Israel and West Bank Settlements

[Farfromgeneva]

Strangely enough I've come across a few bigoted red neck types up here in the Tundra who feel that way about Jews. And more so about Muslims. Does that mean they are right to harbor such aberrant views?

No. Because there are a few of them and they are far from experts about Jews. A better comparison would be millions and millions of psychologists agreeing that depression is real while a vast minority think depression is made-up, not real. You might be interested to hear the minority opinion but, if you're a thinking person, you'd approach them with skepticism. For some reason, this is not how you are approaching this issue. For some reason, you really want to believe the vast minority opinion.

But if you feel they are wrong and have misinterpreted the Tanakh, by all means show me where they are wrong and I will happily believe you.

Nowhere in the Torah does it say the Jews cannot return to the land of Israel and have sovereignty of Israel. Matter of fact, the Jews went to Israel 40 years after leaving Egypt and then were conquered and returned more than once. Jews living in Israel, Jews having sovereignty of Israel are non-issues. They've done it several times and this is captured within the writings of the Jews. Including writings when the Jews had prophets so we could experience G-d's reaction to the Jewish sovereignty. Not just a non-issue but explicitly G-d celebrates the Jews living in and taking care of the holy land. Israel is SO central to what it means to be a Jew. *SO* central. What the Neturei Karta are saying is nonsense. And *this* is where they're missing the mark. When the Jews left Egypt, they used a portable structure as their temple to connect with, communicate with G-d. When the Jews had sovereignty over Israel, per G-d's will, they built a Temple. Which was destroyed when another nation conquered their land. When the Jews had sovereignty again, they built a second temple. And, again, when the land was conquered, this temple was destroyed. Once a year, every year, the saddest day of the year is Tisha b'Av when the Jews remember the destruction of the bais hamikdashes, the two temples. Three times a day, every day, Jews pray. And, at the heart of these prayers is remembering the days when we lived in Israel and had the bais hamikdash. When Jews pray for peace and a better world and heaven on earth *and the removal of antisemitism*, they pray for the rebuilding of the bais hamikdash, the third bais hamikdash, which a Jew will never do until the world has a dramatic change. e.g. heaven on earth, removal of antisemitism, etc. *That* is what is sacrosanct, the building of the third bais hamikdash in Israel. This will not happen until G-d makes it perfectly clear that the time is right. Not having sovereignty over Israel. The third bais hamikdash. All orthodox Jews agree with this. Let me change that. I've met Jews who have said differently. Strange Jews. There are strange Irish, strange Brazilians, there are strange Jews. And they are the vast, vast minority. Much like the Neturei Karta. That is where they are wrong. Explicitly. The third temple is the issue, not having sovereignty of Israel. Now, being true to your word when you said, "show me where they are wrong and I will happily believe you", believe me and let this issue go. The Jewish perspective is not that the Jews should not have sovereignty over the land of Israel. There is zero conflict between the Jews and the Torah with the Jews living in and having sovereignty of Israel. If you want to say *you* don't want the Jews to have sovereignty over Israel, feel free. But to say that the Jews' holiest texts , the heart of their religious beliefs don't want them there, don't want them to have sovereignty, that's just blatantly untrue and, to be candid, pretty offensive. Let this issue go...

Because when one feels victimized themselves as presented in various ways over time here you go to where one is accepted and then adopt those positions no matter how strident and lacking in thoughtfulness they are. This is where we are at-just a much older version of a marginalized college kid basically. Also one can tell the myopia but the constant harping on last weeks battle, whether it’s “the old
LP” which thank god I was only on the lacrosse boards for apparently or constantly bringing up Afghanistan as if every situation is exactly the same. It’s wildly in the box thinking that lacks a lot. You won’t win when someone thinks they can just shout louder and shouldn’t bother trying to win a debate like this anyways. It’s not a winning hand for anyone.

BTW strange and Irish are a compliment together! Ask Samuel a Beckett, Martin McDonough, FFG, etc

[Matnum PI]

Let the issue continue...And that's the truth which everybody knows.

