Author Archives: Rabbi

Abbas in Wonderland

Oddly, we are a week into the alleged birth of a “Palestinian state,” as decreed by the UN General Assembly, and nothing seems to have changed. Life “after” the state is remarkably similar to life “before” the state, and his people must be suffering from even more frustration than is their norm.

For example, Israel’s announcement that it will build new housing right outside Jerusalem, between Jerusalem and its suburb (five minutes’ drive) of Maale Adumim was greeted with shrieks of horror and howls of protest from across the world – from the Americans, the Europeans, the Asians and of course the Arabs. There scarcely walks a terrestrial – an inhabitant of Planet Earth – who did not leap to criticize this decision allowing Jews to build new homes where Jews have lived for the last 3000 years. Why such dismay?

    Ostensibly, as the new “state’s” media outlet put it, because the new construction will “kill any chance for the creation of a contiguous Palestinian state.” Hmmm… but wasn’t that state created already? How is it possible for a few thousand apartments and houses to “kill” any chance for the creation of a “contiguous Palestinian state?” Doesn’t a state – to be declared and recognized – have to have defined borders?

Well, yes, in the real world, or as real world as international law ever gets. Since 1648, there are more or less established procedures by which states are formed and gain international recognition. None are formed – or ever have been formed – by a UN General Assembly resolution, which are non-binding and have no force under international law. In fact, the standard procedure would have been for the Palestinian Authority to declare itself a state, and then apply for UN recognition. It did not do that. Their pretense is that they already declared statehood, either in 1988 or sometime in the last decade, and therefore need not do it again. But no one paid attention to their past declarations, and none should today.

Traditionally, a state is established when a lawful government exercises control over a distinct population within defined territory, and can conduct foreign relations accordingly. The PA does not qualify as a state even in diplomatic wonderland. It has no lawful government; Abbas’ term in office expired around the time that George W. Bush left the presidency. He has declined to have elections since then, because he knows he cannot win. Nor does the PA have a defined territory – for sure; if they did, they would not be protesting this new Israeli construction. Nor does the PA govern a defined population; it pretends to rule over Arabs who live in Judea and Samaria, and even those Arabs have tired of Abbas’ autocracy and failures. Arabs who live in Gaza do not accept the jurisdiction of the PA, and the primary absence of contiguity is not the construction outside of Jerusalem but the distance between Judea and Gaza. They have effective sovereign control over nothing. Some state.

Well, what kind of “state” is this? They are great in symbols but woefully lacking in substance. They are now seeking their own passports, but they do not have airports, seaports or control over any border that would allow them to leave. That has to be done under Israeli supervision. They have no indigenous economy, and their institutions are propped up by persistent infusions of cash from some Arab countries, the Europeans and the United States. Their primary exports are terror, incitement and Jew hatred, each serving a (malign) purpose in the world but not especially attractive foundations for a lucrative economy. Their national history is a complete fabrication. There is no Palestinian “identity” that is not inherently linked to the destruction of Israel. Try to name a “Palestinian” from the 19th century, let alone from the 16th century, and it becomes clear that they do not exist in the real world. Indeed, this mirrors the biblical admonition to the Jewish people that when we fall short of the national standard that G-d ordains for us, He will “provoke us with a non-people” (Devarim 32:21). The “Palestinians” are this “non-people.”

It is fascinating, and bizarre, that this new “state” is wholly incapable of self-sufficiency and is completely dependent on the enemy that it has sworn to destroy – Israel – for its energy, water, food and vital supplies. It remains weird that Israel continues to supply Gaza with fuel that enables it to mass produce the rockets and mortars that Gazans then fire at Israel, including the vicinity of the power plants that are the source of the energy in Gaza. Jews respond too quickly to tales of the “humanitarian crisis.” Those who create the “crisis” should be held responsible. That is the consequence of war. The Allied firebombing of Dresden and the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki created “humanitarian crises;” perhaps that is why those wars ended, as opposed to this interminable conflict. When the governments of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan could no longer tolerate the mass civilian casualties and devastation of their infrastructure, they surrendered.

