48÷2(9+3) -- The Meme

Okay, it seems to me that the answer to this little arithmetic problem that's been working its way around the internet is 2, and not 288. A lot of people are going to argue with that, but hear me out.

According to Wikipedia, for those who aren't already aware, the standard order of operations in arithmetic is:

* terms inside brackets (or parentheses)

* exponents and roots

* multiplication and division

* addition and subtraction

So the very first thing we do is simplify this to 48÷2(12). And here's where things get problematic.

Are 2(12) and 2 × 12 the same? They're both notations for multiplication, but are they the same? I'd maintain that they are not, and I'll show you why.

Suppose our problem was 48 ÷ 2x. Is this the same as 48 ÷ 2 × x? If so, we'd go from left to right and say 48 ÷ 2 is 24, 24 × x is 24x. But if ÷ and / both signify division, then 48 ÷ 2x is 48/2x which I think anyone would correctly evaluate as 24/x.

See the problem?

So either the two notations for "divided by" are different in some way, or the two notations for "multiplied by" are different in some way. (Or both, obviously.) This whole problem could be avoided, of course, by the use of parentheses, like this:

(48 ÷ 2)(9 + 3)

or

48 ÷ (2(9 + 3)).

It's possible that the standard order of operations simply isn't clear enough. But I think the correct answer is that / and ÷ are the same, but × and positioning the two expressions right next to each other, while both signifying multiplication, are different.

The reason brackets or parentheses are evaluated first is that they are a means of grouping. I'd maintain that the positioning of two expressions right next to each other for the purpose of multiplication is an implicit method of grouping them, and that this kind of multiplication should be evaluated prior to division or any other multiplication.

Comments are welcome.

Jewish Week, Glenn Beck, and Censorship

I'm sickened by the utter hypocrisy and blatant censorship being practiced by The Jewish Week.

Not surprised, mind you. Just disgusted.

On Wednesday, February 23, Jonathan Mark, an associate editor at that paper, posted an article discussing Glenn Beck's comparison of Radical Islamists and Reform Jews. It was cogent, well thought out, and expressed a position that made the left shriek in rage. The post was taken down. Google cached it, so it can still be seen, but apparently The Jewish Week is unwilling to allow this view to be expressed in its pages.

As a public service, because I don't know how long the Google cached version will last, I'm reproducing the article here. When I quote a person, it doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with them. But in this case, it absolutely does. And to be fair (and consistent), I'm reproducing the four comments on the article (all outraged) as well.

---

When Glenn Beck Compares Reform Judaism To Radical Islam, He's Unfair To Islam
Submitted by Jonathan Mark on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 13:01

When Glenn Beck says that Reform Judaism is like radical Islam, insofar as both are more about politics than faith, he's being unfair to radical Islam.

Yes, both are deeply involved with politics and confuse their own politics with God's.

But radical Islamists seems to be much more serious about their religion.

Reform rabbis often lead congregations whose overall culture is indifferent to Shabbat and kashrut, indifferent to daily prayer and intermarriage, and indifferent to religious literacy.

A radical Islamic leader, by contrast, is passionate and conscientious about prayer, the Islamic Sabbath, Halal food, and Islamic family purity. He would not be indifferent to intermarriage or classical Islamic teachings.

Only a Reform rabbi would officiate at an intermarriage on Shabbat itself, as did Rabbi James Ponet at Chelsea Clinton's wedding. A Radical Islamist wouldn't do that.

Not even the Ten Commandments are as important to a Reform rabbi as intermarriage. The integrity of Shabbat (Commandment Four) was considered so meaningless that the ceremony couldn't even wait until sunset. With a Reform rabbi, officiating for Clinton, a political figure, was more important than Shabbat, faith.

A radical Islamist would not have violated the Koran to perform an intermarriage for a king.

