Hear Fred Thompson in his "Winners and Losers" segment cheerleading for Bibi Netanyahu. Fred understands Israel's situation better than most Israelis and explains it in a way in which only, well Fred could. FRED THOMPSON SHOW
Show date 22 June 2009
23 June 2009
Hear Fred Thompson in his "Winners and Losers" segment cheerleading for Bibi Netanyahu. Fred understands Israel's situation better than most Israelis and explains it in a way in which only, well Fred could. FRED THOMPSON SHOW
18 June 2009
Many readers will not like this post. I am not sure I like this post. Yet, it has to be written. Riding the coattails of APRPEH's last post American Jews: Obama or Torah, today Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic has made his prediction as to which choice will be prevail. It is not a satisfying answer. American Jews and Settlements: A Divorce in Progress - Jeffrey Goldberg - The Atlantic - 18 Jun 2009 01:28 pm
Goldberg's article based mostly on an earlier article by Samuel Freedman claims that American Jews will pick Obama. Both writers believe that American Jews see Yehuda and Shomron, (aka "The West Bank" or more accurately the "West Bank of the Jordan River") as not only an obstacle to peace but an obstacle to a belief in the "rightness" of Israel on moral and democratic grounds.
Goldberg goes further and warns the mainstream Jewish organizations (specifically pointing at Malcolm Hoenlein of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations) that they are out of touch with the Jewish voters of America who in overwhelming numbers voted for B. Hussein Obama.
The rationale is that American liberals view the territories in the biblical heartland of Israel the same way as the Arabians who have been calling them 'obstacles to peace' for years. By implication, he asserts that Al-Baraq Hussein Obama has given the Jewish left the confidence to boldly step forward and oppose Jewish land rights in Yehuda and Shomron (a Jstreet fantasy), a position which they should know in their heart is truthfully a great aveira/sin. What is even more ridiculous is that to even hold the "obstacle to peace" position, one must not give much weight to the more historically factual argument that the conflict has never been about land at all but the failure of the Jews to simply go away. The arabians simply do not want us around. To arabs and muslims, we Jews are the obstacle to their religious credibility. Islam cannot be a replacement of that which came before it when the holy Torah of Israel stands in its way, countering its would-be desert modification replete with stolen and maligned stories from the Torah, known as the Koran.
The very idea of supporting a policy which feeds upon Jews as pawns to justify denial of Jewish property rights in the biblical heartland of Eretz HaKodesh must be strongly opposed with all available resources by all Jews who still hold that the Torah is true and HaShem is the G-d of Israel. Now, if that means finally coming out to further distance Torah Judaism from the apostasy and antiJew non-Torah yet still Jewish (for now) cults which are lead more by political allegiances than Torah allegiances, than it is time to begin this process.
I say this with the deepest regret and fear. We must NEVER have any negative and hateful feelings towards fellow Jews. We must, however consider them as desperately in need of teshuva. Sometimes, distance can be a positive force for change.
Political arguments amongst Jews over common preferences of one philosophy or another as it relates to the economy, health care and many other domestic and foreign policy issues as within the context of America's role and direction in the world, although at times heated, are normal and represent no intrinsic threat. They should never, chas v'sholom, serve as a foot in the door for manipulation by the goyim to divide the people of Israel into camps supporting the belief's of one group of goyim vis a vis another group of goyim. All the more so, in terms of the land of Israel there should never be two camps, one of which supports Jewish inheritance rights in the land of Israel and one which follows a non-Jewish, non-Torah outlook seeking to strip the holy land from its rightful owners.
I pointed out in my previous post (see above) that based upon the Torah and Rashi's explanation, supporting non-Jewish rights to the land of Israel is an aveira (IMO).
One could easily conclude from these comments that any Jew who supports the idea of any other nation having any property rights in Eretz Hakodesh is in simple and plain violation of the Torah and thus the will of the Holy One, Blessed be He.
