Luke Ford | No sacred cows.

It’s The Season For Repentance

Posted on September 17, 2008 by Luke Ford

In his newest book Defending Identity, Natan Sharansky once again mines his experience of nine years in Soviet prisons for universal lessons. At the beginning of his interrogation, the KGB offered him the possibility of being reunited with his wife Avital in Israel if he would just condemn the Jewish emigration movement. If not, he would be executed as a traitor and a spy.

The KGB’s trump card, Sharansky realized, was his fear of the firing squad. The only way to resist was to overcome the fear of being killed with a countervailing fear even more powerful. Though he then knew little of his Judaism, Sharansky called that fear the Fear of G-d.

“[T]he fear of not being worthy of the divine image, not the fear death, was what I was most afraid of in my interrogations with the KGB,” he writes. At that moment the KGB lost its power over him.

Sharansky describes a modern day version of Yosef HaTzaddik in the house of Potiphar. At the moment of the greatest temptation, Yosef saw before him the image of his father Yaakov Avinu – the same image that appears on the Divine chariot representing the ideal human form. That image enabled him to steel himself against the temptation, just as Sharansky’s fear of sullying the Divine Image, allowed him to overcome his fear of execution.

Every time we recite the words “b’chol nafshecha” in Shema, we are supposed to contemplate our willingness to give up our lives for Hashem. But how many of us can be confident we would pass the test. Our self-doubt explains the awe we feel upon meeting someone who has been through combat, and who continued functioning at a high level with death staring him in the face. Whether it was the fear of humiliating himself in front of his buddies, love of country, or the determination to defend one’s home and family, at that moment something was more important to him than his very existence.

Sharansky draws many lessons from his experience for societies as well as individuals. But for Elul it is sufficient that we focus on creating our own private diyukono shel Yaakov before which we tremble.

* * *

The image I will carry into Rosh Hashanah is that of my neighbor R’ Yair Weiss, ?”?, who passed away recently at 51. I only recall speaking to him for more than five minutes once. But one can learn a great deal about a person just by observing him from two rows behind in shul over a number of years.

Nothing about Reb Yair attracted immediate attention. His impact was cumulative, based on watching him do the exact same thing day after day. He was always one of the first ten for the 6:10 a.m. minyan. Even when he had to be brought to shul in a wheel chair, he insisted on davening with a minyan. I did not know — but was hardly surprised to find out — that the early minyan was his second seder of the day. For 24 years, he learned every morning before davening with the same chavrusah.

Together they finished Shas three times, and were still learning up until the end, when Reb Yair was forced to learn lying down. His carpool to work in Tel Aviv began every morning with Mishnayos Yomis and Mishnah Brerurah Yomis; the members of the carpool finished both cycles many times. As soon as they completed their daily quotas, Reb Yair would put on a Torah tape. Not a minute was wasted.

Every word of Pirkei Avos was for Reb Yair a command to be implemented. There was no cutting of corners in his world. When his sons asked him how many times he had learned Shas or Mishnayos, he replied, “Not enough” or “You can always learn better.”

Posted in Jonathan Rosenblum | Tagged father yaakov, fear death, jewish emigration, Jonathan Rosenblum, soviet prisons, universal lessons | Comments Off

George Bush: A Profile In Courage

Posted on September 17, 2008 by Luke Ford

Here’s an editorial from the WSJ:

Now that even Barack Obama has acknowledged that President Bush’s surge in Iraq has "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams," maybe it’s time the Democratic nominee gives some thought to how that success actually came about — not just in Ramadi and Baghdad, but in the bureaucratic Beltway infighting out of which the decision to surge emerged.

That’s one reason to welcome "The War Within," the fourth installment in Bob Woodward’s account of the Bush Presidency. As is often the case with the Washington Post stalwart, the reporting is better than the analysis, which reflects the Beltway conventional wisdom of a dogmatic and incurious President. But even as a (very) rough draft of history, we read Mr. Woodward’s book as an instructive profile in Presidential decision-making.

Consider what confronted Mr. Bush in 2006. Following a February attack on a Shiite shrine in the city of Samarra, Iraq’s sectarian violence began a steep upward spiral. The U.S. helped engineer the ouster of one Iraqi prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, in favor of Nouri al-Maliki, an untested leader about whom the U.S. knew next to nothing. The "Sunni Awakening" of tribal sheiks against al Qaeda was nowhere in sight. An attempt at a minisurge of U.S. and Iraqi forces in Baghdad failed dismally. George Casey, the American commander in Iraq, believed the only way the U.S. could "win" was to "draw down" — a view shared up the chain of command, including Centcom Commander John Abizaid and then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Politically, the war had become deeply unpopular in an election year that would wipe out Republican majorities in Congress. The bipartisan Iraq Study Group, run by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, was gearing up to offer the President the option of a politically graceful defeat, dressed up as a regional "diplomatic offensive." Democrats united in their demands for immediate withdrawal, while skittish Republicans who had initially supported the war, including Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Gordon Smith of Oregon, abandoned the Administration.

From the State Department, Condoleezza Rice opposed the surge, arguing, according to Mr. Woodward, that "the U.S. should minimize its role in punishing sectarian violence." Senior brass at the Pentagon were also against it, on the theory that it was more important to ease the stress on the military and be prepared for any conceivable military contingency than to win the war they were fighting.

