Déjà vu: Jewish renegades spewing vitriol against their people

by Isi Leibler

From the outset of Operation Protective Edge, Jewish renegades have been increasingly propelled into the limelight. One example was a recent letter published as an advertisement in The New York Times, signed by 300 descendants of Holocaust survivors from all over the world. It condemned the Israeli “massacre of Palestinians in Gaza” which amounted to the “genocide of Palestinian people.” It also decried the “extreme racist dehumanization of Palestinians in Israeli society, which has reached a fever pitch” and called for boycotting, divesting from, and sanctioning the Jewish state.

This initiative typifies the efforts by small groups of fanatical Jewish deviants scattered throughout the world who seek to demonize Israel. It is not a new phenomenon in Jewish history, originating from the early days of the Diaspora. It reached a critical level during the Middle Ages when Jews were regarded as pariahs and the Church held them accountable for all the woes facing mankind, including plagues, droughts and other natural disasters.

History records that during this period a small number of renegade Jews sought to ingratiate themselves in their host communities by promoting vile distortions and demonized stereotypes of their own people, reinforcing false accusations such as blood libel. In the absence of modern print and electronic media their impact was limited, although the Church and other anti-Semites delighted in providing them platforms to fan the hatred which often resulted in pogroms.

With the emancipation of the Jews in the 18th and 19th centuries, many distanced themselves from the ghetto and emerged at the forefront of radical and national movements. The radical anti-Semitism of the early socialist movement was frequently spearheaded by people of Jewish origin. One need only review the anti-Jewish diatribes by Karl Marx to appreciate the extent of the venom used to portray the classical anti-Semitic stereotypes.

In Eastern Europe, some of the Jewish social revolutionaries even justified pogroms against their own people as a vehicle to generate revolutionary consciousness.

When the Bolsheviks came into power they established the Yevsektsiya, where Jewish cadres were entrusted to root out Jewish religion and culture — which they did with infinitely greater ferocity than their non-Jewish counterparts. Their denigration of Judaism was comparable to Nazi propaganda.

In 1948, when Stalin inaugurated the Black Years of anti-Semitism, which included the murder of Jewish intellectuals and state sponsored anti-Semitic campaigns culminating in the trumped up anti-Jewish “Moscow Doctors’ Plot,” he retained a number of Jews in leading roles in order to camouflage his rabid anti-Semitism.

In Europe and America, Jewish communists and fellow travelers were at the forefront of campaigns to justify Soviet state-sponsored anti-Semitism, and vilified those campaigning for the rights of Soviet Jewry as extremists with ulterior motives. Some even applauded the Soviets in the 1960s when Jews were singled out and sentenced to death for allegedly engaging in economic criminal activities.

Today’s Jewish renegades, who defame Israel, accuse it of war crimes and of behaving like Nazis, and are therefore maintaining a long-standing tradition of perfidy.

Ironically, and contrary to repeated assertions in the liberal media that Diaspora Jews are increasingly divided over Israel, committed Jews are today more united in support of Israel than they have been since the Six-Day War. While occupying the moral high ground in justifying Israel’s right to defend itself from missile attacks and genocidal terrorists, Jews recently have been stunned by an explosive eruption of anti-Israeli sentiment, which has been accompanied by outright anti-Semitism.

That being the case, how have the minimal numbers of Jewish anti-Zionists managed to assume such a prominent role in the public arena?

The answer is their ability to exploit the Internet and social media networks to liaise globally and seek out like-minded deviants. That was not accessible to renegade Jews during the Middle Ages nor during the Nazi era.

Another factor in their favor is that hatred of Israel now provides a gateway to acceptability into leftist and even liberal circles, making renegade Jews extraordinarily appealing to their electronic and printed media outlets.

At the forefront of the campaign are the fanatical Jewish anti-Zionists who are alienated radical left-wing activists, many of whom can be regarded as representing an extension of the Jewish communists who so fervently justified Soviet anti-Semitism. Others include ambitious publicists who exploit their anti-Zionism to promote themselves within the liberal media.

Today’s activists apply the same strategy to recruit fellow travelers as did their communist predecessors. They concentrate on assimilated Jewish liberals who are dismally ignorant of Jewish culture and devoid of any involvement in Jewish life. For many of these “Jews,” anti-Zionism is their very first foray into any kind of Jewish public activity. They share a common desire to join the anti-Zionist chic in order to demonstrate their liberal credentials by rising above parochial Jewish nationalism. Indeed, many of the signatories of anti-Zionist petitions never previously identified as Jews.

The most nauseating feature of these groups is the application of Holocaust inversion by portraying Israelis as behaving like Nazis.

