Posts
2 hours ago
Thursday, 2 July 2009
CAN OBAMA TELL US WHERE WE CAN (OR CANNOT) LIVE???
CAN OBAMA TELL US WHERE WE CAN (OR CANNOT) LIVE???
WorldNetDaily
BETWEEN THE LINES
Obama tells Jews where they can live
Exclusive: Joseph Farah asks why U.S. supports creation of a new 'anti-Semitic hate state'
By Joseph Farah
Barack Obama is taking what he and his administration refer to as "a more balanced approach to Middle East policy."
Let me explain what that literally means in real terms.
It means the U.S. government is now using its clout with Israel to insist Jews, not Israelis, mind you, but Jews, be disallowed from living in East Jerusalem and the historically Jewish lands of Judea and Samaria, often referred to as the West Bank.
I want you to try to imagine the outrage, the horror, the outcry, the clamoring, the gnashing of teeth that would ensue if Arabs or Muslims were told they could no longer live in certain parts of Israel – let alone their own country.
Of course, that would never happen with "a more balanced approach to the Middle East."
It's the 1930s all over again. This time, it's the enlightened liberal voices of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who are telling Jews where they can live, how they can live and how far they must bend if they want to live at all.
I know you haven't heard it put like this before. I don't really understand why. There is simply no other accurate way to explain the machinations behind the latest demands on Israel from the West and the rest of the world.
WND's Aaron Klein gets to the heart of Israel's decline in his new book, "The Late Great State of Israel: How Enemies Within and Without Threaten the Jewish Nation's Survival"
Israel is being reduced to "Auschwitz borders." Jews have already been told they can no longer live in the Gaza Strip. Now they are being told they can no longer choose to live in any of the areas being set aside by international elites for a future Palestinian state.
Again, I ask, "Why would internationalists seek to create, by definition, a racist, anti-Jewish state that doesn't even tolerate the mere presence of Jews?"
Can anyone answer that question for me?
Obama and Clinton – and, thus, by definition, you and me, the taxpayers of the United States – have determined they will yield to the racist, bigoted, anti-Semitic demands of the Palestinian Authority that no Jews be allowed to live in their new state.
I like to think that in any other part of the world, this kind of effort at ethnically cleansing a region would be roundly condemned by all civilized people. Yet, because most people simply don't understand the clear, official plan by the Arab leaders to force out all Jews from the new Palestinian state, the policies of capitulation retain a degree of sympathy, even political support, from much of the world.
Think about what I am saying: It is the official policy of the Palestinian Authority that all Jews must get off the land! Why is the United States supporting the creation of a new, racist, anti-Semitic hate state? Why is the civilized world viewing this as a prescription for peace in the region? Why is this considered an acceptable idea?
Is there any other place in the world where that kind of official policy of racism and ethnic cleansing is tolerated – even condoned?
Why are the rules different in the Middle East? Why are the rules different for Arabs? Why are the rules different for Muslims?
Why are U.S. tax dollars supporting the racist, anti-Semitic entity known as the Palestinian Authority?
That's what we do when we forbid "settlement construction," repairs, natural growth, additions to existing communities.
This is "balance"? Are there any impositions upon the Arabs and Muslims suggesting they can no longer move to Israel? No. Are there any impositions on Arabs and Muslims suggesting they cannot buy homes in Israel? No. Are there any impositions on Arabs and Muslim suggesting they cannot repair their existing homes in Israel? No. Are there any impositions on Arabs or Muslims suggesting the cannot build settlements anywhere they like? No.
Now, keep in mind, there are already quite a few Arab and Muslim states in the Middle East. Many of them already forbid Jews to live in them. Some prohibit Christians as well. But now, the only Jewish state in the world, and one that has a claim on the land dating back to the days of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is being told Jews must keep off land currently under their own control, but destined for transfer to people who hate them, despise them, want to see them dead and will not even accept living peacefully with them as neighbors.
All the while, Israel continues to hold out its naïve hand of friendship to the Arabs and the Muslims – welcoming them in their own tiny nation surrounded by hateful neighbors. Arabs and Muslims are offered full citizenship rights – and even serve in elected office. They publish newspapers and broadcast on radio and television freely.
But, conversely, Jews are one step away from eviction from homes they have sometimes occupied for generations. Gaza is about to happen all over again.
I hope my Jewish friends remember this well. Many of them voted for Barack Obama. Many of them voted for Hillary Clinton. These are not your friends. These are the same kinds of people who turned away ships of Jewish refugees from Germany in the 1940s. These are the same kinds of people who appeased Adolf Hitler at Munich. These are the same kinds of people who made the reformation of the modern state of Israel so difficult.
I say, "No more ethnic cleansing. No more official anti-Semitism accepted. No more Jew-bashing. No more telling Jews where they can live, how they can – and if they can live."
BETWEEN THE LINES
Obama tells Jews where they can live
Exclusive: Joseph Farah asks why U.S. supports creation of a new 'anti-Semitic hate state'
By Joseph Farah
Barack Obama is taking what he and his administration refer to as "a more balanced approach to Middle East policy."
Let me explain what that literally means in real terms.
It means the U.S. government is now using its clout with Israel to insist Jews, not Israelis, mind you, but Jews, be disallowed from living in East Jerusalem and the historically Jewish lands of Judea and Samaria, often referred to as the West Bank.
I want you to try to imagine the outrage, the horror, the outcry, the clamoring, the gnashing of teeth that would ensue if Arabs or Muslims were told they could no longer live in certain parts of Israel – let alone their own country.
Of course, that would never happen with "a more balanced approach to the Middle East."
It's the 1930s all over again. This time, it's the enlightened liberal voices of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who are telling Jews where they can live, how they can live and how far they must bend if they want to live at all.
I know you haven't heard it put like this before. I don't really understand why. There is simply no other accurate way to explain the machinations behind the latest demands on Israel from the West and the rest of the world.
WND's Aaron Klein gets to the heart of Israel's decline in his new book, "The Late Great State of Israel: How Enemies Within and Without Threaten the Jewish Nation's Survival"
Israel is being reduced to "Auschwitz borders." Jews have already been told they can no longer live in the Gaza Strip. Now they are being told they can no longer choose to live in any of the areas being set aside by international elites for a future Palestinian state.
Again, I ask, "Why would internationalists seek to create, by definition, a racist, anti-Jewish state that doesn't even tolerate the mere presence of Jews?"
Can anyone answer that question for me?
Obama and Clinton – and, thus, by definition, you and me, the taxpayers of the United States – have determined they will yield to the racist, bigoted, anti-Semitic demands of the Palestinian Authority that no Jews be allowed to live in their new state.
I like to think that in any other part of the world, this kind of effort at ethnically cleansing a region would be roundly condemned by all civilized people. Yet, because most people simply don't understand the clear, official plan by the Arab leaders to force out all Jews from the new Palestinian state, the policies of capitulation retain a degree of sympathy, even political support, from much of the world.
Think about what I am saying: It is the official policy of the Palestinian Authority that all Jews must get off the land! Why is the United States supporting the creation of a new, racist, anti-Semitic hate state? Why is the civilized world viewing this as a prescription for peace in the region? Why is this considered an acceptable idea?
Is there any other place in the world where that kind of official policy of racism and ethnic cleansing is tolerated – even condoned?
Why are the rules different in the Middle East? Why are the rules different for Arabs? Why are the rules different for Muslims?
Why are U.S. tax dollars supporting the racist, anti-Semitic entity known as the Palestinian Authority?
That's what we do when we forbid "settlement construction," repairs, natural growth, additions to existing communities.
This is "balance"? Are there any impositions upon the Arabs and Muslims suggesting they can no longer move to Israel? No. Are there any impositions on Arabs and Muslims suggesting they cannot buy homes in Israel? No. Are there any impositions on Arabs and Muslim suggesting they cannot repair their existing homes in Israel? No. Are there any impositions on Arabs or Muslims suggesting the cannot build settlements anywhere they like? No.
Now, keep in mind, there are already quite a few Arab and Muslim states in the Middle East. Many of them already forbid Jews to live in them. Some prohibit Christians as well. But now, the only Jewish state in the world, and one that has a claim on the land dating back to the days of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is being told Jews must keep off land currently under their own control, but destined for transfer to people who hate them, despise them, want to see them dead and will not even accept living peacefully with them as neighbors.
All the while, Israel continues to hold out its naïve hand of friendship to the Arabs and the Muslims – welcoming them in their own tiny nation surrounded by hateful neighbors. Arabs and Muslims are offered full citizenship rights – and even serve in elected office. They publish newspapers and broadcast on radio and television freely.
But, conversely, Jews are one step away from eviction from homes they have sometimes occupied for generations. Gaza is about to happen all over again.
I hope my Jewish friends remember this well. Many of them voted for Barack Obama. Many of them voted for Hillary Clinton. These are not your friends. These are the same kinds of people who turned away ships of Jewish refugees from Germany in the 1940s. These are the same kinds of people who appeased Adolf Hitler at Munich. These are the same kinds of people who made the reformation of the modern state of Israel so difficult.
I say, "No more ethnic cleansing. No more official anti-Semitism accepted. No more Jew-bashing. No more telling Jews where they can live, how they can – and if they can live."
taken from B'NAI ELIM (Sons of the Mighty)
CHUKAS (Diaspora) & BALAK (Israel & Diaspora)
UNIVERSAL TORAH
By Rabbi Avraham Greenbaum
Shabbat July 4 2009
Torah Reading:
Israel: BALAK Numbers 22:2-25:9 (scroll down for commentary)
Diaspora: CHUKAS Numbers 19:1-22:1 and BALAK Numbers 22:2-25:9
Haftara (all): Micah 5:6-6:8
CHUKAS (Diaspora subscribers only):
THE BEGINNING OF THE END
Now that we have passed the summer solstice, the days are still long but imperceptibly they are starting to get shorter, as we move inexorably closer to the end of the year and the coming New Year and Days of Awe. The Hebrew letters of the present month, Tammuz, are the initial letters of the phrase Z-MAN T-ESHUVAH M-MASHMESH U-VA, "the Time of Teshuvah is getting closer". The letters of next month, AV, are the initial letters of ELUL BA - "Elul (month of repentance) is on the way". After the month of Av comes Elul itself, and soon afterwards, Rosh HaShanah, Simchas Torah and the conclusion of the annual reading of the Torah.
In the previous parshah, KORACH, we passed the mid-point of the book of Numbers (Numbers 17:20). Korach's conspiracy is not explicitly dated in the Torah narrative, but is considered to have taken place early on during the wanderings of the Children of Israel in the wilderness. The Torah passes over the 38 years of wandering after the sin of the Spies in almost complete silence -- except for a list given later on of the stopping points on the journey, Numbers ch. 33, parshas MAS'EI. In our present parshah of CHUKAS, we move almost imperceptibly from the initial period in the wilderness following the Exodus and the Giving of the Torah, right to the end of the 40 years of wandering and the first stages of the conquest of the Land of Israel.
Parshas CHUKAS begins with the commandment of burning the Red Heiffer and using its ashes for purification from defilement from the dead. This commandment was among the first given to the Children of Israel directly after the Exodus and the Crossing of the Red Sea (Exodus 15:25, see Rashi there). The section about the Red Heiffer as we have it in CHUKAS (Numbers ch. 19) is also listed in the Midrash (Sifra) as one of those given to Moses on the 1st Nissan one year after the Exodus, the day the on which the Sanctuary was erected.