It's hard to imagine a Reform rabbi who didn't frequently take political positions. Among their political positions is that we shouldn't be Islamophobic; we should know that jihad is a spiritual struggle, not a violent one; that imams are moderates until proven otherwise, that we shouldn't tar Islam because of extremists who are violating Islam. So Reform rabbis themselves say Islam, even radical Islam (is there any other) is a religion of peace, a religion of faith.

It's had to imagine a Reform rabbi who isn't infatuated with the great Reform legends of fighting for Darfur, being part of the (imaginary) black-Jewish alliance, advocating for gay and transgender rights, hating Bush and Sarah Palin, cheering Obama's pressure on Israel, all of which these Reform rabbis will attribute to their faith but it sure sounds like politics.

Reform rabbis love "dialogue," the idea that all problems in the world -- between religions and between nations -- are just a big misunderstanding because we're all basically the same and want the same things.

Radical Islamists don't give a damn about dialogue. They don't think all religions or all people, infidels included, are the same, because radical Islamists take their own faith that much more seriously.

Reform rabbis are "troubled" that settlers live in Canaan, that Ariel Sharon walked on the Temple Mount, that Moses, a Jew, used disproportionate force in killing an Egyptian. Hebron is not loved for its holiness, as faith would have it, but thought an obstacle to peace, as politics would have it.

Radical Islamists have faith that the Temple Mount is theirs, and the Western Wall, too. They have faith that they are Abraham's children and belong anywhere in Canaan. Radical Islamists don't care that Moses, an Egyptian, killed an Egyptian. Hebron is loved for its holiness, as faith would have it, not something to be negotiated, as politics would have it.

Radical Islamic leaders don't go around saying that religion just means being ethical and good and voting for Democrats, the way most Reform rabbis do. Radical Islam believe that faith demands personal service to God, not just service to each other.

Radical Islamic leaders don't define their faith so singularly with one political party, as do most Reform rabbis, who seem to believe that Judaism never, ever, says no to liberal dogma. Their Reform Jewish faith, to hear so many tell it. is indistinguishable from their Reform Jewish poliitics. To many Reform leaders, the left can disagree with the Torah but the Torah can never disagree with the left. When in conflict, the Torah must adapt.

To a radical Islamist, whose faith comes before politics, the Koran doesn't adapt, everything adapts to the Koran.

Radical Islamists seem to have more fire in the belly when it comes to their faith.

Reform rabbis seem to have more fire in the belly when it comes to their "progressive" politics.

So Beck is absolutely wrong. Radical Islamists and Reform rabbis are polar opposites when it comes to balancing faith and politics.

There are many Reform Jews that I love and greatly admire. These are my people. I'd rather be the worst Reform Jew than the very best Islamist. And I wish that Reform rabbis were, in fact, more about faith than about politics.

Dennis Prager, the talk-show host and author, is a Reform Jew who actually talks more about the importance of faith and religion than he talks about politics. Debbie Friedman, another great Reform Jew, was unique in how she restored the idea of blessing and God to the Reform sensibility. There are other Reform Jews like Prager and Friedman who prioritize faith over politics, but I don't get that sense from too many Reform rabbis.

I despise, fear and fight radical Islamic politics but I love and envy their devotion to their faith. I love how even in the midst of the Cairo revolution, they stopped to prostrate themselves in prayer. When was the last time you saw Reform Jews at a political demonstration stop to say Mincha? And by the hundreds?

Here's some more on Beck, on related issues, from the Zionist Organization of America, from BigJournalism.com regarding the Jewish Fund For Justice's anti-Beck campaign, and from David Suissa, an exciting columnist for the Jewish Journal in L.A.

How many people who have opinions on Beck have actually seen him in action? Check out this clip of Beck speaking about Israel, threats to Jews, and attacking Iran.

Beck's a better man than George Soros, and he's a better Jew, too. If something bad, God forbid, ever happened to Israel, I'm convinced it would bother Beck more. One guy cares about me and the two countries I love. One guy doesn't.

