Friar Yid

Daniel Lapin has a warning for you, O suffering Christians of our mighty nation. Beware! The progressives are out to get you.

First, did you know that various people tried to warn Europeans about HITLER? I know, I'm as surprised as you are. But apparently they did, but the British didn't listen (they didn't listen about Auschwitz, either, but never mind that). And there were ALSO people who warned about Communism and the Domino Effect! And no one listened to them... you know, besides that whole Cold War thing. Oh, and the Domino Effect totally happened, right?

Luckily, Rabbi Lapin is at least smart enough to point out that "what is happening now is on the same scale as the examples I cite above". Give the man a hand (or a finger, if you're a cheap Jew).

a serious war is being waged against a group of Americans. I am certain that if we lose this war, the consequences for American civilization will be dire.

"We", huh? Informative.

Phase one of this war I describe is a propaganda blitzkrieg that is eerily reminiscent of how effectively the Goebbels propaganda machine softened up the German people for what was to come.

Got that? Effective propaganda now equals Goebbels. Godwin aside, answer me this- exactly what do you call you shilling for the Darwin-hating Coral Ridge ministries and their wacko movies, "Rabbi"?

There is no better term than propaganda blitzkrieg to describe what has been unleashed against Christian conservatives recently.

Was this guy hiding under a rock for the past few years? Marriage amendment, anyone? How about Terri Schiavo? Doesn't ring a bell, huh? Maybe you and Abramoff were too busy fleecing Indians. It's understandable.

Consider the long list of anti-Christian books that have been published in recent months. Here are just a few samples of more than 30 similar titles, all from mainstream publishers:

"American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America"

"The Baptizing of America: The Religious Right's Plans for the Rest of Us"

"The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason"

"Piety & Politics: The Right-wing Assault on Religious Freedom"

"Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism"

"Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America"

"Religion Gone Bad: The Hidden Dangers of the Christian Right"

What is truly alarming is that there are more of these books for sale at your local large book store warning against the perils of fervent Christianity than those warning against the perils of fervent Islam. Does anyone seriously think America is more seriously jeopardized by Christian conservatives than by Islamic zealots? I fear that many Americans believe just that in the same way that many pre-World War II Westerners considered Churchill a bigger threat than Hitler.

Pot. Kettle. Hypocrite. Shut up.

Some may say that today's proliferation of anti-Christian print propaganda is nothing to become worried about. To them I ask two questions:

First, would you be so sanguine if the target of this loathsome library were Jewish? Just try changing the titles in some of the books I mention above to reflect anti-Semitism instead of rampant anti-Christianism and you'll see what I mean.

Hey Rabbi, a lot of the targets of the Conservative movement ARE Jews. Secular Jews. And some of their rhetoric sometimes DOES cross the line into antisemitism. Where are you then? Oh, that's right, you're appeasing the right, even when they're beating up on Jews (Seattle rabbi), and then blaming the whole thing on seculars. Because they're the ones sending him hate mail, I'm sure.

Second, major movements that changed the way Americans felt and acted came about through books, often only one book. Think of Rachel Carson's 1962 error-filled "Silent Spring" that resulted in the pointless banning of the insecticide DDT and many unnecessary deaths. Other books that caused upheavals in our nation were Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle," many of Ayn Rand's books and of course "Uncle Tom's Cabin."

Yeah, all those books sucked! Banning DDT, keeping fingers out of our sausage and humanizing black people- and don't get me started on all the evils of Ayn Rand. Damn you, American literacy!

No, I would advise you not to underestimate the power of books to alter the behavior of the American public, and I fear for an America influenced to detest Christianity by this hate-filled catalog.

I see you've never read Ann Coulter. Bitchy titles aside, I'm pretty sure none of the liberal books you mentioned advocate killing liberals- and while I'd never argue that this guy is at all representative of conservatives, I will note I haven't heard of any liberal counterparts. Besides, rabbi, not to put too fine a point on it, but you guys are the ones with the guns (and the troops, don't forget). The only way our books can hurt you is if we launch them out of catapults, possibly after infecting them with malaria we caught because we banned DDT.

It is not just books but popular entertainment also that beams the most lurid anti-Christian propaganda into the hearts and minds of viewers.

Left. Behind. Video Game. Moron.

One need only think of who the real targets of the recent hit movie "Borat" are. The brilliant Jewish moviemaker Sacha Baron Cohen, as his title character, using borderline dishonest wiles, lures some innocent but unsophisticated country folk, obviously Christians, to join him in his outrageously anti-Semitic antics. Cohen then triumphantly claims to have exposed anti-Semitism. In fact, he has revealed nothing other than the latent anti-Christianism of America's social, economic and academic secular elites.

