2/5/08

 

                McCain calls Romney a flip-flopper. Romney calls McCain a liberal. Clinton says Obama is inexperienced. Obama says he is not sure which Clinton he is running against. Amidst all the negative ads, under-the-belt blows, and character assassinations we have endured every time we turn on the news over the last few months, Mike Huckabee is like a breath of fresh air.

        I can sit here and write about all of the flaws and weaknesses of each and every candidate in this presidential race. But that's not what Mike Huckabee is all about. While all the others fight about who is more conservative or more liberal – exasperating the existing partisan divide in this country, Mike is trying to lead the country in a different direction. He talks about vertical politics – bringing Americans together to make this country a better place – after sixteen years of administrations which have torn this country apart. We have spent too much time mocking Clinton and bashing Bush. We need someone who will unite us towards a common goal.

         Change has become the 'buzz-word' of this political season, but for Mike it's a lot more than just talk. He has already achieved great things as a bipartisan governor in Arkansas, and he has concrete and realistic plans to make this country better as president.

Among other things, as governor, Huckabee pushed education reforms that greatly increased educational opportunities through charter schools; he passed legislation that provided 70,000 poor children with healthcare; he provided $90 million in tax relief for middle-class families; and most importantly, he created the Healthy Arkansas initiative, an effort to encourage Arkansans to stop smoking, exercise more and eat healthier.

     For Mike, healthcare is not just about insurance premiums and hospital-accessibility.

He recognizes that this country has a serious health crisis, and you must go to the root of the problem to repair it. In 2003, Mike was diagnosed with Type II diabetes, and doctors told him that if he didn't make drastic changes in his lifestyle he would surely die young. Like millions of Americans, Mike was morbidly obese, and this was the wake-up call he needed. Through rigorous exercise and healthy eating, the governor lost 110 pounds, and competed in four marathons over the next two years. (He will also be running in the Boston Marathon on April 21^st.) We need a health revolution in this country, and Mike is ready to lead it.

      This is the kind of role model this nation needs, at a time when we are collectively in need of a wake-up call. We need a leader with unwavering principles, a leader who can provide inspiration, and - most importantly - a leader who will lead through example.

 

     Mike is no ordinary politician. I had the opportunity to meet him in New Hampshire a few weeks ago, and I have heard him speak - in person and on television - numerous times. You are not going to hear many flashy slogans and political rhetoric from Mike. He is down-to-earth, genuine, and humble. If there is anything we desperately need in this country it's a leader with humility, honesty and integrity. Even if you disagree with him on an issue or two, at least you can always trust him.

      Of course, issues are important as well in the elections, and everyone has their pet-peeve. Mike takes a very realistic approach to every one of them.

Abortion? Yes, Mike has consistently been pro-life, and wants to stop the use of abortion as a convenient form of birth-control. At the same time, he is committed to doing everything possible to help raise these children, and make sure the government does not abandon them at birth.

Immigration? Mike sees border security as a top priority. You can't fight terrorism overseas, while your borders are wide-open at home. As president, he is committed to building a fence on the Mexican border, enforcing the existing immigration laws on businesses which undercut their competition by hiring illegal immigrants, and force those who entered this country illegally to "get in the back of the line" if they wish to become citizens.

Education? We must provide children with the opportunity to develop the creative abilities that are necessary in the modern job market. We must allow parents to choose what is the best option for educating their child – whether its home-schooling, charter schools, or public schools. We must judge their success by the results, not by the money invested.

These are just a few examples of his views on the issues. (For more, you can go to www.mikehuckabee.com). As an Israeli-American veteran of the IDF with family in Israel, his views on Israel are very important to me as well. In my view, Mike is the only candidate who fully understands the nature of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and has a realistic approach to solving it. While everyone else says they are pro-Israel, all the candidates essentially support a continuation of the failed Clinton-Bush 'land-for-peace' formula of the last 15 years. Only Mike acknowledges that it is unrealistic to create a radical Islamic state alongside Israel in an area the size of New Jersey. There are 22 Arab countries, and they have to be part of the solution.

  Everyone has their pet-peeve issue, but I look for the full package. Mike is smart, but he is humble. He is principled, but he is compassionate. He has the political skills to lead, but he has the humility to listen.

    Today, I will be casting my vote for Mike Huckabee, and I encourage you to join me in helping lead America in a more positive direction.

Disengagement from Reality
by Aharon HaCohen

On December 18, 2003 Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon highly-decorated IDF general and father' of the settlement movement shocked the world with his announcement of a plan for Israel to unilaterally withdraw from the Gaza Strip . The plan involved the withdrawal of all Israeli forces from Gaza, and the destruction of dozens of Jewish communities. The Disengagement Plan as it came to be known had two main purposes, Sharon explained: "enhancing Israel's security by reducing terrorism and boosting Israel's economy by improving the quality of life" .The plan was also supposed to provide Israel with increased international legitimacy, and ward off a "demographic threat to its national identity" . However, critics of the plan quickly tore it apart. They said that Sharon was withdrawing under fire', and encouraging the Palestinians to use violence to achieve their national aspirations . Furthermore, he was only encouraging international pressure on Israel for further concessions, and making it more difficult for the military to operate against Gazaterrorists . At the same time, Sharon was creating internal strife by using the military to expel thousands of Jews from their homes and acting against the will of his own Likud party . His advisers and political allies tried to justify the plan in strategic terms, but Sharon's sudden political transformation suggests other factors which had little to do with peace or national security. It appears that Sharon hatched the Disengagement as a diversion, in order to avoid being indicted in a criminal investigation, and once he committed to the plan there was no going back.

On June 6, 2004 the Israeli Cabinet approved the Disengagement Plan. The stated purpose of the plan was "to lead to a better security, political, economic, and demographic situation" . The main elements of the plan involved the evacuation of 21 Jewish communities in Gaza and an additional four communities in Northern Samaria (in the West Bank); and a redeployment of Israeli military forces outside of the Strip, so there would be no "permanent presence of Israeli security forces in the area" . Backers of the plan included many members of the rival Labor party, as well as a powerful minority within Sharon's own Likud. They explained that this was Israel's best option, since there was no partner for peace on the Palestinian side, and Israel needed to act unilaterally to break the stalemate .

Sharon and his supporters explained that Israel needed to change its international perception as an occupying force, by terminating any legal responsibility for the territory and its residents .Completion of the plan would "negate any claims on Israel regarding its responsibility for the Palestinian population of the Gaza Strip" .This would ease the international pressure on Israel to make concessions , and force the Palestinians to do their part in fighting terrorism and implementing the reforms laid out in the Road Map .According to this logic, the Palestinians would no longer be able to blame the Israeli "occupation" as the source of their aggression , and the Palestinian Authority would begin to do its part in preventing terrorist attacks against Israel. "Consulting assistance and training will be provided to Palestinian security forces for the purpose of fighting terrorism" and the Egyptians would be entrusted with securing the border between Gaza and Egypt .

