  Unfortunately, I don't see that happening.

Given that I'm in a metaphor mood, let's use one last one to sum up my position...

With certain foods, checking the ingredients and spotting a green 'v' on the packet is no guarantee that the product is kosher.  It's not even a guarantee that it's vegetarian!  If you want the hescher, you have to pay for the hescher.

The day that Hamas won

I

Today Hamas has got what it wanted. Today it has celebrated yet another victory. Having riled Israel, committed thousands of unforgivable acts and mobilised world opinion against Israel, it has got Israel to perform an immoral act. Providing no avenue for any constructive solutions to the situation, Hamas have called Israel’s “What else can we do?” card into play to justify something that couldn’t otherwise be justified.

To come from Shabbat to find out that Israel has conducted massive air raids on Gaza and have killed over 200 people is quite frankly sickening. 200 people dead. Forget the rhetoric for a minute, forget who is in the right or in the wrong and forget the situation. Were Israel 100% in the right and it 100% necessary (which it was not), there would be no other reaction one should have apart from desolation. If in Judaism we are taught not to rejoice over the downfall of our enemies, how much more so if innocent civilians have been killed?

It must never be forgotten that hundreds and thousands of rockets have been fired into Israel. Israel must never apologise for the residents of Sderot being well drilled in what to do in an emergency, bomb shelters being effective, or Kassam rockets being crap. Israelis and Zionists must always prefer less people to be killed and have less popularity rather than vice versa. Israel must ALWAYS believe it has a right to exist and never be downhearted or think twice. This is not a numbers game and ‘amount dead’ on each side does not equate to the morality of one’s position.

Yet.... Yet... we must never be desensitized to the amount of pain, hurt and anguish caused to the Palestinians through the death of thousands of them over the years. We must never be deaf to the cries of mothers who have lost their children. Suffering is no one nation’s province. Hurt goes beyond ideology, politics or religion. Tears are a universal language. Israel should never forget this and should never perform an action they know to unnecessarily increase this.
They seem to have forgotten this. Bombing in heavily built-up areas isn’t the most targeted thing one can do, now is it? And for what tangible benefit? For Israel to perform an action that they know will cause so much ‘collateral damage’ (which human life SHOULD NEVER BE) is not something to be criticised heavily.

II

What pains me as a human being, also pains me as a Zionist. Jews and Zionists have already responded by saying “....but what else can Israel do about Hamas?”; “... maybe it is wrong but you can understand why Israel felt it had to do it” and “Don’t you know what Hamas do?”. Yes I do understand and I do know. I said so above. And? What has this to do with the morality of this action? This pains me because we are reducing ourselves to the scum-bag moral level that so-called supporters of the Palestinians show.

People like ‘Baroness Tonge’ understand Palestinian suicide bombers, groups like Jews for Justice for the Palestinians continually point out the ‘oppression’ of the Israelis, and terrorists ask “what else can we do?” The only question we have to ask about suicide bombing is whether it is anything but morally outrageous. Once we know it is, no amount of understanding can serve as a justification for their actions. When Zionists start to use their arguments and we have descended to their moral level, we know we have a problem.

There is a moral disease spreading round the globe. The ‘liberal left’ seem to be infected, the condition in the Arab world seems terminal and I really hope and pray that we are just suffering a bout of illness that will clear up. Where the dignity of human life is sacrificed on the altar of political expediency, someone’s moral condition is at critical.

III

Israel’s actions are frankly what Hamas wants. They are a group that simultaneously spread and feed on this disease. They don’t care about the lives of the Palestinians, one iota. The more Palestinians killed, the more grist to their mill. The worse their lives, the more supporters they have. The more they can provoke Israel, the more hate they can create. They have learnt that terrorism works. TERRORISM ABSOLUTELY BLOODY WORKS.

