Category Archives: Terrorismo

Posted on

One is All

The shooting in Poway California, fortunately, left only the balance of one fatality, Lori Gilbert Kaye. Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein intervened bravely and lost two fingers of his hands but, thank God, he is presently in good health, otherwise.

A major massacre was averted thanks to the timely reaction of a community member who with a gun in hand drove away from the individual who was later identified by his name John Earnest.

Of course, when you compare this murder with what happened in Sri Lanka just a few days before with a balance of about 250 killed, Poway looks like a minor event.

On the other hand, just a few months ago, The Tree of Life Synagogue in Squirrel Hill suffered an attack that killed 11 people, in addition to those injured by that fact. Again, " Chabad of Poway" suffered less when we compared with the events cited.

I would like to highlight several points. " The shootings, the shooter" the designations used in English for these events are lukewarm, antiseptic expressions, dictated perhaps by the subsequent legal judgment that must be made. But we should be clear that it is not about shots or those who fired them, these events constitute cold-blooded killings, executions without previous judgments. They are the expression of maximum cruelty: the extinction of the life of another human being.

On many occasions, I reflected on the biblical injunction that demanded the universal donation of a coin, the half Shekel, for the needs of the House of God, which at the same time served for a census of the Jewish people. Two purposes were obtained through a single action, because counting the coins simultaneously established the number of Hebrews in the desert. There was no count of the people, there was a count of the coins. I think that there is a deep lesson involved. The Torah teaches that human beings cannot really be counted as if we were dealing with a flock. Every human being is a whole world.

The world was created for him and for her. Everyone perceives the reality from their own perspective, through their own thoughts
and experiences. The Mishnah teaches: Why did God create only one man in the beginning? To illustrate that in the beginning humanity consisted of only one human being and whoever killed him would be killing all humanity would have destroyed all the human beings in existence. This teaching is for all history: " to kill a human being is to kill all humanity." One of the most respected members of the synagogue where I am currently praying cites his late father who used to tell him
in Yiddish: “& quot;  yoren tselt men nit, gelt tselt men" &quot” ; we do not count the years, we count money " It is not just a jocular saying.

It includes wisdom that teaches that not every year of a person life is equivalent. There are days that have great content, meaning, and purpose, while others pass without leaving a trace. There are those who can achieve laudable goals in days, while others allow days and months to pass as if they had not existed. There are people who justify their trajectory on earth through a single timely meritorious action.

Just as you cannot add the pain of patients sitting in the antechamber of the doctor, because everyone feels only their own pain, similarly you cannot add lives, each life is everything. Actually, you cannot add the years of the person’s life. Each year has a different significance.

The accent, therefore, should not rest on the fact that only one lady died in Poway. A whole universe, in its entirety, was extinguished that day. Lori Gilbert Kaye is gone.
Jewish tradition teaches that the word is very powerful. To speak badly of another person amounts to murder, idolatry, and incest. Are we facing an exaggeration? Perhaps. But, maybe we are not. Those preachers who, in the name of a god who demands revenge, incite hatred and even murder, with their words become co-responsible for the crimes. There cannot be a god that demands at this point of History, to exterminate those who disagree with a specific religious confession. Or with an alternate interpretation of an ancestral tradition.

It is intolerable to allow the dissemination of ideas about the superiority of some sectors of human society over others that are based on skin color, ancestral descent or language. The results are visible and unforgivable.

Our tolerance has to have a limit. When the Hebrews came out of Egyptian bondage, they immediately went to Mount Sinai where they would receive the Torah. Freedom can also lead to debauchery. The Law must set a framework for human behavior and that includes action, but also the word that can lead to the destruction of other human beings.

Ask Lori’s husband, the doctor who held her in his arms in the last moments of life without being able to help her. Ask him if he feels consolation because only the partner of his life was murdered, and nobody else was.

Poway, Sri Lanka, Squirrel Hill, the Twin Towers represent unequal events but they are basically the same because the value of human life is infinite. You cannot add to the death of people. The crime is horrendous even before counting the number of victims.

Posted on

El desarreglo con Iran

Durante una conversación personal que sostuve años atrás con el ex presidente de Israel Shimon Peres, le pregunté: “¿Cómo se puede negociar con la OLP, organización que desea la destrucción de Israel?” Su respuesta fue: “la OLP puede desear pero no puede concretar su deseo”. O sea que las amenazas tienen que medirse según la probabilidad positiva de poder llevar a cabo la intimidación.