The positioning of the section of the Red Heiffer here -- as we move into the latter part of the book of Numbers and on towards the end of the Torah -- is bound up with its thematic relationship with other sections of our parshah. The commandment of the Red Heiffer, which comes to purify from defilement from contact with the dead, is followed immediately by the narrative of the death of Miriam. ("The death of Tzaddikim atones like the sacrifices" -- Rashi on Numbers 20:1). The death of Miriam took place in the last year of wandering in the wilderness, on the 10th Nissan, exactly a year before the crossing of the Jordan and the entry into the Land. This is the first clue to dating the events in this parshah. The ensuing lack of water in the wilderness caused Moses and Aaron to strike the rock, leading to the decree that they would not enter the Land but die in the wilderness. Moses takes Aaron up Mount Hor to die, while Elazar, his son succeeds him as High Priest. We suddenly have to confront the loss of the elders and leaders of the generation. How do we deal with death?
Without our even noticing the transition, the older generation are leaving one by one, having been replaced by a whole new generation. The new generation -- who are actually the old generation in new bodies -- are now moving inexorably forward to the end and the goal - the Land of Israel. The Generation of the Wilderness have passed on, and the Generation of the Conquest now begin their advance.
As the Torah directs our eyes to the end goal of the wandering in the wilderness -- entry into the Land to fulfill the Torah there -- it first focuses our eyes upon the end goal of man, which is death: "This is the Torah: when a man dies." (Numbers 19:14). For unless we come to terms with death, we cannot truly live. Death is a fact, perhaps the main fact, of life. We are forced to confront it at some time or another. In order to come to terms with it, we have to learn how to look at it.
Thus parshas CHUKAS takes its place in the series of parshas read during the bright summer months of Tammuz, time of Teshuvah, that teach us how to look at various different aspects of life in the correct perspective. BEHAALOSCHAH taught about the purity of vision in general. SHELACH LECHA taught about viewing the world -- and our own selves -- with the eyes of faith despite outward appearances. KORACH taught about how we look at others who may be better than ourselves. CHUKAS now comes to teach us how to look at our mortality, death, the end goal of life, in the right perspective -- for with the right perspective, we can transcend death.
Today, only a decade after we were promised a new order of peace, the world has been plunged before our eyes into an era of global war. Every day we are bombarded with gruesome and horrific images of bloodied, burned, mutilated bodies. It has long ceased to be surprising to hear of new daily outrages in locations far and near. We are hardly aware of how dulled our sensitivities have become to injury, death and suffering. If we were to start weeping as we should, would we have enough tears for all the suffering in the world?
Rabbi Nachman of Breslov teaches that the only way we can transcend suffering is by trying to focus our vision on the faraway, ultimate goal of the entire creation, which is surely completely good. Rabbi Nachman says we must even close our eyes to this world -- close them tight -- so as to keep focussed on this ultimate, transcendent goal, which is to bring the entire universe to perfect unity and completeness through G-d's hidden guidance and providence. (Likutey Moharan 1:65 "Garden of the Souls".)
While no-one can fathom the depths of meaning of the Red Heiffer -- any more than we can fathom the real meaning of death and of life -- we are free to search for hints of meaning in this fascinating commandment, which is the key to complete redemption. This depends upon the restoration of the ashes of the Red Heiffer, because only when we are able to be purified from impurity from contact with the dead can we go up to the Temple, source of LIFE, and carry out all its rituals in the proper way.
What causes defilement from contact with the dead is not the soul of the dead person. It is the physical remains of his or her body. The death and decomposition of the body are very repugnant: they threaten us, both as health hazards and because they undermine our pride and dignity as living human beings. They remind us of our mortality -- "You are earth, and to the earth you will return" -- but we cannot live with such intense awareness of the vanity of the physical world. We are commanded to cover the body, bury it in the earth, put it out of sight. We should not pre-occupy ourselves with the dead (as did the Egyptians). Our job is to keep living, to keep marching to the end goal -- "the Land of Israel".
Thus the priest (son of Aharon, signifying light and vision) takes the pure Red Heiffer -- its redness signifying the harshness of DIN, Strict Judgment, and GEVURAH, Might. The priest sheds the heiffer's blood -- breaking its power. The priest gazes towards the the Holy of Holies and sprinkles the blood of the heiffer towards it. This sprinkling of the blood of the Red Heiffer towards the Holy of Holies was integral to the whole ceremony, which was performed on the Mount of Olives at a spot directly aligned towards the gates of the Temple. The body of the heiffer was then burned on a woodpile and minute quantities of its ashes were mixed with water from a living source to be sprinkled with hyssop on people and utensils that had become defiled.
In breaking the power of Strict DIN, the priest had to look towards the Holy of Holies, because this is the ultimate goal of all creation, the place of complete unit, peace and perfection. Defilement from the dead is very depressing. (The chapters on this subject in Rambam's Mishneh Torah can also be somewhat depressing, as they deal in detail with different parts of the body in varying stages of decomposition, etc.) In order to live we cannot occupy ourselves with death. We must be aware of our mortality, but we must separate ourselves from physical death. The souls of the dead go on living on their plane, and so must we on ours. The seven days of purification from defilement with the dead are seven days of separation from what ought to be the abnormal -- the decaying dead body, which has to be buried and put away -- in order to return to the Land of the Living. It is necessary to be sprinkled with the ashes of the Red Heiffer on the third and seventh days of the week in order to draw renewed strength by repeatedly looking toward the Holy of Holies.
Like the priest breaking the force of severe DIN by gazing towards the Holy of Holies, we too, in order to keep living, must keep our gaze focussed on the Holy of Holies. The Holy of Holies in our lives should be our times of prayer and Torah study, and, in the family context, quality time with our dear ones and especially spouses. These are the best support through all the vicissitudes of life.
* * *
"ARISE, O WELL." (Numbers 21:17)
The living waters with which the ashes of the Red Heiffer are mixed are one of several references to water in our parshah. Notable among the other references are the "Waters of Strife" -- the waters that Moses and Aaron extracted from the Rock, which cost them the privilege of leading the Children of Israel into the Promised Land. This section of the Torah is of course no less profound than the preceding section about the Red Heiffer. Rabbi Nachman saw his explanation of Moses' striking the rock (Likutey Moharan I:20) as being the key to all of his Torah discourses. The bare essence of Rabbi Nachman's teaching is that even the saintly Moses should not have sought "water" -- Torah insight and inspiration -- "by force", i.e. in the merit of his good deeds, his "rod", as a "right". Rather, he should have wept and begged for the waters of Torah as a gift, through prayer. Thus Moses had to atone for his error with the 515 prayers that he offered in the hope of entering the Land of Israel.
It was the death of Miriam that led to the lack of water which made Moses strike the rock. For throughout the forty years of wandering, a miraculous well accompanied the Israelites in the merit of Miriam. Miriam (having the connotation of bitterness) symbolizes the soul of the suffering true Torah scholar ("eat bread with salt, drink water by measure") through whose merit Torah insight comes into the world to inspire the generation. When this soul departs the world, there is a terrible thirst for water, with no one having the power to enlighten and inspire. Each generation needs to dig for the waters of the Torah anew.
The history of Miriam's well is not written explicitly in the Torah text but only allusively. The allusions are brought out in the Aramaic Targum and in Midrashim brought by Rashi on certain verses in our parshah -- such as Numbers 20:10-11 and 21:15ff. This well of the waters of inspiration accompanied the Israelites on all their journeys in the wilderness and provided water for the camp at each of their stopping places. When Miriam died, it disappeared, but it returned in the merit of Moses and traveled with the Israelites on the last stages of their journey through the wilderness. When they entered the Land under Joshua (on 10 Nissan, anniversary of the death of Miriam), the well also entered the land. It traveled to the Kinneret (Sea of Gallilee), where it is said to be visible from mountains to the east as a kind of "sieve" on the surface of the sea. From the depths of the Kinneret, the well is said to feed the waters of Israel's most important water reserve. (The ARI is said to have taken R. Chayim Vital on a boat and given him a cup of this water to drink, after which R. Chayim Vital understood the teachings of his master.)
The final stages of the journey of the Israelites through the wilderness and the first stages in the conquest of the Land of Israel are recounted in our parshah. Their geography is somewhat obscure to many, as they took place in what is today the kingdom of Jordan, which for political reasons remains temporarily out of bounds for Torah lovers. The Israelites were headed to ARVOS MO'AV, the "plains of Moab" east of the River Jordan facing Jericho. There they assembled prior to the entry into the Land in order to hear the final discourses of Moses, which make up the book of Deuteronomy.
Our present parshah describes their journey there. From the wilderness, they advanced around Edom (S.E. of Yam HaMelach, the "Dead" Sea) and Moab (to the east of the southern part of Yam Hamelach), crossing the River Arnon, which flows into the Yam HaMelach from the east, midway from north to south. The Arnon, which meets the sea via a spectacular mountain gorge, is the boundary between Moav, which the Israelites were forbidden to conquer, and the territories to the north, which had been conquered by the Emorites. The narrative of the Israelite conquest of the latter territories begins in our parshah.
The parshah relates that the miracles of the crossing of the Arnon were comparable with the miracles of the crossing of the Red Sea (Numbers 21:14ff.). The Emorites were waiting for the Israelites in caves in the gorge below, but the two sides of the gorge miraculously came together, allowing the Israelites to walk safely above. The Well of Miriam, which traveled with the Israelites, flushed the blood of the dead Emorites out of the gorge so that the Israelites could see the miracles performed for them.
Thus, forty years after the Generation of the Exodus had sung to G-d when they came up from the Red Sea, the Generation of the Conquest sang again as they witnessed the first miracles of the conquest. "That was the well of which HaShem said to Moses, gather the people and I will give them water. Then Israel sang (lit. WILL SING) this song: Arise, O well.!" (Numbers 21:16-17).
The conquest of the Land depends upon Miriam's well -- the well of Torah insight and inspiration. May we soon hear the song of the conquest of the Land for the Torah, for the Holy of Holies and for the glory of HaShem -- quickly in our days!
* * *
UNIVERSAL TORAH: BALAK Numbers 22:2-25:9 (Israel & Diaspora subscribers)
The story of Bilaam and his talking donkey is one of the most strangely picturesque sections of the whole Torah. It is said that one Shabbos, while the holy Rabbi Yitzhak Luria, the ARI, was taking a short nap, his attendant noticed the master's lips moving in his sleep. When he awoke, the attendant asked him: "Master, what were you studying?" "It was a lesson about Bilaam's donkey," replied the ARI. "But if I were to try to explain to you what I learned in those few minutes, the introductions alone would take hundreds of years."
Since the Torah states that "there did not arise another prophet in Israel like Moses" (Deut. 34:10), the rabbis inferred that while there never arose another prophet in Israel of the stature of Moses, there did arise a prophet of comparable stature among the other nations. This was Bilaam, who was sent to the nations so that they could not argue that if they had had a prophet like Moses, they would not have rebelled against the Torah. The Torah describes Bilaam as "knowing the knowledge of the Supreme" (Numbers 24:16). Yet instead of reproving the nations and bringing them to the service of G-d, Bilaam's advice to them was to untie the reins of chastity that had hitherto bound the Children of Noah and to let wild immorality loose on the world.