They are so obsessed with demonizing Israel that they do not realize the obscenity of defending genocidal barbarians whose charter demands the destruction of the Jewish state and calls on followers to murder Jews everywhere. They are allying themselves with the promoters of feral anti-Semitism, many of whom vindicate Hitler. Those whose ancestors perished in the Holocaust lack the sensitivity to even appreciate the obscenity of bracketing Nazis with the Jewish state, which, had it existed in the 1930s, would have saved the lives of millions of Jews .

The more naïve bleeding-heart fellow travelers display a softer version of anti-Israelism, ignore the criminality of Islamic fascism, and emphasize that they are motivated by humanity and acting in the best interests of the Jewish people. History will judge them even more harshly than the liberals who embraced Stalin and refused to recognize the reality of the evil empire as constituted by the Soviet Union. Many of them today are also academics like their predecessors who were promoting the “peace camp” during the Cold War, which effectively amounted to advancing Soviet foreign policy objectives.

The liberal and left wing media, exemplified by The New York Times and The Guardian, which provide extensive coverage and editorial endorsement for these demented views, will be judged even more harshly than for their previous unconscionable defense of the Soviet Union. Although New York Times Jerusalem correspondent Jodi Rudoren is far from being an anti-Zionist renegade, some of her reports about Gaza are reminiscent of Walter Duranty’s reports of the Soviet Union during the 1930s in The Times, which became notorious for understating Stalin’s criminal behavior.

In summary, the manifestation of Jewish renegades in our times is a déjà vu. Its influence feels magnified due to the impact of electronic media and social networking. We must remind ourselves that we live in democratic societies in which people are free to deceive. Our legitimate source of regret is that these one-dimensional Jewish anti-Semites achieve so much media exposure.

We must constantly challenge their attempts to portray themselves as mainstream, and emphasize that they represent a miniscule component of the Jewish world, which despises them.

 

Isi Leibler’s website can be viewed at www.wordfromjerusalem.com.He may be contacted at ileibler@leibler.com.This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post and Israel Hayom

September 3, 2014 | 98 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

48 Comments / 98 Comments

  1. @ yamit82:

    “I suspect if your story about your conviction being overturned it must have been either based on a technicality.

    No technicality. I told you the reason, in earlier post. Take it or leave it, all the same to me.

    “or the general amnesty the government was forced to declare.”

    The general amnesty was declared by Carter. His term of office was ’77-’81.

    I was imprisoned in mid-’69, and kicked out of prison in late ’70 (when my conviction was reversed) — 7 or 8 yrs BEFORE the general amnesty.

    “I think the word you want is erudite. But whether the above ‘statement’ is or isn’t erudite, you’ve once again left it UNANSWERED. You can do better, Twinkie.”

    “She is more erudite…”

    It was she, not I, who chose to use the word, putzeleh. Go soak your head.

    “There is a world of difference between agreeing or disagreeing with the decisions of a democratically constituted government…”

    That might be a reasonable line of argument in some situations. Not this one. The decisions were NOT in fact made in accord with the constitutional requirements of the “democratically elected govt.” It was to have been a legislative decision, Article Two. Instead it was made by the Executive Branch (Article One) who usurped the authority to do what they did.

    “You represent the worst of the worst and what’s sickening is you are still proud of yourself.”

    We did the right thing. We were among the few who did. You bet your ass I’m proud — but not proud of us: proud of what we DID. Don’t talk about it much, except when YOU bring it up. But I’m plenty proud. It made a difference.

    “Then your moral stand was selective and did not by your own admission relate in the same manner to any other conflict America has been involved in since.”

    Of course it did not relate to SUBSEQUENT wars, because we succeeded in doing away w/ peacetime conscription.
    So no war after Vietnam was fought by conscripts.

    “Proving you approved of the undeclared wars of Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

    No need to ‘prove’ THAT. I’ve always said I supported those conflicts, and still do. I also said they should’ve been attended by a congressional Declaration, altho congressional approval was a lot more substantive in those instances than the flimsy Tonkin Gulf Resolution was for Vietnam.

    OTOH, even notwithstanding my support for Afgh & Iraq (I & II), I’d have been equally vehement over any attempt to make draftees fight it, absent a full, Article Two, congressional Declaration of War — and I’ve said so for years. When Carter tried to bring back the draft early in his term, I organized against that too.

    “Your ass not on the line…”

    Told you before, you have no idea about whether my ass is on the line. You should talk about what you know about, bubba, and leave it at that. . . .

    “A Republican admin I’m sure had a lot to do with your support for both wars.”

    GOP had nothing to do with my support for either war. I endorsed both of them well before most Repubs came on board. I’ve never identified as a Repub. (When I vote GOP, it’s because they’ve got the only game in town.) I’ve identified as a conservative for DECADES. Never as a party Repub, however. (They could change if they’d get their act together, but I’m not holding my breath.)

  2. @ yamit82:

    “I rejected all deferments; was offered many, took none.”

    “So you say but you are a proven liar.”

