Moral Pretensions

Posted on September 3, 2009 | Comments Off on Moral Pretensions

“Mr. Al-Magrahi now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power…He is going to die.”

And with that supine rationalization, Scotland’s Justice Minister freed “on compassionate grounds” Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the only person convicted in the mass murder of 270 people in the explosion of a Pan Am plane in 1988. The problem is not just the obvious moral outrage, the misplaced compassion for a mass murderer, the anguish caused to the victims’ families who live to witness their loved one’s executioner free, feted and celebrated (a travesty well known to Israelis) or the obvious commercial benefit that will accrue to the UK through increased access to Libyan oil and gas     that makes this mercenary trafficking particularly odious.

Add to that the moral confusion sowed by this Justice Minister by invoking the “higher power.” The implication of the above-referenced statement is that until this killer dies, he cannot face divine justice. This is both false and dangerous. The Torah, for example, clearly posits that G-d elicits justice in this world, not only in the world after life – but in this world, human courts mete out justice. Thus, Jewish courts are explicitly permitted to execute convicts in a variety of cases, and some of them for deterrent and/or educational purposes. Non-Jews, as well, are authorized by the Noachide laws to establish courts of justice in order to administer and enforce the observance of those very laws, one of which proscribes homicide.

Indeed, human judgment is but a prelude to divine judgment – not a substitution for it – although in some cases, punishment by the human court can mitigate one’s subsequent divine punishment. It is not an either/or scenario, but rather both systems work hand-in-hand in order to fulfill G-d’s will for mankind.

There are certain instances wherein human justice is inappropriate or simply incapably of properly dealing with a moral outrage. For example, the Minister’s theological musings notwithstanding, his release of this despicable creature was also a moral offense – for which he too should be judged. And as the move was more crassly commercial and politically motivated than it was sensitive and civilized, it is unlikely that he will ever face human justice (except maybe at the polls). So it is he who will ultimately face justice at the hands of the “higher power,” along with the monster that he released.

I wonder if his theology extends as far as being able to look in the mirror.

In G-d’s world, human justice is not always perfect but it is adequate when fairly and systematically carried out. The notion that we cannot or should not judge evildoers is the product of a faith system that itself brought much destruction and bloodshed into the world. G-d gave us permission to fight evil and thereby bring His world closer to perfection. The reluctance to do that, or the timidity that the weak-willed  demonstrate under the guise of compassion, are both moral weaknesses that also endanger the rest of us, in a very dangerous  world, at a very dangerous time in history.

Moral strength and rectitude beget political strength and courage – and true compassion as well. And all good people should protest, grieve – and pray and work for a better day and a better future.

Comments Off on Moral Pretensions

Posted in 1

Haredi Follies

Posted on August 26, 2009 | 4 comments

     On Sunday, I was driving on a narrow street in the Meah Shearim section of Jerusalem when suddenly, directly ahead of the car in front of me, a group of young Haredi men in their 20’s were gainfully occupied pulling a huge trash dumpster into the middle of the street in order to block it. I was forced to drive on the sidewalk to get through. What the cars in back of me did once the street was fully blocked is a mystery.

    Why did they choose to block their street and inconvenience dozens of innocent people ? I do not know, nor, frankly, do I care. I offer here the general and accurate disclaimer that the guilty are only a relative handful of people, not subject to the control or influence of mainstream Haredi rabbis, and a poor reflection on their milieu, their upbringing and on the Torah itself – walking, talking, breathing (but not working) examples of a Chillul Hashem, a desecration of G-d’s name. But these few are reflective of a broader problem.