El caso actual de Irán es diferente. Se trata de una nación con una población cercana a las 80 millones de habitantes, con una cultura milenaria y fuerza militar nutrida por el Occidente durante los años del reino del Shah y envigorizada ahora bajo el mando de los Ayatolas. Las amenazas de Irán contra Israel deben tomarse con toda seriedad porque posee medios y más aún si llega a tener armas nucleares, para hacer efectiva la intimidación.

Primo Levi, sobreviviente del Holocausto, escribió “si alguien te amenaza con revólver en la mano y te dice te voy a matar, ¡créele!”. Eso lo aprendió durante el período nazi.

Los iraníes, obviamente con aprobación gubernamental, no pierden una oportunidad para amenazar a los Estados Unidos y a Israel. La consigna es: “muerte a USA”, “muerte a Israel”. En el caso de USA, la amenaza tiene solamente significado simbólico, expresa el rechazo, mejor dicho el odio, por la manera americana de vivir, por las libertades, que desde su punto de vista, están al borde del libertinaje existente en esa cultura. Desde su perspectiva, hay eventos que refuerzan su rechazo,  tal como el fallo de la Corte Suprema que obliga a reconocer el matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo. No obstante, lo antedicho, la amenaza contra su integridad territorial es realmente improbable cuando tomamos en cuenta el poderío militar de USA. Incluso, con la adquisición de armamentos nucleares. Irán no presentaría peligro real aún si tuvieran los misiles intercontinentales para conducir ese dispositivo a un destino lejano. El poderío militar americano es de tal magnitud que literalmente podrá borrar del mapa a Irán si es que fuese primero el blanco de algún misil nuclear.

El punto central para los Estados Unidos y los países que negociaron con Irán se ubica en la proliferación del armamento nuclear. Porque seguramente otros países del Medio Oriente empezarán, si es que no lo están haciendo ya, a investigar cómo armarse de manera similar. Mientras que Egipto carece de medios económicos en caja, una alianza con Arabia Saudita que tiene bolsillos profundos repletos con dólares, permitiría procurar la tecnología necesaria para que ambos países dispongan con los dispositivos nucleares deseados para oponerse a los deseos imperialistas de Irán, que, en caso contrario, no tendría que hacer disparo alguno para imponer su voluntad una vez que pueda demostrar que posee armamento nuclear.

Dado que Irán no presenta una amenaza tangible, fue más fácil para USA y los países europeos, incluso Rusia y China llegar a un entendimiento con los Ayatolas, porque su interés primordial es el intercambio comercial que estaba parcialmente paralizado por las sanciones, hecho que a su vez obligó a los iraníes a sentarse en la mesa de negociación. El problema de la proliferación, tendrá que ser enfrentado entonces en su momento, cuando se convierta en realidad. Está claro que el arreglo con Irán, como señalamos tendrá secuelas en el Medio Oriente que presentarán nuevos problemas para el mundo occidental.

Una resolución armada nunca fue contemplada por los Estados Unidos que bajo la presidencia de Obama se empeña en la pacificación del planeta sin tomar muy en cuenta el costo eventual. Irak y Siria, Libia y Yemen dan testimonio de lo que puede ocurrir cuando la presencia militar es casi inexistente, o cuando una nueva amenaza militar carece de credibilidad. Lo que se se está consiguiendo con ciertos gobiernos son solamente treguas con fecha de vencimiento, tal como el caso particular de Irán. Sus tentáculos continúan alimentando el terror en diferentes lugares llámese Líbano, Gaza, Siria o Yemen. Irán siguió con sus nefastas intervenciones incluso durante el período de la reciente negociación sobre su programa nuclear.

Si el objetivo fundamental del acuerdo con Irán fue frenar una carrera nuclear, el resultado puede ser todo lo contrario, estimulará el deseo no postergable de otros países por adquirir un armamento similar.

El caso de Israel es totalmente diferente. En una alocución de unos años atrás en una universidad iraní, el ex presidente Hashemi Rafsanjani afirmó, “nosotros podemos absorber tres ataques nucleares, Israel no puede tolerar ni un solo misil nuclear”. Si tomamos en cuenta las incontables amenazas de destrucción, el armamento nuclear le daría por primera vez una opción real a Irán para acabar con la entidad sionista, el vocablo utilizado para designar al Estado de Israel. La amenaza contra Israel es real y su gobierno tiene el deber sagrado de velar por la integridad física de sus habitantes, más aún cuando se toma en cuenta que el pueblo judío sufrió la pérdida de una tercera parte de sus integrantes en la Segunda Guerra Mundial.

