Abbas vows to pressure U.S. to stop Israel settlement construction

Reuters writes in his article how the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas expects United States’ intervention in Israel settlement building in the West Bank. Abbas, who wants to negotiate peace talks, states that Israel is “still putting obstacles.” It is stated that the Palestinians called off peace negotiations with Israel shortly after the freeze on the new home building in the settlements expired and resumed.

In response to this, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has resisted United States’ influence and rather stated that “the Palestinians should recognize Israel as a Jewish state to secure such a gesture.” At a news conference with the Finnish President Tarja Halonen, Abbas discussed about “Palestinians’ long-standing rejection of that idea, which would amount to a major concession on an issue at the heart of the six-decade old conflict.”

Arab leaders are permitting the United States one month to convince Israel to halt settlement building on “land it has occupied since the 1967 Six-Day war.” Abbas hopes to facilitate the tension between the two countries by discussing with Israel the issues of borders and securities as soon as they halt settlement building.

So then based on Reuters’ article, how can two stubborn nationalities with a strong sense of nationalism having to share a carved up Palestine live in peace? The author emphasizes on the Arabs want to make peace talks and how the Israelis “put obstacles” in the way to prevent such discussions.

Reuters writes in his article that the “heart of the six-decade old conflict” is the Palestinians refusal to acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state. According to the Bickerton/Klausner book, A History of The Arab-Israeli Conflict, the basic conflict in Palestine is a clash of two extreme nationalisms. Regardless of the historical origins of the quarrel, the rights and wrongs of the promises and counter-promises, “and the international intervention incident to the Mandate, there are now in Palestine some 650,000 Jews and 1,200,000 Arabs who are dissimilar in their ways of living and, for the time being, separated by political interests which render difficult full and effective political cooperation (UNSCOP’s Plan of Partition with Economic Union of 1947).”
 

(The first Arab-Israeli war enabled the new state of Israel to extend its territory southwards into the Negev desert, eastwards as far as the Dead Sea, and northwards up to the Lebanese border.)

In reaction, Arabs believed that the struggle of the Arabs in Palestine had nothing in common with anti-Semitism. The Arab world had been “one of the rare havens of refuge for the Jews until the atmosphere of neighbourliness had been poisoned by the Balfour Declaration and the aggressive spirit the latter had engendered in the Jewish community (UNO Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestine Question).” The claims of the Zionists had “no legal or moral basis.” The case was based on the association of the Jews with Palestine over two thousand years before. On that basis, the Arabs would have better claims to those territories in other parts of the world such as Spain or parts of France, Turkey, Russia or Afghanistan, which they had inhabited in the past.

Peace negotiations need be discussed as well as discussing borders to facilitate the tensions. As simple as this may sound, it is not. How does one overcome a six-decade of mishaps? Construct more treaties? Get more international involvement? How can there be a peace talk when each side has their own agendas? Each side wants their own land. Hence, the reason why Abbas is so determined to discuss borders because the Arabs want their land back and the reason why the Israelis refuse because they want to keep what they got. A six-decade old grudge between the Israelis and Arabs will prevent them from living in true peace. As many know, people will not change their mentalities unless they want to change.

“When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.” – Jimi Hendrix

Animal Cruelty in the practice of Kapparot

"This is my exchange, my substitute, my atonement. This rooster shall go to its death, but I shall go to a good, long life, and to peace."


It is stated (in the article) that since the sixth century, the ceremony of transubstantiating one’s sins into a body of a chicken citing the incantations "This is my exchange, my substitute, my atonement. This rooster shall go to its death, but I shall go to a good, long life, and to peace" and then slaughtering it, which traditionally is acted out in the days leading up to Yom Kippur, has prevailed among Jewish communities.

According to the Jonah Mandel’s article, Senior Rabbi Aviner sends SPCA Israel letter, video explaining why according to halacha it is wrong to use chickens in pre-Kippur atonement rite. Other rabbis such as Rabbi Yosef Karo (author of the Shulhan Aruch), the Rashba and Nahmanides are among those that object for reasons such as “potentially problematic slaughtering, the non-Jewish superstitious character of it, and the unnecessary cruelty inflicted on the animals at a time of year that ought to be marked by mercy and benevolence.”

(Youtube video Kapparot in Jerusalem)

Modern practices include the exchanging of the fowl for grain, money or giving charity.  The SPCA sent out requests to many of the country’s leading rabbis, and was “happy to receive a clear voice of support from Aviner, one of the most influential rabbis and educators in the national-religious sector.”  According to the article, "Aviner leads the reader through the halachic discontent over the use of chickens in the kapparot by beginning with Rabbi Karo, the ultimate halachi source for Sephardi Jewry, who called it the custom of the Amorite – simply put, a superstition.”