For years Sharon had been criticizing previous Israeli governments for agreeing to entrust the security of Israel's citizens in the hands of the Arabs, but now he was arguing that pulling the military out of Gaza would in fact reduce terror against Israel. "The purpose of the disengagement plan is to reduce terror as much as possible", Sharon explained in December 2003 .Sharon appeared to be accepting the argument made by the left-wing peace movement that Israel's occupation' of the Palestinian territories' was the main motivation for violence against Israel, and therefore a territorial withdrawal would reduce Arab terrorism . However, it was Sharon himself who in 1996 had declared the Oslo Accords a "recipe for national suicide" because they called for Israel to hand "territory to the Palestinian Authority without establishing full Israeli responsibility for security." In 2001 Sharon had declared that there would "be no concessions under fire" and as recently as September 2002 he had said that "the problem is more fundamental than terrorism. It stems from the Arab and Palestinian refusal to recognize the Jewish people's right to exist." A year later Sharon was suggesting the opposite - that terrorism would in fact be reduced, if only Israel would end the occupation' of Gaza and put its citizens' security in Palestinian hands.

The theory was that a military withdrawal could in fact increase Israel's security because it would reduce the friction between the IDF and the Arab population, but Israel's military leaders told Sharon that this plan would make it much more difficult for them to prevent terrorism from Gaza. Former IDF chief of general staff Moshe Yaalon, who was released from his position due to his opposition to the Disengagement, explained the security problems which would be created by the withdrawal: "'High intensity' operations can be meaningful only if their effects are constantly maintained with low intensity' warfareThe success of low intensity' warfare rests on a network of informants and collaborators that direct the army towards the suspectsHowever, for such a network to function it is essential that the informants have direct access to their operativesAll of this would not be possible if the Israeli army were to leave Gaza"
Yaalon thought that it was nave to believe that the IDF could sit outside of Gaza behind a security fence and use high-tech devices to track terrorists and thwart attacks without having a presence inside the Strip. Sharon spent decades as an IDF officer commanding the exact type of anti-terrorist operations that Yaalon was referring to and he was well-aware of the dynamics of low-intensity warfare. Sharon's military resume makes his assertions about the security benefits of the withdrawal even more puzzling.

Of course, it was not only the military leadership which was critical of Sharon's plan. One op-ed piece in the Jerusalem Post expressed the outrage of a large portion of the Israeli public. "Sharon's speech [announcing the disengagement] can be summarized in a few words: withdrawal under fire with nothing in return", Evelyn Gordon wrote . Atalia Ben Meir, a political science professor, writes that the plan proved to the international community and to the Palestinians that with enough pressure Israel would give up on all of its red lines . She also sees the plan as a blatant violation of the Camp David accords, since it calls for bringing Egyptian forces into the Sinai buffer zone' to monitor the Gaza border- "essentially returning the situation in the South to pre-1967 " . This was extremely dangerous for Israel due to the high levels of support for the Palestinians among the Egyptian military, who would have no motivation to prevent the smuggling of terrorists and advanced weapons into the Strip.

David Makovsky, of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, predicted that after the disengagement Israel would also not be able to prevent Palestinian rockets from being fired at Jewish communities, and they would also be able to hit the Israeli oil refinery in Ashkelon and other strategic assets from their newly acquired bases in Gaza and Northern Samaria . Sharon responded to predictions like these by proclaiming that "if the mortar and rocket attacks continueafter the execution of the planwe will bomb them back" . But Sharon knew how unrealistic an idea that was. Prof. Ben Meir asks the obvious question: "How will it be possible to bomb terror centerswithout civilian casualties" ? After all, one of the reasons the military needs ground forces in anti-terror operations is because of the inevitability of accidentally killing innocent civilians when bombing a target from the air. This is why the terrorists hide out in heavily-populated areas, where it is impossible to strike them from the air without hitting others in the vicinity. Such strikes are sometimes necessary, but relying on them exclusively plays right into the Palestinians' hands, as they can portray Israel as the bad guy' and use civilian deaths to their advantage. This would then defeat one of the main purposes of the Disengagement creating international legitimacy for Israel.

The plan was also going to create thousands of Jewish refugees from the very communities that Sharon had helped build whose lives were going to be destroyed by this plan. Sharon claimed that the Disengagement would help rehabilitate the residents of the Palestinian refugee camps by providing them with land for new housing developments , but it did not provide any real solutions for thousands of Jewish families who would become homeless and jobless as a result. After the Disengagement's approval by the cabinet, some of the Gaza settlers many of whom were farmers who had used innovative technology to turn barren sand dunes into a booming agricultural center - began inquiring how and when they might be compensated for the loss of their homes and their sources of livelihood. The government established committees and made promises in an attempt to induce the settlers to voluntary abandon their homes, but "by March 2005 [4 months before the planned withdrawal] it had become clear that no concrete plans had been in place for the [civilian] evacuation" . The father' of the settlement movement appeared to be abandoning the people who he had once seen as pioneers when he had encouraged them to settle throughout the Land of Israel. Now he didn't even have a plan to compensate them for the destruction of their communities and resettle them.

As for the Palestinians who were supposed to take over the abandoned communities, critics doubted they would become housing developments for poor refugees: "Historically, Palestinian leaders have opposed Israeli suggestions that they build new housing in Gaza, despite the extraordinary need for it. [They]calculated that it was preferable to leave dispossessed Palestinians in refugee camps in order to sustain their anti-Israel resentment" . Poor living conditions only add more fuel to the fire of hatred for Israel, and encourage the populace not to give up on their right of return' to their pre-1948 villages. The Palestinian leadership would probably not allow the refugees to benefit from the Israeli withdrawal.

So why did a security-hawk' like Sharon who was surely aware of the strategic dangers of such a move still push forward with the Disengagement? Some argue that it was the demographic threat posed by the Arabs that convinced Sharon that the move was necessary, despite the security concerns created by it. Prof. Yaakov Bar-Siman-Tov of The Jerusalem Institute says that "the disengagement is a clear testimony that Sharon internalized the concept of two states for two nations' out of demographic concerns".
The fear was that with the comparatively high rate of population growth among the Arabs, they would soon become a majority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea and undermine the democratic-Jewish nature of the state. However, a recent study by Zimmerman, Seid, and Wise shows that the likeliness of this doomsday scenario occurring in the near future has been greatly exaggerated. The study points to several statistical errors in previous calculations, and estimates that in the year 2025 "the Jewish population will form a 63 percent majority in Israel" . This is based on current Jewish fertility and immigration rates combined with downward trend in Arab fertility and increased Arab emigration. The study also notes that "in a high case scenario - greater Jewish immigration and fertility boosted by rising Orthodox birth rates Jews would grow to 71 percent of the total population from today's 67 percent majority" . In any case, it is pretty unlikely that the Arabs will become a majority anytime soon, and therefore the demographic time bomb' theory does not provide a solid rationale for the Disengagement.

