Preparing for Rosh

Palestinians base lie

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12112#.UD98CELIVgs
(Chicagoan Jack Berger writes on a variety of Middle East and Jewish subjects, including politics and the Diaspora in relation to the history of the Jewish people.)

Op-Ed: Three Card Monte Happy DancePublished: Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:03 AM
-Jack Berger

“Three Card Monte” for the Arab refugees is a con game in which the mark (the US tax payer) is tricked into giving aid to “refugees” to split between the dealer and the shills, UNRWA and the Palestinian / Hamas leadership.

The War of Independence for Israel in reality began on November 30, 1947, the day after the United Nations vote for the reestablishment of the homeland for the Jewish people.

Until the U.N. vote, the Arabs and their British allies had been on their best behavior … after the vote the gloves came off.

It should be remembered that the original agreement regarding the reestablishment of the Jewish State was previously confirmed under the provisions of the Balfour Declaration (1917) with the agreement being fully implemented at the conference in San Remo, Italy in 1920, under the powers vested by the League of Nations called thereafter the Mandate for Palestine.

In 1920, the homeland of the Jews was to be “on the banks of the Jordan River…” on both the west and the east banks of the Jordan. In 1922, Winston Churchill, the British Colonial Secretary and Alex Kirkbride, acting Governor of Moab, in disregard of Britain’s obligations under the Mandate, lopped off 78% of the land designated for the National homeland of the Jewish people thereafter calling it Trans-Jordan. … for Britain, one could only say, “agreements were made to be broken” and so the area left for the reestablishment of the Jewish homeland was only 22% of the original Mandate, the areas west of the Jordan river.

In 1947, Britain and the successor organization to the League of Nations, the newly created United Nations, again attempted to re-divide the remaining 22% into a Jewish State and a second Arab State. After the U.N. vote of 1947, with the instigation of the Arab leadership, Arabs who had been living in the area designated for the Jewish State were told to move to the area designated as the Arab State, clearing the way for five Arab armies to enter the Jewish areas to slaughter the Jews. In the interim, the surrounding Arab states closed all their borders to any Arabs trying to leave Palestine.
The so-called “refugees” never crossed the borders of 1948!

The 1948 war in Palestine was a big story with hundreds of reporters from Europe, Britain and the United States on the scene. Today there are often hysterical memories by Arabs of the evil Jews pushing the “mythological” Palestinians out of their land where they had lived “from time immemorial”. Yet the obvious question is, if the Jews had violently pushed the “poor defenseless Arabs” out, might there be news accounts and articles attesting to these actions?

In the book” Battleground” by Shmuel Katz, z’l he writes, “… the fabrication can most easily be detected by the simple fact that at the time the alleged expulsion of the Arabs by Zionists was in progress, nobody noticed it. Foreign newspapermen abounded in the country… but even those most hostile to the Jews saw nothing to suggest that the flight (of the Arabs) was not voluntary. In the months that the flight took place, the London Times, a newspaper most notably hostile to Israel, published 11 leading articles on the situation in Palestine… in none was there even a remote hint that the Zionists were driving Arabs from their homes… Even more pertinent, no Arab spokesman made such a charge. The 2

Palestinian Arabs’ chief U.N. representative, Jamal Husseini, made a long political statement on April 27, 1948, that was not lacking in hostility toward the Zionists but he did not even mention” the refugees”… The Secretary-general of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, also made a fiercely worded political statement on Palestine at the United Nations and not a word about “ refugees”.

When playing “Three Card Monte”, the question is always who’s the mark and who’s the con…if you tell a lie often enough…and so our enemies have.

Yet, interestingly, corroborating the findings from Shmuel Katz’s z’l exhaustive study of various news sources was our very own, less than Israel-loving, Chicago Tribune, then owned and run by Colonel Robert R. McCormick, a personage not particularly fond of Jews. If, as some believe, the Tribune is biased today, it was worse under McCormick’s ownership and so an associate of mine spent over two months at the Harold Washington Library in Chicago combing thru every back issue of the Chicago Tribune from January 1, 1947 through December 31, 1949, photocopying each and every article (over 420) about Palestine, Zionists and the establishment of the State of Israel.

Between 1947 and 1949, the Tribune had its very own Middle East foreign correspondent in Palestine by the name of E.R. Noderer. He was one of the Tribune’s most valued foreign correspondents and a loyalist when it came to the Tribune agenda. Quoting the Tribune’s own archives, “Noderer was in Palestine for the Jewish-Arab war, which saw the birth of the State of Israel.” In addition to Noderer, the Tribune had numerous dispatches from the Associated Press (AP) and United Press International (UPI).

From all these sources over a three year period – not one report – not one sentence –about the Palestinian Jews (as they were referred to) throwing the Arabs (as they were referred to) out of the country. The only sentence that referred to Arabs leaving was written by Noderer on May 10, 1948 under the headline “Palestine Jews Say Their Star Rose on Jan. 15” (January 15th is when the British Army left Tel Aviv).

Noderer writes: “One hundred fifty thousand Arabs were estimated (perhaps inflated) to have left the areas of Palestine assigned to the Jews in the partition plan”. That’s it! Would hundreds of news sources conspire to keep such an "expulsion" secret?

