Column one: The storm over the teacup

A body politic barred from determining who may dwell within its boundaries is not a free, democratic society.

By Carolne Glick, JPOST

GlickFollowing last Tuesday’s jihadist massacre of four rabbis and a police officer at the Bnei Torah Kehillat Yaakov synagogue in Jerusalem, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu ordered law enforcement bodies to act immediately to destroy the homes of the two terrorist murderers who carried out that attack. He also directed them to destroy the homes of the terrorists who carried out the three other recent attacks in Jerusalem.

The following day, police destroyed the home of one terrorist murderer. Two more homes were supposed to be destroyed in short order.

But then the EU-funded radical leftist NGO Hamoked – Center for the Defense of the Individual petitioned the Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, opposing the orders.

Wednesday the court issued an injunction prohibiting state authorities from carrying out the house demolition orders.

In directing law enforcement officials to carry out the home demolitions, Netanyahu argued that the move serves as a deterrent to future would-be terrorists. Whether or not he is correct is a matter of debate. But certainly the Supreme Court can’t determine the effectiveness of the move better than the IDF can. And the IDF’s official position is that destroying the homes of terrorists deters potential terrorists from attacking.

And yet, rather than recognize the limitations of their own wisdom, Supreme Court justices acted on the behalf of an EU-funded radical organization that represents no significant constituency in Israel, and overruled the democratically elected government, curtailing its power to take the measures it deems necessary to protect the public.

This of course was just the latest move by the court to arrogate to itself the powers duly conferred on the public’s elected representatives in the government and the Knesset.

In September, the court ruled on another petition brought before it by radical left-wing NGOs funded by the EU and other foreign actors.

In its jaw dropping decision to strike down the “Infiltrators Law” amendment to the 1954 Prevention of Infiltration Law, and order the closure of the state’s holding facilities for illegal aliens from Africa, the court effectively denied the people’s elected representatives the power to determine Israel’s immigration policies. In so doing, the court hollowed out the public’s right to self-determination.

It also diminished Israel’s democratic system of government.

A body politic barred from determining who may dwell within its boundaries is not a free, democratic society.

The court also weakened Israel’s long-term viability as the Jewish state. A Jewish state unable to prevent the dilution of its Jewish majority through the illegal mass immigration of predominantly Muslim Africans is a Jewish state with a dubious future.

This of course brings us to the current hullabaloo about the draft legislation of the Nation-State Law.

Supporters of the draft legislation that seeks to give a constitutional anchor to Israel’s identity as the nation-state of the Jewish people argue that the law will weaken the court’s power to undermine Israel’s Jewish identity.

Extolling the bill, Economy Minister and head of the Bayit Yehudi party Naftali Bennett said Sunday, “The Nation-State Law… will save residents of south Tel Aviv from the infiltrators [from Africa, who have become a dominant force in the area].

When the law to block infiltrators is brought before the Supreme Court next time, the court will have to consider the fact that Israel is the national home of the Jewish people… This is an important development for residents of south Tel Aviv and for the State of Israel as a whole.”

MK Yariv Levin, one of the drafters of the legislation, said, “Today we took an historic step in restoring Israel to its Zionist roots, after years of constant erosion of Zionist norms on which the state was founded by the legal system.”

The problem with assessments like these, which inform the political Right’s dedication to the bill, is that they have no basis in reality. The proposed law changes nothing about the legal status of Israel or its Jewish character. All of the substantive determinations made in the bill are already anchored in existing laws, including in some cases, laws with constitutional standing.

In its judgments over the past 20 years, the court’s justices have had no qualms whatsoever about ignoring laws, including laws with constitutional standing, in order to advance their post-Zionist political agenda.

For instance, as Sefi Keller explained this week in Mida online magazine, both justices Aharon Barak and Mishael Cheshin disregarded the plain language of Basic Law: Knesset in their rulings.

That law prohibits anti-Zionist parties from running for Knesset. Both justices ruled in separate instances that the openly anti-Zionist Balad party could run.

There is no reason to assume that a new basic law insisting that the justices respect Israel’s Jewish character will have any impact on them. Indeed, their partners at the State Prosecution have already told the media that if the law is passed, the Supreme Court will overturn it (when asked to do so by EU-funded NGOs).

Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein announced his opposition to the bill ahead of the government’s vote Sunday. Weinstein has a track record of refusing to defend the government to the court when he doesn’t like the government’s position.