I don't like it when someone who cares about us so much is hated, is laughed at, because his caring is imperfect.

---

Comments
Submitted by Chris Aguero (not verified) on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 15:18.
What a shame to speak of Jews this way!! This is baseless insensitivity that reflects a real ignorance of the contribution of Reform Jews to diverse the American Jewish fabric. While Shabbat, kashrut, and daavening are fundamental to some Jews, what good are these practices, if your actions are as despicable as the words here?

Let's face it: some of us live Jewishly in this way, and many more live Jewishly without a traditional observance of Shabbat and the holiday. If that upsets you, fine, but it is wrong to compare these Jews to radical Muslims.

The content of this piece is so absurd that it doesn't help to address them. Such rhetoric is inappropriate and a real shame.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 16:52.
Though I don't agree with everything that i said in this column. I agree with the basic theme. I am Jewish, I am not an orthodox Jew, not do I consider myself a Reform Jew. I am somewhere in the middle. I agree with the premise that American Jews who are overwhelmingly Reform, tend to wear the Judaism as a token part of who they are. I feel that there is very little Jewish pride in America these days. Jew tend to be committed liberals before being committed Jews. To me being Jewish is more than just practicing a religion, it is being part of a people. The way that this administration is turning its back on Israel is pathetic, and scary. I have been listening to Glenn Beck for 10 a long time, an one thing I can say is that he is not anti-Semetic. It's funny how some in the Jewish community in this country get so offended when something is said that they may not agree with, but are not offended at how this country is aiding in the Islamic Fundamentalists goal to destroy Israel.

Submitted by Alex Kress (not verified) on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 17:28.
The purpose of religion, as I was recently enlightened by a Modern Orthodox Jew, is to see the divine in everyone. This piece, and Glen Beck's ignorant comparison of "Reformed Rabbis" to Radical Islam, seek to do the opposite.

You go on for paragraph after paragraph bashing Reform practices and then conclude by saying there are Reform Jews you love and greatly admire? I hope they do not say the same about you and your ignorant (and unedited) blog that is hurtful to those very people.

What exactly makes your practices any better or worse from my Reform practices? What makes your practices better than a Muslim's or Christian's or Buddhist's practices? Nothing. My faith and my religion is for me, to fulfill my needs and guide my life. Your religion is for you, not for me to judge or dissect, but to fulfill your religious needs in your life.

Very seldom am I disgusted and embarrassed to read work by fellow American Jews, differing in my opinion or not. This, however, is hateful rhetoric and you should be ashamed of your elitist hubris.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 18:04.
Lucky for me i'm not Radical Islam, what you just described is ignorance against being human. I'm glad i'm not on your side.

Understanding the Muslim World

I finally figured it out.

There's a guy named Mostafa who is currently posting on an online forum I frequent. He's Egyptian, and he first stopped by to "educate" us about Islam. He's adamantly convinced that Islam has never hurt anyone who hasn't attacked first, and that Jews are evil babykillers. So fine, that's about what I'd expect. But then a part of the discussion included the following. He's explaining why he wants the Muslim Brotherhood to take over Egypt, and he started by explaining why a secular government is bad.

Mostafa: In many other Western countries which are secular, Muslims are persecuted and oppressed.

Response: In what way? Give specific examples.

Mostafa: Production of the hostile caricature of the prophet Mohammed hurts the senses of all Muslims all over the world.

Response: The cartoons and not persecution and the fact that you think they are says a lot more about your shortcomings than those of the west.

Mostafa: No, they are of course persecution because they annoy Muslims and hurt their senses.

Now... everyone on earth has met people who consider annoyance and hurt feelings to be legitimate cause for violent physical response. These people are small children. Toddlers, mostly. And that was the missing piece, really. You have to teach toddlers not to act that way. "Use your words."