Why is it that all the “accounts” of the brutality inflicted on the poor, displaced “Palestinians” were, in fact, written years afterward by “revisionist historians” with an agenda?

Where was the need to establish a Palestinian Arab State from 1948 through 1967, when Jordan controlled the West Bank?

As the Muslim cleric Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, considered the greatest Muslim after Mohammed, wrote, “If a lie is the only way to obtain a good result, it is permitted. We must lie when truth leads to unpleasant results.” In Arabic the noble lie is called “Al-Taqiya”….

And in a miraculous conversion, famed revisionst historian Benny Morris, in a January 9, 2004 Haaretz interview stated: “The majority of those who call themselves Palestinian refugees never left the boundaries of the western Land of Israel in 1948. This has frightening significance for leftist intellectuals because it means the myth of Palestinian ‘exile’ is false, and as a result, the ‘right of return’ means nothing”. 3

Goebbels would be proud … If you repeat the lie often enough, people will begin to believe it, and so they have. Displaced refugees have been created where few existed in history. Al-Taqiya – the art of the lie…

It is not just on the street corners of New York that the game of “Three Card Monte” is played. In “Three Card Monte” – the con – is a con in which a shill pretends to conspire with the mark to cheat the dealer, while in fact conspiring with the dealer to cheat the mark. In the refugee game of lies, the shill is the head of UNRWA, Johnny “Quick-fingers” Ging and his merry band of Hamas pranksters… the dealer is the mythological Palestinian Arab refugees – the larger the number the more funding from the mark…and the mark is the American taxpayers.

“Three Card Monte” for Palestinian refugees is a con game in which the mark (the American tax payer) is tricked into giving aid on the assumption that there are more “refugees” getting more aid to split between the dealer and the shills, UNRWA and the Palestinian / Hamas leadership.

It was Prince Hassam bin Tal, the younger brother of the late King Hussein of Jordan who when interviewed on the BBC by Stephen Sackur on the program Hard Talk in 2008 made the point,

“We come from a Byzantine civilization, from centuries of dissimulation. I mean we Middle Easterners are professional liars.”

UNRWA and the mythological Palestinians may not be very good at math, but are very creative when it comes to multiplication…Remember their happy dance after two airplanes slammed into the World Trade Center. The poor Palestinian Arab leadership has been happy dancing on the American tax payer since the infamous handshake on the White House lawn 19 years ago, called Oslo.

Obama war on the elderly

Selihote service and prayers

Telling Parents you're converting

Telling Parents About Conversion

Plenty of empathy and emotional support can help most parents to understand and ultimately accept their child's decision to convert.

By Anita Diamant

•  Email this page
•  Print this page

• 

Excerpted with permission from Choosing a Jewish Life: A Handbook for People Converting to Judaism and for Their Family and Friends (Schocken Books).

When you become a Jew, the redefinition does not end with you. You transform your family of origin into an interfaith family. And if you are marrying or married to a born-Jew, your partner's family likewise acquires a set of non-Jewish relatives and the interfaith label.

It's hard to predict the reaction to news of your conversion--on either home front. Some families are delighted, some are dismayed. Some open their arms, some turn a cold shoulder. Whatever the initial reaction, it may help you to recall that even eagerly awaited transitions like weddings tend to make families act a little crazy.

But unlike the stresses associated with more conventional passages--like getting married or having a baby--conversion lands you in the middle of largely uncharted waters. There are no glossy magazines called "Modern Convert" with special articles addressed to "The Mother of the New Jew-by-Choice." Nevertheless, other people have been down this road before you; their support and example can make an enormous difference.

Telling Mom and Dad Can Be Scary

"Mom. Dad. We need to talk." For many Jews-by-choice, the prospect of this conversation is the most daunting aspect of conversion, and with good reason; all family ties are deep and complicated and many are tightly knotted. Some people wait to convert until after their parents die. Others keep the fact that they have become Jews a secret for years--decades even.

"It would have killed her," they explain. "It would only break his heart." Some devoutly religious parents respond to the news of conversion with dismay and genuine fear for the immortal souls of their child and grandchildren. Secular parents, on the other hand, may be bewildered that a child of theirs would make any religious commitment at all. Then again, families can surprise you with unexpected support. Some Christians express relief and joy that a previously unchurched son or daughter has found a spiritual home in Judaism, and many parents respect the convert's desire to give his or her children an unambiguous religious identity. Still, telling your family that you are becoming a Jew is rarely an easy conversation.

However and whenever you decide to deliver the news, remember that your parents will need time to adjust to the idea.

Just as becoming a Jew is a process that unfolds over months and years (both before and after the formal ceremonies), becoming an interfaith family takes time, too. Telling your parents that you're going to convert is just the beginning. You will be explaining the meaning and implications of your choice for years to come because your parents will be coming to terms with having a Jewish child--and perhaps Jewish grandchildren--for the rest of their lives.

How to Tell Your Parents

There is no "right" way or time to tell your parents about your decision. However, psychologists who work with converts suggest that it's better to give your family some time to grow accustomed to the idea. If you present them with a fait accompli ("I'm becoming a Jew next week"), they are likely to feel shut out, cut off, and hurt.

