Off to the Trail

I will be backpacking for the next week, so there goes nay hope for me updating the blog.

Meanwhile I will leave some questions for people to ponder:

How should one view the "kiruv" of Jews to non-observant but involved Judaism, and why?

Which is more important: Kiruv Rechokim (bringing those who are far close to Judaism) or Kiruv Krovim (bringing those who are close into a real care and vibrancy about Judaism)

Why is Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel important (imagine in theory Jews could live in Israel peacefully under foreign rule)?

Does a Jewish democracy have din malchut, if not is a theocracy (more accurately a monarchy becuase the kohen kadol/ Av beit din) is the religious leader the ideal?

Is it a form of tzedakah to save the environment?

If your brother has a flu and your neighbor is getting a stroke, who do you deal with first? If a Jewish person has the flu and a non-Jew is getting a stroke who do you deal with first?

Should the a government be responsible for needs beyond basic necessities of life towards its citizens?

Should the Israeli government be a diffrent case becuase it is obligated to care for the Jewish people?

Is a representative democracy the same thing as the people?

If Am Yisrael is obligated to do something is the government obligated?

If you take in refugees to save lives, how do you draw the line at which you can't save more lives?

Is it better not to accept any refugees because you really can't help every single person in the world or is it better to set an arbitrary line?

How can you accept the 1000th person but not the 1001st?

If the lives were Jewish Lives would you act the same way? Is it ok if the answer to that was yes?

and a bonus:
What should be the place of Arab's in Israel (politically, socially etc)?

Is it (and if yes to what extent) is it ok to use psychological warfare in the occupation of the West Bank? If shooting at a blank wall in an Arab village will stop terrorists from shooting at nearby settlements for instance...or random arrests and detentions?

Is it ok for Jews to settle in the West Bank considering there are Arabs in Israel?

If the Palestinians view themselves as at war with Israel and some/most see it fit to resort to violence why is it wrong to play our side of the struggle and try to build on as much land(not that belongs to private Palestinians) as possible?

Celebrating the Hamas takeover of Gaza?

I have had trouble posting lately, so there are many things that I have wanted to write about hat I haven't got a chance to, because it won't save my drafts. I have lost interesting posts that I have put a lot of effort into, so now I write it all in Gmail.

I have gotten a bit tired of the "More power = More responsibility = More accountability" reasoning. This reasoning was among the lines of thought that gave me hope that the disengagement might produce something. In the sense that if Israel was gone they might actually try to fix the real problems, which really have nothing to do with occupation.

I said the same thing when Hamas won the elections; maybe now the world will realize what Palestinian "nationalism" is all about. It didn't happen, because the world chose to shut its eyes.

The reasoning is true in the sense that people try to fill their roles. So, if someone is thinking of themselves as a student/chanich they will try to find loopholes in the rules and be disruptive. While if they suddenly are put in charge of a group, they will try to establish order and think of themselves as a part of the solution and not the problem.

So why am I "celebrating" the Hamas takeover of Gaza?

Its very simple. No its not that I am glad that Palestinians are killing each other, that's actually a pretty sad result of the depravity of their society. So why is it? Because the West Bank and Gaza are now separate. Gaza will unfortunately become a backwards taliban/Iran mixture of Islamic religious extremism. While the West Bank will gravitate towards modern more secular palestinian Arab nationalism. Neither is a great enemy for Israel to be up against. It was also easier for Israel to combat a divided Palestinian population through the old "divide and conquer". So what is it that we are gaining from this (lest anyone think that Fatah aren't also crazy) ? The concept that maybe we can have a tri-state solution. Its not quite Rav Yoel Bin-nun's idea of Egypt taking Gaza and Jordan taking the West Bank, but its a step in the right direction. With no need for territorial continuity we really may be able to achieve some sort of permanent borders. In fact, Hamas understands that this separation of the West Bank and Gaza can hurt the Palestinian ideal of taking over all of Israel through stages or otherwise. I happen not to think that Egypt and Gaza reclaiming the lands that they had until '67 is a realistic idea. I much prefer we break up the Palestinian extreme nationalism and let them focus on the land they currently occupy rather than carving up Israel for the needless desire for a contiguous state, when two separate sates would do equally well. The only question remains is if and how to transfer people from Gaza to the West Bank and vice versa who want to live in the other Palestinian state.