All of today's Muslim culture is suffering from arrested development. They think and emote as toddlers. When we face the Muslim world, we are facing a billion heavily armed rabid toddlers, with no impulse control, who operate under the Toddler Rules of Acquisition. In case you're unfamiliar with these, they were a parody of the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition from Star Trek: Deep Space 9, but they took on a life of their own, because they do such a good job of explaining the toddler mindset:

1. If I like it, it's mine.
2. If it's in my hand, it's mine.
3. If I can take it from you, it's mine.
4. If I had it a little while ago, it's mine.
5. If it's mine, you must NEVER touch it.
6. If I'm doing or building something, all the pieces are mine.
7. If it looks just like mine, it is mine.
8. If I saw it first, it's mine.
9. If you are playing with something and you put it down, it automatically becomes mine.
10. If it's broken, it's yours.

Number 10 isn't so much a Muslim view, but the rest of them surely are.

And it's vitally important to remember who we're dealing with when we deal with the Muslim world. Time after time after time, I've seen people assume that they are just like us. That they want the same things we do. Peace. Tranquility. Prosperity. And they are just like us. Only the "us" they're just like is us at age 4. And what they want is: Mine, mine, mine!

(Caveat, for all the racism-shouters. Not all Muslims suffer from this form of arrested development. There are individual Muslims who are nothing at all like this. Who are civilized adults. But they are powerless in the face of the billion of their coreligionists who would as soon kill them as look at them should they ever express contrary views. And they are not the people we're dealing with when we deal with Muslim countries and Muslim organizations across the world.)

Cyberblight

Something I saw on the internet this morning made me think of trolls and how much they suck. So since I can't get Candlelight out of my head anyway, I thought I'd snag the tune for another purpose. If you've run into people like this, you know what I'm talking about.

Cyberblight
by Lisa Liel

I’ll tell a tale tale tale tale
Of cyberspace's biggest fail fail fail fail
When a talkback's getting stale stale stale stale
I take the comments off the rail rail rail rail
Yeah, yeah,

I'll yammer on and on and on
Until all sanity is gone
Yeah-eah

I like to troll the internet sometimes
Saying ayy ohh
I'm an a**hole
Just posting "First!" can make me feel so fine
And I never
Shut my pie hole

I say it's photoshopped
I say that he's a fag
I say that I hate Jews
I say she's on the rag

And when I get thrown off
Because I'm such a pain
I make a sock puppet
And I shout "First!" again

I like to troll troll troll troll
Getting reactions is my goal goal - goal goal
I irritate you to your soul soul soul soul
'Cause I have no constructive role role role role
Yeah, yeah,

I don't care how inane I sound
You'll never stop me comin' round
Yeah-eah

I like to troll the internet sometimes
Saying ayy ohh
I'm an a**hole
Being obnoxious makes me feel so fine
And I never
Shut my pie hole

I say that movie blows
I say that he can't act
I say their voices suck
I tell you that's a fact

And when you disagree
It's you that I'll attack
And if you get me banned
You know that I'll be back

It's a great temptation
To tell me just shut up and go away
But it's that frustration
That makes it worth my while just to stay

'Cause taunting you
Is all that I came here to do
(Don't feed the troll
Don't feed the troll)
When you acknowledge that I'm there
It shows me that you really care care care care care care...

[bridge]

I like to troll the internet sometimes
Saying ayy ohh
I'm an a**hole
Being obnoxious makes me feel so fine
And I never
Shut my pie hole

I say it's photoshopped
I say that he's a fag
I say that I hate Jews
I say she's on the rag

And when you disagree
It's you that I'll attack
And if you get me banned
You know that I'll be back...

© Lisa Liel 2010

Events in American History

Today, my daughter came home from her first day as a fifth grader with a homework assignment for me and my partner. Her history teacher wants us to write down the three most important events in American history, in our opinions. And it got me thinking about America, and the various changes it's gone through. See, I fear and hate Barack Obama. I have done since Jeri Ryan (nee Zimmerman, btw) ended her husband's race for the Senate in Illinois and Obama replaced him. Kind of funny to think that if Jack Ryan hadn't brought Jeri to strip clubs, Obama wouldn't be President today. For want of a nail...

