Israpundit Digest

Support Israpundit


USD

ILS

CAD

Syndication

Blog Traffic

Pages

Pages|Hits |Unique

  • Last 24 hours: 0
  • Last 7 days: 0
  • Last 30 days: 0
  • Online now: 0
Los Angeles SEO
Current Entries

Recent Comments

Sponsors

Sponsor

Dry Bones
Dry Bones

”souvenirs”

Archives

Fair Use

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

LIVE HEADLINE NEWS FEEDS
THERE IS NO DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION

Support Israpundit

USD

ILS

CND


  • February 12, 2013

    David Horowitz: “Why Israel is the Victim”

    Foreword by Daniel Greenfield

    In “Why Israel is the Victim” David Horowitz tells the ugly tale of the war against Israel, laying bare the sordid hypocrisies and deceits behind its campaign of violence. No volume can contain the full story of Islamic terrorism or the courageous ways in which the ordinary Israeli confronts it in the streets of his cities. What this essay does tell is the story of the lies behind that terror.

    Propaganda precedes war; it digs the graves and waits for them to be filled. The war against the Jews has never been limited to bullets and swords; it has always, first and foremost, been a war of words. When bombs explode on buses and rockets rain down on Israel homes, when mobs chant “Death to the Jews” and Iran races toward the construction of its genocidal bomb; the propaganda lies to cover up these crimes must be bold enough to contain not only the murders of individuals, but the prospective massacre of millions.


    The lie big enough to fill a million graves is that Israel has no right to exist, that the Jewish State is an illegitimate entity, an occupier, a warmonger and a conqueror. The big lie is that Israel has sought out the wars that have given it no peace and that the outcomes of those wars make the atrocities of its enemies understandable and even justifiable. That is the big lie that David Horowitz confronts in “Why Israel is the Victim”.

    From the latest outburst of violence to its earliest antecedents under the Palestine Mandate, “Why Israel is the Victim” exposes the true nature of the war and wipes away the lies used by the killers and their collaborators to lend moral authority to their crimes. It shows not only why Israel must exist, but also why its existence has been besieged by war and terror.

    In “Why Israel is the Victim” David Horowitz tells the ugly tale of the war against Israel, laying bare the sordid hypocrisies and deceits behind its campaign of violence. No volume can contain the full story of Islamic terrorism or the courageous ways in which the ordinary Israeli confronts it in the streets of his cities. What this essay does tell is the story of the lies behind that terror.

    Propaganda precedes war; it digs the graves and waits for them to be filled. The war against the Jews has never been limited to bullets and swords; it has always, first and foremost, been a war of words. When bombs explode on buses and rockets rain down on Israel homes, when mobs chant “Death to the Jews” and Iran races toward the construction of its genocidal bomb; the propaganda lies to cover up these crimes must be bold enough to contain not only the murders of individuals, but the prospective massacre of millions.

    The lie big enough to fill a million graves is that Israel has no right to exist, that the Jewish State is an illegitimate entity, an occupier, a warmonger and a conqueror. The big lie is that Israel has sought out the wars that have given it no peace and that the outcomes of those wars make the atrocities of its enemies understandable and even justifiable. That is the big lie that David Horowitz confronts in “Why Israel is the Victim”.

    From the latest outburst of violence to its earliest antecedents under the Palestine Mandate, “Why Israel is the Victim” exposes the true nature of the war and wipes away the lies used by the killers and their collaborators to lend moral authority to their crimes. It shows not only why Israel must exist, but also why its existence has been besieged by war and terror.

    “Why Israel is the Victim” tells us why we should reject the “Blame Israel First” narrative that has so thoroughly saturated the mainstream media. It challenges the false hope of the Two State Solution in sections such as “Self-Determination Is Not the Agenda” and “Refugees: Jewish and Arab”. It confronts the myth of Palestinian victimhood in “The Policy of Resentment and Hate” and delivers a rousing restatement of the true history of the hate that led us to all this in “The Jewish Problem and Its ‘Solution’”.

    Recent history shows us that it was not an Israeli refusal to grant the Palestinian Arabs the right of self-determination that led to their campaigns of terror, but that Palestinian self-determination empowered a people steeped in the hatred of Jews to engage in terrorism.

    With the peace process each new level of Palestinian self-determination led to an intensified wave of terror against Israel, as chronicled in this pamphlet. In 2006 when the Palestinian Arabs were able to vote in a legislative election for the first time in ten years, they chose Hamas, a genocidal terrorist organization that drew its popularity from its unwillingness to even entertain the thought of peace with the Jewish State.

    The 2006 election showed once again that the root cause of terrorism lay in a culture where political popularity came from killing Jews, not from bringing peace.

    Hamas’ ability to carry out more spectacular terrorist attacks, employing motivated Islamist suicide bombers, gave it the inside track in the election. Where Western political parties might compete for popularity by offering voters peace and prosperity, Palestinian factions competed over who could kill more Jews. And Hamas won based on its killing sprees and its unwillingness to water down its platform of destroying Israel.

    Hamas’ victory cannot be viewed as an isolated response to Israeli actions. Hamas leaders have stated that they were the vanguard of the Arab Spring, and the 2006 elections foreshadowed the regional downfall of Arab Socialists and the rise of the Islamists. The outcome of the elections in Egypt could have been foreseen from across the border in Gaza.

    The defining test of any political philosophy in the Middle East is its ability to defeat foreign powers and drive out foreign influences. Israel has been the target of repeated efforts by both Arab Socialists and Islamists to destroy it because it is the nearest non-Arab and non-Muslim country in the region, but the regional ascendance of Islamists in the Arab Spring forces us to recognize that this phenomenon is not limited to Israel.

    War is the force that gives Islamists meaning. During the last Gaza conflict, Hamas’ Al Aqsa TV broadcast the message, “Killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah.” Palestinian Arabs who define themselves through conflict, constructing a conflict-based national identity, were destined to become the vanguard of regional Islamization.

    The ascendance of Hamas has made it clearer than ever that Palestinian terrorism is not the resistance of helpless people who only want autonomy and territory, but the calculated choice of determined aggressors.

    If occupation were the issue, then the less territory Israel “occupied”, the more peace there would be. But the real world results of the peace experiment have led to the exact opposite outcome.

    Israel’s withdrawals from Gaza and Lebanon did not lead to peace, they led to greater instability as Hamas and Hezbollah exploited the power vacuum to take over Gaza and Lebanon, and used that newfound power to escalate the conflict with Israel. The less territory Israel has occupied, the more violence there has been directed against her.

    The goal of the terrorists has never been an Israeli withdrawal and a separate peace, but the perpetuation of the conflict, and the elimination of the Jewish state.

    Half a year after Israel withdrew from Gaza, Hamas swept the Palestinian legislative elections. Another half a year after that, a Hamas raid netted Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit as a hostage. Barely a year after Israel had withdrawn from Gaza; Hamas had found a way to bring Israeli soldiers back into Gaza for a renewal of the conflict.