From what I understand, Borat ridiculed idiots, not Christians (the arguable exception being his visit to a weird-ass church. Then again, I really don't think any of these Benny Hinn wannabes need any defending from anyone. If they feel threatened, they can always just hide in their misbegotten-money-forts).

The war is against those who regard the Bible to be God's revelation to humanity and the Ten Commandments to be His set of rules for all time. Phase one in this war is to make Christianity, well, sort of socially unacceptable. Something only foolish, poor and ugly people could turn to.

You must have been on crack when that one atheist tried to change the pledge of Allegiance. Talk about acceptable smearing (and incidentally, Rav Danny-boy, all this Christian-bashing doesn't seem to be affecting the fact that atheists are the least-electable candidates for President). Funny, huh?

Lapin wraps up this idiocy by pointing out that sometimes ad campaigns are effective- Drunk Driving and Smoking, for instance. Lest anyone wonder what his position on the latter is, he tosses out this gem:

Tyranny comes when citizens are seduced into trading freedom for the promise of safety and security.

No word on whether Lapin will be fighting for your right to drive drunk sometime soon.

Lastly:

Considerably more intellectual energy is being pumped into the propaganda campaign against Christianity than was ever delivered to the anti-smoking or anti-drunk-driving campaigns. Fervent zealots of secularism are flinging themselves into this anti-Christian war with enormous fanaticism.

If they succeed, Christianity will be driven underground, and its benign influence on the character of America will be lost. In its place we shall see a sinister secularism that menaces Bible believers of all faiths. Once the voice of the Bible has been silenced, the war on Western Civilization can begin and we shall see a long night of barbarism descend on the West.

Without a vibrant and vital Christianity, America is doomed, and without America, the West is doomed.

I bet a lot of Deist Founding Fathers would have had a bone to pick with you over this, Rabbi. Of course, they also wouldn't have allowed you into most of the colonies, either. Then again, I'm sure you would have defended that, too: "Look, guys, Mr. Stuyvesant doesn't have anything against us, all right? It's just that our giant noses offend him. To be fair, we are kind of sucking up more than our share of the Gentiles' air. They were here first, after all."

Speaking of spending intellectual energy on wars against things, Dinesh D'Souza has decided he hates porn. See, radical Muslims don't like porn, and they perceive Americans as being pro-porn. Now, Dinesh is at least honest enough to note that

I don’t think American culture as a whole is guilty of the charge of moral depravity. But there is a segment of our culture that is perverse and pornographic, and perhaps this part of American culture is the one that foreigners see. Wrongly, they identify one face of America with the whole of America. When they protest what they see as the glamorization of pornography and vice, however, it’s hard to deny that they have a point.

Hey, let's try replacing "porn and vice" with warmongering and imperialism. I bet they aren't fond of that, either. Of course, if liberals ever brought this up, you'd accuse them of capitulating to terrorists. Since when do we let Al Qaeda determine what our values should be, Dinesh?

Dinesh's anti-porn rant is related to his new book, which claims,

the terrorism behind 9/11 and other tragedies was caused by “a decadent and depraved American culture that angers and repulses other societies,” especially Muslims. This cultural movement is fostered by the American cultural left and its allies in Congress, the liberal media, Hollywood and the academic community. D’Souza writes, “In order to defeat the Islamic radicals abroad, we must defeat the enemy at home.”

So... stop American porn, and we stop the Taliban? How does that work, exactly? If anything, we should make more porn, and ship it over there to them to shock, horrify, demoralize and confuse them. After all, isn't that what we did in Guantanamo?

Pornography has become big business in the United States. You no longer have to go places to find it; it now finds you. Once confined to “dirty old men” and seedy areas of town, pornography has now penetrated the hotel room and home. The Internet and cell phone have made pornography accessible everywhere, all the time.

Hey, you know what else has become big business? Government corruption and political cronyism. But hey, that's the price we pay to live in a lobbyist and favoritism-choked democracy, right? Besides, if you're against bribes, you're probably a Commie.

The spread of porn is not surprising, and neither is its popularity. It is not the appeal of sex, but the appeal of voyeurism. After all, the actors in porn films seek to gratify not themselves but the viewer. The spectator finds himself in an unnatural position of being witness to a sexual act which is conducted fully for his benefit. It’s hard to deny that there is something degrading in the continuous exposure to increasingly hard-core pornography.

Um... why would that be, exactly? If being self-centered or pampered is unnatural, then you should be campaigning against health spas and casinos with High Roller suites- apparently complimentary massages are degrading (someone tell Abramoff!)