Instead, Israel sustains its enemies, even in wartime. Little recognition is given, nor certainly is any gratitude ever expressed, for the medical care Israel offers to its Arab enemies, especially their children. In one infamous case, Soroka Hospital in Beersheba treated a pregnant Gazan woman – saving her pregnancy – only to have her show up a few weeks later with a bomb strapped around her large stomach in an attempt to blow up the maternity ward. She was caught at the entrance to the hospital and arrested before she could blow herself up. Often, the Jewish heart prevails over the Jewish head. One would think a “state” would be able to provide health care to its own citizens, but not in Abbas’ wonderland.

Israel is fully within its rights to renounce the Oslo Accords, as these unilateral moves strike at the very heart of the agreement. It should, and thereby partially rinse the stain of Oslo from its statecraft and from Jewish history. It should, but it won’t, all part of the dance of performers in this staged melodrama. It should, because only an abrupt reversal of the political dynamic can undo some of the damage of the last two decades.

Abbas’ declaration, and the UN farce, only has meaning in the context of the continuing attempt to delegitimize Israel’s very existence. That has become the primary weapon in the Arab world’s century –old effort to first thwart and then strangle Jewish statehood. Arabs today are thankfully incapable of defeating Israel on the battlefield. The primary Arab enemies of Israel – Egypt and Syria – are now engaged in civil wars and are cauldrons of instability. The Iranian threat looms large, and its aggressive designs are abetted by assertions of Palestinian “statehood” that are ill-disguised attempts to undermine Israeli statehood – and the sovereign existence of the Jewish people in the land of Israel.

The very essence of statehood is the notion of “self-determination.” But this new “state” can determine nothing by itself – not its existence, borders, prosperity, security, even authority. It is a chimera, a fantasy, a mirage – conceived in sin and born under intimidation and duress. Shame on Israel for acquiescing to the idea even in principle, and shame on those nations who supported the charade at the diplomatic world of make-believe known as the United Nations.

New construction in an area designated for Jewish homes for decades already is a start, but should not be a political tool. It should be done for nationalistic reasons, in line with Israel’s long-term interests. When it figures out what those interests are and prioritizes them – sovereignty over the land of Israel, security for its citizens, and the implementation of Torah values in the lives of the people and laws of the country – then their policies will become coherent and an era of stability will dawn. And even the Arabs who reside in the land of Israel will benefit from that prospect, certainly more than from the proclamations of Abbas in Wonderland.

Aguna Update 2

You may recall that earlier this year, I sat on a Din Torah that directed a recalcitrant husband to give his estranged wife a get. The man launched a vicious attack upon me, to which I responded in two pieces, the second one naming the miscreant (https://rabbipruzansky.com/2012/04/03/aguna-update/).

I am absolutely delighted to inform you that several weeks ago, the individual in question gave his wife a get  (!) in accordance with Torah law and she is now free to re-marry and move on with her life, as is he. And so she informed me, with palpable joy.

I have therefore removed the name of the miscreant from the article referenced above, and wish him success in life as well. The last few words I wrote are sweeter than ever: “All these attacks on me and others will be worthwhile on the day that (Deleted) frees his wife from the torment to which he has subjected her for several years.”

-RSP

The Price of Resilience

     Here in Israel, where I have spent this past week, life goes on. One would never know, outside the communities of the south that are still under threat, that just ten days ago Israel had absorbed 1500 Arab missiles and rockets on its towns and cities, its men, women and children. That the “south” is located about 35 minutes’ drive from the “center,” where I am, adds to both the relief at the (temporary) end to the bombardment and to the quality of the ordinary citizen who is able to resume his daily life unimpeded.

     These skirmishes, including wars, are perceived as temporary glitches from which people are expected to rebound quickly and quietly. Indeed, many people seemed more concerned with the effects of Hurricane Sandy in New Jersey and New York than on the effects of Hurricane Hamas here, even though the former is long gone and the latter retains its potency.

      But resilience comes at a price. The strength of character is remarkable to behold – it is almost natural, except for the children in the southern communities who have grown up under the fear of rocket attacks. Many of them suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, the inevitable result of years of daily rocket attacks that allows roughly 15 seconds to decide where to take cover.