If possible, let your family in on your decision-making process. Tell them you've been celebrating Jewish holidays with your fiancé's family. Let your parents know when you've signed up for an "Introduction to Judaism" course, and talk to them about what you're learning and thinking. Then, when you tell them that you've decided Judaism is right for you, it won't come like a bolt out of the blue.

Given the geographical distance that divides so many families, many converts begin the process by letter. A long, thoughtful letter has the advantage of giving you time to choose your words carefully; it also permits your family time to think about their reply.

If you decide to make an announcement in person, do it in a private and neutral setting rather than at a family celebration or holiday party. Even if you're fairly confident that your family will be supportive and even if you've been preparing them for years, it still may come as a shock. The last thing you want is for your Jewishness to be associated with the time you "ruined" your parents' anniversary dinner.

While there are exceptions, this is a conversation best had without your Jewish partner in the room. It's not fair to put him or her in the middle, especially if your family harbors any suspicion that you're converting "for" him or under pressure from his family.

Matters of faith and religious identity are not easy to discuss. Religion is a taboo subject for many people precisely because it's so easy to give and take offense. When you tell your family you plan to become a Jew, you break this taboo wide open. Matters of faith can become the subject of a heated debate in which people (including you) may be offended or hurt.

Their Reaction

However, questions are not necessarily insults or attacks. Since it's likely that your parents and other family members will be genuinely curious about your decision, it may be a good idea to plan how to answer such questions as: "Are you converting just to please her (or him)?" "Why can't he (or she) be the one to convert?" "Since when do you believe in God? That's not something we taught you." "But you love Christmas!" Some rabbis say that they consider these kinds of conversations to be a legitimate test of a prospective Jew's readiness and sincerity. If you can't explain yourself to your parents or remain firm in your resolve when challenged, you may not be ready to convert.

Even if they have no theological objections to your choice, family members--especially parents--may perceive your decision to convert as a rejection of them and everything they believe in. Although all parents have to let go of their children and accept their independence, religious conversion is an unexpected form of separation. It is a declaration of difference that may engender fears of abandonment, loss, or betrayal--even if those words are never spoken. Your family may worry what your becoming Jewish will do to your relationship with them, and wonder what it means for you to become one of "them" rather than one of "us."

You can help reassure your parents by stressing the ties that will always bind you together. Many converts tell their parents that the religious education and moral example they received as children started them on the path that led to this unexpected but fulfilling destination. The decision to become a Jew is thus a continuation of the values and spiritual roots learned from parents. The bottom line is that while you may be choosing a different religion, you are not converting out of your family.

Regardless of your reassurances, however, your conversion may hurt or anger your parents, and their feelings may cause you to respond with strong emotions of your own.

When there is acrimony or an outright break, it helps to remember that hurt feelings usually mend. Some parents need a period to mourn, adjust, and make peace with the idea. Sometimes the anger is short-lived, but there are cases where it takes years before a reconciliation is possible. It is up to you to keep the lines of communication open.

Every family is different. In some households, intimate conversations are completely taboo and there may be little or no discussion of your decision. There are families where conversion becomes the focus of unrelated and long-standing family issues. And sometimes converts confront the painful fact that members of their immediate family harbor anti-Semitic stereotypes about Jews and Judaism. If that is the case, it's important to gently but emphatically confront bigotry whenever it arises, "I can't believe you said that, Mom. You raised me to believe in the brotherhood of man and the fatherhood of God. Talking like that about other people goes against your own religious beliefs, and now you're talking about me and people I know and love."

Finding Support

The more difficult your own situation, the more important it is that you find support. Turn to your rabbi, your spouse, teachers, group leaders and classmates in your conversion course, and other Jews-by-choice. Some converts have found it helpful to speak with their parents' clergy, or a trusted friend of the family who can act both as a sympathetic sounding board for their feelings and as an advocate for you. If there is a family breakdown, it may be useful to seek professional help to sort out the underlying family dynamics.

Since you are the person responsible for turning your family of origin into an interfaith family, it also becomes your responsibility to answer their questions about Judaism and Jews. Don't wait for them to ask for information. Recommend or give them a few of the books and articles that you found useful; these can introduce them to some of the basic vocabulary of your Jewish life and provide a foundation for further discussion. Don't recommend any book you haven't read yourself, and don't limit reading suggestions to "Introduction to Judaism" literature. Sometimes, fiction or biography conveys information in more personal and compelling ways.

And don't expect books to teach your family everything they want or need to know. If your parents have never been inside a synagogue, invite them for a tour--perhaps accompanied by your rabbi. This is an especially good idea if you want your parents to attend a synagogue service honoring your conversion or if a Jewish wedding is in the offing.

Nevertheless, your parents may not be ready for a full immersion in Jewish life and culture. Some converts have unrealistic expectations of family members, who may be too overwhelmed or confused to comfortably attend your conversion service or to participate in a Jewish wedding ceremony. Respect their limits. And respect your own, too. Taking on a new religious identity is an enormous change, and your needs take precedence. As you grow more comfortable and confident as a Jew, you will become a better teacher and guide for your family.