In a manner that the older generation of Americans finds scandalous, porn has become socially acceptable and lost its moral stigma.

Nothing like stereotyping everybody over 40, eh Dinesh?

A good example of this cultural cache is that today a porn star like Jenna Jameson appears on billboards and on the cover of magazines like Vanity Fair.

As opposed to a shameless numskull l like Bill Frist trying to exploit his medical credentials to increase his standing on political issues he knows nothing about, and continuing to be supported by his party? Or, you know, that whole Tom DeLay thing? Scooter Libby? No?

The liberal defense of obscenity and pornography began many decades ago as a defense of great works of literature and of free speech. It began as a defense of books like James Joyce’s Ulysses, Flaubert’s Madame Bovary, and D.H. Lawrence’s Lady Chatterly’s Lover. But now some liberal advocates insist that all forms of sexual explicitness are equally deserving of legal protection and that no restriction of obscenity or pornography should be allowed.

...Groups like the ACLU have taken the approach that pornography rights, like the rights of accused criminals, are best protected at their outermost extreme. This means is that the more foul the obscenity, the harder liberals must fight to allow it. By protecting expression at its farthest reach, these activists believe they are fully securing the free speech rights of the rest of us.

I suppose that's a fair assessment, but I don't see what's wrong with the game-plan here.

...It is a long way, for instance, from James Joyce to a loathsome character like Larry Flynt, the publisher of Hustler magazine.

Yeah, one has a cool accent and beard and weird Diaspora issues, and the other's in a wheelchair. And gets chicks.

There would seem to be an obvious distinction between fighting to include James Joyce in a high school library and insisting that the same library maintain its subscription to Hustler.

Man, I've been going to all the wrong libraries. Oh wait, that's just happening in Dinesh's dirty, sexy mind.

For the ACLU, however, the two causes are part of the same free speech crusade. In a sense, the ACLU considers the campaign for Hustler a more worthy cause because if Hustler is permitted, anything is permitted, and therefore free speech has been more vigorously defended.

Worthiness might be the wrong word here. Fighting to keep the definition of protected speech as broad as possible doesn't mean you have to have a hard-on for Nazis or Snuff films (or both).

In recent years, leading liberals have gone from defending Flynt as a despicable man who nevertheless has First Amendment rights, to defending Flynt as a delightful man who is valiantly fighting against the forces of darkness and repression. “What I find refreshing about Larry Flynt is that he doesn’t pretend to be anything other than a scumbag,” Frank Rich writes in the New York Times. “At least Flynt’s honest about what he’s doing.”

See, again, calling someone a scumbag usually indicates you DON'T find them delightful.

If we confine ourselves to liberal culture and its apologists, my Muslim interlocutors would seem to have a justified complaint. The liberal defense of pornography is even more perverted than the pornography itself.

Maybe one day Dinesh will explain why porn is actually harmful.

Hey, Dinesh is on TV right now!

"If we show the terrorists some more of Red America, they won't think we're nothing but T&A and Fear Factor."

That's right, Dinesh. Because there's nothing the terrorists will like more than televangelists. I've got a good feeling about this one.

Dennis is on vacation. It shows.

My waitress in Townsville, northeast Australia, was a charming young French woman studying zoology at the local university. I asked whom she would vote for in the upcoming French elections. She responded that she knew absolutely nothing about politics and would, if she were back home, vote for the Greens. Why? "Because they are a small party and they are for the environment."

She confirmed my longstanding belief that while there are many people on the Left who know history and think about social issues, the default position for those who know little history or think little about social issues is with the Left. All you need do is care for the poor or care about the environment.

Because there aren't any ignoramuses who hook up with the Republicans because of "Guns, God and Gays", right? And certainly no hereditary party-lines like on the Left, oh, heavens no.

This is my 5th visit to Australia, and once again I am struck by the remarkable friendliness of Australians. It seems to hold true for the many Asian immigrants I met, as well. If so, we need to learn how Australia succeeds in passing its best values to immigrants from other cultures.

That's right, according to Dennis Prager, friendliness is an AUSTRALIAN VALUE, and meeting friendly Asian Australians indicates successful integration or assimilation. Close your eyes and imagine he's talking about Irish, Italians or Jews, and you could be back in the good ol' days of Millard Fillmore. Thanks, Dennis. It's good to know you're never on vacation from being a jackass.

And by who? Take your pick.

Shalem also uncovers evidence that indicates that some ultra-Orthodox youths actively participated in fighting in the revolt. The most prominent of them was Rabbi Alexander Zemelman, who was an Agudat Yisrael Youth leader in Poland before the war. Most of these ultra-Orthodox fighters joined the ranks of the Jewish Fighting Union (JFU), Betar's militant wing. The JFU received little recognition of its own, after the war. Thus, the names of the ultra-Orthodox fighters were also forgotten.

