Rabbi Ovadia Yosef insults the names of brave men

The Jerusalem Post reports:

Officials from across the political and military spectrums slammed Shas spiritual leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef Monday for a sermon in which Yosef said troops killed in the Second Lebanon War lost their lives because of their lack of religious observance. (Source)

I have never heard something so disgusting! I know that Rabbi Yosef tends to blame every type of occurance on lack of Torah study in accordance with his reading of the Talmud (Berachot 5a), but this is a major insult to the families and soldiers who died trying to defend helpless civilians as rockets rained down onto their homes. They deserve a bit more of respect from Rabbi Yosef.

Here are some of the faces of the people that Rabbi Yosef has attacked, yet they gave their lives to defend his right to practice religion free of religious persecution: LINK

Here are also some sources from the Talmud people should read up on:

-God consoles the bereaved; so should we. (Sotah 14a)
-An individual must act in a way which others will be glad about. (Nedarim 22b)
-One who judges others for merit, will be judged in Heaven for merit. (Shabbat 127b)

Maybe we all should not be so quick to judge others in such a harsh way after they died protecting us.

CAMERA's response to "CNN's Abomination"

The website 'camera.org' had a great response to the CNN documentary "God's Jewish warriors", a few of the points they made that I found interesting are the following:

Amanpour says: "But it is also Palestinian land. The West Bank - it's west of the Jordan River - was designated by the United Nations to be the largest part of an Arab state." This is highly deceptive. The United Nations 1947 Partition Plan proposed dividing all the land west of the Jordan into a Jewish and an Arab state; the Arabs rejected the plan, choosing instead to launch a war to eliminate Israel. The land did not become "Palestinian land" via this UN Plan. Likewise, UN Security Council Resolution 242, passed after the Six Day War, underscored that territorial adjustments related to the West Bank were to be expected.

The following is correct, however at the same time, it may not have been "Palestinians" land, because there was no such thing as "Palestinians" at that time, however, it was given to Arabs. The question I have is, when one nation rejects a United Nation plan and attacks the other nation involved in the plan, does that nation have a right to now fall back and accept that plan after they lost?

A quote that distubrs me from the documentary as well is:

Six thousand miles from Israel's settlements, in the heart of Manhattan, defiance of international law comes dressed in diamonds.

I don't know, it just seems like a very serious accusation to make, especially when she only interviewed one side of the story. She had an obvious bias in this segment.

Regarding Israel’s acquisition of territories in the 1967 war, it is written (from camera.org):

Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title. ("What Weight to Conquest," American Journal of International Law, 64 (1970))

An illogical relationship - Political opposites sustaining each other

It was an odd experience I had while looking into our current government’s relationships with Middle Eastern political parties. President Bush is trying to develop a Middle East where religious fundamentalism and narrow-mindedness are absent. This is a noble objective, but there is something irregular about his vision for these Arab states and his plan for our own country. The ambition of President Bush and his Evangelical followers is to remove the separation of church and state in this country. Between opposing same sex marriage in an effort to impose biblical ethics on the American people, to initiating a process which is trying to lead us to prayer in publicly funded schools, his vision is very clear, and in no way is it hidden. Yet, the individuals in the Arab world supported by our country today, ideologically; are diametrical opposites of what the ‘religious right-wing’ wants for our own country.

Interestingly, the moderates which President Bush and our government support and wish to be in control of the Middle East would be considered very liberal in our country. They aspire to remove religion from public life, they dream of a day when the Arab world will contribute greatly to scientific discovery and development instead of the current status quo: Quran memorization. The moderates we sustain have the goal for the Middle East that secular progressive minded liberals have for our very own country. Why does our government support the movements trying to Christianize our nation, yet support the secular groups with the intent of reversing the current religious dominance over politics in the Arab world? Islamic moral principles are not so different from Christian ethical values. After all, Muslims in the United States agree with the Christian right-wing movement on about all social issues such as abortion, gay marriage and prayer; the only difference being their view of American foreign policy relating to Muslims.

On the other hand liberals can be accused of the same thing. In general, liberal progressives in the Western world are very keen on disagreeing with United States intervention in the Arab world. There hastiness to disagree on imposing secular progressive ethics on the Arab world and interfering with their affairs is an odd difference of opinion to have since they are generally very supportive of separating religion from politics. Why if you hold such a stance would you oppose the removal of religious extremism in the Middle East and the replacement of more moderate voices in the Arab world? This is partially, because the removal of religious extremism is not the main influence on our foreign policy decisions. The factors which contribute to our assessment process, in fact, have to do with capitalism and our economic interests overseas. In reality, ‘freedom’ and the democratic process have nothing to do with religious extremism and the moderation of Islam. As seen in the Palestinian territories, religious extremists like Hamas, who are set on our destruction, can easily win fair elections through the electoral route. It is a matter of who will benefit our economy the most. It is irrelevant if he is a tyrant, a man of the people, a fanatic, or a freethinker. It is about money. The reason the United States are empowering political figures in the Middle East with the same ideas as political figures in America who they oppose is simply because one side will benefit us more. As the saying goes, “Cash is king”.

