Israelated - English Israel blogs

"Israelated - English Israel blogs" - 24 new articles The Saudi Initiative :: FresnoZionism.org OBAMA Rehires Adviser Who Called for Invasion of Israel :: Yid With Lid American Muslim Blames US and British Foriegn Policy For India Terror :: Yid With Lid Does Murdoch HATE O'Reilly ? :: Yid With Lid What Israeli and American Jews don't get :: ZioNation: Progressive Zionism and Israel Happy Palestine Day :: ZioNation: Progressive Zionism and Israel Targets of opportunity :: Gentile Warrior Birenzweig in Nylon Magazine :: The Milk & Honey Blog What's a Jew to do? :: Jewschool Last pre-Sabbath update from Chabad House in Mumbai - VIDEO ADDED :: Israel Matzav Shabba"k Encounter Update :: Esser Agaroth Mumbai :: RADARSITE Israel and the Palestinians: A New Strategy, by Moshe Yaalon :: CIC Scene Why? :: RADARSITE What did I miss? :: Gentile Warrior Creative Gifts for the Holiday Season :: Green Prophet Pre-Sabbath link dump :: Israel Matzav Video: 'Good' terrorist from Fatah blows up in a 'work accident' :: Israel Matzav A Minyan Enters Tehran :: Jewschool And Now For Some Good News :: Israellycool California Revs Up For Israel's Shai Agassi And A $1 Billion Electric Car Scheme :: Green Prophet Lessons from Bereshis :: APRPEH The Golden Key: Those Illusive Moderate Muslims :: RADARSITE Latest Updates from Chabad House Attack :: Mystical Paths More Recent Articles Search Israelated - English Israel blogs The Saudi Initiative :: FresnoZionism.org Read this article on the community site What's so wrong with the 'Saudi initiative' (more correctly, the Arab League initiative)? Couldn't issues like the 'return' of descendants of Arab refugees be negotiated into return to the Palestinian state and compensation? After all, it does represent a breakthrough in that for the first time the Saudis seem to be saying that under some circumstances they would recognize Israel. Caroline Glick hints at the problem in her latest piece, when she writes, With his enthusiastic embrace of the so-called Saudi peace plan, Olmert is committing Israel to accepting the Arab narrative of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Saudi plan is predicated on the wholly mendacious claim that there has never been any Arab aggression against Israel - only Israeli aggression against Arabs and legitimate Arab resistance to Israel. With Olmert now giving his stamp of approval to the Saudi plan, he is denying the country its moral right to defend itself both militarily and diplomatically. Leaving Olmert aside (how wonderful if this were possible in more than rhetoric!),  her point is well taken. The text of the Arab League approved version of the initiative and the original Saudi version can be found here: "The Arab Peace Initiative". There are several reasons that Glick is correct. Consider the introduction and point 1 of the proposal: Reaffirming the resolution taken in June 1996 at the Cairo Extra-Ordinary Arab Summit that a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East is the strategic option of the Arab countries, to be achieved in accordance with international legality, and which would require a comparable commitment on the part of the Israeli government [introduction] [The Council of Arab States] requests Israel to reconsider its policies and declare that a just peace is its strategic option as well. [point 1, my emphasis] In other words,  the Arab states have chosen the 'strategic option' of  seeking peace through (their interpretations of) relevant UN resolutions, but Israel has not and must 'reconsider'. The second point describes the concrete steps that Israel must take — indeed, as the proposal has been presented by the Arabs, must complete — before the Arabs will take action: I- Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.  [note that this includes all of East Jerusalem — ed] II- Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194. [This has always been interpreted by the Arabs to mean that all 4-5 million Arabs claiming refugee status have a right to choose between compensation or 'returning' to Israel proper — ed] III- The acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital. And here is the third point: Consequently, the Arab countries affirm the following: I- Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region. II- Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace. The third point begins with the word 'Consequently', and the Arabs have made it clear that it is to be understood in a temporal as well as a logical sense — "after the above Israeli actions and as a result of them". Before discussing the content of the third point, let's look at the implications of this. One would expect in a compromise made between equals that steps would be taken by both sides simultaneously, or perhaps with each side making a concession in turn. This gives the impression that neither side is admitting that its present position is untenable, but rather that they are moving together in a cooperative fashion. It also has the practical effect of enabling either side to stop the process if it feels that the other is not living up to its commitments. But the Arab initiative is exactly the opposite. Israel is required to make all the concessions before the Arab states must do anything. This is reasonable only if we understand the first part — in which Israel must "reconsider its policies" as follows: Israel admits that her policies were wrong and agrees to redress the injustices. Then, and only then, will the Arab states grant 'peace' (we'll discuss what this might be later). So what exactly is Israel asked to redress? By full withdrawal with no adjustments or compromises, Israel admits that the 1967 war was a war of aggression by Israel against the Arabs. By 'return' or compensation of  'refugees' Israel accepts that the consequences of the 1948 war are her responsibility. Everyone agrees that if the 'refugees' were allowed into Israel it would be the end of the Jewish state. But it's also true that accepting responsibility for the refugees — even if not one 'returns' — is an admission of guilt. So Israel is expected to admit her guilt and sole responsibility