It doesn’t work in the sense of helping anyone but works in the sense of fulfilling their aims. It works in convincing people of the essential rightness of a position that is essentially wrong. Where the ‘rightness’ of your position is more important to you than human suffering, then they have a great strategy. They can do absolutely anything and get away with it, knowing that they can always lay the blame elsewhere. They don’t have to take moral responsibility for their actions because they were forced into it by “external conditions”. Say it enough and people believe you. Be consistent in your evil and people will understand you. Mobilise everyone on your side and make your enemy think the same way.

IV

Israel try to do the right thing, they get blamed. They try to be PR friendly, they fail. They try to get help from other countries to sort out the terrorists, none is forthcoming. They have a free press and independent judiciary, the world turns it against them. They try their war criminals and their corrupt politicians, they are made out to be nothing but corrupt and criminal. They try for a two-state solution, Palestinians demand its destruction. They try and sort out terrorism themselves, they get mulled. And so on and so on and so on.

EVERYTHING ISRAEL DOES IS ‘WRONG’, SO WHY BE RIGHT? Just as Hamas can do anything and be liked, Israel can do everything short of failing to exist and be hated. Israel’s moral standards do not lead to a moral solution. They will simultaneously get attacked and be blamed for it. The double standards of the international community mean that people will never accept a secure Israel that is able to defend its citizens. This leads to the paradoxical position (to the glee of Hamas) that far from international opinion constraining Israel, it releases them. If they’ll be blamed no matter what, what does is matter to the Israeli government whether they do this or that?

Why risk a targeted ground attack risking Israeli soldiers when you can air bomb the targets? Why warn people in Lebanon that they will be bombed if Hezbollah will intentionally put citizens in just those places? Why allow easy access of supplied to Gaza when they will just use it to transport bombs? Why sit back and let your citizens be bombed by Kassams when you take actions accident. Because the result will be the same- Israel will be ‘in the wrong’ according to international. So Israel might as well do whatever is best for their position, the position we know to be a valuable one, no? NO. ABSO-BLOODY-LUTELY-NOT.

AND I WILL TELL YOU WHY. It is immoral to not allow people humanitarian aid, immoral to endanger innocent lives unnecessarily and immoral to do things which you could not otherwise justify. “What else can we do?” does not overturn a moral decision. It is not a justification. That is Hamas’ position. IT IS THEIR DISEASE. Advancing the ‘right’ position (whether right or otherwise) does not, in an individual moral decision, trump the dignity and infinite value of human life.

I don’t give a flying f*** about world opinion (or at least I should not) but as a human, I care about life and as a Zionist, I care is about the moral integrity of Israel. Let us not be morally debased and stand against wrong wherever it can be found. If, on the other hand, we take Hamas’ position and do whatever they want, then we not only confirm their position to the world but in our own souls

V

At the beginning of last year, Akram, the head of PSG and a co-founder of Leeds Shalom-Salaam told me that Palestinians just want to get on with their everyday lives, want to go to work, and want to raise their families. This, he said, trumps ideology. As a Palestinian himself, I very much wanted to believe him. I still have to have faith that this is true of most Palestinians, but the actions of groups like Hamas and PSG (on Leeds campus and elsewhere) seriously undermine that. If their intentions are good, their actions betray them.

Golda Meir once said, “We will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us”. Unfortunately, this is not yet true. Or if it is, and Akram is right, then Hamas have helped spread the disease to me and undermined my ability to see the good in the other side. I must, at least, make sure that our side stays good. Actions, like today’s, make me lose faith. They make me hate Hamas and despair of Israel. They make me see black.

Tonight, we must pray for the Palestinians who have lost their life. We must reaffirm our morality and say that human life is infinite. We must help Israel remain morally strong and a blessing in the world. We must strengthen our resolve to see a solution to this conflict that aids every person’s dignity. We must leave vengeance of our enemies to G-d and not take it upon ourselves. We must weep the tears of others.

Urinating on the motorway, Arabs, environment, Israel and the Palestinians, prostitutes and water buffallo.