Sharon has been comatose for the last two years, and we can therefore only speculate whether he truly believed in the security benefits of disengagement or whether he was really frightened by the demographic time-bomb', but I would like to suggest that his true raison d'tre was not on the state level at all. According to a book written by veteran Israeli journalists Raviv Drucker and Ofer Shelach, the Gaza withdrawal plan was hatched in an attempt to divert public attention from criminal investigations against Sharon, and thus thwart an impending indictment. At the time of the plan's announcement Sharon was under investigation for involvement in the Greek Island Scandal' "an investigation into the transfer to Sharon's family of $580,000 by developer David Appel, who was accused of soliciting Sharon's help with business deals" . Sharon was convinced that State Prosecutor Edna Arbel was going to indict him in the scandal, and if he was charged he would be forced to resign his post as prime minister. The purpose of the disengagement plan was "to create a situation that would make an indictment politically difficult" .Drucker and Shelach write that Sharon's advisor Dov Weisglass formulated the plan without any input from the Israeli defense establishment or other members of the government, and he convinced Sharon to go along with it by reminding him of his legal troubles - telling him that "he would end up leaving the political arena as an 'insignificant old man'". Some of Sharon's confidants later admitted that "if it wasn't for those police interrogations, this decision [to quit Gaza] would not have been made" .

Once Sharon committed to the plan as a means for his political survival he was determined not to let anyone get in his way. He was ultimately never indicted by Arbel - despite heavy evidence of corruption, bribery and fraud (although his son Omri was later convicted on related charges). The allegations were that he had abused his political power for personal gain, but in order to avoid indictment on these charges he took abuse of power to another level. Not only did he refuse to consult with military and political leaders before committing to the plan, but he used all means at his power to eliminate political obstacles to its implementation. He fired four government ministers who vocally opposed the plan in order to ensure a majority would vote in support of it , and he ignored a constitutionally-binding Likud party referendum in which 60% of the members voted against the withdrawal . He also ignored the hundreds of thousands of protestors in the streets in the months prior to the plan's implantation, and refused to engage in dialogue with the settlers whose lives he was about to destroy.

Whether you see Sharon as a courageous visionary who in his latter years chose to sacrifice the land he loved in the hope of peace and security for his country, or as a corrupt politician who used a grandiose political plan which he did not believe in as a diversion from his legal troubles, the results of his decision remain the same. Two years after the Disengagement, thousands of Jewish refugees are still living in hotels, trailers or tent-cities' waiting for the government to provide them with a place to live. Many of them are jobless especially farmers who lost the means of their livelihood, and their children still don't have schools to go to . The beautiful communities they were expelled from are now being used as terrorists training camps and launching pads for the constant barrage of mortars and rockets at Israeli towns in the South and on the coast. The Palestinians learned the lesson of the Disengagement, and in the election that followed even secular Palestinians voted in droves for the radically religious Hamas a party that would not waste their time negotiating, but was committed to attacking Israel until it conceded to all of their demands . Israel's high-tech security fence around the Gaza Strip proved ineffective during the June 2006 kidnapping of soldier Gilad Shalit, and the Egyptians have failed to prevent the endless smuggling of terrorists and weapons into Gaza. As a result, the Israeli army has had to return to Gaza for conduct anti-terror operations, and Israel's international legitimacy is just as low as before. The Iranians and Syrians interpreted the Disengagement as a sign of Israeli weakness, and Hezbollah used the plan as motivation for their kidnapping of Israeli soldiers in July 2006 and the subsequent war with Israel .Furthermore, some analysts like former IDF chief Yaalon would argue that the plan has even hurt US efforts in the War on Terror elsewhere in the Middle East, as the Israeli withdrawal emboldened terrorists worldwide .

When Sharon stood on the podium and announced his plan to the world, he could not have known the exactly what would follow. However, he was clearly aware of the dangers of the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and Northern Samaria. He decided on the plan to extricate himself from legal problems, but he must have had serious doubts during the 21 months leading up to its implementation. Nevertheless, once Sharon had committed to the plan he convinced himself that it was the right thing to do. As one Brandeis politics professor recently explained, "Sometimes when leaders are forced to resort to drastic measures, they ultimately come to believe in them". Sharon resorted to a drastic measure when he decided on the Disengagement, and whether he really believed in it or not, an entire country and region will have to deal with the consequences. Sharon disengaged from Gaza, but in the process he also tried to disengage from reality. His legal problems may have vanished, but the reality of the Arab-Israeli conflict has not gone away.

I don't know who killed the Prime Minister, but as you will see below: Yigal Amir could not have possibly killed him on his own.Amir may have been part of the plot, but it had to have been much more complicated than the simplistic "single Jewish radical shot him in the back" offical version. So many questions still have not been answered.

Did Amir Kill Rabin?
The question of whether it was Amir who murdered Rabin is still a matter of national debate.  Nearly half of the religious public (46%), and well over a quarter (28%) of the public at large, believe that Amir was not the culprit.

Though the Shamgar Commission found that Amir, working alone, was the murderer, many questions have been raised against the official version of the killing.  These include:

• Why did the lone video of the assassination, the Kempler video, focus in on Amir for so many minutes prior to the killing?

Click here to view the full Kempler Video if it does not appear below.

[video:122942]

• Why was Amir allowed to stand, unguarded and by himself, in the area that was supposed to be sterile, as documented in the Kempler video?
• Why, in the Kempler video frame photo released by the government, does Amir's arm appear to be several feet long? And why is his left arm seen shooting, when he is right-handed?
• How is it that an eye-witness to the event, Miriam Oren, was filmed at the site telling reporters emphatically and repeatedly, "I saw that Rabin was not hurt"?
• How did Rabin's armored car back door close (7:18 min. into Kempler video) as the car prepared to speed away, with Rabin inside, if no one else was in the back seat, as the car occupants later testified?
• Why was Rabin's wife, the late Leah Rabin, told at first that the entire incident was just an exercise? [source: Ha'olam Ha'ishah magazine, Issue 193, November, 1999, page 21]
• Why was the call, "Blanks, blanks!" heard when the shots rang out? Why did the Shamgar Commission not determine who shouted this?
• Why was the assassin not killed immediately?