Jews who wish to strengthen their commitment to the wishes of this one-term president and his antiJew friends over the objections of their eternal divine Torah, do so not only at their own peril, but the peril of all Jews. Not only does this policy cause greater conflict amongst the not yet fully Torah observant Jews and Torah observant Jews on the one hand, but it will underpin actual conflict amongst Jews in a physical sense as the Israeli security forces will eventually be called upon to uproot more of their brethren from land they are rightly living upon. In a greater sense, since all Jews share One unique source which binds each soul together, collectively the Jewish people will suffer from such misguided beliefs. A foot cannot be removed without the rest of the body suffering.
As for Goldberg and Freedman, Jews who wish to bring Moshiach will ignore them in deference to that small voice inside, reminding them who they are and why were put on this planet.
For clarification as to the religious aspects of the land of Israel and the Jew's obligation to it see here.
16 June 2009
I am not one to quote Shmuley Boteach. I am less than enamored with his interest in becoming the Jewish icon to the goyim. But he is dead on the money in his Jpost column The coming storm: Obama and American Jewry.
APRPEH's last post concerning Jeremiah Wright and his message to B. Hussein Obama and subsequently to anyone else who was paying attention, drew a conclusion that Wright (who knows Obama as well, if not better than most people) seemed to be surprised and disappointed that Barry was concealing his true self. This conclusion should be in mind to read the remainder in context.
Boteach seems to expect that the organized Jewish community will have to make a choice between its insatiable appetite for supporting democrats and liberals and its Torah based commitment to defend the very soil of Eretz HaKodesh and the blood of Israel as this administration and its policies of foisting an a non-peace agreement on Israel are played out.
Many Jewish liberals are liberal on everything but Israel's security. This group is further broken down into full fledged Israel hawks to those who mistakenly believe that a 2 state solution will bring peace in our time but have little to no understanding that the 2 state solution has become the coat-rack to hang hopes of an eventual 1 state solution where arabians come to the land in mass numbers and overwhelm the rightful Jewish settlers, (yes all Jews are "evil" settlers in the land of Israel since it was none other than G-d, 'May His Name be Blessed' who settled Jews in this land) and set the world back further from the time of Moshiach. In a more physical sense, the emergence of a unified state arising from what was Israel sets back the path to a just world birthing yet another backwards arabian country.
The knowledge that B. Hussein and his antiJew friends cannot be successful in dragging Israel into the sewer of perpetual strife brought own by indefensible borders and hordes of barbarians flooding through the gates of civilized and modern Israel is brought down in the first Rashi of Chumash, go and learn it. This same theme is relevant to this week's parasha (chutz l'aretz) Shlach.
This is the first commentary in my weekly study of the parashah in Vedibarta Bam - Rabbi Moshe Bogomilsky
"Send forth men, if you please, and let them spy out the Land of Canaan that I am giving to the Children of Israel." (13:2)
QUESTION: Why is it necessary to mention the name of the land and the fact that Hashem is giving it to the Jewish people?
ANSWER: The Gemara (Sanhedrin 91a) relates that the people of Canaan once took the Jewish people to court before Alexander the Great. They demanded that Eretz Yisrael be returned to them because it was originally owned by their ancestor Canaan. Gevihah ben Pesisa argued that Canaan was the son of Cham and was cursed by Noach to be a servant to his brothers, Shem and Yafet. According to halachah (Pesachim 88b), whatever a slave acquires belongs to his master. Thus, the Canaanites had absolutely no claim to the land, and through their ancestor Shem, the Jews were the rightful owners. The plaintiffs were dumbfounded and ran away leaving their fields and vineyards to the Jewish people.
In the beginning of Bereishit, Rashi explains that Torah starts with the narrative of creation because if the world accuses the Jews of illegally taking away Eretz Yisrael, they can respond, "Hashem created the entire world and it belongs to Him. With His will He took it away from them and gave it to us."
In preparation for the Jewish people's first encounter with Eretz Yisrael, Hashem emphasized: "This is the land of Canaan, which according to halachah belongs to the Jewish people since its original owner Cham became a slave to your ancestor Shem. Moreover, it is the land that 'I am giving to the Children of Israel' and as Master of the world I have the right to take it from whomever I want and give it to whomever I wish."