The unavoidable fact is that the only way to curb the power of the court is to take direct action against the sources of its arrogated powers. The Knesset must amend Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, the basis for the Supreme Court’s post-Zionist actions.

It must change the selection process for justices.

It must end the anomalous and anti-democratic situation in which the state prosecutors and attorney- general are above elected leaders.

It must end the devastating trend in which every senior government appointment, and many Knesset decisions, must receive prior approval from a judge or from a committee led by judges.

For many on the Right the Nation State bill was supposed to be the first step on this road. The bill itself was first presented as a consensus measure whose purpose was to fight the international movement to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist.

Four years ago, the bill was drafted jointly by Likud MK Ze’ev Elkin and Kadima MK Avi Dichter. Dichter was acting with authority from then-opposition leader and Kadima leader Tzipi Livni. More than a dozen other members of her party co-sponsored it.

The coalition agreement for the current government, which both Livni, as the head of Hatnua party, and Yair Lapid, as head of Yesh Atid party, agreed to, stipulates that the government would pass the bill. Passing the bill was not considered controversial.

And yet, once the bill was scheduled to be debated last week by the Ministerial Committee for Legislation which Livni chairs as justice minister, she turned rejecting the bill she had previously sponsored and agreed to pass into the be-all and end-all of her tenure in office.

In multiple statements, Livni called the bill she committed her party to supporting just last year, “anti-Zionist,” “anti-Jewish” and “anti-democratic.”

Livni’s partner in the grandstanding, Lapid, has similarly attacked the legislation.

It is worth recalling that just a week before they became impassioned champions of democracy, both Lapid and Livni voted in favor of a bill that seeks to close the largest-circulation paper in the country. Their support of the bill owed entirely to their opposition to Yisrael Hayom’s political line.

In other words, these two valiant defenders of democracy support censorship.

But far worse than their hypocrisy and their cheap opportunism is the fact that in opposing this bill – that will change nothing in the way Israel is governed – the two ministers and coalition partners are doing massive damage to the country.

By attacking a bill that does nothing but re-state the fact that Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people as “anti-democratic,” Lapid and Livni are joining the chorus of Israel-bashers worldwide who claim that there is something inherently evil about Jewish self-determination.

Livni and Lapid are advancing the growing campaign by Jew-haters to demonize Israel as illegitimate, and Zionism is racist. By castigating this anodyne, redundant law they previously supported as anti-democratic, they are saying that there is a contradiction between being a Jewish state and being a democracy.

In all likelihood, their support for the bill owes to the growing herd mentality of the Israeli Left.

Earlier this month Haaretz, the trumpet of the post-Zionism, initiated a campaign to demonize the Nation State bill. The paper’s writers said the legislation will destroy Zionism, lead to Nazism, lead to apartheid, and lead to apartheid and Nazism.

Rather than dismiss these idiotic claims, Livni, Lapid, their backbenchers and large swathes of the media followed Haaretz over the cliff, vapidly parroting its slanderous and anti-Semitic claims.

For Livni, whose party faces electoral destruction in the coming election, embracing the anti-Zionist Left may make political sense. She may pass the electoral threshold by running to the left of Meretz.

Lapid is a different matter. His party’s public support has also collapsed. But as the leader of a party that ran as a middle class centrist party, it is hard to see how embracing the position of Students for Justice in Palestine will help Yesh Atid recapture the center.

Most Israelis are Zionists and don’t understand what all the excitement is about.

Whatever Lapid’s considerations may be, what is clear enough is that his behavior, like that of Livni, and indeed like the behavior of the politicians on the Right who insist that support for the unnecessary bill is a new litmus test for Zionism, is a clear demonstration of the pathologies of Israeli politics.

The Right, like the majority of the public that supports it and votes for it, recognizes that the greatest danger to Israel’s democratic system and status as a Jewish state is the radicalized legal system. But today the Right lacks the power to pass the legislation required to curb the power of Israel’s unelected legal rulers.

Rather than doing the hard work of running a continuous, relentless campaign to accrue the requisite power to reform the system, politicians on the Right have embraced an unnecessary bill that will do nothing as the guarantor of Israel’s future.

On the other hand, their counterparts on the Left have shown that the Israeli Left is today largely indistinguishable from the international Left which rejects Israel’s right to exist and rejects the Jewish people’s right to sovereignty and freedom in its homeland. With Haaretz acting as the conduit between the BDS movement and government ministers, politicians on the Left have become unmoored from the basic requirements of national life.