      These individuals have become, like the Arabs (sad to say), people of perpetual and unassuageable grievances, who are at war with society, and even with the rest of the Torah world that has left them in the dust and successfully live normal lives in accordance with Torah law. Perhaps wearing long black coats and hats on hot, humid days nurtures an intense dissatisfaction with life, and understandably so. Perhaps the lamentable fact (publicized last week) that only 37% of Haredi men between the ages of 20-60 are gainfully employed (as opposed to the 80% employment rate of that bracket in the rest of society) is a source of internal frustration and shame that is projected onto the rest of the society via their anti-social acts. And perhaps, therefore, they should keep in mind the resentment generated in the society that supports them through an extensive welfare network, and remind themselves of the Talmudic adage not to “throw stones in the well from which you drink,” or its secular corollary: “don’t bite the hand that feeds you.”

     What galls most are not the pervasive, threatening admonitions of the modesty police that blanket that neighborhood, nor a parking lot in Yerushalayim opening on Shabbat, nor the arrest of a mentally ill, allegedly child-abusing mother, nor sundry other alleged grievances that lead the unemployed and unemployable “activists” to block streets, set fire to trash bins, attack the police, etc. What galls is rather the shame caused to the public face of Torah by a segment of society that is proudly incapable of applying the Torah to the realities of modern life, that boasts of its unwillingness to educate its children to contribute meaningfully to the world around them, and that has therefore emasculated the Torah and made it a dead document that few normal people – seeing the way they live – would want to embrace.

     Where a simple outsider sees “piety,” a more astute observer sees scrupulous observance of some Mitzvot and a wholesale disregard of others. The standard accusation against more modern Jews – that they “pick and choose” the mitzvot that suit them –applies with equal cogency to them: they may dress modestly, but many are public charges – violating the Talmudic mandate that one should “rather treat his Shabbat like a weekday than become dependent on public support.” They dutifully rest on Shabbat but treat its corollary – to “work for six days” – with disdain. They are close-knit but only within a narrowly-drawn circle; the concerns of other Jews, and love of other Jews, are not always readily apparent. If it were otherwise, they would not attempt to propagate their views by inconveniencing others, who are unsure of and uninterested in whatever point they are really making. Their study of Torah and observance of mitzvot are often punctuated by superstitions and irrational behavior that have no place among Torah Jews, including but not limited to fetishizing certain forms of dress. They can adopt every minority opinion – every stringency – except in the areas of Kavod habriyot, Ahavat Yisrael (respect for the dignity of others and the love of Jews), and several others as well.

     Their attempt in that small enclave to re-create the European shtetl has succeeded, at least to the extent that they have duplicated the grinding poverty that typified European Jews when we ignore the mythology and the nostalgia. And it is poverty that – just like in Europe – has no escape, as the educational constraints they place on themselves deprive them of any realistic opportunity to better themselves economically. And, as I see it, that is the primary source of their discontent – not the secularism, the immodesty, the Zionism that surrounds them – but the happiness, the satisfaction, and the contentment that so many others derive out of life – especially the Torah life – that they are denied. Unable to contribute or even to discourse with others, their sole recourse is to stones, imprecations, and blockades. How sad… To be given an opportunity to re-create a fully-Jewish life in a land of Israel under Jewish sovereignty, and instead to squander it – in the process, antagonizing even other Torah Jews. Many are misguided, and to a great extent, misled by their leaders. And I am unaware of even one Jew who performed even one mitzva or avoided one sin as a consequences of a stone being hurled his way.

     Fortunately, the tide is turning for Haredim, as the astute among them have realized that they can no longer afford either isolation or ignorance. Vocational schools for men and women have opened to teach them trades and allow them to earn a living with dignity, the Nachal Haredi has brought hundreds of Haredim into the IDF, the chesed organizations they administer benefit every segment of society (although the creation of more and more such organizations should not substitute for finding gainful employment) and the most prominent voices are decrying the ugliness that frequently emanates from their midst. All these are good signs, and at a most opportune time – as the rest of society (Torah Jews included) is exasperated. The hooligans who give them a bad name should be forcefully ostracized – excluded from shuls, shidduchim, residence in the neighborhood, etc. – just as someone would be if he, say, purchased a television set or some other moral offense. The outrages committed in the name of Haredim today are not any lesser moral offenses, and they must be eradicated – through a new educational curriculum that emphasizes not personal piety but community responsibility and love of Israel. They are in need of a Rav Kook, who can teach them how the Torah can be the foundation of a modern society and not just the basis of an 18th century Lithuanian village.