    Not by anybody on this website (despite a lot of sound & fury, and self-congratulatory blather by a couple of loudmouthed imbeciles with axes to grind).

    ” What’s one to believe?”

    Whatever he damned well wants to believe (since he will anyway).

    YOU, Yamit, will believe whatever it SUITS you to believe.

    — And that suits me just fine. (Since when has what you’ve believed EVER mattered to me?)

    “They drafted me precisely BECAUSE I was organizing against the draft. In fact, that was the ground on which the Supreme Court overturned my conviction.”

    “Cite the case.”

    You’re asking for my name?

    “Nobody ‘replaced’ me. I told you: I did not accept deferments (nor go overseas or underground).”

    “Only your word without support of fact.”

    MOST personal info offered online is without documentation. So what? (Got your Grand Inquisitor thing going again, do ya? Stuff it.)

    “You are comparing heroes in sports etc and your resisting as moral equiv of men risking their lives for their country?”

    There is nothing heroic about sports figures, and it’s ALWAYS a mistake to call them that; I never do. (Did you even READ what I wrote to HB?)

    As for whether military service is categorically heroic, it isn’t. Depends on the situation. The mere fact of seeing action is not a criterion. The Waffen SS saw action — doesn’t constitute ‘heroism,’ regardless of WHAT they did in combat.

    Until you’re prepared to take up such questions (and I don’t think you are yet), it will be fruitless to pursue the matter further. I think you’re scarred, and not by any bullet or shrapnel that may have creased your skin.

    “Fact is most draftees never went to Nam…”

    Fact is, most guys who went to Nam were draftees.

    “you rebelled aiding our enemies and caused thousands to be wounded and killed”

    “Rebelled,” yes. “Aiding our enemies,” no.

    “Caused thousands to be wounded & killed”? — let’s see your evidence of that. You offer lots of noise & emotionalism. I’d like to see your FACTS showing that what we did “caused” thousands to be killed & wounded. I think that’s just part of the unsubstantiated narrative that you like to indulge whenever the subject arises.

  3. @ yamit82:

    “Do you identify with any of these Commie supported and financed groups????”

    Students for Democratic Society (SDS) – founded in 1960 and was seen as one of the most active college campus groups of the New Left and the antiwar movement
    SNCC – Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee.
    American Writers and Artists Against the War in Vietnam
    Americans for Democratic Action

    No.

    Was acquainted with them all, but spent quite a bit of time having to combat them. Infighting was fierce.

    And they were not all supported or financed by CPUSA.

    We were known as The Resistance, and constantly had to keep from being marginalized or co-opted by those others.

  4. dweller Said:

    I rejected all deferments; was offered many, took none.

    So you say but you are a proven liar. What’s one to believe?
    dweller Said:

    They drafted me precisely BECAUSE I was organizing against the draft. In fact, that was the ground on which the Supreme Court overturned my conviction.

    Cite the case.

    Nobody ‘replaced’ me. I told you: I did not accept deferments (nor go overseas or underground).

    Only your word without support of fact.

    That’s not an answer, HB; just another cop-out. Answer the question: Heroes at what?.

    Does the nature of the action itself have no bearing on whether it may be characterized as “heroism”?

    Sports figures are routinely characterized as “heroes.” Are they? When are you going to start doing your own thinking?

    Yes it does but you will ever understand such a concept because it would then show you for what you really are. (CRAP)
    You are comparing heroes in sports etc and your resisting as moral equiv of men risking their lives for their country?

    There is no moral or ethical equiv. Good and brave men gave their lives so you can sit and moralize and justify your own brave and courageous (sic,) deficiencies and cowardice. You are a vile piece of offal.

    Fact is most draftees never went to Nam but other postings and theaters.

    Not JUSTLY you can’t. But then, I seriously doubt you knew any resisters back then. Demonstrators you may have known, but not resisters. Whole different breed of cat.

    You are right draft dodgers openly did things to avoid the draft you rebelled aiding our enemies and caused thousands to be wounded and killed and that’s aside from violating the law in doing so. I suspect if your story about your conviction being overturned it must have been either based on a technicality or the general amnesty the government was forced to declare do to so many criminals by the end of the war. It was a political decision not an ethical or moral one. I would have had you shot as a traitor and I don’t give a shit how you justify your vile behavior. Barbie!!!

    I think the word you want is erudite. But whether the above ‘statement’ is or isn’t erudite, you’ve once again left it UNANSWERED. You can do better, Twinkie.

    She is more erudite and understands patriotism and morality better than you ever could. There is a world of difference between agreeing or disagreeing with the decisions of a democratically constituted government and supporting the troops in the field and in the service of the constituted republic. You don’t agree with the governments decision change the government or their decisions but until such an event not supporting the troops is vile and treasonous even in a way murder. You represent the worst of the worst and what’s sickening is you are still proud of yourself. Then your moral stand was selective and did not by your own admission relate in the same manner to any other conflict America has been involved in since. Proving you approved of the undeclared wars of Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan. Your ass not on the line and a Republican admin I’m sure had a lot to do with your support for both wars. Fucking hypocrite!!!