In other words, the current maelstrom over the draft Nation State bill shows that Israel’s political Right is far weaker than it needs to be and that Israel’s political Left is far more destructive than it ought to be.

www.CarolineGlick.com

 

November 28, 2014 | 147 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

47 Comments / 147 Comments

  1. “His primary belief is if it feels good it is truth.”

    Total projection. I’ve NEVER been into cheap “feel-goods” — that’s strictly Huff’n’puff’s trip.

    “No books no scholarship no deep learning…”

    There is NO ‘depth’ in scholarship. None whatsoever.

    (If there WERE, I’d have become a scholar. I had the temperament for it. Everybody expected it of me.)

    “but simplistic literal…interpretation of text. “

    Simple, yes. ‘Simplistic,’ no. No reason not to take it literally. The text will always show you when it intends to be taken other than literally. It’s not hard to tell when & where.

    “self interpretation of text.”

    “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows”

    — and a Jew doesn’t need a middleman to know how to relate to the scripture that was given to him as a birthright.

    “Yet he knows no Hebrew…”

    More Hebrew than French, though both are rusty from disuse. There’s no substitute for constant immersion. I daresay my Hebrew was better than Huff’n’puff’s before he made Aliyah.

    “… has not learned with anyone who could explain and teach him…”

    That would be tantamount to barking up the wrong tree. He who knows, doesn’t tell.

    He who tells

    — doesn’t know.

    Study — with or w/o a teacher — never brought anybody to the core of Reality, and nobody who’d BEEN there would ever presume to think he could ‘teach’ it to somebody else. Those who do offer their services to that end have never been there, and are cynically taking your money just like somebody once took THEIRS — and are now just getting their OWN back.

    ” and claims to know more , better, and understand than what I call experts. …”

    I understand enough to know what it is that I DON’T know — that gives me a leg up on ANY so-called ‘expert.’

    “He derides Jewish sages”

    Whom did the sages study? — each other???

    I don’t ‘deride’ them. But, unlike Huff’n’puff, I’m not afraid to recognize their limitations.

    Nobody who doesn’t go directly to the Author will ever know the book

    — let alone, the Book behind the book.

    ” and believes Paul the lying dwarf was infallible.”

    I’ve never asserted, or suggested, that Paul was ‘infallible.’

    And Huff’n’puff has never established that Paul was a ‘liar’ OR a ‘dwarf.’

    All Huff’n’puff has ever established is that he huffs & puffs — loudly & incessantly.

  2. “He comes with a stock list of passe Yiddish words nobody uses…”

    “Passé'”? — Yiddish???

    ROFLMSS!

    The household in which I was raised was part of a large, extended family in which the adults all spoke Yiddish and the children all understood it. It wasn’t OUR mama losh’n, but it WAS theirs.

    The generation of those adults is now all gone, so it is only the Yiddish which they spoke that we remember. It would HARDLY be surprising, then, if the phraseology of it that we DO recall were ‘outdated’ — if there were such a thing in Yiddish as ‘outdated’ or passé language

    — which there isn’t — and the malicious jerk who made the above claim would know that if he knew SPIT about Yiddish. Clearly, he doesn’t.

    He’s just counting on ignorance as to the above fact — on the part of the readers here — to let him get by with making cheap, asinine gibes like that one to cover his resentment of the one-&-only poster still here whom he’s never been able to either convert into his willing lapdog or pressure into leaving the site.

    “That’s I suppose to give credence to his Jewish birth claims????”

    Huff’n’puff is paranoid, stupid — and phony. I don’t need ‘credence’ — am well-gounded. I know who I am, and there will never be any shaking that.

    “Spells most wrong too.”

    What ignorant rot. There is no such thing as standardized spellings of words transliterated into a language which is written in characters different from those of the words themselves. Yiddish was written in Hebrew characters, not English (viz., Latin) ones. . . . So the notion of ‘wrong spellings’ of Yiddish (or, for that matter, Hebrew) phrases in English is downright laughable.

    Transliteration is always a strictly practical affair — a question of simply rendering the sound of one spoken language faithfully pronounceable by being read when written in the CHARACTERS of a different one.

    “He said he doesn’t accept the Nicene code but he does in everything but the admittance of yeshu as divine.”

    The rest is thoroughly irrelevant from a strictly Jewish perspective. It’s the ‘divinity’ thing which constitutes the one & only — but inescapable — deal-breaker.

    “Even Karites are not as far removed from Judaism as he is.”

    Wrong.