According to the ARI, Bilaam is one of three who had the same soul: Laban, the antagonist of Jacob; Bilaam, the antagonist of Moses, and Naval the antagonist of King David (Samuel I, Chapter 25). The initial letters of the three make up the name of NaVaL, who cast his evil eye on G-d's annointed, David Melech HaMashiach, just as Laban cast his evil eye on Jacob and his children and Bilaam cast his evil eye on Moses and the Children of Israel. [The three are fallen parts of the soul of Abel, whereas Moses embodies the rectified Abel.]
As the adversary of Moses, who brought the Torah to Israel, Bilaam is the chief adversary of Israel. To look at him from the outside, one might easily have been deceived, for this arch prophet of the Seventy Nations may well have appeared on the surface as a supremely pious and spiritual individual. The Torah itself testifies that he received prophecy from HaShem. Presumably Bilaam was constantly engaged in meditations and rituals, and surrounded by priests, monks and other acolytes. A turn of expression in Ethics of the Fathers explains how we find out who is the true Bilaam: not from his external piety and spirituality, but by observing the actual traits of those who are his students and followers. "Whoever has these three traits is of the students of the wicked Bilaam: an evil eye, a haughty spirit and an expansive appetite" (Avot 5:19). Rashi, in his commentary on our parshah, shows where in the narrative Bilaam exhibits these traits (Numbers ch. 22 v. 13 & 18; ch. 24 v.2).
Bilaam is the very epitome of those who choose This World, the world of extraneous splendor, glory, wealth and appetite, over the World chosen by Abraham, Jacob, Moses and the Children of Israel: the World of Truth. Having chosen This World, Bilaam cannot but look askance at the Children of Israel, whose eccentric religion appears to make no sense in terms of the visible logic of the material world. Israel's existence is such an affront to the world chosen by Bilaam that he feels compelled to "cast the evil eye on them" -- to demonize and curse them. His haughty spirit is offended that this nation of escaped slaves seeks to rein in man's material appetites and desires and elevate them in the service of G-d.
While Moses brought the knowledge of G-d to the world -- the Tree of Life -- what Bilaam embraced was the other side of knowledge: the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Bilaam demanded the right to know and experience every side of the world to the full, without boundaries or limitations. "Knowing the knowledge of the Supreme". This desire to know everything, including the innermost face and slimy underside of the material world, is expressed in the rabbinic statement that Bilaam had intercourse with his donkey (Sanhedrin 105b). The donkey is symbolic of materialism in general (HOMRIUS), as indicated by the generic Hebrew term for donkey, HAMOR. Wanting to "have it all", Bilaam was diametrically opposed to the Israelite path of self-restraint and discipline.
It is part of G-d's deep plan for man in this world that there should exist a world-view and mindset that is diametrically opposed to that of the Torah in order for man to be subjected to the test of free will. We are indeed constantly confronted with and challenged by this mindset in the predominant materialist culture that surrounds us on every side in the contemporary world. It is the mindset that tells us that we are in this world to enjoy everything it has to offer according to the way we feel, without having to be bound by the dictates of a restrictive religious code of conduct that constantly seems to be telling us what we must do next and what we must not do.
The deepest mystery of creation is that G-d gave man free will to do as he chooses, yet G-d directs man in such a way that in the end, he has no option to acknowledge that G-d is right. This mystery is contained in the story of Bilaam, who was determined to curse Israel and tried every way possible to get G-d to agree, but in the end was forced to bless Israel, even against his will.
Bilaam wanted to be completely free: to be in the driver's seat, "riding the donkey" -- going where he chose in the material world. The irony is that the donkey itself rebelled, and refused to go where Bilaam wanted. Bilaam wanted to know and enjoy the side of the world where there is no G-d, no restraint, no pangs of conscience. only the donkey, the animal. But the donkey itself opened its mouth! The term for the donkey in our parshah is AThON -- alluding to the 22 letters of the Aleph Beith, from Aleph to Thav, and to the Fifty Gates of Understanding (the final letter of AThON, Nun, has the numerical value of 50). Bilaam was forced to see that the material world itself is made up of "letters of the alphabet" -- spiritual significance and purpose. Bilaam could not escape from G-d's truth.
G-d "bridled Bilaam with a halter and put a hook in his mouth, the way a man bridles an animal to take it where he wants" (Rashi on Num. 23:16). Bilaam was forced against his will to bless the Children of Israel. The bridling of Bilaam comes to teach us the profound lesson that although it may appear on the surface that the forces of evil are riding high without control in the world, in fact G-d has evil on a leash like a dog. G-d allows evil only just as much rein as suits His deep plan for the world.
The Talmud states that "from the blessings of that wicked man you learn what was in his heart. He wanted to say that they should not have synagogues and study halls -- "How goodly are your tents, O Jacob.". The Indwelling Presence should not rest upon them -- ".and your sanctuaries, O Israel". Their kingdom should not continue -- ".like streams they extend.". They should not have olive trees and vineyards -- "like gardens by the side of a river". Their odor should not waft forth -- "Like aloe trees planted by G-d". They should not have kings of stature -- "like cedars by the side of waters". They should not have a king who is the son of a king -- "water will flow forth from his source". Their kingdom should not hold sway over the nations -- "and his seed over the many waters". His kingdom should not be daring -- "his king will be high above Agag". His kingdom should not be fearsome -- "and his kingdom will be exalted" (Sanhedrin 105a).
From this Talmudic passage we learn what gives Israel its strength: its synagoand study halls, and its kings -- the true kings who follow in the path of King David, the archetype of the true Tzaddik.
"How goodly are your tents of Jacob." Everything is founded on the sanctity and purity of Israel's "tents and habitations" -- the Torah home, where man and wife unite in holy love to bring new souls into the world and nurture them in the ways of G-d. It was precisely this sanctity that Bilaam sought to attack in advising Balak that the best way to get the better of Israel would be by promoting immorality. Thus Bilaam's advice was to ensnare the Israelite men with the Midianite girls, who would quickly persuade them to go after the god of immorality. This was diametrically opposed to the way of Moses, causing a plague that threatened the entire nation. They were saved only through the heroism of Pinchas, who zealously stood up for HaShem when everyone else was confused.
Shabbat Shalom!!!
Avraham Yehoshua Greenbaum
--
AZAMRA INSTITUTE
PO Box 50037 Jerusalem 91500 Israel
Website: www.azamra.org
_____________________________
Change email address / Leave mailing list: http://ymlp133.com/u.phpYMLPID=gbmbwegsguqeuguye
By Rabbi Avraham Greenbaum
Shabbat July 4 2009
Torah Reading:
Israel: BALAK Numbers 22:2-25:9 (scroll down for commentary)
Diaspora: CHUKAS Numbers 19:1-22:1 and BALAK Numbers 22:2-25:9
Haftara (all): Micah 5:6-6:8
CHUKAS (Diaspora subscribers only):
THE BEGINNING OF THE END
Now that we have passed the summer solstice, the days are still long but imperceptibly they are starting to get shorter, as we move inexorably closer to the end of the year and the coming New Year and Days of Awe. The Hebrew letters of the present month, Tammuz, are the initial letters of the phrase Z-MAN T-ESHUVAH M-MASHMESH U-VA, "the Time of Teshuvah is getting closer". The letters of next month, AV, are the initial letters of ELUL BA - "Elul (month of repentance) is on the way". After the month of Av comes Elul itself, and soon afterwards, Rosh HaShanah, Simchas Torah and the conclusion of the annual reading of the Torah.
In the previous parshah, KORACH, we passed the mid-point of the book of Numbers (Numbers 17:20). Korach's conspiracy is not explicitly dated in the Torah narrative, but is considered to have taken place early on during the wanderings of the Children of Israel in the wilderness. The Torah passes over the 38 years of wandering after the sin of the Spies in almost complete silence -- except for a list given later on of the stopping points on the journey, Numbers ch. 33, parshas MAS'EI. In our present parshah of CHUKAS, we move almost imperceptibly from the initial period in the wilderness following the Exodus and the Giving of the Torah, right to the end of the 40 years of wandering and the first stages of the conquest of the Land of Israel.
Parshas CHUKAS begins with the commandment of burning the Red Heiffer and using its ashes for purification from defilement from the dead. This commandment was among the first given to the Children of Israel directly after the Exodus and the Crossing of the Red Sea (Exodus 15:25, see Rashi there). The section about the Red Heiffer as we have it in CHUKAS (Numbers ch. 19) is also listed in the Midrash (Sifra) as one of those given to Moses on the 1st Nissan one year after the Exodus, the day the on which the Sanctuary was erected.
The positioning of the section of the Red Heiffer here -- as we move into the latter part of the book of Numbers and on towards the end of the Torah -- is bound up with its thematic relationship with other sections of our parshah. The commandment of the Red Heiffer, which comes to purify from defilement from contact with the dead, is followed immediately by the narrative of the death of Miriam. ("The death of Tzaddikim atones like the sacrifices" -- Rashi on Numbers 20:1). The death of Miriam took place in the last year of wandering in the wilderness, on the 10th Nissan, exactly a year before the crossing of the Jordan and the entry into the Land. This is the first clue to dating the events in this parshah. The ensuing lack of water in the wilderness caused Moses and Aaron to strike the rock, leading to the decree that they would not enter the Land but die in the wilderness. Moses takes Aaron up Mount Hor to die, while Elazar, his son succeeds him as High Priest. We suddenly have to confront the loss of the elders and leaders of the generation. How do we deal with death?
Without our even noticing the transition, the older generation are leaving one by one, having been replaced by a whole new generation. The new generation -- who are actually the old generation in new bodies -- are now moving inexorably forward to the end and the goal - the Land of Israel. The Generation of the Wilderness have passed on, and the Generation of the Conquest now begin their advance.
As the Torah directs our eyes to the end goal of the wandering in the wilderness -- entry into the Land to fulfill the Torah there -- it first focuses our eyes upon the end goal of man, which is death: "This is the Torah: when a man dies." (Numbers 19:14). For unless we come to terms with death, we cannot truly live. Death is a fact, perhaps the main fact, of life. We are forced to confront it at some time or another. In order to come to terms with it, we have to learn how to look at it.
Thus parshas CHUKAS takes its place in the series of parshas read during the bright summer months of Tammuz, time of Teshuvah, that teach us how to look at various different aspects of life in the correct perspective. BEHAALOSCHAH taught about the purity of vision in general. SHELACH LECHA taught about viewing the world -- and our own selves -- with the eyes of faith despite outward appearances. KORACH taught about how we look at others who may be better than ourselves. CHUKAS now comes to teach us how to look at our mortality, death, the end goal of life, in the right perspective -- for with the right perspective, we can transcend death.
Today, only a decade after we were promised a new order of peace, the world has been plunged before our eyes into an era of global war. Every day we are bombarded with gruesome and horrific images of bloodied, burned, mutilated bodies. It has long ceased to be surprising to hear of new daily outrages in locations far and near. We are hardly aware of how dulled our sensitivities have become to injury, death and suffering. If we were to start weeping as we should, would we have enough tears for all the suffering in the world?
