Site Meter Yehudi Yerushalmi

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

An addendum to my previous post: The Beginnings of International Isolation???

The Flight Ban - Kerry Came With A Stick

It seems I might have been a little naive.  The timing of Kerry's visit and the FAA ban does seem a little too convenient/suspicious.  Otherwise what was the entire purpose of  his little visit?  From his point of view, without a subtle/not-so-subtle threat he didn't have anything new to bring to the region to 'persuade' Israel.

It is not as if he and Obama haven't tried something like this before.

See:

Even if the FAA ban proves to be only temporary, it does appear from this to be the start of something new. 

Sunday, June 01, 2014

Today's Connection Between Two News Headlines

1.  Lapid fights against Torah:
     On Again, Off Again Funds for Foreign Yeshiva Students On Again

2. Lapid announces drought year, compensation for farmers
    Drought Declared in the Negev; Farmers to Receive Compensation


There is no such thing as coincidence!!!

Prophetic Malbim Describes August 2010 Discovery

Amazing article from: http://matzav.com/ quoted here in full


Prophetic Malbim Describes August 2010 Discovery

Thursday August 5, 2010 10:27 AM
By Rabbi Yair Hoffman
There is a remarkable Malbim on the book of Yonah 2:4. The Malbim discusses how Yonah was caught in a river under the sea - where the waters of the river were separate from the ocean waters. Until this month - this was generally thought to be a physical impossibility.
Below, however, we find an article written by Richard Gray - the science editor of the British newspaper the telegraph. The results are striking. The reader is urged to see the Malbim with his or her own eyes. The term utilized by the Malbim - "Levav Yamim" clearly means sea bed.
"Researchers working in the Black Sea have found currents of water 350 times greater than the River Thames flowing along the sea bed, carving out channels much like a river on the land.
The undersea river, which is up to 115ft deep in places, even has rapids and waterfalls much like its terrestrial equivalents.
Coral reefs suffer mass bleaching If found on land, scientists estimate it would be the world's sixth largest river in terms of the amount of water flowing through it.
The discovery could help explain how life manages to survive in the deep ocean far out to sea away from the nutrient rich waters that are found close to land, as the rivers carry sediment and nutrients with them.
The scientists, based at the University of Leeds, used a robotic submarine to study for the first time a deep channel that had been found on the sea bed.
They found a river of highly salty water flowing along the deep channel at the bottom of the Black Sea, creating river banks and flood plains much like a river found on land.
Dr Dan Parsons, from the university's school of earth and environment, said: "The water in the channels is denser than the surrounding seawater because it has higher salinity and is carrying so much sediment.
"It flows down the sea shelf and out into the abyssal plain much like a river on land. The abyssal plains of our oceans are like the deserts of the marine world, but these channels can deliver nutrients and ingredients needed for life out over these deserts.
"This means they could be vitally important, like arteries providing life to the deep ocean.
"The key difference we found from terrestrial rivers was that as the flow goes round the bend, the water spirals in the opposite way to rivers on land."
The undersea river discovered by Dr Parsons and his colleagues, which is yet to be named, stems from salty water spilling through the Bosphorus Strait from the Mediterranean into the Black Sea, where the water has a lower salt content.
This causes the dense water from the Mediterranean to flow like a river along the sea bed, carving a channel with banks around 115 feet deep and 0.6 of a mile wide. It is the only active undersea river to have been found so far.
Scientists have long suspected they can form, after sonar scans of the sea bed have revealed meandering channels in many of the world's oceans, although none have been found before to have currents of water flowing through them.
Among the largest of these channels is off the coast of Brazil where the Amazon enters the Atlantic Ocean.
Most are believed to have formed when sea levels were much lower and the channels have been found to be up to 2,500 miles long and be several miles wide.
The channel in the Black Sea, although much smaller, is the only one to be found still flowing and proves that these mysterious channels are formed by underwater rivers.
Unlike ocean trenches, which are geological formations that form at the deepest parts of the ocean due to movements of the tectonic plates, the undersea river channels meander like rivers on land and form banks in the same way by eroding the silt from the bottom of the channel and building it up at the edges.
Dr Parsons found that the Black Sea river is flowing at around four miles per hour with 22,000 cubic metres of water passing through the channel every second - 350 times greater than the flow of the Thames and 10 times greater than Europe's biggest river, the Rhine.
The Black Sea river flows only for around 37 miles until it reaches the edge of the sea shelf and dissipates into the deep sea.
Dr Parsons said data from the research will also be important for oil companies looking to drill in areas where these rivers exist.
He said: "This is the first time we have been able to show that there is a flow through a natural channel system and take direct measurements of what the flow is like and how that is linked to the shape and morphology of the channel."
This article appeared in the August 1st edition of the Telegraph.
The Malbim, Rav Meir Leibish Ben Yechiel Michel Weiser passed away in 1879. The motif of his commentary was to prove the Divine origin of the Torah - as a counter measure to the rise of the Reform movement. The fact is that the commentary of the Malbim is filled with such gems.
{The Five Towns Jewish Times}
{Matzav.com Newscenter}

Monday, May 28, 2012

It Caught My Eye #29

From: It Caught My Eye 29

QUOTE:
Europe is turning into nothing but a tourist trap, with museum attendants and gondoliers and the like preserving the past just to live off it.
David Pryce-Jones quoting Walter Laqueur
 
IT’S A CRAZY WORLD
Hamas motto: We love death as much as the Jews love life.
Reply: All who love death more than life should kill himself immediately.
Denis Prager
 
It recently emerged that British police had known for more than a decade that Muslim rape gangs were targeting young girls, but they ignored the evidence of rapes because "they were petrified of being called racist."
Soeren Kern, Gatestone Institute
 
In 1920 when the ban on the sale of liquor was implemented in the U.S, Jewish families were allowed to make and possess 10 gallons of kosher wine per year for religious purposes. The year 1924 saw the distribution of 2,944,764 gallons of "kosher wine."  The periodical American Hebrew expressed amazement at how fast Judaism was growing.
Lawrence J. Epstein, Jewish Ideas Daily
 
DO YOU KNOW
The International Olympic Committee turned down Israel’s request to have a minute of silence at this year’s Games in memory of the Munich massacre 40 years ago. The role of international organizations is to condemn Israel, not to remember or regret murderous violence against its citizens.
Jay Nordlinger, National Review
 
President Obama appointed Hannah Rosenthal as the special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism. She served with Americans for Peace Now, part of the boycott, disinvestments and sanctions movement that seeks to delegitimize Israel and believes Jews are to blame for anti-Semitism because of their support for Israel. Eileen F. Toplansky, American Thinker
 
Israel’s Check-Cap has developed a tiny capsule that travels through the intestines, snapping 360-degree X-ray images and continuously transmitting information to a wrist-worn data receiver reporting on the prevalence of polyps, the precursors of colorectal cancer. All you’ll have to do is swallow a tiny capsule. No colonoscopy, no hospital visit.
Daniel Ben Tal,  Israeli 21c
 
Claire Lomas, a paralysed woman (from the chest down) became the first person to complete a marathon in a bionic suit. She finished the London Marathon [42.195 km] 16 days after the race began. A number of celebrities lent their support by walking a mile alongside her. Although she did not receive a medal when she finished, a number of marathon runners donated their medals to her.
Tom Gross
 
THEY SAID IT
Listening to a record [compared to a live symphony orchestra] is like kissing a photograph of Brigitte Bardot. Sergiu Celibidache, the late Romanian conductor, quoted by Jay Nordlinger
 
It may be the hardest to solve, but the Middle East conflict is the easiest conflict in the world to describe. In a nutshell: Israel would like to exist and recognizes the Palestinians right to have a state. But the Palestinians, other Arabs and Moslems do not recognize the right of a Jewish State of Israel to exist. Denis Prager.
 