  5. @ honeybee:

    “But we were resisters, not demonstrators”

    “What were you resisting”

    1. Peacetime Conscription. (“Peacetime” is what they called it.)

    2. An unlawful war, not declared by the nation’s directly responsive legislative bodies.

    Involuntary servitude is expressly forbidden by the 13th Amendment: “except as punishment for [judicial conviction of] crime.”

    The high honor of serving in the defense forces of the Republic was thus, by conscription for a non-declared war, effectively corrupted and reduced to the level of a PUNISHMENT — notwithstanding he absence of any ‘crime’ which military conscription might’ve been seen as suitable to ‘punish’ (to say nothing of the lack of any ordered, lawful process whereby such a ‘verdict’ and ‘sentence’ could’ve been arrived at.

    “you know you had a deferment”

    I rejected all deferments; was offered many, took none.

    “you chances of being drafted were moot.”

    They drafted me precisely BECAUSE I was organizing against the draft. In fact, that was the ground on which the Supreme Court overturned my conviction.

    “When America saw that its own sons (some of them, a substantial number of them) were more willing to face prison than participate in gratuitous mayhem, it was forced to take a long, hard look at the legitimacy of the fight it was condoning. That was the critical turning point in its change of heart toward that war. We were the cutting edge of that change.”

    “The ‘the critical turning point’ was young Hispanic, black and working class men returning home in damaged or in body bags.”

    No, Twinkie. That had already been going on for many years, and it had changed nothing. (You really think anybody GAVE a flying fork about “young Hispanic, black and working class men”? — Think again.)

    “… the young men who replaced you in the draft”

    Nobody ‘replaced’ me. I told you: I did not accept deferments (nor go overseas or underground).

    “The 60ties were one massive childish temper tantrum.”

    “The 60?s were a LOT of things, for a lot of different persons (and not all those persons were adolescents; let alone, children). You cannot characterize it one way or another; that’s a cheap cop-out.”

    “I can characterize the ‘resisters’ any damn way was I wish too.”

    Not JUSTLY you can’t. But then, I seriously doubt you knew any resisters back then. Demonstrators you may have known, but not resisters. Whole different breed of cat.

    “And childish temper tantrums fits their behaviors.”

    What “behaviors,” specifically, for example?

    “…’Heroes’ at what???”

    “You do not have the moral understand to comprehend heroism”

    That’s not an answer, HB; just another cop-out. Answer the question: Heroes at what?.

    Does the nature of the action itself have no bearing on whether it may be characterized as “heroism”? Sports figures are routinely characterized as “heroes.” Are they? When are you going to start doing your own thinking?

    “Would you speak ALSO of ‘heroes’ of the southern rear-guard movement to hang onto Jim Crow? — What was ‘heroic’ about it?”

    “The above is you usual incomprehensible statements…”

    What is ‘incomprehensible’ about the ‘statement’?

    “… you pass off as airdate.”

    I think the word you want is erudite. But whether the above ‘statement’ is or isn’t erudite, you’ve once again left it UNANSWERED. You can do better, Twinkie.

  6. yamit82 Said:

    No I really hate actors but when I was younger I liked his screen presence.

    I am still crazy about Clint Eastwood.

    yamit82 Said:

    Too late for that.

    Better learn to keep a secret !!!!!!!!!!!!

  7. honeybee Said:

    You see yourself?

    No I really hate actors but when I was younger I liked his screen presence.
    honeybee Said:

    My correspondence ,in Spanish, with mar55 is just between us girls, no peeking.

    Too late for that.

  8. yamit82 Said:

    I don’t care about his personal character or foibles,

    You see yourself? My correspondence ,in Spanish, with mar55 is just between us girls, no peeking.

  9. No, your post implied I wrote that sentence regardless of who actually did. You have “Max said” preceeding it.

    yamit82 Said:

    I feel too mellow to engage with you right now maybe later. 😉

    I must reject your proposal, I’m sure you can find someone more suitable – not even “later”.

  10. Max Said:

    Wrong Person! HB said that.
    I don’t mince words… or eggs.

    No, I said it but whatever. I feel too mellow to engage with you right now maybe later. 😉

  11. yamit82 Said:

    Max Said:

    I shall take up the cause, I am ironically caustic enough for the job. Look how I have turned Yamit82, dweller and you into minced meat.
    Yamit82 replied:
    Are you still here? You couldn’t mince an egg.

    Wrong Person! HB said that.
    I don’t mince words… or eggs.

  12. yamit82 Said:

    @ dove:

    Both creation narratives are allegorical.