Anita Diamant is a writer. Her books include Choosing a Jewish Life, The New Jewish Wedding, Saying Kaddish, and The Red Tent, a novel. She lives in Newton, Massachusetts.

How do I tell my Christian parents I'm converting?

October 14, 2010
Follow The JC on Twitter

Question: How should I explain to my deeply Christian parents that I want to convert to Judaism? I don’t know how to tell them that I don’t believe in their religion without causing a rift that may be irreparable.

Rabbi Naftali Brawer Naftali Brawer is rabbi at Borehamwood and Elstree United Synagogue.

It takes a lot of courage to consider converting to Judaism and I commend you for that. I also commend you for the sensitivity you display towards your parents. One of the Ten Commandments is to “honour your father and mother” and this is clearly important to you.

Having to explain to others why you have chosen to convert can be a very useful exercise in clarifying for yourself your reasons for such a monumental move. Conversion is a serious business and conversion to Judaism is particularly challenging so it is useful to articulate the reasons behind your motivation.

I am not sure if it would be any easier trying to explain your conversion to ardently secular parents. In some ways that might be even more difficult as their entire frame of reference would be different. As committed Christians, your parents have the benefit of a religious mindset and while that is deeply Christian in nature, it also encompasses some of the key elements that comprise all faiths. Hopefully, this should make it easier to explain to them what you are experiencing.

I am not sure there is a delicate way to tell your parents that their faith does not appeal to you. However you word it they are bound to feel hurt, confused and rejected. This is to be expected and you must be as understanding as possible during this difficult transition.

It is important, though, that you credit your parents with giving you the spiritual awareness to embark on your conversion journey. It is also important to acknowledge that while you are abandoning your parents’ Christian faith, you are not abandoning faith in God. It is just that you have found a new path to serve Him.

Finally, it is not just theology that you parents will worry about but, perhaps more importantly, they will worry about how your conversion will affect their relationship with you in a practical sense. Will they still be part of your life? Will you eat in their home? Will your children relate to them as grandparents? Assure them that they will always retain their special place in your heart and that you will always be proud to be their child. You will have to learn how to navigate around each other’s rituals beliefs and practices but it is certainly possible to achieve a state of mutual respect and maintain familial love.

Rabbi Jonathan Romain Jonathan Romain is rabbi at Maidenhead (Reform) Synagogue.

Have a bris milah. Its good for you

AAP: Health Benefits of Circumcision Outweigh the Risks

New policy says circumcision should be covered by insurance. Plus, read our complete guide to circumcision

By Sasha Emmons

comments (43)

related tags: circumcision, Baby

© iStockphoto

Revising its policy on circumcision for the first time in 13 years, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) now says that the preventative health benefits of infant circumcision clearly outweigh the risks. The AAP is also emphasizing that the procedure should be covered by third party payers, including Medicaid, so more families have access to it. However, the organization stopped short of recommending circumcision routinely for all infant boys, saying it’s still up to parents to weigh the health, cultural, and religious implications to make the best decision for their child.   

Circumcision is the surgical removal of the foreskin, a small flap of skin that covers the tip of the penis, generally performed in the days after birth. Many Jews and Muslims circumcise their sons because of their religious beliefs. Other parents choose to snip for hygiene reasons, believing it’s easier to keep a circumcised penis clean, or cosmetic ones, wanting junior to “look like dad.”

Plus: “Why I Circumcised My Sons”

The AAP’s previous policy statement, published in 1999 and affirmed in 2005, took a more neutral stance on circumcision, noting “potential medical benefits,” but saying it’s “not essential to the child's current well-being.” However, an AAP task force formed in 2007 examined scientific studies conducted between 1995 through 2010 to evaluate if a revision was needed. The new, stronger language is a result of emerging evidence that found links between circumcision and decreased risk of urinary tract infections, some kinds of cancer, HPV, HIV, and other sexually transmitted diseases. “The evidence was becoming clearer, and it’s now obvious there’s a preventative effect,” says Michael Brady, M.D., chairman of the department of pediatrics at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, OH, and a member of the AAP task force.

Ki tetze discussion mitzvote

Ki Tetze Irrducuble dignity of all

War against Israel is war on Jews

The War Against the Jews - Efraim Karsh
The sustained anti-Israel delegitimization campaign is a corollary of the millenarian obsession with the Jews in the Christian and the Muslim worlds. Since Israel is the world's only Jewish state, and since Zionism is the Jewish people's national liberation movement, anti-Zionism means denial of the Jewish right to national self-determination. Such a discriminatory denial of this basic right to only one nation (and one of the few that can trace their corporate identity and territorial attachment to antiquity) while allowing it to all other groups and communities, however new and tenuous their claim to nationhood, is pure and unadulterated anti-Jewish racism, or anti-Semitism as it is commonly known.
    The founding fathers of Zionism failed to consider that the prejudice and obsession that had hitherto been reserved for Jewish individuals and communities would be transferred to the Jewish state. If prior to Israel's establishment Jews had been despised because of their helplessness, they are now reviled because of their newly discovered physical and political empowerment. The writer is research professor of Middle East and Mediterranean Studies at King's College London and principal researcher of the Middle East Forum. (Israel Affairs)