    Cut off from attacking Israel directly by a blockade, Hamas deepened its investment in long-range weapons systems, even while complaining that its people were going hungry. After its takeover of Gaza, it significantly improved its weapons capabilities. In 2004, it had achieved its first Kassam fatality killing a 4-year-old boy on his way to a Sderot nursery school, but by 2006, its capabilities had so dramatically improved that it was able to launch its first Katyusha rocket at Ashkelon, the third largest city in Israel’s south with a population of over 100,000.

    As the volume and range of Hamas’ rockets increased, Israel was forced to take action. In 2004, Israel suffered 281 rocket attacks. By 2006, that number had increased to over 1,700. In 2008, the number of rocket and mortar attacks approached 4,000 triggering Operation Cast Lead, also known as the Gaza War.

    Operation Cast Lead destroyed enough of Hamas’ stockpiles and capabilities to reduce rocket attacks down to the 2004 and 2005 levels, but another dramatic increase in attacks in 2012, with over 2,000 rockets fired into Israel, combined with the smuggling of Fajr 5 rockets capable of reaching Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, forced Israel to carry out a series of strikes against Hamas in Operation Pillar of Defense.

    Both times Israel did not choose a conflict of opportunity, but reacted to a disturbing level of Hamas violence, and had nothing to gain from the conflict except for a temporary reduction of violence.

    War is a choice. Hamas has chosen war over and over again and the Palestinian Arabs have chosen Hamas. After six years of fighting, in a recent poll 9 out of 10 Palestinian Arabs agreed with the tactics of Hamas proving that their violence is not a reflexive response to occupation, but a choice. The violence does not spring from the occupation. The occupation springs from their violence.

    By choosing Hamas in 2006 and today, the Palestinian Arabs were not rejecting peace, for they had never chosen peace. The difference between Hamas and Arafat’s Fatah lay not in a choice between war and peace, but between overt war and covert war. Both Hamas and Fatah had dedicated themselves to the destruction of the Jewish State. The practical difference between them is that Hamas refuses to even pretend to recognize Israel’s right to exist for the sake of extracting strategic territory through negotiations.

    By choosing Hamas, the Palestinian Arabs were sending the message that they felt confident enough to be able to dispense with Fatah’s dissembling and strong enough to no longer need to lie to Israel and America about wanting peace.

    The ascendance of Hamas is the logical progression of the entire history of the conflict that you will read about in this pamphlet. It is the inevitable outcome of a war of destruction based on race and religion. It contains within it the inescapable truth that peace is farthest away when the terrorist groups who would destroy Israel are strongest.

    Israel’s attempt to make peace with the Palestinians has not ushered in an era of peace; instead it has served as a microcosm of the first fifty years of the conflict chronicled in “Why Israel is the Victim.” A slow bloody recapitulation of the unfortunate truth that the Israeli-Arab conflict is not a war of land, but a war of blood, that is not being fought to settle the ownership of a few hills or a few miles, but to exterminate the nearly 6 million Jews living among those miles and hills.

    Looking down on the earth from space, Israel appears as only a tiny strip of land wedged at an angle between Africa, Europe and the Middle East against the Mediterranean Sea. From up here there is little to distinguish the otherwise indistinct land and no way to conceive of the terrible life and death struggle taking place in the hills, deserts and cities below.

    The Jewish State, like the Jewish People, is small in size but great in presence. The scattered people that half the world has tried to destroy have formed into a nation that half the world is trying to destroy again. Only four years separated the Nazi gas chambers of 1944 from the invading Arab armies of 1948, who, along with the Nazi-funded Muslim Brotherhood, were bent on wiping out the indigenous Jewish population along with the Holocaust survivors who had made their way to the ports and shoals of the rebuilt Jewish State.

    Before 1948, the Jews of Israel lived in a state of constant victimization at the hands of Islamic leaders such as Haj Amin al-Husseini, Hitler’s Mufti, and Izz ad-Din al-Qassam of The Black Hand gang, after whom Hamas’ Qassam rockets are named. After 1948 they were forced to live in a state of constant vigilance against the invasions of armies and the bombs, bullets and shells of terrorists.

    Once Israel had won its independence hardly a single decade passed without another war of aggression against her. From 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 to 1982, the coming of each new decade meant a new war. Nor was there peace between these wars. When Gaza and the West Bank were in Egyptian and Jordanian hands, Fedayeen terrorists used them as bases to invade Israel and carry out attacks within the 1948 borders. When Israel turned these territories over to the Palestinian Authority, they once again became bases of terror.

    At no point in time, regardless of the date, the prime minister or the policy, did Israel enjoy peace. Whether Israel was led by the right or by the left, whether it made war or peace, the violence of its enemies remained unchanged. No matter how often Israel changed, how it was transformed by waves of immigration, by political and religious movements, by peace programs and technological booms, its enemies remained unwaveringly bent on its destruction.

    As a nation of wandering exiles, Jews had lived with the knowledge that they had no rights that could not be taken away at a whim and no certainty of safety that would endure beyond the next explosion of violence. That is still how Israel lives today, no longer as a wandering people, but as a nation alone.

    The way that a majority treats a minority is a test of its character. Nazi Germany showed what it intended for Europe with its treatment of the Jews. As did the Soviet Union. The Muslim world has likewise shown its intentions toward the rest of the world with its treatment of Israel; the only non-Muslim country in the region.

    Europe’s apathy toward Hitler’s depredations in the 1930s foreshadowed its unwillingness to halt Nazi territorial expansionism. The apathy of the international community toward the war against Israel warns us of a similar apathy in a conflict that will extend as far beyond the borders of the Jewish State, as Nazi atrocities extended beyond the broken windows of the synagogues of Berlin.

    Within the pages of this pamphlet you will find the story of this new war against the Jews, as a people, and against Israel, as a Jewish State.

    The old saying, “A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on,” is truer than ever in the age of the Internet when the speed of lies has become instantaneous. The pamphlet that you are about to read represents an equally instantaneous response to those lies with the best possible weapon; the truth.

    Arm yourself with it.

    Daniel Greenfield, Shillman Fellow.

  • Posted by Ted Belman @ 3:25 pm | 94 Comments »

    94 Comments to David Horowitz: “Why Israel is the Victim”

    1. dweller says:

      @ Honey Bee:

      “I have already received three boxes of cholates and roses. And someone is placing thumbs down on all my post,you could rid me of the knave!”

      “Perhaps the knave is bribing the SPAMBOT with chocolates & roses?”

      “Then not even Heaven can shelter him from my wrath!”

      “Indeed. Hell hath no fury. . . . Now, if we could only focus that wrath on the SPAMBOT itself, then we’d be cookin’.”