One could easily conclude from these comments that any Jew who supports the idea of any other nation having any property rights in Eretz Hakodesh is in simple and plain violation of the Torah and thus the will of the Holy One, Blessed be He. Would it be too much to ask Rahm Emanuel to learn this Torah with Barry on Shabbos?
This brings us to Bibi Netanyahu and his Bar-Ilan speech. I have much sympathy for Bibi and do not envy the difficulty of the task before him. Many of the most faithful to the land of Israel have been critical of Bibi (seemingly justifiable) for words which "superficially" call for a Pali state. One must always point a wary eye at Bibi. He can be unpredictable at times and all too predictable other times. After all, this is the same Bibi who would not meet with Arafat either. Don't judge him by what he says.
But this time Bibi is the best equipped to walk the tightrope of Israel's security interests on one side and meeting US benchmarks without actually following through on any of them on the other.
I see it like this. Bibi basically needs to successfully manage this non-process-process for 2 years until the mid-term elections. By that time, either enough pro-Israel, Republican Congressmen will be elected that Obama will have too much on his plate to worry any further about peace-legacy building or his own pre-election campaign will advise him to lay off this issue for a variety of policy and political purposes.
Bibi has laid the ground work quite nicely for arabian non-compliance with his pre-requisites. On this point, I refer the reader to the second half of the second hour of the Fred Thompson show of 15 June (download). Fred lays out the Bibi case better than I. While I continue to hope that the land of Israel loyalists keep up the pressure on the PM to keep him sort of honest, I also am somewhat confident knowing that Bibi is doing what PM's of Israel always do intentionally or unintentionally which is to give the arabians enough rope to hang themselves.
The hollering from the arabian world is a collective cry of foul. Bibi told the truth about Jewish heritage and cast dispersion on the arabian myth of victim hood at the hands of the evil Zionists. Bibi challenged the phony conventional wisdom which the arabians have been spreading for decades, calling Jews land grabbers and thieves (when in reality it is Ishmael who is the thief) and burst the Obama balloon (see Two Campaigns, Two Candidates, One Israel)of Israel existing merely as a refuge foist into the heart of arabia after World War II because the arabians were powerless victims of colonialism and could not prevent her establishment. For these achievements, Bibi deserves praise. American liberal-loving Jewry would do well to read Bibi's remarks. American Jews should use this opportunity to tell the truth about Israel even if it means not hiding behind DNC membership cards, and even if it means no longer nodding their heads approvingly to the rhythm of the false messiah at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
The coming storm: Obama and American Jewry - Shmuley Boteach, THE JERUSALEM POST, Jun. 15, 2009
There's a storm coming. It will pit a well-organized community of substantial resources but also substantial insecurity - particularly when it comes to charges of dual loyalty - against a popular president of considerable eloquence but misguided policies that identify Israeli settlements as the main obstacle to Middle East peace. The inevitable clash will separate sunshine Jewish patriots who back Israel when convenient against those who stand with Israel even when it means losing their invitation to the White House Hanukka party.
The bogus issue of settlements is already being swallowed whole by many well-meaning Jews. Last week Dan Fleshler, a leader of Americans for Peace Now, wrote in the New Jersey Jewish Standard that Obama has no choice but to pressure Israel because "it is fruitless for a well-armed, occupying power to negotiate the terms of a viable settlement with an almost defenseless occupied people unless a third party mediates and presses both sides."
In reading Fleshler one wonders whether he has been himself occupied with building a settlement on the moon with no knowledge of events on Earth. Is he seriously suggesting that the thousands of Katyusha rockets and nonstop suicide bombers that have killed more than a thousand Israelis (the equivalent of 30,000 dead Americans) have come from a "defenseless" foe? Would Fleshler likewise argue that the US ought to have pressure from, say, Russia or China to make peace with the terrorists in Afghanistan, seeing that America now represents a "well-armed, occupying power" against the comparatively defenseless Taliban? Or is it only Israel that is forbidden from defending itself.