The last three questions have been asked publicly by Rabin's daughter, former MK Dalia Rabin-Pilosoph.  Rabin's son Yuval has also raised doubts about the official version, even demanding the re-opening of the investigation into the murder. "I also have the same questions," he said, "[and more]..."

Promulgators of the "conspiracy" theories - which are now believed by no less than 28% of the Israeli public, the Maariv poll shows - have also raised the following points: 

• Why did then-Health Minister Dr. Ephraim Sneh say on television that night [45 seconds into video below] that Rabin had been wounded by bullets to the chest, stomach, and spinal cord, when in fact the video shows that Amir fired from the back? [Click here if you cannot see Sneh video below]

[video:122943]

Why did the Director of Ichilov Hospital Dr. Gabi Barabash, who was in the operating room when Rabin was treated for his wounds, say on national TV [55 seconds into video below] that Rabin suffered from a wound to his chest when Amir was seen firing from behind?  [If you cannot see Barabash video below, click here]

[video:122944]

See English transcript of Hebrew Barabash interview

Rabin assassination Researcher David Rutstein notes the contradiction in the number of bullet wounds in the videos above. Sneh counts three wounds and Barabash says only two wounds - one to his chest and one to his spleen. Rutstein says that the third bullet that Sneh talks about "was just put there after Rabin was already dead" so that there would be two wounds to Rabin's back to match all the eyewitness accounts which stated Yigal Amir shot Rabin twice in the back. Rutstein emphasizes that the Sneh and Barabash videos were shown only one time on Israeli TV and were never again aired on the government-controlled media despite their historic significance.

Why did the three doctors who operated on Rabin submit in their handwritten medical report [see picture below] that Rabin suffered a gunshot wound to the chest, when Amir was see firing at Rabin only from behind?

• Why did security guard Yoram Rubin testify before the Shamgar Commission that Rabin was shot at 9:50 PM, when in fact Yigal Amir was arrested at 9:30 PM?

• Why did Rabin's driver, Menachem Damti, testify before the Commission and at Amir's trial that he drove to Ichilov Hospital in less than two minutes, when the ride actually took over 20 minutes?

• Why did Damti testify that he was opening the door for Leah Rabin when he heard the first shot, when in fact Leah Rabin was standing on the steps nowhere near her husband when the shots were heard?

• Why did Rabin's top aide Eitan Haber destroy evidence? He told the Commission that he took Rabin's possessions from Ichilov Hospital, and later told the Jerusalem newspaper Kol Ha'ir that on the same night he cleaned out Rabin's filing cabinets at the Prime Minister's office.

• Why did official State Pathologist Dr. Yehuda Hiss remove the mention of a chest and spine wound from the autopsy report, when in fact all the other doctors there, including Gutman, Sneh and Barabash, reported that Rabin died of a shattered spine with bullet entry through the chest?

• Why did the chief judge at Yigal Amir's trial, Edmond Levy, dismiss the testimony of police forensics expert Inspector Baruch Gladstein, who proved categorically that one gun shot was fired into Rabin at point-blank range - about a half-meter closer than Amir ever got to Rabin?

The late Adir Zik, Arutz-7's popular broadcaster who waged a long struggle to uncover the truth behind the Rabin assassination and the campaign of incitement against the nationalist campaign that followed it, often said that his main objection to the official version is the behavior of the guards.  He said that from his conversations with members of the VIP bodyguard unit, he knows that they are trained to shoot immediately as a gun is being drawn in the immediate vicinity of the VIP. "VIP Bodyguards told me," said Zik, "that if, though some foul up, an assassin were to fire one shot, he would be filled with bullets long before firing a second. How is it possible that Amir was able to get off not only two, but three shots, without being felled by the guards?" Zik asked.  He concluded that they had been instructed previously not to shoot - and that this could only be if it was coordinated in advance that the "assassin" was in fact firing only blanks.

from www.israelnationalnews.com 10/10/07

Jordan Replaces P.A. in MK Elon's Peace Plan

April 2007
by Aharon HaCohen

I grew up in New York, and I am a diehard Yankee fan, and I now live in Boston - surrounded by diehard Red Sox fans. With all the "bad blood" and intense rivalry between the two teams, I have found one thing that both of these overzealous fan bases have in common. For some reason, Yankees and Boston fans always have a tendency to overeact to everything that happens over the course of a season. They have trouble putting things in perspective.

So, for example, when the Yankees start out the season 9-13, New York fans have already concluded that the season is doomed and are calling for GM Brian Cashman or manager Joe Torre to lose their job.On the other side, the Red Sox have had a strong April, and fans are practically making plans for the championship parade.

Both groups of fans must learn to relax and put things in perspective.It is a 162 game season, and alot of things can and will happen over the course of the year.
People are way too emotional, and are constantly responding only to their immediate emotions. (Listen to an hour of sports talk radio in BOston or NY, and you will immediately understand what I am saying.)

Today, Red Sox fans are applauding the Red Sox for shrewdly bringing Daiske from Japan.If he suffers a season-ending injury tommorow, they will be cursing out management for wasting $50 million just to gain the rights to signing him.
Today, ALex Rodriguez is the New York hero, becuase he hit 14 homers in April. Last September, they were booing him out of the Bronx.

Its time for all of us to mature as baseball fans.Emotions are good, but sometimes people just go way too far with their momentary feelings.We are all such experts when it comes to baseball stats and history, but for saome reason we still get so "caught up in the moment" that we forget the larger picture.

It's just a game.So win or lose, we should just relax and enjoy it.Root for your team, but don't suffer a heart attack in the process.

Read this and other articles of mine at http://www.helium.com/user/show/143909

 

 The Value of Life

 

by Aharon HaCohen

 

                 Euthanasia. Abortion. Embryonic stem cell research. We are so sophisticated, so philosophical and so politically correct, that we can't even call things what they are anymore. In order to have an honest discussion about topics of this nature, we must be straightforward about what we are dealing with. All of these fancy terms only mean one thing: the termination of human life. Now, as far as I am concerned, you better have a pretty good reason to justify such an action, because it is the preservation of human life that is at the core of what morality is all about. So before we can examine any particular case, it must be clear that not only is human life extremely valuable, but that it does not belong to any human being. In other words, no person brought himself into this world, and therefore no person has the right to terminate his life on Earth. Therefore, on a moral level, there is not any difference between murder and most suicides. Both of these are unquestionably wrong, under almost all circumstances. (There are cases in which people commit suicide in order to save other lives, and I would consider that to be moral.) There are however circumstances under which it may be necessary to kill, but this would only be morally permissible in cases in which the person that is being killed would have caused the death of others if he or she continued to live.