In the Tanach, there are innumerable cases where a person should be killed, capital punishment, stoned to death or otherwise. A Jew not keeping Shabbas, a rebellious child, etc. Yet, not just now but for thousands of years, this is not how Jews live, not how Jewish law works. Why? It says explicitly in the Tanach that if I poke you in the eye with a stick, by accident or otherwise, and blind you, you get to poke me in the eye and blind me, too. But, again, for thousands of years, that's not how Jewish law works. Not only is that not how Jewish law works, Jewish law looks at the subjectivity of the person's eye, the worth of that person's eye, can that person continue to earn a living without this eye, looks at financial compensation and more. According to you and your rabbi, we should kill the Jew who breaks Shabbas, we should blind the man who poked another man in the eye with a stick, I mean, That's what the Tanakh says! But we don't, explicitly, we do not. Jewish law, now and for thousands of years, is sensical, rational, nuanced, detailed. Yet your interpretation is not. You and your rabbi's interpretation is just pointing at a sentence and saying, But look! Brooklyn, why is that? Why do 99% of all orthodox Jews live according to a Jewish law that is sensical, rational, nuanced, detailed while you and your rabbi have such a dramatically different, simplistic perspective. Why is that, Brooklyn?

[Brooklyn]

In the Tanach, there are innumerable cases where a person should be killed, capital punishment, stoned to death or otherwise ... Why is that? Why do 99% of all orthodox Jews live according to a Jewish law that is sensical, rational, nuanced, detailed while you and your rabbi have such a dramatically different, simplistic perspective. Why is that, Brooklyn?

No question that there is a certain rigidity in and differing perspectives on the Law but which are not restricted to Orthodox Jews. However, the Rabbi and his adherents argue that it is they who faithfully comply with it. That same book also teaches in Psalm 81:13-15 that a nation that adheres to the Law has no need of a standing army as it will be divinely protected against all enemies (anyone who refuses to comply is called a "hater" of the Lord). In fact the Rabbi mentions that Jews and Muslims lived in that region for centuries in a state of peace before Zionism was introduced. Therefore, based on that teaching there is no need for an IDF. You say 99% of the people live according to the Law but do you know of anyone in that country who believes the Bible in that regard?

The Christian perspective is even more demanding. It says "blessed are the peace makers" and offers the same protection in Luke 1:71 et seq. Love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek ... Failure to obey so much as one commandment means one has broken them all as per James 2:10. Sadly, Jesus (the Prince of Peace) more often than not was cited as the cause and source of war by Christians in their Crusades, in Western imperialism against the Third World, and by fascists who killed in his name. The USA claims to be a Christian nation but try to challenge anyone on this and see how irritated they get about it. Ask them to turn the other cheek or to drop their weapons - then imagine what the reaction will be.

Whatever the case, interfering in international affairs constitutes globalism. For years on this forum (before that, on the old LP) political right wingers used to condemn globalist ambitions as it was believed this undermines American freedom. That the USA Capitol is in Washington, DC. Not in the UN. Remember how people here condemned the UN, the IMF, the World Trade Organization, Clinton's policy in Yugoslavia? All were condemned for a variety of reasons. Well, intervention in the Middle East is just another aspect of the globalist campaign. Those who condemned it in the past should condemn this needless and self defeating interventionism as well. Why can't political pundits be consistent in the application of their principles? Let's see those who condemned globalism in the past stand up and do the same like they used.

[Matnum PI]

You say 99% of the people live according to the Law but do you know of anyone in that country who believes the Bible in that regard?

Yes. Every orthodox Jew. What are you talking about?...

That same book also teaches in Psalm 81:13-15 that a nation that adheres to the Law has no need of a standing army as it will be divinely protected against all enemies (anyone who refuses to comply is called a "hater" of the Lord). In fact the Rabbi mentions that Jews and Muslims lived in that region for centuries in a state of peace before Zionism was introduced. Therefore, based on that teaching there is no need for an IDF.

Brooklyn, you're doing it again. Taking one sentence and saying, But look at this sentence. Observant Jews do not live according to a sentence. They live according to a system. So I repeat, you and your rabbi's interpretation is just pointing at a sentence and saying, But look! Brooklyn, why is that? Why do 99% of all orthodox Jews live according to a Jewish law that is sensical, rational, nuanced, detailed while you and your rabbi have such a dramatically different, simplistic perspective. Why is that, Brooklyn?

