J-Street Mythology and Deception

On Saturday, 16 January, the "Tennessean" ran "Group backs 2-state solution", a story sub-titled "Jews in J-Street want to put political pressure on Israel". The report on the visit by Hadar Susskind, directory of policy and strategy for J-Street, focuses on the idea that J-Street offers American Jews an alternative to the mainstream Israel advocacy organization AIPAC. J-Street, however is a contradiction not just of logic but of religious values. Logically, since J-Street advocates the mythical "two-state solution" where Israel being one of the two with the other being not a country, not a country in waiting, not even a nationality but a gang masquerading as a government in waiting, J-street clearly is not a pro-Israel advocacy group.

J-street, as with many of the leftist organizations which wish to create a "Palestinian" state composed of arabs living in the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria, are driven not by a grand desire to make peace so much as motivated by a leftist, theological view that all 3rd world revolutionary movements which challenge the establishment possess inherent virtue. It doesn't matter what tactics or beliefs the 3rd world movement uses because the virtuous goals of the revolution permit excesses. So thus, we find that Israel's system of checkpoints and the construction of the partition wall in Judea and Samaria, proven effective anti-terror tactics are considered evil and repressive, while the excesses of the Palestinian revolutionary movement, primarily the wink and nod to terrorism (provided it is the PA gang and not the Hamas gang perpetrating the attacks), and arabic press messages espousing the pose of the old-fashioned PLO propaganda (conveniently not translated into English) are excusable.

Since J-street advocates policies which, if enacted would endanger the lives of millions of Jews in Israel, their positions are in direct contradiction to Torah values. One need not be a biblical scholar to know that siding with those who seek to harm their fellow Jews are not held guiltless or blameless. The actions of those Jews who support the enemies of the Jewish people will delay the final redemption and will result in their own extinction. This is not my opinion but supported theologically and historically. It is a most perplexing and bitter moment in time, the result of a long and seemingly unending exile, which finds Jewish advocates for "peace" hosting common ground with terrorists and enemies of "peace". A better day will come when honesty of thought will permit clearer vision. Palestine, does not and has never existed. There is no legal requirement for Israel to withdraw from any additional territory. An honest reading of UN Res 242, instead of the arabian propaganda version will lead a reader to understand that Israel's secure borders were the primary goal. Palestinians? The name "Palestinian" is not found in the text of the agreement, meaning the "Palestinian" national myth had not yet been created. Instead, "refugees" are discussed. Refugees from where? Not Israel, but disputed territory, administered by Jordan between 1948 and 1967 and unowned. In any event, Israel's withdrawal from the Sinai in 1982 exceeds any obligation of withdrawal from " from territories occupied in the recent conflict " as stated in Res 242.

All of this returns us to our discussion of J-street and its Jewish proponents. After reviewing the historical and religious views of Israel's security, one will then understand it is not Israel's security which drives J-street proponents but another belief. A belief that "peace" does not come through historical right or even strength, but through weaknesses, pacifism and "Chamberlainian" appeasement. Ultimately, such beliefs bring war, bloodshed and eternal conflict.

J-street background

Res 242 background

Avigdor Lieberman - From Kingmaker to Deal Breaker

No I am not surprised. Avigdor Lieberman saying I also advocate the creation of a viable Palestinian state is proof he was infected some time ago with the disease of conventionalism. When politicians are on the cusp of power but not sensing victory they grasp for support. Lieberman needed to reach a wider audience to win. The path was to secure the land of Israel loyalists yet also win over those sort of pragmatic folks who don't yet see or understand the nature of the divine in the land of Israel. Lieberman went wobbly - his biography title: From Bar Bouncing to Policy Bouncing.

Lieberman's move was predictable. As a leader of a non-religious party, (also calling for civil marriages) Lieberman is not held to the standard of consistency (to be fair much of the Israeli political world can not be measured by this indicator either- contradiction is the life force that makes Israeli governments). The YNET article below characterizes Lieberman's opinion of the peace process, negotiations and Pali Independence as based upon false assumptions. Then, he was not a kingmaker. Now, he can own the peace process, the prestiege, the White House visits, the constant attention - so it makes sense to him. Today, Lieberman has revised his assumptions. No doubt many of his voters from a mere few weeks ago are revising their own assumptions, wishing they had voted for National Union. And as measured by the world media's own conventional wisdom, I bet many are scratching their heads this morning. (see below)

I could be cynical and conspiracy minded enough to say that Lieberman stands accused with Sharon, Olmert, and Livni of sacrificing the policies of the country and the trust of the voters as leverage for political gains and/or posturing in light of pending criminal investigations. But that maybe going to far. Maybe.