To further encourage their cause, SPCA Israel members toured Shuk Hatikva in south Tel Aviv dressed in blood-red shirts with images of slaughtered chickens. They hoped that with the ghastly images, it would persuade those practicing to substitute chickens with charitable money. These tours were not welcomed by the chicken slaughterers in the market, however, according to Mandel, only harsh words were exchanged.

(SPCA Israel's video against the use of chickens in Kapparot)

Based on Mandel's written work, he writes how some Rabbis and various groups agree that the use of chickens in Kapparot is animal cruelty. Whether or not the author is genuinely upset in regards to the chickens is subjective, but what can be said is that Mandel felt that this particular issue deserved to be written about. Therefore, who is morally responsible for these actions?

According to the definition of Dignity of Persons, "it is the act in which you may treat humanity whether in your own person or that of another, always as an end and never as means only (Phil 305 lecture)." Simply put that one must take into account people for who they are and therefore treat them for who they are versus what they are. Hence the golden rule, treat others as you would like to be treated. When taking into account the ordeal of the chickens, many practicing individuals will argue they are animals and there is no difference between slaughtering the chickens for religious practices or buying KFC. In addition, though the chickens are slaughtered for religious practices, the bodies are donated for food and thus cannot be seen as wasteful or animal cruelty.

(PETA video against the use of chickens in Kapparot)

There is a line that the man states in the video located on the article’s link, that only with the actual slaughter may one exchange blood and therefore receive the chicken’s strength. This line bothers me, “with the actual slaughter can one receive the chicken’s strength.” It reminds me of a similar practice in China, where people boil cats alive because only with the struggle of the dying cat does the individual eat its strength. I find it extremely inhumane. 

Another issue that bothers me is the incantations themselves, "This is my exchange, my substitute, my atonement. This rooster shall go to its death, but I shall go to a good, long life, and to peace." Why couldn't an individual just STRIVE to live a good life in general where one did not have to sacrifice a chicken? Chickens are looked down upon since they are common food, however, let's take this into consideration:


"This is my exchange, my substitute, my atonement. This puppy shall go to its death, but I shall go to a good, long life, and to peace."

Now if people used puppies in the Kapparot there would be a HUGE uproar. Why? Because puppies are not common food (maybe to some Asians it is) but they are commonly seen as cute pets. Yet why is the chicken not respected? Also, does this mean if a murderer had a chicken waved around his head... does this mean that he can go and live a good life because the chicken now has his sins??? I HOPE not! I do not question the different cultural practices of others. However, I do question it if it involves animal cruelty. Boiling cats alive, waving around frantic chickens prior to cutting their heads off is inhumane. 






God loved the birds and invented trees.  Man loved the birds and invented cages.  

~Jacques Deval, Afin de vivre bel et bien

Arab and Jewish Tension

In an article written by Gil Ronen, it describes the tension and violence between the Arabs and Jews living in Palestine. According to the article, Jews have faced numerous cases of harrassment by the Arab residents. It states that "nonstop rock-throwing attacks by Arabs against Jews in the eastern Jerusalem neighborhood of Shimon HaTzaddik led to the wounding of an eight-year-old Jewish boy Sunday afternoon." The boy was treated by Magen David Adom emergency services and survived the attack with various afflictions to the face.

Various documentation also portrays Arab children throwing rocks at Jews and damaging property. In addition, it displayed a Jewish individual being attached verbally and physically by a group of Arabs.

Jewish residents believe that the police fail to act accordingly with Arab aggression because of "pressure applied by the radical Left 'both above ground and behind the scenes.'" It is then said that the police are unable to properly assist the Jewish residents from the various attacks because of their fear of confrontation from the extreme Left.

The author of this particular article, focuses on the trials and challenges faced by the Jewish community. Yet it fails to display what actions or reactions the Jewish community has done in response to the harrassment. Were there any counter-attacks on the Arabs from the Jews? Possible verbal & physical harrassment as well (see left picture)?

I cannot help but ask myself what part did the Jewish community play to egg on the tension between the Arabs. What are the reasons for such aggression showed by the Arabs? Why do they feel they are entitled to purposely show verbal and physical violence to another human being? Despite Jewish assumptions, what are the real reasons for law enforcements not properly handling the situation?

I do sympathize with the plight faced by the Jews, however, I believe there are always two sides to one story.



"The truth is rarely pure and never simple." - Oscar Wilde