Es necesario estar conscientes del hecho que raciocinios usuales no aplican en el caso iraní, un Estado dirigido por el actual Ayatola Khamenei, el líder religioso con autoridad absoluta,. Viviendo en el siglo XXI cuando la humanidad tiene los medios para solucionar problemas que anteriormente no podían resolverse, tal como la eliminación del hambre a través de la utilización de sistemas modernos de agricultura, la mecanización de la producción, la computación y digitalización cuyos alcances para solucionar muchos problemas de salud por ejemplo, aún no pueden ser totalmente evaluados, estos hechos deberían conducir a un cambio profundo en el pensar y análisis de las cosas y eventos. Porque para sobrevivir ya no es necesario apoderarse de lo que otros tienen, hay suficiente para todos. Pero el fundamentalismo religioso tiene una agenda diferente que no responde a argumentos lógicos. Irán seguramente tiene un segmento importante de población que anhela la paz, pero sus dirigentes actuales están bajo el embrujo de un sistema absolutista que no contempla el acomodo ni responde a la discusión. Mientras que la armonía y el entendimiento pueden conducir a un mundo más acogedor, su liderazgo fundamentalista sueña con una guerra total que producirá el arribo de un Imam milagroso que impondrá finalmente el Islam para toda la Humanidad.

Muchos analistas políticos piensan que el arreglo con Irán, solo corre la arruga, es un acuerdo que en un tiempo relativamente cercano, dará legitimidad a Irán para que se arme con dispositivos nucleares. Está claro que naciones no deberían guiar sus políticas por beneficios corto placistas. Cuando se trata de un tema existencial, como en el caso de Israel, una década es apenas un paréntesis en la historia milenaria del pueblo judío.

Hay quienes sostienen que un mal arreglo es preferible a la mejor guerra. Pero la guerra no es necesariamente la única alternativa con Irán. Se puede mantener, o tal vez profundizar el cerco comercial sobre la economía iraní, porque su presencia en la mesa de negociación fue debida solamente a los inconvenientes y dificultades que ello produjo. En lugar de aflojar y próximamente eliminar las sanciones, éstas deberían profundizarse, ampliarse en los diferentes ámbitos políticos y económicos para que sirvan con cada día que pasa como un aliciente para que el gobierno iraní cese definitivamente con su programa bélico nuclear. Estados Unidos tiene una presencia que es decisiva en la banca mundial, el dólar continúa como la moneda preferida, especialmente en tiempos inciertos. Es cuestión de prioridades y voluntad política. Debe hacer valer su peso específico en las negociaciones. Pero es muy probable que el gobierno actual americano esté más interesado en su legado histórico como pacificador de la Humanidad. Eso estaría bien, si es que sus políticas condujeran al entendimiento y a la armonía. Pero un examen de la situación global conduce a pensar que el mundo era más seguro unos 6 ó 7 años atrás, y este arreglo, que en efecto es un desarreglo, solamente contribuirá a enfrentamientos y conflictos mayores en un futuro no muy lejano. Siendo una intervención armada un tabú para el gobierno americano actual, debería contemplar la implementación de sanciones más amplias podría igualmente efectuar el resultado deseado: una Irán libre de armamento nuclear.

Qué debe hacer Israel? Eso lo decidirá su gobierno. ¿Qué podemos hacer quienes estamos residenciados en otras latitudes? Tratar de explicar a quien quiera oir, protestar frente a nuestros gobiernos, hacer escuchar nuestras voces de inconformidad y protesta a los diputados y senadores que nos representan. En fin, alertar al mundo por todos los medios posibles, sobre el peligro real que Irán representa para la Humanidad, especialmente tomando en cuenta su incumplimiento de promesas anteriores, de astucias y engaños en el pasado, más aún cuando se toma en cuenta su apoyo al terrorismo de la región .

La posibilidad de una guerra nuclear no debería ser contemplada, mucho menos permitida porque tendrá consecuencias imprevistas. Tal como ya lo apuntó un gran científico que alegó que no sabía cómo terminará la Tercera Guerra Mundial, pero que sabía que la Cuarta Guerra se libraría con piedras y flechas ya que la civilización habría sido destruida durante la guerra anterior.

Posted on

Obama and Israel

Screen Shot 2015-03-23 at 6.58.08 PM

OBAMA AND ISRAEL

The over reaction of President Barack Obama to some of the political pronouncements made by Binyamin Netanyahu during the last days priorto the elections in Israel, uncovers his deep negative sentiments with regard to Netanyahu, the Jewish People and above all to the State of Israel.