Just a few completely random points about urinating on the motorway, Arabs, environment, Israel and the Palestinians, prostitutes and water buffallo.

---------

IF YOU ARE AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT, DON’T PISS ON THE HARD SHOULDER OF A MOTORWAY. Apparently it’s illegal, but it’s probably not the worst crime in the world. Obviously you are putting yourself at risk, but then driving when you desperately need to go, can’t be much better. You know… when you get to that point where you have to keep moving otherwise it’s unbearable?!?!?

But if you are illegally here and without a driving license, you don’t want to be found out because you needed the toilet. That’s what happened in ‘Traffic Cops’ last night which I was watching for want of anything better to do (you know, one of those filler programmed for Wednesday nights. Why do they put rubbish programmes on, on Wednesdays?). You know, you’d think they would want to keep their heads down or if you are going to get deported, you might as well go out in style.

But when nature calls…

------

An interesting note by Rav Hirsch (from the 19^th century) on the positive qualities of Arabs. Funnily enough, it was in article on Jewish women.

“The monotheism of Abraham, the Hamitic sensuality and thirst for freedom that stamped the personality of Hagar, and the virtual fanatic belief in the providence of Almighty G-d, drawn, as it were, by Hagar from the ‘well of the Living One Who sees me’- this mixture of qualities has shaped the traits for which the Arabs are known to this day and with which they have made their own contribution, in the form of poetry and scholarship, to the spiritual symposium of humanity”

‘Nuff said

------

I got the overwhelming desire today to buy a car. Why? So I can conscientiously not use it! I hate it when people (and I don’t know why, but specifically Jews do it) drive to university when it is less than 15 minutes walk away. It’s disgraceful. Apart from being horrendously lazy, it’s horrific for the environment.

Now when environmental protestors say that people shouldn’t fly or say that horrendous taxes should be put on it, that’s just stupid. Some people need to fly, others want to fly but only do so occasionally, and those who are filthy rich… well… they are going to fly anyway. Stopping flying is not only something that you cannot achieve, it might not be desirable to achieve.

What really matters for the environment is these small things that you can do stuff about. Yes I know it would take a hell of a lot of not going by car to make up for one plane journey. However, firstly there are a lot of people that can ‘not go by car’. It is practical and unless your are bone-idle, there is no reason not to walk. Thirdly, going by car for a short journey bespeaks a whole attitude and if you won’t drive if necessary, you wont do other things either.

Now I’m probably guilty too. I do accept lifts to morning service. It’s too early and I don’t have the wherewithal to move, let alone put up a principled stand. But regardless of whether I get in the car, the car will be driven anyway. I would never ask for there to be a lift if there wasn’t one already going. And that’s why I want a car, so that if no-one else is going, I can in principle refuse to take people!

An expensive gesture, buying a car for that reason!

-----

Good news of sorts. Following a decision from Ehud Barak, travel restrictions are being eased for Palestinians in the West Bank, and the PA police (or at least a loyal subsection of them) are getting new equipment. This is following on from continued negotiations between PA and Israel. Also, talks between Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas continue. This can only be good news if it helps the lives of Palestinian civilians, and increased Paelstinian compliance in aiding Israel’s security. It’s a shame that it is primarily motivated by one-upmanship against Hamas. Rather than (by either side involved) a real concern for peace or the lives of civilians, it is trying to score political points against Hamas in Gaza. Bloody politics. Please G-d, they find a way to help the humanitarian situation in Gaza without having to give political credence to Hamas.

Although one of my points is proved. Criticism from a friend is far more effective than criticism from someone that hates your guts! The good news in part arose from criticism of Ehud Barak by Condoleeza Rice. The Americans overall (and rightly so) agree with Israel about things. As such, Israel has an incentive to listen to them. Where criticism is needed, it should be given (and probably doesn’t happen enough). Criticism from Palestinian groups, on the other hand, is ineffectual and shows that they don’t really have the interests of Palestinians at heart or if they do, they are very misguided. When you justify suicide bombings, deny Israel’s right to exist (however you dress it up) and will criticise Israel come what may, the criticisms will be as effective as a one-legged chair. When you preach immoral things, your valid criticisms will not be listened to.