While many in Israel and around the world are questioning Lieberman's inconsistency, Aryeh Eldad, speaking for the frustrated around the world summed it up “Only ostriches and illiterates should be surprised. Throughout the campaign we said that Lieberman is not the true Right.

---

Nationalists Blast Lieberman’s ‘Palestinian State’
Adar 3, 5769, 27 February 09 12:08by Gil Ronen(IsraelNN.com) Yisrael Beiteinu leader Avigdor Lieberman’s article supporting the creation of a ‘Palestinian state’ was ill-received in the nationalist camp, with some accusing Lieberman of deserting his former positions on the subject and carrying out an about-face.

The ‘Mattot Arim’ action committee reacted by saying that had Lieberman made the statements in support of a ‘Palestinian’ state before the elections, “the Yisrael Beiteinu party would have gone down from 15 mandates to 9.” [Yisrael Beiteinu went up to 15 mandates from 12 in the last Knesset. -ed.]

Mattot Arim clainmed that before elections were held, Yisrael Beiteinu gave them a written, clear-cut statement that opposes the establishment of a ‘Palestinian’ state.

The group noted that Lieberman made that commitment public in several ways, including a full-page advertisement in the Jerusalem Post. “In addition, at least three party candidates confirmed before the election that the party opposes a Palestinian state: Danny Ayalon, Uzi Landau and David Rotem,” according to Mattot Arim, which also cited similar statements on the Yisrael Beiteinu website and in the media.

Terror Victims’ group Almagor said that “nothing has improved since Lieberman cooperated with the terror victims on explaining the dangers” of such a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

MK Aryeh Eldad (NU) said, however, that “Only ostriches and illiterates should be surprised. Throughout the campaign we said that Lieberman is not the true Right. His diplomatic plan includes transferring sovereign parts of the State of Israel to the Palestinian.

---

Hardline populist Lieberman could be surprise kingmaker in Israeli election - hit piece from Guardian

---

Israel election: profile of 'kingmaker' Avigdor Lieberman - Telegraph

Mr Lieberman thinks that what we call the "peace process" has been a mistake from the start. Put simply, Mr Lieberman rejects every facet of President Barack Obama's thinking on the Middle East. When the nationalist leader has real power in Israel, the country could find itself on a collision course with America's new administration.

The Palestinians and their Arab brethren are determined to destroy Israel, he believes. Giving them a state along the 1967 borders that used to contain Israel would only whet their appetite for more.

Instead of leading to a settlement, the peace agreement that America and Europe would foist on Israel would only weaken the Jewish state and embolden its Arab neighbours to fulfil their destiny and eradicate the "Zionist Entity".

"The peace process is based on three false basic assumptions," Mr Lieberman has explained. "That the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the main fact of instability in the Middle East, that the conflict is territorial and not ideological, and that the establishment of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders will end the conflict."

Lieberman: Territorial concession concept failed - YNET

"Israel needs to explain that the demand for an independent Palestinian state and the refugees' right of return is a cover for radical Islam's attempt to destroy the State of Israel," he stated in the document.

Lieberman OpEd - IMRA

Rahm Emanuel, Not His Father's Son

Rahm Emanuel, appointed Chief of Staff to President elect Barack Hussein Obama has been touted as a sign of the future President's closeness to the Jewish people. The applause came from many corners. For some reason, there is a sense of pride that a Jew born into a family which fought for Israel's Independence can descend to Edom and ride his accomplishments to the White House. Pitch forks have come out from every corner too. AntiJews question his loyalty while Israel supporters have a vision of the political reality called "distancing" - don't expect too much from him. Others, fence riders and eternal optimists see a favorable voice for Israel in the White House. Some find his religious affiliation to be comforting.

But alas, Rahm has lost touch. Electoral politics rounds the edges of harsh, stark reality.

Rahm Emanuel's father, an Irgun veteran had some very real things to say about his son, "obviously he'll influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn't he? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to be mopping floors at the White House." Is this sentiment really so hard to believe?