    “He is entitled to his beliefs he is not entitled to his claim of fact and truth.”

    Huff’n’puff is entitled to no claim of authority in this matter.

    “Nobody asked him what his personal beliefs are he readily volunteered them knowing the reaction he would get.”

    What a pile of pigplop. When I first came on-board here, the very poster who MADE that comment, Capt Huff’n’puff himself, pestered me for MONTHS to tell him what I believed about all SORTS of things religious in hopes of finding a chink in my armor — it still frustrates the hell out him that he never could — the archives going back as far as 2007 clearly tell the story.

  3. @ bernard ross:

    “So why should HB provide evidence when you dont?”

    “When I make a direct accusation of a specific act of moral turpitude, I do offer evidence.

    She made an accusation in re a specific act — and did not.

    There is no comparison between that and saying that ‘pity’ is a bogus cover for hate. There’s an observation of human nature there, but no accusation of a specific ACT. Apples & Oranges.”

    “rubbish, both claim to be assertions of fact.”

    “What’s that got to do with the price of onions? Only ONE of them leaves the assertor liable to slander for not proving his case. For the other, you can take it or leave it.”

    “…slander is not the issue. “

    Right. The issue is the OBLIGATION — or lack of same — to offer proof.

    If the assertion incorporates an assault on somebody’s reputation connected with alleged reprehensible or otherwise wrongful conduct, THEN the Accuser has placed himself under an iron-clad, unyielding obligation to prove his allegations.

    Short of such claims, however, one isn’t obliged to ‘prove’ anything. If he WANTS to, he may ELECT to do so, but there is no inherent obligation to do so as in the matter of defamation.

    “If not, then your assertions carry no more weight…”

    If you find my assertions ‘weightless,’ you should have no problem ignoring them. . . .

    @ bernard ross:

    “so why haven’t you given evidence for your use of the epithet ‘Twinkie’…?”

    Why should I? — What have I ‘accused’ her of doing?

    “and why do you avoid stating which definition of ‘Twinkie’ you use…”

    Your persistent harping on those non-germane ‘definitions’ is, at best, a distraction

    — and, at worst, a ploy for providing yourself a tool for controlling the direction of discourse. If you want somebody to chase that bone, chase it yourself.

    “… when smearing Honeybee?”

    Where’s the proof (except in your scheming mind) that I’ve ‘smeared’ her?

  4. @ bernard ross:

    “You are reminiscent of those priests who study hebrew,Torah, Talmud etc for the purpose of arguing with and converting jews.”

    “You’re paranoid because — like many posters on this blogsite — you’re insecure in your “Jewishness.” That’s why you rely on Capt Huff’n’puf for Jewish ‘validation.’ What you have yet to realize, however, is that he cannot provide it.”

    “psychobabble and ad hominem, as usual.”

    Not only paranoid, and Jewishly insecure — but also fully in denial (as to both) — as usual.

  5. dweller Said:

    You’re paranoid because — like many posters on this blogsite — you’re insecure in your Jewishness. That’s why you rely on Capt Huff’n’puf for Jewish ‘validation.’ What you have yet to realize, however, is that he cannot provide it.

    psychobabble and ad hominem, as usual.

  6. @ bernard ross:

    “but you also claim to be a jew: by birth, by conversion, by religious practice?……
    Jews for jesus? messianic Jew?”

    By birth.

    By training.

    By conviction.

    The ‘Jews-for-Jesus’ and ‘Messianic-Jew’ crowd often tend to be people who never had a very solid grounding in Judaism in their formative years; they often came from broken families (divorced parents) — so they were vulnerable to the group appeal and the notion that they can be ‘Jewish’ that way.

    They gussy themselves up in Jewish paraphernalia (talesim, t’fillin, menorot, m’zuzot, holiday foods, etc) and observe the festivals, kashrut, etc, etc.

    However, they take the Xtn view of Jesus as both Messiah and ‘God.’ (Or so I’m given to understand; it’s been at least 45 yrs since I had contact w/ anybody claiming membership in those kinds of outfits.)

    Under the circumstances, they cannot be part of the fellowship of the Jewish People, who were called into being by the only true God for His good pleasure and His purposes for the world.

    For any Jew to profess ANOTHER ‘God’ would be to deny the One who made and called him for that purpose.

    Some of the JFJ & M-J types appear to be very nice people; likeable, kindly. They just aren’t Jews.

    Yet.

