South Sudan is the world's newest nation – it declared its independence on 9 Jul 2011. Israel was one of the first foreign nations to establish formal diplomatic ties with the fledgling Republic. Subsequently, Israel wasted no time in announcing publicly that all South Sudanese refugees would soon be required to leave; they were given a deadline of 31 Mar 2012, and were informed that they would be forcibly deported if still in Israel after that date.

Israel claims that, since having gained independence, it is now safe for South Sudanese nationals to return home. However, independent critics rebuke this, saying that there is still significant armed conflict between Sudan, South Sudan, and numerous rebel groups in the region. Aside from the ongoing security concerns, South Sudan is also one of the world's poorest and least-developed countries; claiming that South Sudan is ready to repatriate its people, is a ridiculous notion at best.

Israel helped formulate the UN Refugee Convention of 1951. This was in the aftermath of the Holocaust, an event in which millions of Jewish lives could have been saved, had the rest of the world accepted more European Jews as refugees. Israel, of course, is itself one of the world's most famous "refugee nations", as the majority of the nation's founders were survivors of Nazi persecution in Europe, seeking to establish a permanent homeland where Jews could forevermore seek shelter from oppression elsewhere.

It's ironic, therefore, that Israel – of all nations – until recently had no formal policy regarding asylum seekers, nor any formal system for managing an influx of asylum seekers. (And I thought Australia's handling of asylum seekers was bad!) To this day, Israel's immigration policy consists almost entirely of the Law of Return, which allows any Jew to immigrate to the country hassle-free.

Well, it seems to me that this law has recently been amended. For Jewish refugees, the Law is that you can Return to Israel (no matter what). For non-Jews, the Law is that you're forced to Return from Israel, back to wherever you fled from. Couldn't get much more double standards than that!

Irony and hypocrisy

Many Israelis are currently up in arms over the African migrants that have "infiltrated" the country. Those Israelis obviously have very short memories (and a very poor grasp of irony). After all, it was only 21 years ago, in 1991, when Operation Solomon resulted in the airlifting of almost 15,000 black Africans from Ethiopia to Israel, as a result of heightened security risks for those people in Ethiopia. Today, over 120,000 Ethiopian Jews (African-born and Israeli-born) live in Israel.

Apparently, that's quite acceptable – after all, they were Jewish black Africans. As such, they were flown from Africa to Israel, courtesy of the State, and were subsequently welcomed with open arms. It seems that for non-Jewish black Africans (in this case, almost all of them are Christians), the tables get turned – they get flown from Israel back to Africa; and they're even given a gift of €1,000 per person, in the hope that they go away and stay away.

Oh, and in case the historical parallels aren't striking enough: the home countries of these refugees – South Sudan and Eritrea – happen to both be neighbouring Ethiopia (in fact, Operations Moses and Joshua, the precursors to Operation Solomon, involved airlifting Ethiopian Jewish refugees from airstrips within Sudan – whether modern-day South Sudan or not, is uncertain).

It's also a historical irony, that these African refugees are arriving in Israel on foot, after crossing the Sinai desert and entering via Egypt. You'd think that we Jews would have more compassion for those making an "exodus" from Egypt. However, if Israel does feel any compassion towards these people, it certainly has a strange way of demonstrating it: Israel is currently in the process of rapidly constructing a new fence along the entire length of its desert border with Egypt, the primary purpose of which is to stop the flow of illegal immigrants that cross over each year.

It's quite ironic, too, that many of the African refugees who arrive in Israel are fleeing religious persecution. After all, was the modern State of Israel not founded for exactly this purpose – to provide safe haven to those fleeing discrimination elsewhere in the world, based on their religious observance? And, after all, is it not logical that those fleeing such discrimination should choose to seek asylum in the Holy Land? Apart from South Sudan, a large number of the recent migrants are from Eritrea, a country that has banned all religious freedom, and that has the world's lowest Press Freedom Index rating in the world (179th, lower even than North Korea).