At least, it appears so superficially. Immediately after assuming the presidency, Obama made it a point to travel to Egypt and pronounce a friendly message to the Arab nations, while he avoided a personal visit to Israel, minutes away from Cairo.

It can be argued, on the other hand, that President Obama responded positively to Israel’s defense needs in the recent past and he should,therefore, be commended for it. Yet it is not possible to set aside what is surely a stern and excessively severe judgment of the statements madebyNetanyahu in the heat of a political campaign for his survival, that according to some sources included direct interference by foreign advisorswhose main purpose was the unseating of the Prime Minister.

It is as if by his victory, Netanyahu dared again to defy the personal wishes of the President, who incidentally, may have also felt more than an ounce of jealousy because of the thunderous reception that Congress gave Bibi when he spoke at the invitation of John Boehner, the Speaker of the House.

These are mere conjectures and should not obscure the real confrontational reaction of Obama to the affirmations of Netanyahu. It would seem that Obama is more offended by the words than the actions of Netanyahu. For instance, the sound of alarm that Netanyahu made to hispotential voters: “the Arabs are coming out to vote in droves”, could also have been interpreted as a show of democracy in a country where Arabs can freely exercise their voting rights, a condition that is largely absent in other nations of the area.

Why has the United States been a staunch ally of Israel? First: because Israel’s value system coincides with the American political and social system. When compared to Europe, the United States is a relatively new country and can, therefore, sympathize with the pioneering spirit of Israel.

This is also, because Israel is the only democracy in the entire region. And what does democracy mean? It means that the people of Israel are the ones that determine its destiny. Its rulers govern by the consent of the Second: as a democracy, Israel will always defend the United States, in a region that questions USA intentions, where the religious and political leadership of Iran, the strongest power broker of the area, calls the United States “the big Satan”, and points to it as the main culprit in undermining the values of Islam. Israel, on the other hand, is an unconditional ally of the Third: the Jewish People have gained the sympathy and admiration of the American public at large because they fought against the terrible odds of illness and lack of water, and converted a deserted corner into a flourishing garden, created a vibrant and free society in the midst of tyranny and despotism. Even the pilgrims identified with the Jewish people when they equated the crossing of the Atlantic Ocean to the Hebrews Red Sea crossing while escaping Egyptian slavery in biblical times.

The American People recognize the right of the Jewish People to return, en masse, to their ancestral home. A process that began hundreds of years ago and culminated in 1947 when the UN General Assembly adopted the resolution that recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States. It is of course unfortunate that after Israel declared its independence in 1948, the Arabs failed to do so likewise, namely proclaim the establishment of an independent Arab State and remained under the rule of Jordan until 1967.

Obama called for the overthrow of the President of Syria, because he considers him a despot, a ruler who is willing to sacrifice his own people,hundreds of thousands of them, in order to stay in power. Obama even set a “red marker”, a line in the sand, namely the use of chemical weapons that would trigger an immediate USA response. Bashar used chemical weapons and no such thing happened. Obama did not make good his admonition and, thereby, put in doubt the credibility of the States in the region. We are told that a military response is not off the table should the negotiations between Iran and the Western powers fail. That eventuality, after the non-response to the Syrian chemical weapons, is probably not taken seriously neither by the Iranians nor the American public.

Iran is now the practical ruler of several Arab capitals. Its military presence in Irak cannot be underestimated. Its direct influence is felt in Syria, Irak,Yemen, Libya. All this is happening without Iran possessing as yet nuclear capability. One can only surmise what the hegemony of Iran will be once it possesses a nuclear arsenal.

Yet, President Obama seems to be obsessed with the Israeli Palestinian peace process, as if it were the source of all the turmoil in the Middle East.

The Arab Spring, the rise of ISIS, the high probability of a nuclear Iran that will surely move countries such as Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and Egypt to pursue nuclear capabilities, have nothing to do with the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Neither the Iranian Ayatolahs, nor Nouri al-Maliki, the strongman of Irak, nor Bashar al-Assad, president of Syria is challenged the wayNetanyahu is constantly under Obama’s loop.

Netanyahu is correct when he affirms that he sees no immediate possibility for the establishment of a Palestinian independent state. For twoindependent states to live side-by-side, it is absolutely indispensable that the parts in the conflict recognize the right of existence of each other, without any reservation whatsoever. It requires putting a stop to the demonizing of the partner of a future peace deal. The Palestinian school children and young people have to be taught a totally revised message as to the nature of the Jewish State and its right to exist side-by-side with a new independent Palestinian State.