Convert on the spiritual move

Why conversion work is so reJEWvinating
from a prospective Jew-by-choice today
Shabbat Shalom Rabbi,
Every week I try to add another mitzah and prayer.  I know we have a prayer for the bathroom and washing the hands, but do we have a prayer for showering or cleansing the body?
I have started wearing tzitzit and it makes me feel closer to G_d.  I like the reminder to do what is right.
We are growing as a family and I truly thank you.   Shabbat is such a welcomed event now.  Songs, food, family and praise of G_d does make the week ahead easier.  At first trying to do nothing physical on Shabbat was very taxing.  It tax time to learn to relax, read, pray and enjoy the day. We got rid of cable (because whenever we turned on the TV, there was "nothing on").  I am taking off on Saturdays now and planning my work week so that I can be home for sunset on Shabbat.  We all look forward to getting dressed and celebrating Shabbat.
There is a conservative shul about and hour and a half from us. We are going to start going there.  They have a bed and breakfast withing walking distance.
I hope you have a wonderful Shabbat.

Wish more born Jews were at where he is.

Abortion in Jewish law

Iran USA problem

Iran missiles are USA problem, not just Israel
When will there be enough reason for Obama to attack Iran? When they plant missiles in Mexico City? Wishing Jack kennedy was back in charge.
1. The manager of Venezuela’s drone program is an engineer who helped build ballistic missiles for Iran. The engineer’s identity raises new questions about the purposes behind Venezuela’s drone program. But it’s also only one part of a mystery involving drones shipped from Iran to Venezuela while hidden in secret cargo containing possibly more military hardware than just ‘bots.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/mystery-cargo/
2. Blog: Iran building missile base in Venezuela
www.americanthinker.com/.../iran_building_missile_base_in_...Jan 5, 2012 – Iran and Venezuela are feverishly building ICBM bases on the Paraguana ... We know that Iran already has missiles that can carry an atomic




'The cavalry is not going to ride to Israel’s side'
According to David Wurmser, former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney's adviser on the Middle East, no one in Washington is seriously considering a pre-emptive attack against Iran • "Sadly, our allies are on their own" unless the U.S. is directly attacked, he says.
Eli Leon
Israel is mistaken if it thinks the U.S. will take an attack against Iran upon itself, according to David Wurmser, former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney's adviser on the Middle East.
"I have all my life counted on the greatness of America and its tradition of doing the right thing, if even at the last moment. But right now, the cavalry is not going to ride to Israel’s side, even at the last moment," writes Wurmser in an article that will appear in Israel Hayom over the weekend.
"There is nobody of influence within the establishment or bureaucracy in Washington, let alone abroad, seriously arguing for pre-emptive action, nor are there any factors in the next half year — or even longer — which will change that,” Wurmsey writes. "I have read with great curiosity statements by a parade of Israeli experts and former officials, all of whom assert with considerable confidence that at the end of the day, the United States is committed to denying Iran a nuclear capability, and that when the moment of truth arrives, Washington will act — unilaterally if necessary."
But Wurmser says this is not the case. "Having served in the previous White House — an administration generally accused of being too much the cowboy rather than being timid — and having been charged primarily with following Iran policy and even coordinating it with European capitals. ... I fear these Israeli officials are misguided," he writes.
Wurmser says it was clear to him at the beginning of 2009, when the Iranian portfolio was still open and unresolved at the conclusion of previous President George W. Bush's second term, that just as the Bush administration did not attack Iran pre-emptively, President Barack Obama's administration would not take action on the matter either.
The U.S. will wake up and be willing to attack only when it is afflicted by "something much worse and more personally affecting," Wurmser says.
"Until then, sadly, our allies are on their own," he concludes.

Parasha Shoftim of the week

Explains Judaism in Arabic

Arabic Website Changing Perceptions about Jews and Judaism - Kenneth Bandler (Jerusalem Post)

Asl al-Yahud (Origins of the Jews) is an Arabic- language website created by New York-based rabbi Ephraim Gabbai under the auspices of the American Jewish Committee four years ago.

The site is a growing resource for text, photographs, and video about Judaism and the history of Jewish communities in Arab countries.

Gabbai also runs a related Facebook page in Arabic where much of the conversation occurs. Gabbai's mother's family came from Iraq, and his father was one of the last Jews to leave Egypt.

Gabbai believes it is important to explain Judaism through the use of Arabic-language sources and the teachings of renowned Jews who lived in Arab lands. "We are explaining Judaism from a Middle East vantage point," he says.

The writer is the American Jewish Committee's director of media relations.