[Baducchi]

You say 99% of the people live according to the Law but do you know of anyone in that country who believes the Bible in that regard?

Yes. Every orthodox Jew. What are you talking about?...

That same book also teaches in Psalm 81:13-15 that a nation that adheres to the Law has no need of a standing army as it will be divinely protected against all enemies (anyone who refuses to comply is called a "hater" of the Lord). In fact the Rabbi mentions that Jews and Muslims lived in that region for centuries in a state of peace before Zionism was introduced. Therefore, based on that teaching there is no need for an IDF.

Brooklyn, you're doing it again. Taking one sentence and saying, But look at this sentence. Observant Jews do not live according to a sentence. They live according to a system. So I repeat, you and your rabbi's interpretation is just pointing at a sentence and saying, But look! Brooklyn, why is that? Why do 99% of all orthodox Jews live according to a Jewish law that is sensical, rational, nuanced, detailed while you and your rabbi have such a dramatically different, simplistic perspective. Why is that, Brooklyn?

It's f'ing obvious. because brooklyn has zero knowledge of what he's talking about it. he's doing what antisemites have done for f'in thousands of years. he points at a sentence and says, look how archaic these people are!! points at another sentence and says, you're not behaving according to the bible, look!! orthodox jews obviously don't live according to individual sentences that were written thousands of years ago. if they did, how would they know how to deal with microwaves and tons of modern issues. brooklyn, just f'in admit it. you have no idea what you're talking about and, as a consequence, have no way to know whether your rabbi is a super genius who has surpassed literally every great rabbi in the history of Judaism because his perspective is so off the radar of orthodox judaism or a complete fraud, just an evil Jew who is attacking his own people. he's not the first. and brooklyn, neither are you. you're a dime a dozen. been people like you for as long as there've been jews for you to smear.

[Gretchen]

Brooklyn, you're doing it again. Taking one sentence and saying, But look at this sentence. Observant Jews do not live according to a sentence. They live according to a system. So I repeat, you and your rabbi's interpretation is just pointing at a sentence and saying, But look! Brooklyn, why is that? Why do 99% of all orthodox Jews live according to a Jewish law that is sensical, rational, nuanced, detailed while you and your rabbi have such a dramatically different, simplistic perspective. Why is that, Brooklyn?

Matnum, with no insult intended, walk away. Like Baducchi said previously, he's that guy at a funeral who just won't shut up about the NFL game he's watching. He doesn't know the deceased, he doesn't care about the deceased. He's just at the funeral because he has nothing better to do. Matnum, seriously, walk away.

[Matnum PI]

Brooklyn, you're doing it again. Taking one sentence and saying, But look at this sentence. Observant Jews do not live according to a sentence. They live according to a system. So I repeat, you and your rabbi's interpretation is just pointing at a sentence and saying, But look! Brooklyn, why is that? Why do 99% of all orthodox Jews live according to a Jewish law that is sensical, rational, nuanced, detailed while you and your rabbi have such a dramatically different, simplistic perspective. Why is that, Brooklyn?

Matnum, with no insult intended, walk away. Like Baducchi said previously, he's that guy at a funeral who just won't shut up about the NFL game he's watching. He doesn't know the deceased, he doesn't care about the deceased. He's just at the funeral because he has nothing better to do. Matnum, seriously, walk away.

Gretchen, you're not wrong. And thank you. Compassion, empathy is a good thing.

[Brooklyn]

You say 99% of the people live according to the Law but do you know of anyone in that country who believes the Bible in that regard?

Yes. Every orthodox Jew. What are you talking about?...

That same book also teaches in Psalm 81:13-15 that a nation that adheres to the Law has no need of a standing army as it will be divinely protected against all enemies (anyone who refuses to comply is called a "hater" of the Lord). In fact the Rabbi mentions that Jews and Muslims lived in that region for centuries in a state of peace before Zionism was introduced. Therefore, based on that teaching there is no need for an IDF.