----

The following incident reminded me of situations with ‘money boxes’ designed to stop people swearing (i.e. put 50p in if you say **** etc) where the child swears, gets told off and says “I’m not ******* swearing, ok?”. This is what Rabbi Ezekial Landau said in court:

"Everyone should know that the wife of the Chief Rabbi is a prostitute and there is a fine, 100 adumim for each utterace that she is a prostitute, and you should also all know that if I had more money I would call her a prostitute again, however I currently do not have the money I will have to satisfy myself with the fact that I have already called her a prostitute."

The following reminded me of when certain Catholics will defend to the hilt not wearing condoms because that is what the Pope decrees, but are quite happy to have sex before marriage (which I’m sure he’s not too fond of):

A Latin document records a troubling incident from 1404 where, "a German speaking Jew visited a non-Jewish prostitute on Shabbat and he refused to pay her, he explained that he could not pay her as it would violate the Shabbat."

It’s fun reading about prostitution!

----

Last but not least, I have decided I am a filthy animal. I was watching the ‘One Show’ where they were looking at a reservation park with water buffalo in. They happened to mention that they had cloven hoofs. All I could think about “I wonder if they are kosher!” I couldn’t get it out of my head. I’m a bad man!

"Welcome back to Hyde Park" and other short stories

Well... not stories as such. Or really at all. It's all about carrots and sticks. Get sucked in by the (in inverted commas) 'intriguing' title and then whipped by my harsh words.
---------------------------

A few weeks ago I moved into my new house in Hyde Park (Leeds) having lived in Woodhouse for a year. I was immediately struck by a sense of a familiarity. Nay... sentimentality. This wasn't just the overpriced vegtables at Sainsburys/ Jacksons nor the tourist attraction that is the boarded up Royal Park Primary School. No... I (and my housemate on a seperate occassion) heard a (again in inverted commas) 'sneeze'. But not any old sneeze. Not the 'I've just dusted after a whole year of not doing so, and it has got up my nose' sneeze. Not the 'damn the pollen count, even though its raining' sneeze. Not even the commoner-garden 'morning sneezing fit' sneeze. The 'I have a cold' sneeze? NO

It was a 'directed at me' sneeze' It was the 'A-Jew' sneeze. Sounds a bit like 'A-Choo' but 'Jew' instead. Which is quite funny. Because I am one. A Jew that is. Or so my skullcap would suggest to the modern Hyde Park youth. They don't know me and I doubt it was to exercise my world-renowned sense of humour. Even if it was, it wouldn't be very funny... I've heard it before. Many times. It gets less amusing each time. They always look like they want to confront me but I don't oblige with anything more than an evil stare.

It seems to be quite a uniform Hyde Park thing. I wonder where they teach it. At home? At the mosque? At the Young Marrieds group? At the 'bring your child to work' day? I don't know and probably never will.

Never mind... it could always be worse.
--------------------------------

On reading Simon Schama's 'A History of Britain: Volume one' I discovered something I didn't know before. Well... many things. Otherwise why read the book? But just one which sticks out this particular moment and not the one about when and why the 'Prince of Wales' title first came about. Instead... it is the one about the 'yellow stars' that Edward ('Longshanks') I of England (and feudal overlord of Wales and for a short time Scotland) forced the Jews to wear to identify themselves. I'd never heard of yellow-star-wearing apart from in connection to the NAZIs and the Nurembeurg Laws.