Jews and Muslims both besieged by the extreme right in Holland

Haaretz.com reported:

Extreme right-wing violence in the Netherlands soared by 75 percent last year, according the annual Anne Frank Foundation report on extremism, which was released yesterday…The report's co-author told Haaretz that anti-Semitic hate crimes -- which constituted 13 percent of all cases -- are often falsely represented as anti-Zionist. According to Willem Wagenaar, 2006 saw 35 anti-Semitic instances out of a total of 265 hate crimes. The overall number of racial offenses dropped by 10 percent from the previous year, which saw 41 anti-Semitic attacks… For example, one group of extreme-right youths, who were found guilty of torching both a synagogue and an Muslim school, claimed they had set the synagogue on fire to protest Israel's policy."… About a quarter (23 percent) of all hate crimes in 2006 were directed at Muslim immigrants.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/896587.html

It seems that extremely right wing people in all nations will target ethnic minorities, as well as religious minorities. From either blowing up an abortion clinic, to torching a synagogue the adherents of radicalized right-wing politics seem to constantly turn to violent behavior.

I would like to ask people in the comment section to tell me what they believe a major difference between the radicalized left wing and the radicalized right wing is. I’m curious to read the opinions of others, on the major underlying differences between these two forms of political extremism.

Hypocrisy at its premium

The State of Israel was born out of the ashes of the Holocaust. The phrase “never again” was born in this era, as a statement that we would never allow such genocide to occur on this earth on our watch. Nevertheless, genocide is occurring once again, and not only is the world watching silently as the minuscule details of peacekeeping forces have finally ceased being debated by the United Nations. The Israeli news agency Haaretz, reported that:

“Almost all of the asylum seekers who Israel deported on Sunday to Egypt had escaped the genocide in Darfur, according to figures given to Haaretz by Israel Defense Forces officials.”

What has Israel come to as a nation? Not only is this a gross act of international law, but Israel is in effect possibly sending these people back to imminent death in Sudan. More than 200,000 people have been killed in Darfur already, and if the genocide is not halted, many more will perish. The State of Israel has a moral obligation to give asylum to refugees seeking to escape genocide. Imagine what the Jews in the S.S. St. Louis, who were so joyful that they would have a chance to come to America, thought when their boat was not allowed into any country (including America). Feeling alone and rejected by the entire world, the passengers returned to Europe in June 1939. To send refugees back to a country in which they may be killed, is an act of not only hypocrisy, but an act of disregard towards the founding principles in which the State of Israel was created.

Keeping the peace while the sides re-arm?

The UNIFIL "fact sheet" states the following:

The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, is one of the UN’s oldest peacekeeping operations. Its nearly 2,000 troops and 50 unarmed military observers are tasked with seeking to maintain a ceasefire along the 70-mile (121 km) United Nations “Blue Line” between Israel and Lebanon, by patrolling, observing, reporting violations and liaising with the parties.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/factsheet.pdf

What exactly can they do then if Hezbollah fires rockets at Israeli's? Patrol? Observe? I believe that if peace really is going to be restored, then the UN should not sit idly, while Hezbollah re-arms itself for another conflict.

A philosophy of abhorrence revived

According to the Jerusalem Post, "the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), which has almost five million members in the US, took a step toward a partial boycott of Israeli goods at its 2007 Churchwide Assembly in Chicago last week." This is hardly suprising, when one looks at the overall roots of Lutheranism.

In 1543, the Martin Luther, the churches overall founder wrote: “On The Jews and Their Lies”. This ludicrous work of Luther’s is a testament to his bigotry. Examples of the statements found in this work are:

A.) “What then shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of
Jews?”

B.) “First, their synagogues should be set on fire, and whatever does not burn up should be covered or spread over with dirt so that no one may ever be able to see a cinder or stone of it. And this ought to be done for the honor of God and of Christianity in order that God may see that we are Christians”

C.) “Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and
destroyed. For they perpetrate the same things there that they do in their
synagogues. For this reason they ought to be put under one roof or in a stable,
like gypsies.”