    The price is complacency, an acceptance of a state of affairs that in normal countries would be intolerable and would lead to a swift and thorough rejection of the politicians who permitted this situation to occur and fester. Instead, the opposite happens. Failed politicians are routinely recycled, and accountability is non-existent. The election season here, mercifully just three months short (as compared to the interminable American process), finds the same faces, personalities and policies seeking public for the future failures that will buttress their resume of past failures. There is always a new face promising the world (this year it is TV journalist Yair Lapid, who at least is presenting more thoughtful clichés than others), but also more of the same. Tsippi Livni announced to mild fanfare her return and creation of a new party. Ehud Barak has retired from politics “forever;” wait, that “forever” retirement occurred in 2001. “Forever,” apparently, is not as long as it used to be. He, too, will be back, his “retirement” an admission that he could not win election in his own right. Ehud Olmert hems and haws about running (he won’t), freshly convicted of corruption related offenses, but no matter. All three have the stain of Lebanon on their records – Barak presiding over the night retreat in 2000 that eventually allowed Hezbollah to take power, and Olmert/Livni over the failed war of 2006.

     Memories are short. Contempt breeds familiarity, and familiarity wins elections. And of course, Olmert, Livni and so many others in government bear responsibility for the retreat from Gaza and the expulsion of its Jews in 2006. How many others? Even PM Netanyahu voted for the expulsion before he was against it. So did Limor Livnat, Yuval Steinitz, Tzachi Hanegbi and assorted others who still shape the Likud and assert strong right-wing credentials. Not many seem to remember or care, until you consider that the ruling party will only garner roughly 25% of the popular vote in this parliamentary democracy. And the president himself, Shimon Peres, escapes responsibility for Oslo, Lebanon, Gaza and other debacles – either compassion to an elder statesmen or the traditional lack of accountability that governs political life here.

     The week’s entertainment is provided by the Palestinian Authority, which is abrogating the Oslo Accords (again) by seeking UN General Assembly recognition of its statehood. It is bizarre for several reasons. Israel is unlikely to void the agreements, which in any event has only required its unilateral adherence but has always exempted the Arabs from compliance. Abbas, the “president,” has seen his role and power eclipsed and needs to show something, anything, for his eight years in office. His “term” expired four years ago, but since he cannot win re-election, he simply does not allow elections. His tenure in office is protected by the Israelis, for whom he displays nothing but derision.

    For its part, both Israel (and its current government) and the American government are on record as supporting a Palestinian state, so why the objections? That the “state” is supposed to emerge through negotiations seems like a technicality. Another technicality – that a state should have defined borders and sovereignty over those borders – also does not apply here because the traditional rules and definitions are often waived for those given to wanton violence against innocents and opponents alike. Contributing to the farce is that the vote took place in the UN General Assembly, infamous for its passage of numerous, non-binding anti-Israel resolutions, including the “Zionism is Racism” bit of moral splendor in 1975. The vote of 138-9, with 41 abstentions, is about what the world of decent people could expect. Once again, Micronesia and the Solomon Islands stand with the Jewish people. G-d bless them.

      It should not be overlooked that the foundation for this vote was laid by the Israelis many years ago. The Oslo Accords, whatever the technical language, was obviously designed to create a Palestinian state. That agreement was an explicit admission by the Jewish state that the Jewish people are not the exclusive sovereigns in the land of Israel, despite G-d’s eternal promises set forth in the Bible. Governments of the left and the right embraced that outcome in one form or another. Menachem Begin himself recognized (in 1978) the “legitimate rights of the Palestinian people,” a phrase that stuck in his craw but that he accepted based on his lawyerly interpretation that the words “legitimate rights” could be interpreted to mean anything he wanted it to mean and not what the other signatories understood it to mean. So the chickens of Oslo, Lebanon, and Gush Katif have indeed come home to roost.

     And yet, whatever the psychological value (and most Arabs will assume that the vote means something that it does not, and fire their weapons in the air in celebration), the vote has no effect in the real world. Nothing changes here, today, anymore that Arafat’s declaration of statehood amounted to anything in 1988. A General Assembly vote has no legal status at all. Abba Eban said it eloquently: “If Algeria introduced a General Assembly resolution that the world is flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would find overwhelming support in the Arab world” and elsewhere. And he said it almost forty years ago. Nothing has changed there, either.

     Abbas still needs to be propped up by Israel. There is no Palestinian state. The PA and Hamas are still bitter rivals, and Abbas knows that his political career ends the moment the people are given the right to vote him out, whenever that is. The UN carnival, typically, just distracts the world from the real crises in the region – Iran’s nuclear bomb, Syria’s civil war and Egypt’s ongoing unrest. Anyone who still needs proof of the mendacity and hypocrisy rampant in the Arab world needs to consider only the howls of protest when 150 Arabs were killed and several hundred wounded in the clashes in Gaza – squeals that were intended to awaken the world to the horrors of a nation (Israel) exercising its right of self-defense – while the Arab world is dormant at the massacres in Syria of more than 35,000 people, and the turmoil in Egypt where already more than 500 people have been injured.