      “Shakespere as well as Dickens…”

      Well, yeah;

      — except it wasn’t Shakespeare; rather, the mostly satiric, Restoration playwright, William Congreve, who wrote some 75-80 yrs after Shakespeare’s death:

      “Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned / Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned.

      You can find the line in his first & only tragedy, The Mourning Bride (1697). Unlike 3 of his earlier satirical comedies, it wasn’t a hit, and he went back to writing what worked for him (The Way of the World, etc.)

      It’s a common enough error, though, to attribute the line to Shakespeare. I don’t presume to be some kind of scholar in these matters, but having worked as an actor, I have some familiarity with such things.

      You may (or may not) find it a comfort to know also that Rick Blaine (the Bogart character in Casablanca) never said, “Play it again, Sam,” either.

      Nor did Joe Friday ever say, “Just the facts, Ma’am.”

      And, uh . . . .Tarzan never said “Me Tarzan You Jane.”

    2. dweller says:

      @ yamit82:

      “[Rashi's evident (& flimsy) interpolation of the Exodus story] still doesn’t account for the fact that, if true, a matter of such patently obvious significance was left out altogether from the Torah narrative — and that in the 25 centuries from Moshe to Rashi, the purported ‘truth’ never dawned on anybody (or, at least, never such that they felt moved to commit it to writing). Sorry, but I must repeat, this does not strike me as one of the venerable R. Shlomo’s better moments.”

      “The Jewish Scriptures make no reference to Youshka either…”

      Apples & Oranges. No comparison.

      Thus, your comment is off-point, and essentially constitutes a distraction from my comment — which REMAINS unanswered.

      Look: NEITHER of us questions the basic Exodus narrative in its entirety or its essentiality (I challenge only Rashi’s interpolation in the midst of it) — while you DO question the gospel accounts in THEIR entirety.

      — So your comparison is specious on its face.

      As for your assertion that T’nakh never refers to haNitzri, that is — at best — an ONGOING matter of dispute, not established ‘fact.’

      “… yet you believe in the Youshka narrative…”

      MOST of it, yes;

      — some elements of the received narrative in the compiled gospels DO seem (as I’ve told you) to have been tampered with — and thus I find them just as questionable as I find Rashi’s preposterous speculations over the Exodus narrative in re the “khamushim” silliness.

      “The Hebrew Scriptures Make No Mention even once of a Mashiach ( The Messiah) yet you still accept and believe your Youshka to be he?”

      It’s very obvious — from, inter alia, the disjointed collection of narratives contained in the earlier chapters of Genesis — that much of the scripture has been excised: without, in the process, much (if any) attempt to match the seamless quality of subsequent chapters. Till that matter has been satisfactorally (or even to ANY degree, reasonably) addressed, your observation about ‘no mention of Moshiakh in the Hebrew Scriptures’ is, and will remain, meaningless.

    3. dweller says:

      @ yamit82:

      “No Jewish contemporary of Youshka ever mentioned Youshka”

      You don’t know this, Yamit — all you KNOW is that you can’t find anything in writing that addresses it. There could be multiple reasons for such, but a closed mind will neither consider nor seek them.

      Every other people on the face of the earth is capable of suppression of that which it finds painful, dangerous, or embarrassing (to say nothing of that which has been historically associated with disaster to that people).

      — I suggest to you that Am Yisrael are, in this respect, not substantially different from haGoyim. They ARE special in some ways — not this way.

      “Compare our revelation with your false Christian claims?”

      You are simply going further & further off-point, Yamit.

      I will not be distracted by this strenuous & transparent attempt of yours to becloud the original issue, which I repeat here:

      “[Rashi's evident (& flimsy) interpolation of the Exodus story] still doesn’t account for the fact that, if true, a matter of such patently obvious significance was left out altogether from the Torah narrative — and that in the 25 centuries from Moshe to Rashi, the purported ‘truth’ never dawned on anybody (or, at least, never such that they felt moved to commit it to writing).

      If you are going to keep making this claim (that 4/5 of Bnai Israel died in the great darkness without ever leaving Egypt) — and then keep citing (or suggesting) Rashi’s commentary for support whenever you’re challenged on the claim — then you’re going to have to address the question I’ve raised above.

      It’s not a “GOTCHA” question, Yamit.

      — It’s a fair question, and it’s entitled to a thoughtful response.

    4. dionissis mitropoulos says:

      @ Honey Bee

      Honey Bee, the one who is voting you down must be a soul poisoned from too much resentment. So much that he cannot actually let go.

    5. Honey Bee says:

      @ dweller:

      Thank you for the info. Shakespere had Jewish girl-friend!!!!!!!!!

    6. Honey Bee says:

      @ dionissis mitropoulos:

      A Malaka for sure,because [as evey one knows] I am a Sweetheart.

    7. Honey Bee says:

      @ yamit82:

      I did not hallucinate, acourding the curanderas, when you have a high fever your mind enters another plane. A beloved friend of mine[who had passed away] came to visit me. She would sit on my pillow and gossip and tell jokes in Spanish. I always speak Spanish when I have a fever. I have dear Amer. Indian friend [Dine], who say the curanderas are witches,quien sabe. If I mirated to Israel, I would miss my Mexican and Indian friends demasiada.

    8. dweller says:

      @ yamit82:

      “[T]hose claiming Jewish roots but adopting Jesus in any form have in effect left the Jewish fold and for all intents and purposes must be excluded from Jewish communal religious obligations and be excluded from Jewish communal civil inclusion as well.”

      An assertion.

      Like all assertions, it represents an opinion.

      Nothing more.

      Yet Judaism has no magisterium.

      No catechism.

      No tightly bound collection of requisite beliefs.

      Nor any enforcer — or Office of Enforcement of such.

      Therefore those who presume to MAKE such sweeping pronunciamentos as the above

      — do not represent Judaism or the Jewish People.

      But by spouting forth thus, they DO give us an important clue as to their intentions.

      Such Grand Inquisitor-wannabees and their Thought-Police flunkies & associates are not to be trusted

      — by Jews or anybody else.

    9. Shy Guy says:

      @ dweller:
      No, wishful thinker. This has been the Jewish concesus, both legal and philosophical, for 2 millennium, throughout observant Jewish communities worldwide. Heck, even the reform Jewish movement of yesteryear wouldn’t have touched you with a 10-foot poll. Muktzah Machmat Mi’us is an understatement.

    10. dionissis mitropoulos says:

      @ Shy Guy:

      Yamit does not sound to me as a wannabe inquisitor. I think the analogy fails because Yamit just wants the Jews to be left alone, whereas the inquisition wanted to violently convert.

    11. Shy Guy says:

      dionissis mitropoulos Said:

      Yamit does not sound to me as a wannabe inquisitor. I think the analogy fails because Yamit just wants the Jews to be left alone, whereas the inquisition wanted to violently convert.