Rabbi Nachman of Breslov teaches that the only way we can transcend suffering is by trying to focus our vision on the faraway, ultimate goal of the entire creation, which is surely completely good. Rabbi Nachman says we must even close our eyes to this world -- close them tight -- so as to keep focussed on this ultimate, transcendent goal, which is to bring the entire universe to perfect unity and completeness through G-d's hidden guidance and providence. (Likutey Moharan 1:65 "Garden of the Souls".)
While no-one can fathom the depths of meaning of the Red Heiffer -- any more than we can fathom the real meaning of death and of life -- we are free to search for hints of meaning in this fascinating commandment, which is the key to complete redemption. This depends upon the restoration of the ashes of the Red Heiffer, because only when we are able to be purified from impurity from contact with the dead can we go up to the Temple, source of LIFE, and carry out all its rituals in the proper way.
What causes defilement from contact with the dead is not the soul of the dead person. It is the physical remains of his or her body. The death and decomposition of the body are very repugnant: they threaten us, both as health hazards and because they undermine our pride and dignity as living human beings. They remind us of our mortality -- "You are earth, and to the earth you will return" -- but we cannot live with such intense awareness of the vanity of the physical world. We are commanded to cover the body, bury it in the earth, put it out of sight. We should not pre-occupy ourselves with the dead (as did the Egyptians). Our job is to keep living, to keep marching to the end goal -- "the Land of Israel".
Thus the priest (son of Aharon, signifying light and vision) takes the pure Red Heiffer -- its redness signifying the harshness of DIN, Strict Judgment, and GEVURAH, Might. The priest sheds the heiffer's blood -- breaking its power. The priest gazes towards the the Holy of Holies and sprinkles the blood of the heiffer towards it. This sprinkling of the blood of the Red Heiffer towards the Holy of Holies was integral to the whole ceremony, which was performed on the Mount of Olives at a spot directly aligned towards the gates of the Temple. The body of the heiffer was then burned on a woodpile and minute quantities of its ashes were mixed with water from a living source to be sprinkled with hyssop on people and utensils that had become defiled.
In breaking the power of Strict DIN, the priest had to look towards the Holy of Holies, because this is the ultimate goal of all creation, the place of complete unit, peace and perfection. Defilement from the dead is very depressing. (The chapters on this subject in Rambam's Mishneh Torah can also be somewhat depressing, as they deal in detail with different parts of the body in varying stages of decomposition, etc.) In order to live we cannot occupy ourselves with death. We must be aware of our mortality, but we must separate ourselves from physical death. The souls of the dead go on living on their plane, and so must we on ours. The seven days of purification from defilement with the dead are seven days of separation from what ought to be the abnormal -- the decaying dead body, which has to be buried and put away -- in order to return to the Land of the Living. It is necessary to be sprinkled with the ashes of the Red Heiffer on the third and seventh days of the week in order to draw renewed strength by repeatedly looking toward the Holy of Holies.
Like the priest breaking the force of severe DIN by gazing towards the Holy of Holies, we too, in order to keep living, must keep our gaze focussed on the Holy of Holies. The Holy of Holies in our lives should be our times of prayer and Torah study, and, in the family context, quality time with our dear ones and especially spouses. These are the best support through all the vicissitudes of life.
* * *
"ARISE, O WELL." (Numbers 21:17)
The living waters with which the ashes of the Red Heiffer are mixed are one of several references to water in our parshah. Notable among the other references are the "Waters of Strife" -- the waters that Moses and Aaron extracted from the Rock, which cost them the privilege of leading the Children of Israel into the Promised Land. This section of the Torah is of course no less profound than the preceding section about the Red Heiffer. Rabbi Nachman saw his explanation of Moses' striking the rock (Likutey Moharan I:20) as being the key to all of his Torah discourses. The bare essence of Rabbi Nachman's teaching is that even the saintly Moses should not have sought "water" -- Torah insight and inspiration -- "by force", i.e. in the merit of his good deeds, his "rod", as a "right". Rather, he should have wept and begged for the waters of Torah as a gift, through prayer. Thus Moses had to atone for his error with the 515 prayers that he offered in the hope of entering the Land of Israel.
It was the death of Miriam that led to the lack of water which made Moses strike the rock. For throughout the forty years of wandering, a miraculous well accompanied the Israelites in the merit of Miriam. Miriam (having the connotation of bitterness) symbolizes the soul of the suffering true Torah scholar ("eat bread with salt, drink water by measure") through whose merit Torah insight comes into the world to inspire the generation. When this soul departs the world, there is a terrible thirst for water, with no one having the power to enlighten and inspire. Each generation needs to dig for the waters of the Torah anew.
The history of Miriam's well is not written explicitly in the Torah text but only allusively. The allusions are brought out in the Aramaic Targum and in Midrashim brought by Rashi on certain verses in our parshah -- such as Numbers 20:10-11 and 21:15ff. This well of the waters of inspiration accompanied the Israelites on all their journeys in the wilderness and provided water for the camp at each of their stopping places. When Miriam died, it disappeared, but it returned in the merit of Moses and traveled with the Israelites on the last stages of their journey through the wilderness. When they entered the Land under Joshua (on 10 Nissan, anniversary of the death of Miriam), the well also entered the land. It traveled to the Kinneret (Sea of Gallilee), where it is said to be visible from mountains to the east as a kind of "sieve" on the surface of the sea. From the depths of the Kinneret, the well is said to feed the waters of Israel's most important water reserve. (The ARI is said to have taken R. Chayim Vital on a boat and given him a cup of this water to drink, after which R. Chayim Vital understood the teachings of his master.)
The final stages of the journey of the Israelites through the wilderness and the first stages in the conquest of the Land of Israel are recounted in our parshah. Their geography is somewhat obscure to many, as they took place in what is today the kingdom of Jordan, which for political reasons remains temporarily out of bounds for Torah lovers. The Israelites were headed to ARVOS MO'AV, the "plains of Moab" east of the River Jordan facing Jericho. There they assembled prior to the entry into the Land in order to hear the final discourses of Moses, which make up the book of Deuteronomy.
Our present parshah describes their journey there. From the wilderness, they advanced around Edom (S.E. of Yam HaMelach, the "Dead" Sea) and Moab (to the east of the southern part of Yam Hamelach), crossing the River Arnon, which flows into the Yam HaMelach from the east, midway from north to south. The Arnon, which meets the sea via a spectacular mountain gorge, is the boundary between Moav, which the Israelites were forbidden to conquer, and the territories to the north, which had been conquered by the Emorites. The narrative of the Israelite conquest of the latter territories begins in our parshah.
The parshah relates that the miracles of the crossing of the Arnon were comparable with the miracles of the crossing of the Red Sea (Numbers 21:14ff.). The Emorites were waiting for the Israelites in caves in the gorge below, but the two sides of the gorge miraculously came together, allowing the Israelites to walk safely above. The Well of Miriam, which traveled with the Israelites, flushed the blood of the dead Emorites out of the gorge so that the Israelites could see the miracles performed for them.
Thus, forty years after the Generation of the Exodus had sung to G-d when they came up from the Red Sea, the Generation of the Conquest sang again as they witnessed the first miracles of the conquest. "That was the well of which HaShem said to Moses, gather the people and I will give them water. Then Israel sang (lit. WILL SING) this song: Arise, O well.!" (Numbers 21:16-17).
The conquest of the Land depends upon Miriam's well -- the well of Torah insight and inspiration. May we soon hear the song of the conquest of the Land for the Torah, for the Holy of Holies and for the glory of HaShem -- quickly in our days!
* * *
UNIVERSAL TORAH: BALAK Numbers 22:2-25:9 (Israel & Diaspora subscribers)
The story of Bilaam and his talking donkey is one of the most strangely picturesque sections of the whole Torah. It is said that one Shabbos, while the holy Rabbi Yitzhak Luria, the ARI, was taking a short nap, his attendant noticed the master's lips moving in his sleep. When he awoke, the attendant asked him: "Master, what were you studying?" "It was a lesson about Bilaam's donkey," replied the ARI. "But if I were to try to explain to you what I learned in those few minutes, the introductions alone would take hundreds of years."
Since the Torah states that "there did not arise another prophet in Israel like Moses" (Deut. 34:10), the rabbis inferred that while there never arose another prophet in Israel of the stature of Moses, there did arise a prophet of comparable stature among the other nations. This was Bilaam, who was sent to the nations so that they could not argue that if they had had a prophet like Moses, they would not have rebelled against the Torah. The Torah describes Bilaam as "knowing the knowledge of the Supreme" (Numbers 24:16). Yet instead of reproving the nations and bringing them to the service of G-d, Bilaam's advice to them was to untie the reins of chastity that had hitherto bound the Children of Noah and to let wild immorality loose on the world.
According to the ARI, Bilaam is one of three who had the same soul: Laban, the antagonist of Jacob; Bilaam, the antagonist of Moses, and Naval the antagonist of King David (Samuel I, Chapter 25). The initial letters of the three make up the name of NaVaL, who cast his evil eye on G-d's annointed, David Melech HaMashiach, just as Laban cast his evil eye on Jacob and his children and Bilaam cast his evil eye on Moses and the Children of Israel. [The three are fallen parts of the soul of Abel, whereas Moses embodies the rectified Abel.]
As the adversary of Moses, who brought the Torah to Israel, Bilaam is the chief adversary of Israel. To look at him from the outside, one might easily have been deceived, for this arch prophet of the Seventy Nations may well have appeared on the surface as a supremely pious and spiritual individual. The Torah itself testifies that he received prophecy from HaShem. Presumably Bilaam was constantly engaged in meditations and rituals, and surrounded by priests, monks and other acolytes. A turn of expression in Ethics of the Fathers explains how we find out who is the true Bilaam: not from his external piety and spirituality, but by observing the actual traits of those who are his students and followers. "Whoever has these three traits is of the students of the wicked Bilaam: an evil eye, a haughty spirit and an expansive appetite" (Avot 5:19). Rashi, in his commentary on our parshah, shows where in the narrative Bilaam exhibits these traits (Numbers ch. 22 v. 13 & 18; ch. 24 v.2).
Bilaam is the very epitome of those who choose This World, the world of extraneous splendor, glory, wealth and appetite, over the World chosen by Abraham, Jacob, Moses and the Children of Israel: the World of Truth. Having chosen This World, Bilaam cannot but look askance at the Children of Israel, whose eccentric religion appears to make no sense in terms of the visible logic of the material world. Israel's existence is such an affront to the world chosen by Bilaam that he feels compelled to "cast the evil eye on them" -- to demonize and curse them. His haughty spirit is offended that this nation of escaped slaves seeks to rein in man's material appetites and desires and elevate them in the service of G-d.
While Moses brought the knowledge of G-d to the world -- the Tree of Life -- what Bilaam embraced was the other side of knowledge: the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Bilaam demanded the right to know and experience every side of the world to the full, without boundaries or limitations. "Knowing the knowledge of the Supreme". This desire to know everything, including the innermost face and slimy underside of the material world, is expressed in the rabbinic statement that Bilaam had intercourse with his donkey (Sanhedrin 105b). The donkey is symbolic of materialism in general (HOMRIUS), as indicated by the generic Hebrew term for donkey, HAMOR. Wanting to "have it all", Bilaam was diametrically opposed to the Israelite path of self-restraint and discipline.