Shalem cites the general disorder of JFU rosters to explain the absence of ultra-Orthodox names among those who took part in the revolt. "The Jewish Fighting Organization [the larger and more famous organization led by Mordecai Anielewicz] maintained lists, but anyone who did not arrive as a representative of an organized movement, or did not carry a weapon, was not included in the list, and even their lists were censored on the way to Israel."

Arguments arose within Agudat Yisrael regarding the mention of the participation of these individuals in the revolt. Mintz was very proud of them and several articles in the ultra-Orthodox press highlighted their participation and criticized the lack of recognition of their role. Other "Aguda" figures, like Rabbi Moshe Blau, preferred to portray them as individuals who departed from the ultra-Orthodox path. Blau's approach finally prevailed: After the Holocaust, the ultra-Orthodox community emphasized the spiritual courage of those who continued to observe mitzvot (Jewish commandments) and ignored those who supported or participated in the revolt.

Heaven forbid. Jews need saints, not fighters. Unless you're stoning another Jew for driving on Shabbat.

Olmert tells Amar to buzz off.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert promised a visiting delegation of Conservative rabbis from the United States that Israel would maintain a "policy of openness" on the issue of conversions to Judaism overseas. Olmert met the rabbis on Sunday.

At the meeting, Rabbi Jerome Epstein, Executive Vice President of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, told Olmert of the Conservative movement's objection to Chief Sephardi Rabbi Shlomo Amar's initiative not to recognize Diaspora conversions in Israel.

Olmert said that Amar's initiative had not been discussed in the cabinet and that he was committed to maintaining the present open policy on conversion.

Epstein, who reported to his colleagues in New York about his conversation with Olmert, said on Monday that the prime minister's message was clear - Olmert supports the Conservative rabbis' position on conversions.

Epstein said the prime minister also promised that if a new committee were to be formed on conversion, like the Neeman committee in the past, Conservative movement members can expect to play a role in it.

Gasp! A committee representing a plurality of Jews! Nooo!

For reasons he himself probably doesn't know, Yona Metzger agreed to an online Q&A at the Jerusalem Post. Highlights here (hat-tip to Failed Messiah).

Max Rositan, Toronto, Canada: Since there is absolutely nothing explicit in the Torah about considering someone being Jewish only because person's mother is Jewish isn't it time to start considering people who only have Jewish father being Jewish? In our times when thanks to DNA evidence we can establish with a 100% certainty who person's father was lets stop alienating almost 50% of Diaspora Jews. These people are not at fault for "transgressions" of their fathers. I am writing this as a traditional Jew who can trace my maternal Jewish ancestors at least to the beginning of the 19th century.

Rabbi Metzger: The basic assumption is wrong. The Torah clearly states that appropriating a person to a specific nationality is determined by the mother only, just as the Talmud tractate of Kidushin interprets the verse forbidding a man to wed his daughter to a gentile "for they will turn away thy son from following me" in the sense that only if your son was born to an Israelite mother can be called "your son" but if your son is born from a worshiper of the stars, he can only be referred to as her son. Therefore it is not allowed to consider the identity of a person by the identity of the father.

What about Moses' kids? What God did the Midianites worship?

Liza Zimmerman, Budapest: Dear Rabbi, my question is about the Kabbalah. Is there any stream in Judaism that doesn't accept it? Is the Torah, which has been given direct from Hashem not enough?

Rabbi Metzger: There is no stream in Orthodox Jewry - the original Jewry - that does not accept the Kabbalah, the Kabbalah is a secret Torah and is one of the deepest layers of interpreting the Torah and understanding the Creator's way in running the world.

Debunked here.

Gil Bashe, Metuchen, NJ: Rav Shilt"a, how can we best address the challenges of intermarriage? What do you recommend to welcome these families into our community and encourage fuller participation? B'Todah

Rabbi Metzger: Jewish education should be encouraged - Jews in the Diaspora should study in Jewish schools teaching the values of Jewish tradition, which emphasizes the uniqueness and special status of Jews among other nations, and strengthens our national pride. The problem you mentioned exists mainly in universities, and I believe that after a rooted, proud Jewish education, University encounters would not lead to intermarriages.

Or better yet, don't send your kids to college. Or keep them in an insular ghetto and don't tell them about the outside world. Tell them goyim put Jewish blood in their Bud Light! The possibilities abound!