      As the Haredi population continues to grow, its current economic model is 15 years past the point of sustainability. Whether or not they succeed in adapting to new circumstances and the obligations concomitant with constituting a larger percentage of the general population will, to a large extent, determine not only the survivability of that community but also the very success of the enterprise of Jewish nationhood in the land of Israel in the coming decades. And for that reason, we pray for their success in uprooting the terrorists in their midst and adapting to the reality of modern life – in which the Haredim will play a natural role in presenting to the world the beautiful face of Torah.

4 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Israel, Jewish History

Blood Libel

Posted on August 23, 2009 | 1 comment

      In what sounds like a blast from the 18th century, a Swedish journalist in a Swedish magazine published last week the bizarre allegations that Israeli soldiers routinely kill Palestinian Arabs in order to harvest their organs – even citing the recent case in Brooklyn in which a “religious” Jew stands accused of selling organs (and at a profit of 1600%). Given the number of times that brain-dead Israeli victims of Arab terror donated their organs to save Arab lives, this is a particularly despicable blood libel.

The Swedish allegations are based exclusively on the “eyewitness” testimony of local Arabs, who have never been known either for their keen connection to reality or an acute sense of integrity (see under “Jenin Massacre” and several dozen other outright falsifications). No other evidence was adduced, and even the reporter subsequently stated that he doubts the veracity of what he wrote. But he wrote it, and although the Swedish Ambassador to Israel properly apologized, the magazine has refused to retract and the Swedish government refuses to apologize for, or even criticize, the report, citing the cherished Swedish value of “freedom of expression.”

     That would sound like a principled stand, but for two reasons: firstly, “freedom of expression” certainly allows for critiques, renunciations or denunciations of other expressions – that itself is part of the freedom. They could well have said that he has a right to print what he wants, but we repudiate this Jew-hating drivel because it is wholly fictitious. They did not.

     Secondly, and more tellingly, when a Danish cartoonist published caricatures of Mohammed in 2005, thereby provoking murderous riots from easily-provoked Muslims, the same Swedish government that now wraps its sanctimony in “freedom of expression” led the world in apologizing to and genuflecting before the Muslim world for this offense to the peaceful religion of Islam and pledging its future vigilance against any further offenses of this nature. (Hmm… didn’t the Danish cartoonist also have rights of free expression ? Indeed, the concurrent shame to the pusillanimous Swedes is the cowardice of Yale University Press, which is refusing to publish a book on the Danish cartoon controversy because the author insists, naturally and reasonably, that a scholarly account of that affair should include the cartoons themselves so the reader can judge whether they indeed offend.) So why were the Swedes so craven to the Muslims and so dismissive of the Jews ?

     The simple answer is: Jews do not riot, would not attack Swedish embassies across the world, will not issue fatwas calling for the death of the author and anyone who has ever dined with him, and will not explode themselves in the presence of innocents. The same cannot be same of Muslims, suggesting a macabre paraphrase of the old saw that “the squeaky wheel gets the grease,” or more accurately stated in this context, “the more volatile religion gets the apology.”

    But there is more to the Swedish hypocrisy than appears at first glance. For Sweden to apologize would require that Sweden actually respect the sovereignty and integrity of the Jewish state. Clearly, they do not, nor do they see any down side in refusing the Israeli demand for a formal apology.

     But why should Sweden show Israel any respect, when Israel – by any standard definition of statecraft – continually evinces a lack of any self-respect ? Israel has been maneuvered into a situation – partly through its own mismanagement – in which the conventional wisdom is that the “settlements” are obstacles to peace and the only remaining impediment to peace. Israel has countenanced this attack on its sovereignty and historic/religious claims to its land, and even fostered it under recent governments. It certainly has not told the world (read: the United States and Europe) to butt out of its internal affairs, nor has it railed against the obvious injustice which precludes Jews from living in a historically Jewish territory – in a land named by it and for it (Judea) simply because they are Jews.         