It is part of G-d's deep plan for man in this world that there should exist a world-view and mindset that is diametrically opposed to that of the Torah in order for man to be subjected to the test of free will. We are indeed constantly confronted with and challenged by this mindset in the predominant materialist culture that surrounds us on every side in the contemporary world. It is the mindset that tells us that we are in this world to enjoy everything it has to offer according to the way we feel, without having to be bound by the dictates of a restrictive religious code of conduct that constantly seems to be telling us what we must do next and what we must not do.
The deepest mystery of creation is that G-d gave man free will to do as he chooses, yet G-d directs man in such a way that in the end, he has no option to acknowledge that G-d is right. This mystery is contained in the story of Bilaam, who was determined to curse Israel and tried every way possible to get G-d to agree, but in the end was forced to bless Israel, even against his will.
Bilaam wanted to be completely free: to be in the driver's seat, "riding the donkey" -- going where he chose in the material world. The irony is that the donkey itself rebelled, and refused to go where Bilaam wanted. Bilaam wanted to know and enjoy the side of the world where there is no G-d, no restraint, no pangs of conscience. only the donkey, the animal. But the donkey itself opened its mouth! The term for the donkey in our parshah is AThON -- alluding to the 22 letters of the Aleph Beith, from Aleph to Thav, and to the Fifty Gates of Understanding (the final letter of AThON, Nun, has the numerical value of 50). Bilaam was forced to see that the material world itself is made up of "letters of the alphabet" -- spiritual significance and purpose. Bilaam could not escape from G-d's truth.
G-d "bridled Bilaam with a halter and put a hook in his mouth, the way a man bridles an animal to take it where he wants" (Rashi on Num. 23:16). Bilaam was forced against his will to bless the Children of Israel. The bridling of Bilaam comes to teach us the profound lesson that although it may appear on the surface that the forces of evil are riding high without control in the world, in fact G-d has evil on a leash like a dog. G-d allows evil only just as much rein as suits His deep plan for the world.
The Talmud states that "from the blessings of that wicked man you learn what was in his heart. He wanted to say that they should not have synagogues and study halls -- "How goodly are your tents, O Jacob.". The Indwelling Presence should not rest upon them -- ".and your sanctuaries, O Israel". Their kingdom should not continue -- ".like streams they extend.". They should not have olive trees and vineyards -- "like gardens by the side of a river". Their odor should not waft forth -- "Like aloe trees planted by G-d". They should not have kings of stature -- "like cedars by the side of waters". They should not have a king who is the son of a king -- "water will flow forth from his source". Their kingdom should not hold sway over the nations -- "and his seed over the many waters". His kingdom should not be daring -- "his king will be high above Agag". His kingdom should not be fearsome -- "and his kingdom will be exalted" (Sanhedrin 105a).
From this Talmudic passage we learn what gives Israel its strength: its synagoand study halls, and its kings -- the true kings who follow in the path of King David, the archetype of the true Tzaddik.
"How goodly are your tents of Jacob." Everything is founded on the sanctity and purity of Israel's "tents and habitations" -- the Torah home, where man and wife unite in holy love to bring new souls into the world and nurture them in the ways of G-d. It was precisely this sanctity that Bilaam sought to attack in advising Balak that the best way to get the better of Israel would be by promoting immorality. Thus Bilaam's advice was to ensnare the Israelite men with the Midianite girls, who would quickly persuade them to go after the god of immorality. This was diametrically opposed to the way of Moses, causing a plague that threatened the entire nation. They were saved only through the heroism of Pinchas, who zealously stood up for HaShem when everyone else was confused.
Shabbat Shalom!!!
Avraham Yehoshua Greenbaum
--
AZAMRA INSTITUTE
PO Box 50037 Jerusalem 91500 Israel
Website: www.azamra.org
_____________________________
Change email address / Leave mailing list: http://ymlp133.com/u.phpYMLPID=gbmbwegsguqeuguye
Wednesday, 1 July 2009
ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE RISKS AND TERRORISM
ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE RISKS AND TERRORISM
Other Subjects:
--- EMP and Faraday Cages
--- EMP and Other Practical Advice
--- EMP Senate Hearings March 2005
--- EMP News Articles and Commentary
General Definition - Electromagnetic pulse
In addition to other effects, a nuclear weapon detonated in or above the earth’s atmosphere or alternatively an E-Bomb (see below) can create an electromagnetic pulse (EMP), a high-density electrical field. EMP acts like a stroke of lightning but is stronger, faster and briefer. EMP can seriously damage electronic devices connected to power sources or antennas. This include communication systems, computers, electrical appliances, and automobile or aircraft ignition systems. The damage could range from a minor interruption to actual burnout of components. Most electronic equipment within 1,000 miles of a high-altitude nuclear detonation could be affected. Battery powered radios with short antennas generally would not be affected.
Although EMP is unlikely to harm most people, it could harm those with pacemakers or other implanted electronic devices.
An Air Force spokesman, who describes this effect as similar to a lightning strike, points out that electronics systems can be protected by placing them in metal enclosures called Faraday Cages that divert any impinging electromagnetic energy directly to the ground. Foreign military analysts say this reassuring explanation is incomplete.
What can be done?
See Web Page on Faraday Cages
(http://www.unitedstatesaction.com/emp_and_faraday_cages.htm)
See Web Page on EMP Other Practical Advice
and also latest news in Washington Times August 19, 2003 commentary ("The blackout next time").
From: http://www.physics.northwestern.edu/classes/2001Fall/Phyx135-2/19/emp.htm
Read All at :
ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE RISKS AND TERRORISMYes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive « alex.moskalyuk
Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive
Noah Goldstein’s, Steve Martin’s (no, not that Steve Martin’s) and Robert Cialdini’s Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive is a pop psych book, where a bunch of research in psychology is distilled into one readable volume.
50 scientifically proven ways constitute 50 chapters of the book, longest of which take 7 pages. The authors take the position that persuasion is a science, not art, hence with the right approach anybody can become the master in the skill of persuasion. So, what are the 50 ways?
- Inconvenience the audience by creating an impression of product scarcity. It’s the famous change from “Call now, the operators are standing by” to “If the line is busy, call again”, that greatly improved the call volume by creating the impression that everybody else is trying to buy the same product.
- Introduce herd effect in highly personalized form. The hotel sign in the bathroom informed the guests that many prior guests chose to be environmentally friendly by recycling their towels. However, when the message mentioned that majority of the guests who stayed in this specific room chose to be more environmentally conscious and reused their towels, towel recycling jumped 33%, even though the message was largely the same.
Read All at :
Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive « alex.moskalyukIsrael Matzav: Alright! Spain drops Shehadeh 'war crimes' prosecution
Alright! Spain drops Shehadeh 'war crimes' prosecution
A Spanish review board has blocked a local judge from continuing a 'war crimes' prosecution against high-ranking IDF officers and Israeli political leaders that arose out of the targeted assassination of Saleh Shehadeh. Shehadeh (pictured), the head of Hamas' military wing, was killed along with fourteen human shields on July 22, 2002. Spanish Judge Fernando Andreu cannot investigate the IAF bombing in Gaza on July 22, 2002 that killed Hamas terrorist Sheikh Salah Shehadeh and 14 others, Spain's National Court ruled Tuesday.
Read All at :
Israel Matzav: Alright! Spain drops Shehadeh 'war crimes' prosecution
Israel Matzav: We don't take orders from Obama!
We don't take orders from Obama!
In case you missed the implication of what I posted on Monday, I believe that the announcements regarding Migron/Adam, Givat Zev and Maaleh Adumim over the weekend and on Monday were attempts to tell the Obama administration that Israel does not take orders from The One. In fact, it kind of reminded me of the good old days when Yitzchak Shamir was Prime Minister and every time George H. W. Bush would send someone here to visit, we would start a new 'settlement' on his arrival.Two analysts are asking today whether the timing of the announcements cited above is coincidental. One is Haaretz's Akiva Eldar, who asks why Israel is 'blatantly breaking US rule on settlements.'
Read All at :
Israel Matzav: At least three ministers oppose 'temporary settlement freeze'
At least three ministers oppose 'temporary settlement freeze'
At least three of the six ministers in Prime Minister Netanyahu's security cabinet oppose even a 'temporary' freeze on construction in the 'settlements.' The three are Moshe (Boogie) Yaalon (pictured), Benny Begin and Avigdor Lieberman. Israel Matzav: At least three ministers oppose 'temporary settlement freeze'Monday morning the forum, which includes Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and ministers Dan Meridor, Benny Begin and Moshe Ya'alon, met to agree on a position that Barak would then present to Mitchell.
Read All at :
Israel Matzav: Obama the ideologue
Obama the ideologue
Although he came into office claiming to be a 'realist,' Caroline Glick has concluded that Barack Hussein Obama is an ideologue of the worst kind. So if Obama's foreign policy has already failed or is in the process of failing throughout the world, why is he refusing to reassess it? Why, with blood running through the streets of Iran, is he still interested in appeasing the mullahs? Why, with Venezuela threatening to invade Honduras for Zelaya, is he siding with Zelaya against Honduran democrats? Why, with the Palestinians refusing to accept the Jewish people's right to self-determination, is he seeking to expel some 500,000 Jews from their homes in the interest of appeasing the Palestinians? Why, with North Korea threatening to attack the US with ballistic missiles, is he refusing to order the USS John McCain to interdict the suspected North Korean missile ship it has been trailing for the past two weeks? Why, when the Sudanese government continues to sponsor the murder of Darfuris, is the administration claiming that the genocide in Darfur has ended?
Read All at :
Israel Matzav: Israel Navy blocks blockade busting ship; UPDATE: Ship boarded and towed to Ashdod
Israel Navy blocks blockade busting ship; UPDATE: Ship boarded and towed to Ashdod
Israel's Navy has blocked the Israel Matzav: Israel Navy blocks blockade busting ship; UPDATE: Ship boarded and towed to AshdodThe Free Gaza ship, The Spirit of Humanity, left Cyprus early Monday and reached the edge of Israeli maritime jurisdiction on Monday night, after crossing from Lebanese waters. Israeli naval vessels apparently contacted the ship and blocked its progress south to Gaza in the middle of the night. Activists on board claimed they were threatened and had their navigational equipment electronically jammed by the IDF.
Read All at :
Chesler Chronicles » Al-Qaeda Threatens France Over Burqa
Al-Qaeda Threatens France Over Burqa
Today, al-Qaeda threatened France over the ostensible issue of the burqa. Tommorrow, America will be in their gun sights on this same issue.
The burqa, niqab — even hijab — are being used as pawns in the power struggle between jihadic Islam and the West. These dress codes are primarily political in nature.
For those people who really and truly believe that the burqa is a religious and not a political/jihadic issue — consider this:
According to the United States monitoring service SITE Intelligence, al-Qaeda has just announced that it plans to “take revenge on France for its opposition to the burka, calling on Muslims to retaliate against the country.” Abu Musab Abdul Wadud, head of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb said:
“Yesterday was the hijab (the Islamic headscarf long banned in French schools) and today, it is the niqab (the full veil). We will take revenge for the honour of our daughters and sisters against France and against its interests by every means at our disposal … for us, the mujahedeen … we will not remain silent to such provocations and injustices. We call upon all Muslims to confront this hostility with greater hostility.”
Does anyone really believe that al-Qaeda is a religious group? Or that their religious pronouncements are holy and should be protected by American or European laws?