for the conflict, and give up everything concrete — land, and possibly even her nation itself. As Glick points out, Arab war and terrorism against Israel are therefore excused because they constitute morally and legally (by the Arabs' interpretations of UN resolutions) justified resistance against an aggressor. Now let's look at what Israel gets, assuming that there still is an Israel after the implementation of point 2. The conflict will be 'ended' — there will be no more fighting. There will be 'normal relations'. The Arabs will 'provide security' for all states in the region. There is no mention of recognition, even less recognition as a Jewish state. Will Israel even have a role in 'providing security' for herself? This is a surrender, not a treaty between equals. The Arab nations have lost every war they fought against Israel and have had the West save them from suffering the consequences of defeat time and again. Yet they try to dictate terms of surrender as though they had been victorious! What arrogance and chutzpah! But some say that regardless of all this, Israel should take the proposal seriously, at least as a starting point for negotiations. After all, it is the first time the Arabs — in particular the Saudis –have admitted that under some conditions they will live at peace with Israel. This reminds me of a joke: a man proposes marriage to a woman, who responds "sure, if you cut off your head first." So the man goes home and tells his mother, "she hasn't accepted yet but we have a starting point for negotiations. There are some conditions under which she'll marry me." The only form of this initiative that Israel should be prepared to  use as a basis of negotiations should be one turned upside down. Something like this: Whereas the Arab nations recognize that the state of Israel is fully legitimate and entitled to define itself as a Jewish state for the Jewish people, they agree to end the conflict. In return, insofar as the Arabs, Iranians and their proxies will prove that they have actually renounced war and terrorism, Israel will negotiate a two-state solution with the Palestinians — those who accept the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state. Technorati Tags: Israel, Arab peace initiative, Saudi initiative • Email to a friend • Article Search • Related • OBAMA Rehires Adviser Who Called for Invasion of Israel :: Yid With Lid Read this article on the community site Here is a fun little Item from the Jerusalem Post: State Departmentofficials said Friday that Samantha Power is among foreign policy experts the president-elect's office selected to help the incoming administration prepare for Clinton's anticipated nomination as secretary of state. The Obama transition team's Web site includes Power's name as one of 14 members of the "Agency Review Team" for the State Department. During the Democratic primary campaign, Power called Clinton "a monster" in an interview. She then resigned, calling her remarks inexcusable and contradictory to her admiration for Clinton. For those 77% of American Jews who voted for Obama, Here is a little bit more about Ms. Power just in case your head is still in the sand: Over the Jewish Holiday a friend of mine vehemently tried to prove that Senator Obama was a friend of Israel. His statement was,"no matter who wins they can't be worse for Israel than Ehud Olmert" While I agree that Olmert was not good for his homeland, Senator Barack Obama would be a Horror for our number one ally in the middle-east. Look,if you are the type that will vote for the liberal candidate no matter what--go ahead--but please don't give me any more of that load of cow dung that Obama will be good for Israel. That belies the truth. How do I know for Sure? Take a look at his advisers. Samantha Power, for example is thought to be a key foreign policy adviser in any Obama administration in the video above you can see her accuse Israel of human rights violations and suggest that the US SHOULD SEND IN TROOPS TO IMPOSE A SOLUTION ON ISRAEL. She also hints that the US's foriegn policy is imposed on the country by "one large voting bloc" (the Joowze maybe?) The Video is from 2002 when she sat for an interview with Harry Kreisler, the director of the Institute for International Studies at Berkeley. Kreisler asked her the following question: Let me give you a thought experiment here, and it is the following: without addressing the Palestine - Israel problem, let's say you were an advisor to the President of the United States, how would you respond to current events there? Would you advise him to put a structure in place to monitor that situation, at least if one party or another [starts] looking like they might be moving toward genocide? Power respons is her advice to the President would be to 1) "Alienate" the American Jewish community, and indeed all Americans, such as evangelical Christians, who support the state of Israel, because 2) Israeli leaders are "destroying the lives of their own people." 3) Pour billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money into "the new state of Palestine"; 4) Stage an American ground invasion of Israel and the Palestinian territories — what else can she mean by a "mammoth protection force" and a "military presence" that will be "imposed" by "external intervention"? — in order to do the exact same thing that she considers the height of arrogance and foolishness in Iraq: an American campaign to remake an Arab society; 5) and Ariel Sharon and Yassir Arafat were on the same moral level: What we don't need is some kind of early warning mechanism there, what we need is a willingness to put something on the line in helping the situation. Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing — or investing, I think, more than sacrificing — billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel's military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence. Because it seems to me at this stage (and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses, which were seen there), you have to go in as if you're serious, you have to put something on the line. Unfortunately, imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful. It's a terrible thing to do, it's fundamentally undemocratic. But, sadly, we don't just have a democracy here either, we have a liberal democracy. There are certain sets of principles that guide our policy, or that are meant to, anyway. It's essential that some set of principles becomes the benchmark, rather than a deference to [leaders] who are fundamentally politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people. And by that I mean what Tom Freidman has called "Sharafat." [Sharon-Arafat; this is actually an Amos Oz construction — NP] I do think in that sense, both political leaders have been dreadfully irresponsible. And, unfortunately, it does require external intervention. But it gets better Power is an advocate of the anti-Semitic view of forign policy made famous by professors Walt and Mearsheimer Power is an advocate of the Walt-Mearsheimer view of the American relationship with Israel. In a recent interview published on the Harvard Kennedy School's website, Power was asked to explain "long-standing structural and conceptual problems in U.S. foreign policy." She gave a two-part answer: the first problem, she said, is "the US historic predisposition to go it alone." A standard reply, of course. The second problem, though, should give us pause: Another longstanding foreign policy flaw is the degree to which special interests dictate the way in which the "national interest" as a whole is defined and pursued . . . America's important historic relationship with Israel has often led foreign policy decision-makers to defer reflexively to Israeli security assessments, and to replicate Israeli tactics, which, as the war in Lebanon last summer demonstrated, can turn out to be counter-productive. Power is not just assenting to the Israel Lobby view of American foreign policy, but is also arguing that Israel had something to do with the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq in 2003–an appalling slander, and a telling one. Also of note is a recent opinion piece Power wrote for TIME magazine, titled "Rethinking Iran," the thrust of which rethinking involves the need to engage diplomatically the mullahs and pretend that the Iranian nuclear program is a figment of the paranoid imagination of the Bush administration. She writes: The war scare that wasn't [the recent incident between Iranian speedboats and the U.S. Navy in the Straight of Hormuz] stands as a metaphor for the incoherence of our policy toward Iran: the Bush Administration attempts to gin up international outrage by making a claim of imminent danger, only to be met with international eye rolling when the claim is disproved. Sound familiar? The speedboat episode bore an uncanny resemblance to the Administration's allegations about the advanced state of Iran's weapons program–allegations refuted in December by the National Intelligence Estimate. Does anyone think that if the time comes that Power has President Obama's ear, she will advise him to do anything other than repudiate America's greatest ally in the Middle East in favor of appeasing its greatest enemy? And here's an even better question: Does Barack Obama have a single adviser who would tell him to do anything else? One day later Pollak followed up with more information: Note that this wasn't her response to a question about her personal views of the conflict, or about what she envisions might be a utopian solution to the conflict; it was a response to a question about what she would tell the President of the United States if she was his adviser. Yesterday Barak Obama took a large stride toward the presidency–helped in some small measure by the speeches on behalf of the Obama campaign that Power has delivered–and it is time that someone asked him, while he is still a candidate, what he thinks of the perverse things his many foreign policy advisers have said about Israel and the Middle East. Martin Kramer points us to an interesting quote from the 2003 book Ethnic Violence and Justice, in which Samantha Power, one of Barack Obama's foreign policy advisers, asks a question of David Rohde, a reporter who covered the intifada for the New York Times. The quote is as follows: Samantha Power: I have a question for David about working for the New York Times. I was struck by a headline that accompanied a news story on the publication of the Human Rights Watch report. The headline was, I believe: "Human Rights Report Finds Massacre Did Not Occur in Jenin." The second paragraph said, "Oh, but lots of war crimes did." Why wouldn't they make the war crimes the headline and the non-massacre the second paragraph? (The article to which Power refers is here, and its headline is: "MIDEAST TURMOIL: INQUIRY; Rights Group Doubts Mass Deaths in Jenin, but Sees Signs of War Crimes." Obviously, Power has misremembered the headline.) Here we have another window into the thinking of Power: Israel is accused in sensational press reports of a massacre in Jenin, and is subjected to severe international condemnation; HRW finally gets out a report and says there was no massacre; the NYT reports this as its headline; and Power thinks the headline still should have been: Israel guilty of war crimes! sources for the above Commentary here and Here Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list.Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com • Email to a friend • Related • American Muslim Blames US and British Foriegn Policy For India Terror :: Yid With Lid Read this article on the community site Yousef al-Khattab operates an Islamofacist hate site that promotes Jihad and celebrates US Soldiers deaths in Iraq. Born Joseph Cohen, al-Khattab is an American-born ex-Jew who converted to Islam after attending an Orthodox Rabbinical school. Unfortunately Joey Cohen's hosting service Lotosus Hosting probably doesn't have an acceptable use policy, because his hate site is still up. Whacko Joey's hate side has included: — The Statue of Liberty, with an ax blade cutting through her side; — Video mocking the beheading of American journalist Daniel Pearl, entitled "Daniel Pearl I am Happy Your Dead :) "; — Video of a puppet show lampooning U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq; — The latest speech from Sheikh Abdullah Faisal, an extremist Muslim cleric convicted in the UK and later deported for soliciting the murder of non-Muslims. Today on his hate site Joey the hater takes on the horrible terrorist attack in India. He says the attack was Punishment For The USA and Britain's Foreign Policies. And just as bad, are some of the comments by Muslims who watched the commentary on his website. Keep spreading the hate against Americans...for we are God's children, we will unite with those that you have harmed and enslaved, you will be defeated by GOD AND HIS WORD. Read the Bible find the missing chapters. They have all lied to us. We are smart and have seen that the Lord did provide a plan for us. You must already know your fate and that is why you guard your filfthy souls and secrets and societies from God's people. You have come to the end of the free ride on our backs and lives. Before attacking Americans or any person on God....look up the statistics of how many guns we own or are purchasing by the millions now. We won't have to literally cut off your heads....just knowing what we can do to defend our own and God's people...will stop you in your tracks. Repent now or drown in a lake of fire. It was pleasantly refreshing to hear they targeted Chabad Lubavitch. Allah will destroy His enemies wherever they are in the world. You will know when the Muslims have ignited in an insurrection when there is blood on the streets of London and New York like there is blood on the streets of Fallujah (and Mumbai). There is nowhere they can hide from the wrath of Allah and His soldiers. The crimes of the kuffaar are coming back to haunt them. its chicken come home to roose I can't find any other explanation to it...They have no where to hide from the wrath of Allah for their crimes against humanity in general and against muslims in particular. Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list.Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com • Email to a friend • Related • Does Murdoch HATE O'Reilly ? :: Yid With Lid Read this article on the community site WHATTAYAKNOW ! According to a new book about NewsCorp owner Rupert Murdoch, the real King of All Media (or the owner of most media), is not a big fan of the "no spin zone" Bill O' Reilly. As a matter of fact in Murdoch's most favorite list, O Reilly is near the bottom, right below root canal without anesthesia and above loosing advertising revenue. The Network head, Roger Ailes agrees with his boss. The only thing keeping the Zone spinning is the fact that the show is the highest rated show on Cable News. Read the full report below: Wolff: Murdoch 'absolutely despises' O'Reilly by Michael Calderone In Michael Wolff's forthcoming biography of Rupert Murdoch, "The Man Who Owns The News," the author writes that the media mogul has seemed to turn away lately from his cable news network, and isn't fond its top-rated personality, Bill O'Reilly. "It is not just Murdoch (and everybody else at News Corp.'s highest levels) who absolutely despises Bill O'Reilly, the bullying, mean-spirited, and hugely successful evening commentator," Wolff wrote, "but [Fox News chief executive] Roger Ailes himself who loathes him. Success, however, has cemented everyone to each other." "The embarrassment can no longer be missed," Wolff wrote, in another section of the book. "He mumbles even more than usual when called on to justify it. He barely pretends to hide the way he feels about Bill O'Reilly. And while it is not that he would give Fox up—because the money is the money; success trumps all—in the larger sense of who he is, he seems to want to hedge his bets." Wolff describes Murdoch as not wanting News Corp. to be defined by Fox News. And so last year's purchase of the Wall Street Journal, he wrote, "was in no small way about wanting to trade the illiberal—the belligerent, the vulgar, the loud, the menacing the unsubtle—for the better-heeled, the more magnanimous, the further nuanced." Politico obtained a copy of Wolff's book, to be released Tuesday, under an agreement not to publish its contents before today. Two excerpts ran in Vanity Fair, and Murdoch already raised objections to the characterization of his relationship with Fox News, according to the NY Times. (Murdoch's son-in-law, the London PR executive Matthew Freud, obtained a copy and passed it along to him). Murdoch has never strayed from his free-market beliefs, but his exact political views have always been difficult to pin down. Among those politicians he's backed through the years: Thatcher, Reagan, Blair, Koch, and McCain. Political circumstances, and how Murdoch can wield the most power, typically determine where his papers' allegiances fall. While Murdoch is best described as conservative, he's never been a true believer who's willing to forsake business interests for ideology. Wolff also ponders if Murdoch is becoming more liberal, perhaps as a result of his wife, Wendi, who attended Obama fundraisers, and his daughter Elisabeth, who threw one in London. Generally, Wolff describes the Murdoch children, and heirs to the empire, as "limousine liberals." It's for that reason that some thought Murdoch's New York Post might endorse Obama in the general election. Indeed, the Post endorsed Obama over Hillary Clinton in the New York primary, and Murdoch wanted the President-elect to know it. Gary Ginsberg, News Corp's executive VP of Global Marketing and Corporate Affairs, "knew Caroline Kennedy was riding in a car with Obama and begged her to show Obama the New York Post's endorsement," according to the book. In the months after the primary endorsement, Murdoch went on to call Obama a "rock star" and publicly spoke of being open to endorsing him. The two men finally met in early summer 2008, at the Waldorf-Astoria. Without telling Obama, Murdoch brought Ailes along, too. Wolff writes: Obama lit into Ailes. He said he didn't want to waste his time talking to Ailes if Fox was just going to continue to abuse him and his wife, that Fox had relentlessly portrayed him as suspicious, foreign-fearsome—just short of a terrorist. Ailes, unruffled, said