I mean- I shouldn't have been surprised. The NAZIs were the first to release the 'Greatest Hits' album of anti-semitic symbols. Most of the NAZI leaders were educated and cultured men. They knew their history and they knew their style (those black unifroms will never go out of style). They didn't make much up themselves but they arranged past ideas in the most effective manner possible (one might argue that arranging other people's ideas is the very mark of 'orginality')

But.. I'd never thought about it. But it originated in Britain! Edward didn't learn his trade at the mosque. No... his 'pious' mother Eleanor was a keen believer on the 'blood libels' The Jews killed Christian children to use their blood in their Passover matzot (unleavened bread). I've never done it myself. And on Passover... all the Rakusen matzo box says under ingredients is 'flour and water' (hence bread). I'm sure the trading standards agency would have something to say about this mislabelling of products.

In this very same era, England has the dubious honour of being the first to expel its Jews 'as if they were some contagious disease' (as said by Schama)
-------------------------

But then again... Schama is Jewish and part of the world Jewish conspiracy. Last week I watched 'The War on Britain's Jews?' on Channel 4 by Richard Littlejohn. The most interesting point to come out of it for me (apart from the desecration of garves, Jewish schools having to have high fences and rabbis being attacked) was the perception that if you believe in anti-semitism 'you must be a Jew'. If you aren't a hysterical Jew, you wouldn't believe the malicious rumours we spread. The presenter has been called a Jew and sent anti-semitic emails, as has Nick Cohen (who is not a Jew but has criticised by the current state of the 'left'), as has the author of the all-parliamentary report into anti-semitism.

So the moral is.. don't listen to me! I think this is sound advice at the best of times. But I am complaining about anti-semitism... so even more reason
------------------------

As much as Christian Europe were the progenitors of such virulent anti-semitims the arab world has done a valiant job at taking it up. Just looking that latest blood libels coming from the Middle East, I was 'amused' to learn that we are now using the blood of Palestinian (oh how fickle us Jews are not to be using Christian babies anymore) children for our Purim cakes. We've branched out!

There was a very nice interview with Muhammad Al-Buheiri (a researcher given a scholarship by Egyptian government) on 'Nile TV' saying we still do the blood libels today:

Interviewer: "I have another question. Who are the people who prepare these matzos? Are they Jewish extremists or moderates? As a researcher specializing in inter-faith dialogue, do you believe this still occurs in Israel? I'm rephrasing the question."

Muhammad Al-Buheiri: "I believe it does, because these are religious rituals."

Inter-faith worker? Inter-faith work takes tact. Whilst I don't tact this guy surely does:

Muhammad Al-Buheiri: "First of all, we should be aware that the Jews always implement a rule they consider basic: A loud voice is capable of erasing the truth."

Of Course the interviewer helpfully interevenes so as not to upset a sensitive, politically-correct viewing public: Interviewer: "The media are controlled by the Jews."
--------------

Sweet dreams Children

What will You do? (or at least a prod up my own backside)

Oh, we are a species that like to get inspired. We see a TV programme here. A rousing speech is given there. EMotional blackmail round the corner and to the left. This prompts us into immediate action. The odd Live 8 here. The odd giving a few pence in the charity box there. A charity record in the dustbin after a few weeks. But what about long term? After we have marched to Gleneagles, broken the windows of a few MacDonalds, placated our guilt, done our bit?

It is so hard to keep inspiration going. I read 'To heal a Fractured World"; I read "What will you do? Forty-eight things to make a difference" and got very excited and planned how I was going to change the world. But other things got in the way.... oh well, I'll get inspired again one day.

But that isn't good enough. We shouldn't just do good when we feel like it, when our emotions sway us this way or that. Our lives should consist in acting out those values that we hold dear. Our whole lives should be filled with meaning and responsibility:

"We need to give voice to the Biblical message that serving G-d and our fellow human beings are inseperably linked. The greasted gift is to be able to give, and the life we lead is measured by the good we do. Let the title of this book be a challenge to us all: WHat will you do?
The Chief Rabbi Professor Doctor Sir Jonathan Sacks Esq. MA. pHD. A-Level, GCSE, SATS level 2

We should do good because it is good 'lishma' (for its own sake). We're not going to change the world instantly and doing our bit shouldn't be predicated on its consequences. It is the small things, the things which will help 'a bit'; the are the things we should be doing and doing all the time. None of life (including charity) should be based on those transcendent moments, those one off events, times of ecstatcy and total confidence. As Leibowitz says: Life is about the prose not the poetry. In a way goodness is mundane. It is about what we do in the warp and woof of life that ultimately accounts. This is no means natural to me... This is why I need to write this load of rubish to give me a big poke up the backside.