Millions are spent by Arab interests on public relations campaigns. The owner of one of the 25 largest US PR agencies in America [not Torossian]explained why his firm would no longer work with Jewish organizations. He said there is simply too much money working for Arab interests and he was no longer working for pro-Israeli organizations. It’s a trend that will grow – and will see Arab interests even more positively portrayed in American media. Ronn Torossian, President & CEO of New York-based 5W Public Relations, Front Page
 
ANTI-SEMITISM
Anti-Semitism is like alcoholism. You can go for 25 years without a drink, but if things go bad and you find yourself with a vodka in your hand, you can't get rid of it. British novelist Iain Pears.
 
It is a moral scandal that a few decades after the catastrophe that overtook the Jewish people in Europe, anti-Semitic themes and ruses are once again respectable, not just down there with the thugs, but also within polite society, and within the perimeters of a self-flattering liberal and left opinion. It is a bleak lesson to all but those unwilling to see.
Norman Geras Professor Emeritus University of Manchester quoted by Rick Richman,
 
A new survey commissioned by the BBC shows that the four least popular countries in the world are Pakistan, Iran, North Korea – and Israel. In America 50% took a positive view of Israel and 35 percent were negative: Russia 25-26%; Canada 25-59%; France 20-65, Britain 16-68, Germany 16-69, Spain 12-74. The Nigerians (54-29) and Kenyans (45-31) were far friendlier to Israel than any West European country. The country that was most hostile of all, even more than Arab countries, was Japan, where only 3 percent had a positive view of Israel.
Bruce Bawer, Front Page
 
BRIEFS
Days after taking office, Putin's Russia staged the first successful test-launch of a new intercontinental ballistic missile capable of breaching defence systems now being developed by NATO. 
AFP
 
Sixty countries, including 30 non-Nato members with no connections to NATO, attended the Nato meeting in Chicago. Israel was not invited. Did no one remember to invite the American ally that controls the Middle East’s most powerful military or did America succumb to Turkey’s veto?
Omri Ceren, Commentary Magazine
 
The new French cabinet will have three Muslim members, one will serve as Minister of Women’s Rights and spokesperson for the French government; another has been vocal in blaming Israel for France’s foreign affairs problems; the third has worked to perpetuate the myth that the problems caused by Muslim immigrants are due to French racism, rather than to Islam. In addition the new Justice Minister, who has no law degree, was one of only a handful of members of the National Assembly to have voted against the law banning hijabs in schools.
Daniel Greenfield, Front Page
 
SCANDINAVIA
In June 2009 Swedish authorities took Domenic Johansson into custody because he was being home schooled. He was on an airliner waiting to fly with the family back to India where they were planning to resettle. Ever since, the Johannsons have been fighting the Swedish government for custody of their son.
Bob Unruh, WND
 
Søren Espersen of the Danish Folkeparti described his experience when visiting high schoolsin Denmark.  “Talented and articulate” kids explained to him the history of Israel as it’s been taught to them.  After the Holocaust, they informed him, the Western countries, led by the U.S. and Britain, flew “massive numbers of American, English, German and Polish Jews” to Palestine, where “they chased all the Palestinians out of their houses with gunpowder and cannons and other modern weapons, helped by the British and Americans, and sent them to refugee camps, where they have been ever since.” 
 
“ Daniel,”a 17-year-old Norwegian Jew told him how he was “ sitting at the library playing an Internet game that involves shooting the greatest possible number of people with bows and arrows. A kid walked in….’Pretend you’re shooting a Jew,’ he commented enthusiastically.’”
 
Daniel recalls,  “During the Gaza demonstrations, people went around with posters in Arabic saying ‘Kill all Jews.’  He points out that in school if he were to call for the murder of all Muslims or Christians, he would probably be sent to the principal or worse; but when people call for the murder of all Jews, it’s treated as a question of free speech.
Bruce Bawer, Front Page
 
THE LIGHTER SIDE
A biker was riding by the zoo, when he saw a little girl leaning into the lion's cage. Suddenly, the lion grabbed her by the cuff of her jacket and tried to pull her inside. The biker jumped off his bike, ran to the cage and hit the lion on the nose with a powerful punch. The lion jumped back and let go of the girl. A reporter saw the whole scene, and said, 'Sir, that was a very brave thing you did.' 'Why, it was nothing,' the biker replied. The lion was behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger, and acted as I felt right.'

'I noticed a patch on your jacket,' said the journalist. 'Yeah, I ride with an Israeli motorcycle club,' the biker replied.' Well, I'll make sure this will not go unnoticed. I'm a journalist with the New York Times.
 
The following morning the New York Times had the following headline: 'ISRAELI GANG MEMBER ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT AND STEALS HIS LUNCH'
 
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: IRAN: 
During a presentation at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, a respected Israeli think tank, José Maria Aznar, former prime minister of Spain, recalled a “private discussion” in Tehran in October of 2000 with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who told him: “Israel must be burned to the ground and made to disappear from the face of the Earth.” Dore Gold, the former Israeli ambassador to the U.N. wanted to be certain there was no misunderstanding. He asked Aznar whether Khamenei was suggesting “a gradual historical process.“ He meant physical termination through military force,” Aznar replied. Khamenei also told Aznar that the goal of the Islamic Revolution of 1979 has remained constant. It is to rid the world of two evils: Israel and the United States
 
Aznar also recalled a meeting he had with Vladimir Putin, in which he advised the Russian president against selling surface-to-air missiles to Iran. “Don’t worry — we can sell them everything, even if we are worried by an Iranian nuclear bomb,” Aznar quoted Putin as saying. “Because at the end of the day, Israel will take care of it.”
Clifford May. Jewish World Review
 
ECOFASCISM
August Haussleiter, a former SS officer and a founding member of the Nazi Party, started the German Green Party based on 19th century writings that popularized a cult ideology of the old-fashioned German country people or Volk. The Volk derived their “genuine” souls from their “rootedness” in the land, shared ancestral kinship, and connection to nature. In contrast, Jews, represented corrupt urban modernity, lacked ties to the land, were soulless and thus could never be part of the German Volk.
 
Although the existence, influence and consequences of the "green wing" on the Nazi movement has yet to be adequately researched, there is a theory put forward by Peter Staudenmaier, a professor of German history, that ecofascism played a big role in the search for the Final Solution. At the heart of this theory is that this “völkisch temptation” was a pathological response to modernity. Völkisch thinkers preached a return to the land, to the simplicity and wholeness of a life attuned to nature's purity. While "the Volkish movement aspired to reconstruct the society that was sanctioned by history, rooted in nature, and in communion with the cosmic life spirit," Jews had foisted on them the hostile milieu of urban industrial civilization.
 