Now, what is wrong with this? Rahm Emanuel is clearly no Arab. He had/has Israeli citizenship. In Israel, there is an on-going question just how loyal much of the Arab citizenry is and whose side they are on. Benjamin Emanuel's comment is acceptable and accurate coming from a perspective of someone who understands Israel and her interests.

Now we come to the problem. What is best for Israel? Rahm Emanuel's background in the Clinton White House means he believes that Oslo and withdrawal from Yosh is in Israel's best interest. I, and many others differ strongly with that proposal. This argument is the main point of contention now for all Jewry let alone the political scene in Israel. So how does that play out behind closed doors in the White House? The "friends of Israel" understanding is the most likely to transpire. Emanuel will continue to advocate for Israeli concessions in land for agreements with the barbarians to continue changing their ways from pure terrorist to democro-terrorist.

Watch the Rebbe handle this question in 1989:


The American political environment, we are told is different. Loyal Arabian-Americans in the political arena, like Jews, have their own respective constituencies. Benjamin Emanuel's comment does not work in the American political context and his son, with un-paralleled access to the soon to be leader of the Free World was stuck between his Israeli - Jewish roots and his American current reality. Rahm had to make a choice between his father's reality and his political necessity. In so doing, he must now not be "pro-Israel" at least observably, and play by the rules as defined below.

Political maneuvering disguised as ethnic sensitivity is a rule of American politics. The Arabian-Americans utilize the rule regularly. For what other reason do anti-semites (for instance) have to claim "unfair" after being rightly labeled anti-semitic than to secure their claim to a sense of self-righteousness and credibility? Do Arabian-Americans really believe that Israel's security is based upon Israel surrendering Yosh? Mute point. How about America's national interest - better off without Israel? With "Palestine" in addition to or instead of Israel - chas v'shalom?

The current Arabian-American political least common denominator is to reduce the security of Israel as an issue by way of the political arena in the US in order to benefit their barbarian cousins which, in turn, aids their effort to destroy Israel. Not a pretty way to package this up in political correctness campaign talk but it is reality. See below and other links at those websites. Advocacy for "Palestine" is by default anti-Israel.

• (Obama's friend) Rashid Khalidi's organization


• Arab American Institute - (see Nakba articles especially)


• Arab American Museum: 2006 Arab American Book Award Winners - Rashid Khalidi The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood
  


• NAAJA National Arab American Journalist Association- with 'Al Quds' (wonder why?) on the website banner including their "media watch committee" and "also NAAJA-Palestine, the local Chapter for Palestinian Journalists."

All of this talk is framed within that great American concept of "fairness" mis-applied by liberals and lefties as a function of outcome. These associations are supposedly the main stream, CAIR and Islam specific organizations not included.

Does Rahm actually believe what his father said? Who knows? Did he respect his father enough to explain the difference between the realities of Israel and the US in terms of what is "acceptable talk"? No. To say, as he is quoted "These are not the values upon which I was raised or those of my family," he is dis-respecting his father (although his mother, according to Wikipedia was a union organizer and civil rights activist) and one could easily question his honesty for saying so but again only Rahm Emanuel can answer that question.

Israel would not exist today without the strength of commitment and courage defined as internal fortitude by the men and women of Benjamin Emanuel's generation. If Rahm and his Edomized balancing act of political correctness vs. reality were around instead of his father's sense of purpose in the middle of the 20th century, Israel today would look very different albeit even existing at all.

---

Emanuel 'sorry' for dad's Arab remarks- JPost
Nov. 14, 2008 Associated Press , THE JERUSALEM POST
US President-elect Barack Obama's White House chief of staff apologized to the Arab-American community on Thursday for remarks his Israeli-born father made to Ma'ariv.

Last week, Benjamin Emanuel talked about his son Rahm Emanuel's new job and told the Israeli daily that "obviously he'll influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn't he? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to be mopping floors at the White House."

That prompted an outcry from the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, which called on Rahm Emanuel, a former Israeli citizen, to condemn the "unacceptable smear."

On Thursday, Rahm Emanuel called the group's president, Mary Rose Oakar, to apologize on behalf of his family.

"These are not the values upon which I was raised or those of my family," the group quoted him as saying.
Oakar said the apology was accepted.

Emanuel spokesman Nick Papas confirmed the phone call and said Emanuel "offered to meet with representatives of the Arab-American community at an appropriate time in the future."