Tracy Drucker, New York: I'm concerned about the lack of solidarity, the outright hostility among different secular and religious groups within Israel at a time of extreme vulnerability. Couldn't leaders like you initiate a temporary "truce", and foster a spirit of kindness, integrity and brotherhood to be strong to face Israel's enemies? It hurts so much to watch the country tearing itself apart. Thank you for this opportunity.

Rabbi Metzger: We are acting in many ways to bridge the gaps so that we can live together as one people. The situation is definitely not encouraging and openness on both sides is needed. I think there were harder times in the past, and genuinely hope that we can take the right way together. It is important to point out that one of the foundations of the unity of the nation between religious and non-religious people is the education system of the schools:
A) Educating towards respecting one's peers and loving Israel, as the Torah states "Love thy neighbor".
B) Expanding Jewish studies - the values of religion and the sources of prayer and Mitzvoth that would help bridge the gap, which stems mainly from lack of knowledge and prejudice.

Why not have haredim study the ways of the world, while you're out it? You know, things like science and archeology and astronomy, so that in addition to Talmud, Jews of all different approaches can discuss facts in addition to theology.

What you're suggesting here, rabbi, is that if only every Jew became frummer, hostilities would cease. Not only is this extremely patronizing to non-frummies in its assumptions, it's also damn ignorant. Take a look at Satmar and Bobov sometime and get a clue. And ditto for you, Tracy. Jews fight. It's what we do. Is it optimal? Maybe not. But better some infighting than a moribund bunch of yes-men. It's GOOD that Jews, all kinds of Jews, care enough to disagree with each other. Saying we should all just sing kumbaya because "Israel is vulnerable" is the product of a really bizarre worldview. This isn't the Warsaw Ghetto. Israel (and the rest of the world's Jews) is a vibrant democracy, and that's good for the state and the faith. Furthermore, a lot of the divisive issues constantly being batted around are IMPORTANT. Asking someone like Metzger (who doesn't represent anyone) to put a band-aid on the whole situation isn't just unfeasible, it's also undesirable. Putting on a front of false unity doesn't accomplish anything- Somehow I doubt Iran or the Palestinians are going to care much if Jews stop fighting about women at the Kotel or following Orthodox halakha on conversions.

Last one:

Barry Hammer, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Do you feel that there is a lack of people who can properly guide Jews into answering "Why should I be religious" without falling back on the answer "Because that's how you're supposed to live your life" or "Because G-d said so"? If so, what would you suggest we do to help fight this problem? If not, how would you approach a Jew who has fallen off the derech?

Rabbi Metzger: The true answer is "because this is the only true way and there is no other." There are not several truths and the way of Judaism is the only one that can be logically proven. It is hard to give general advice on how to approach a Jew who has left the righteous way, and each case should be regarded individually. Keeping the Mitzvoth should be encouraged while observing the wholeness they give to the person keeping them.

Logically proven, huh? I'd be interested in reading that book.

El Al fired their "Chief Rabbi" (thereby causing this to appear in my Google Alerts messages under "Chief Rabbi"). Question- why is he a Chief Rabbi? Are there Ashkenazic and Sephardic Chief Rabbis, to deal with different issues, like whether El Al can serve rice over Passover?

It's unclear exactly who was behind the move to fire the guy, but it looks like he's been phased out in favor of his haredi subordinate.

El Al said the layoff of Lt.-Col. (res) Katzir, former deputy chief rabbi of the IDF, was part of streamlining measures. However, haredi sources in El Al said that Katzir was superfluous.

"He did not help El Al in the recent negotiations with the haredim because he is a religious Zionist," said the source. "And kosher supervision of food is already taken care of by the caterers."

Maybe he didn't help because no one would talk to him. But clearly that's his fault. Doesn't ANYBODY ELSE fly on this damn airline?

Well, it's not all bad...

Katzir, who held a part time position at El Al, told The Jerusalem Post that he did not know the reason for the layoff. But he verified reports that Rabbi Avraham Yosef, son of Shas's spiritual Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, was working behind the scenes to get Katzir reinstated.

Avraham Yosef, now chief rabbi of Holon, was Katzir's deputy when Katzir served as chief rabbi of the IAF.

However, sources in El Al said that during a friendly meeting between El Al CEO Haim Romano and Rabbi Ovadia Yosef three days ago, Yosef, who already knew about Katzir's layoff, did not try to convince Romano to backtrack.

"All he said was that Katzir should be treated respectfully," said the El Al source.

So, basically, guy number 1 replaces Katzir, guy number 2 wants him back, and guy number three (also known as "vote for me, get amulet, vote against, go to hell), waffles. Interesting.