Tzedek is Hebrew for charity but also justice. It is not (just) the kind of thing just to help us feel good about ourselves but what we should do as a result of a conscience decision to be part of the ethical species 'man' rather than the biological species 'homo sapien'.

So the Chief's suggestions and those of the London School og Jewish studies 'Jewish Responsibility Project' Braap, Braap! (please G-d may I act upon them)...


1. GIve away a bag of clothes you never wear
2. Visit a residential home
3. Welcome people to your shul
4. Donate your hair to children suffereing from hair loss (oops... i initially typed 'donate your children who are suffering from hair loss! I hope there is nothing subconcious there. I know I'm disturbed but donating my children [Issaachar, Zebulin, Amalek and Devorah-Simcha-Shalom-Meyer-Moishe-Zalman] is a bit extreme)
5. Volunteer abroad this summer
6. Twin a bar/batmitzvah with a child abroad
7. Help the homeless at Christmas
8. Have a really happy brithday- everyone can bring something that will be given to charity
9. Help Israeli hospitals and medical research- save the world!
10. Charity box at home
11. Save a life- give blood
12. Make a gift of your chametz before Pesach
13. Give children's toys to a hospital
14. Adopt an Israeli family
15. Buy one FairTrade product next time you go shopping
16. Bring music into someones life
17. Make up a minyan at a funeral
18. Donate breast milk- for neonatal intensive care units [I've tried...]
19. Volunteer to help people with special needs
20. Learn basic first aid skills
21. Donate your old specs
22. Make the first cheque of a new chequebook out to charity
23. Join the bone marrow register
24. Teach an elderly person how to use email and the internet
25. Share your dog [don't cut it in two though]
26. Recycle your mobile phone
27. Bring Judaism to a residential home [presumably Jewish people in residential homes! Not jumping out at random old men an getting them to lay tefillin. But then again... Noachides... there's a market]
28. Befriend an elderly person
29. GIve money to improve a child's life [not random children offf the street! Through children's charities!]
30. Set up a support network in your community
31. Help keep our community safe... join CST [or be a vicious vidulante with sticks, stones and Qassam rockets... or don't]
32. Mark a bar/batmitzvah by doing something special
33. Visit a person in hospital [and bring grapes! grapes are vital! if you go without the grapes it is as if you have never been at all! COnfucious says 'bring grapes' Martin Luther King said 'bring grapes' Jesus 'grapes are love; bring grapes' Mr. Tom Ellsworth, 512 Artley Avenue, Suffolk with a broken leg says 'mmmm. I like grapes']
34. Give books [esp. those heretical ones. you dirty stopout]
35. Prepare a meal for someone who needs it
36. Help someone get to shul
37. Donate your wedding dress to a gemach
38. Speak up! (e.g. anti-semitism or against chicken flu.Whatever!)
39. Help the homeless on the street
40. Donate your old computer
41. Distribute leftover challas from your local kosher bakery [and is there isn't one in your local area, build one! especially in COrnwall where I would love to live]
42. Help the housebound
43. Visit a children's ward
44. At your next celebration, get someone to give to charity instead of you
45. SUpport a project in Israel and visit it
46. Help the homeless with general life skills
47. Visit a shiva house and comfort the mourners
48. Open a charity account

So there we go.

"There are many more ways than 48, but this is a great start. Everyone should read this book. Be different; make a difference"
Bob Geldof

Well if Bob Geldof says it.....