      Indeed, we Jews just want the grubby freaks to face the facts that they are not part of our people and never will be.

      One of the most fundamental messianic convictions in Judaism has always been that failure is failure. It’s that simple.

    12. Honey Bee says:

      @ Shy Guy:

      Define “grubby freaks” is anything like a “smart ass”?

    13. dweller says:

      @ Shy Guy:

      “No, wishful thinker.”

      No wishful thinking here.

      Nothing to ‘wish’ for.

      I’m simply stating a fact

      — it is YOU, Shy One, who are stating a wish. . . .

      “This has been the Jewish concesus, both legal and philosophical…”

      What’s “consensus” got to do with the price of bananas?

      (And why is it that when people talk “consensus” they usually MEAN lynch mob?)

      “Consensus” was — at bottom — the argument the Inquisition gave Galileo.

      “…for 2 millennium, throughout observant Jewish communities worldwide.”

      I take it that Math wasn’t your best subject, boychik.

      Regard for the person & teaching of Yeshu haNitzri wasn’t even regarded as potentially part of another ‘religion’ (OR another faith community) till at least after the end of the Bar Kokhba War [AD 135].

      And even SINCE then, the Jewish community — even the explicitly ‘Orthodox’ Jewish community — has largely been FAR more relaxed over matters of thought than you make it out to be.

      There is a vast difference between acknowledging the merit of a specific teaching — and making a whole religion out of the teacher’s LIFE.

      “…’Accept the true from whatever source it come’ is sound rabbinic doctrine — even if it be from the pages of a devout Christian expositor or of an iconoclastic Bible scholar, Jewish or non-Jewish. This does not affect the Jewish traditional character of the work.” [J.H. Hertz, Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom (1913-46), Soncino Chumash (Pentateuch & Haftarot, London, 1960), Preface to the First Edition, 1936]

      Your words are thus not only mistaken.

      — They also reflect a bearing of false witness against the Jewish People & the Jewish faith.

    14. dweller says:

      @ Shy Guy:

      “Yamit does not sound to me as a wannabe inquisitor. I think the analogy fails because Yamit just wants the Jews to be left alone, whereas the inquisition wanted to violently convert.”

      He wants the Jews to be left alone to do what the Inquisition did.

      The Inquisition did what it had the POWER to do.

      The analogy would be invalid indeed IF one could establish that Yamit would not proceed thus if he HAD the power.

      I’ve seen enough of his writing, however (and noted enough of his tone), to harbor not a shred of residual doubt that (bizarre as it may sound in the 21st century) he most assuredly WOULD.

      “One of the most fundamental messianic convictions in Judaism has always been that failure is failure. It’s that simple.

      With all due respect, simplistic drivel.

      Also (and more significantly as to this discussion) utterly off-point.

      The issue is not the correctness OR error of believing that somebody is, or is not, truly Moshiakh.

      If that were the issue, then every Jew who ever believed in a false Messiah would be automatically a gentile. (And that make for an awfully long list of ‘ex-Jews.’)

      Accordingly, for example (one among myriad), it would mean that Rebbe Akiva — who believed (wrongly), and publically DECLARED, at the time — that Bar Kokhba was ‘Moshiakh’

      — ‘ceased’ thereby, and from that moment, to be a Jew. The absurdity is ludicrous.

      Akiva may have been an unwise Jew, or a self-deluded one, or a senile one (by that time in his life).

      But a Jew he remained nonetheless — and notwithstanding his error.

      OTOH, had Akiva declared B-K to be ‘Divine’ — that would’ve constituted a bite of a different bagel ALTOGETHER, because it would mean that Akiva had effectively (or arguably , anyway) declared allegiance to a different ‘God’ from that of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob — and thereby removed himself from the fellowship of the Jewish People: who were expressly Called into being by that only true God.

      The point is that whomsoever a Jew identifies as “Moshiakh” — whether rightly OR wrongly — has no bearing (in & of itself) on whether he ‘remains’ a Jew.

      Whomsoever he identifies as “God,” on the other hand, has plenty of bearing on it.

    15. dionissis mitropoulos says:

      @ Shy Guy:

      Here is my take on the issue of consensus that arose from the following comment:

      What’s “consensus” got to do with the price of bananas?

      (And why is it that when people talk “consensus” they usually MEAN lynch mob?)

      “Consensus” was — at bottom — the argument the Inquisition gave Galileo.

      As far as bananas are concerned, their price has everything to do with consensus, if we are talking about a free-market economy: the price is the consensus price that buyers and sellers implicitly agree upon through the mechanism of supply and demand.

      Bananas’ price determination aside, consensus is an extremely valuable method for deciding the truth of a matter. That’s why many doctors may deliberate all together to decide the best course of action when it is not clear how they should proceed. More brains think better than one brain. Consensus is not infallible, but it is the most rational choice of a method when no superior alternative exists. In religious matters, i cannot think of a superior alternative to the method of consensus for establishing the truth of a disputed religious doctrine. In the absence of such an alternative, it is wise to go for the consensus.

      Of course, consensus might be misused, and deliver clear falsities as an outcome (the Galileo case, for example). But this is no more an argument against utilizing consensus than the fact that car accidents happen is an argument against driving.

      Lynch mobs are a bad thing, but i did not detect in your answer to me any willingness of yours, Shy Guy, to lynch anyone who does not agree with your religious views. Correct me if am wrong (i mean correct me verbally, don’t lynch me, i am coming to realize that you are really insanely dangerous after all :P).

    16. dionissis mitropoulos says:

      @ Yamit

      I heard the following about you, Yamit:

      He wants the Jews to be left alone to do what the Inquisition did.

      The Inquisition did what it had the POWER to do.

      The analogy would be invalid indeed IF one could establish that Yamit would not proceed thus if he HAD the power.

      I’ve seen enough of his writing, however (and noted enough of his tone), to harbor not a shred of residual doubt that (bizarre as it may sound in the 21st century) he most assuredly WOULD.

      I don’t believe that you would hurt Jews just because they disagreed with you on religious doctrines, even if you had the power to do it. And in the absence of proof to the opposite, i follow the traditional wisdom on onus of proof (innocent until proven guilty) and consider that you wouldn’t do it.

    17. yamit82 says:

      dionissis mitropoulos Said:

      Yamit does not sound to me as a wannabe inquisitor. I think the analogy fails because Yamit just wants the Jews to be left alone, whereas the inquisition wanted to violently convert.