Much ado about nothing

Israel is a nation that lives in fear of many threats. The recent arrival of African refugees has been identified by many Israelis (and by the government) as yet another threat, and as such, the response has been one of fear. Israel fears that these "infiltrators" will increase crime on the nation's streets. It fears that they will prove an economic burden. And it fears that they will erode the Jewish character of the State.

These fears, in my opinion, are actually completely unfounded. On the contrary, Israel's fear of the new arrivals is nothing short of ridiculous. The refugees will not increase crime in Israel; they will not prove an economic burden; and (the issue that worries Israel most of all) they will not erode the Jewish character of the state.

As recent research has shown, humanitarian immigrants in general make a significant positive contribution to their new home country; this is a contribution that is traditionally under-estimated, or even refuted altogether. Refugees, if welcomed and provided with adequate initial support, are people who desire to, and who in most cases do, contribute back to their new host country. They're desperately trying to escape a life of violence and poverty, in order to start anew; if given the opportunity to fulfil their dream, they generally respond gratefully.

Israel is a new player in the field of humanitarian immigration (new to ethnically-agnostic humanitarian immigration, at least). I can only assume that it's on account of this lack of experience, that Israel is failing to realise just how much it has to gain, should it welcome these refugees. If welcomed warmly and given citizenship, the majority of these Africans will support Israel in whatever way Israel asks them to. Almost all of them will learn Hebrew. A great number will join the IDF. And quite a few will even convert to Judaism. In short, these immigrants could prove to be just the additional supporters of the Jewish status quo that Israel needs.

What is Israel's biggest fear in this day and age? That the nation's Arab / Palestinian population is growing faster than its Jewish population; and that in 20 years' time, the Jews will be voted out of their own State by an Arab majority. As such, what should Israel be actively trying to do? It's in Israel's interests to actively encourage any immigration that contributes people / votes to the Jewish side of the equation. And, in my opinion, if Israel were to accept these African refugees with open arms today, then in 20 years' time they would be exactly the additional people / votes that the status quo requires.

Finally, as many others have already stated: apart from being ironic, hypocritical, impractical, and (most likely) illegal, Israel's current policy towards its African refugees is inhumane. As a Jew myself, I feel ashamed and incredulous that Israel should behave in this manner, when a group of desperate and abandoned people comes knocking at its doorstep. It is an embarrassment to Jews worldwide. We of all people should know better and act better.

Most of the Torah is rock solid: sensible laws; moralistic stories; clear presentation of history; and other important information, such as geneaologies, rituals, and territorial boundaries. However, sometimes them five books throw some serious curve balls. I've selected here a few sections from the wonderful O.T, that in my opinion are so outrageously messed up, that they cannot possibly be the Divine Word. I believe in G-d, one hundred percent. But I see no reason to believe that these particular passages have a Divine source.

Ball-grabbing

Here's the situation. You're a married woman, and you and your husband are out with mates for the evening. Your husband gets into a heated debate with one of his male friends. The heated debate quickly escalates into a fistfight. You decide to resolve the conflict, quickly and simply. You grab your man by the nuts, and pull him away.

According to the torah, in this extremely specific situation, that's a crime that will cost you a hand (presumably, the hand responsible for said ball-grabbing). For, as it is written:

As a man, I think this is a great rule. I am all for explicitly prohibiting my future wife from resorting to sack-wrenching, as a means of intervening in my secret mens' business.

However, as a rational human being, I am forced to conclude, beyond any doubt, that this verse of the Torah simply cannot be the Word of G-d. I'm sorry, but it makes no sense that G-d didn't have time to mention anything about chemical warfare, or about protection of the endangered Yellow-browed Toucanet in Peru; yet he found the time to jot down: "By the way, ladies, don't end a brawl by yanking your man's nads."