Other news: Ukrainian Jews are asking the government to give them their Judaica objects back so they can restart their communities again. It's an interesting idea:

Testifying to a rich Jewish past, museums in the western Ukrainian city of Lvov hold hundreds of Jewish artifacts that once belonged to local synagogues and Jewish institutions.

Now the few practicing Jews here say they need the artifacts back to reinvigorate their community. "Our congregation is trying to bring Jewish tradition back, and we need these Torah scrolls and religious objects," said Valentina Zamichkovskaya, 67, a member of the Lvov Reform Jewish congregation.

Ukrainian authorities seem open to the possibility.

"We are ready to transfer some items to the Jewish communities upon their request," Roman Kurash, a representative of the Lvov Regional Administration in charge of religious affairs, told JTA. "Ukrainian authorities are ready to resolve the issue on the condition that these objects are used for religious community purposes," said Alexander Sagan, a senior adviser to President Viktor Yuschenko.

Well that's good. Of course, some things aren't always so simple.

Lvov now is home to some 2,000 Jews. Aside from the Reform congregation, there's a large Orthodox shul run by Rabbi Mordechai Shloime Bold, a Karlin-Stonliner Chasid. The synagogue was confiscated by the Bolsheviks but was returned to the community in 1989, shortly before the fall of communism. Another Orthodox minyan, or prayer group, is run by a longtime Jewish community and human-rights activist, Meilach Sheichet.

Members of these groups acknowledge that many of the scrolls and Judaica objects may never be returned to proper religious use, given the small size of the community. But they insist the city should help the community transfer Judaica from municipal museums to a new Jewish museum that Jewish organizations want to open.

Politics, anyone? Still, if anyone's to have auspices over confiscated Judaica in the former SU, it's probably better that it be the Jews. But then you get into the problem of which Jews- the Orthodox? The Chief Rabbis (mostly Chabad emissaries)?

Oh, and speaking of Chabad...

"Museums must return all Torah scrolls to the communities," Rabbi Azriel Chaikin, a chief rabbi of Ukraine and the main Chabad-Lubavitch authority in the country, told JTA. "Religious silver and some other objects we can discuss separately, but Torahs must be returned."

Hmm. Well, they do tend to be a little more brusque than most.

Baruch Marzel's been in the news a bit lately. First he offered to help "expel" Yonatan Bassi. Now he's calling Ephraim Sneh a slut. Fair enough, I guess, as long as he's willing to apply the same fine-tooth comb to his own guys- like the would-be child killers in Bat Ayin, and the FBI informant (narc?)-turned-black-beater-enabler-of-terrorism-and, oh yeah-philanderer- Meir Kahane. How about it, Baruch?

The Jpost has some interesting remarks about Hebronites, though. A pretty good article, though the author seems to fall into this weird guilt-trap:

what the officer and the settler pragmatists fail to acknowledge is that there is no one else prepared to go through what the Hebron settlers do. Ninety-nine percent of settlers live in what are in effect dormitory suburbs of Jerusalem and Gush Dan. Those living deeper in the West Bank at least enjoy large villas and gardens at prices that won't buy a two-bedroom flat in Petah Tikva.

The Hebronites raise their large families in cramped warrens, with windows blocked off from the Palestinian's line of fire, in constant danger of terror attacks, cut off from most of the material benefits of Israeli society. That kind of life calls for a certain type of idealist, and also causes a certain coarsening of character. Most of their supporters prefer to do so from afar. More moderate right-wing politicians and spokespeople prefer not to be drawn into questions on the Hebron settlers, not wishing to condone their actions while being careful not to appear anything less than steadfast in their support of the Jewish people's right to the city of our forefathers.

...The short video of Yifat Alkobi repeatedly calling a Palestinian woman, hiding behind bars protecting her home, "sharmuta, sharmuta" (whore) dominated the airwaves and Web sites more than any yearly report. Perhaps it was the incongruity of a head-covered religious woman using such coarse language. Alkobi drew almost universal denunciation except from the ultra-rightists, who retorted that she was merely voicing her frustration at the joint persecution of the settlers by the Palestinians, left-wingers, journalists and IDF soldiers.

But more that anything, it revealed something that most Israelis, especially on the right-wing, would prefer not to admit. The Hebron settlers might be a tiny minority in Israeli society, but as they have been allowed to live there for almost four decades, defended by the IDF and receiving most of the social, educational and health services there, they are indeed the representatives of the state, whether we like it or not. Whether or not we as Israelis support the right of Jews to continue living in Hebron, Yifat Alkobi is there on behalf of all of us.