      The inquisition did not bother for the most part with Jews who did not deny their Jewishness before the expulsion in 1492 but only against con-versos those who converted and were suspected of still remaining Jews in practice (secretly), in fact for many their suspicions were merited. The extermination of Jews in the twentieth century followed their emancipation. In Ukraine, Jews broke out of the quarantine zones allocated to them by the tsarist government, and just two years later 200,000 of them lay horribly murdered. In Germany, Reform Judaism and communism trumpeted the assimilation of Jews into German society; a decade after the Weimar Republic, Jews were on the road to annihilation. Stalin was preparing to exterminate Soviet Jewry in 1953 in response to Jewish influence in Soviet society.
      There seems to be a correlation between Jewish assimilation and pogroms. Gentiles tolerate the Jews who stick to their ghettos, but lash out against the Jews who inundate their Christian societies. Jews were exiled from Spain largely in response to the exploding influence of the Marranos, the converted Jews. As Christian converts, they encountered no restrictions and almost took over Spanish society.

      “Counter-intuitively, Jews who isolate themselves cause much less anti-Semitism than Jews who wholeheartedly embrace the surrounding society; Jews believe they are assimilated, but the Gentiles around recognize them for what they are—Jews, and bad ones. People who abandoned their own roots, who hate their own heritage, who abandon the idea for which generations of their relatives ascended the Christian stakes and gallows—they cannot be good. Jews, however assimilated, can never integrate into Gentile societies: they know those societies to be repressive, they fear Gentiles, and they work, consciously or otherwise, to subvert the existing societies. Thus the abundance of Jewish liberals who attack the traditional morals of every society.”

    18. Bernard Ross says:

      yamit82 Said:

      There seems to be a correlation between Jewish assimilation and pogroms.

      I think you are confusing the word “assimilation” with “freedom”. It is not assimilation per se. the Jew that is at liberty, free to realize his potential, who participates in the civic, political and economic life of a nation becomes the target. Jews who remained Jews but were outside of the confines of the ghetto also became targets. It is only the Jew who is entirely separated with no participation or contact that does not present a threat and even this notion is dying vs the glovbal view of the Israeli “ghetto”.
      yamit82 Said:

      Counter-intuitively, Jews who isolate themselves cause much less anti-Semitism than Jews who wholeheartedly embrace the surrounding society

      I dont believe you are advocating that Jews should have remained confined and restricted. The jews of the ghettos were also slaughtered with the most famous being the warsaw ghetto.yamit82 Said:

      a decade after the Weimar Republic, Jews were on the road to annihilation. Stalin was preparing to exterminate Soviet Jewry in 1953 in response to Jewish influence in Soviet society.

      It is my suspicion thta Stalin was always on the side of getting rid of the Jews. Stalin represented the completion of a cycle whereby an event becomes its opposite. The socialist and communist philosophical ideals which were present at the beginning of the Russian Revolution and identified with the Jewish intellectuals was at its end. In order to complete the cycle the Jews needed to be purged from the political structure to make way for the “new” communism.
      Similarly the Jews for centuries were the threat to Christianity, by their very existence,they then became associated with carrying the disease of” godless” communism and an existential threat to the global capitalists. Germany was the place where the spread of communism had to be stopped. The Jews immigrating from eastern europe were spreading this intellectual disease. Therefore, the disease could not be contained as it was then perceived to be a danger to the entire world. The “virus” had to be eliminated. Hitler, Stalin and the Church had much in common. The early state of Israel had more in common with socialism than the fascist and monarchistic arabs, yet Stalin found common cause with them. Israel is now being “converted” and the Jewish ideological economic threat is reduced. However, whatever the “system” the jews are a threat.
      In the same way that Jews were hounded into ghettos and destroyed therein Jews should be careful that there are those wishing the same for Israel. the tactic of the enemy is to divide and conquer. The ME was intentionally divided into states which incorporated this strategy. The British were masters of this tactic. We currently see this phenomenon at work to divide Jews. Secular and religious, diaspora and Israeli, right and left, etc. I don’t believe it is a coincidence, and the funding of tends to facilitate this strategy. I believe it is an error for Jews to fall into this trap.

    19. Bernard Ross says:

      yamit82 Said:

      There seems to be a correlation between Jewish assimilation and pogroms.

      I think you are confusing the word “assimilation” with “freedom”. It is not assimilation per se. the Jew that is at liberty, free to realize his potential, who participates in the civic, political and economic life of a nation becomes the target. Jews who remained Jews but were outside of the confines of the ghetto also became targets. It is only the Jew who is entirely separated with no participation or contact that does not present a threat and even this notion is dying vs the global view of the Israeli “ghetto”.
      yamit82 Said:

      Counter-intuitively, Jews who isolate themselves cause much less anti-Semitism than Jews who wholeheartedly embrace the surrounding society

      I dont believe you are advocating that Jews should have remained confined and restricted. The jews of the ghettos were also slaughtered with the most famous being the warsaw ghetto.

    20. Bernard Ross says:

      @ yamit82: further to my last post which i had to split up due to it disappearing into cyberspace.

      yamit82 Said:

      a decade after the Weimar Republic, Jews were on the road to annihilation. Stalin was preparing to exterminate Soviet Jewry in 1953 in response to Jewish influence in Soviet society.

      It is my suspicion thta Stalin was always on the side of getting rid of the Jews. Stalin represented the completion of a cycle whereby an event becomes its opposite. The socialist and communist philosophical ideals which were present at the beginning of the Russian Revolution and identified with the Jewish intellectuals was at its end. In order to complete the cycle the Jews needed to be purged from the political structure to make way for the “new” communism.
      Similarly the Jews for centuries were the threat to Christianity, by their very existence,they then became associated with carrying the disease of” godless” communism and an existential threat to the global capitalists. Germany was the place where the spread of communism had to be stopped. The Jews immigrating from eastern europe were spreading this intellectual disease. Therefore, the disease could not be contained as it was then perceived to be a danger to the entire world. The “virus” had to be eliminated. Hitler, Stalin and the Church had much in common. The early state of Israel had more in common with socialism than the fascist and monarchistic arabs, yet Stalin found common cause with them. Israel is now being “converted” and the Jewish ideological economic threat is reduced. However, whatever the “system” the jews are a threat.
      In the same way that Jews were hounded into ghettos and destroyed therein Jews should be careful that there are those wishing the same for Israel. the tactic of the enemy is to divide and conquer. The ME was intentionally divided into states which incorporated this strategy. The British were masters of this tactic. We currently see this phenomenon at work to divide Jews. Secular and religious, diaspora and Israeli, right and left, etc. I don’t believe it is a coincidence, and the funding of tends to facilitate this strategy. I believe it is an error for Jews to fall into this trap.

    21. Bernard Ross says:

      further to my last post:
      yamit82 Said:

      a decade after the Weimar Republic, Jews were on the road to annihilation. Stalin was preparing to exterminate Soviet Jewry in 1953 in response to Jewish influence in Soviet society.