Our Sages™ explain to us that this verse shouldn't be taken literally, and that what it's actually referring to is a more general prohibition on causing public shame and humiliation to others. They argue that, thanks to this verse, the Torah is actually ahead of most modern legal systems, in that it explicitly enshrines dignity as a legal concept, and that it provides measures for the legal protection of one's dignity.

Sorry, dear Sages, but I don't buy that. You can generalise and not take literally all you want. But for me, there's no shying away from the fact that the Torah calls for cutting off a woman's hand if she goes in for the nut-grabber. That's an extreme punishment, and honestly, the whole verse is just plain silly. This was clearly written not by G-d, but by a middle-aged priest who'd been putting up with his wife's nad-yanking for 30-odd years, and who'd just decided that enough was enough.

Parental discipline

You're a 16-year-old male. You live in a well-to-do middle-class neighbourhood, your parents are doctor and lawyer (respectively), and you go to a respectable private school. So, naturally, you've been binge drinking since the age of 12, you sell ecstasy and cocaine at the bus stop, you run a successful pimping business in the school toilets, you're an anaemic quasi-albino goth, and you're pretty handy with a flick-knife at 2am at the local train station. Your parents can't remember the last time you said anything to them, other than: "I f$@%ing hate you."

Your parents have pretty well given up on you. Fortunately, the Torah provides one final remedy that they haven't yet tried. For, as it is written:

The Torah sanctions stoning to death as a form of parental discipline… w00t! Ummm… yeah, I'm sorry, guys; but once again, according to every fibre of my mind and soul, I conclude that this cannot be the Word of G-d. No G-d of mine would condone this crap.

Once again, at this point we should turn to Our Sages™, who explain that this law is designed purely to be a deterrent for rebellious children, and that the prescribed punishment could never actually be imposed. They note that this passage lists so many conditions, in order for a son to meet the definition of "rebellious", that it's virtually impossible for anyone to actually be eligible for this punishment. They conclude that the scenario described here is purely hypothetical, and that it's intended that no son ever actually be stoned to death per this law.

Again, dear Sages, I'm afraid that just doesn't cut it for me. First of all, the conditions laid out in this passage aren't impossible; in my opinion, it wouldn't be very hard at all for them to be met. And secondly, on account of its conditions being possible in a real situation, this passage constitutes an incredibly reckless and dangerous addition to the Torah. Never intended to be enforced? Bull $@%t. I'd bet my left testicle that this law — just like many other sanctioned-stoning-to-death laws, e.g. adultery, idolatry — was invoked and was enforced numerous times, back in the biblical era.

Stoning to death as a form of parental punishment. Not written by G-d. If you ask me, 'twas written by a priestly couple, back in the day, who were simply tearing their hair out trying to get their adolescent son to stop dealing frankincense and myhhr to Welsh tart junkies behind the juniper bush.

The anti-castrato anti-modern-family regime

The Torah generally follows the well-accepted universal rules of who you're allowed to discriminate against. Everyone knows that you're allowed to pick on women, slaves (i.e. black people), proselytes (biblical equivalent of illegal aliens, i.e. Mexicans), homosexuals, Amalek (biblical equivalent of rogue states, i.e. North Korea), and of course Jews (who, despite all that "chosen people" crap, did have a pretty rough time in the O.T — so if you're wondering who started that "pick on the Jews" trend, it was G-d).

But the Torah had to take it just one step further, and break the Golden Rule: don't pick on the handicapped! According to the Torah, those who are handicapped in the downstairs department (plus bastard children are thrown in for good measure), are to be rejected from all paintball games, Iron Maiden concerts, trips to Nimbin, and other cool events. For all eternity. For, as it is written:

I guess the whole "even to the tenth generation" postscript was only added to the bastard law, and not to the crushed-nuts law, because adding it to the former would have been kinda superfluous. If you're chanting in the Pope's soprano choir, it's a pretty safe bet there won't be even one more generation in your grand lineage, let alone ten.