  7. @ bernard ross:

    “If Jesus defeated Satan, then there is no need for anybody else to do so. ONE ENTITY. ONE DEFEAT. Everything else devolves from that.”

    “sounds like a follower of Yeshu to me.”

    “Sounds that way to me too.”

    “I thought he always denied that…”

    “Then you haven’t been paying attention. I have NEVER denied that — and never would. Show me the post where I ‘denied’ haNitzri.

    I’ve said I’m not a ‘Christian,’ because to be a ‘Christian’ requires subscribing to the Nicene Creed (and subsequent ones) which holds that Christ was ‘God’ — that’s the touchstone of that faith.

    — But to deny being a follower of CHRIST, never.

    “I would call a follower of christ a christian”

    Why? Christ never did. (Which you would know if you had read the NT. Those who loved him he called his friends. Nothing more.)

    You think you have a better handle on Christ than Christ did??? LMSS.

    “… definitely not a Jew.”

    Then you’d be definitely WRONG again.

    Nachmanides (Ramban), e.g. said that belief in haNitzri, of itself, was not the distinguishing factor between the two faiths.

    He said the line of demarcation was over belief in a ‘God’ other than (or ‘in addition to’) the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob — IOW, the only real one.

    Therefore:

    You CAN believe (rightly or wrongly) in Jesus as Moshiach and still be Jewish.

    You cannot believe in Jesus as ‘God’ and still be Jewish.

    Self-professed Christians believe he is BOTH — or to restate it, they see him as Messiah, and they define Messiah as necessarilyboth human AND ‘Divine.’

    I have NEVER regarded haNitzri as ‘GOD,’ but strictly as a man. (And my reading of the gospel confirms, in my view, that this was how he saw himself.)

    — A specially created man, TBS — but a man.

    “You are reminiscent of those priests who study hebrew,Torah, Talmud etc for the purpose of arguing with and converting jews.”

    You’re paranoid because — like many posters on this blogsite — you’re insecure in your Jewishness. That’s why you rely on Capt Huff’n’puf for Jewish ‘validation.’ What you have yet to realize, however, is that he cannot provide it.

  8. @ yamit82:
    Thank you for these videos. They are more informative than
    many financial publications.
    Israel has been blessed and the blessings shall continue.

  9. yamit82 Said:

    No it’s still Iran that animates them… Nothing else.

    we can clearly see that Iran animates them but I would never assume that there is nothing else. I understand that they are long term planners regarding their investments.

  10. yamit82 Said:

    If you believe any of that you believe pigs can fly too.

    facts have no relation to belief. I believe what is true or fact. the rest is speculation. it appears that my speculations on what has been going on for the past couple of years with Israel and GCC has wings. The sauds can say anything they want and make it happen according to Islam. all they need to do is issue fatwas and instruct their clerics to a different narrative. we see how they do that changing from one moment to the next without even a care as to how ridiculous it is. the Quran clearly gives Israel to the Jews,if the saudis want they can change the narrative. I believe that the ruling clans have goals dissimilar to the cannon fodder who they manipulate. they have already arranged for Egypt to engage in unprecedented cooperation with Israel against Hamas. I speculate, but I do not marry beliefs when it comes to facts.

  11. @ bernard ross:

    If you believe any of that you believe pigs can fly too. 🙁

    No it’s still Iran that animates them… Nothing else.

    The Saudis are the keepers of Mecca and Medina, the home of Wahhabi School od Islam supported and financed by the Saudis… They will never come to any accommodation with the Jews never.

  12. yamit82 Said:

    This would if true be a political deal over any economic one.

    There is the possibility that saudi and gulf monarchies are looking much further ahead. If they have made the shift to non hostility with Israel I would think that they have based it on future advantages. they have capital and running out of resource. They need technology and organization. working with Israel gives them a shot at solving their pressing problems regarding production, food, energy, etc. Israel has great experience in applying agricultural and water technologies in the ME. Israel has a great cappacity for developing new technologies. Perhaps they are not as stupid as they look. Partnering with Israel on ME devlpment projects could be a way of multiplying their assets and investments and having a role in the development of the ME and other areas. they are elite clans who must be concerned about preserving power and assets. I would think that even in the beginning that they would be interested in importing technology from Israel.

  13. @ mar55:
    @ honeybee:

    @ mar55:

    @ mar55:

    Israel has no problem securing oil.. The Saudi offer if real would probably be under excellent conditions but Israel is already under long term contracts,

    Israel is also maybe 5 years away from being oil self sufficient and in 10-15 years a major competitor to the Saudis

    Israel by purchasing major part of her oil supply from Azerbaijan gains leverage when much of our payments in oil comes back from Azeri purchases in Israel…. As a backup source the Saudis could be trying to slow down Israel development of our own oil potential….