it might not have been this way if Obama had come on the air instead of giving Fox the back of his hand. A tentative truce, which may or may not have historical significance, was thereupon agreed. Despite the truce, Fox and the Obama campaign still battled it out, especially in the campaign's final weeks. That said, Obama did sit down with O'Reilly, Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday," and "Fox & Friends." And that Obama endorsement? Ginsberg — one of the liberals in Murdoch's inner circle, along with News Corp. number two Peter Chernin — thought the Post might endorse Obama. "He's going to do it," Ginsberg told the author. But then he didn't. Murdoch, who's kept the media world off balance for a half century, wouldn't break with the Republican Party after all. Never mind, the public praise or his family's support of the Democratic nominee. The Post even jumped out in front of every other major newspaper, enthusiastically endorsing McCain in early September. Toward the end of the book, Wolff addresses Murdoch's response to the Vanity Fair excerpts, which indicated he might be moving left. "Indeed, Murdoch was responding to suggestions about his nascent liberalism — in September I discussed his Obama leanings in Vanity Fair — with grumpiness and contrariness. He wasn't a liberal! Who said that? He was, stubbornly, what he wanted to be, what he decided he would be." Even with Wolff's unprecedented access to the family, and 50 hours of interviews, it's still not easy to pin down Murdoch. But for Murdoch-watchers, the book is a very revealing look at the man and his empire. Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list.Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com • Email to a friend • Related • What Israeli and American Jews don't get :: ZioNation: Progressive Zionism and Israel Read this article on the community site • Email to a friend • Related • Happy Palestine Day :: ZioNation: Progressive Zionism and Israel Read this article on the community site • Email to a friend • Related • Targets of opportunity :: Gentile Warrior Read this article on the community site • Email to a friend • Article Search • Related • Birenzweig in Nylon Magazine :: The Milk & Honey Blog Read this article on the community site It finally happened! Nylon magazine got their hands on a few items from the ultra funky and fashionable Israeli Birenzweig collection, and decided to feature it in their January 2009 issue.  Truly, it is no surprise, the collection has a sophisticated urban feel that tastes a bit like Europe, it is very daring yet very wearable. The collection launched in the U.S. for spring/summer 2009 and will be available at stores such as: Koros in Chicago, Suneri in Boston and Foravi in New York City.          • Email to a friend • Article Search • Related • What's a Jew to do? :: Jewschool Read this article on the community site It's short enough to quote in full: Just yesterday at dinner, my seven year old son asked why we never sign him and his brother up for "Parent's Night Out." This is a program run by our local YMCA. Once a month on a Friday evening, parents can drop their children off at the Y for several hours of babysitting. While the parents get to go out, their children enjoy pizza and a movie along with their friends. We explained that Friday evening was Shabbat and a time we spend together as a family. It always involves dinner, either at our home, or at the home of friends. When our temple has a Shabbat Alive or Family Service, we try to attend. As a family, we seem to have figured out Friday evenings. My three year old asks all week when it will be Shabbat. And my seven year old, channeling some inner-Chasid, could eat an entire challah, piece by piece, dipping each piece into his grape juice. Saturday still presents a challenge. While my congregation is beginning to explore such worship opportunities, Shabbat morning options at most congregations are not child friendly. We avoid chores such as grocery shopping or trips to the dry cleaner. But sporting activities and birthday parties still beckon with great regularity. We try to do things our children will enjoy like trips to children's museums. In the warm weather we go to the pool and in the cold weather we may go to a movie. All of this we frame for our children as enjoyable things we get to do because it is Shabbat. So while my children will, hopefully, have a sense of Shabbat rest and Shabbat joy, I worry that their sense of Shabbat worship will be incomplete. I am not sure how they will become familiar with the Shabbat morning liturgy, the weekly telling of our people's story, or the power of hearing the Torah being chanted. My appreciation of these did not come until I was well into my adult years. I hope my own children will not have to wait as long. I read the article and wondered where exactly this family lived that they couldn't bring their children to services. Why they were unable to find resources to teach their children the liturgy that the author finds so meaningful and important. Why the author is hoping, but not "doing" anything about his children's connection to Torah. Then I scrolled up and read the by-line: Rabbi Victor S. Appell (Director, Small Congregations, Union for Reform Judaism). This bothered me. His office is based in New York, NY. A mecca of Judaism (or, as Stephen M. Cohen would put it, a centre of Judaism). And while he might live outside the city, there's no reason for lack of resources for a rabbi employed by his denomination's organization. Religious school, Hebrew school, classes at the Y or JCC are all available and kid friendly. Start a havurah with friends, teach a group of children together in your homes. Hold services at home before going to those birthday parties and sporting activities. Surely we could come up with some easily implementable suggestions for this rabbi and his family, right? ShareThis • Email to a friend • Article Search • Related • Last pre-Sabbath update from Chabad House in Mumbai - VIDEO ADDED :: Israel Matzav Read this article on the community site These are the last couple entries from Yeshiva World News' liveblog of events