Sorry Mr. Fleshler, but Jewish values do not dictate that the only moral Jew is a dead one who refuses to fight in the face of a 60-year terror onslaught.
Any return to the 1967 borders, which is what Obama's attack on the settlements represents, is simply suicide for Israel. The borders are utterly indefensible. The Arabs know it, which is why they press for it. Had Israel not dismantled its settlements in Gush Katif, Gaza would not have become a terrorist state ruled by Hamas, an organization that kills even more Palestinians than it does Israelis.
BUT MISGUIDED Jewish apologists aside, are the rest of us prepared to speak up against the policies of the administration? By this I do not mean the drunken racist rants of the American Jewish hooligans who got attention disgracing themselves on YouTube last week; their bigoted drivel against our democratically elected president represents an abomination to Judaism. I have already written several columns lamenting how a small minority of the large and praiseworthy contingent of Jewish youth who go to Israel from the US after high school ostensibly to study in yeshivot end up instead hanging out on Rehov Ben Yehuda making asses of themselves. That they have no proper supervision and that they are allowed to go through their year in a drunken stupor is an outrage that must be finally addressed by the institutions which host them.
Rather, I mean courageous and intelligent criticism that accepts the president's praiseworthy efforts in making peace but decries his soft posture on tyranny when he bows to an Arab potentate who oppresses women and warmly embraces the dictator of Venezuela.
Asher Lopatin was one of the first students I met at Oxford and the university's first Orthodox Rhodes scholar. Today he is the successful rabbi of one of Chicago's most youthful congregations. He is also Rahm Emanuel's rabbi. But that did not stop him from criticizing the White House chief of staff in Newsweek for his unfair pressure on Israel. Lopatin could easily have basked in the aura of being rabbi to one of the most influential men in the world. Instead, he spoke truth to power.
In promoting the new translation of his Hebrew prayer book, British Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks constantly reminds us that he studies Bible with the prime minister of the United Kingdom. That's nice. But a few years ago Sacks spoke out publicly against Israel, telling London's Guardian newspaper, "There are things that happen on a daily basis which make me feel very uncomfortable as a Jew."
Sacks is a brilliant man but with a long history of pandering to whatever audience he happens to be addressing. He would do well to remember the admonishment of Mordechai to Esther on the responsibility of being close to political power: "If you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place."
But while Europe and the UK are significant, the main battle lines will be here in the US and now is the time for American Jewry to organize. From schools to universities to synagogues and JCCs, we must make it clear that when 78 percent of Jews voted for Obama and filled his campaign coffers with cash it was not in the expectation of biased policies against Israel. We're upset, disappointed and we won't take it. We'll march in the streets, write op-eds and blogs, and publish ads making it clear that America should be standing with the Middle East's only democracy and America's most reliable ally.
As Charles Krauthammer pointed out, our president undermines his moral authority when he pledges that henceforth America will "forge partnerships as opposed to simply dictating solutions," but then only applies that pledge to Iran, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela, but not to Israel.
Last year, right after Obama captured the democratic nomination, I received a phone call from his campaign asking if I would serve as one of the national chairs of "Rabbis for Obama." It was a tempting offer. I was moved by the candidate's remarkable personal story, his iron discipline, his soaring oratory and, most of all, the fact that his victory would be the culmination of my hero Martin Luther King's dream of a man being judged by the content of his character rather than the color of his skin. In the end I declined because I feared that Obama would draw a moral equivalence between Israel and the Palestinians and pressure the former to appease the latter. But even I never suspected that it would happen so quickly and so lopsidedly.