Brooklyn, you're doing it again. Taking one sentence and saying, But look at this sentence. Observant Jews do not live according to a sentence. They live according to a system. So I repeat, you and your rabbi's interpretation is just pointing at a sentence and saying, But look! Brooklyn, why is that? Why do 99% of all orthodox Jews live according to a Jewish law that is sensical, rational, nuanced, detailed while you and your rabbi have such a dramatically different, simplistic perspective. Why is that, Brooklyn?

You don't understand the Bible or you would know that one is required to live by every word of the Book (see Deut 8:3 and this is repeated in the New Testament as well). This is part of the system lived by that observant Rabbi and his fellow adherents. They claim that is is others who fail to adhere - the exact opposite of what you are saying. Don't expect me to believe your claim that there are 99% somewhere who are correct and that all else are wrong - that's your opinion for what it's worth and neither true nor binding on anyone. I can just as easily turn it around - why can't the others who profess believe in the Bible believe in it like the Rabbi does? Why are they wrong? Why can't you see the errors of your ways? When are you going to comply? Why are you such a heretic? If we were living in biblical times you could be stoned to death or possibly burned at the stake for your blasphemy and heresies. Desist in your immoral evils. Repent and conform. Adhere to the Law. Go to his youtube channel and learn. The world will be better for it.

[Brooklyn]

Gretchen, you're not wrong. And thank you. Compassion, empathy is a good thing.

That Rabbi does indeed show great empathy for Palestinians. Good thing right? Where's your empathy for them?

I note that the haters resort to making attacks but none address the cites I make from the Bible like the Rabbi does. They don't even know what's in the Book but somehow seem to proclaim themselves experts on it.

Let's see you "experts" challenge this Rabbi on the truth:





''we used to baby sit each other's children and help each other"


Don't criticize - just address the issues raised.

[OCanada]

Israel is not living up to Torah. The American diaspora

One of the questions that is being asked is why how far ethnocentrism can go. There is legislation to consolidate the segregation created by the Nation-State law passed a few years ago eg legalizing residential separation; exude Arabs from the Knesset to forbid the expression of certain opinions. MK Oded Forer wants to strip parliamentary status of elected who denies Israel’s Jewish and democratic character or who “ “ threatens Israel’s security” i defined but like porn they know it when they see it.

Given there will be no peace and no return of Palestinian territories what would happen next. B’Tselem sees two options: keep reenforcing the existing apartheid. Meanwhile seize land, oppress palestinians hoping to discourage them do they leave. There is a saying there “ another war another opportunity”0 the bog opportunity is for Israel to permit Israel to create an ethnically pure state.

The Spehardic Chief Rabbi Yitzak Yosef sayimg Jewish law (halacha) directs the State to expel all non-jews from Israel. If they accept the Noahide Laws they can remain as as useful servants. Otherwise they must be driven from Israel.

My ex wifes grandparents were Orthodox, her parents conservative and she obviously was reform. I did not experience them as any more religious and devoted to Torah than others. But definitions may vary.

I later was involved w a sabra whose family were orthodox. There are tensions between all. As i have posted before a common commentary is “where-ever you find two Jews you will find three opinions”. BTW the word Jew/Jewish is not in the bible. The word is relatively a late product.

[Farfromgeneva]

Gretchen, you're not wrong. And thank you. Compassion, empathy is a good thing.

That Rabbi does indeed show great empathy for Palestinians. Good thing right? Where's your empathy for them?

I note that the haters resort to making attacks but none address the cites I make from the Bible like the Rabbi does. They don't even know what's in the Book but somehow seem to proclaim themselves experts on it.

Let's see you "experts" challenge this Rabbi on the truth:





''we used to baby sit each other's children and help each other"


Don't criticize - just address the issues raised.

Using the term Haters is the official end of any credibility Ms Taylor Swift.

[Brooklyn]

Gretchen, you're not wrong. And thank you. Compassion, empathy is a good thing.

That Rabbi does indeed show great empathy for Palestinians. Good thing right? Where's your empathy for them?
I note that the haters resort to making attacks but none address the cites I make from the Bible like the Rabbi does. They don't even know what's in the Book but somehow seem to proclaim themselves experts on it.

Let's see you "experts" challenge this Rabbi on the truth:
gIX368TtOJs
''we used to baby sit each other's children and help each other"
Don't criticize - just address the issues raised.

Using the term Haters is the official end of any credibility Ms Taylor Swift.