D.) “Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayer-books and Talmuds
in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught.”

E.) “Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden under threat of death to
teach any more...”

Translated by Martin H. Bertram, On The Jews and Their
Lies, Luther's Works, Volume 47; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971. (From HERE)

The above is just an example of the detestation filled ‘philosophy’ he brought to this earth. Can we truly anticipate much better from the followers of his message?

The regularity of devastation

In Iraq today, a truck bombing has killed "at least 500 people" according to CNN. Let's think about this for a second. At least 500 people are dead because of the continuing violence in Iraq. Nevertheless, with people I have spoken to, it seems to them so; normal. The entire nation was in tears and disbelief over the Virginia Tech massacre, yet, in Virginia that fateful morning, not even close to the amount of people died as do in Iraq almost every day. With the hope that people do not think I am attempting to desensitize what occurred at Virginia Tech, let’s look at the present circumstances rationally. We have been so desensitized by the continued death in Iraq that this has become normal! Thousands of Iraqi lives continue to be ruined based on a colossal error, and it is a fact of everyday life. I can think of few things that can be considered more demoralizing than the realization, that death on such an immense magnitude has been relegated to normality.

Giuliani's uncompromising ignorance

Rudy Giuliani has declared that he “opposes a Palestinian state” (LINK). In all probability this is an attempt by Rudy to win over Jewish voters, and many Orthodox Jewish voters will possibly support him now because of such a strong statement which is aligned with a stance of unconditional support for Israel. However, does such a ‘hawkish’ political position really equate to absolute support for the Jewish state?

How will there ever be peace in the Middle East with such an uncompromising view of a political reality? No matter what you think about the Palestinians as a collective people, a two state solution must occur if peace will ever be accomplished in the region. The reason groups like Hamas are popular in the Gaza strip and West Bank is simply because our policy. When conservatives give an uncompromising position on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, and then condemn and group like Hamas for keeping an uncompromising outlook, they are being nothing but hypocritical. Yes, Hamas is a terrorist group, and they will never alter their vile outlook, but if the United States government continues to act not in the name of peaceful solutions, but instead in the name of inflexibility, then the Palestinians who crave peace and harmony along with the Palestinians who were outraged by Arafat’s refusal to accept a remarkable deal offered to him, to form Palestinian statehood, will lose credibility. Think about it. Every time a United States leader or representative says something like what Rudy said, the progressives within Palestinian culture are not empowered, but instead Hamas and groups who are equally rigid and uncompromising win numerous more recruits to their cause of hate.

In other words, will Rudy Giuliani’s adamant position on Palestinian statehood benefit Israel at all? The answer is no. In the name of saving lives and creating peace in the Middle East, Jewish law is on the side of giving away land to prevent the spilling of more Jewish blood. (i.e. pikuach nefesh). Yes, a peace partner is needed to accomplish this idyllic ambition of peace, however, statements that do not recognize an important part of the peace process (two state solution) as valid, will do nothing but help Hamas find more suicide bombers.

The Vilna Goan's parallel forecast

In the website, yedidnefesh.com's, chapter 1 of the sefer Kol Hator, the following is written:

A major principle of the Gaon was that all activities regarding the beginning of the Redemption have to be similar to the activities during the time of Ezra and Nehemia and in the time of Cyrus. Source: http://www.yedidnefesh.com/kaballah/kol-hator/1.htm

The prediction is fascinating and strikingly accurate in regards to the situation the Jewish people are in today. In the time of Cyrus, the nations allowed the Jewish people to return to the land of Israel. In 1948, the State of Israel was created because the United Nations (i.e. nations of the world) allowed the Jewish people to have a homeland and return from all over the world.

Such a parallel between the time of Ezra and today can be made as well. In his time Ezra condemned the rampant spread of intermarriage within the Jewish people. As is read in the book of Ezra 10:10: "And Ezra the priest arose and said to them, 'You have dealt treacherously, and you have taken in foreign wives to add to Israel's guilt'." And in verse 13, Ezra says: "But the people are many", referring to the people who took in foreign wives as “many”. Today in America the rate of intermarriage is extremely high. Since 1985, 52% of Jews who married have done so outside the faith. (Source: Council of Jewish Federations' 1990 National Jewish Population Survey) Many Jewish organizations today are trying to combat intermarriage in any way they can as Ezra did many years ago.

It seems that the circumstances during the time of Ezra and Cyrus can be considered similar to the situations we find ourselves in currently. Hopefully this is a sign that the redemption is coming soon, and with it, an eternal era of world peace.