      International respect needs to be earned, or rights are easily trampled   and sensitivities brushed aside. President Obama’s speech in Cairo, critiqued here (rabbipruzansky.com/category/current-eventspage/3/) referenced the Holocaust as the sole reason for Israel’s existence, offending many Jews (including me). But how does that square with Israel’s obsession in taking every foreign visitor to Yad Vashem ? Does not that foster the same conclusion that Obama came to – that the Holocaust is Israel’s raison d’être, and if all the Jews care about is security, then outsiders can send Marines, Mounties, bobbies and (in PM Rabin’s formula) the Palestinian Authority police to guarantee Israel’s security, and then peace will break out ? That lack of self-respect evokes a lack of mutual respect from other nations. A nation that negotiates with foreign governments its rights to its own land and its own legitimacy, and/or a nation that is hesitant to allow its own citizens to live on land it conquered warding off the aggression of its sworn enemies and begs, cajoles, or pleads for a crumb of respect, and/or a nation that cannot or will not say “no” when its vital interests are endangered, will not deserve even that.

     So the Swedes are the Swedes – but we can only expect the same measure of dignity from others that we have for ourselves. Jews, thankfully, will not blow ourselves up just to make a point; but we can insist that those who represent Jews – in Israel and in America – speak with Jewish knowledge, commitment, pride and resolve. Perhaps some of the nations will then fear us, as the Torah promised, but all of them will respect us.

1 Comment

Posted in 1

Health Care/Coverage Conundrum

Posted on August 17, 2009 | Comments Off on Health Care/Coverage Conundrum

    The United States has the best health care system on the planet. The proof ? People vote with their feet, and more foreigners come to America for health care than Americans flee to foreign countries for health care. Indeed, foreigners will spend tens of thousands of dollars they don’t have in order to obtain health care from American doctors and hospitals. So what is lost in the current debate is that Americans are concerned not with health care but with health coverage – and that is the first misconception that is being widely propagated.

     The second is that it is possible, finally, after years of trying in manifold ways, to get that free lunch. It is possible for health care to be disseminated to all, with the same quality of care and the same opportunities, without taxes being raised, revenues enhanced or the country being bankrupted. And this state of affairs will be possible the moment after the tooth fairy assumes office. Here we come to the classic conflict between high-sounding ideals and the practicalities of the real world. That everyone should have equal access to health care is eminently desirable, perhaps slightly more than everyone should have equal access to a health club, a high-priced French restaurant and a Lexus. But the chilling effect of the real world informs that no one will have equal access to the latter, so why should they necessarily have to the former ?

     Put another way: if two people have equal access to something, and one pays for it and the other does not, then for how long will anyone keep paying for it ? Or, if the government creates and sustains its own health insurance company (ignore for a moment that its current company – Medicare – is going bankrupt and the only system it currently manages – Veterans Hospitals – are not noted for their high standard of care), then why would anyone purchase such insurance from a private company, whose costs will be greater and which is not shielded from the competitive marketplace ? Of course no sane person would, and in the end, the government would be running health care in America, and the record of government run health care – where it is now in place – is markedly poor, in terms of quality, speed of delivery, responsiveness to the individual patient, and ultimately the need to ration care because of limited resources.

     With the current reform attempt of the health coverage system – and I will spell out my own – it is fair to question the bold assertions of the reformers:

1) They insist that all Americans should have health insurance. Well, why ? The figure bandied about – 47,000,000 uninsured – includes a quarter who are illegal aliens, and 2/3 of the remainder are those who can afford it if they wished to purchase it (but they choose to spend money on something else) or those who are young (under 30) and do not feel they need health insurance (and they are actuarially correct – although in certain individual cases, tragically wrong). But why isn’t an American free to say “I don’t want that,” as long as he is willing to live with the consequences ? And of the remaining 10%, many lose their insurance briefly and then are insured again. And there is Medicaid to cover the truly indigent.