 

            Life is so valuable that no human being has the right to terminate it, and that includes the people who are living this life, as well as their relatives and the doctors that are treating them (who for some reason occasionally think that they are God). Therefore, what Harold Donnely did was nothing less than cold-blooded murder. His brother Matthew's decision that he did not want to live is completely irrelevant, since he has no right to make a decision to terminate his life (just as he didn't make the decision to begin it). Suicide is murder, and if Matthew had shot himself- without his brother's assistance - it would still be murder. Pain and suffering does not provide justification for murder, any more than the doctor's estimation that he will live for only one more year. In many cases the doctors are completely wrong, and people go on to live for many years after they were supposed to have died. And if it is okay to terminate a life just because someone is not enjoying it at the moment, then we may as well liquidate half of the people in the homeless shelters, the nursing homes, the psychiatric wards…and for that matter all the cynical philosophers as well. We will probably all die eventually, but that doesn't mean that life becomes any less precious when death seems to be near, or when the pain is hard to bear.

                

                      It must be clear to you by now that I completely disagree with James Rachels' cynical article about "Active and Passive Euthanasia". The main problem with Rachels' approach is that he is making an assumption- based on the modern Western legal system- that  "passive euthanasia" is okay. But this is far from my understanding of morality. If a doctor, or anyone for that matter, is in a situation in which he or she has the knowledge and the means to save a human life (without taking another equally innocent life in the process) and chooses not to…this is nothing less than murder! Of course, technically you are not "pulling a trigger", and you therefore may not be prosecuted, but in moral terms you are equally guilty, So technically I may be agreeing with Rachels – that there is no fundamental difference between the two, but we are on opposite sides of the spectrum. He is arguing for "active euthanasia", while I am arguing against "passive euthanasia". However, if you force me to choose between these two immoral actions, I would always prefer to be passive, only because I would never want to actively terminate a life. I am far more comfortable with God making that choice.

 

             Unfortunately, there are times when we have to make that choice, and from my experience it can be very unpleasant even when it is clearly necessary. As an officer in an Israeli infantry unit, I was at times put in situations in which it was necessary to shoot (and sometimes kill) terrorists who were threatening the lives of soldiers and civilians. As a person who values human life, a pacifist may question how I can justify taking another person's life. But in the world that we live in, pacifism and human life are not values that can coexist. If you choose not to direct your sniper to shoot the terrorist who is spraying your unit with bullets from his Kalatchnikov, it may lead to the deaths of soldiers in your unit, as well as other innocent people who he will shoot later on. If you don't shoot the suicide bomber – who has the explosives strapped to his stomach and the detonation button in his hand- 20 or 30 innocent men, women and children will die. So it is because I put such a high value on human life, that I am willing to terminate it when necessary.

             

               There is, however, a fundamental difference between the necessity of killing an armed terrorist to prevent him from taking other lives, and terminating the life of a patient in a hospital. In the hospital, you are making a choice between allowing a patient to live until God decides his time is up, and ending his life just for the sake of convenience (for the patient or for society). A patient's pain may be inconvenient to him or her, or someone who is in a coma or "vegetative state" may be an inconvenience to those who have to care for him or her. This inconvenience, however, is not sufficient moral justification to terminate a life. If I had to terminate a human life in the military, it was not out of convenience, but out of the necessity of saving many more lives. And when I use the word "terminate", this includes "allowing a person to die" (when I have the ability to save them). Therefore, once I shot a terrorist and disabled him to the point that he does not pose a threat, I would do whatever I possibly could to save his life. It would be wrong to allow anyone to die, unless it is clear that if they live they will cause others to die.

 

                 It is fascinating how sometimes the same people who put so much effort into saving the lives of the victims of genocide, will be the first ones to pull the plug on the respirator of a loved one. It is as if the lives of the dying children in Africa are somehow more valuable than the life of an old woman whose lungs are failing her in California. If we value life, than we must consistently do what ever we can to save a person, and this means that sometimes we must ignore the wishes of those who we care for. If a depressed man is standing on the ledge of a skyscraper and asks you to push him off, I hope you wouldn't even consider helping him "end his misery". And if someone accidentally falls from that same ledge, I hope you would try to save him. The same should be true in euthanasia cases. Pulling the plug on a respirator is equivalent to pushing the man off the ledge, and refusing to prolong the life of a dying person is equivalent to not attempting to save the man if he is falling.

 

             The argument of "let them die in peace" is not very convincing, because what applies to sick people in the hospital should then apply to everyone else. Why should we help the poor, the homeless, the mentally ill or victims of genocide? We may as well just let them all "die in peace", since they will all die eventually anyway. Furthermore, if we follow Rachels' line of reasoning, genocide in itself is one of the most moral actions. If there are so many poor, homeless, and sick people in Africa, we should do them all a favor and help them "die in peace". But of course, this notion is completely ridiculous, because human life has a value that can't be measured in utilitarian terms. So instead of searching for fancy academic words to help justify the daily murder of innocent souls, let's put our efforts into preserving our ethical existence. After all, the value of human life is the foundation of all morality in this world.

 

 

                  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

        

 

 

          

 

 

  

Shema Yisrael

SHEMA YISRAEL- originally posted by Yossi Katz

In the year 132 C.E. the great Jewish General Shimon Bar Kochba led a 3 year revolt for Jewish freedom against the mighty Roman Empire the greatest cause of the revolt was the underlying Jewish desire to be a free people in their own land. General Bar Kochba was supported by the greatest Rabbi in Israel- Rabbi Akiva, whose students became his bravest soldiers. He guerilla tactics out smarted and frustrated the Roman soldiers. Bar Kochba liberated Jerusalem. However 31/2 years later the Romans crushed the revolt killing 600,000 Jews including Bar Kochba. The Romans then outlawed Judaism and renamed the land Palestine. Their goal was to make the world forget the jews ever had a country of their own. Rabbi Akiva and ten other leading Rabbis were later executed in Caesarea. One Rabbi was wrapped in a Torah scroll and burnt at the stake and Rabbi Akiva was raked over with iron combs. As he was tortured he smiled, and his students who were forced to watch his execution asked him why he was smiling. The Rabbi replied "It is written, You shall love the lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul even when thy soul is taken from thee!" Then Akiva feeling his life slip away cried out the Shema prayer. "HEAR O ISRAEL, THE LORD OUR GOD, THE LORD IS ONE." Akiva died on the word one, but along with Bar Kochba he left our people a legacy of courage, strength and Jewish commitment that fuels are modern day struggle for independence in Israel.