    What was Eve thinking indeed. As I have I’d like to go back in time and slap the 21 girl ” up sides the head” before she rebelliously steps in front of the JP. All for a really good-lookin cowboy. You ask me once who I though was good-looking beside you and TX. Google Cole Hauser. He is a Paul Newman look alike and great blue eyes.

  13. yamit82 Said:

    Dallas Cowgirls are upholding the honor of the Cowboys, still as hot as ever. Makes watching the Cowboys never a wasted effort

    You and TX, if I didn’t love yawl both so much, I’d have yawl WHIPPED !!!!!!!!!!!!! Smothered in cheesecake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  14. honeybee Said:

    Cowboys lost, Broncos were almost caught sleeping.

    Cowboys suck Romo should be dumped as well as the coach but at least the Dallas Cowgirls are upholding the honor of the Cowboys, still as hot as ever. Makes watching the Cowboys never a wasted effort. 🙂

  15. dweller Said:

    “Heroes” at what???

    The war was a failure because it was ill-conceived from day one. (Even its DIRECTORS later acknowledged as much — in print.)

    Would you speak ALSO of ‘heroes’ of the southern rear-guard movement to hang onto Jim Crow? — What was ‘heroic’ about it?

    Do you identify with any of these Commie supported and financed groups????

    Students for Democratic Society (SDS) – founded in 1960 and was seen as one of the most active college campus groups of the New Left and the antiwar movement

    SNCC – Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee.

    American Writers and Artists Against the War in Vietnam

    Americans for Democratic Action

    Traditional peace groups like Fellowship of Reconciliation, American Friends Service Committee, the War Resistors League, and the Catholic Workers Movement, became involved in the antiwar movement as well

    The (COWARDLY)Nam resisters THEME Song

    I-Feel-Like-I’m-Fixin’-to-Die Rag
    Country Joe and the Fish

    And it’s one, two, three, what are we fighting for?

    Don’t ask me I don’t give a damn

    Next stop is Vietnam.

    And it’s five, six, seven,

    Open up the pearly gates,

    Well there ain’t no time to wonder why,

    Whoopee! we’re all gonna die.

    Come on mothers throughout the land,

    Pack your boys off to Vietnam.

    Come on fathers, don’t hesitate,

    Send your sons off before it’s too late.

    You can be the first one on your block

    To have your boy come home in a box.

  16. yamit82 Said:

    Proof Jesus did not overcome Satan. Not only does evil still exist it seems to be expanding

    yamit82 Said:

    Like space, Darlin ????????????
    But if you want a realpolitik analogy think August 1914

    ” The guns of August”, we read the same books. This is why I don’t believe in conspiracies, humankind stumbles through history like a drunken Bowery Bun.

    yamit82 Said:

    Thanks HB

    You still love me !!!! you’re Welcome, I was feeling ignored, you know us Ladies and our feelings. Cowboys lost, Broncos were almost caught sleeping.

  17. @ honeybee:

    Thanks HB,

    Proof Jesus did not overcome Satan. Not only does evil still exist it seems to be expanding.

    But if you want a realpolitik analogy think August 1914

  18. dweller Said:

    But we were resisters, not demonstrators

    What were you resisting, you know you had a deferment, you chances of being drafted were moot.
    dweller Said:

    blockquote>condoning. That was the critical turning point in its change of heart toward that war.

    The ” the critical turning point” was young Hispanic, black and working class men returning home in damaged or in body bags, the young men who replaced you in the draft.

    dweller Said:

    persons were adolescents; let alone, children). You cannot characterize it one way or another; that’s a cheap cop-out.

    I can characterize the ” resisters” any damn way was I wish too. And childish temper tantrums fits their behaviors.

    Heroes” at what???

    You do not have the moral understand to comprehend heroism.

    dweller Said:

    Would you speak ALSO of ‘heroes’ of the southern rear-guard movement to hang onto Jim Crow? — What was ‘heroic’ about it?

    The above is you usual incomprehensible statements you pass off as airdate.

  19. @ yamit82:

    Yamit you need to get up to speed and join us in ‘real time’.

    You don’t even think that Jesus existed – just a fictional character.

    How do you explai n the Garden of Eden in Genesis?

    Adam and Eve, according to the creation myths of the Abrahamic religions,[1] were the first man and woman. The story of Adam and Eve is central to the belief that God created human beings to live in a Paradise on earth, although they fell away from that state and formed the present world full of suffering and injustice. It provides the basis for the belief that humanity is in essence a single family, with everyone descended from a single pair of original ancestors.[2] It also provides much of the scriptural basis for the doctrines of the Fall of man and Original Sin, important beliefs in Christianity, although not generally shared by Judaism or Islam.[3][4]

    In the Book of Genesis of the Hebrew Bible, chapters one through five, there are two creation narratives with two distinct perspectives. In the first, Adam and Eve (though not referenced by name) were created together in God’s image and jointly given instructions to multiply and to be stewards over everything else that God had made. In the second narrative, God fashions Adam from dust and places him in the Garden of Eden where he is to have dominion over the plants and animals. God places a tree in the garden which he prohibits Adam from eating. Eve is later created from one of Adam’s ribs to be Adam’s companion. However, the serpent tricks Eve into eating fruit from the forbidden tree. God curses only the serpent and the ground. He prophetically tells the woman and the man what will be the consequences of their sin of disobeying God. Then he banishes ‘the man’ from the Garden of Eden.