      It is my suspicion that Stalin was always on the side of getting rid of the Jews. Stalin represented the completion of a cycle whereby an event becomes its opposite. The socialist and communist philosophical ideals which were present at the beginning of the Russian Revolution and identified with the Jewish intellectuals was at its end. In order to complete the cycle the Jews needed to be purged from the political structure to make way for the “new” communism.
      Similarly the Jews for centuries were the threat to Christianity, by their very existence,they then became associated with carrying the disease of” godless” communism and an existential threat to the global capitalists. Germany was the place where the spread of communism had to be stopped. The Jews immigrating from eastern europe were spreading this intellectual disease. Therefore, the disease could not be contained as it was then perceived to be a danger to the entire world. The “virus” had to be eliminated. Hitler, Stalin and the Church had much in common.

    22. Bernard Ross says:

      @ yamit82: I have been trying to post my last reply to you in sections because all but the first part keeps disappearing when i click submit. However, even in parts it keeps disappearing. I will try once more.

    23. Bernard Ross says:

      yamit82 Said:

      a decade after the Weimar Republic, Jews were on the road to annihilation. Stalin was preparing to exterminate Soviet Jewry in 1953 in response to Jewish influence in Soviet society.

      Stalin represented the completion of a cycle whereby an event becomes its opposite. The socialist and communist philosophical ideals which were present at the beginning of the Russian Revolution and identified with the Jewish intellectuals was at its end. In order to complete the cycle the Jews needed to be purged from the political structure to make way for the “new” communism.
      Hitler, Stalin and the Church had much in common. Jews for centuries were the threat to Christianity, by their very existence,they then became associated with carrying the disease of” godless” communism and an existential threat to the global capitalists. Germany was the place where the spread of communism had to be stopped. The Jews immigrating from eastern europe were spreading this intellectual disease. Therefore, the disease could not be contained as it was then perceived to be a danger to the entire world. The “virus” had to be eliminated.
      more to come…

    24. dionissis mitropoulos says:

      @ yamit82:
      yamit82 Said:

      Jews, however assimilated, can never integrate into Gentile societies: they know those societies to be repressive, they fear Gentiles, and they work, consciously or otherwise, to subvert the existing societies. Thus the abundance of Jewish liberals who attack the traditional morals of every society.”

      i made the same point in a (prior temporally but recent) comment at Dr Landes’ blog, but with a far more charitable eye towards diaspora Jews:

      http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2013/02/18/anti-judaism-anti-semitism-anti-zionism/#comment-623563

      It is my second reply to an anti-Semite commentor (named Robert marchenoir, i am mentioning it in case you want to see my comment but don’t want to be bothered searching for it) who popped up at the Augean Stables and was accusing (diaspora) Jews of of augmenting multiculturalism and immigration in their respective countries, and concluded that anti-Semitism is to be blamed on Jews.

      My reply was along your lines, but i did not (and do not) consider any hypothetical Jewish actions that promote tolerance (even a misconstrued tolerance) to be a subversion of the hypothetical Jew’s country but, rather, a very natural Jewish response out of fear. Here is what i responded to the (European) Robert the anti-Semite:

      “Now, i am not a Jew, i speak “as a non-Jew” (action brings reaction!!!) but i think i can easily grasp why a Diaspora Jew might support multiculturalism, immigration and, in general, anything that can be construed (rightly or wrongly) as tolerance: they are trying to guard their own well being from anti-Semitic attacks.

      What the hypothetical Diaspora Jew is trying to tell you when she (ex hypothesi) is supporting the openness of the society is “Hey Sir, please stop chasing me the Jew, you must be tolerant towards us Jews”.

      She has every reason to be afraid of you and me, her parents have been chased by my parents and your parents and she knows that it is all too easy for us to fall into the same mindset (especially when financial conditions in our countries might worsen) and she is trying to protect herself by making you more tolerant towards everyone.

      Do you really feel like blaming her?”

      I don’t know if they are bad Jews, Yamit. I’ll take your word for it. But the anti-Semite who is going to chase them is a trillion times worse. And i can’t help sympathizing with them diaspora European Jews, despite their inanity of not coming back to live in Israel, the only place they can be themselves, without having to look behind their backs if a crypto-Nazi is following.

    25. Bernard Ross says:

      continuation of last post
      yamit82 Said:

      a decade after the Weimar Republic, Jews were on the road to annihilation. Stalin was preparing to exterminate Soviet Jewry in 1953 in response to Jewish influence in Soviet society.

      Stalin represented the completion of a cycle whereby an event becomes its opposite. The socialist and communist philosophical ideals which were present at the beginning of the Russian Revolution and identified with the Jewish intellectuals was at its end. In order to complete the cycle the Jews needed to be purged from the political structure to make way for the “new” communism.

    26. Honey Bee says:

      @ yamit82:

      Any time you want to be my GRAND INQUISITOR * * * * just whistle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    27. Bernard Ross says:

      yamit82 Said:

      a decade after the Weimar Republic, Jews were on the road to annihilation. Stalin was preparing to exterminate Soviet Jewry in 1953 in response to Jewish influence in Soviet society.

      Stalins needed to purge the jews because his russia it was no longer the socialism or the jewish intellectuals but rather a new fascism. Like christianity, the Jews who started it were a threat.

    28. Bernard Ross says:

      dear Ted, I cant figure out how to keep comments from disappearing into cyberspace,not moderation. I have tried to break down my last comment to yamit is separate parts but could only get in the beginning, therefore, the comment is incomplete and not fully coherent.

    29. dionissis mitropoulos says:

      @ Honey Bee:

      And what exactly will cowboy’s part be in such a setting? :P

      I’ve got the title already:

      The Holy Beenquisition.

    30. yamit82 says:

      @ dionissis mitropoulos:

      I don’t believe that you would hurt Jews just because they disagreed with you on religious doctrines, even if you had the power to do it. And in the absence of proof to the opposite, i follow the traditional wisdom on onus of proof (innocent until proven guilty) and consider that you wouldn’t do it.

      Only those Jews who actively work alone or with others to Harm other Jews, Israel and Judaism itself.

      Judaism is not a religion as a gentile and even some Jews might define religion.

      To reduce the “being” Jewish to a mere religious experience is to reduce the Jew and Judaism to that level of the gentile. A gentile can be measured by his adherence to his religion. If a Protestant decides to leave his religion and become a Hindi, then he effectively has broken with his Christian belief and is considered in the eyes of his former group as a one who has left the fold. He is no longer connected with his community, and more likely, he will be ostracized for leaving. However his family relationship with his cousins remains, as does his citizenship.

      In an another manner, if a Brazilian Catholic were to leave Brazil and renounce his citizenship and accept the citizenship of another country, such as English citizenship, he would cut his national relationship with Brazil and establish a new one with England. However, he would maintain his religious relationships to his fellow Catholics.

      The familial relationship, however, is one that is impossible to sever. It is one that is created by birth to a family and exists with or with out the consent of the two parties involved. Although the concept of disinheritance does exist, this is only the monetary or personal aspect that exists between people. Even if a father, as an example, disinherits his son, the relationship which was established via birth, meaning father and son, and those in his family can not be undone. No one can select his father, nor can a son be acquired (although adoption can cause a legal relationship, it does not give birth relationships).