In a many months-old video, al-Qaeda number two, al-Zawahiri, also condemned the French law (which banned hijab) saying “the decision showed the grudge the Western crusaders have against Islam.” Zawahiri claimed to be speaking in Bin Laden’s name.
Al-Qaeda now has an Algerian-based Salafist-oriented group which is being encouraged to attack either pro-French Algerians or Frenchmen. Or both.
Le Pauvre Algerienne. For nearly twenty years, Algerian women have been pawns in the power struggle between Islamists and the Algerian government.
According to attorney Karima Bennoune, from 1992 on, Algerian Islamist men committed a series of “terrorist atrocities” against Algerian women. Bennoune describes the “kidnapping and repeated raping of young girls as sex slaves for armed fundamentalists. The girls were also forced to cook and clean for God’s warriors. … [O]ne 17-year-old girl was repeatedly raped until pregnant. She was kidnapped off the street and held with other young girls, one of whom was shot in the head and killed when she tried to escape.” As in Iran, “unveiled,” educated, independent Algerian women were seen as “military targets” and were increasingly shot on sight. According to Bennoune, “the men of Algeria (were) arming, the women of Algeria (were) veiling themselves. As one woman said: ‘Fear is stronger than our will to be free.’”
Read All at :
Chesler Chronicles » Al-Qaeda Threatens France Over BurqaTuesday, 30 June 2009
Israel Matzav: Hamas playing mind games?
Hamas playing mind games?
Hamas has been hinting lately that kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Shalit was killed during Operation Cast Lead this past winter. Israel Matzav: Hamas playing mind games?Hamas leader Osama Al-Mazini promised on Monday to deliver a letter from the family of captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit if the prisoner survived Israel's assault on Gaza last winter.
Read All at :
American Jews Just Don't Get It!
American Jews Just Don't Get It!
Blogmaster's Comment: As usual... Caroline is right on target. I wonder why most American left-wing, liberal, Obama worshiping Jews Just Don't Get It! In my humble opinion, , there is a very fine line between a Barak Hussein (Osama) Obama supporter and a "Judenrat".
Column One: Barack Obama vs international law
Jun. 25, 2009
Caroline Glick ,
THE JERUSALEM POST
US President Barack Obama consistently couches his demand that Israel prohibit Jewish people from constructing or expanding our homes and communities in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria in legal-sounding language.
Obama has called settlements "illegitimate." And he has said that Israel "has obligations under the road map," while referring disparagingly to "settlements that, in past agreements, have been categorized as illegal."
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Obama's Middle East envoy George Mitchell have repeatedly uttered similar statements.
By characterizing its demand that Israel prohibit Jews from building homes in Israel's capital city and its heartland as a legal requirement, the Obama administration portrays Israel as an international outlaw. After all, if building homes for Jews is a crime, and Israel is not prohibiting Jews from building homes, then Israel is at best guilty of enabling a crime to take place, and at worst, it is a criminal state.
It makes good political sense for the Obama administration to make its case against Israel in this fashion. According to a survey of US public opinion published in early 2006 by the Boston Review, whereas only 7 percent of Democrats support going to war to spread democracy - versus 53% of Republicans; 71% of Democrats - versus 36% of Republicans - support going to war to help the United Nations "uphold international law." What this poll shows is that for Obama supporters, the idea that Israel should be treated poorly because it is in breach of international law resonates deeply.
The problem with the Obama administration's characterization of a ban on Jewish building in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria as an Israeli legal obligation is that Israel has never taken upon itself a legal obligation to prohibit such building activities. Israel has never signed an agreement that has characterized any Jewish communities as "illegal."
Moreover, both former prime minister Ariel Sharon's chief of staff Dov Weisglass and former president George W. Bush's deputy national security adviser for the Middle East Elliott Abrams have gone on record stating that Sharon's much vaunted decision to curtail Jewish building in Judea and Samaria (never Jerusalem), in line with the road map negotiating framework, was based on a series of explicit understandings with the Bush administration that spelled out the scope of Jewish building that Israel would maintain for the duration of the peace process. As Abrams wrote on Thursday in The Wall Street Journal, "Not only were there agreements, but the prime minister of Israel relied on them..."
Then, too, since the road map was approved as a mere cabinet decision - as opposed to an international agreement - the Netanyahu government has no legal obligation to actively advance it. Indeed, if it wishes, it can abrogate Israel's acceptance of the document at any time simply by calling for another vote.
More importantly perhaps from the Obama administration's perspective is that the road map itself lacks the force of international law. Although it was adopted by the Security Council, it was not adopted as an internationally binding document under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Consequently, Israel has no international legal obligation to end Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria or Jerusalem.
Like the US, Israel is a signatory to the 1976 International Convention for Civil and Political Rights, which among other things prohibits all forms of discrimination against people on the basis of religion and nationality.
Consequently, Israel is barred from discriminating specifically against Jews who wish to build homes on legally controlled lands in Judea and Samaria. As a binding treaty, this convention takes precedence over the nonbinding road map. Indeed, given the road map's prejudicial position on Jewish building it can be reasonably argued that the road map itself calls for a breach of international law.
Finally, there is always the claim made by Israel's critics that Jewish communities located beyond the 1949 armistice lines are illegal by dint of the Fourth Geneva Convention from 1949. That convention prohibits an occupying power from transferring parts of its population to occupied territory. Legal authorities have long disputed whether this convention is applicable to Judea and Samaria, but even if it is applicable, according to Prof. Avi Bell from Bar-Ilan University Law School, it "only proscribes state actions."
Bell explains, "The Fourth Geneva Convention does not purport to limit in any way what individual Jews may or may not do on their legally held property or where they may or may not choose to live."
WHEREAS UPON examination it is clear that the Obama administration is wrong in insinuating that Israel is in breach of its international legal commitments through its refusal to bar Jewish construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, the Obama administration's own policy toward the Palestinians places it in clear breach of both binding international law and domestic US law.
On September 28, 2001, the UN Security Council passed binding Resolution 1373. Resolution 1373, which was initiated by the US government, and was passed by authority of Chapter VII, committed all UN member states to "refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts." Resolution 1373 further required UN member states to "deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts or provide safe haven" to those that do.
In 1995, the US State Department acknowledged that Hamas fits the legal definition of a terrorist organization. Today, due to its policies toward Hamas, the Obama administration is in breach of both Resolution 1373 - that is, of international law - and of US domestic law barring the provision of support and financing to foreign terrorist organizations.
According to an internal State Department document cited Wednesday bythe Atlas Shrugs Web site, the US has already transferred or is in the process of allocating $300 million dollars to Gaza through USAID and the International Committee of the Red Cross. Since Hamas controls "humanitarian" organizations in Gaza, and Hamas has openly and repeatedly stolen "humanitarian aid," there is little doubt the transfer of funds to Gaza constitutes indirect assistance to Hamas and is therefore prohibited by Resolution 1373 as well as by US statute.
The Obama administration is further in breach of international and domestic US law due to its attempts to coerce Israel into opening international passages between Israel and Gaza to enable trade and commerce with Hamas-controlled Gaza and to end or curtail travel restrictions for people between Gaza and Israel. Resolution 1373 stipulates that all states must "prevent the movement of terrorists or terrorist groups by effective border controls." Given the fact that the Gaza side of the border is controlled by a terrorist organization, any significant relaxation of Israeli border controls puts Israel at risk of facilitating the movement of terrorists and permitting direct and indirect support to terrorists.
So too, Resolution 1373 requires all states to "ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetuation of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice." Yet rather than calling on Israel to arrest all persons working with Hamas and operating in its territory, the US itself pledged $900m. to rebuilding Gaza. Moreover, it is demanding that Israel allow the importation of dual use materials such as cement into Gaza which will enable Hamas to rebuild its infrastructures that were destroyed during Operation Cast Lead. It is also attempting to coerce Israel into transferring cash to Hamas-controlled banks in Gaza.
Then, too, as Dan Diker reported in a study published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, US-supported Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salaam Fayad recently acknowledged that the US-financed PA continues to pay the salaries of Hamas terrorists.
Multiple news reports in recent days have indicated that the Obama administration is working to facilitate the establishment of a Palestinian government that will include Hamas. US efforts to legitimize the incorporation of a terrorist group in a Palestinian government are a severe violation of US and international law. This is the case since it would clearly involve aiding a designated terrorist organization and helping to provide it with a safe haven.
Hamas is not the only terrorist organization to which the Obama administration is providing assistance - again, in apparent breach of international and US law. The administration is also aiding Hizbullah. Ahead of his June 4 address in Cairo, Obama met with members of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood at the White House. He also invited members of the Muslim Brotherhood to be present at his speech at Cairo University.
Shortly before the White House meeting, Egyptian legal authorities alleged that the Muslim Brotherhood provided material support to Hizbullah terrorists in Egypt. These Hizbullah operatives - and their Muslim Brotherhood partners - were allegedly engaged in a plot to commit massive terrorist attacks in Egypt whose goal was the illegal overthrow of the government. That is, the Muslim Brotherhood was allegedly involved in a terrorist conspiracy led by Hizbullah - a designated foreign terrorist organization. Furthermore, the plot was apparently hatched by Iran - which the US State Department has designated as state sponsor of terrorism.
By meeting with representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood suspected of providing material support to a designated terrorist organization, Obama was arguably illegally providing indirect assistance to Hizbullah - again in breach of Resolution 1373 and US law.
Then there is the US's direct assistance to the Lebanese military. During the 2006 war between Israel and Hizbullah, the Lebanese military provided direct assistance to Hizbullah operatives in carrying out their illegal war against Israel. Since then, expanding Hizbullah influence over the Lebanese military has been copiously documented. Consequently, by providing direct US military assistance - including weapons - to the Lebanese military, the US government is arguably in breach of Resolution 1373 and US law.
GOING BACK for a moment to the Palestinians, Hamas of course is not the only terrorist organization that is materially assisted by the Obama administration's policies. As Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook wrote in The Jerusalem Post last month, the US is financing the construction of a Palestinian computer center named for arch Fatah terrorist Dalal Mughrabi, who led the 1978 bus bombing on Israel's coastal highway in which 37 civilians, including 12 children and US citizen Gail Rubin, were murdered.
As Marcus and Crook note, the 2008 US Foreign Operations Bill bars US assistance to the Palestinians from being used "for the purpose of recognizing or otherwise honoring individuals who commit or have committed acts of terrorism."
Obama, the former law professor, never tires of invoking international law. And yet, when one considers his policies toward Israel on the one hand, and his policies toward illegal terrorist organizations on the other, it is clear that Obama's respect for international law is mere rhetoric. True champions of law in both Israel and the US should demand an end to his administration's contempt for the US's actual - rather than imaginary - legal obligations.
caroline@carolineglick.com
Column One: Barack Obama vs international law
Jun. 25, 2009
Caroline Glick ,
THE JERUSALEM POST
US President Barack Obama consistently couches his demand that Israel prohibit Jewish people from constructing or expanding our homes and communities in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria in legal-sounding language.
Obama has called settlements "illegitimate." And he has said that Israel "has obligations under the road map," while referring disparagingly to "settlements that, in past agreements, have been categorized as illegal."
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Obama's Middle East envoy George Mitchell have repeatedly uttered similar statements.