    The story underwent extensive elaboration in later Abrahamic traditions, and has been extensively analyzed by modern biblical scholars. Interpretations and beliefs regarding Adam and Eve and the story revolving around them vary across religions and sects.

    Genesis 3 continues the Adam and Eve story into the expulsion from Eden narrative. A form analysis of Genesis 3 reveals that this portion of the Adam and Eve story is characterized as a parable or wisdom tale in the wisdom tradition. Genesis 3’s poetic addresses belong to the speculative type of wisdom that questions the paradoxes and harsh realities of life. This characterization is determined by the narrative’s format, settings, and the plot. Genesis 3’s form is also shaped by its vocabulary technique, which makes use of various puns and double entendres.[9] The dating of Chapter 3 is said to be around 900s BCE during the reigns of King David or Solomon.[10] The Documentary hypothesis for this narrative portion is attributed to Yahwist (J), due to the use of YHWH.[11]

    The expulsion from Eden narrative begins with a dialogue that is exchanged between the serpent and the woman (3:1-5).[12] The serpent is identified in 2:19 as an animal that was made by Yahweh among the beasts of the field.[13] The woman is willing to talk to the serpent and respond to the creature’s cynicism by rehearsing Yahweh’s prohibition from 2:17.[14] The woman is lured into dialogue on the serpent’s terms which directly disputes Yahweh’s command.[15] Adam and the woman sin (3:6-8).[16]

    In the next narrative dialogue, Yahweh questions Adam and the woman (3:9-13).[12] Yahweh initiates dialogue by calling out to Adam with a rhetorical question designed to consider his wrongdoing. Adam explains that he hid out of fear because he realized his nakedness. This is followed by two more rhetorical questions designed to show awareness of a defiance of Yahweh’s command. Adam then points to the woman as the real offender, then accuses Yahweh for the tragedy.[18] Yahweh challenges the woman to explain herself, whereby she shifts the blame to the serpent.[19]

    Divine pronouncement of three judgments are then laid against all culprits (3:14-19).[12] A judgement oracle and the nature of the crime is first laid upon the serpent, then the woman, and finally Adam. To the serpent, Yahweh places a divine curse.[20] To the woman, she receives a penalty that impacts two primary roles: childbearing and her relationship to her husband.[21] Adam’s penalty results in Yahweh cursing the ground from which he came, and then receives a death oracle.[22] The reaction of Adam, the naming of Eve, and Yahweh making skin garments are described in a concise narrative (3:20-21). The garden account ends with an intradivine monologue, determining the couple’s expulsion, and the execution of that deliberation (3:22-24).[12] The reason given for the expulsion was not as retribution for eating the fruit, but to prevent a challenge to Yahweh: “Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever”.[Gen. 3:22][23] Thus, Yahweh removed the threat to His power by exiling Adam and Eve from the Garden and installing cherubs (human-headed winged lions) and the “ever-turning sword” to guard the entrance.[Gen. 3

    GARDEN OF EDEN (Heb. ???? ?????), a garden planted by the Lord which was the first dwelling place of *Adam and Eve (Gen. 2–3). It is also referred to as the “garden in Eden” (Gen. 2:8, 10; 4:16), the “garden of YHWH” (Gen. 13:10; Isa. 51:3), and the “garden of God” (Ezek. 28:13; 31:8–9). It is referred to by Ben Sira 40:17 as “Eden of blessing.” There existed in early times an Israelite tradition of a “garden of God” (i.e., a mythical garden in which God dwelt) that underlies the story of the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2–3. Ezekiel (28:11–19; 31:8–9, 16–18) in his description introduces new and variant details not present in the Genesis narrative of the Garden of Eden. Thus, in Genesis there is no trace of the “holy mountain” of Ezekiel 28:14 and no mention of the “stones of fire” of Ezekiel 28:14, 16. While Genesis speaks only in general terms about the trees in the garden (2:9), Ezekiel describes them in detail (31:8–9, 18). The term “garden of YHWH” occurs in literary figures in a number of other passages in the Bible (Gen. 13:10; note Isa. 51:3: “He will make her wilderness (midbar) like Eden and her desert (arabah) like the garden of YHWH,” Joel 2:3). The name Eden has been connected with Akkadian edinu. But this word, extremely rare in Akkadian, is borrowed from the Sumerian eden and means “plain,” “steppe,” “desert.” In fact, one Akkadian synonym list equates edinu with ??ru, semantically equivalent to Hebrew midbar, “desert.” More likely is the connection with the Hebrew root ? dn, attested in such words as ma ? danim, “dainties,” “luxury items” (Gen. 49:20; Lam. 4:5) ? ednah, “pleasure,” (Gen. 18:12), ? adinah, “pampered woman” (Isa. 47:8); and in Old Aramaic m ? dn “provider of abundance,” which would be a transparent etymology for the name of a divine garden. The Septuagint apparently derived Eden from ? dn, translating gan ? eden (Gen. 3:23–4) by ho paradeisos t?s truph?s, “the park of luxuries,” whence English “paradise.” Akkadian provides a semantic parallel in kiri nuhši, “garden of plenty” (McCarter apud Stager). Several references (Gen. 2:8 (“in Eden”), 10 (“from Eden),” 4:16 (“east of Eden),” indicate that Eden was a geographical designation. According to 4:10 a single river flowed out of Eden, watered the garden and then diverged into four rivers whose courses are described and themselves named. This datum encouraged scholars ancient (see below) and modern to attempt to locate the site of the garden of Eden intended by the author.