 2) They insist that it be illegal for an insurance company to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. But why ? An insurance company makes its money by insuring people who then do not need its services. The premium payments of the healthy offset the medical expenses of the unhealthy. If a person only seeks insurance when he is already ill, then the insurance company immediately incurs expenses far greater than any premiums it will accrue – a sure recipe for financial disaster. So why allow anyone to game the system and only seek coverage when ill ? If everyone did that, the system would collapse. And if the government health plan decides to cover pre-existing conditions, then it will collapse – or better, would collapse, if it didn’t have available a limitless supply of government-printed money underwriting it, that would shortly thereafter depress the value of the dollar.

 3) They insist that women not be charged higher premiums than men, and that the elderly not be charged higher premiums than the young. But that too is ridiculous, assuming arguendo that women require more medical care than men (undoubtedly true, because of pregnancy and the like) and that the elderly require more medical treatment than those younger – which is obviously the case. The higher premiums are not punitive, but simply reflect the sober assessment of potential costs associated with insuring those groups. Would they insist as well that smokers not be assessed higher premiums ? Of course not. All of which begs the question: has anyone Congress studied simple economics or ever run a successful business ?

 To say America has the best system is not to say it has the perfect system, and certain adjustments are clearly warranted. It should be obvious to anyone that insurance companies make money by not paying claims, and so my experience has been that they will routinely deny payment for valid claims – hoping the average person becomes flummoxed and does nothing. That is wrong, and since the consumer is at a disadvantage when fighting for the payment of just claims, a claim wrongly and arbitrarily refused should result in the company being fined – with the fine going to the consumer. So too, companies should be subjected to fines for suddenly denying coverage in the middle of an illness, with all ambiguities in the impenetrable health coverage agreement construed against the drafter – the insurance company.

Finally, the system should be simplified, and coverage provided only for major medical or catastrophic needs. There was a time when that was the norm. When my first child was born, we had only major medical coverage – so the doctor was paid $2500 or so out-of-pocket, and the hospital slightly less than that. By the time my last child was born eight years later, insurance was paying almost all of it – and paying much more than I had paid. Undoubtedly – and obviously, given human nature – third-party paying leads to more consumption of the particular entity in mind. I will eat more at a wedding (third-party payment) than I will at a restaurant (self-payment). One will visit a doctor far more – and not mind a battery of tests – when a third party is paying for it than the consumer himself. This should end.

As the great economist and thinker Thomas Sowell has written, automobile insurance covers collision and damage – not gasoline fill-ups and oil changes. Insurance by definition is designed to cover risks, not the routine, so why should health insurance insure anything that is routine, like routine visits and check-ups ?

Costs can certainly be reduced by reforming the tort system, as well, as Charles Krauthammer has written – by limiting medical malpractice to compensatory (not punitive) damages and stripping the negligent doctor of his license to practice medicine – deterrent enough. But the notion that doctors need to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical malpractice insurance premiums, or divest themselves of all assets so they are lawsuit- proof, is obscene, and a sign that reform is needed. But it should be reform that improves the system and does not destroy it, that reduces costs rather than inflates it, and that limits the role of government rather than expands it.

The discontent in the heartland of America over the proposed overhaul reflects the heartland values of personal responsibility and individual initiative that has sustained the world’s engine of prosperity for two centuries. It is a voice that is saying to the politicians – most of them well-meaning, to be sure – a uniquely-American sentiment first articulated in 1775: “Don’t Tread On Me!” We will soon see how – and if – that voice is heeded. Reform will come in some guise – that is the political necessity. Let it be reform that advances a good system rather than strives to create the perfect system that will never exist.

Comments Off on Health Care/Coverage Conundrum

Posted in Contemporary Life