The most prominent top Nazi leaders who searched for a lost connection to nature were Heinrich Himmler, Alfred Rosenberg, and Walther Darré. Rosenberg wrote in his colossal The Myth of the 20th Century: "Today we see the steady stream from the countryside to the city, deadly for the Volk. The cities swell ever larger, unnerving the Volk and destroying the threads which bind humanity to nature; they attract adventurers and profiteers of all colors, thereby fostering racial chaos."
Adapted from an interview between Jamie Glazov and Robert Zubrin; and Ecofascism by Janet Biehl and Peter Staudenmaier
 
CHECK LIST FOR JOURNALISTS OF THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA
1, Israelis live in posh houses stocked with all the latest appliances. Arabs live in crumbling shacks that are always in danger of being bulldozed.
 
2. Israelis are fanatical and hate-filled. Arabs are passionate and embittered.
 
3. Be sure to call a terrorist prisoner in an Israeli jail a militant. Do not mention the sheer amount of food in the prison, especially if he is on a hunger strike. If you happen to notice that the prisoners live better than most Israelis, do not refer to it. Never ask them how many children they killed or how much they make a month. Ask them what they think the prospects for peace are. Nod knowingly when they say that it’s up to Israel.
 
4. Depersonalize Israelis, personalize Muslims. One is a statistic, the other a precious snowflake. A Muslim terrorist attack is always in retaliation for something, but an Israeli attack only feeds the “Cycle of Violence.” Quote some official who urges Israel to return to peace negotiations.
 
5. Frame all Israeli politics by asking whether a politician is finally willing to make the compromises that you think are necessary for peace. A vote for a conservative party means that Israelis hate peace.
 
6. Israeli soldiers should be depicted looming menacingly over children. Your stringers are already experienced at urging a child into camera range, then getting down on one knee and tilting the camera up just as an Israeli soldier walks into the frame. If there isn’t time to set up the shot, get what you can. The photo can be cropped afterward to show just the Israeli soldier and the Palestinian child, even if the two are not actually interacting in any way.
 
7. Checkpoint lines should consist entirely of old people and pregnant women waiting to visit their families.
 
8. Describe “settlers as “dogged” and “fanatical.” Convey to the reader that there is something disturbing about the tenacity with which they cling to the land, while making it clear that they will have to be evacuated from the land for there to be peace.
 
9. Palestinian politicians are always willing to make peace, even when they aren’t. Never ask them any tough questions, about the their support for terrorists or why they refuse to negotiate.
 
10. If an Israeli tells you that there is no such thing as Palestinians, that they’re gangs of Muslim militias who have no interest in running their own country, or that Jordan is the actual Palestinian State, ignore him. You’re here to tell a story.
 
11. Close with an old Arab man who expresses hope that one day peace will come to this troubled land.
Daniel Greenfield, Front Page

 

Monday, February 13, 2012

UN Condemns Israel for Judaizing the Talmud

In a related item, UNESCO declares Rashi an ancient "Palestinian Islamic Sage".

A special UN rapporteur condemned Israel yesterday for Judaizing the Talmud. "The Judaization of the Talmud is the new frontier of dispossession of the traditional Palestinian Religious and Intellectual Heritage" said Eva Nudnik, a special rapporteur appointed by the United Nations Committee for The Establishment of a Palestinian History.

She accused the government of Israel of collaborating with extremist rabbis in a effort to eradicate any traces of signs of the true Palestinian and Islamic claim to the Talmud. Nudnik was especially annoyed with the Artscroll Schottenstein edition which she said is a devious effort to establish and spread a false Jewish claim to the Talmud.

Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas said on Sunday that the PA will never recognize any Jewish connection to the Talmud.

UNESCO declares Rashi an ancient "Palestinian Islamic Sage".

UNESCO last week declared Rashi to be an ancient Palestinian Islamic sage and called for the establishment of a fund to raze the "Rashi Shul" in Worms, Germany and to erect in its place a Mosque and a Museum in the memory of the ancient Islamic Imam.

Palestinian Minister of Culture, Mr Yahya Yaklef congratulated the UNESCO vote to forbid any Jewish access to Rashi's burial site in Troyes.

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Israel's Shalit eclipses Arab 'Shalloots'

Received via email:

Israel's Shalit eclipses Arab

'Shalloots'

It is humiliating that a large number of Palestinian detainees will be exchanged for a single soldier

  • Image Credit: Luis Vazquez/Gulf News

At long last the famous Israeli captive Gilad Shalit has secured his freedom from his Palestinian captors. Hamas and Israel have come to a prisoner swap agreement at a very dubious time to release Shalit in exchange for over a thousand Palestinian detainees. I bet millions, the world over, have heard of the Israeli soldier, who was captured by Hamas a couple of years ago to the extent that he has become, by all accounts, an international figure. He has been in the news for months and months on end. All American and European media have written extensively about his case.

Even the Arab press has given his ordeal huge coverage forgetting of course the ordeals of thousands of Arab “Shalloots” both at home and abroad. It is no wonder then that Hamas leaders have remarked sarcastically more than once that wherever they go in the Arab world, Arab officials ask them about Shalit with great enthusiasm. We have all seen how the deposed Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and others worked for months on end to secure Shalit’s release, but to no avail.

I am sure some are asking now what is meant by “Shalloots”. Is it a derivative of “Shalit”. The answer is no. I am trying here to play on words to show how great the difference is between the Israeli Shalit and the so-called Arab “Shalloot”, which means in Arabic “shabby or seedy shoes”. This colloquial Arabic word is, in actual fact, a metaphor for run-down cheap things.

Why have the whole world including many Arab leaders been so busy trying to free Shalit when there are tens of thousands of Arab “Shalloots” languishing in Israeli and other prisons unnoticed? Why are they so cheap and unimportant?

It is not a secret at all that the value of an Arab person in the stock-exchange of Arab regimes is sort of nil. He is as valueless as an onion’s peel. One should not expect of regimes which treat their downtrodden people like dirt by torturing and starving them inside their countries to care about an Arab captive in Israeli or other foreign jails. Thousands of Arab detainees have been held all over the world for decades legally or otherwise, and some of them died abroad unheard of. Hundreds of Arabs might disappear at one point outside their countries, and nobody would care an iota. We have seen how hundreds of people die while trying to flee their countries in the so-called “death boats.

Have you ever seen an Arab government organising a campaign to release one of its nationals from a foreign jail? Probably a few such as the Kuwaitis who worked hard at one point to secure the release of their captives in Iraq. But this remains the exception and not the rule. Have you ever seen an Arab government trying to get one of its citizens out of Guantanamo Bay camp? Not really. Most of them have kept silent. And were it not for the pressure of western governments, no naturalised European Arabs would have got out of the infamous camp.

Have you ever seen an Arab regime trying to get its captives out of Israeli prisons? Forget about it. Most of Arab regimes have no problem at all letting their nationals die in Israeli jails. The Arab citizen is so cheap that Israel sometimes exchanges hundreds of Arab detainees for the remains of an Israeli soldier.

How would one expect Arab regimes to care about their citizens detained abroad if their security services are even collaborating with the Americans and others to kidnap Arab persons and torture them in the so-called ‘rendition prisons”? It is worth-mentioning also that some Arab states are hosting US prisons on their lands because American law prevents the authorities from torturing detainees on US soil. Have you ever seen an Israeli or American security apparatus collaborating with an Arab counterpart to arrest and torture an American or Israeli citizen? Not at all. It is quite funny and extremely painful at one and the same time that some Arab security apparatus have supplied western authorities with fabricated information to help condemn some Arab dissidents held abroad instead of helping them to get out of prison.