    [S. David Sperling (2nd ed.)]
    In the Aggadah

    The Garden of Eden appears in the aggadah in contradistinction to Gehinnom – “hell” (e.g., BT Sotah 22a). However, talmudic and midrashic sources know of two Gardens of Eden: the terrestrial, of abundant fertility and vegetation, and the celestial, which serves as the habitation of souls of the righteous. The location of the earthly Eden is traced by the boundaries delineated in Genesis 2:11–14. Resh Lakish declared, “If paradise is in the land of Israel, its gate is Beth-Shean; if it is in Arabia, its gate is Bet Gerem, and if it is between the rivers, its gate is Dumaskanin” (Er. 19a). In Tamid (32b) its location is given as the center of Africa. It is related that Alexander of Macedon finally located the door to the Garden, but he was not permitted to enter. The Midrash ha-Gadol (to Gen. 2:8) simply states that “Eden is a unique place on earth, but no creature is permitted to know its exact location. In the future, during the messianic period God will reveal to Israel the path to Eden.” According to the Talmud, “Egypt is 400 parasangs by 400, and it is one-sixtieth of the size of Ethiopia; Ethiopia is one-sixtieth of the world, and the world is one-sixtieth of the Garden, and the Garden is one-sixtieth of Eden …” (Ta’an. 10a). The rabbis thus make a clear distinction between Eden and the Garden. Commenting upon the verse “Eye hath not seen, O God, beside Thee,” R. Samuel b. Na?amani states, “This is Eden, which has never been seen by the eye of any creature.” Adam dwelt only in the Garden (Ber. 34b., cf., Isa. 64:3). The word le-ovedah (“to dress it”; Gen. 2:15) is taken to refer to spiritual, not physical, toil, and is interpreted to mean that Adam had to devote himself to the study of the Torah and the fulfillment of the commandments (Sif. Deut. 41). Although the eating of meat was forbidden him (Gen. 1:29), it is stated nevertheless that the angels brought him meat and wine and waited on him (Sanh. 59b; ARN 1, 5).

    The boundary line between the earthly and heavenly Garden of Eden is barely discernible in rabbinic literature. In fact, “The Garden of Eden and heaven were created by one word [of God], and the chambers of the Garden of Eden are constructed as those of heaven. Just as heaven is lined with rows of stars so the Garden of Eden is lined with rows of the righteous who shine like the stars”

    This discussion matters to Israel!!

    Have a good day! 🙂

  20. @ dove:

    Satan is not the devil. The truth is that, in common with its pagan roots, christianity perpetuates the pagan concept of two “warring” gods… a “good” one and a “bad” one. Obviously they deny this and, while it is true that they never call Satan a “god”, that’s just a matter of semantics… “Power of Light” and “Power of Darkness” or “good god” and “bad god”—what’s the difference? Hebrew culture does not have a “bad god” or a “Power of Darkness”; as strange an idea as it might be to grasp, the prophet Isiah says:

    “I form Light and I create Darkness, I make Peace and I create Evil: I am Adonai and I do all these things” (Isiah 45:7)

    dove Said:

    Whatever Yamit – use whatever ‘words’ please ya.

    No worries – I am not the only Jew who believes Jesus was a Prophet.

    Prophet????

    – yeshu prophesied that the actual Jerusalem Temple would be destroyed and not one of the stones of the building would be left on top of another. That happened about 40 years later in 70 A.D. when the Romans destroyed the Temple. (Matthew 24:2)

    See here evidence he was a false prophet.

    He must be rendered as a false prophet.

    Penalty in Jewish Law for false Prophets was death.