The writer is the founder of This World: The Values Network. His upcoming book is The Blessing of Enough: Rejecting Material Greed, Embracing Spiritual Hunger
11 June 2009
By now everyone has heard the comments from Obama's (former) Reverend, Jeremiah Wright blaming the Jews for his own isolation from his student (Obama) whom he married and who's children he baptised. So far, most of the reporting on this story is merely focused upon Wright and his blatant anti-Semitic ranting and antiJewism. The comments were played out in the context of his ridiculous accusations against the "Zionist's" and make believe ethnic cleansing of Gaza, an area ruled by Hamas and from where Israel withdrew in 2005.
What has not received as much attention is what is running between the lines of the Wright rant.
The reporter, David Squires of the Daily Press speaking to Wright after the 95th annual Hampton University Ministers' Conference asked Wright what he would tell Obama, if his access were not cut off. Wright said he would tell him what he has told him all along (paraphrasing) that Obama should not let politics change who he is as a person. He counseled Obama to not let "policies and the people around him" change what he believes with the core and "fiber of your being". Wright concluded that if Obama compromised his beliefs he would turn into a puppet of a political machine and would no longer be himself. Incidentally, when Wright made his 'Jews around him' comment, Squires, the reporter, snickered. Whether that was an approving snicker or an embarrassed one is a question for Squires. Interestingly, the audio found at the Daily Press (Squire's newspaper) website cuts out the snicker. But the audio at Real Clear Politics does not cut out the snicker. David any comment?
When all of this is taken in context, Wright, arguably someone who knows B. Hussein Obama better than most, is describing him as a comrade who is in danger of losing touch. The question which should be asked is, what is Wright worried that Obama will forget? Dare we pose the question?
Today, no one doubts that Wright believes in layer upon layer of Jewish conspiracy theories of Jews running the government, controlling the Presidency, Zionists ethnically cleansing arabians from Gaza and all and all making life difficult for honest folk like himself. But what does he expect Obama to say? More importantly, what does Wright mean when he talks about Obama forgetting what he believes?
The hardest pill to swallow is when a close, personal, confident and protege, someone you placed great faith and, well, hope in, turns his back on you - shuns you. Wright is clearly bitter in a personal way. But he also expresses anxiety that his cause has been denied one of it's budding stars; at least for the time being. After all, Wright believes Obama will come back to the fold when he is a lame duck.
What beliefs, theories and conspiracies does/did Obama buy into during the height of his activity at Trinity? The vast overwhelming body of evidence would be convincing to anyone when not obscured by a political campaign and the mark of Democrat next to his name on the ballot intervening between common sense and hysteria. As APRPEH pointed out in the past, one must work very hard indeed to assemble as many antiJews as friends, advisers and colleagues as Obama assembled over the previous decades. That so many Jews not just fail, but refuse to look objectively at this fact is a sure sign of the weariness of exile, a luxury not afforded to Bibi Netanyahu and Israel who are beginning to understand with whom they now must deal.
What Words Offend Arabs? The Truth.
(Israeli censorship kowtows to Arabs.
When Will We Tell The Truth Without Fear)
(IsraelNN.com 7 Sivan 5768/June 10, '08) Ynet's web site and Arab complaints against a ten-year-old boy's poem about terrorists has resulted in the recall of all of the Nes Ziona municipality's children's poetry booklets.
Ynet boasts that its coverage of the poem resulted in its being recalled.
The text of the poem (Ynet's translation):
Ahmed's bunker has surprises galore: Grenades, rifles are hung on the wall. Ahmed is planning another bombing!What a bunker Ahmed has, who causes daily harm.Ahmed knows how to make a bomb. Ahmed is Ahmed, that's who he is, so don't forget to be careful of him.We get blasted while they have a blast!Ahmed and his friends could be wealthy and sunny, if only they wouldn't buy rockets with all their money.
Poetry competition director Marika Berkowitz, who published the booklet, was surprised at the protests and told Ynet: "This is the boy's creation and this is what he wanted to express. Of course there should be a limit, but I think the there is no racism here. 'Ahmed' is a general term for the enemy. These are the murmurings of an innocent child."
The Education Ministry told Ynet: "The local authority that published the booklet should have guided the students in a more correct manner through the schools. The district will investigate the issue with the local authorities."