Another emotional response without addressing the issue.
Thanks for confirming what I previously wrote.

[Farfromgeneva]

Gretchen, you're not wrong. And thank you. Compassion, empathy is a good thing.

That Rabbi does indeed show great empathy for Palestinians. Good thing right? Where's your empathy for them?
I note that the haters resort to making attacks but none address the cites I make from the Bible like the Rabbi does. They don't even know what's in the Book but somehow seem to proclaim themselves experts on it.

Let's see you "experts" challenge this Rabbi on the truth:
gIX368TtOJs
''we used to baby sit each other's children and help each other"
Don't criticize - just address the issues raised.

Using the term Haters is the official end of any credibility Ms Taylor Swift.

Another emotional response without addressing the issue.
Thanks for confirming what I previously wrote.

I’m sure you’d see confirmation all around you. Nothing emotional as I don’t care. That’s your projection which I note a touch of hysteria in your posts regularly. And tons of binary, straw man setup arguments. It’s cheap and tired. That’s why there’s no emotion left just stating what others think.

[PizzaSnake]

Pretty bold move.

"An Israeli diplomat tried to persuade a leading New York college to cancel a course about the growing debate over whether the Jewish state practices a form of apartheid in the occupied Palestinian territories.

The Israeli consul for public diplomacy in New York, Yuval Donio-Gideon, took the highly unusual step of contacting Bard College earlier this year to object to the course, Apartheid in Israel-Palestine, on the grounds that it breached the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism.

When the college defended the course, it came under pressure from pro-Israel groups and from at least one major donor. Robert Epstein, the property developer and co-owner of the Boston Celtics, resigned from Bard’s board of trustees in protest at Bard’s refusal to cancel the subject.

The course was designed and taught by Nathan Thrall, a Jewish American writer and researcher who lives in Jerusalem.

“The Israeli consulate contacted Bard and said they would like the course to be cancelled. There was mention of the IHRA definition of antisemitism which is the standard means of attempting to silence criticism of Israel,” said Thrall."

How about Israel concerns itself with freedom of speech and expression in Israel? Pretty sure we can handle the debate by ourselves, thank you. Epstein didn't like it, so he protested. See how it works?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... eid-debate

[Brooklyn]

I’m sure you’d see confirmation all around you. Nothing emotional as I don’t care. That’s your projection which I note a touch of hysteria in your posts regularly. And tons of binary, straw man setup arguments. It’s cheap and tired. That’s why there’s no emotion left just stating what others think.

Thanx again for confirming what I wrote.


OK, back to the issues:


Don’t Police the World

https://original.antiwar.com/srichman/2 ... the-world/


“We” – to be precise, U.S. policymakers and their quasi-private-sector, tax-nourished enablers-beneficiaries – must not police the world, become directly involved in wars, covertly assist belligerents, or act as arms merchants and bankers.

The central government can’t be a benign policeman, even if its intentions were as stated (which they may be): international rules-based order and economic stability. But it can wreak havoc by trying. We know this because it already has. Pick your start date, but the last 30 years present evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of what U.S.-sponsored “order” really looks like, thanks to an unbroken bipartisan chain of presidents and a bunch of presumptuous bumblers who wear weighty political titles from the executive and legislative branches. (The judiciary isn’t off the hook either.)

The U.S. government’s inherent ineptness speaks volumes. “Ought” implies “can,” and the policy mavens cannot. Wishful thinking is no substitute for real thinking. Each new crisis is not so different from previous ones as to make it unique. We can and must learn from the past, even the past that is so recent it’s still the present.

Government “crisis management” is a contradiction in terms. War typically has calamitous results, however optimistic the prognostications and later assessments. Helping a belligerent bloodies the hands of the helper, even if only metaphorically. Fighting proxy wars, which the policymakers might prefer to direct war these days, or engaging in covert operations is no moral shield. The horrendous consequences are foreseeable. Pleading that “We didn’t intend the bad stuff” does not wash. Call it “collateral damage,” whatever the policymakers call it, they enable the ruin of innocent lives and entire societies. We should have no part of it.