The Clock Ticking Down on the Bush and Condi Championship Game

Rice: Young Palestinians Losing Hope For Deal With Israel
Heading Back To Mideast, Rice Says Young Palestinians Are Losing Hope For Deal With Israel

WASHINGTON, May. 6, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(AP) Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told an American Jewish audience Tuesday that young Palestinians are losing hope for an agreement with Israel.

"Increasingly, the Palestinians who talk about a two-state solution are my age," Rice, 53, said in a somber speech to The American Jewish Committee at its 102nd annual meeting.

Insisting that the Bush administration will never yield to dealing with Hamas militants, Rice said, "What you don't want is that the hopelessness and the vision of the extremists have no counter."

Set to leave early Thursday for more jawboning with moderate Arabs and Israeli leaders, after talks in London designed to raise more economic support for the Palestinians, Rice called on Israel to make "difficult decisions" to provide the Palestinians with the dignity of statehood.

In fact, she said, "we have a chance to reach the basic contours of a settlement by the end of the year" _ a scaling back of President Bush's initial hope for a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians before he leaves office.

Rice also poured cold water on any prospects that Israel and Syria could negotiate peace terms.

The two sides, working partly through Turkey, have shown some renewed interest. The basis would be Israel swapping the Golan Heights for a peace treaty with its Arab neighbor.

Rice said the Bush administration had tried to interest Syria in peacemaking, with such moves as an invitation to a Mideast conference last November in Annapolis, Md.

"It is hard to see there is a Syrian regime receptive" to negotiations with Israel at this point, she said.

"Syria is like Iran's sidecar," she said, aligning itself tightly with a country that threatens Israel's existence. And, she reminded the American Jewish Committee, a powerful pro-Israel lobby and foe of intolerance and anti-Semitism, "you know about Syria's nuclear program."

Rice referred to a nuclear facility built with North Korea's cooperation and then wrecked by Israeli jets last September.

The central theme in her 15-minute speech and 20-minute question-and-answer session was that the Bush administration would not give up trying to steer Israel and the Palestinians toward a settlement that provides the Palestinians with a state.

And, the administration would have no dealings with Hamas or other Palestinian extremists that war with Israel and refuse to recognize the Jewish state.

"Either you are a political party or a terrorist group," Rice said. "You cannot be both."

Once again, Rice criticized former President Jimmy Carter for holding talks with Hamas leaders. "I don't see the point of trying to negotiate with people who are determined to destroy the foundation of peace," she said.

---

Dr. Rice is talking like a basketball coach watching the clock tick away with her team down in the championship game and realizing that with every day of 2008 sliding by, the chance of making a comeback is increasingly unlikely. Then again, maybe these statements are yet another example of the Bush Administration's arabian "end run", not meaning for any true, permanent, resolution to the conflict between the arabians and Israel, just attempting to finish the game in good form.

Her comments lead me to believe there is confusion on her part as to the reason for talks, or is it after all an attempt to stall? If the youth are not interested in peace, who are the guarantors of any agreement? If Hamas cannot be a "political party" how is that Fatah/PA can be a partner for negotiations? The trouble with such logic as hers is that it leaves the door open for one day accepting Hamas as a party to negotiations. Why, all you have to do is say you are a "political party" and ta-da, welcome to the White House.

What is it with this age issue after all? The arabians have been saying since the re-establishment of the Jewish homeland that a war of "liberation" was the only way to expel the Jews. This message has been taught for generations now in "palestinian" and arabian schools. The official PA educational curriculum and press still de-humanizes Jews and Israel. How can it be that only now, the youth of "palestine" do not talk of a "two-state solution"? The only arabians talking two-state solution are the PA on the US and European payroll. Nothing has changed in this regard.

In fact the idea of modernizing, democratizing, de-militarizing the PA is contradicted by Condi's words. It is fair to say that the PA arabians have secured more compromises, promises and diplomatic success than any effort to destroy Israel did in previous generations. An American President has called for the creation of an independent "Palestine" and the sitting Prime Minister of Israel (for the time being that is) is ready to hand over as much land of Judea and Samaria as needed with part of Jerusalem as its capital for the erstwhile new Pali homeland for a people who never had one. None of this was achieved by war, only through talks.