    This would if true be a political deal over any economic one.

  14. @ honeybee:
    Money. money, money. The US. is becoming energy independent and, do you think they want to make Israel dependent upon them? It has to be considered very carefully. yamit82 probably
    knows what is going on on this deal.If things continue the way thy are going they might have to eat oil…

  15. dweller Said:

    The Philistines were around for a good 700 yrs after their conquest by David. Ultimately they were ABSORBED by the Israelites; never exterminated, never expelled.

    Supply:

    Credible source if you have one???

  16. @ yamit82:

    “[The Philistines] were destroyed.”

    Wrong.

    “The Philistine cities lost their independence to Assyria, and revolts in following years were all crushed. They were subsequently absorbed into the Babylonian and Persian empires and disappeared as a distinct ethnic group by the late 5th century BC.”

    Some of that is fact, and some of it is nonsense. It’s true that they lost their independence to Assyria. And they were taken (some of them anyway) to Babylon along with the Judeans during the Babylonian Captivity.

    But they were very definitely a distinct ethnicity/nationality as late as 332 BC, when the Philistine polis of Gaza refused entry to Alexander on his way to Persia.

    Whereupon he destroyed the city. (The other four Philistine polei promptly capitulated.)

    The Philistines were ultimately absorbed by the larger Israelite society (NOT by other peoples) 700 yrs after they were conquered.

  17. @ yamit82:

    SURPRISE! OBAMA’S ‘IDEA FACTORY’ BACKS ISRAELI STRIKE ON IRAN. Attack could ‘allow the United States to avoid difficult decisions’ –
    CAP explained the Iranian-backed Hezbollah would find it difficult to retaliate against Israel since it has been bogged down in Syria fighting the insurgency targeting Bashar al-Assad’s regime there. CAP believes Assad himself is “unlikely to divert precious military resources away from his own survival, even to retaliate on behalf of his benefactors in Tehran.” The paper concluded that most probably Iran would be left alone “with a very limited capability to retaliate.”

    http://kleinonline.wnd.com/2014/12/01/surprise-obamas-idea-factory-backs-israeli-strike-on-iran-attack-could-allow-the-united-states-to-avoid-difficult-decisions/#sthash.PiBwA0wU.dpuf

    notice how their conclusions as to current status for retaliation from Iran and proxies is what I predicted they were originally trying to achieve.

  18. RUSSIA INTERCEPTS DETAILS OF U.S.-SAUDI TALKS ABOUT ASSAD’S DEMISE. Source says Putin has assured Syria it ‘won’t stand for’ Western attack

    the Saudis were discussing with the U.S. and other Western allies the possibility of striking Assad’s forces during a planned counter-attack against ISIS positions in Syria. –

    http://kleinonline.wnd.com/2014/12/01/russia-intercepts-details-of-u-s-saudi-talks-about-assads-demise-source-says-putin-has-assured-syria-it-wont-stand-for-western-attack/#sthash.YrnKOakL.dpuf

    Remember how I said allied attacks on IS was a cover to assemble forces for attack on Irans proxies and even Iran

  19. @ dweller:
    They were destroyed:

    The Philistine cities lost their independence to Assyria, and revolts in following years were all crushed. They were subsequently absorbed into the Babylonian and Persian empires, and disappeared as a distinct ethnic group by the late 5th century BC

    The surviving Philistine people were intergrated into whatever cultures settled in the Levant over the years, the Assyrians, the Greeks, the Romans and Byzantines While the culture of the biblical Philistines vanished along with most of the other “sea people” – the Phoenicians, Carthaginians and Minoans (for example) – the people did not have a shortage of national identities to choose from.

    Apparently in the end the Jews never needed to fully defeat and liquidate the Philistines other Empires did the work for us.