When will we see an Arab leader visiting the family of an Arab citizen arrested in Israel or somewhere else? When will we see an Arab official assuring a family that the government is doing its utmost to help secure the release of an Arab captive abroad as did Israeli prime ministers with Shalit’s family?

It is quite great to see over a thousand Palestinians released from Israeli prisons, but it is very sad that this huge number of detainees will be exchanged for a single Israeli soldier. Isn’t it very humiliating for all Arabs politically and morally?

It is no wonder at all that Israel is releasing a large number of Arabs for one person. It must have seen the Arab armies and security services opening fire randomly on Arab demonstrators as if they were a swarm of flies or a herd of livestock just because they went out clamouring for their basic rights. Have you ever seen an Israeli force shooting Israeli demonstrators with great ease? Of course not. In actual fact Israel sent its aircraft to Uganda years ago to help free Israeli citizens kidnapped by Palestinians there. And so, as long as we, Arabs, do not respect ourselves nobody will ever respect us, and we will always exchange thousands of Arabs for one single Israeli.

We are crossing our fingers that the new Arab revolutions might one day liberate Arab people from despotism and turn them from “Shalloots” into “Shalits”.

Dr Faisal Al Qasim is a Syrian journalist based in Doha

Sunday, December 19, 2010

Pick-and-Choose-your-Own-Mitzvot "Judaisim"

Seen on "The Pardes Institute of Jewish Studies" website:

Student Comments

"The learning at Pardes is exactly what I was looking for. As a liberal Jew, it was essential for me to find a place where I could explore the sources of my tradition in a coed environment that is neither coercive nor judgmental. I can incorporate what I have learned into my daily life in the way that suits me."
Adam K
New York
Harvard University


In other words Avodah Zarah

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Fwd: “Their Souls Are Screaming Out For What You Have”

Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein:

Unlike many New Yorkers I know, I do not have an easy time listening to Michael Savage. I squirm when caught in a car in NY when the driver tunes in to his show. While appreciating his support for Israel, I find his manner over the top, and his content simplistic. All this makes his July 12 remarks more significant, for the pure genuineness of his observations.

Apparently invited to a leyl Shabbos dinner, he meets ten Chabad teenaged girls, and is overwhelmed by their purity. It leads him to contrast their life style with that of their non-religious peers, and to advise them not to be jealous of the lifestyles of cultural icons, because nothing that the beautiful people have holds a candle to what the G-d-fearing have. He notes how many belong in rehab – and can't stick it out. Why does their stardom fade and fizzle? Savage tells these girls quite simply: "Their souls are screaming out for what you have."

Thursday, July 22, 2010

When to Doubt a Scientific 'Consensus'

Here is an article that I saw referenced on Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb's Blog That is worth showing here in full:


When to Doubt a Scientific 'Consensus'
By: Jay Richards
The American
March 16, 2010


Link to Original Article

A December 18 Washington Post poll, released on the final day of the ill-fated Copenhagen climate summit, reported “four in ten Americans now saying that they place little or no trust in what scientists have to say about the environment.” Nor is the poll an outlier. Several recent polls have found “climate change” skepticism rising faster than sea levels on Planet Algore (not to be confused with Planet Earth, where sea levels remain relatively stable).

Many of the doubt-inducing climate scientists and their media acolytes attribute this rising skepticism to the stupidity of Americans, philistines unable to appreciate that there is “a scientific consensus on climate change.” One of the benefits of the recent Climategate scandal, which revealed leading climate scientists manipulating data, methods, and peer review to exaggerate the evidence of significant global warming, may be to permanently deflate the rhetorical value of the phrase “scientific consensus.”

Even without the scandal, the very idea of scientific consensus should give us pause. “Consensus,” according to Merriam-Webster, means both “general agreement” and “group solidarity in sentiment and belief.” That pretty much sums up the dilemma. We want to know whether a scientific consensus is based on solid evidence and sound reasoning, or social pressure and groupthink.

Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that scientists are not immune to the non-rational dynamics of the herd. Many false ideas enjoyed consensus opinion at one time. Indeed, the “power of the paradigm” often shapes the thinking of scientists so strongly that they become unable to accurately summarize, let alone evaluate, radical alternatives. Question the paradigm, and some respond with dogmatic fanaticism.

We shouldn’t, of course, forget the other side of the coin. There are always cranks and conspiracy theorists. No matter how well founded a scientific consensus, there’s someone somewhere—easily accessible online—that thinks it’s all hokum. Sometimes these folks turn out to be right. But often, they’re just cranks whose counsel is best disregarded.

So what’s a non-scientist citizen, without the time to study the scientific details, to do? How is the ordinary citizen to distinguish, as Andrew Coyne puts it, “between genuine authority and mere received wisdom? Conversely, how do we tell crankish imperviousness to evidence from legitimate skepticism?” Are we obligated to trust whatever we’re told is based on a scientific consensus unless we can study the science ourselves? When can you doubt a consensus? When should you doubt it?

Your best bet is to look at the process that produced, maintains, and communicates the ostensible consensus. I don’t know of any exhaustive list of signs of suspicion, but, using climate change as a test study, I propose this checklist as a rough-and-ready list of signs for when to consider doubting a scientific “consensus,” whatever the subject. One of these signs may be enough to give pause. If they start to pile up, then it’s wise to be suspicious.

(1) When different claims get bundled together.

Usually, in scientific disputes, there is more than one claim at issue. With global warming, there’s the claim that our planet, on average, is getting warmer. There’s also the claim that human emissions are the main cause of it, that it’s going to be catastrophic, and that we have to transform civilization to deal with it. These are all different assertions with different bases of evidence. Evidence for warming, for instance, isn’t evidence for the cause of that warming. All the polar bears could drown, the glaciers melt, the sea levels rise 20 feet, Newfoundland become a popular place to tan, and that wouldn’t tell us a thing about what caused the warming. This is a matter of logic, not scientific evidence. The effect is not the same as the cause.

There’s a lot more agreement about (1) a modest warming trend since about 1850 than there is about (2) the cause of that trend. There’s even less agreement about (3) the dangers of that trend, or of (4) what to do about it. But these four propositions are frequently bundled together, so that if you doubt one, you’re labeled a climate change “skeptic” or “denier.” That’s just plain intellectually dishonest. When well-established claims are fused with separate, more controversial claims, and the entire conglomeration is covered with the label “consensus,” you have reason for doubt.

(2) When ad hominem attacks against dissenters predominate.

Personal attacks are common in any dispute simply because we’re human. It’s easier to insult than to the follow the thread of an argument. And just because someone makes an ad hominem argument, it doesn’t mean that their conclusion is wrong. But when the personal attacks are the first out of the gate, and when they seem to be growing in intensity and frequency, don your skeptic’s cap and look more closely at the evidence.

When it comes to climate change, ad hominems are all but ubiquitous. They are even smuggled into the way the debate is described. The common label “denier” is one example. Without actually making the argument, this label is supposed to call to mind the assertion of the “great climate scientist” Ellen Goodman: “I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.”