at the Chabad House (Nariman House) in Mumbai:UPDATE Fri 7:58 AM EST / 2:58 PM IL: Mumbai officials reporting all four terrorists in the Chabad House have been killed. There is a large crowd outside the building that appears to be attempting to rush police barricades. There is total chaos at that location after 45 • Email to a friend • Related • Shabba"k Encounter Update :: Esser Agaroth Read this article on the community site Erev Shabbath Qodesh Parshath Toldoth 5769 Here is a brief follow up to My Encounter With The Shabba"k which I have been meaning to write for quite some time. I was prompted to post this by a response to the way I handled the encounter by Talking Loud, Saying Nothing. ********* At the conclusion of my meeting with the Shabba"k (General Security Services) agents, a couple of days before Yom Kippur, they asked me not to say to tell anyone that they wanted to see me again. They seemed a bit surprised that I had already mentioned to people that they wanted to meet with me. I simply said that I had to tell my boss at work, in case I was late coming in. They then said that I should only mention anything else if asked, and if asked, that I should tell people that the meeting was about the announcement found near the attack on Prof. Sternhell. Obviously something was up. I doubt that I part of any greater plan, but rather just being tested to see if I could be "turned," and be of some use to them. I followed the advice I had received ages ago, which was to tell anyone and everyone. And now, I am of no use to them. These agents never ended up calling me in for a follow up meeting. Whether they ever intended to or not, I don't know. Now as to why I met with them in the first place, everything happened so quickly, that I didn't have the opportunity to seek any guidance. I feared that if I called anyone on the phone I would be compromising them. I even thought that my phone was bugged, as I received my first phone call from them just when I began using a cell phone I borrowed, I later discovered had been in the Shabba"k's possession at one time. After discussing the various events with those having experience with such matters, it seems more likely that the Shabba"k simply knew who I was, from living in K'far Tapu'ah and from my associations, and if anything tapped into my line. After failing to obtain advice, I decided to go into the meeting. The main reason I decided to do so was an attempt to feel more in control than by not going in. This was one strategy I learned in Tapu'ah from seasoned Shabba"k targets. It felt better to me than worrying about when they were going to come and get me. Not everyone agrees with this strategy. Although I believe it worked for me. I added to this by mentally preparing myself to accept the worst case scenarios. I have known people to lose their jobs due to a Shabba"k interview, lose security clearance and thus job opportunities, lose a weapons license, to undergoing sleep deprivation for a few days. Yep. Most people would call this a form torture. Now, I believe the next time, when and if they decide to "invite me" in for another "visit..." involuntarily, I will be more level-headed to deal with the situation because of my past experience with them and with police. Talking about my experience helped in a lot of the traditional ways. I discovered that many more Jews were "invited" into meet with the Shabba"k. The more I talked about my experience, the less anxious and isolated I felt. I didn't realize just how people I knew who were interrogated over the same presenting issue. It was as if they were trying to make some sort of quota. Several Ramba"mim, Jews who hold by the Ramba"m, were some of those also targeted this time around. Some have claimed that Ramba"mim and those with Breslover influence in Yo"Sh (Judea and Samaria) are numbers one and two on the Shabba"k's "most dangerous" list. Whereas "Kanahists" and "Chabbadniks" seem to be farther down on their list. Who knows? But what all of these groups have in common is that their loyalties do not lie with the "almighty state" leHavdil; they lie elsewhere. And this both disturbs and perplexes the powers that be. There is no question that the Shabba"k's recent interrogations will add to their research data base of settler profiling, to assist them in dealing with any resistance to future attempts to Jews from the homes and towns. Yitzhar and Hevron, as well as smaller towns such as Adei Ad near Shiloh, are their current laboratories, where they observe the reactions to various strategies. How do settlers react to leftist provocation? How do they react to police entrapment? How do they react to Arabs who are egged on by [un-] Jews? These are some of the questions being asked during their research. There is, of course, also the greater issue of general state loyalty. As the religious population increases, and attempts to infuse the country with goyim from the Former Soviet Union and the U. S. are running out of steam, new strategies are needed to combat what the Eruv Rav government sees as a threat to their control: The Torah. Shabba"k laboratory experiments will be considered useful in their pursuits to maintain power. Observations are made at Haredi protests against grave desecration, the gay parade, and autopsies. Once the government feels it has a handle on the settlers, the Haredim will be the focus of their next targets. It's too bad that they don't realize this. To conclude, I would like to pass on some advice from the Honenu Legal Defense Fund, when confronted by the Shabba"k. It was relayed to me by one of my Ramba"mi friends. According to him, it is advised only to say the following four things, in order: 1. I have not committed any crime. 