Turning once again to Our Sages™, it seems they don't see much problem with this law (a cause for concern in itself, if you ask me), because they don't particularly bother to justify it as a metaphor or a hypothetical. They merely clarify that this law applies to voluntary or accidental mutilation, and not to birth defects or diseases. Well, isn't that a relief! They also clarify that the punishment of not being able to "enter into the assembly of the Lord" refers to being prohibited from marrying a Jewish woman.

I'm sorry, but specific discrimination against victims of ball-crushing (possibly on account of women violating the ball-grabbing law, as discussed above) is, in my opinion, not the Word of G-d. This law was clearly an addition penned by a member of the Temple elite, who had already exhausted the approved list of groups suitable to pick on (see above), and who just couldn't resist breaking the universal rule and picking on the handicapped. The very same guy probably then interpreted his own law, to mean that he could park his donkey right outside the door of the blacksmith's, which was quite clearly marked as a disabled-only spot.

Slow poisoning of suspected adulteresses

Everyone knows that the Bible proscribes stoning to death for proven offenders of adultery. While we may not all agree with the severity of the punishment, I personally can sort-of accept it as the Word of G-d. However, the Torah also describes, in intricate detail, a bizarre and disturbing procedure for women who are suspected of being adulteresses, but against whom there is no damning evidence. For, as it is written:

In case the language above eludes and confounds you, let me recap. You're a married woman. Your husband suspects you've been engaged in wild orgies with the gardeners, every time he goes to London on a business trip (of course, he never gets up to any mischief on his trips either); but as nobody else is ever home during these trips, he has no proof of his suspicion. In order to alleviate his suspicions, he brings you before a Temple Priest, who forces you to drink something called the "water of bitterness" (generally understood to be more-or-less poison).

Apparently, if you're innocent, then the water of bitterness will have no effect, and the final proof of your acquittal will be your ability to fall pregnant in a few months' time; or, if you're guilty, then the water of bitterness will cause you severe internal damage, and it will possibly kill you — in particular, it will definitely f$@% up your reproductive organs. Amen.

Woaaaahhhhh! I'm sorry. That is NOT the Word of G-d. That is F$@%ED UP.

I don't know about you, but this reminds me of the good old-fashioned, tried-and-tested method of determining if a woman is a witch: if she floats, she's a witch; if not, she's innocent (too bad about her drowning, eh?). This ceremony — called the sotah — is a sort of perverse backwards version of a witch-trial: if she's been playing around, the poison f$@%s her up; if not, she will (theoretically) be well and healthy.

And now, a word from Our Sages™. Once again (as with the parental discipline law, see above), the Learned Ones brush this one off as being purely a deterrent law, never meant to be actually enforced. Once again, I say: bull$@%t. If this truly was the intention of this law, it was pretty damn recklessly implemented.

At least the "rebellious son" law has a reasonable set of conditions to be met before the prescribed punishment can be effected; for this law, the only relevant condition is that "the spirit of jealousy cometh upon a man". Jeez, a jealous and suspicious partner — that hardly ever happens.

I really, truly, shudder to think how many times this ritual was carried out in the biblical era. If this were a real, secular law in any country today, I can guarantee there'd be a queue of seeming husbands five miles long, at the door of every local court in the land.

Final thoughts

I'm proudly Jewish, always have been, always will be. I also firmly believe in G-d's existence. But that doesn't mean I have to accept every word of my religion's holy book as infallible. Call me a heretic if you will. But G-d gave us intellect, critical judgement and, above all, common sense. Failing to exercise it, on everything including G-d's Holy Scriptures — now, that would be a gross sacrilege and an act of heresy (and one of which billions of blind followers throughout history are, in my opinion, guilty).

If a law's literal interpretation seems absurd, then there's a problem with the law. If a law has to be justified as a metaphor, as a hypothetical, or as an allegory before it seems rational, then there's a problem with the law. We would never accept laws in our modern legal systems, if they required a metaphysical interpretation before they seemed reasonable. Why then do we accept such laws in religious canon? Baffles me.

