Lee Smith writes an important piece on Slate about Arab anti-American sentiment:

Of course, Arab displeasure with U.S. leaders hardly started with the Bush White House. As Noam Chomsky pointed out two years ago—or well before anti-Americanism reached its current heights—President Eisenhower talked about the "hatred against us [in the Arab world]" way back in 1958.

...[I]n 1956 the United States handed Nasser his greatest—indeed only—unqualified triumph at Suez.

After Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, the Israelis, along with the French and British, attacked Egypt. Nasser would have lost the war and almost certainly his life had President Eisenhower not ordered those three American allies to back down. Arranging a victory of that order for Nasser—a victory that made him the Arab world's greatest modern hero—would seem to be about as pro-Arab as you can get, and yet only two years later, Eisenhower was wondering why the Arabs hated us so much. One obvious reason is that by chasing out the two Western powers that had been the region's hate targets for over a century, the United States became a kind of surrogate for anticolonial sentiment, regardless of whether or not it had the same imperial ambitions as France and Britain. In other words, pro-Arab U.S. policies don't seem to put much of a dent in Arab anti-Americanism.

All true. Some more excerpts:

Is Arab anti-Americanism just an irrational phenomenon manufactured by presidents-for-life, kings, and military dictators who rule their countries without legitimate political authority? Yes, but there are also really bad U.S. policies in the Arab world—none of which seem to trouble most Arabs.

...Of course, it is because of Washington's ostensibly unbalanced support of Israel that the United States is genuinely loathed in the region. To be sure, the United States maintains that the state of Israel has a right to exist. At different times, as when the international community recently mourned the deaths of two Hamas leaders whose explicit goal was the destruction of Israel, it is not obvious that the rest of the world believes Israel has a right to exist. Similarly, the Arab and European outrage over President Bush's announcement that Palestinians have no "right of return" suggests that many people outside of Israel and the United States do not really believe in a two-state solution, even if they say they do. When much of the world seems not to mean what it says, U.S. policy cannot help but seem to be totally biased toward Israel.

Read the whole thing, of course.

The last excerpt is especially important: when nothing short of building crematoria in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv will establish the U.S.' bona fide "neutrality" in the Arab world regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is it possible for the U.S. to avoid seeming "biased" towards Israel?

Much, much more on the topic later.

I heard this joke at my rabbi's table over Passover:

When the Jews were in the wilderness after leaving Egypt, God created the manna to eat. It miraculously tasted like anything the person eating it could wish for [according to rabbinical tradition].

It featured many different products, all of which looked very different. But miraculously, they all tasted exactly the same.

Well, something had to inspire me to post regardless of how crazily busy things are.

Megan McArdle asks:

The word mitzvah is often translated loosely as "good deed". Some things that observant Jews consider to be mitzvahs, however, would not ordinarily be classified by gentiles as "good deeds", such as saying certain prayers over food.

My question is this: does the reverse hold true? Are their things that could be classified as "good deeds", but that would not be mitzvahs?

The answer to Megan's question is actually a relatively simple "yes," because the premise is incorrect.

"Mitzva" is better translated as "commandment," not "good deed." (Loose translations...never trust 'em.) As a theological matter, Judaism makes no claims that the list of commandments that qualify as mitzvot (613 of them) is an all-encompassing list of all possible good deeds.

To make it more complicated, not all obligations observed by observant Jews are "mitzvot." Some may not meet certain criteria that must be met in order to be classified as one of the 613 "mitzvot." (Analyses of those criteria were the subject of many great rabbinic debates and scholarship about 800 years ago, and not everyone came up with the same list. Here's one version, which I haven't checked for accuracy.) Some are a lesser level of obligation, based on rabbinic decrees rather than explicit Biblical requirement - or, more technically and commonly, rabbinic extensions of biblical obligations. (Not all obligations are created equal. Think of it as a "first-level" obligation as opposed to a "second-level" obligation.)

Megan's example of food blessings is actually a pretty good one: most of them are not Biblical-level and thus do not rise to the level of "mitzvot," but they are still obligatory.

You may be asking: "well, aren't those second-level, rabbincally based obligations..less obligatory?" Sort of, as best illustrated with respect to Sabbath prohibitions: all prohibitions can be violated in situations of life-threatening danger, but you can take liberties with the "second-level" rabbinic prohibitions when faced with lesser levels of exigency. So you really need to know what is prohibited on which level in order to know what you can permit in what circumstances. Rabbinics isn't a full-time profession for nothing.

Finally, on a meta-level, the question of whether the universe of Jewish obligation (on all levels, not just the 613 "mitzvot") encompasses all conceivable "good deeds" is...a good question. The mysterious master of the "Four Questions" conspiracy once published an article on the subject, whose conclusion was essentially "It depends on how you define your terms." But it is at least conceivable that the answer is "no."

So Megan's question has a one-word answer: "Yes."