2. I do not trust you. 3. I do not believe in you. 4. And so, I will not speak with you. They emphasize the importance of providing the reasons why you will not speak with them, before you actually say that you will not speak to them. I also consulted a lawyer with experience in these matters, who, after chastising me for speaking to the Shabba"k in the first place, said that I was under no legal obligation to talk with them. Anyone, leftists included, still believe that we don't live in a police state? Sure, leftists may agree with their actions, but what if the shoe were on the other foot? • Email to a friend • Related • Mumbai :: RADARSITE Read this article on the community site Mumbai I was going to wait until the tragedy in Mumbai (formerly Bombai) India was over before writing my thoughts down, but I couldn't wait. As I write this, it is said that over 150 people are dead. The courageous Indian commandos are still fighting their way through the Taj Hotel clearing out the remaining terrorist murderers and still rescuing hostages. The exact group that is responsible for this mass atrocity is still unclear, but one thing is clear; they are Muslims. Their targets were Westerners, British, Americans, and yes, Jews. One of the locations raided was Chabat House, a Jewish center. According to news reports, hostages, including Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg and his wife, Rivki, were murdered in cold blood as commandos closed in. (Their 2-year-old son miraculously escaped.) I am outraged, and I am fed up with the excuses. It is long overdue, but we need to call a spade a spade and demand that the Muslim world rise up and remove this evil from its house. By any means necessary. Mumbai is now India's 9-11. We have suffered ours. We reacted, and at least, we can now say that two murderous regimes have been driven from power. Spain had their own 9-11. They reacted and elected a cowardly government that promptly pulled their forces out of Iraq. Britain had theirs and now prostrates itself at the feet of a hateful Muslim minority that spits in the face of British society as they demand Shariah law. This latest incident is pretty much the final blow for me personally in trying to appeal to decent Muslims to take a stand. It is not easy. I know decent Muslims. I teach Muslim students, mostly from Saudi Arabia, who seem quite nice. I listen to the words of American Muslim leaders who speak of moderation and say they condemn terrorism. I have heard President Bush describe Islam as a religion of peace as he meets Muslim leaders. One of those leaders, whom he has invited to the White House, is Imam Muzammil Siddiqi, former head of the Islamic Society of North America and now head of the Islamic Society of Orange County-himself an Indian. Last week, I attended a joint Jewish-Muslim discussion at Chapman University, where Dr Siddiqi spoke for Islam. (See post of last week). Dr Siddiqi is considered a "moderate Muslim", who decries terror. Yet, he has made statements in the past regarding Jihad and Shariah that many Westerners might find troubling. In the 1990s, he hosted the "Blind Sheihk" Rahman at his mosque. Let's just say I wasn't convinced at Siddiqi's words last week. I have just checked the websites of CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America, and the Islamic Society of Orange County. Only the Islamic Society of North America has a statement on Mumbai, condemning the attacks and offering prayers for the victims. That is all well and good, but nowhere-nowhere is there any mention of the fact that the perpetrators were Muslims. There is also no mention of the attack on Chabat House. This is insufficient. As for CAIR and the Islamic Society of Orange County, there is nothing on their websites about Mumbai (as of this writing). What will they eventually say? What will the Muslim Student Associations at our US universities say about Mumbai when they have their next "Islam Awareness Week"? Will they continue to claim that they are not anti-Jewish, only anti-"Zionist"? That is the constant disclaimer they use, yet the raid on Chabat House puts the lie to that. It is clear that the killers wanted to include Jews (in India) among their targets. Why? Because they hate Jews. So what is it that Muslims in America must say and do, you ask? What is needed is for them to stand up and publicly condemn the MUSLIMS who are carrying out these atrocities in India and around the world in the name of Islam. Muslim leaders need to tell their congregations and members that if they sympathize with these actions, they are not welcome in their midst. They must give the FBI the names of those in their communities who they suspect to be involved in subversive activities. They must publicly proclaim to the world that they are Americans and will stand with America and defend her against ISLAMIC terror. A few, of course, have stood up and condemned the actions of terrorists acting in the name of Islam. Nonie Darwish and Ayaan Hirsi Ali are a couple that come to mind. They have gone beyond bland statements about "condemning terrorism and that Islam is really a religion of peace". They call it what it is, and as a result, they will spend the rest of their days-in Western countries even-living with bodyguards and dealing with threats to their lives because they are considered apostates. You see, people like Darwish and Ali have crossed the line. They have spoken out against Islamic doctrine itself. They have said what people in CAIR and Siddiqi cannot say; that so much of what is in the Qu'ran is nothing more than an incitement to hate, shun and murder those who are not Muslims. You will not hear these Muslim leaders, even if they are "moderates", say that the very words of the Prophet Mohammed are wrong, and that they are not appropriate in the modern world. The problem is that the Prophet Mohammed was a warrior. That is an undeniable fact. Mohammed was not a mythical figure who may or may not have existed. He, indeed, existed, and he spread Islam at the point of a sword. As a result, thousands of people died in the Holy Land. The words in the Qu'ran are his words. If there are conflicts and contradictions, then the latest writing takes precedent. Mohammed stated that Muslims should not take unbelievers as friends. Almost every page and Sura in the Qu'ran speaks of non-believers burning in Hell, a point constantly reinforced. There, of course, is the famous and oft-quoted Hadith that speaks of trees and bushes saying, "there is a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him." There is the principle of Shariah law, which