But thinking about this assignment has gotten me to put things in perspective. Obama is bad, no doubt, but he isn't this big watershed in American history. He's not the first President to lie about himself. Not even the first President to fight rumors of his religious affiliation (Lincoln was accused of being a Catholic). He isn't the first President to jack the national debt sky high, and he won't be the last. He isn't the first President to vastly increase the power of the government at the expense of individuals, and he won't be the last. He isn't the first President to bail out big corporations on the taxpayers' backs, and it's virtually certain that he won't be the last.

So what are the big watershed events in American history? Well, it depends where you start it from. Let's start it from the Revolutionary War, because up until that point, there was no America as a nation. It was just British colonies. So:

1. The Signing of the Declaration of Independence (1776).
This is a no-brainer. This was the document that turned a bunch of rebellious colonists into a nation in their own right. It was not only a watershed event for America; it was a watershed event for the world. The creation of a nation in which the people were sovereign was novel and extraordinary, and an awful lot of people were convinced it wouldn't last.

2. The Ratification of the United States Constitution (1789).
Since the Constitution, in theory, is the defining document of the United States, specifying how the government of the United States is to be constituted (that being where the word "constitution" comes from, after all), the ratification of this document can be said to have created the United States.

3. The Whiskey Rebellion (1791-1794).
This was the first major violation of the Constitution by the United States government. In response to non-payment of a whiskey tax that was itself in violation of the Constitution (since it stemmed from Alexander Hamilton's decision to nationalize the debts incurred by the various states during the Revolutionary War), George Washington led 13,000 troops against farmers in southwestern Pennsylvania.

4. Marbury v. Madison (1803).
This was the second major violation of the Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall (a first cousin of Thomas Jefferson) invented the idea of "judicial review", claiming that the Supreme Court was the ultimate decisor of Constitutionality, a power not granted it by the Constitution. This was an enormous usurpation of power.

5. The War of Southern Independence (1861-1865).
Commonly called by the misnomer "The Civil War" (a civil war is an internal struggle between factions in a state for control of that state, which was never at issue during this war), this war was the point at which the struggle between advocates of individual rights, as Thomas Jefferson had advocated, finally lost to advocates of a strong, imperial government, as Alexander Hamilton had advocated. From this point on, there were no serious checks on the power of the Federal government.

6. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886).
In this case dealing with railroad property taxes, the court reporter stated in the headnote of the case that the Supreme Court considers corporations to have the rights granted to persons within United States jurisdiction by the Fourteenth Amendment. This view does not appear in the court's opinion, but has been considered to be law ever since then. Since corporations are effectively immortal, and since corporate boards are required -- by law -- to act for the benefit of shareholders, first and foremost, they can't be said to have a conscience. The granting of the rights of persons to what are to all intents and purposes uncontrollable Frankenstein monsters was an enormous watershed in history.

7. The Creation of the Federal Reserve System (1913).
For the first time, the government of the United States delegated its right to create money to a private banking cartel. This was contrary to the Constitution, but as a check on government power, the Constitution had effectively been set aside by this point. Since then, the Federal Reserve Board, which can be appointed and unappointed by the government, but which cannot be audited by the government, and answers only to itself, has been in charge of the wealth of Americans.

After all of these erosions of Constitutional limitations on the government, Barack Obama's actions are only extraordinary in degree; not kind.

The Intellectual Implosion in Haredism

Caveat: this may come across as Haredi-bashing. All I can say is that it's intended as constructive criticism. If even one Haredi Jew reads this and starts to realize that there's a problem, I'll consider this post a success.

I live in a house that was previously owned by a Lubavitch family. They had a lot of kids, and it was pretty clear that they have no intention of those kids ever going to college. This, despite the fact that both parents were college educated, one at an Ivy League institution. And that bothers me.