    Jer 23:33-36 (NIV) “When these people, or a prophet or a priest, ask you, ‘What is the oracle of the Lord?’ say to them, ‘What oracle?..’ You must not mention ‘the oracle of the Lord’ again, because every man’s own word becomes his oracle and so you distort the words of the living God, the Lord Almighty, our God.”

    Deut. 18:20-22 “A prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death. You may say to yourselves, ‘How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?’ If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously…”

    Deut. 13:5 -8 (NIV) “That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the Lord your God… He has tried to turn you from the way the Lord your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you. If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you,.. do not yield to him or listen to him…”

    There is a difference between prediction and prophesy. The ancient Pharaohs of Egypt used to say “So shall it be written and so shall it be done”. And so is the prophecy. Once written it is to be fulfilled without exceptions. A prophecy has all the ingredients except the element of time.

    Is Jesus Prophesied in the Jewish Scriptures?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwwRGCOKuMA#t=183

  21. @ honeybee:

    “If we’d ALL been cowards, we couldn’t have stopped you. And we did stop you.”

    “The anti-war demonstrators didn’t stop the war.”

    It didn’t stop itself, Twinkie.

    But we were resisters, not demonstrators. (Demonstrators are largely the same for any viewpoint of ANY issue; they go to socialize, to blow off steam, to get seen, to get laid.)

    Conscription RESISTANCE was a bite of a whole different bagel.

    When America saw that its own sons (some of them, a substantial number of them) were more willing to face prison than participate in gratuitous mayhem, it was forced to take a long, hard look at the legitimacy of the fight it was condoning. That was the critical turning point in its change of heart toward that war.

    — We were the cutting edge of that change.

    ” The 60ties were one massive childish temper tantrum.”

    The 60’s were a LOT of things, for a lot of different persons (and not all those persons were adolescents; let alone, children). You cannot characterize it one way or another; that’s a cheap cop-out.

    “Men like Yamit82, who carried the burden of the USA Govt. massive foreign policy failure, were the heroes.”

    “Heroes” at what???

    The war was a failure because it was ill-conceived from day one. (Even its DIRECTORS later acknowledged as much — in print.)

    Would you speak ALSO of ‘heroes’ of the southern rear-guard movement to hang onto Jim Crow? — What was ‘heroic’ about it?

  22. @ yamit82:

    further to your above response

    Also
    About God
    Also
    Angels

    The word Satan simply means an ‘adversary’ and is used in the Bible of any opponent or enemy, the root meaning of the word being ‘to oppose’, with no supernatural overtones. In the opening chapters of the Book of Job, however, ‘the Satan’ (with the definite article, so the meaning is ‘the Adversary’ and Satan here is not a proper name) is an angel who appears in the council of the angels in order to challenge God to put Job to the test.

    Jews and Christians believe that God originally created all angels to be holy, but that one of the most beautiful angels, Lucifer (now often known as Satan, or the devil), didn’t return God’s love and chose to rebel against God because he wanted to try to be as powerful as his creator. Isaiah 14:12 of the Torah and the Bible describes Lucifer’s fall: “How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!”.

  23. dweller Said:

    If we’d ALL been cowards, we couldn’t have stopped you.
    And we did stop you.

    The anti-war demonstrators didn’t stop the war. The 60ties were one massive childish temper tantrum. Men like Yamit82, who carried the burden of the USA Govt. massive foreign policy failure, were the heroes.

  24. @ yamit82:

    Let’s take a look at what Judaism has to say about Satan. In the Genesis account of creation, we are told that G-d saw that each day was good, but on the last day it says that G-d saw that everything was VERY good. The Talmud teaches that this refers to the Evil inclination, which it equates with the Satan. Why is this good? It is the Evil inclination that provides our passions and desires, it is the evil inclination which is responsible for not only all the evil that transpires in this world, but also for all the good. For if we did not have passions, appetites and desires, we would also have no motivation and we would accomplish very little, either good or bad in this life.

    Whatever Yamit – use whatever ‘words’ please ya.

    No, I am not new age. Madonna is new age kabbalist. I stay away from new agers AND the kabbalah. Real time I live in. There is evil in Judaism – call it what you want – but we can resist.

    No worries – I am not the only Jew who believes Jesus was a Prophet. In time will all know for sure. He never said he was coming back – G-d manifested in him may have delivered a message that was misinterrupted.

    lol…..It was one of Joan Rivers famous lines – ‘Go suck an egg’ she use to say.

  25. @ yamit82:

    “I was pissed off at the American cowards especially students who opposed us.”

    If we’d ALL been cowards, we couldn’t have stopped you.

    And we did stop you.

    “If it weren’t for the draft there would have been little opposition”

    If it weren’t for the draft, an imperialist, ill-timed, and misbegotten war like that one couldn’t have been fought.