no Western democracy could ever allow to be adopted; honor killings, stonings, limited rights for women and non-believers, taxes for dhimmis, death for the "crime of apostasy", and on and on. Islam is a belief system that is designed to control every aspect of life including the very law itself. You see, there is a limit as to what the Muzammil Siddiqis of the world can say when they "condemn terrorism". There is a line they cannot cross. How can they engage in a theological debate with the so-called "extremists"? Is it not the "extremists" who are following the teachings of Mohammed-to the letter? Thirty years ago, we were calling them "fundamentalists"-for a reason. We seemed to have dropped that term. Why? Because it would mean that they are merely following the teachings of Mohammed and Islam. I think the time is long since past when we in the non-Muslim world wake up and recognize the unavoidable fact; that our enemy is not just a group of a few thousand fanatics around the world-it is an idea. It is an idea that can be found within the covers of a book written by a man who had no concept of a larger world outside the region where he lived and fought. It could be argued that Islam was in a centuries-long slumber-from which it is awakening with a vengeance. And it is growing. In mosques and hadrassas all over the Muslim world-and in many cases in Western countries as well, children are being taught that according to the Qu'ran, they have mortal enemies-non-believers and especially Jews. Many young Muslims in Western countries are being taught that their mission is to spread Islam until the day comes when Islam will rule that country-and indeed the world. I have heard many say that Islam needs a Reformation. A nice thought, but it would require more than just "reform". Martin Luther, in his Reformation, was rebelling against a corrupt Vatican that had lost its way. He was not rebelling against the Bible or the teachings of Jesus Christ. To reform Islam would requiring rejecting many passages in the Qu'ran and many of the teachings of Mohammed as simply not being applicable to a modern world-and as being morally wrong. But how do believers decide that their religion does not contain Eternal Truth? That is a big leap. Meanwhile, so many in the West delude themselves into thinking that this phenomena we call terrorism does not represent true Islam. They insist that Islam is a religion of peace, and that we who bring up the inconvenient facts about the life and teachings of the Prophet Mohammed, the words in the Qu'ran and the words of so many Muslim clerics, are somehow Islamophobes, and that Islamophobia must be fought with the same vigor as anti-Semitism, racism and homophobia. Last week, I listened to a respected rabbi, a decent man who only desires peace and understanding, say that very thing at Chapman University. Let me set this straight. Aside from the fact that the word "Islamophobia" itself means "fear of Islam", an understandable feeling given world events, I do not believe that individual Muslims should be persecuted. They have a right to practice their religion (indeed, there are some aspects of Islam I find admirable) as long as it does not conflict with the rights of others and local laws. Certainly, there are many Muslims who are used to living around non-Muslims and have no desire to be engaged in violence in any way. Surely, many older Muslims have spent their lives picking and choosing which parts of the Qu'ran they choose to obey. Yet, many are afraid to speak out because of the fear of violent retribution. I have long resisted the temptation to repeat the mocking statement of others when these events happen as, "the religion of peace strikes again." Yet, what other phrase is appropriate? Yes, it has reached the point where Muslims must take a stand if they want to be accepted by the rest of the world. It is not just in America or Britain or India. Thai Muslims must stand with the majority and reject Muslim insurrection in that country's south. Filipino Muslims must do the same. This is not a call for persecution of innocent Muslims. But how can they be accepted by the larger societies in which they live as minorities if they remain silent? Do they really want to live isolated from the larger society? Some, I believe, actually do. Meanwhile as the 9-11s, the Londons the Madrids now Mumbais continue to add up, more and more people can only turn against Islam and become "Islamophobes". And fewer and fewer people will be able to insist that Islam is really "a religion of peace". gary fouse fousesquawk • Email to a friend • Related • Israel and the Palestinians: A New Strategy, by Moshe Yaalon :: CIC Scene Read this article on the community site David Weinberg, the director of the CIC's Israel's office, recommends "Israel and the Palestinians: A New Strategy," by Moshe Yaalon, published in AzureOnline. In this wide-ranging essay, Yaalon, a former IDF chief of staff, proposes a different approach to dealing with an old conflict: "The strategy outlined in this paper is not particularly uplifting. I doubt that it will thrill the public or win prestigious international awards. It requires, after all, diligence and a good deal of patience. Its enactment would mean giving up expectations of reaching an immediate 'solution'" to the Israeli-Palestinian problem, and instead adopting a more pragmatic attitude that focuses, at least in the short term, on 'managing' the conflict. Yet this new strategy is no less ambitious than the former one. It, too, strives to end Israel's control over the Palestinians and to establish a new, safer, and more stable order west of the Jordan River. Unlike the Oslo paradigm, however, it begins by laying the foundations for the establishment of this new order, and only then proceeds to build from the bottom up. The policy proposed here rests on the understanding—which has so far eluded Israeli statesmen—that in our geopolitical arena, 'the realities on the ground shape agreements, not the other way around,' as Guy Bechor, an Israeli expert in Middle Eastern affairs, once said." Read the whole essay here » • Email to a friend •

  ...

[Message clipped]