    It’s not the civilian deaths or injury that seem to disturb the Arab world and its malevolent allies across the world; it’s that the cursed Jews are doing it, and in defense of their right to exist.

    There are two obvious conclusions to this vote. One, that Oslo is officially dead, and this declaration vitiates its very premises of negotiations over final status issues, and, two, that the United States is now bound by law to cut its funding of the Palestinian Authority. But neither will happen and the blatant violations will be finessed, because neither the US nor Israel has any real interest in changing the dynamic of the struggle. That complicity is emblematic of the failures of Israeli politicians for decades that have seen Israel’s strategic position deteriorate slowly but inexorably.

    Nonetheless, in the beleaguered town of Sderot, barely two miles from Gaza and the recipient of thousands of missiles and rockets in the last ten years, one encounters today personal strength and courage, a desire to rebuild, lifelong residents who have no interest in moving to safer zones. Their resilience is an inspiration to all Jews, and their heroic story will yet be told. In the new communities built to house the Jewish refugees driven out of Gaza in 2005, one encounters the same determination, along with sadness about what was lost and the unshakeable (and usually unmentioned) feeling of “I told you so,” the unheeded warnings of what would befall Israel if they retreated under pressure from Gaza.

    All these brave souls have been betrayed by governments with convoluted miscalculations, wishful thinking and illusions disguised as policies, unkept promises repeated in every election cycle, or statecraft that is often illogical and self-destructive.

   The people of Israel deserve better; if only they would realize it and act upon it.

The Fiscal Cliff

      The fiscal cliff looms over American politics like a menacing cloud, or so the political class would have us believe. If Republicans do not agree to raising taxes on “millionaires and billionaires,” curiously defined as people earning more than $250,000 per year, then automatic spending cuts will go into effect that will sharply diminish both defense and social spending. The numbers tells a different story.

     It is by now well known that President Obama has presided over the four largest annual deficits in American history, each totaling more than one trillion dollars. His remedy – to raise income tax rates on the rich so that they should pay the 39.6% top rate of the Clinton years – would generate approximately $80 billion in new revenue, which is about 2% of the annual budget, and around 7% of this year’s deficit. In other words, how does Obama’s plan even begin to address the budgetary crisis in America? It doesn’t, not in the least.

     In essence, it is government by non sequitur. Obama thinks the wealthy should be paying more in taxes simply because he believes the wealthy should pay more in taxes. He calls it “fairness,” even if it solves no discernible problem. Others might call by a different name the confiscation by government of well over one-half of one’s work product: slavery. The slave does not work for himself; he works primarily for others. So, too, the worker whose earnings mostly go to others and provides him no personal benefit does not really work for himself but for others – and strangers at that.

     The Wall Street Journal several weeks back (November 12, 2012) clearly illustrated the duplicity of the argument that the government requires more revenues. In 2007, the government took in $2.568 trillion and spent $2.729 trillion, a deficit of $161 billion. Call those the glory days. In 2008, during the financial crisis, revenues remained stable ($2.524 trillion) but outlays increased to $2.983 trillion – a deficit of $459 billion, horrific, but positively restrained by today’s standards.

      During the Obama years, America indeed jumped off the fiscal cliff, with epic mismanagement. In 2009, when the crisis devastated take-home pay, revenues dropped dramatically to $2.105 trillion, but expenses shot up to an astounding $3.518 trillion (a deficit of $1.413 trillion, the highest ever recorded). If that could be attributed to the bailouts necessitated (so they told us) by the financial crisis, then how does that explain the outlays that kept increasing even after the bailouts, to an all-time high of $3.599 trillion in 2011 (only slightly down this year to $3.538 trillion)? It is because the Democrats used the 2009 spending as the new baseline for future budgets, not as emergency spending to forestall the crisis. Thus, even though revenues have increased in the last few years, and now are only slightly ($75 billion) below the last Bush figure, government spending remains at least one trillion dollars over revenues, and that will continue for the foreseeable future.