Two thousand years later the courage of Bar Kochba and the spirit of Rabbi Akiva continue to live on in the soldiers of the TZAHAL. In this recent war in Lebanon against the murderous Hezbollah, the soldiers have displayed many acts of bravery and heroism. The most moving story perhaps is of Major Roi Klein, from the settlement of Eli, who was a deputy battalion commander of the 51^st Battalion of the Golani Infantry Brigade. Major Klein grew up with a strong Jewish education and he saw his service in TZAHAL as fulfillment to Jewish obligations. On July 26, 2006 a day before his 31^st birthday he took part with his unit in the fierce fighting in the Hezbollah stronghold of Bint Jabil. As they cleaned out the terrorist guns nest in house to house fighting, a Hezbollah grenade was thrown at a group of Golani soldiers. It seamed they all faced certain death, when their beloved commander, Roi Klein, screamed "Shema Yisrael-HEAR O ISRAEL THE LORD OUR GOD, THE LORD IS ONE" anf dived on the live grenade. Klein died in the explosion but saved the lives of many soldiers. He died on the word one just like his teacher Rabbi Akiva. Roi Klein was a sensative caring soul who was loved by all who knew him. He is survived by his young wife Sara and his two sons, Gilad (3), and Yoav (6 months old). Klein was buried in the National Military Cemetery on Mt. Hertzl in Jerusalem on July 27, 2006. It was his 31^st birthday.

Like with the Bar Kochba revolt, cynical Jews in Israel and abroad will debate the merits of this war and of our national and military leadership for years to come. Of course there will be issues there that need to be investigated and lessons that must be learnt so we can continue our struggle to preserve our freedom in Israel.

It would be wise for us to honor the courage of our youth and the memories of our fallen heros so that their legacy will never die. From Akiva to Roi Klein, it is that very legacy that has been the secret of our survival.

Rechav'am Ze'evi (of blessed memory)

Respected Cabinet Minister and IDF General Rehavam Ze'evi was murdered five years ago in a Jerusalem hotel by three Palestinian terrorists - and the public is invited to take part in the memorial.
 
Ze'evi was shot to death close to 7 AM as he was going to his room to tape an interview with Arutz-7 on the morning of the 30th day of Tishrei, 5762. The date falls out this year on Oct. 22, this coming Sunday.

The Knesset website now features a wide-ranging tribute to Ze'evi, including his political, ideological and personal biography, an account of the murder, public ceremonies and Knesset sessions held in his honor, photos, and more. The public is also invited to add comments and tributes in the virtual guest book. One blessing comes from a couple that named its son, born four months after Ze'evi's death, Raz - the initials of Rehavam Ze'evi.

On Tuesday, Oct. 24, at 4 PM, the Knesset will hold a special session in memory of Minister Ze'evi.

Biography
Widely known as Gandi because of a costume he once wore, Ze'evi was born in Jerusalem in June 1926, studied in Givat HaShlosha (east of Petach Tikvah), and joined the Palmach - an elite unit of the Haganah forerunner of the Israel Defense Forces - in 1944. During the War of Independence he was an Intelligence Officer of the Yiftach Brigade, and later served as an Operations Officer in the northern front, as Intelligence Officer in the Southern Command, and as a Brigade Commander in Golani.

In 1964 he was promoted to the rank of Major-General, and in 1968 he was appointed Commander of Central Command. He retired from the IDF in 1973, a week before the unexpected outbreak of the Yom Kippur War. After the war he served for a short time as Commander of the Operations Branch of the IDF.

In 1974, Ze'evi was appointed by Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin as advisor on matters of terror, and in the years 1975-77 served as advisor to the Prime Minister on intelligence affairs. In 1981, in expression of his well-known love for the Land of Israel, he became the director of the Land of Israel Museum in Tel Aviv, serving in this position for ten years.

In 1985 he began speaking publicly in favor of a voluntary transfer of the Arabs of Judea, Samaria and Gaza as the only viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He thus became famous - notorious. according to some - for his "transfer" views. Though he developed many political enemies, all praised him for his integrity and love for Israel.

Before the elections to the 12th Knesset in 1988, Ze'evi founded the Moledet (Homeland) party, which won two Knesset seats, three in 1992, and two again in 1996. In the elections to the 15th Knesset in 1999, Moledet ran together with the National Union, which received four seats. Ze'evi served in the Knesset for 13 years, until his death.

Ze'evi joined the government of Prime Minister Yitzchak Shamir in 1991, despite the opposition of several Likud members who opposed his "transfer" views, and was appointed Minister without Portfolio and a member of the Security Cabinet. He resigned from the government nearly a year later, in protest of Shamir's agreement to take part in the Madrid Conference - the first time Israeli leaders sat officially with PLO terrorist representatives.

In the course of the 13th Knesset ('92-'96), Ze'evi was one of the most bitter opponents of the Oslo Accords. When Binyamin Netanyahu was elected Prime Minister in 1996, Ze'evi did not join the government, though he supported it from without - except for the decision to withdraw from most of Hevron.

Ze'evi joined the first Ariel Sharon government in March 2001 as Minister of Tourism, but a day and a half before his assassination, he tendered his resignation from the government because of the Prime Minister's decision to withdraw IDF forces from positions it had re-occupied in Hevron following increasing murderous terrorist attacks. The resignation had not yet gone into effect when he was murdered.

Family and Ideology
Rehavam Amikam Ze'evi was a sixth-generation Jerusalemite on his mother's side. He and his wife Yael, of Kibbutz Deganiah Bet, had five children, 19 grandchildren, and one great-grandchild at the time of his death. His children all had names with modern Jewish-historic significance: Yiftach Palmach, Sayar Binyamin (who later became a Breslover Hassid and wished to be known only as Benny), Massada, Tse'elah, and Aravah.

Ze'evi was known to always wear a dog tag with the names of the missing Israeli soldiers. He put on tefillin every day, saying that this connected him to Jewish tradition. He signed off on his weekly broadcast on Arutz-7 with the verse, "May G-d give strength to His nation, May G-d bless His nation with peace."

 

Comprehending the Incomprehensible

 

Good afternoon. I would first like to welcome our two prestigious guests to Brandeis University, which prides itself on seeking the "truth unto its innermost parts". If this is possible at all, there is no better place to do it than in a philosophical debate.

 

Before I respond directly to our guests' arguments, I think it is important to lay out some ideas which will help put my view in context. Most modern philosophers and theologians in the Western world have some default positions about the qualities of this world, humanity and God (if He exists). While it would make things easier if we had consensual ground rules, I cannot wholeheartedly agree with all of them. First of all, I agree (among other things) that there is a real world, true and false, free will, causation and morality. However, I have a fundamental problem with the concept of "knowledge", the idea that we mortal human beings can actually know things (in the full meaning of the word). I will elaborate on this point later, but let me just lay one more ground rule for our conversation. I would like to add on a component to the typical philosophical definition of God. More specifically, philosophers usually talk about a God who is PKG – all powerful, all knowing, and all good. While I agree with these qualities, I think there is one more fundamental ingredient to the God that I believe in: He is incomprehensible. Of course, there is clearly a direct correlation between these two concepts: If we humans do not really know anything, then we can not possibly fully comprehend God.