  20. DEBKAfile’s military sources note that, notwithstanding the broad scale of the coalition air offensive against ISIS, to which 20 countries are contributing more than 200 aircraft, its achievements are unimpressive to say the least.
    Although official communiqués refer to scores of air strikes (55 at the end of last week), less than 10 strikes per day are actually taking place. This is far below the intensity required for re-tilting the military balance against the Islamists.
    The only noteworthy gain to come out of this grand offensive is the decision taken by ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdad to draw a line against expanding his territorial conquests in Syria and Iraq in order to save his organization from further losses from US and allied air strikes. He has determined to focus now on stabilizing and shoring up his gains. ISIS has thus shifted from a strategy of expansion to one of defense.
    http://www.debka.com/article/24281/US-led-warplanes-cut-through-to-ISIS-targets-in-Syria-Iraq-over-Israel

    with all those nato allies and bases, including Turkey and Jordan, they have to fly over Israel.

  21. @ yamit82:

    “We have a permanent injunction to destroy anyone preparing to or already harming us.”

    “Then why were the Philistines not destroyed (or even expelled) after they were conquered?”

    “The obvious answer stupid is that they were too numerous and powerful for disunited tribes.”

    You don’t read for comprehension, do you? Note the last phrase in the remark of mine you blockquoted — bolded this time, since you obviously missed it last time.

    The Philistines were around for a good 700 yrs after their conquest by David. Ultimately they were ABSORBED by the Israelites; never exterminated, never expelled.

  22. @ yamit82:
    @ yamit82:

    Another reason I forgot was that the Philistines had iron weapons and the Jews Bronz until they leaned the art of iron processing very late comparatively. Those who had the secret of making Iron guarded it at all costs.

  23. dweller Said:

    Then why were the Philistines not destroyed (or even expelled) after they were conquered?

    The obvious answer stupid is that they were too numerous and powerful for disunited tribes. It was one of the major reason the Jews demanded to have a king and a central authority. Any child studying Jewish history knows that, except you!!!! I wonder why??????

  24. bernard ross Said:

    so why haven’t you given evidence for your use of the epithet “Twinkie” and why do you avoid stating which definition of “Twinkie” you use when smearing Honeybee?

    Until he comes clean on the Twinkie epithet he is fair game for any and every ad hominem. This is a point of principle.

  25. @ bernard ross:
    He comes with a stock list of passe Yiddish words nobody uses and easily found on the net. That’s I suppose to give credence to his Jewish birth claims???? Spells most wrong too.

    He said he doesn’t accept the Nicene code but he does in everything but the admittance of yeshu as divine.

    Even Karites are not as far removed from Judaism as he is.

    He is entitled to his beliefs he is not entitled to his claim of fact and truth.

    Nobody asked him what his personal beliefs are he readily volunteered them knowing the reaction he would get.

    His primary belief is if it feels good it is truth. No books no scholarship no deep learning but simplistic literal self interpretation of text. Yet he knows no Hebrew has not learned with anyone who could explain and teach him and claims to know more , better, and understand than what I call experts. He derides Jewish sages and believes Paul the lying dwarf was infallible.

    Oh well 🙂

  26. dweller Said:

    — But to deny being a follower of CHRIST, never.

    but you also claim to be a jew: by birth, by conversion, by religious practice?……
    Jews for jesus? messianic Jew?

  27. dweller Said:

    Only ONE of them leaves the assertor liable to slander for not proving his case.

    so why haven’t you given evidence for your use of the epithet “Twinkie” and why do you avoid stating which definition of “Twinkie” you use when smearing Honeybee?

  28. dweller Said:

    Only ONE of them leaves the assertor liable to slander for not proving his case.

    For the other, you can take it or leave it.

    Irrelevant, slander is not the issue. The issue is the assertion of facts. If you claim that your fairy tales, figments of your imagination, intuitional delusions, “common sense” fabrications are facts then there should be at least a shred of a reason, of support, of anything other than your imagination which can support your assertions. If not, then your assertions carry no more weight than rapunzel or cinderella or the claims of a lunatic at bellevue, or a Pauline marketer on Israpundit.
    dweller Said:

    — But to deny being a follower of CHRIST, never.

    HMMMM? I would call a follower of christ a christian, definitely not a Jew. this is why your psychobabble is so reminiscent of christian proselytizers who constantly slip in their ideologies into discussions about other subjects. Your ideology is disguised as psychobabble which apparently derives its “facts” not from science, psychology, study or reasoning but from your intuition, the route to your god, which you then dress up as “common sense”. You are reminiscent of those priests who study hebrew,Torah, Talmud etc for the purpose of arguing with and converting jews. They hold similar views on celibacy and the “marketings” of Paul.

  29. @ yamit82:

    So you see? — Yamit’s got it all mapped out in detail (nu, and with Rambam at his back, ken ayin hara!).