One of my aims in this article, was to present some of the most repulsive literally-read verses in the Torah, and to also present the explanations that scholars have provided, over the ages, to justify them. Commentary on the Bible is all well and good: but commentary should be a more detailed discussion of canon text that already has a solid foundation; it should not be a futile defence of canon text whose foundation is rotten. The literal meaning of the Bible is its foundation; and if the foundation is warped, so too is everything built upon it.

Additional references

• 10 of the most bizarre bible verses ever
• 9 most badass bible verses
• The 6 raunchiest most depraved sex acts from the bible *
• 5 superpowers from the bible that put Marvel DC to shame *
• Some great lines from the bible
• Dear Dr. Laura (letters from an atheist)
• The Hebrew Bible in English (all quoted Torah verses copied from this site)

* — references marked with an asterisk not actually used in this article, included in this list just for fun.

To see just how effective this volunteer mapping effort has been, I decided to do a quick visual comparison experiment. As of today, here's what downtown Port-au-Prince looks like in Google Maps:

And here it is in OpenStreetMap:

Is that not utterly kick-a$$? Google may be a great company with wonderful ideas, but even the Internet's biggest player (and the current leader in online mapping) simply cannot compete with the speed and the effectiveness that the OSM Haiti crisis project has demonstrated.

For those of you that aren't aware, OpenStreetMap is a map of the world that anyone can contribute to — the Wikipedia of online maps. This Haiti mapping effort is of course a massive help to the aid workers who are picking up the broken pieces of that country. But it's also testament to the concept that free and open data — coupled with a willingness to contribute — is not only feasible, it's also superior to commercial efforts (when push comes to quake).

I was walking through the Devonshire St tunnel, in Sydney's Central Railway Station, about a week ago. 'The tunnel' is one of those places that seems to inexorably draw buskers to it, much like members of the female race are inexorably drawn towards shoe shops (whilst members of the male race are inexorably oblivious to the existence of shoe shops - I can honestly say that I can't remember ever walking past such a place, and consciously noticing or registering the fact that it's there).

Normally, as I walk through the tunnel - passing on average about five buskers - I don't stop to even consider dropping a coin for any of them. It doesn't really matter how desperate or how pitiful they look, nor how much effort they're putting in to their performance. I walk through there all the time. I'm in a hurry. I don't have time to stop and pull out my wallet, five times per traverse, several traverses per week. And anyway, I didn't ask to be entertained whilst commuting, so why should I have to pay?

But last week, I was walking through the tunnel as usual, when I saw some buskers that I just couldn't not stop and listen to. They were a string quartet. Four musicians, obviously talented and accomplished professionals, playing a striking piece of classical music. Their violin and cello cases were open on the ground, and they weren't exactly empty. Evidently, a lot of people had already felt compelled to stop and show their appreciation. I too felt this need. I pulled out my wallet and gave them a few coins.

This is a rare act for me to engage in. What was it that triggered me to support these particular buskers, when I had indifferently ignored so many before them, and would continue to ignore so many after them? What mode of measurement had I used to judge their worthiness, and why had I used this mode?

The answer is simple. I stopped because I thought: These guys are good. Really good. I like the music they're playing. I'm being entertained by them. The least I can do, in return for this, is to pay them. Basically, I felt that they were doing something for me - I was getting something out of their music - and so I felt obliged to pay them for their kind service.

And then it occurred to me what my mode of measurement is: my judgement of a busker is based solely on whether or not I notice and enjoy their music enough to warrant my stopping and giving them money. That is, if I consciously decide that I like what they're playing, then I give money; otherwise, I don't.

Nothing else enters into the equation. Fancy instruments, exotic melodies, and remarkable voices contribute to the decision. Pitiful appearance, desperate pleas, and laudable (if fruitless) effort do not. Talk about consumer culture. Talk about heartless. But hey, don't tell me you've never done the same thing. We all have. Like I said, you can't stop for every busker. You have to draw the line somewhere, and somehow.