 

Now that I got your attention, let me elaborate on these ideas. I know that you all love the big round chocolate-chip cookies which Brandeis generously provides as refreshments for important events of this kind. Those of you who have not eaten their cookies yet, please hold them up in the air. Wow, it looks like about 50 people are holding these round doughy-looking objects in their hands! Now I ask you: Can anyone explain to me how you know that this is actually a cookie in your hand? There are actually numerous possibilities as to what you are holding. Maybe it is a fake rubber cookie. Perhaps it is a toy. Maybe it is something that looks and feels like a cookie, but is actually something else altogether. Besides, how do you know that those are chocolate chips inside? Maybe they are clumps of mud! Maybe it is all a big optical illusion and you are not really holding anything in your hand! Well, you say, let me take a bite and I will know for sure. Go ahead. Take a bite…So you say that it tastes like a cookie, but how do you know that your taste buds aren't playing games with you? Maybe it is made of a new cookie-taste soy product that you haven't heard about! I can go on and on, but I think the point is clear. No one in this room can tell me with absolute certainty that they know that these round off-white clumps with brown spots in them are chocolate-chip cookies. Of course, we have good reason to believe that these are cookies. After all, since we were little kids our mother has been giving us similar looking and tasting things called cookies, (albeit not as big as the Brandeis ones). We have seen similar looking things in packages in the supermarket, on TV, in movies, described in books, etc... And they were all called cookies. We have also been to several lectures and debates at Brandeis, and each time they served the same thing. Last time they were cookies, and our senses tell us that they look, smell, feel, and taste the same as last time. So they must indeed be cookies. But how can you be sure?

 

Now I know that half of you would like to immediately eliminate me from this debate on the grounds of insanity. You are thinking: Is he really telling me that I should doubt that these are cookies? No, I am not saying that. Actually, I think that we all have pretty good reason to believe that we are holding a chocolate chip cookie in our hand. That is the most logical conclusion for any sane human being to reach based on his past experiences with cookies. The operative word here is "believe". We believe that this is a cookie, based on our past experiences and what our senses are telling us. What I am challenging, however, is the concept of knowledge.

 

Of course, there are different meanings to the word know, and it is used in many different contexts. If you open a dictionary, you will find several definitions. "To know" can mean to be aware of; to have fixed in the mind; to be acquainted with; to understand from experience…If you bind me to these definitions, then I will have to agree with you that there is some level of knowledge in this world. But when I think of true knowledge- in the way the word would be used in a conversation about serious things like God – I am referring to the primary definition in the dictionary: "to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty, as in I know the situation fully". According to this definition, I do not think that there is any real knowledge in this world. We can believe, perceive, think, hypothesize, surmise, theorize, conclude…and do a lot of other wonderful things with our delicate human minds. The one thing we can not do is know with absolute certainty that a certain fact, concept or idea is true.

 

So, you ask, if we can't know anything then how can we even have a conversation about God? This is an excellent question, and this leads us to the argument of Prof. Flew.

I think you make a very good point through your parable about the garden in the jungle.

The believer in your story is definitely making a fool of himself. However, my reasoning for considering him a fool is different than yours. You listen to all the assertions he is making about the nature of God, and you become extremely frustrated with the qualifications that he keeps adding to fit his beliefs. You feel like you can't ever win an argument with him, because he keeps changing the rules. This is a legitimate concern, but this is not the real issue here.

 

In order to get to the core of the problem, we must look at the title of the character in your parable. He is The Believer. Just like many people in this world, he can only relate to the God he believes in through belief or faith. If he knew that God existed- with absolute certainty - than he would not be a believer. He would be a knower (if there is such a thing). Consequently he makes himself look like a fool by agreeing to play this game with the garden in order to prove that God exists. Of course, he cannot prove that God exists, because he does not know that God exists! I don't know how this specific character came to believe in God, but it definitely wasn't through an experiment with a garden with fences and bloodhounds. He is a fool to think that he can even convince himself through such an experiment.

 

Now that I have expressed my distaste for the believer in your parable, I will answer the wise question, which you posed to the believers at large. You asked

"What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of the love of, or of the existence of, God? ". My answer is simple: Nothing.

There is nothing in this world that can prove to me that God does not exist. I will also add that the opposite is true as well. There is also nothing in the world that can prove to me that God exists. The operative word here is "prove". If I knew that God existed, I would need proof to back up this knowledge. In that case you would be able to disprove my knowledge through contrary evidence. But this is not the case. My belief is not based on any proof, and it therefore can't possibly be disproved.

 

This argument may sound absurd, but let's take Prof. Flew's question and insert our beloved cookie into the equation. (I hope it isn't stale by now). "What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of the existence of the chocolate chip cookie"? [1]Well, let us think. If you can't see the cookie, will that be sufficient proof? No. Maybe, your friend stuck it in his pocket. Suppose that you can't taste the cookie. Will that prove that it's not a cookie? No. Maybe you temporarily lost your sense of taste.

Even if you brought me a big red juicy tomato and asked me to prove that it is not a chocolate chip cookie, I would fail to convince myself. The best I could say is that I believe that it is not a chocolate chip cookie. It looks like a tomato, feels like a tomato, tastes like a tomato…and it would be quite logical to conclude that it is indeed a tomato.

But there is there always that lingering doubt. Maybe my friend is playing a magic trick on me, or I forgot to put my contact lenses on this morning and my vision is blurry.

In any case, this does not bother me. I am content with believing- whether we are talking about a chocolate chip cookie, Napoleon's battle at Waterloo, or the existence of God.

 

Out of the corner of my eye I can see Prof. Flew shaking his head. My argument seems very weak if it is based solely on a subjective belief, which no one can ever prove or disprove. It is just an assertion that seems baseless without some explanation.

How on earth can I convince anyone that there is a God if it is all in my head and I can't even convince myself beyond doubt?

 

So let me try to explain why I believe in God. I would divide the sources of my personal faith into three main categories: Personal experiences, testimonies and logic. All three of these categories are essential components of my faith, but if I have to choose one it would be the first. There is nothing as powerful as a personal experience, and this is true no matter what the topic is. Here is an example which includes all three components.  Kareem Abdul Jabbar (formerly Lew Alcindor) is known as one of the greatest players in basketball history. Everyone has heard about his famous hook shot and his dominant presence in the paint. I watched games of his and read articles written by people who met him. It seemed quite logical based on the information I had to believe that not only does he exist, but also that he is a master at shooting his famous skyhook shot. However, the most convincing argument was when I got the chance to meet him personally during a basketball camp in Israel. I watched him shoot numerous skyhooks a few feet from me, and I knew that what I had read about him was true.