But of course, no one asked Mrs. Alkobi to go to Hebron, no one forced her into it. The people in Hebron are there because they believe that it is where they are meant to be, and they treat their neighbors the way they do because they think that's the right thing to do. These people volunteered to live in these "warrens", and they can leave if they truly want. Besides, what happened to the Israeli pioneer ethos? Somebody choosing a difficult life doesn't excuse bad behavior, not even if they feel they're doing it "on behalf" of somebody else. Baruch Goldstein, so the story goes, thought he was killing Arabs on behalf of his fellows. That doesn't excuse what he did.

I ignored this one point in the previously-mentioned column from a few days ago. Another reason the South is Spectacular, according to the P.I.G. to the South:

[The South has] a conscience about race relations. Johnson states, “The South has never denied its role in perpetuating slavery. The South and only the South have apologized profusely for its role in slavery.” Since the slave days, “black income in the region has steadily increased, neighborhoods have been integrated, black politicians have been elected to major offices, and black business people have emerged to head national corporations. In the south regional patriotism trumps race any old day.” And if the South hates blacks the way the way your lesbian US History teacher says they do, then why, according to the 2003 US Census Bureau, are hundreds of thousands of blacks blowing off the North and moving down South, huh?

Cheap rent?

A link from today's DovBear seemed apropos for this:

RICHMOND - A resolution to have Virginia apologize for slavery will encounter some opposition in the House of Delegates this month, according to legislators.

The highly symbolic issue likely to spark debate is a proposed state apology for African enslavement sponsored by black Virginia lawmakers, at least two of whom are descended from slaves.

...Some delegates believe an apology is unnecessary and a sign of too much political correctness.

“The present commonwealth has nothing to do with slavery,” said Del. Frank D. Hargrove, R-Glen Allen, whose ancestors were French Huguenots who came to America in search of religious freedom.

How far do these calls for apologies go, wondered Hargrove, a member of the House Rules Committee that could take up McEachin’s resolution as early as Wednesday.

“Are we going to force the Jews to apologize for killing Christ?” Hargrove wondered.

What else you got, PIGgies?

Iranian Jews to Israel: Stop scaring us.

Kind of reminds me of this incident a few years ago. Of course, Israel also wasn't threatening to nuke the Eiffel Tower.


Also, this seems kind of creepy.

A court approved two parents' request Monday to use the sperm of their son, who was killed four years ago, in order to bring a grandchild to the world with a woman who wasn't his partner.

The couple's son was killed during his army service after being shot to death by a Palestinian sniper.

The parents – by way of the advocacy organization "New Family" – turned to the court two years ago with a request to use their son's sperm to produce a child from their dead son. They claimed before the court that their son on many occasions throughout his life expressed his desire to have children, and they felt that they must fulfill his will. The family had already turned to the media in the past to tell their story in hopes to put the process in motion. Following the media coverage, they were contacted by more than 40 women who agreed to carry the child for them.

The family wrote in its petition that it would have been the wish of their dead son to use his sperm to impregnate the woman and said that it was their right as potential grandparents to carry out the insemination. They promised that they would keep to their role as grandparents and would not interfere in the life of the child.

The request was approved despite a ruling made three years ago, according to which the parents of the dead have no standing rights in these sorts of issues.

This is the first time a court has approved the use of a deceased man's sperm for the insemination of a woman he had never met. This is also the first time the court has approved a sperm donation in which the donor and the recipient did not know each other, yet the donor's identity was not concealed.

This falls into the category of "shouldn't be illegal, but..." I don't know, maybe it's just the picture of legions of wanna-be Jewish grandmothers trying to use this to get the darling grandkids they've always dreamed of. Letting a partner use it is fine, but soliciting volunteers? (Anyone else picturing an Apprentice spin-off?) doesn't sit well with me.

Prior to what some lefty wingnutss (and some GOP Jews) would like to say, we did not go into Iraq for Israel, and we are not benefiting it by our present actions.

What's more, Sharon knew it back in 2003.

Publicly, Sharon played the silent ally; he neither criticized nor supported the Iraq adventure. One reason for his relative silence was Washington’s explicit request that Israel refrain from openly backing its invasion of an Arab country or in any way intervening, lest its blessing damn the United States in Arab eyes.

But sometime prior to March 2003, Sharon told Bush privately in no uncertain terms what he thought about the Iraq plan. Sharon’s words — revealed here for the first time — constituted a friendly but pointed warning to Bush. Sharon acknowledged that Saddam Hussein was an “acute threat” to the Middle East and that he believed Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Yet according to one knowledgeable source, Sharon nevertheless advised Bush not to occupy Iraq. According to another source — Danny Ayalon, who was Israel’s ambassador to the United States at the time of the Iraq invasion, and who sat in on the Bush-Sharon meetings — Sharon told Bush that Israel would not “push one way or another” regarding the Iraq scheme.