Handed this menu of defeat, Mr. Bush played opposite to stereotype by firing Mr. Rumsfeld and seeking advice from a wider cast of advisers, particularly retired Army General Jack Keane and scholar Fred Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute. The President also pressed the fundamental question of how the war could actually be won, a consideration that seemed to elude most senior members of his government. "God, what is he talking about?" Mr. Woodward quotes a (typically anonymous) senior aide to Ms. Rice as wondering when Mr. Bush raised the question at one meeting of foreign service officers. "Was the President out of touch?"

No less remarkably, the surge continued to face entrenched Pentagon opposition even after the President had decided on it. Admiral Michael Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, went out of his way to prevent General Keane from visiting Iraq in order to limit his influence with the White House.

Posted in Politics | Tagged Barack Obama, ibrahim al jaafari, john abizaid, mr woodward, republican majorities, samarra iraq | Comments Off

The Gibson Doctrine

Posted on September 17, 2008 by Luke Ford

Dennis Prager writes:

Sarah Palin’s reputation survived her interview with ABC News’ Charlie Gibson.

The same cannot be said for Charlie Gibson.

On my radio show last week, I twice defended Barack Obama. Once, against those conservatives who took a comment made by Obama in an interview with George Stephanopoulos out of context and suggested that Obama had inadvertently admitted he was a Muslim. And again, when I contended that Obama did not imply that Palin was a pig in his now famous "lipstick on a pig" reference.

I mention this only because I want to assume that people of good will on both sides can still be honest about what transpires politically. And in this instance what transpired was that Gibson intended to humiliate Palin.

It wasn’t even subtle. Virtually everything Gibson did and virtually every question he posed was designed to trap, or trick, or demean Gov. Palin. There are views of his face that so reek of contempt that anyone shown photos of his look would immediately identify it as contemptuous.

But one series of questions, in particular, blew any cover of impartiality and revealed Gibson’s aim to humiliate Palin.

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His worldview?

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

When he asked Palin whether she agreed with the Bush Doctrine without defining it, he gave the game away. He lost any pretense of fairness. Asking the same unanswerable question three times had one purpose — to humiliate the woman. That was not merely partisan. It was mean.

I couldn’t answer it — and I have been steeped in international affairs since I was a Fellow at the Columbia University School of International Affairs in the 1970s. I have since been to 82 countries, and have lectured in Russian in Russia and in Hebrew in Israel. Most Americans would consider a candidate for national office who had such a resume qualified as regards international relations. Yet I had no clue how to answer Gibson’s question.

I had no clue because there is no right answer.

There are at least four doctrines that are called "Bush Doctrine," which means that there is no "Bush Doctrine." It is a term bereft of meaning, as became abundantly clear when Gibson finally explained what he was referring to:

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that — the right to preemptive attack of a country that was planning an attack on America?

That’s the Bush Doctrine? "The right to preemptive attack of a country that was planning an attack on America?"

Isn’t that just common sense? What country in history has thought it did not have the right to attack those planning to attack it? I learned the "Bush Doctrine" when I was a student at yeshiva in the fourth grade, when I was taught a famous Talmudic dictum from about 1,800 years ago: "If someone is coming to kill you, rise early and kill him."

And preemptive attack is exactly what happened in June 1967, when Israel attacked Egypt and Syria because those countries were planning to attack Israel. Would any American president before George W. Bush have acted differently than Israel did? Of course not. Did they all believe in the Bush Doctrine?

That is how Gibson added foolishness to his meanness.

All the interview did was reconfirm that Republicans running for office run against both their Democratic opponent and the mainstream news media.

This year it is more obvious than ever. The press’s beatification of Obama is so obvious, so constant (how many covers of Newsweek and Time has Obama been on?) that media credibility even among many non-conservatives has been hurt.

Let me put this another way. Charlie Gibson showed far greater hostility toward the Republican vice-presidential candidate than Dan Rather did in his interview with Saddam Hussein or Mike Wallace did in his interview with Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Which reminds me of another Talmudic dictum: "Those who are merciful to the cruel will be cruel to the merciful."

We might call it the media’s Gibson Doctrine: Confront Republicans, act obsequious toward tyrants.

Dennis Prager hosts a nationally syndicated radio talk show and is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He is the author of four books, most recently "Happiness Is a Serious Problem" (HarperCollins). His website is www.pragerradio.com.

Posted in Dennis Prager, Journalism, Sarah Palin | Tagged Barack Obama, charlie gibson, columbia university school, Dennis Prager, lipstick on a pig, Sarah Palin | Comments Off

The Ultimate Travel Deal: Hostelsclub.com

Posted on September 17, 2008 by Luke Ford

One of my many roles as a gatherer of information – I read a ton of copy each day, from press releases to magazine articles to any number of breaking news items – is to separate relevant stuff, the material I believe my readers would enjoy, from promotional junk. This duty is especially important during tough economic times – our dollar is virtually worthless – because people want real value for any discretionary expenses. Particularly travel. And, while the sunny clime of Southern California may beckon foreigners who can spend with abandon, the same is not true for Americans seeking to do the same in Europe. Until now.

I recently read a truly helpful press release about a way for American citizens to visit Europe — affordably. Enter Hostelsclub.com, which is running an amazing campaign – a dollar for euro plan – that allows American citizens to stay in any number of popular locales – Paris, Barcelona, Venice, Rome, etc. – for a one-for-one rate between the dollar and the euro. To repeat: one dollar = one euro. In a turbulent economy, there is no smarter way – I am speaking to you, college students of America! – to travel throughout Europe. This deal also enables avid travelers to escape the tumult of America – the political insanity, the collapsing stock market and the national general malaise – and absorb the beauty of Europe. And the hostels? They’re clean, safe, charming and run by professionals.

Get to hostelsclub.com — and treat yourself right!