There’s an old legal proverb: If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have neither, attack the witness. When proponents of a scientific consensus lead with an attack on the witness, rather than on the arguments and evidence, be suspicious.

(3) When scientists are pressured to toe the party line.

The famous Lysenko affair in the former Soviet Union is often cited as an example of politics trumping good science. It’s a good example, but it’s often used to imply that such a thing could only happen in a totalitarian culture, that is, when all-powerful elites can control the flow of information. But this misses the almost equally powerful conspiracy of agreement, in which interlocking assumptions and interests combine to give the appearance of objectivity where none exists. For propaganda purposes, this voluntary conspiracy is even more powerful than a literal conspiracy by a dictatorial power, precisely because it looks like people have come to their position by a fair and independent evaluation of the evidence.

Tenure, job promotions, government grants, media accolades, social respectability, Wikipedia entries, and vanity can do what gulags do, only more subtly. Alexis de Tocqueville warned of the power of the majority in American society to erect “formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them.” He could have been writing about climate science.

Climategate, and the dishonorable response to its revelations by some official scientific bodies, show that scientists are under pressure to toe the orthodox party line on climate change, and receive many benefits for doing so. That’s another reason for suspicion.

(4) When publishing and peer review in the discipline is cliquish.

Though it has its limits, the peer-review process is meant to provide checks and balances, to weed out bad and misleading work, and to bring some measure of objectivity to scientific research. At its best, it can do that. But when the same few people review and approve each other’s work, you invariably get conflicts of interest. This weakens the case for the supposed consensus, and becomes, instead, another reason to be suspicious. Nerds who follow the climate debate blogosphere have known for years about the cliquish nature of publishing and peer review in climate science (see here, for example).

(5) When dissenting opinions are excluded from the relevant peer-reviewed literature not because of weak evidence or bad arguments but as part of a strategy to marginalize dissent.

Besides mere cliquishness, the “peer review” process in climate science has, in some cases, been consciously, deliberately subverted to prevent dissenting views from being published. Again, denizens of the climate blogosphere have known about these problems for years, but Climategate revealed some of the gory details for the broader public. And again, this gives the lay public a reason to doubt the consensus.

(6) When the actual peer-reviewed literature is misrepresented.

Because of the rhetorical force of the idea of peer review, there’s the temptation to misrepresent it. We’ve been told for years that the peer-reviewed literature is virtually unanimous in its support for human-induced climate change. In Science, Naomi Oreskes even produced a “study” of the relevant literature supposedly showing “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.” In fact, there are plenty of dissenting papers in the literature, and this despite mounting evidence that the peer-review deck was stacked against them. The Climategate scandal also underscored this: The climate scientists at the center of the controversy complained in their emails about dissenting papers that managed to survive the peer-review booby traps they helped maintain, and fantasized about torpedoing a respected climate science journal with the temerity to publish a dissenting article.

(7) When consensus is declared hurriedly or before it even exists.

A well-rooted scientific consensus, like a mature oak, usually needs time to emerge. Scientists around the world have to do research, publish articles, read about other research, repeat experiments (where possible), have open debates, make their data and methods available, evaluate arguments, look at the trends, and so forth, before they eventually come to agreement. When scientists rush to declare a consensus, particularly when they claim a consensus that has yet to form, this should give any reasonable person pause.

In 1992, former Vice President Al Gore reassured his listeners, “Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled.” In the real 1992, however, Gallup “reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren’t sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn’t think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.” Seventeen years later, in 2009, Gore apparently determined that he needed to revise his own revisionist history, asserting that the scientific debate over human-induced climate change had raged until as late as 1999, but now there was true consensus. Of course, 2009 is when Climategate broke, reminding us that what had smelled funny before might indeed be a little rotten.

(8) When the subject matter seems, by its nature, to resist consensus.

It makes sense that chemists over time may come to unanimous conclusions about the results of some chemical reaction, since they can replicate the results over and over in their own labs. They can see the connection between the conditions and its effects. It’s easily testable. But many of the things under consideration in climate science are not like that. The evidence is scattered and hard to keep track of; it’s often indirect, imbedded in history and requiring all sorts of assumptions. You can’t rerun past climate to test it, as you can with chemistry experiments. And the headline-grabbing conclusions of climate scientists are based on complex computer models that climate scientists themselves concede do not accurately model the underlying reality, and receive their input, not from the data, but from the scientists interpreting the data. This isn’t the sort of scientific endeavor on which a wide, well-established consensus is easily rendered. In fact, if there really were a consensus on all the various claims surrounding climate science, that would be really suspicious. A fortiori, the claim of consensus is a bit suspicious as well.

(9) When “scientists say” or “science says” is a common locution.

In Newsweek’s April 28, 1975, issue, science editor Peter Gwynne claimed that “scientists are almost unanimous” that global cooling was underway. Now we are told, “Scientists say global warming will lead to the extinction of plant and animal species, the flooding of coastal areas from rising seas, more extreme weather, more drought and diseases spreading more widely.” “Scientists say” is hopelessly ambiguous. Your mind should immediately wonder: “Which ones?”

Other times this vague company of scientists becomes “SCIENCE,” as when we’re told “what science says is required to avoid catastrophic climate change.” “Science says” is an inherently weasely claim. “Science,” after all, is an abstract noun. It can’t say anything. Whenever you see that locution used to imply a consensus, it should trigger your baloney detector.

(10) When it is being used to justify dramatic political or economic policies.

Imagine hundreds of world leaders and nongovernmental organizations, science groups, and United Nations functionaries gathered for a meeting heralded as the most important conference since World War II, in which “the future of the world is being decided.” These officials seem to agree that institutions of “global governance” need to be established to reorder the world economy and massively restrict energy resources. Large numbers of them applaud wildly when socialist dictators denounce capitalism. Strange philosophical and metaphysical activism surrounds the gathering. And we are told by our president that all of this is based, not on fiction, but on science—that is, a scientific consensus that human activities, particularly greenhouse gas emissions, are leading to catastrophic climate change.

We don’t have to imagine that scenario, of course. It happened in Copenhagen, in December. Now, none of this disproves the hypothesis of catastrophic, human induced climate change. But it does describe an atmosphere that would be highly conducive to misrepresentation. And at the very least, when policy consequences, which claim to be based on science, are so profound, the evidence ought to be rock solid. “Extraordinary claims,” the late Carl Sagan often said, “require extraordinary evidence.” When the megaphones of consensus insist that there’s no time, that we have to move, MOVE, MOVE!, you have a right to be suspicious.

(11) When the “consensus” is maintained by an army of water-carrying journalists who defend it with uncritical and partisan zeal, and seem intent on helping certain scientists with their messaging rather than reporting on the field as objectively as possible.

Do I really need to elaborate on this point?

(12) When we keep being told that there’s a scientific consensus.

A scientific consensus should be based on scientific evidence. But a consensus is not itself the evidence. And with really well-established scientific theories, you never hear about consensus. No one talks about the consensus that the planets orbit the sun, that the hydrogen molecule is lighter than the oxygen molecule, that salt is sodium chloride, that light travels about 186,000 miles per second in a vacuum, that bacteria sometimes cause illness, or that blood carries oxygen to our organs. The very fact that we hear so much about a consensus on catastrophic, human-induced climate change is perhaps enough by itself to justify suspicion.