 

What is true about Abdul Jabbar is also true about his Creator. I heard numerous testimonies as I grew up about God. I heard stories from parents, siblings, teachers and friends. I also read books in which there were testimonies of people who had very powerful personal encounters with God. One of the more compelling testimonies is the story in the book of Shemot (Exodus) of the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai.

According to the biblical account there were 600,000 men of military age present when God spoke to the Israelites from atop the mountain. If you do the math -based on the percentage of men this age in Israelite society -there were approximately 3 million people present at Mount Sinai. 3 million people heard the voice of God from on top of the mountain!  I know what you are thinking: Why should I believe such a story?

I only ask you to believe this story on the same basis that you believe many other historical accounts. For example, do you believe that there was a man named Napoleon who conquered many nations in the early 19^th century? If yes, how do you know? Have you ever met him? Have you even seen a picture or video footage of him? The answer is that you believe this story based on the testimony of historians who wrote it down, as well as the testimonies from other surviving journals and the like. It is quite logical that if thousands of history books tell the story of this Napoleon than he probably was a real person. I can ask the same question about Alexander the Great, Shakespeare, Abraham Lincoln or any other historical figure. You have no way of knowing that these people existed, but most people believe the testimonies that we have in the written accounts. (Of course, not all accounts are written. Some are oral, or a combination of both, but we usually believe oral accounts as well). Now, don't make me out to be as gullible and naïve as I may sound. I did not say that we should believe everything we are told. Of course, there are many lies, falsifications and distortions in this world. However, generally speaking, human testimonies are believable unless there is reasonable doubt.

 

So, you say, I can raise many doubts about the accuracy of these testimonies.  Do you really believe in God based on someone's testimony?  No, but it is one piece of the puzzle. It is not the centerpiece, but it is a supporting piece. The second supporting piece is logic. On this note, I would like to comment on Professor Hare's argument.

I found your blik story very fascinating, and for the most part agree with the concept. [By the way, since you declared that you are not representing Christianity, likewise I am not defending Judaism, or any other religion for that matter. I am only expressing my personal perspective on God.] Just to simplify things, I will replace your blik with the word belief. I agree with Hume that differences between beliefs about the world cannot be settled by observation of what happens in the world. Nonetheless, this does not render our observations irrelevant. Observations can definitely help us grapple logically with our existing beliefs and some of the well-known logical arguments for God are components of my faith. I have spent many hours thinking about the concept of God as a Designer/Creator; of the fact that the existence of this amazing world had to have been caused by something greater than we can comprehend; of all the little miracles that happen daily. All of these observations have only helped strengthen my belief in God. Here is one personal anecdote that will always stick in my mind: When I was in high school, I once read a book on ESP – extra-sensory perception (which some people refer to as "the sixth sense"). There is a debate among people who study these sorts of things whether ESP really exists, and if so, whether it can be explained scientifically. There are many ways to test ESP, but here is the basic concept. You take a person, put him/her in a room sitting by a table and give him/her a piece of paper and a pencil. You then go into another room and tell them that you are going to place an object on an empty table in the other room. You don't tell them what the object is, but you ask them to close their eyes and draw on the paper the first thing that comes up in their mind. At first I didn't believe hat it could possibly work, but then I went home and I tried it on my little brother. I sat in the kitchen, and I put him in the dining room. He was facing the opposite direction and he had no way of seeing or knowing what I was doing. There were thousands of possible objects that I could have chosen to place on the table. I silently placed a Reebok sneaker (with a very distinct pattern on it) on the table, and he closed his eyes and started drawing. A minute later I asked him to show me the paper. Lo and behold, he had drawn – with his eyes closed – an exact outline of the sneaker with the logo and other markings that were on it!  I was shocked, and when I showed my brother the sneaker he could not believe what he had just done! Of course, you can find ways to explain this phenomenon, but I see God's fingerprints all over it. Do these observations prove that there is a God? No. But they do make my belief in God seem quite logical, and they are another supporting piece to the puzzle.

 

So what is the centerpiece? It is my personal experiences. Of course, my experiences are unique and no two believers had the same experience, but this is exactly what makes it so convincing. I have had numerous spiritual experiences. Some were more powerful than others. Sometimes I experienced God's presence, and other times I received a message (through various means). Sometimes I prayed and received clear answers. When I expressed doubts, I was shown things that were clear signs of His existence. Since these are all personal experiences (which no one else experienced), it would be hard for me to convince anyone that they happened, or that it was God's doing. The testimony of 3 million people who heard God's voice at Mount Sinai may be a very convincing second-hand testimony, but there is nothing like a first-hand experience. And there were times when I stood near the Temple Mount in Jerusalem (Judaism's holiest site) and personally felt as if I was at Mount Sinai. But this is feeling is spiritual, and because it is not physical (or even metaphysical), there is no way the human mind can comprehend it without being there. This is the God I believe in. He is omnipotent, omniscient, temporal and incomprehensible.

 

Those of you who have not fallen asleep yet are probably wondering: why should we waste our time discussing God's existence if the essential component of faith in Him is personal experience? We may as well just go about our lives, and if God 'appears to us' than we will know he exists. My answer to that is twofold: 1. He probably is 'appearing to you' all the time. You are just not paying attention. Unfortunately, since this is a personal path to faith it is up to you to seek Him. (As the wise saying goes "He who seeks shall find".) Believers can provide testimony and philosophers can provide Ontological, Cosmological or all sorts of other arguments. But you will not truly believe, until the experience is your own. 2. Once you do believe in God, than it becomes even more fascinating to try to understand Him. As I said before, we can never fully comprehend God, but any bit than we can grasp is extremely fulfilling. It is a lifetime journey (which never ends), but it is exhilarating and worthwhile. But the journey can only begin once you believe, because you would be wasting your time trying to comprehend something that you don't believe in.

 

My challenge to you Prof. Flew is the following: Can you prove to yourself with absolute certainty, in a way that leaves no possible doubts or questions that God does not exist?

I have already said before that you can't possibly prove such a thing to me, but I also think that you don't have sufficient proof for yourself. Atheists tend to be very good at doubting the evidence for the existence of God, but they often fail to realize that they lack any comparable evidence for his non-existence. Eventually you have to come to the conclusion that you and I have one thing in common: We both have very strong faith.

I have faith in God's existence, and you have faith in His non-existence. Since both of us have reached our conclusions based on faith and not true knowledge, neither of us can fully comprehend the concept of God. I will always try to comprehend Him, but I will do this with an understanding that He is not really comprehensible to the human mind.

If we can't comprehend the simple concept of a chocolate-chip cookie, how we can ever expect to fully comprehend God?