      Judaism is a combination of all three: religion, national, and family. Therefore, the relationship between the Jews is inherently stronger than a mere religious bond of two Hindus, as an example. It may be that the two co-religionists can determine and rate his fellow in accordance to his observation of the precepts of their shared belief. Yet, sadly we find this rule applied by our own fellow Jews. The basis for judging another Jew should not solely be determined by his religious observance. This is not to depreciate religious observance but to place it into the proper focus.

      Judaism is not just a religion which has no relationship to a land. Judaism is also a nationality and is land based. The Land of Israel has been given by G-d to each and every Jew, not because of any external reason, other than G-d promised it to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give to their descendants. Since the attachment of other nationalities living on a particular parcel of land is not divinely given, the relationship of the inhabitant is associated to his living in that specific land. Leaving that territory will effect a break in his mutual relationship with the inhabitants. Judaism is a national identity, of supra patriotic consequence and independent of the fact of whether the Jew lives in Israel or not. His nationality is inherently related to the Land of Israel since G-d granted it to him as a descendent of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and therefore irrevocable.

      Exceptions are those Jews who repudiate all the three legs upon which Judaism rests and or removes himself or herself with any identification with being a Jew and accepting another religion and belief system which negates the foundation of Judaism certainly applies. If we were living today in a country operated by Jewish Law
      The penalty would be quite severe.

      dweller under Jewish Law would have long since not have been counted among us due to the fact that he would no longer be among us. Here is the dweller paradox. His claim to Jewishness is based on Rabbinic interpretation, discernment, explanation, when he himself rejects them and Jewish Law including the oral tradition in favor of non Jewish christian understanding and his own. We cal it in Hebrew as attempting to dance at two weddings at the same time.

      Judaism is not democratic where each Jew determines for themselves what and how they adhere to Jewish Law and custom. The religious divisions today among Jews is historically a recent phenomenon about 200-250 years. Among Sephardic Jews these artificial divisions never existed.

    31. Bernard Ross says:

      The strategy of the enemy is to divide and conquer. Britain is the master of this strategy and used it in arriving at ME borders. I do not believe it is a coincidence that a great deal of funding goes toward facilitating divisions of Jewry, albeit with a professed separate motive of facilitating pal self determination. Diaspora jew against israeli jew, left jew against right jew, secular against religious. I think Jews should be careful not to fall into this trap. Without the diaspora jew there could have been no Israel and without Israel there will be no diaspora. I have no doubt that these connections have kept Jews alive who might otherwise be dead. The finger can be pointed at corrupt, appeasing, kapo, assimilationist,religious, secular, right , left, Jews in both the diaspora and in Israel. It is obvious that G_D has willed Jews to be in the diaspora and in Israel and the argument between the extremes has to do with timing and quantity. Perhaps the current situation is exactly where G_D wills it to be, whether men can or cannot apprehend it. Perhaps it will be different tomorrow as it was different yesterday. Perhaps the difference is related to how the Jews behave in whatever circumstances they find themselves in. It seems to me that the chosen obligation and/or responsibility is to be a light unto the world and that this obligation or responsibility unfolds whether one is in the diaspora or in Israel and whether one agrees to it or not. What I think, and what other Jews think, regarding G_D’s thoughts may not be relevant. As Yamit has postulated:L G_Ds thoughts and ways are higher than ours. This appears to be the certainty.

    32. yamit82 says:

      Honey Bee Said:

      @ yamit82:

      Any time you want to be my GRAND INQUISITOR * * * * just whistle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      The Sound Of A Whistle

    33. Honey Bee says:

      @ yamit82:

      oooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh c’boy pissed I better be found baking Hamentashens!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    34. yamit82 says:

      Bernard Ross Said:

      Perhaps the current situation is exactly where G_D wills it to be, whether men can or cannot apprehend it. Perhaps it will be different tomorrow as it was different yesterday. Perhaps the difference is related to how the Jews behave in whatever circumstances they find themselves in. It seems to me that the chosen obligation and/or responsibility is to be a light unto the world and that this obligation or responsibility unfolds whether one is in the diaspora or in Israel and whether one agrees to it or not. What I think, and what other Jews think, regarding G_D’s thoughts may not be relevant. As Yamit has postulated:L G_Ds thoughts and ways are higher than ours. This appears to be the certainty.

      G-d Regrets Four Things

      R. Chana bar Acha said: There are four things G-d regrets having created: Exile, the Chaldeans (Casdim), the Ishmaelites (Yishmaelim), and the Evil Inclination (Yetzer Ha-ra). (Sukka 52b)

      Given that G-d is by definition omniscient and omnipotent, it borders on the absurd to suggest that G-d “regrets” anything – as the prophet states, “God is not a man that He should regret!” (I Shemuel 15:29). For if He is all knowing, certainly He foresaw the negative outcome of these things; and if He is all-powerful, certainly He has the power to change things to His liking.

      The fact that G-d allowed something to be created and, furthermore, doesn’t change the object of His displeasure, forces us to modify our understanding of “regret” as applied to the divine. As such, I am suggesting, the object of regret under consideration must be of a dual nature – both potentially negative yet indispensably positive. Thus, by saying that G-d “regrets” something, we are saying that He acknowledges its latent negative ramifications on the one hand yet is “bound” – as it were – by its imperative necessity on the other.

      Exile is that most undesirable condition, wherein the people of Israel are banished from their land. For a nation to be deprived the ability to operate within its own land, to be subject to the sovereignty of a foreign power, severely impairs its ability to effectuate its national mission. Indeed Rav Z. Y. Kook explains that living in the land of Israel is “the fundamental prerequisite for Am Yisrael to be able to function as a nation.” The Zohar (Vaera 29b) expresses the idea poetically: “When other nations rule over her [Israel], the voice departs from her and she becomes dumb.”

      The Jewish people’s mission, as expressed by the prophet Yishayahu (42:6), is to be: “A light unto the nations.” This is ultimately accomplished by being an object lesson of national success. It was for this purpose that G-d gave His Torah – as a guide book to fulfilling the national mission. And thus it is essential that the Jews apply G-d’s Torah to every aspect of life. In the words of R. Eliezer Berkovits:

      Judaism looks upon life as the raw material which has to be shaped in conformity with the spiritual values contained in the Bible…. The teachings of the Torah can therefore reveal their real sense only when there is a concrete reality to which they are applied.

      All of this becomes academic if the people are not in charge of the institutions which shape the character of the society. Again R. Berkovits’ words, which were written prior to the founding of the State of Israel in an essay entitled “On the Return to Jewish National Life,” are incisive:
      The great spiritual tragedy of the exile consists in the breach between Torah and life, for exile means the loss of a Jewish-controlled environment…. It is incorrect to speak, as it is often done among Jews, of the conflict between Judaism and modern life. For as yet there is no modern Jewish life.

