Barry Rubin on Obama's 'Passover message'
Barry Rubin wasn't crazy about President
Obama's 'Passover message' either.
I think the greater problem here is the endless universalizing of specifically Jewish experiences that are never seen as sufficient in their own right, as well as the basic opportunism of making Passover into an event backing Obama Administration policy.
But a peculiar personal experience of mine has given this controversy a special meaning for me. Some years ago I attended a dinner in Washington that was one of those endless--and always futile--events bringing together Arabs and Israelis for "dialogue." Since it was during the Passover table, the thoughtful hosts had placed matzo on the table.
One of the Egyptians, a relatively moderate diplomat who had built a whole second career in the peace process industry, said in an annoyed voice something like: "Isn't this a Jewish holiday that celebrates a victory over the Egyptians?"
I had a fraction of a second in which I knew I had to think of the perfect answer. And it came to me. I replied, "That was during Jahiliyya times." He nodded with understanding and the problem was solved.
The Jahiliyya era, for Muslims, was the time of pre-Islamic paganism and ignorance. In the Koran, the pharoah was a villain. So if it happened then he could see the "Egyptians" as having nothing to do with him and accept that the pharoah was a bad guy who deserved to be drowned in the sea.
Here's the problem. When radical Islamists killed President Anwar al-Sadat, they said, "I shot the pharoah." One of the reasons that Sadat was assassinated was because he made peace with Israel. Another reason was that he opposed making Egypt an Islamist state. Now that President Husni Mubarak has been overthrown, he's referred to as the pharoah for reasons including those two.
An important lesson from Jewish experience--for those willing to heed it--is that change is not always good and that some things never change. But after all, the Jews were doing pretty well in ancient Egypt until there came a pharoah who knew not Joseph.
It is also no accident that the Passover seder reminds us: "In every generation, there are those that rise up against us to destroy us...." Wow, does the history of the last few years prove that to be true!
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Barack Obama, Egypt, Egyptian exodus, Passover message
The next domino?
Investors seem to be betting on
Hosni Mubarak as the next corrupt Arab ruler to go.
Panicked by the events in Tunisia, foreign investors in the Egyptian bourse (stock exchange) have been liquidating their positions and expatriating their capital out of Egypt quickly. Some stocks have lost 50% of their value. As a whole, the losses sustained by the Egyptian bourse in the last few days are estimated at $4.3 billion. Egyptian institutions and funds have stepped in to stabilize the bourse.
Source: Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, London, January 19, 2011
Hmmm.
Labels: Egyptian exodus, Hosni Mubarak, Tunisia
Calling Obama's bluff?
In a few weeks, we will read the Torah portion that hints at the story of Nachshon the son of Aminadav. The story is told in the Medrash and is quite well known. The Midrash relates that during the Exodus, when the Israelites reached the Red Sea, it did not automatically part. The Israelites were trapped between the Egyptian army, which would have murdered them or returned them to slavery, and the Sea. The Israelites stood at the banks of the sea and wailed with despair, but Nahshon entered the waters. Once he was up to his nose in the water, the sea parted. In the Chanuka Torah reading that we have just finished, we read of the sacrifices of the princes of each tribe as part of the dedication of the Mishkan (tabernacle). When the princes of the different tribes were required to bring their offerings, each on a separate day, Moshe was embarrassed, not knowing who should be the first; but all Israel pointed at Nahshon, saying, "He sanctified the name of God by springing first into the Red Sea; he is worthy to bring down the Shekhinah; therefore he shall be the first to bring the offering." Nahshon was regarded as worthy of leadership and in fact, Kings David and Solmon were among his descendants.
Reza Aslan argues that the 'Palestinians' should
call President Obama's bluff by pushing ahead for a unilateral declaration of statehood.
There is little doubt in anyone’s mind that should recognition of Palestinian statehood be put to a vote on the floor of the U.N., it would win the support of every member country save two: Israel and the United States. Unfortunately, these are the only two votes that matter, considering that the U.S. has veto power over all U.N. declarations and has used it consistently to protect Israel from countless resolutions critical of Israeli policy in the Occupied Territories. Indeed, President Obama had explicitly promised Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he would prohibit any U.N. vote on Palestinian statehood in exchange for a 90-day extension of Israel’s settlement freeze.
...
Obviously the statements from Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay are merely symbolic. But as Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Maliki noted, their importance lies in the fact that “the more countries that recognize the Palestinian state, the more pressure this will put on countries that are hesitant.” Already, about 100 nations across the world have come out in recognition of an independent Palestinian state, including, most recently, Turkey.
Symbolism aside, if there is one thing the Palestinians have learned in four decades of fruitless peace talks, it is that the only they will ever be allowed to have a state of their own is if they simply seize it for themselves.
So then, enough talk. Enough stalling. It’s well past time to declare statehood and force a vote of recognition in the United Nations.
Obama claims the U.S. will veto any such vote. Let’s call his bluff. Let’s find out if this president is ready to stand utterly alone on the world stage as the sole head of state refusing to recognize the existence of a Palestinian state just so he can appease an ally, Israel, that over the last year has repeatedly gone of out its way to embarrass his administration and stifle his attempts at achieving a two-state solution.
Unfortunately, he may be right about the vote at the United Nations. And I cannot see President Obama (of all American Presidents in the last 60 years!) standing alone defending Israel in the United Nations. That leaves us with two options that are not dissimilar to the options that were available to our forefathers at the Red Sea: Commit suicide by going back to the indefensible 1949 armistice line and waiting for the 'Palestinians' to start the next war, or fight back and pray for a miracle. Personally, I'm in favor of fighting back. Just like Nachshon the son of Aminadav.
Labels: Egyptian exodus, Nachshon ben Aminadav, Palestinian state, unilateral declaration of statehood
Barry Rubin wasn't crazy about President Obama's 'Passover message' either. 
