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))

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?

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.