    And should he just happen to find himself in a position of power, he’ll be prepared to take Israel right along with him to FULFILL that vision.

    Won’t that be nice?

  30. @ SHmuel HaLevi 2:

    “And I even bypass your insinuendo. (New word I created for the occasion).”

    Indeed. Well done. Kol hakavod.

    “We have a permanent injunction to destroy anyone preparing to or already harming us.”

    Then why were the Philistines not destroyed (or even expelled) after they were conquered?

    ” It is in the Bible.”

    Famous last words.

    Have you any idea how much mischief has been perpetrated behind those four little words. . . .

    But if it’s in there, show it to me — and show me how it’s ‘permanent’

    — you know, ‘one time covers all,’ ‘one size fits all,’ ‘forever & ever,’ etc.

    “We owe NO ONE except the Lord an accounting.”

    I quite agree.

    That’s WHY I raised the objection. . . .

  31. SHmuel HaLevi 2 Said:

    dweller:
    Single exception to the rule.

    No there are more exceptions:

    Milchemet Mitzva!!!! We are obligated to possess and live in the land of Israel. The Torah mandates various laws for the conduct of war. In general, the Torah outlines two categories of war – milchemet mitzvah and milchemet reshut. Milchemet mitzvah is a war which is a mitzvah. Milchemet reshut is a war which is not a mitzvah. It is optional.

    There are (3) three mitzvot regarding specific wars – war to destroy Amalek and war to destroy the seven nations of Cana’an, A war waged to defend and save other Jews meets the criterion for being defined as a milchemet mitzvah.

    In contrast, a war which is not required by a specific Torah obligation is not a milchemet mitzvah. It is a milchemet reshut. There are various differences between a milchemet mitzvah and a milchemet reshut. For example, all members of Bnai Yisrael are obligated to participate in a milchemet mitzvah. However, there are various exemptions for a milchemet reshut. Because a milchemet mitzvah is waged in response to a Torah obligation, no further authorization is required for this war to be waged. However, because a milchemet reshut is not waged in response to a specific Torah obligation, it must be authorized by Bait Din – the court.
    We are obligated by the Torah to possess the land of Israel and to live in the land. Therefore, we must expect and conclude that a war waged in order to seize control of the land would be a milchemet mitzvah along with A war to destroy the seven nations of Cana’an, and a war to save other Jews.

    According to Maimonides, a war waged in order to save members of Bnai Yisrael is a milchemet mitzvah. It is reasonable to regard such a war as obligatory.

    Melachim uMilchamot – Chapter 5

    Halacha 1

    A king should not wage other wars before a milchemet mitzvah. What is considered as milchemet mitzvah? The war against the seven nations who occupied Eretz Yisrael, the war against Amalek, and a war fought to assist Israel from an enemy which attacks them.

    Afterwards, he may wage a milchemet hareshut, i.e. a war fought with other nations in order to expand the borders of Israel or magnify its greatness and reputation.
    Halacha 2

    There is no need to seek the permission of the court to wage a milchemet mitzvah. Rather, he may go out on his own volition and force the nation to go out with him. In contrast, he may not lead the nation out to wage a milchemat hareshut unless the court of seventy one judges approves.

    Halacha 4

    It is a positive commandment to annihilate the seven nations who dwelled in Eretz Yisrael as Deuteronomy 20:17 states: ‘You shall utterly destroy them.’

    Anyone who chances upon one of them and does not kill him violates a negative commandment as ibid.:16 states: ‘Do not allow a soul to live.’ The memory of them has already been obliterated.

    Halacha 5

    Similarly, it is a positive commandment to destroy the memory of Amalek, as Deuteronomy 25:19 states: ‘Obliterate the memory of Amalek.

    It is also a positive commandment to constantly remember their evil deeds and their ambush of Israel to arouse our hatred of them, as ibid.:17 states: ‘Remember what Amalek did to you.’ The Oral Tradition teaches: …Remember’ – with your mouths; …Do not forget’ – in your hearts.’ For it is forbidden to forget our hatred and enmity for them.

    Halacha 6

    All the lands which Israel conquers in wars led by a king and approved by the court are considered as conquered by the people at large. Thus, they have the same status as Eretz Yisrael which was conquered by Joshua in every regard. This only applies if they were conquered after the conquest of Eretz Yisrael as described in the Torah.

    The Law of milchemet Mitzvah applies to any enemy in or out of Israel that threatens the life and lives of any Jew or contests the sovereignty of Jews to the land of Israel by commission or intent.