By characterizing its demand that Israel prohibit Jews from building homes in Israel's capital city and its heartland as a legal requirement, the Obama administration portrays Israel as an international outlaw. After all, if building homes for Jews is a crime, and Israel is not prohibiting Jews from building homes, then Israel is at best guilty of enabling a crime to take place, and at worst, it is a criminal state.
It makes good political sense for the Obama administration to make its case against Israel in this fashion. According to a survey of US public opinion published in early 2006 by the Boston Review, whereas only 7 percent of Democrats support going to war to spread democracy - versus 53% of Republicans; 71% of Democrats - versus 36% of Republicans - support going to war to help the United Nations "uphold international law." What this poll shows is that for Obama supporters, the idea that Israel should be treated poorly because it is in breach of international law resonates deeply.
The problem with the Obama administration's characterization of a ban on Jewish building in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria as an Israeli legal obligation is that Israel has never taken upon itself a legal obligation to prohibit such building activities. Israel has never signed an agreement that has characterized any Jewish communities as "illegal."
Moreover, both former prime minister Ariel Sharon's chief of staff Dov Weisglass and former president George W. Bush's deputy national security adviser for the Middle East Elliott Abrams have gone on record stating that Sharon's much vaunted decision to curtail Jewish building in Judea and Samaria (never Jerusalem), in line with the road map negotiating framework, was based on a series of explicit understandings with the Bush administration that spelled out the scope of Jewish building that Israel would maintain for the duration of the peace process. As Abrams wrote on Thursday in The Wall Street Journal, "Not only were there agreements, but the prime minister of Israel relied on them..."
Then, too, since the road map was approved as a mere cabinet decision - as opposed to an international agreement - the Netanyahu government has no legal obligation to actively advance it. Indeed, if it wishes, it can abrogate Israel's acceptance of the document at any time simply by calling for another vote.
More importantly perhaps from the Obama administration's perspective is that the road map itself lacks the force of international law. Although it was adopted by the Security Council, it was not adopted as an internationally binding document under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Consequently, Israel has no international legal obligation to end Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria or Jerusalem.
Like the US, Israel is a signatory to the 1976 International Convention for Civil and Political Rights, which among other things prohibits all forms of discrimination against people on the basis of religion and nationality.
Consequently, Israel is barred from discriminating specifically against Jews who wish to build homes on legally controlled lands in Judea and Samaria. As a binding treaty, this convention takes precedence over the nonbinding road map. Indeed, given the road map's prejudicial position on Jewish building it can be reasonably argued that the road map itself calls for a breach of international law.
Finally, there is always the claim made by Israel's critics that Jewish communities located beyond the 1949 armistice lines are illegal by dint of the Fourth Geneva Convention from 1949. That convention prohibits an occupying power from transferring parts of its population to occupied territory. Legal authorities have long disputed whether this convention is applicable to Judea and Samaria, but even if it is applicable, according to Prof. Avi Bell from Bar-Ilan University Law School, it "only proscribes state actions."
Bell explains, "The Fourth Geneva Convention does not purport to limit in any way what individual Jews may or may not do on their legally held property or where they may or may not choose to live."
WHEREAS UPON examination it is clear that the Obama administration is wrong in insinuating that Israel is in breach of its international legal commitments through its refusal to bar Jewish construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, the Obama administration's own policy toward the Palestinians places it in clear breach of both binding international law and domestic US law.
On September 28, 2001, the UN Security Council passed binding Resolution 1373. Resolution 1373, which was initiated by the US government, and was passed by authority of Chapter VII, committed all UN member states to "refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts." Resolution 1373 further required UN member states to "deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts or provide safe haven" to those that do.
In 1995, the US State Department acknowledged that Hamas fits the legal definition of a terrorist organization. Today, due to its policies toward Hamas, the Obama administration is in breach of both Resolution 1373 - that is, of international law - and of US domestic law barring the provision of support and financing to foreign terrorist organizations.
According to an internal State Department document cited Wednesday bythe Atlas Shrugs Web site, the US has already transferred or is in the process of allocating $300 million dollars to Gaza through USAID and the International Committee of the Red Cross. Since Hamas controls "humanitarian" organizations in Gaza, and Hamas has openly and repeatedly stolen "humanitarian aid," there is little doubt the transfer of funds to Gaza constitutes indirect assistance to Hamas and is therefore prohibited by Resolution 1373 as well as by US statute.
The Obama administration is further in breach of international and domestic US law due to its attempts to coerce Israel into opening international passages between Israel and Gaza to enable trade and commerce with Hamas-controlled Gaza and to end or curtail travel restrictions for people between Gaza and Israel. Resolution 1373 stipulates that all states must "prevent the movement of terrorists or terrorist groups by effective border controls." Given the fact that the Gaza side of the border is controlled by a terrorist organization, any significant relaxation of Israeli border controls puts Israel at risk of facilitating the movement of terrorists and permitting direct and indirect support to terrorists.
So too, Resolution 1373 requires all states to "ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetuation of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice." Yet rather than calling on Israel to arrest all persons working with Hamas and operating in its territory, the US itself pledged $900m. to rebuilding Gaza. Moreover, it is demanding that Israel allow the importation of dual use materials such as cement into Gaza which will enable Hamas to rebuild its infrastructures that were destroyed during Operation Cast Lead. It is also attempting to coerce Israel into transferring cash to Hamas-controlled banks in Gaza.
Then, too, as Dan Diker reported in a study published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, US-supported Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salaam Fayad recently acknowledged that the US-financed PA continues to pay the salaries of Hamas terrorists.
Multiple news reports in recent days have indicated that the Obama administration is working to facilitate the establishment of a Palestinian government that will include Hamas. US efforts to legitimize the incorporation of a terrorist group in a Palestinian government are a severe violation of US and international law. This is the case since it would clearly involve aiding a designated terrorist organization and helping to provide it with a safe haven.
Hamas is not the only terrorist organization to which the Obama administration is providing assistance - again, in apparent breach of international and US law. The administration is also aiding Hizbullah. Ahead of his June 4 address in Cairo, Obama met with members of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood at the White House. He also invited members of the Muslim Brotherhood to be present at his speech at Cairo University.
Shortly before the White House meeting, Egyptian legal authorities alleged that the Muslim Brotherhood provided material support to Hizbullah terrorists in Egypt. These Hizbullah operatives - and their Muslim Brotherhood partners - were allegedly engaged in a plot to commit massive terrorist attacks in Egypt whose goal was the illegal overthrow of the government. That is, the Muslim Brotherhood was allegedly involved in a terrorist conspiracy led by Hizbullah - a designated foreign terrorist organization. Furthermore, the plot was apparently hatched by Iran - which the US State Department has designated as state sponsor of terrorism.
By meeting with representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood suspected of providing material support to a designated terrorist organization, Obama was arguably illegally providing indirect assistance to Hizbullah - again in breach of Resolution 1373 and US law.
Then there is the US's direct assistance to the Lebanese military. During the 2006 war between Israel and Hizbullah, the Lebanese military provided direct assistance to Hizbullah operatives in carrying out their illegal war against Israel. Since then, expanding Hizbullah influence over the Lebanese military has been copiously documented. Consequently, by providing direct US military assistance - including weapons - to the Lebanese military, the US government is arguably in breach of Resolution 1373 and US law.
GOING BACK for a moment to the Palestinians, Hamas of course is not the only terrorist organization that is materially assisted by the Obama administration's policies. As Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook wrote in The Jerusalem Post last month, the US is financing the construction of a Palestinian computer center named for arch Fatah terrorist Dalal Mughrabi, who led the 1978 bus bombing on Israel's coastal highway in which 37 civilians, including 12 children and US citizen Gail Rubin, were murdered.
As Marcus and Crook note, the 2008 US Foreign Operations Bill bars US assistance to the Palestinians from being used "for the purpose of recognizing or otherwise honoring individuals who commit or have committed acts of terrorism."
Obama, the former law professor, never tires of invoking international law. And yet, when one considers his policies toward Israel on the one hand, and his policies toward illegal terrorist organizations on the other, it is clear that Obama's respect for international law is mere rhetoric. True champions of law in both Israel and the US should demand an end to his administration's contempt for the US's actual - rather than imaginary - legal obligations.
caroline@carolineglick.com
taken from B'NAI ELIM (Sons of the Mighty)
Jewish Defence League in the News
Jewish Defence League in the News
Toronto Star June 30, 2009
Jun 30, 2009 07:05 AM
Comments on this story 
(1)
(1) I hesitated whether to accept the invitation to participate in the conference at York University on "Models of Statehood in Israel/Palestine."
Such conferences, even when organized with goodwill, are frequently hijacked and become anti-Israeli events. However, the dilemma is always whether to leave the floor only to the most extreme and one-sided views, or to try to bring a different voice, one that attempts to display the complexity of the situation and presents a perspective that would not be presented if one were to stay away.
Reaction to the pressure put on the conference and the Jewish Defense League's (JDL) activity against it, and the desire to present such a voice seemed good reasons to take part, and not to surrender to attempts to silence debate and curb academic freedom.
Although the extreme manner in which they were presented was sometimes hard to hear, I was not surprised by the same Palestinian arguments that have been around for decades.
Thus, we heard that Israel is a racist, apartheid state; that the Palestinians are the "indigenous" and Zionists the colonials; that the only reason for the unwillingness of Jewish Israelis to give up a Jewish national state is their unwillingness to surrender power and privileges; and that Zionism has an inherent tendency toward war crimes.
Unfortunately, this was not accompanied with introspection or self-criticism by the Palestinians. Hamas was not mentioned at all. Apparently it does not exist in the virtual map of the Palestinian participants. Another "marginal" phenomenon that disappeared as if it did not exist is the lethal Palestinian terror against Israeli citizens.
But if all this was quite an expected scenario, not in my worst dreams did I imagine an atmosphere that was totally incompatible with academic discourse. The university rightly resisted outside pressures aimed at silencing the conference. But there were attempts at the conference itself to silence unpopular views.
A hostile atmosphere toward people with different views generally, and Jewish-Zionist Israelis in particular, was created. Anyone who challenged the Palestinian perspective was intimidated or even labelled a racist. The audience vocally applauded those whose views it approved. At times, those presenting a different view were subject to abuse and ridicule.
For me, this reached an extreme when one interlocutor, rather than debating the substantive arguments I presented, questioned my psychological state. And all of this without any apparent attempt by the organizers to stop it. Never before in my whole academic career have I encountered the rudeness that I experienced at this conference.
Academic discourse implies in-depth analysis of issues, even loaded ones, theorizing and making well-based arguments. Reasoned criticism is a first-degree instrument for the advancement of academic knowledge. Ad-hominem offence and the silencing of unpopular views are its antithesis. If one has good arguments, one doesn't need to resort to such tactics. As an Israeli politician once reputedly wrote on the side of his written text: "Here the argument is weak, raise your voice."
After my presentation, people approached me to thank me for presenting an alternative view. They admitted that in the prevailing atmosphere they were deterred from stepping forward and expressing a different voice. This is a disgrace for the academic host of this conference. I'd very much want to believe that the organizers were only naive. It's more difficult to accept that there was no agenda, explicit or hidden, to this conference
The Palestinians' pain and rage are understandable. But what happened at York University reflects a worrying, dangerous and, unfortunately, not uncommon pattern. Persons who demand the protection of human rights abandon them and display little tolerance for the views of others when they have the power to marginalize them. This provides food for thought. Surely such tolerance would be a sine qua non in the liberal democratic state that many participants in the conference purport to support.