The Zionist Boycott - of Coca-Cola?

If fighting the Illegal Arab boycott and all the other anti-Israel boycotts weren't enough, enter the Zionist boycott of Soft Drinks. The ZOA decided to fight fire with fire and start its own boycott of Coca Cola.

Wait a second

Coke vs Pepsi. Did you know that from 1966, Coca Cola has been a firm supporter of commerce with Israel? Coca Cola has refused to follow the Arab boycott for decades. Pepsi followed the boycott and didn’t begin trade with Israel until 1992. Coca Cola not only sells its soda in Israel, it built and currently operates a plant there as well. The next time you are looking for a cool taste to simmer down the summer, remember – Coke is it! - http://www.25waystohelpisrael.com/pages/t1.asp?PID=3001

This also goes against the grain of most Jewish and Zionist organizations who are very hesitant to get involved in boycotts, even the very careful one about Darfur.

It seems like the ZOA have a point though

ZOA: "Don't Buy Coca-Cola"

New York — The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) condemns the Coca-Cola Company ("Coca-Cola" or the "Company") for occupying and using certain property in Egypt, all the while knowing that the property was stolen by the Egyptian government from its Jewish owners, the Bigio family. This participation in anti-Semitic and immoral conduct is made even more egregious by how boldly and self-righteously Coca-Cola describes itself.

Now here is the thing. The ZOA is a Right Wing organization on the fringe of anything that people would call mainstream Zionism. They are not going to be listened to, we already know that from the UPZ controversy.

It seems they weren't content with simply using the strategy of the Arab Boycott, but they also got writing tips. Its fair enough that they want to stress how this property was stolen from the Jewish owners and they see the Palestinians making claims and getting listened to. The 1,000,000 Jews who fled Arab lands and lost everything could probably use some of the double speak that is used against Israel and instead use it for the truth.

But Come On! "occupying" isn't that a bit much?


anti-Semitic - I'll say the same old line: There is no such thing as Semitism, call it Antisemitism, not Anti-Semitism. This makes it clear that it is not a valid position; unlike Anti-abortion or Anti-Zionism, Antisemitism is not up for discussion. Also it will make it clear that it just refers to Jews, not other "Semites"



Having said that Coke has some explaining to do

For approximately 60 years beginning in the early 1900's, the Bigios owned land and factories near Cairo, Egypt. Coca-Cola leased a factory building from the Bigios for over 25 years, and the Bigios' factories provided bottle caps and other products to the Company.

In 1962, the Egyptian government forcibly stole the Bigios' property from them, without any compensation whatsoever, for one reason only: they were Jews. The Egyptian government's actions were part of a campaign of anti-Semitic discrimination and persecution that caused almost a million Jews in Arab/Islamic countries, like the Bigios, to lose their homes, properties, businesses and livelihoods.

In 1980, the Egyptian government ordered that the property be returned to the Bigios. But the occupier, a government-owned and operated entity, never returned the property.

In approximately 1993, the Egyptian government decided to privatize the entity that was occupying and using the Bigios' property. When the Bigios learned that Coca-Cola intended to bid for the entity, they contacted Coca-Cola to remind the Company of the family's right to the property. But top Coca-Cola officials cavalierly brushed aside and ignored the Bigios' legitimate pleas to be justly compensated for the loss of their property, and went ahead with the bid. Through subsidiaries, Coca-Cola purchased 42 percent of the entity occupying the Bigios' property, knowing full well of the immoral and anti-Semitic manner in which the property had been stolen from the Bigios by the Egyptian government. The Company then formed a joint venture known as the "Coca-Cola Bottling Companies of Egypt" that has been occupying, using and benefiting from the Bigios' stolen property since 1994.

The Bigios repeatedly requested that Coca-Cola compensate them for their loss, but Coca-Cola never offered them a penny. The family was thus left with no choice but to file a lawsuit to obtain justice. They sued in Egypt 12 times. All of their lawsuits were dismissed and not permitted to go forward, some in a matter of weeks. In 1997, the Bigios filed suit against Coca-Cola in a federal district court in New York. In the almost 10 years since the lawsuit was brought, Coca-Cola's lawyers have used every legal maneuver to avoid reaching the merits of the Bigios' case because the Company has no legal or moral defense for its conduct. - ZOA