To adapt that old legal aphorism, when you’ve got decisive scientific evidence on your side, you argue the evidence. When you’ve got great arguments, you make the arguments. When you don’t have decisive evidence or great arguments, you claim consensus.

Jay Richards frequently writes for the Enterprise Blog and is a contributing editor of THE AMERICAN.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

A message from Moshe, a handicapped boy, to his mother

torahnews.org 21 Cheshvan 5770

Mommy, I want to talk to you. Remember I told you the world would change again in the next few weeks? I challenge you to tell me it is not true. What surfaced yesterday (in the Ukraine and other news) is the indication that the world is changing and moving quickly into a very sinister and terrible direction.

The only way to survive such a situation is to cling to Hakadosh Boruch Hu. Only He can save us. The autistics have been telling people for years the same message. Now we are at the great turning point where all the bad in the world is surfacing and it makes a very frightening almost overwhelming picture. Hashem is now bringing us to the point, that no matter what, we must have total Bitachon only in Him. He is our only lifeline to eternity; nothing will save us except our connection to Hakadosh Boruch Hu.

For many years the autistics have been saying stock up with food and water. That is a good suggestion! But don't believe that it will save us. Hakadosh Boruch Hu can make one’s food and water disappear or render it unusable. Hashem can take stacks and stacks of dollars that are in or out of the bank and give them the worth of toilet paper. (By the way Mommy toilet paper will soon be worth more than the dollar)

So Mommy, take this message to heart and pass it on to other people. Whether you see it clearly or not, since Rosh Hashana the world has changed completely. The evil ones have quietly organized their plans and readied their armies and have put into place their sinister plans for mankind. But those who will hang onto Hashem and to His Torah will witness the downfall of the evil ones.

This war that we will soon face is being orchestrated by those who are the reincarnation of the Dor Haflogah. Once they declared war on Hashem Lo Oleinu and now again Lo Oleinu are declaring war on Hashem. They are fools and will be destroyed forever and Hashem will make it clear in the most miraculous ways that Hashem and only Hashem is the Creater and Ruler of the universe.

Tuesday, October 06, 2009

Hoshana Rabbah is "Al Aqsa Day"

DEBKA says 'Yusuf Qardawi, spiritual leader of the international Muslim Brotherhood movement, urged all Muslims everywhere to mark Oct. 9 as Al Aqsa Day and fight against the shrine's takeover by "the Jews." His influence is enough to bring inflamed Muslims streaming to Jerusalem in the coming days.'

. . . 'In attempting to pour oil on troubled waters, police suppressed information about the extent and gravity of the unrest'

Thursday, October 01, 2009

The Religious Zionist left vs. The Jewish Character of Israel?

As any readers I have left may have noticed, I never have much time to post these days - with the responsibility of raising two Autistic toddlers.

However I read something this morning that I cannot ignore.

Arutz7 had an article today about how Barkat is supporting a lawsuit filed by the "Ne'emanei Torah Va'Avodah" movement with the Supreme Court "against a committee that selects rabbis in Jerusalem, charging that it is biased in favor of the hareidi-religious."

My immediate reaction was:

  1. How can an "Orthodox" Jewish organization file suit in a secular court against the Rabbanut. Moreover, not just any secular court, but the "bastion" of the Eirev Rav


  2. Doesn't the Orthodox Jewish community in Israel have enough trouble with the Supreme Court trying to help the reform and conservatives from undermining and breaking the monopoly of the Rabbanut.
    Now we have an "Orthodox Jewish" organization actively helping the Supreme Court to interfere with the inner workings of the Rabbanut.


  3. Imagine the repercussions if the "Ne'emanei Torah Va'Avodah" movement succeed in helping the Supreme Court get involved in deciding what "type" of Rabbis may or may not be appointed by the Rabbanut.


  4. Who says that the Rabbanut appointments should be democratic. Democracy is NOT a Jewish value. If there happened to be more reform Jews in Jerusalem, does that mean that a reform "rabbi" should be appointed


  5. This also reminded me a little of how the sons of Shlomtzion HaMalkah approached the Romans to arbitrate between them about who should be her rightful successor. This set the ball in motion for Roman rule over Am Yisrael


The "Ne'emanei Torah Va'Avodah" movement and the New Israel Fund

However a quick view of the "Ne'emanei Torah Va'Avodah's" Website shows that they are hardly "Ne'emanei Torah" - Faithful to the Torah.

I guess it should have come as no surprise to find that the "Ne'emanei Torah Va'Avodah" movement, that is undermining the Rabbanut, is funded by the Anti-Israel/Anti-Semitic New Israel Fund


It seems that the "Ne'emanei Torah Va'Avodah" movement gets more funding ($50,000) from the New Israel Fund than the Israel Masorti (Conservative) Movement ($39,000)

I was a little shocked therefore to see that Rabbi Shlomo Riskin sits on the Board of Governors of an organization that is funded by the New Israel Fund and by extension, the Anti-Semitic Ford Foundation.

Any regular reader of Arutz7 or Jewish pro-Israel blogs know exactly who the New Israel Fund is.

As a reminder, here are some results of a random search of articles from Arutz7 on NIF:

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Livni taking orders/advice from Obama?

Is this an example of Obama trying to undermine the Netanyahu government?

I doubt Livni was capable of coming up with this idea by herself!

(IsraelNN.com) Tzipi Livni, head of the opposition Kadima party, announced on Monday that she is establishing a "shadow cabinet", in the tradition of British parliamentary democracy. Kadima is planning a very "active opposition" to the Netanyahu government.

The decision to form a shadow cabinet involves appointing individuals from within Kadima to head teams assigned

to monitor the activities of government ministries and to present alternative policies. The shadow "ministerial" staffs will generally be headed by Knesset members who headed the respective ministries in the past.

For her part, Livni will play the role of coordinating Kadima's diplomatic policies, what might be called a Shadow Foreign Minister to Israel's current Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman. Former Defense Minister and IDF Chief of Staff Sha'ul Mofaz will shadow Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

Monitoring Public Security Minister Yitzchak Aharonovitch will be former Public Security Minister Avi Dichter. Former Treasurer Roni Bar-On will head the shadow Finance Ministry, peering over the shoulders of Yuval Steinitz, the current Finance Minister, and of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who is also serving as Minister of Economic Strategy.

Former Environment Minister Gidon Ezra will follow environmental issues, shadowing Environmental Protection Minister Gilad Erdan. The shadow Minister of Education will be former Education Ministry general manager Ronit Tirosh, monitoring the policies and actions of current Education Minister Gidon Sa'ar.

Former Deputy Immigrant Absorption Minister Marina Solodkin will follow absorption issues as they are handled by Absorption Minister Sofa Landver.

MK Yaakov Edry will follow the issue of development in the Negev and the Galilee, shadowing Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom in his role as Minister of the Development of the Negev and Galilee. Former Housing Minister Zev Boim will head a staff dealing with issues pertaining to Bedouins in the Negev, which will not directly shadow one specific ministry.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

A Vicious Strain of Ancient Prejudice

I received the following extracts from an article in an email today:



EXTRACTS FROM HOWARD JACOBSON: LET'S SEE THE 'CRITICISM' OF ISRAEL FOR WHAT IT REALLY IS IN THE INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER.