Israel right to attack Iran

Diplomacy Has Run Its Course - Clifford D. May


The intentions of Iran's rulers could not be clearer. They have repeatedly threatened and incited genocide. Most recently, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel "a cancerous tumor" which will "soon be excised." He added: "The nations of the region will soon finish off the usurper Zionists." The website of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei declared that there is religious "justification to kill all the Jews and annihilate Israel, and Iran must take the helm." To achieve these goals, Iran's rulers have been developing nuclear weapons. The Israelis would be very much justified in using military force to prevent the revolutionary Islamist regime from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Winston Churchill called World War II an unnecessary war because it could have been prevented: The Nazis should never have been allowed to obtain the weapons they would use to overrun Europe. Hitler marveled to one of his generals that no one challenged him while he was weak. They waited until he was at his strongest, thus guaranteeing a much bloodier conflict. The writer is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. (USA Today)

Abbas denies Jewish ties to Jerusalem

Abbas Again Denies the Jewish Connection to Jerusalem - Herb Keinon


PA President Mahmoud Abbas denied the Jewish connection to Jerusalem on Tuesday in a statement marking the 43rd anniversary of an attempt by deranged Australian Christian Denis Michael Rohan to set fire to the al-Aksa mosque

US wont attack Iran

Washington Not Considering Pre-emptive Attack Against Iran - Eli Leon


Israel is mistaken if it thinks the U.S. will attack Iran, says David Wurmser, former adviser on the Middle East to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney. "Right now, the cavalry is not going to ride to Israel's side, even at the last moment." "There is nobody of influence within the establishment or bureaucracy in Washington, let alone abroad, seriously arguing for pre-emptive action, nor are there any factors in the next half year - or even longer - which will change that."

The U.S. will be willing to attack only when it is afflicted by "something much worse and more personally affecting," Wurmser says. "Until then, sadly, our allies are on their own." (Israel Hayom)

Rabbis want more gun control

My reactions to this story about leftist Rabbinic organizations calling for more gun cntrol




1. We already have enormous laws on the books. They need to be enforced.



2. There is no evididence strict gun control laws reduce crime. In fact studies show the opposite. Strict gun control means only criminals have guns. Chicago for example has the stricitist gun control laws in the nation and its murder rate by guns is exploding. Conceal and carry states have lower crime rates with guns. the criminals are more afraid evidently. If people had been able to have guns in the theater in Colorado or the Sheikh Temple, fewer might have died



3. In terms of hateful rhetoric, when the President and his cohorts accuses MittRomney of causing a cancer death, wanting dirty air and water, not caring about the elderly etc. that is what must be reined in.



4. These Rabbis are not political experts or social scientists. They don't have evidenc to back up their assertions. Non Orthodoxy is suffering horribly from assimilation. Better to stick to worrying about that







Rabbis Unite for Stricter Gun Laws











By JTA









Published August 19, 2012.









Print Email Share Reform and Conservative rabbinical leaders called for increased gun controls in the wake of a spate of shootings.





















“Our tradition teaches: ‘Do not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor’ (Leviticus 19:16),” said a statement Thursday issued by Rabbi Julie Schonfeld, the executive vice president of the Conservative movement’s Rabbinical Assembly. “As people of faith, the Rabbinical Assembly unequivocally calls upon lawmakers to take all available measures, to ensure the safety of the public to limit the availability of guns and the permissibility of their concealment.”



A statement the same day by Rabbi David Saperstein, the director of Reform’s Religious Action Center, noted the shooting attack Wednesday by a man on the Family Research Council, in which a guard was injured, and alluded to shootings this summer at a cinema in Colorado and a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin that have claimed 18 lives.



“Guns are too pervasive in our society and too easily obtained by those with mental illness, nefarious goals – or both,” Saperstein said. “Abiding by the principles of the Constitution need not be incompatible with sensible gun control.”



Saperstein’s statement also noted increasingly vicious political rhetoric as an element; the FRC attacker reportedly opposed the group’s opposition to gay marriage, and the Wisconsin shooter was a white supremacist.









“This trend of violence threatens us all and violates the values of respect for others that must be paramount in American civic and political life,” he said.









Read more: http://forward.com/articles/161397/rabbis-unite-for-stricter-gun-laws/#ixzz2440HuBpe

Preparing in Elul for Rosh

Reah and free will

On parashat Reah

Palestinian incitement

 Palestinian leadership demonizes Jews, justifies violence, denies Israel’s right to exist
Under the PA, all forms of resistance remain legitimate, Strategic Affairs Ministry charges in new report on incitement
By Raphael Ahren August 12, 2012, 7:38 pm 2



Yossi Kuperwasser briefing journalists at the Prime Minister's Office in Jerusalem (photo credit: Raphael Ahren/Times of Israel)
Yossi Kuperwasser briefing journalists at the Prime Minister's Office in Jerusalem (photo credit: Raphael Ahren/Times of Israel)
Related Topics

    *
Israel on Sunday returned fire in a raging propaganda war with the Palestinians, accusing the Palestinian Authority of obfuscating peace efforts, anti-Semitic and anti-Israel incitement, glorification of violence and terrorism, and indoctrinating youth with hateful messages.

The Strategic Affairs Ministry distributed a report to Israeli journalists that accuses the PA of perpetuating the conflict “through incitement to hate, promotion of an ethos of violence and struggle, and non-development of a culture of peace.” The document lists various examples ostensibly proving that the PA demonizes Israel and the Jewish people and negates the principle of peace.

“The incitement done by the Palestinian Authority is in my mind the main obstacle to peace,” the ministry’s director-general, Yossi Kuperwasser, told The Times of Israel. “As the long as the psychological infrastructure of the Palestinian people is based on denying Israel’s right to exist in any form — let alone as the nation-state of the Jewish people — it is difficult to see how peace can be made between these two peoples.” He said the psychological infrastructure adopted by the Palestinian leadership was “not developing any culture of peace, continues to call for violence and justifies violence, and dehumanizes and demonizes the Jews.”