     With all the talk of the “fiscal cliff,” the cliff is actually a forced reduction in government spending of a grand total of approximately $100 billion this year, less than 10% of the deficit and not even 3% of the projected budget. That is some “cliff.” That cliff would be perceived by an ordinary person as simple financial prudence – not spending money you don’t have on things that you don’t really need. But since government does not have any money of its own – it takes ours, borrows from other countries or prints more dollars – and politicians have big spending appetites with which they indulge the voters who keep them in power, the normal rules of spending do not apply to them.

     Hence, we are constantly barraged with fiscal legerdemain that fools the uninformed citizen. For example: Obama has been trumpeting his financial plan that “cuts” the federal budget by $4.4 trillion over ten years. That sounds great! But unaddressed is that his budget actually increases the federal deficit by almost $11 trillion. I.e., his “cuts” – should they ever be enacted, itself dubious – result in an additional deficit over that decade of about $11 trillion, rather than the $15 trillion deficit that would accrue without his cuts. Some sacrifice.

     Or, in a typical example that has been going on for years already in both parties, ”cuts” are deemed to be money that might have been spent but actually will not be spent because it is no longer needed. So, the fact that the US will not be fighting in Iraq from 2013-2016 or in Afghanistan from 2014-2020 is said to generate real “cuts” in spending each projected year that now can be used elsewhere. Really? Is money not budgeted and not spent really a “decrease” in spending? Not in the real world, but only in the politician’s alternate universe.

     Consider: my wife and I decided to buy a Jaguar XK. We really can’t afford it, but we figure that it is worth borrowing the money so that I can be the envy of all the other rabbis. After all, you only live once. But then, on second thought, we decided not to purchase that car, and – voila! – we just saved $81,000 that we don’t have that we can now spend elsewhere! Indeed, if we decide not to buy a Jaguar in each of the next five years, we will have saved over $400,000. Now we are talking about real money.

     It reminds me of the old joke about the kid who bursts into his house out of breath, and boasts to his father: “Dad, I just saved $2! I ran home from school behind a bus!” To which the father replies, dismissively, “You should have run home behind a taxi and saved twenty dollars!” That joke is now official government policy, and has been for some time.

     The sad truth is that government spending is almost never cut, because spending taxpayer money is the lifeblood of the politician. With it, he literally buys votes and assures his re-election. Every dollar spent by the government has an interest group lobbying for it, as if its life depends on it – and often it does. Thus, the president got a lot of traction out of Mitt Romney’s declaration that PBS federal funding would be cut – as if one network deserves special treatment in an era when television is glutted with privately owned networks. It became a rallying cry – Romney v. Big Bird. But if even those funds – basically, for entertainment purposes – cannot be cut, then nothing can be cut. Even the much celebrated “fraud and waste” in the federal budget have lobbyists. Every nickel goes somewhere – into someone’s job or someone’s pocket. And someone votes.

      Even the modest cut in the defense budget as a result of sequestration will restore Pentagon funding to the level of 2006, just a few years ago, and not at all dire. America will still spend on defense roughly the equivalent of the next ten nations combined. Somehow it will manage.

    So why the dreadful forecasts of cliffs and calamities? Because any “cut” drains the lifeblood from the politician. If these cuts become mandatory, then “someone” will lose something, and be unhappy as a result. But the current path is unsustainable. The American middle class who voted President Obama back into power want near-limitless benefits, as long as someone else pays for it. But there is no “someone else.” Not even the vaunted rich have the type of money that can underwrite the bloated budget, and they might as well sit on their money rather than see it taxed to oblivion.

     One rule of politics appears to be immutable: any increase in revenues will only lead to an increase in spending. Every dollar sunk into the federal treasury has some politician lusting after it. If spending decreased even to 2007 levels, the federal budget would be balanced in a year or two. So, let the Bush “tax cuts” expire. The very notion of a “tax cut” presupposes that government has some prior claim to our money, and only allows us to keep the remainder. Expose the rapacious government for what it is – a behemoth that can only subsist if it is constantly fed the red meat of the people’s hard-earned money. Let’s go over that cliff; we might enjoy the ride.

    Indeed, let the people be taxed enough so that the budget is actually balanced, without the gimmicks and duplicity to which we have become accustomed. It is probably the best way to revive and restore the ideal of limited government that was the original foundation of the American system.