According to both sources, Sharon warned Bush that if he insisted on occupying Iraq, he should at least abandon his plan to implant democracy in this part of the world. “In terms of culture and tradition, the Arab world is not built for democratization,” Ayalon recalls Sharon advising.

Be sure, Sharon added, not to go into Iraq without a viable exit strategy. And ready a counter-insurgency strategy if you expect to rule Iraq, which will eventually have to be partitioned into its component parts. Finally, Sharon told Bush, please remember that you will conquer, occupy and leave, but we have to remain in this part of the world. Israel, he reminded the American president, does not wish to see its vital interests hurt by regional radicalization and the spillover of violence beyond Iraq’s borders.

Sharon’s advice — reflecting a wealth of experience with Middle East issues that Bush lacked — was prescient. The American occupation of Iraq has ended up strengthening Iran, Israel’s number-one enemy, and enfranchising militant Shi’ite Islamists. A large part of Iraq is slipping into the Iranian orbit. Iraq’s western Anbar Province is increasingly dominated by militant jihadi Sunnis who could eventually threaten Syria and Jordan, the latter a strategic partner and geographic buffer for Israel.

All these developments harm vital Israeli interests. This past summer, Israel fought a war against two militant Islamist movements supported by Iran — Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza — that were enfranchised and legitimized in their anarchic countries thanks to Bush’s insistence on hasty and ill-advised democratic elections “in this part of the world.”

Unfortunately by now we know all too well how Bush reacts to advice he doesn't like.

You disingenuous so-and-so:

President George W. Bush made clear on Saturday that he was going ahead with his plan to send more troops to Iraq despite an angry reaction in Congress, and accused his critics of failing to offer an alternative.

"We recognize that many members of Congress are skeptical," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "Members of Congress have a right to express their views, and express them forcefully."

"But those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success. To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible," he said.

Iraq. Study. Group. John. Fucking. Murtha. Ted. Dough-boy. Kennedy.

Oh, you meant alternatives you like and didn't reject out of hand. My bad.

For some reason, Arutz-Sheva decided to combine a stupid news story about Kachnik Noam Federman with a fluff piece on Federman himself. They even decided to include Federman's "noble lineage":

All in the Family
Family-wise, Federman is:
• the son of Lechi fighter David Federman
• brother of Eli Federman, who, as a security guard in Tel Aviv in May 2002, shot and killed an approaching suicide terrorist before anyone could be hurt.
• husband of Elisheva, who was convicted two years ago of child neglect for bringing her child to a lengthy and rainy demonstration against the police destruction of the house of the widow of terrorist-victim Nati Ozeri.
• father of eight children, including:
** Yiskah, 17, who has been arrested more than once for demonstrating in favor of the Land of Israel; she refused to cooperate with what she called the "non-Torah legal system" and was kept in prison for many weeks,
** and a son, 12, whose finger was bent back by policemen at a protest over a year ago - for which incident a court ordered the police to pay him 1,500 shekels.

Only one problem. Eli Federman thinks his brother is a yutz.

"I'm proud of both of my children," said Rina Federman, a right-wing activist who has participated in Women in Green demonstrations. "Noam is actually a great patriot, who does everything to save Israel. Eli chose to live many years abroad. Eli is a hero, but I am not ashamed of Noam."

The two Federman brothers have been estranged since childhood, when they were raised in Jerusalem's Talpiot neighborhood. Their father was a hard-line nationalist, a member of the Etzel underground group. He was arrested by the British and deported to Ethiopia, where he shared a cell with Yitzhak Shamir, then a member of the Stern Gang and decades later Israel's prime minister.

When questioned, Eli refused to disclose the source of the conflict with his brother. "It's not about politics; it's personal, only because of individual privacy and family honor I will not go into detail. My relationship with Yasser Arafat is like my relationship with my brother Noam. To say that we don't see eye to eye is an understatement."

But speaking with Channel One television, Eli was much harsher. "I am one of his greatest enemies; for me he is not a brother. We haven't spoken in 28 years. He does not interest me; he didn't serve in the army, and not even in the civil defense. I know some unpleasant, non-political, things about him."

Rina was unable to pinpoint why and when the bad blood began to flow between the brothers. "I think Eli is carrying around a feeling of rejection, after all these years," she said, pointing out that when their father died, Eli remained abroad, and only Noam was at her side to support her through the difficult loss.

"Eli doesn't want to be connected with his brother Noam," a Kach activist told Yediot Aharonot. "They haven't had a relationship in years so it's understandable that he would want no part in events involving the Police, the Shin Bet and the media."

And all this from one simple Google search. Nice journalism, there, A7.