Although the ministry had been gathering information for this report since October 2009, its publication now comes as a counter to similar efforts by the Palestinians, who started publishing regular reports about what they call Israeli incitement against Palestinians a few months ago.

“The Palestinians in no way see themselves as bound by agreements with Israel which require all outstanding issues to be resolved through negotiations only,” the Israeli report charges. “All forms of resistance remain legitimate… The encouragement of an atmosphere supportive of violence, the demonization of Israelis and Jews, and the non-creation of a culture of peace result in an ethos that perpetuates the struggle by glorifying values antithetical to peace.”
‘Jews, Satans, and Zionist sons of bitches’

Examples of alleged incitement and statements standing in the way of reconciliation include the broadcasting on PLO television of a song asserting that “Jaffa, Acre, Haifa, Nazareth, the Galilee and the Golan are ours”; an award given to controversial US journalist Helen Thomas — who made headlines for telling Jews to “get the hell out of Palestine” — by a senior PLO member in April; and visits by senior PA officials at the homes of former terrorists.

Numerous examples are given of text books that praise resistance against the “occupiers” and promote the idea of a “return” to all of historical Palestine, as well as of programs on the PA’s television station showing children singing songs glorifying armed resistance against Israel.

The report, titled “Index of Incitement,” quotes Palestinian Olympic committee chairman Jibril Rajoub referring to “Jews, Satans, and Zionist sons of bitches,” and cites PA President Mahmoud Abbas condemning “attacks by settlers which find expression in the uprooting of trees, burning of mosques, training dogs to attack us and sending wild pigs to destroy our lands.”

The report cites several examples that ostensibly show that Palestinian anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish agitation and glorification of terrorism is aimed particularly at children. A 2010 fifth grade textbook, for instance, contains a poem entitled “We are Returning.”

“Under the banner of glory, Jihad and struggle / With blood and willingness to risk life … / To Jihad on the hilltop,” the poem reads.

The cover page of the report features a cartoon showing a man in Hasidic dress who has just ripped a bloody “heart” out of the chest of a Palestinian man lying on an operation table. The “heart” is shaped like the state of Israel, including Gaza and the West Bank.

“The index sheds light and helps us prepare ourselves and avoid the mistake of not understanding who we are dealing with, who cooperates with and initiates this awful incitement,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said about the report. “The Palestinian leadership is bequeathing this incitement to the coming generations and is preventing them from holding a dialogue of peace, the result of which is that it itself is incapable of adopting a dialogue of peace.”

Netanyahu said “the refusal of the Palestinians to recognize the national state of the Jewish People’s right to exist” was at the root of the conflict. “We must bring this to the attention of the governments of the world, especially ahead of the upcoming UN General Assembly.”

It is widely expected that Abbas is going to ask the UN to grant Palestine the status of a non-member state, a step Israel and the US are trying to prevent.

“When the Palestinians speak to foreign audiences, they speak quite differently than they what they say to their own audience. That’s not new, but it’s disturbing,” Kuperwasser told The Times of Israel. “Our strategy is to bring it to the attention of the Palestinians and the international community that we notice this difference exists.”

As reported by The Times of Israel, the PA’s Government Media Center in May launched a monthly series of reports highlighting alleged Israeli incitement against Palestinians.

    ‘We are in a totally different place that the Palestinians and any attempt to put us in the same category is really ridiculous’

The most recent report includes several examples of ostensibly hateful statements, which are, according to the Palestinians, “provocative and counterproductive to peace.” The cases, most of them retrieved from articles in the Israeli press, include an Army Radio talk-show host saying “Islam today is the most terrible disease raging around the world;” Interior Minister Eli Yishai reportedly saying that “this country belongs to us, to the white man;” and the reported announcement by an Upper Nazareth local politician that he would pay $10,000 to any Arab willing to leave the city.

“The Palestinian report [on Israeli incitement] doesn’t seem grave because what they cite is mostly people from the fringes of Israeli society who say all kinds of things,” said Kuperwasser, a former deputy chief of the IDF’s intelligence unit. “Here and there you can find something that is not in line with the messages the system in Israel is sending. We are in a totally different place than the Palestinians and any attempt to put us in the same category is really ridiculous.”

The Palestinian report on “Israeli incitement” states that the PA advocates the creation of an “objective joint committee, involving the international community, to define and monitor incitement, so that this issue can be treated with proper seriousness.”

At a briefing for Israeli journalists on Sunday in the Prime Minister’s Office, Kuperwasser said Israel agreed in principle to the idea of a joint committee, but did not pin great hopes on it, “because a committee is not going to change the problem of [Palestinian] incitement… What’s needed is a genuine decision by the Palestinians to change the picture.”