We know what war brings. It brings the death and dismemberment of innocents, always including children. It brings the utter destruction of the things that make life possible, such as food, water, homes, hospitals, and infrastructure. The chance of killing only bad guys is zero. I think the government’s own war simulations would agree. Hypothetical rosy scenarios offered in somber tones from secure stateside arms chairs don’t count. Even moves intended as defensive may understandably be perceived as aggressive, bringing snowballing countermoves that threaten more innocents and risk turning a local conflict into a big-power confrontation. The danger of nuclear war always looms.

Before considering joining in a war, assume the worst. Then don’t join. It’s the safe bet.

On top of that misery, intervening in wars sets the stage for terrible events to follow: revolution, dictatorship, government control of everyday life, atrocious recriminations, and plain chaos. That’s the safe bet too.

Intervention also sets the stage for aggrieved foreigners who want revenge against the country that is seen to have enabled their adversaries. If that is not the lesson of at least the last 30 years, what is? Direct and indirect participation in wars can come home to roost traumatically. Policing the world or arming one part against another is no recipe for security. And let’s not forget the excuse the U.S. government seizes to spy on and censor Americans in the name of national security.

The likely human cost of an interventionist foreign policy is prohibitive, but that’s not the only cost. The money price tag is also gigantic, and the U.S. government doesn’t have the money. It has to borrow it – the debt is larger than the GDP and growing – and that means Federal Reserve monetary creation and the theft of our purchasing power. It’s a subtle form of taxation that politicians use when they believe that the taxpayers don’t want a tax increase.

Finally, there is the lack of consent. It would be bad enough if the arrogant policymakers sowed their destruction on their own dime and in their own name. But they don’t. They presume to speak for us and to make us pay for their adventures. I never signed that blank check, did you?

But they don’t need our consent. The game was rigged long ago. Hypothetical consent is good enough, and most people go along because they’re busy living and virtually powerless anyway. They also heard about it in the government’s schools.

Helping other governments fight wars is crazy. That’s not isolationism because the position embraces free trade with the world (unmanaged by governments) and the free movement of people. The word is nonintervention. When war breaks out, government personnel should be permitted to do only one thing: call for a cease-fire!




We lost in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Another foreign war means another loss for us while it enriches the wealthy elites. Let those people settle their own problems and let's work to solve our own. No more wars!

[Farfromgeneva]

How come your incapable of proving it yourself? Never mind…

[Brooklyn]

How come your incapable of proving it yourself? Never mind…

Another accusation.

Well, let's put it this way, I agree with Mr Richman. I do not see any reason for dissenting from his well defended thesis at all. However if you feel he is wrong, by all means let's discuss it.

Oh wait. That involves issues. Something so many of you pro war types are incapable of doing since you insist on personalities as opposed to discussing issues because you have no rational basis for your indefensible ideas.

Next ...

[Farfromgeneva]

How come your incapable of proving it yourself? Never mind…

Another accusation.

Well, let's put it this way, I agree with Mr Richman. I do not see any reason for dissenting from his well defended thesis at all. However if you feel he is wrong, by all means let's discuss it.

Oh wait. That involves issues. Something so many of you pro war types are incapable of doing since you insist on personalities as opposed to discussing issues because you have no rational basis for your indefensible ideas.

Next ...

So I've never discussed an issue.

Whining about accusations while calling everyone pro war, throwing out silly challenges in the abstract that are petty and referring to everyone as right wingers. But no accusations.. None.

[Brooklyn]

Thanx again for confirming.

Next ...

[JoeMauer89]

How come your incapable of proving it yourself? Never mind…

Another accusation.

Well, let's put it this way, I agree with Mr Richman. I do not see any reason for dissenting from his well defended thesis at all. However if you feel he is wrong, by all means let's discuss it.

Oh wait. That involves issues. Something so many of you pro war types are incapable of doing since you insist on personalities as opposed to discussing issues because you have no rational basis for your indefensible ideas.

Next ...

So I've never discussed an issue.

Whining about accusations while calling everyone pro war, throwing out silly challenges in the abstract that are petty and referring to everyone as right wingers. But no accusations.. None.

FFG,

It's a lost cause with that poster. Don't waste your time any further. That poster spends too much perusing various forums on the internet and has completely lost sense of reality.

Joe