Women studying Torah

The Rambam in Hilchot Talmud Torah (1:13) states:

A woman who studied Torah receives a [Heavenly] reward but not as much as the reward of a man [who studies], because she is not commanded [to study]. And anybody who does something which they are not commanded, their reward is not the same as the reward of the one who is commanded and fulfills [the Mitzva], rather it is less. Even though she merits reward, the Rabbis commanded that a man not teach his daughter Torah. Because most women's cognitive skills are not directed towards proper learning and they corrupt the words of Torah into nonsense, according to their weak understanding. The Rabbis said: "Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah, it is as if he taught her *tiflut* (silliness, licentiousness). This only refers to *Torah sheba'al peh* (The oral tradition); but regarding *Torah shebikhtav* (Scripture), he should not teach her, but if he does, it is not considered as if he taught her *tiflut*. (From Torah.org)

Yitz Etshalom (of torah.org) notes an interesting concept drawn from this passage. The language of the [Rambam] certainly seems to be focused on the father's teaching his daughter. As a matter of fact, there is an interesting switch in his terminology: “Even though she merits reward, the Rabbis commanded that a man not teach his daughter Torah.” - moving from her (lesser) reward for study to the Rabbinic injunction aimed at the father. There doesn't seem to be any problem with a woman studying of her own volition and motivation.

Seperation of Church and State and the need to uphold this concept

Orthodox Jews must come to a realization. As Jews we have always been persecuted, and the majority of persecutions were under Christian run countries. Christian anti-semitism led to a lot of bigotry and intolerance. Now, the ‘Christian right-wing’ wishes to turn America away from its law separating church from state. Here is a reason why Orthodox Jews should oppose such a move:

The Talmud (Nedarim 28a) says “'Dina de malchuta dina”, which basically means ‘the law of the land is the law’, which should be followed as long as the law is not discriminatory towards Jews in its nature. Seeing that Orthodox Jews are required to uphold the law of the land, the law states (United States Constitution, Amendment I):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

Therefore, the law states that the government should not respect religions, nor should it discriminate our rights to practice religion freely.

In the medieval times under Christian theocracies and kings, Jews were heavily persecuted for practicing religion. The secular view of religion allows Jews to freely practice our faith and profess our beliefs openly. Why tamper with such a system, and why consider going against this basic law of the land we live in, when the Talmud says it is the law for us to uphold it? What if theoretically the entire country converted to Hinduism and the barriers between church and state were broken? Then would you be comfortable with idols and Hindu gods and goddesses everywhere, all around you? It is obvious. Orthodox Jews must defend the first amendment; the right to practice religion freely, and the need to keep it out of the government.

Capital punishment from a new perspective

Capital punishment needs to be looked at from a new perspective. If our great Sages would come back in time and see the system that is the ‘death penalty’ in this country today, what do you think they would say? In the time of the Sanhedrin, executions rarely if ever took place, because our Sages respected human life; no matter what. A court which executed one man in seven years would be labeled a ‘destructive court’ (Makkot 7a), because it was understood, how serious of a task executing people was. On the rare occurrences that a Jewish court would actually administer a sentence of the death penalty, the court would even fast that day (Moed Katan 14b). The stringency on witnesses was so high, that the death penalty under Jewish law could almost never be put into practice. Forty years prior to the destruction of the Second Beit Hamikdash in 70 C.E. the Sages refused to hear anymore capital cases! How do you think the Sages would view a capital punishment system with these statistics?

1. Innocence - For every seven executed individuals in this country, one man on death row is found innocent.

2. Economic class - The poor have less of a chance (many of our sages were poor), because many death row inmates were convicted while being protected by court-appointed lawyers who are frequently the worst-paid and most-inexperienced and least-skillful lawyers.

3. Prejudice - Serial killers such as the infamous Gary Ridgway in Seattle who admitted killing 48 prostitutes and runaways got life in prison. An "angel of death" nurse in NJ who admitted killing 17 people got life. Meanwhile, mentally ill and impoverished murderers who could not afford good lawyers and did not warrant much media attention were given the death penalty.

Lastly many people say it is a “deterrent” but we all know that is untrue. It is common sense that when someone decides they are going to take the life of another human being they are either (a) not thinking rationally, and therefore the consequences will not alter their decision to murder, or (b) do not think they will get caught, because is murdering someone worth getting the death penalty or life in prison? No one murders anyone if they believe they will be caught (maybe a very insignificant minority does), so therefore the consequences of their actions are irrelevant to them since they would not commit the crime if in a state of illogicality or under the belief they will never be caught.

Therefore, I suggest we review the death penalty and either heavily reform it, or abolish it.