The Sages say, "If someone tells you there's wisdom among the nations, believe them. If someone tells you there's Torah among the nations, don't believe them." We know there's wisdom in the world that can't be gotten from the Torah alone. The Vilna Gaon was a mathematician. Rambam was a physician, and studied Aristotelian philosophy. Ignorance is not a value in Judaism.

Some of this has come about because of the toxic atmosphere in so many universities. Let me tell you about that. A girl who was a year behind me in high school went to the same college I went to. She was raised frum, and I most emphatically was not. She came out non-religious, at least to some degree, while I came out frum. Go figure. There are always anecdotes, but even if every university were toxic, the solution isn't to remain ignorant. The solution isn't to learn Torah all day, every day, and leave it to wives to bring in the money. That's never been a Jewish ideal. Never.

Here's another college related story. When I was living in New York, I got invited for a Rosh Hashana meal to the home of the daughter of the rabbi of the shul I davened at. It was a Young Israel shul, but it was very much on the Agudah side of Young Israel. Lot's of black hats and long beards. "Not that there's anything wrong with that", as they say, but I'm trying to give you a general impression of the place. Still and all, they weren't really Haredi. The rabbi's daughter had gone to Stern College, just as an example.

Now... Stern is a women's only, religious college. Though the Haredim generally wouldn't waste their spit on it. After all, girls can learn Gemara there.

Anyway, at lunch, she asked me some stuff about what I did. And I mentioned some of my studies in the field of ancient history. She seemed a little taken aback, so I tried to explain to her why it was important for frum Jews to address the issues that come up in the study of the ancient near east. I thought I'd give her a simple example. I told her to consider Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's translation of the Torah, The Living Torah. In this book, Kaplan includes many notes on history and botany. When plants are mentioned, he tells us what the plant is, giving the Latin name and some stuff about it. When a Pharaoh is mentioned, he tells us which Pharaoh it is. Here's the catch: he's wrong.

Okay, say it's a matter of opinion. The bottom line is, Aryeh Kaplan was not an Egyptologist. He was a talmid chacham with a degree in physics. When he wrote that thus and such a Pharaoh was Amenemhet II, he was simply basing himself on accepted reference books. He didn't use ruach hakodesh to determine that the reference books were correct; he did what any non-specialist does in such a case.

When I said that, my hostess' eyes got wide with shock, and she said, "You can't say that." And trying desperately to figure out what on earth she'd learned at Stern, I tried to explain to her what I explained above. But it didn't work. Her husband chimed in at that point, and tried to explain to her that I was right. That got her to stop arguing (because you don't argue with the husband ), but it was clear that she wasn't convinced.

I hate this. I hate the way huge sections of the Orthodox Jewish world are devolving into anti-intellectual piety, using one chumra after another to feel safe in a world they're receding from faster and faster.

I know that everyone sees themselves as being centrist, but I watch the Haredi world entering a dark age on one side, while the YCT/Edah/JOFA left left left wing Orthodox is eroding everything Jewish about Judaism. And I think of the famous line from Yeats: "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold." Is that always how it has to be?

A Tale of Two Insanities

Albert Einstein is supposed to have defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I want to talk about two instances of this kind of insanity that have possibly been overlooked by those who think there will ever be a peace with the Arabs that doesn't involve beating them completely.

Partitions

Today, Mahmoud Abbas / Abu Mazen (the chairman of the PLO, and the warlord ruling the Palestinian Authority in Judea and Samaria) said that Jews won't be allowed on the Arab side of any Palestinian state that might, God forbid, be created. Which isn't much of a surprise, but it is one more in a series of repeating events that we should be aware of.

In 1922, the Mandate for Palestine was split into two areas called Transjordan and Palestine. Transjordan was to be for the Arabs and Palestine was to be for the Jews. Following the partition, the Transjordanian Arabs kicked all the Jews out. But the Palestinian Arabs in Cisjordan remained there and began working to take it over and kick the Jews out.