-----I was once in Melbourne when bush fires were raging 20 or 30 miles north of the city. Even from that distance you could smell the burning. Fine fragments of ash, like slivers of charcoal confetti, covered the pavements. The very air was charred. It has been the same here these past couple of months with the fighting in Gaza. Only the air has been charred not with devastation but with hatred. And I don't mean the hatred of the warring parties for each other. I mean the hatred of Israel expressed in our streets, on our campuses, in our newspapers, on our radios and televisions, and now in our theatres.

-----A discriminatory, over-and-above hatred, inexplicable in its hysteria and virulence whatever justification is adduced for it; an unreasoning, deranged and as far as I can see irreversible revulsion that is poisoning everything we are supposed to believe in here - the free exchange of opinions, the clear-headedness of thinkers and teachers, the fine tracery of social interdependence we call community relations, modernity of outlook, tolerance, truth. You can taste the toxins on your tongue.

-----But I am not allowed to ascribe any of this to anti-Semitism. It is, I am assured, "criticism" of Israel, pure and simple. In the matter of Israel and the Palestinians this country has been heading towards a dictatorship of the one-minded for a long time; we seem now to have attained it. Deviate a fraction of a moral millimetre from the prevailing othodoxy and you are either not listened to or you are jeered at and abused, your reading of history trashed, your humanity itself called into question. I don't say that self-pityingly. As always with dictatorships of the mind, the worst harmed are not the ones not listened to, but the ones not listening. So leave them to it, has essentially been my philosophy. A life spent singing anti-Zionist carols in the company of Ken Livingstone and George Galloway is its own punishment.

-----Speaking on BBC television at the height of the recent fighting in Gaza, Richard Kemp, former commander of British Troops in Afghanistan and a senior military adviser to the British government, said the following: "I don't think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare where any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of civilians than the IDF (Israeli Defence Forces) is doing today in Gaza."

-----But when it comes to Israel we hear no good, see no good, speak no good. We turn our backsides to what we do not want to know about and bury it in distaste, like our own ordure. We did it and go on doing it with all official contestation of the mortality figures provided by Hamas. We do it with Hamas's own private executions and their policy of deploying human shields. We do it with the sotto voce admission by the UN that "a clerical error" caused it to mis-describe the bombing of that UN school which at the time was all the proof we needed of Israel's savagery. It now turns out that Israel did not bomb the school at all. But there's no emotional mileage in a correction. The libel sticks, the retraction goes unnoticed.

----In recent years a laughably benign locution, "criticism", had become for what is in fact -a desire to word a country not just out of the commonwealth of nations but out of physical existence altogether. Richard Ingrams [editor of the magazine Private Eye] daydreams of the time when Israel will no longer be, an after-dinner sleep which is more than an old man's idle prophesying. It is for him a consummation devoutly to be wished. This week Bruce Anderson [political columnist] also looked to such a time, but in his case with profound regret. Israel has missed and goes on missing chances to be magnanimous, he argued, as no victor has ever been before.

-----What do we, in the cosy safety of tolerant old England, think we are doing when we call the Israelis Nazis and liken Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto? Do those who blithely make these comparisons know anything whereof they speak? In the early 1940s some 100,000 Jews and Romanis died of engineered starvation and disease in the Warsaw Ghetto, another quarter of a million were transported to the death camps, and when the Ghetto rose up it was liquidated, the last 50,000 residents being either shot on the spot or sent to be murdered more hygienically in Treblinka.

-----Given the number of besieged and battered cities there have been in however many thousands of years of pitiless warfare there is only one explanation for this invocation of Warsaw before any of those - it is to wound Jews in their recent and most anguished history and to punish them with their own grief. Its aim is a sort of retrospective retribution, cancelling out all debts of guilt and sorrow. It is as though, by a reversal of the usual laws of cause and effect, Jewish actions of today prove that Jews had it coming to them yesterday.

-----Berating Jews with their own history, disinheriting them of pity, as though pity is negotiable or has a sell-by date, is the latest species of Holocaust denial, infinitely more subtle than the David Irving version with its clunking body counts and quibbles over gas-chamber capability and chimney sizes. Instead of saying the Holocaust didn't happen, the modern sophisticated denier accepts the event in all its terrible enormity, only to accuse the Jews of trying to profit from it, either in the form of moral blackmail or downright territorial theft. According to this thinking, the Jews have betrayed the Holocaust and become unworthy of it, the true heirs to their suffering being the Palestinians. Thus, here and there throughout the world this year, Holocaust day was temporarily annulled or boycotted on account of Gaza, dead Jews being found guilty of the sins of live ones.

----One particularly popular version, pseudo-scientific in tone, understands Zionism as a political form given to a psychological condition - Jews visiting upon others the traumas suffered by themselves, with Israel figuring as the torture room in which they do it. This is is pretty well the thesis of a new hate-fuelled little chamber-piece by Caryl Churchill's Seven Jewish Children, an audacious 10-minute encapsulation of Israel's moral collapse - the audacity residing in its ignorance or its dishonesty - currently playing at the Royal Court. The play is conceived in the form of a family roundelay, with different voices chiming in with suggestions as to the best way to bring up, protect, inform, and ultimately inflame into animality an unseen child in each of the chosen seven periods of contemporary Jewish history. It begins with the Holocaust, partly to establish the playwright's sympathetic bona fides ("Tell her not to come out even if she hears shouting"), partly to explain what has befallen Palestine, because no sooner are the Jews out of the hell of Hitler's Europe than they are constructing a parallel hell for Palestinians.

---The staccato form of the piece - every line beginning "Tell her" or "Don't tell her" - is skilfully contrived to suggest a people not just forever fraught and frightened but forever covert and deceitful. Nothing is true. Boasts are denials and denials are boasts. Everything is mediated through the desire to put the best face, first on fear, then on devious appropriation, and finally on evil. . . . .. The overall impression, nonetheless, is of a narrative slavishly in line with the familiar rhetoric, making little or nothing of the Jews' unbroken connection with the country going back to the Arab conquest more than a thousand years before, the piety felt for the land, the respect for its non-Jewish inhabitants (their rights must "be guarded and honoured punctiliously," Ben Gurion wrote in 1918), the waves of idealistic immigration which long predated the post-Holocaust influx with its twisted psychology, and the hopes of peaceful co-existence, for the tragic dashing of which Arab countries in their own obduracy and intolerance bear no less responsibility.

----- in this wantonly inflammatory piece, the Jews drop in on somewhere they have no right to be, despise, conquer, and at last revel in the spilling of Palestinian blood. There is a one-line equivocal mention of a suicide bomber, and ditto of rockets, both compromised by the "Tell her" device, otherwise no Arab lifts a finger against a Jew. "Tell her about Jerusalem," but no one tells her, for example, that the Jewish population of East Jersusalem was expelled at about the time our survivors turn up, that it was cleansed from the city and its sacred places desecrated or destroyed. Only in the crazed brains of Israelis can the motives for any of their subsequent actions be found.
Thus lie follows lie, omission follows omission, until, in the tenth and final minute, we have a stage populated by monsters who kill babies by design - "Tell her we killed the babies by mistake," one says, meaning don't tell her what we really did - who laugh when they see a dead Palestinian policeman ("Tell her they're animals... Tell her I wouldn't care if we wiped them out"), who consider themselves the "chosen people", and who admit to feeling happy when they see Palestinian "children covered in blood".
Anti-Semitic? No, no. Just criticism of Israel.