The universities that sponsored this conference should give themselves an accounting. While the JDL demonstrated outside the campus, a pro-Palestinian demonstration took place inside the conference itself, from the floor, under an academic disguise.
This was not an academic conference, but an "academic" version of Durban.
Na'ama Carmi teaches at the faculty of law of Haifa University, Israel
taken from B'NAI ELIM (Sons of the Mighty)
ESSER AGAROTH - Migron: C'mon! Are You Really Surprised?!
Migron: C'mon! Are You Really Surprised?!
7 of the Fourth Month 5769
I predicted a year and a half ago that Migron residents will strike a deal with the government, and get up and abandon their homes. Even though, the YeSh"A (Judea, Samaria & Gaza) Council adamantly denied it at the time.
Now, maybe people will stop thinking that I am a crazy conspiracy theorist, and start believing me.
Activists to Migron Residents: Don’t Fall into the Trap
Hillel Fendel, 7 Tammuz 5769/June 29, 2009
(IsraelNN.com) Migron residents are asked to resist the government's offer of houses in a bigger town. "Placing us in ghettos will make it easier for them to destroy us," activists tell them.
...The Defense Ministry announced on Monday that it would build 50 new houses in the growing city of Adam for the Migron families. Migron is a hilltop neighborhood officially considered unauthorized – largely because of the lack of Defense Minister Barak’s signature of approval, as well as because of a lawsuit filed by Arab residents – sought out by Peace Now – on part of the land.
The news article does not contain any response, nor state of any kind, from Migron residents, nor Rabbi Tzvi Tau, the Rosh Yeshivath Har HaMor, and spiritual leader of many of Migron's residents.
Read All at :
ESSER AGAROTH - Migron: C'mon! Are You Really Surprised?!
ESSER AGAROTH - Israel: Rise of the Right (Updated)
Israel: Rise of the Right (Updated)
7 of the Fourth Month 5769
Tonight, a couple of friends began alerting me about a film just released by Ilan Mizrahi, "Israel: Rise of the Right."
(AlJazeeraEnglish YouTube) Ilan Mizrahi has spent 16 years photographing and filming right wing Israeli settlers in the West Bank city of Hebron. His film, Israel: Rise of the Right, looks at the followers of Rabbi Meir Kahane, an American-born rabbi and politician who proposed the mass expulsion of Arabs from Israel before he was assassinated in 1990.
(AlJazeeraEnglish YouTube) Ilan Mizrahi has spent 16 years photographing and filming right wing Israeli settlers in the West Bank city of Hebron. His film, Israel: Rise of the Right, looks at the followers of Rabbi Meir Kahane, an American-born rabbi and politician who proposed the mass expulsion of Arabs from Israel before he was assassinated in 1990.
I immediately began asking around who this guy was, whether it was a hack job, or worth watching because [as has been said in Rabbi Binyamin Kahane's HY"D name] "We want everyone to think we are crazy. Then maybe they will leave us alone."
The answer I got from my friend, political activist, the "Kalashnikover Rebbe" was quite surprising:
There are a few facts wrong here and there, but it wasn't biased at all, shockingly so. He focused all on Baruch Marzel and Itamar Ben-Gvir. He did not acknowledge the other factions and Kahanists, but not to anyone's detriment.
Ilan Mizrahi has even given over footage which served to exonerate Jews in court. So, so it is clear he is not out to get us.
I think it was a nice job. He filmed us for years. He has even become a "part of the community," and a regular presence at all our "events."
There are a few facts wrong here and there, but it wasn't biased at all, shockingly so. He focused all on Baruch Marzel and Itamar Ben-Gvir. He did not acknowledge the other factions and Kahanists, but not to anyone's detriment.
Ilan Mizrahi has even given over footage which served to exonerate Jews in court. So, so it is clear he is not out to get us.
I think it was a nice job. He filmed us for years. He has even become a "part of the community," and a regular presence at all our "events."
The four parts of the film are embedded below, together totaling 46 minutes. The film is mostly in Hebrew with English subtitles, with narration in English. When I finish the entire series, I will issue an update with synopses and commentary.
In the meantime, whether you are religious or secular, right or left-identified, check it out, and judge for yourselves.
See All at :
ESSER AGAROTH - Israel: Rise of the Right (Updated)
Who gave instructions to York University's Legal Council to ban the JDL from campus? Did the Board of Directors of York University agree with the ban
Who gave instructions to York University's Legal Council to ban the JDL from campus? Did the Board of Directors of York University agree with the ban
Who supports Pro-Israel Advocates on Campus?
Who does NOT support Pro Israel Advocates?Please scroll down the list of York Foundation Board Members:
http://www.yorku.ca/foundatn/about_bod.html
Who does NOT support Pro Israel Advocates?Please scroll down the list of York Foundation Board Members:
http://www.yorku.ca/founda
Write and ask them why they continue to support York University?
Write and ask them how they could permit *non*academics to speak on campus to promote the destruction of Israel and our Jewish people.
Write and ask them about the ban on the Jewish Defence League.
Write and explain to this Foundation Board Member why "these issues" should not be discussed on campuses.
http://www.thestar.com/com
...On June 5, Marshall Cohen, chair of the board of governors... "These issues are discussed on a daily basis in all parts of the world, especially in the Middle East, including Israel. There is no reason why they should not be discussed at a university in Canada."
==========================
Statement by B'nai Brith about the Conference @ York U
==========================
YORK UNIVERSITY CONFERENCE LIVES UP TO ANTI-ISRAEL EXPECTATIONS
Anti-Israel propagandists were out in force this week participating in a June 22-24, 2009 conference convened and sponsored by York University titled, “Israel/Palestine: Mapping Models of Statehood and Paths to Peace”. B’nai Brith Canada from the outset raised concerns surrounding this conference, issuing alerts to Jewish community members to expose what promised to be a blatant exercise in anti-Zionist propaganda. The Jewish human rights organization also mounted a national media campaign, which included Canada-wide ads in the National Post to draw attention to York University ’s failure to provide balanced intellectual debate, and to ensure a welcoming and secure environment for all students.
The conference indeed delivered on its expected anti-Israel potential. Its overall tenor was one of open antagonism towards Israel and hostility towards those participants who dared to articulate even remotely sympathetic comments about the Jewish State.
Recurring themes that took center stage at the conference consisted of the usual canards:
· The libel that Israel is an apartheid state and a perpetrator of genocide.
· That the Jewish State is an illegal racist construct – an outrageous claim akin to Zionism=Racism, which smacks of antisemitism.
· Questions surrounding whether the Jewish State has a right to exist – a central tenet echoed repeatedly throughout the conference.
· Musings on whether Jews constituted a “people” who could then claim the right to self-determination – a right accorded to all other peoples in the world.
· Pontifications that Israel qualified as a “rogue” state, and therefore should not be recognized as a sovereign nation.
Tensions were palpable – both inside the conference sessions and outside where crowds mingled. Particularly vociferous were the question and answer periods where organizers were ineffective in controlling the hecklers and anti-Israel agitators who held court. Abuse was hurled by participants at those who voiced any sympathy towards Israel . Particularly problematic was the hostility faced by the Israeli academics at this conference, a number of whom expressed concerns about the antagonism they personally endured. “Check your white privilege before you talk down to me,” was a racist slur heard on more than one occasion on the conference floor.
Contributing to the overall hostile environment were items displayed for sale. Amongst them was the notorious film, Route 181, whose claim to fame is its widespread use by anti-Israel propagandists to cast doubt on the legitimacy of Israel ’s very existence. This film in fact was screened at the opening of the conference, setting the overall tone and foretelling its outcome.
We note with concern the determined exclusion of media by conference organizers, a peculiar practice in light of the fact that the conference was heralded as “an exercise of academic debate” and model for “free speech”. We learned from the Jewish Tribune, which was refused entry, that no journalist would be allowed to register. Meanwhile, at the registration table in plain view was a badge in the name of Toronto Star columnist Haroon Siddiqui. While Mr. Siddiqui in the end did not attend, conference organizers apparently had been prepared to admit him.
Below are some notable statements by speakers and audience members reflecting the overall anti-Israel climate of this conference. Note: These statements are not verbatim quotes, but paraphrase the remarks of speakers and audience members as closely as possible.
WISHFUL INDULGENCES … TEACHING ISRAEL A LESSON
I can’t wish a catastrophe on Israel to teach it a lesson it won’t teach itself, because it would also engulf Palestine and the surrounding Arab states. --Marc H. Ellis, conference speaker
CHALLENGING JEWISH HISTORY
The mythology that the Jews were expelled 2000 years ago, even if true, does not give claim to the land... Anyhow, the claim of expulsion by the Romans is the topic of scholarly debate. --Omar Barghouti, conference speaker
ISRAEL AS AN ILLEGAL ENTITY
If you kill them all [Palestinians] rather than displace them, you can declare yourself a majority for the purposes of autonomy. --Anti-Israel agitator who was cheered on by audience members
REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE THE JEWISH PEOPLE’S RIGHT TO STATEHOOD
The Jewish right of self-determination is highly disputable. --Jeff Handmaker, conference speaker
THE VEIL OF ACADEMIA EXPOSED
There is a violent conflict that has been going on for sixty years. There has been silence about this in this conference, and there has been no sense of any responsibility for the conflict from the Palestinian side. --Na’ama Carmi, conference speaker from Haifa University who was subjected to particularly vicious attacks from audience members regarding what was construed as her pro-Israel remarks
I’m a clinical psychologist and I’d like to hear how you come to reconcile yourself to your belief system that distorts international refugee law that way. --Conference participant questioning Carmi’s mental state
This is an academic conference, or, at least, it should be. --Na’ama Carmi responding to the onslaught of attacks that she faced in question period
There is lots of room to criticize Palestinian action, which I admit has not been dealt with in this conference. --Hazem Jamjoum, conference speaker
The lack of respect was difficult, and also had a personal tone to it. --Dorit Na’aman, conference speaker and member of the International Advisory Board
CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATIONS
From the moment this conference was announced, B’nai Brith Canada has raised concerns about what was clearly shaping up to be an exercise in anti-Israel propaganda. A hostile climate towards Jewish students at York University has been allowed to take root, as anti-Israel activity continues to intensify. The endorsement by York University of this conference has only made the situation worse and reinforces students’ worst fears as a new academic year approaches.
Amongst B’nai Brith Canada ’s recommendations to York University are:
The University should immediately declare itself a hate-free zone
Israel Apartheid Week and conferences that question the Jewish State’s right to exist should not be allowed on campus
The University should enforce the prohibition against unauthorized demonstrations by anti-Israel agitators
B'nai Brith Canada has been active in Canada since 1875 as the foremost Jewish human rights organization. To learn more about its advocacy work and diverse community and social programs, please visit http://www.bnaibrith.ca.
"Crisis on Canadian Campuses"
Article:
http://lumpygrumpyandfrump
Article:
http://lumpygrumpyandfrump
Video:
http://lumpygrumpyandfrump
…………………………………………………………………
June 22, 23 and 24th Protest @ York
Article:
http://lumpygrumpyandfrump
photos of Protest @ York:
http://lumpygrumpyandfrump
taken from B'NAI ELIM (Sons of the Mighty)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