How is it then that younger arabians are not interested in "two-states"? Maybe it is because the older arabians are not really interested in "two-states" either and like the Bush administration may be doing, just walking the walk. So, after President Bush is gone, PM Olmert is gone and very possibly Abu Mazen is gone, then who picks up the pieces of the "failed" negotiations? When will the lesson be learned that just as when road blocks are removed Jews die, chas v'shalom, that when talks fail Jews die, chas v'shalom?

Barry Obama and Palestine Advocacy

Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Obama
CHICAGO -- It was a celebration of Palestinian culture -- a night of music, dancing and a dash of politics. Local Arab Americans were bidding farewell to Rashid Khalidi, an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights, who was leaving town for a job in New York.

A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.

His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."

Today, five years later, Obama is a U.S. senator from Illinois who expresses a firmly pro-Israel view of Middle East politics, pleasing many of the Jewish leaders and advocates for Israel whom he is courting in his presidential campaign. The dinner conversations he had envisioned with his Palestinian American friend have ended. He and Khalidi have seen each other only fleetingly in recent years.

And yet the warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor's going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.

(another nice quote)

"I am confident that Barack Obama is more sympathetic to the position of ending the occupation than either of the other candidates," said Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow for the American Task Force on Palestine, referring to the Israeli presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that began after the 1967 war. More than his rivals for the White House, Ibish said, Obama sees a "moral imperative" in resolving the conflict and is most likely to apply pressure to both sides to make concessions.

more at LA Times (opens in new window)

---

Who should tell Barry that "palestinian" is not a nationality but a regional description?

Where I think hasbara may have failed is tying the idea that supporting a non-people and a non-nation in its attempt to re-write history and steal a real people and real nation's land and culture away makes one an accomplice to the lie. I know it is old hat now to make this argument and one for which so many in the kooky left just waive off as old fashioned. But really? Why is the question not even asked? There must be wide acceptance of the leftie idea that there is a "palestinian" people because after all what matters is what one hears and sees now. If hasbara were effective, it would be easy to say, "hey look, this Obama character is out there talking about this palestine fantasy as if it were real. What's he up to?"

But today's left has a dogma which calls upon its adherents to find the so-called underdogs, oppressed, and exploited (or those who make the case that they are) and to use these causes as raison d etre de'jour in an effort to garner favor to "the state" and break apart the opponents to "big state" policies in the form of what is called in politics "cracking" (turn their interests against them). Of course, if the oppressed are oppressed by a leftist entity or communist entity, the left isn't that interested and suggesting that these groups need help too just leads to another self-serving and self-righteous waive off of denied credibility. All this means, use the pali argument as a way to reduce the influence and impact of free thinking and further the effort to empower big government. Who cares who pays the price? Why these people deserve a land! They have been oppressed you know by those Jews.

The left's approach and one where Israel has clearly paid a price as a result is the assumption that identity is what you say you are. History and evidence become irrelevant. Consider this logic. I was born in the US. As a Jew I feel obligated to frame a discussion about my ancestry in these terms, "my family made long term stop overs in Russia, Poland, Belarus and other countries prior to arriving in the US." While I am proudly American by birth and staunchly grand old flag egoistic, I also realize that by destiny, after where ever else fate takes me or my descendants (sooner or later), the final destination is back to the future, to where my ancestry began. Not Russia not Belarus or Poland, go back further. Jews came from Judea and that land under Judean authority, hence the name association, (yehud/yehuda). In a Jewish religious context, the name Israel, (yisroel or yisroelim) is also one implying unity of people to land.

What are "palestinians"? By definition, that is, a classical definition(since palestinians like to claim they are an ancient people certainly they would want to use a classical source vis a vis.. a modern source right?) palestinian refers to of or related to the area of palestine, not to a particular people or nationality. Where did the name Palestine come from?. The name originating with the Romans did not for refer to any particular people at any time until the 20th century and was out of existence during the Ottoman years, only to be resurrected by the British after WW I.

By most accounts, Arabian entry into the land they wish to call "palestine" did not occur until the mid 600s. According to What is the Arab history in Palestine? in 1099 the Christian Crusaders conquered Jerusalem but held out less than 100 years. The area of "palestine" (AKA Israel) became part of the Syrian district and a vassal state to an Egyptian empire and finally to the Turks which brings us back to the 20th century.