----Only imagine this as Seven Muslim Children and we know that the Royal Court would never have had the courage or the foolhardiness to stage it. Babies and laugh at murdered policemen ("Tell her we're the iron fist now") we will squeak no louder than a mouse when we are abused.
Caryl Churchill will argue that her play is about Israelis not Jews, but once you venture on to "chosen people" territory - feeding all the ancient prejudice against that miscomprehended phrase - once you repeat in another form the medieval blood-libel of Jews rejoicing in the murder of little children, you have crossed over. . . No, you don't have to be an anti-Semite to criticise Israel. It just so happens that you are.

. . . Michael Billington's somnolent review of the play in the Guardian. "Churchill shows us," he writes, "how Jewish children are bred to believe in the ‘otherness' of Palestinians..."
It is not just the adopted elision of Israeli children into Jewish children that is alarming, or the unquestioning acceptance of Caryl Churchill's offered insider knowledge of Israeli child-rearing, what's most chilling is that lazy use of the word "bred", so rich in eugenic and bestial connotations, but inadvertently slipped back into the conversation now, as truth. Fact: Jews breed children in order to deny Palestinians their humanity. Watching another play in the same week, Billington complains about its manipulation of racial stereotypes. He doesn't, you see, even notice the inconsistency.

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Obama - Gog hint in Yechezkel 38

I was in Mea-Shearim today and someone showed me the following:

On the א of the first נשיא (President), every 7 letters spell out the name Obama in Hebrew:



יחזקאל פרק לח


א ויהי דבר-יהוה, אלי לאמר. ב בן-אדם, שים פניך אל-גוג ארץ המגוג--נשיא, ראש משך ותבל; והנבא, עליו. ג ואמרת, כה אמר אדני יהוה: הנני אליך, גוג--נשיא, ראש משך ותבל. ד ושובבתיך, ונתתי חחים בלחייך; והוצאתי אותך ואת-כל-חילך סוסים ופרשים, לבשי מכלול כלם--קהל רב צנה ומגן, תפשי חרבות כלם.

Thursday, February 16, 2006

The Human Side of the Story - The Missing Photo

From Ohr Somayach


The Missing Photo by Rabbi Mendel Weinbach


The current craze among Jewish children of collecting picture cards of
Torah scholars and leaders will probably remind many of their American
parents and grandparents of the days when they collected cards of
sports stars. There was, however, one youngster of that generation who
collected photographs of great rabbis and pasted them into an album.

One place in that album was left blank and in it was written:

"Mordechai, if you learn seriously, some day your picture will be
here with the other gedolim."

The youngster took his self-imposed challenge seriously and eventually
became the Rosh Hayeshiva of Yeshivat Telshe in Cleveland, Rabbi
Mordechai Gifter of blessed memory.


(C) 2006 Ohr Somayach International - All rights reserved.

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

The Origin of the “Occupation” Myth

The Origin of the “Occupation” Myth

Howard Grief

The pernicious myth that the State of Israel has been an Occupier of “Arab lands” since the Six-Day War, comprising Judea, Samaria and Gaza, the Golan and Sinai, originated, astonishingly enough, with the legal establishment of the State, which could not fathom the fact that all these territories were either integral regions of the Jewish National Home or historically connected with the Land of Israel. The jurist whose thinking on the subject principally led to the spread of this evil myth was Meir Shamgar, the Military Advocate-General from 1961 to 1968, subsequently the Attorney-General and President of the Supreme Court. In the early 1960s he conceived of a plan of action to be implemented in the event that Israel conquered what he called “enemy territory” from the surrounding Arab states. Under that plan, it was decided that the rules of international law concerning warfare would be applied to any such territory instead of Israeli law. To this end, he conducted special training courses for platoon officers of the Military Advocate’s Corps to familiarize these officers with the laws of war, particularly the Hague Regulations of 1907 and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which they carried with them in “movable emergency kits”. In addition, Shamgar prepared a manual for the military advocate giving precise instructions and guidelines for the IDF to follow.

Shamgar’s plan came to fruition in the Six-Day War when it was adopted by the Levi Eshkol National Unity Government. A four-pronged military government was set up to administer all the Jewish territories liberated from Arab rule in 1967. The decision to set up a regime of military government for these territories rather than to apply Israeli law is the reason why the territories were logically considered “occupied territories” by neutral or even friendly foreign opinion, as well as by a large segment of Israeli society. The irony of the situation created by the Six-Day War was that Israel was never obliged to apply the laws of war to what were constituent parts of the Jewish National Home and Land of Israel, since several international law documents dating back to 1920 and 1922 had already recognized exclusive Jewish legal rights over them. Moreover, two important Israeli constitutional laws required the immediate application of Israeli law to all liberated Jewish lands, namely, the Area of Jurisdiction and Powers Ordinance of 1948, as well as the Law of Return of 1950. In ignoring these constitutional laws and the leading precedent established in the War of Independence when Israeli law was automatically applied to areas beyond the U.N. Partition lines repossessed by the IDF, Shamgar committed a staggering violation of the Rule of Law.

Two recent Supreme Court judgments have taken Shamgar’s folly to new heights of absurdity. The President of the Court, Aharon Barak, has ruled that Judea, Samaria and Gaza are indeed governed by the rules of belligerent occupation without naming the state or people whose land has been occupied or noting when that state or people were recognized as the sovereign of the land. As a result of his rulings, Barak has completely undermined the Jewish legal case for the retention of Judea, Samaria and Gaza. The only way to undo the tremendous legal and political harm committed by Israel’s most eminent jurists is for the Knesset to pass special legislation declaring that Judea, Samaria and Gaza are not occupied territories, but rather the national patrimony of the Jewish People in whose name the State of Israel acts.

Sunday, February 12, 2006

Leftist openly divorce themselves from Jewish Nation

A shocking admission by a leftist that he/they are divorced from the Jewish people and aligned with the arabs enemies (part of the Eirev-Rav)!!!

From IMRA

Sunday, February 12, 2006

Leftist poet Chaim Guri: Palestinian trees humanitarian concern, Jewish evacuees politics


Aaron Lerner Date: 12 February 2006

In a live interview broadcast on Israel Radio this morning, leftist author and poet Chaim Guri responded to criticism that while the Israeli Left is concerned about Palestinian olive trees that they express no humanitarian interest in the fate of the Jews who were evacuated from the Gaza Strip and have suffered greatly because the Government has failed to provide the compensation and other services.

Guri explained that the "plight of Palestinians is a humanitarian concern while the settlers removed from Gush Katif is politics."

Guri went on to explain that the Palestinians were the "poor of one's own city" - thus qualifying for priority.

The phrase "poor of one's own city" is a phrase from Jewish law regarding priority in the distribution of limited resources in humanitarian cases.That, other things being equal (in terms of critical nature of need, etc.), one first takes care of one's own poor.

Settler leader Bentzi Lieberman responded on the program that when Guri says that he considers Palestinians who genuinely desire the eradication of Israel to have the same standing - if not higher standing - than fellow Jews - that this illustrates a seriously distorted morality on the part of this representative of the Israeli Left.