In 1926, Syria was partitioned into two states called Syria and Lebanon. Syria was to be for the Muslims, and Lebanon was to be for the Christians. Following the partition, the Syrian Arabs kicked all the Christians out. But the Lebanese Muslims remained in Lebanon, and began working to take it over. Which they have essentially done.

In 1947, India was partitioned into two states called India and Pakistan. India was to be for the Hindus, and Pakistan was to be for the Muslims. Following the partition, the Hindus left Pakistan, but most Muslims remained in India, and began working to take it over. The Hindu-Muslim strife in India continues to this day. There's no Hindu problem in Pakistan, of course.

Also in 1947, the 21% of Palestine that had been set aside for the Jews was further partitioned into seven cantons. Three of them were to be for the Arabs, three of them were to be for the Jews, and Jerusalem was to be under international control. In this case, the Arabs figured they'd cut to the chase and take it all over, but they failed. However, at the end of the 1948-49 war, all the Jews were kicked out of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, while all the Arabs in the Jewish part remained there. Which is where we are today.

And now the head of the PLO terrorist group (which is more widely known today by its Arabic name: Fatah) says that if they get Judea and Samaria, they'll kick all the Jews out. But the sad sack government of Israel has no intention of making the Arabs leave the 11% of the original Mandate for Palestine that would be left to Israel, and so the story will continue to repeat.

Arabs have been a majority in the Galilee for decades now. And yes, they are agitating for independence as well. There's a common dark humor joke that says we aren't talking about a peace process so much as we are a pieces process. The insanity lies in thinking that it'll be different this time.

No Do-Overs

I was living in Israel in the early days of the Oslo nightmare. I remember arguing with leftist friends when the started talking about creating a "Palestinian Authority" in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. My leftist friends, as well as countless leftists in the media, told us we were being paranoid about things, and that if the PA were to ever to be used as a base for attacks against Israel within the Green Line (which of course it won't), we would simply end the experiment and go back to the way things had been

Right. I told them it doesn't work that way, and that we wouldn't be able to do that, and they laughed at me. "Israel is so much stronger than a Palestinian Authority would be! We could just roll back in and they wouldn't be able to stop us." Hmm.

Next, the Israeli government decided to help arm the PA Police Force. It was actually the PA Army, but the leftists denied this. They also called us paranoid for thinking that these guns would be used against Jews. There was a big campaign with the slogan "Don't Give Them Rifles!" Some of my leftist friends, once again, called me paranoid. "If they were ever to use those rifles against us (which of course they won't), we would just go in and take them back. We're so much stronger than them."

And when PLO terrorists from the PA (remember, PLO is the English for Fatah) killed Jews with the very rifles we'd given them, nothing happened. How about that.

When Ariel Sharon decided to expel 9,000 innocent Jewish men, women and children from their homes in Gush Katif, we again screamed bloody murder. "The Arabs will just use the vacated land as a staging ground for attacks, which will be able to reach much further into Israel," we remonstrated with Sharon and his supporters. And once again, we were called paranoid, and enemies of peace. We were assured that this pessimistic forecast was nothing to worry about. "The Arabs -- and the whole world -- will see that we're willing to do anything for peace," they said. Even commit war crimes against our own people, they didn't say. "This will change things, you'll see. And if the Arabs of Gaza were ever to use it as a staging ground for attacks inside the Green Line (which of course they won't), how hard do you think it would be to take it back? The Gaza Strip is tiny, and Israel would simply roll back in."

How did that work out for us?

There are no "experiments" with the Arabs. Any "test situation" we create with them will be permanent. We gave them autonomy, and they used it to kill us. We gave them rifles, and they used them to kill us. We gave them the homes of 9,000 of our own people, and they used that opportunity to kill us as well. When is the insanity going to stop? An infant can learn that touching a hot oven hurts without needing to try it half a dozen times. Why can't we learn?