So what is a presidential candidate to do? Does he buy into the big lie for convenience and use his prose to play both sides of the fence or should he acknowledge history? The question isn't limited to Barry H. American policy slide from Reagan to Bush II has lead the world into believing that "peace" is attainable when the ancient palis have been "restored" to an independence in a land which was never independently their own. Two nations, living side by side in peace and tranquility, is what Bush has banked American foreign policy upon, notoriously grabbing the mantle as the first American president to call for the creation of an independant "palestine".

As the LA Times article points out, Barry excites the pali advocates. In yet another chapter in the theory, "Reading Obama by his Associates", the LA Times article describes Barry's affiliation with pali activists Ali Abunimah, Edward Said, (discredited as a liar) and Rashid Khalidi not to mention antiJews Al Sharpton and his Rev. Jeremiah Wright (not discussed in the article).

Like the lacking argument that a twenty year affiliation with a reverend and church with very racist and antiJew opinions doesn't affect or reflect one's opinions, Barry's favorable opinions of and friendships with anti-Israel activists not affecting his "pro-Israel" stance is equally unbelievable. Barry, one may predict, will take the easy road.

more history of Israel and arabians can be found here

Eric Yoffie - John Hagee, Arabs and Jews

Oh, shut up, Yoffie - Zioncon
Oh, shut up, Yoffie - INN

27 Adar Bet 5768, 4/3/2008

I think we should hold a contest for the most imaginative ways to shut up
"Rabbi" Eric Yoffie, the leader of the American Reform synagogue's
political SWAT team, the "Union for Reform Judaism." It is a political
movement that seems to want to replace the Torah with Tikkun Magazine.
You know the the sort, Jews who consider Palestinian statehood and gay
"marriage" to be the highest priorities for Judaism. Yoffie evidently
wants the Ten Commandments to be replaced with Barack Obama's campaign
platform.

"Rabbi" Yoffie is a leading theological practitioner of Political
Liberalism as Judaism, a form of pseudo-Judaism and "liberation theology."
Yoffie has a long track record of issuing anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian
pronouncements. This past week he is calling for a Jewish jihad against
Christian evangelists, because the latter are guilty of supporting Israel.
Who does not need to be criticized, according to Yoffie? Islamofascists,
of course. Last year, "Rabbi" Yoffie sucked up to them at the Islamic Society of North America's 44th annual convention in Chicago, IL. While still president, Moshe Katsav made a point out of refusing to call Yoffie a Rabbi.

So imaginative suggestions for ways to shut Yoffie up are being solicited.

So far we have:

1. Stick the stockings from a Reconstructionist Christmas tree into his
mouth.

2. Borrow a giant reefer for him from Arthur Waskow.

3. How many Kafiyas can he swallow in an hour?

4. Get him the seafood platter from a progressive egalitarian California
Reform "temple" we know about.

5. Two words: fur balls.

6. Get him to recite fatwas from the Religious Action Center of David
Saperstein at the speed of an old 45 record being played at 78.

7. Make him give all his liberal speeches in Hebrew. (Or Aramaic)

8. Make him give a class on the Daf Yomi before any political speech he
plans to give.

9. Get him to a dentist who was admitted to dental school via affirmative
action.

10. Let him drink every day as if it were Purim.

# posted by Steven Plaut : 9:49 AM

---

All Jews would like to think of their Rabbis as being thoughtful, inspiring, and learned. They want them to be able to listen and respond in a meaningful manner as an halachic guide and adviser answering our questions in good times or G-d forbid the bad times. I wonder what it is that Reformist Jews see in Eric Yoffie? I can't picture him as an adviser, guide, teacher and most certainly not a pulpit Rabbi. Granted my observations are based upon primarily print media and the Internet, but what I have seen and heard leaves me quite confused. The Shalom TV interview which I referred to in a previous post left me even more confused. Yoffie is soooo "un-Rabbi" like. APRPEH has made references to Yoffie's essentially illogical and uninformed positions many times.

An example can be found here with Yoffie being quoted as saying in regards to John Hagee:

"In expressing contempt for other religions and rejecting territorial compromise under any and all circumstances, their views run against the American grain."

In other words, Yoffie by equating 'contempt for religions' and 'territorial compromise' if I may be permitted to read between the lines, believes that Hagee doesn't like Yoffie's religion since it takes the arabist position calling for a judenrein Yosh.

Setting aside the "contempt for other religions" (which would seem to already be a subjective observation given Hagee's non-contempt for Jews - although Catholics might see it differently) it is Yoffie who is mistaken in terms of what is American sentiment for Israel and the need for "territorial compromise". Yoffie is clearly expressing his view and that expressed by the Reformist party/movement that Israel should engage in what he calls "territorial compromise" and meaning it in the fullest sense of the word.