      This is why it so essential that the people of Israel do everything in their power to maintain the nation in its homeland – Eretz Yisrael. And this is why even G-d Himself “regrets” that the Jews are exiled: for they simply cannot fulfill their mission – which is ultimately His mission.

      The obvious question, then, is why: Why does G-d allow something so regrettable to exist?

      The Bitter Remedy: Thus, during the final throes of both Temple periods, the Torah – whether in its essence (First Temple) or in its application (Second Temple) – had been abdicated; the Torah – which expresses both the goals and means for the nation to fulfill its divine mission – had been debased. Now, given that the whole reason for national existence was abandoned, G-d was left with two choices: destroy the people or destroy the Temple and exile the people, in the hope that the trials and tribulations of exile would refocus the nation on its mission. G-d, in his infinite mercy, chose the latter – as Asaf sings in thanksgiving, “He poured His wrath on wood and stones and not on His children.” And as the Zohar (Ha’azinu 299a) states, “Let Israel be condemned to exile and not to Gehinom.” We may understand that G-d did this in the hope that by lacking the thing they once had, the Jewish people would come to appreciate it and then repent.

      Indeed this sequence of events – abdication of the covenant, exile from the land, penance in the Diaspora, return to the land – is foretold by Moshe.

      Referring to the desolation of the land following the exile of the Jewish people he foretells:
      All the nations shall say, ‘For what reason did God do this to this land, and what is the meaning of this great wrath.’ And they will say, ‘It is because they have forsaken the covenant of the Eternal God of their forefathers which he made with them when he brought them out of the land of Egypt.’ … And God rooted them out of their land in wrath, and in fierceness, and in great anger… And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon you, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before you, and you will call them to mind among all the nations, into which the Lord your God has driven you, and shall return to the Lord your God, and you shall obey His voice according to all that I command you this day, you and your children, with all your heart and with all your soul; that then the Lord your God will turn your captivity, and have compassion upon you, and will gather you from all the nations, amongst whom the Lord your God has scattered you. (Devarim 29:23-30:3)

      And so, though God regrets forcing His people into exile, it is a necessary, lesser evil employed to mitigate a direr outcome, and thereby allow His people to refocus on their national purpose.

      G-d’s regret is really a reaction to man’s failure to fulfill his role in completing Creation, to man’s abuse of the essential forces He placed in Creation to bring about its happy realization. Of necessity, the will of the Creator will be done, creation will reach its perfection – “today, if you will hear my voice.”

      The Tochacha(Blessing and Curses) Vayikra – Leviticus – Chapter 26

    35. yamit82 says:

      Honey Bee Said:

      oooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh c’boy pissed I better be found baking Hamentashens!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      :D

      What do you fill them with?

    36. yamit82 says:

      @ dionissis mitropoulos:

      Very intuitive on your part. Counter-intuitively, Jew want to see as many minority groups as possible so that they are not the focus of the gentile majorities in the Nations they reside in and they certainly are scared out of their gord by Christian fundamentalists.

      Never intimated Jews were bad people just lousy Jews.

    37. Honey Bee says:

      @ yamit82

      1 can Solo Prune Filling !can Solo Apricot Filling 1/4C Karo syrup 1tsp almond flavoring 2TBS poppy seeds Last year mix the filling and then had an asthma attack,a week later I made my Hamentashen but the filling had firmented, I thought what the heck and then made them anyhow. Oy the compliments,my flea market friend kissed every finger on my hands If you don’t have Solo, use 2c mashed prunes and 2c mashed apricots and then the other ingrediantes listed above. Happy Purim

    38. Honey Bee says:

      @ yamit82:

      Fundamentalist don’t scare me and I am surrounded by them. When I had my back surgery they had a “prayer circle” for me for every hour I was in surgery and they supplied us with dinner for a week. Do they try to convert me yes but I say Thank you for caring.

    39. yamit82 says:

      Honey Bee Said:

      @ yamit82:
      Fundamentalist don’t scare me and I am surrounded by them. When I had my back surgery they had a “prayer circle” for me for every hour I was in surgery and they supplied us with dinner for a week. Do they try to convert me yes but I say Thank you for caring.

      Many if not most I am sure a good people, giving people of their time and money. I have known many myself almost married one a long time ago but That said as a Jew, they are our enemy not individually but collectively. Ask your friends how much they give to convert Jews to Christianity. If their success is not proportionate to the expenditure it’s not for lack of trying.

      Judaism views a spiritual attack as much graver than a physical one. Last stat I read is that in the past 7 years they have spent over a billion dollars just to convert Jews in America and now in Israel. The more they fail the more they seem to be motivated. For 17 centuries they have not given up. At least the Catholic Church for now at least have given it up as have many of Main Street Protestant denominations.

      What’s against us are those very fundamentalists even though they claim to be pro Israel they remain anti Judaism.

    40. Honey Bee says:

      @ yamit82:

      You break my heart,but perhaps your correct. But, because of my mother some Jew,relatives too, have very unkind. My fundamentalist,bumbling, but never unkind. I guess they are like hornets, one ok a nest that the problem.

    41. yamit82 says:

      Honey Bee Said:

      @ yamit82:
      You break my heart,but perhaps your correct. But, because of my mother some Jew,relatives too, have very unkind. My fundamentalist,bumbling, but never unkind. I guess they are like hornets, one ok a nest that the problem.

      There are as many stupid insensitive Jews as anyone else maybe even more. You are a sweetheart and I would never intentionally say anything to hurt your feelings. I just answered with the truth as I know it. Sorry sometimes I should just shut up.

    42. Honey Bee says:

      @ yamit82:

      Darlin, never amend what you say to me, I only want to ear the truth,C’boy, my Dad neither were exactly diplomatic. I guess I like tough guys. My father was a street kid with a genius IQ,very complicated. And then there is C’boy another no good nick. I just took another pain pill Vicodin abd Iam babbling. Ah what dreams there be.

    43. the phoenix says:

      @ Honey Bee:
      dear honey bee,
      professionally speaking…if possible, DO go easy on vicodin…
      sounds like this is ’round 2′ for whatever procedures you’re undergoing…
      hope you feel better.
      :)

    Site Membership



    Google Site Search

    Editor

      Ted Belman

      tbelman3-at-gmail.com

    Mission

      News and Views on Israel, the Middle East, the war on terror and the clash of civilizations.

    Polls

    Will Israel attack Iran

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

    RECOMMENDED BOOKS

    LOVE




    Tolerism2

    Iran islam

    Sharing

    mandate4

    Daily Archives

    July 2014
    S M T W T F S
    « Jun    
     12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    2728293031  

    Selected Israpundit Articles

    Miscellaneous Info

      All Politic Sites