Israel ready for Iran

rael may be only a short time away from one of the most fateful moments in its history. Friday evening, Israeli television reported that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Barak have all but finalized their decision to attack Iran's nuclear program.
The reasons outlined for their decision make for chilling reading. Most importantly, the two men believe that the Obama administration does not and will never consider an Iranian nuke a threat serious enough to justify military action.
"The US," reports the Times of Israel,

has not provided Israel with details of an attack plan. President Obama has not promised to attack Iran if all else fails. Conditions cited by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta for an American attack do not calm Israeli concerns. And Obama has a record of seeking UN and Arab League approval before action.
Obama does not want to intervene militarily before the presidential elections in November, and it is doubtful that he would act afterwards, runs the Israeli assessment, the TV report said. Obama may believe that the US can live with a nuclear Iran, but Israel cannot.

In addition, Netanyahu and Barak do not believe that a change of administration would lead to a shift in policy.
Equally chilling are the various scenarios outlined for the aftermath of such an attack.

Militarily, an Israeli strike would prompt missile attacks on Israel, attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah from the south and the north, and upheaval on the Arab street, in the leadership’s assessment.

Diplomatically, an Israeli strike would prompt a confrontation with the US, global protests, international isolation for Israel, delegitimization, and a situation in which Israel was seen as the aggressor.

Economically, an Israeli strike would deepen the economic slowdown and lead to a suspension of foreign investment.

Despite all of this, the two leaders apparently believe that an Iranian bomb would be much worse, prompting Israel's friends to abandon it completely, destroying the Israeli economy, and emboldening Israel's regional enemies.

It should be kept in mind, however, that since the Yom Kippur War in 1973, the Israeli security establishment has tended to put forward the worst-case scenario in all situations, afraid of being caught off-guard by unforeseen events.

War vs Iran?

Israel media talk of imminent Iran war push

By Dan Williams | Reuters – 4 hrs ago

• 1
• Email
• Print

RELATED CONTENT

• 
  Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin …

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel's prime minister and defense minister would like to attack Iran's nuclear sites before the U.S. election in November but lack crucial support within their cabinet and military, an Israeli newspaper said on Friday.

The front-page report in the biggest-selling daily Yedioth Ahronoth came amid mounting speculation - fuelled by media leaks from both the government and its detractors at home and abroad - that war with Iran could be imminent even though it might rupture the bedrock ties between Israel and the United States.

"Were it up to Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak, an Israeli military strike on the nuclear facilities in Iran would take place in the coming autumn months, before the November election in the United States," Yedioth said in the article by its two senior commentators, which appeared to draw on discussions with the defense minister but included no direct quotes.

Spokesmen for Prime Minister Netanyahu and Barak declined to comment.

Yedioth said the top Israeli leaders had failed to win over other security cabinet ministers for a strike on Iran now, against a backdrop of objections by the armed forces given the big tactical and strategic hurdles such an operation would face.

"The respect which in the past formed a halo around prime ministers and defense ministers and helped them muster a majority for military decisions, is gone, no more," Yedioth said. "Either the people are different, or the reality is different."

Israel has long threatened to attack its arch-foe, seeing a mortal menace in Iranian nuclear advances and dwindling opportunities to deal them a blow with its limited military clout. Washington has urged Israel to give diplomacy more time.

The war talk is meant, in part, to stiffen sanctions on Tehran - which denies seeking the bomb and says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes - by conflict-wary world powers. Israel and the United States have publicly sought to play down their differences, the latter saying military force would be a last-ditch option against Iran.

A Reuters survey in March found that most Americans would support such action, by their government or Israel's, should there be evidence Iran was building nuclear weapons - even if the result was a rise in gas prices.

BOMB, BALLOT

But U.S. President Barack Obama, seeking re-election in November, has counseled against what he would deem premature Israeli unilateralism. He recently sent top officials to try to close ranks with the conservative Netanyahu.

Obama's Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, an old friend of Netanyahu who casts himself as a more reliable bulwark for Israeli security, also visited Jerusalem last month.

The Yedioth article said, without citing sources, that some government advisers in Israel and the United States believed a pre-November strike might "embarrass Obama and contribute to Romney‮‮‮‮‮‮'‬‬‬‬‬‬‎s chances of being elected."

Yedioth said the aim of an initial Israeli attack on Iran would be to trigger an escalation that would draw in superior U.S. forces - but described Barak as dismissive of this theory.

"He believes that America will not go to war, but will do everything in its power to stop it. It will give Israel the keys to its emergency (munitions) stores, which were set up in Israel in the past. Israel needs no more than this," Yedioth said.

Netanyahu, apparently trying to avoid being seen as meddling in U.S. politics, has voiced gratitude for cross-partisan support of Israel in Washington, while insisting his country remains responsible for its own security.

Haaretz, an influential liberal Israeli newspaper, quoted an unnamed senior official in the Netanyahu government as saying the Jewish state - widely assumed to have the region's only atomic arsenal - potentially faced a greater danger from Iran than on the eve of its 1967 war with several Arab neighbors.

That thinking seems to be gaining ground domestically.

A poll published on Friday by the mass-circulation Maariv daily found that 41 percent of Israelis saw no chance of non-military pressure on Iran succeeding, versus 22 percent who thought diplomacy could work.

While 39 percent of Maariv's respondents said dealing with Iran should be left to the United States and other world powers, 35 percent said they would support Israel going it alone as a last resort - up from previous polls that found around 20 percent support for the unilateral option.

(Writing by Dan Williams; Editing by Douglas Hamilton and Tim Pearce)