As Gallup polls demonstrate, Americans favor Israel in the dispute with the palis and do so year after year. The Gallup polls also show that Americans want more pressure exerted on the palis than Israel by the American government in negotiations (not that there should be any pressure on Israel to acquiesce before barbarians). While polls also do show support for a pali state, it is presumed they mean the peaceful, non-belligerent, non-terrorist, non-bloodthirsty, non-antiJew state of the Foggy Bottom propaganda machinations. Could it be that Yoffie's understanding of "territorial compromise" and the understanding of the Americans polled is different? Could he actually be wrong? What do Americans believe in terms of a pali state in Judea and Samaria?

Palestinian-Israeli Dispute Engenders American Sympathy for Israelis



Americans Likely Welcome Arab-Israeli Peace Summit



Mixed Reviews for Bush Administration’s Mideast Peace Push



And how is this fictitious contiguous pali state in the West Bank to come into existence? Polling before the Gaza disengagement commissioned by the ZOA and conducted by McLaughlin and Associates on this question resulted in overwhelming American opposition to the removal of Jews from their "homes and businesses":

Respondents, by a margin of 4 to 1 (63% to 16%) opposed "Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from a section of Gaza and northern Samaria and forcing 10,000 Israeli Jews from their homes and businesses" and by a margin of 2.5 to 1 (53% to 21)%, agreed with the statement that "this Gaza Plan sends a message that Arab terrorism is being rewarded". Israel's unilateral disengagement plan. Based upon these results one must conclude that it is Yoffie's views which run against the American grain. How would Americans poll on the need for more Israeli withdrawals after having watched the disturbing and heart breaking videos of the previous disengagements? Would Americans be more or less favorable toward forcing "Jews from their homes and businesses"?

Returning to the idea of thoughtful rabbis, maybe it is within the interpretation of poll results where a diagnoses of Yoffie and reformism can be found. For the record, I do not particularly care what results the polls reflect when Jewish life and security are at stake. Even if the polls were overwhelmingly supportive of the palis and anti-Israel it wouldn't matter. I also believe that to be the case with many Jews. When it comes to Yoffie and his supporters, I must conclude the opposite. His use of public opinion polls to justify his callousness in terms of the security of Israel is informative of his lack of thoughtfulness and lack of real rabbinic status. And yet he speaks from both sides of his mouth.

Reform Jewry Head Calls PLO Movement Ugly and Stupid

Yoffie senses that the palis use of terror reflects stupid politics. At least that is how I interpret his comments. Again, this interpretation, if true reflects his very arabist thinking. In other words, the palis have taken actions which damage their cause, not that the lives of Jews matters so much. Yoffie is saying, the state could have been yours if you killed and maimed fewer Jews. This logic, to those who read the words expressed by the palis is Abu Mazen logic.

Maybe, it is this very ability to deny reality and side with the enemy which is indicative of how Reformism thinks about Judaism. In Chassidus there is an idea that all Jews really wish to be Tzadikim and come close to Hashem. But, they are held back by their gashmius (physicality) which allows their physical selves to dominate their actions. (Where Chassidus teaches how to harmonize the soul and body in a spiritual bond). This weakness drives the person further away from holiness and eventually shields him from seeing the difference between right and wrong. The effect of the yetzer hara is that reason becomes a vehicle for confusion. The origin of this confusion stems from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

When there is a question of what is the good and what is the evil, the human mind tries to make distinctions which leads to compromising. Good becomes some good and a little bad and bad becomes a little bad with some good and the human mind, left alone without proper Torah guidance becomes confused. This is where in my humble opinion reformism and its followers have descended to. And this is where Eric Yoffie resides as the one who believes he can make the proper decisions. After all, the palis have some good and bad and the Jews have some good and bad. They are not all wrong and the Jews are not all right, etc etc etc...

It is this inability to see clearly which hides the truth. Yoffie and all Jews must unite to say clearly without reservation that mission number 1 is the need to preserve Jewish life and to acknowledge once and for all that HaShem, the King of Kings has established from the time before creation that the Jews have been assigned the land of Israel. This idea is amongst Rashi's first comments in his Chumash commentary and well worth remembering.

Here is a good place to start learning about your soul.