For Israel to contemplate this independent Palestinian State, after being targeted with thousands of rockets fired from Gaza, there must be a clear and unambiguous statement from Hamas that it no longer, or will in the future, question the right of existence of the State of Israel.

Peace is the unequivocal desire of the People of Israel. Israel has shown that the number of square kilometers under its control is not directly proportional to the development of a society. “Start up Nation” is the story of a society that proves that brain power is paramount in today’s world and not the size of the territory under its control.

Of course there are groups that argue for a Greater Israel, a Biblical Israel that includes Judea and Samaria, but they are a minority, and Israel is a democratic State where the majority determines national policy.

It would seem that the present political and social turmoil does not provide the adequate background for the resolution of the Israeli Arab conflict. Yet, the ball is in the Palestinian court. Netanyahu has clarified his position: for the peace process to go further, the Arabs have to recognize Israel as a Jewish State and renounce all violence.

Why doesn’t Mahmoud Abbas call Bibi’s bluff. Let him come out with a clear statement and let us see the Israeli reaction. If an independent ArabState is of paramount importance for the Palestinian people, such a pronouncement looms like a small contribution for such a high purpose.

Let us return to Barack Obama who will not run for the presidency again and, therefore, probably no longer feels the need of the Jewish vote or its advisors, and can now bare his inner feelings toward the Jewish people.

And these feelings seem to bear resentment and dislike for Jews in general. While these are mere assumptions, no one has looked into the President’s heart, his words and actions seem to lead to such a conclusion. Europe’s left, manifests senseless animosity toward the State of Israel that can only be explained as a modern version of good old anti-Semitism that has proven to be a light sleeper. How else can we explain that an avant guard left sides with regimes that do not offer equal rights to women, persecute those that have different sexual orientation and perpetuate royal families at their helm. As is the case of Saudi Arabia, a country that bears the name of a family that rules it.

It should be pointed out that in all the wars with the Arab nations, from the Israeli point of view, Israeli blood was spilled. There were no American boots on the ground to defend Israel. On the other hand, one cannot overemphasize the crucial and decisive importance of American concrete military help in all its aspects. But let us repeat it, the Israeli foot soldiers and pilots, truck and tank drivers were the ones that fell victims to their Reading recent history, we come across the feeble reaction of the American Jewish Community in face of the atrocities that were happening in Europe and Nazi Germany during the Second World War period. Their protests would have had more backbone and energy had there been then an independent Jewish State. There is no doubt that the existence of the State of Israel has given back a sense of pride to the Jewish People and American Jewry needs to take cognizance of this fact. Especially, for those whose liberal ideals are in conflict with some of Israel’s policies. Nazi Germany did not distinguish between liberals and conservatives.

The USA is not in the wildest imagination comparable to the Europe of those days. Yet, it is impossible to assess the real meaning and impact of an independent Jewish State in those days. Many believe, including the writer of these notes, that the course of events would have been different had there been a State of Israel at the time of the Second World War.

Sixty years ago, I applied to be an apprentice actuary in a small life insurance company. I did not know then, that the position of actuary was closed to Jews at that time. I did not receive the appointment when my interviewer learned I graduated from Yeshiva College, even though I had a Master’s degree from Columbia University in Mathematical Statistics. I had passed the written test given prior to the interview, but when my interviewer learned of the Jewish nature of the College I had attended, he went into another room and after a couple of minutes came back with news: the position had already been filled.

Medicine is by tradition a very desirable profession for Jews. Yet, many a medical school imposed quotas for the number of Jews in its student body.  Discrimination still exists in some sectors of society against Jews, though not formally as in the past. Of course, Jews are not the only ones to be discriminated. Blacks can bear testimony to discrimination and racial profiling, as recent events testify.

The American Jewish community should remember these facts that do not belong to a distant past. While History may not repeat itself, it is constantly on the brink of doing so.

From my personal point of view, the existence of the State of Israel with its many accomplishments in science and technology, including militarydefense, has given renewed honor, respect and dignity to the Jewish

People. We dare not place it in danger and should do our utmost to insure its vitality and permanence in the concert of nations of the world.

I hope you agree.

Posted on

Andrés Oppenheimer entrevistado por el Rabino Pynchas Brener Parte 1

En esta entrega hablan sobre el asesinato del fiscal Argentino y sobre su nuevo libro “Crear o Morir” sobre los retos que enfrenta Latinoamérica hoy en día, en la segunda parte comparten importantes ideas sobre el presente y futuro de Venezuela,