Emil Grunzweig’s Assassin: ‘I Killed the Israeli Left’
Maariv has scored the first media interview (Hebrew) with Yona Avrushmi, the murderer of Peace Now co-founder, Emil Grunzweig. Avrumi was freed from prison several months ago after serving his full 27 year sentence for the assassination that shocked all Israel for its brazenness. In the interview Avrushmi argues that he single-handedly began the campaign that destroyed the Israeli left. Though exaggerated, there is much truth to the fact that the Israeli extreme right’s willingness to use homicidal violence (and the threat of it) against Jews and Palestinians alike has been a key element in its political ascendancy.
The amount of duplicity and evil inherent in Avrushmi’s comments is breathtaking. He is an unreconstructed Jewish terrorist, proud of murdering Grunzweig. The idea that Israelis are kissing his hand for killing a fellow Israeli Jew (after all and unfortunately, one can imagine many Israelis who might kiss his hand if he’d killed a Palestinian) is monstrous. But he is a perfect mirror of the state of the latter-day Israeli nationalist camp. Willing to do whatever it takes to destroy their domestic enemies, and then willing to use whatever subterfuge necessary to avoid responsibility for their actions.
In some ways, this reminds me of the 1920s assassinations during the Weimar period by German rightists of their political enemies (like Rosa Luxembourg), which set the stage for the Nazi ascendancy. It was through a combination of political intimidation, blackmail, coercion and legitimate political support that the Nazis came to power. Though the Likud and most settlers are not Nazis, their tactics during the phases of their rise to power share some similarities. One only hopes that the outcome in Israel’s case will be different than in the German one. [Forewarning: I suggest anyone in the comment thread seeking to critique this paragraph should do so very carefully based on what I’ve actually written here and not based on what you believe I said.]
I can also imagine, had he known of him, that Anders Breivik would heartily approve of Avrushmi, both for the murder and the lies he used in his attempt to earn parole.
The article below was translated by George Talent for Occupation Magazine (italics are mine):
Yona Avrushmi: Thanks to Me the Israeli Left Disappeared
In his first interview since he was released from prison…the murderer of Emil Grunzweig expresses his opinions: “people want to kiss my hand.”
By Sarah Liebowitz-Dar – July 26, 2011
When Yohah Avrushmi appeared before the Prisons Service parole board, he expressed sorrow and remorse over the murder of Emil Grunzweig, of blessed memory, in a Peace Now demonstration in February 1983 in Jerusalem. He also condemned the act in many newspaper interviews over the course of the 27 years during which he was incarcerated. In some cases he even held right-wing politicians responsible.
The latter, he alleged, had created an atmosphere of incitement with their hyperbole, which motivated him to throw the grenade. Now, free from the constraints of prison and without fear of the parole board, the 53 year-old Avrushmi speaks differently.
“There is no more Peace Now, nobody listens to them. There is no Left in Israel. After what I did, many people understood what the Israeli Left is.”
Q: Would you do it again?
“Why should I attack leftists? They’ve already disappeared anyway. Why should I take the trouble to attack them?
Avrushmi, who now squats in an abandoned house in the Hatikvah neighbourhood in Tel Aviv, without electricity or telephone, considered joining the tent city protest for affordable housing on Rothschild Boulevard this week. In the interview he tells about the decision to throw the grenade at Peace Now demonstrators at the famous demonstration on the streets of Jerusalem during the First Lebanon War.
“It was a Mizrahi act,” he says. “Take note that there are no Mizrahi leftists. There’s only one Tali Fahima, most of the leftists are Ashkenazis. I thought about it a long time in advance. I didn’t like the leftists, I thought they were collaborators and traitors. I worked in a settlement and those were the opinions I heard around me. I didn’t intend to kill. The grenade is the kind that fragments into big pieces, but grenades don’t kill, they just drive people away with the shock.”
In February 1995, President Ezer Weizmann commuted his sentence to 27 years. Four times Avrushmi appealed to the parole board in an effort to have his sentence reduced by a third, and every time he was refused. The State Prosecution Service repeatedly claimed that the early release of the murderer of Emil Grinzweig would compromise the public’s confidence in the justice system and that Avrushmi still constituted a danger to the public.
“I demonstrated for Arik Sharon. In order to help him,” Avrushmi says today. “But when I needed his help, he didn’t help me. Arik Sharon betrayed me, his principles and the people who loved him. What happened to him happened because of the injustice he did. It was Yitzhak Rabin, who came from the Left, who took action to have my sentence reduced.”
At the end of January of this year, Avrushmi was released from the Rimonim prison in the Sharon. Many photographers and journalists swarmed around him when he emerged from the prison gates, but he refused to say a word, forcibly pushed the cameras aside and even tried to slap the photographers who approached him. Since then he has been silent. Now he feels free to say what is on his mind. He is particularly proud of the appreciation he receives wherever he goes, according to him.
“People in the street want to kiss both my hands, the hand that pulled out the pin and the hand that threw the grenade. I go to synagogues all over the country, with friends and acquaintances, and I am greeted with admiration everywhere. Even Ashkenazis tell me, ‘congratulations, we admire you.’”
Until the assassination of Rabin Avrushmi was considered the biggest political murderer there has been here. Yigal Amir took that distinction from him. “How can you compare what I did with what he did? I wouldn’t dare assassinate a prime minister. Besides, Rabin wasn’t a leftist at all.”
112 thoughts on “Emil Grunzweig’s Assassin: ‘I Killed the Israeli Left’ – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم”
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
What a pathetic waste of human life. 27 years in prison and he doesn’t even show a shred of remorse, and he doesn’t have the decency to shut up and live out the rest of his life out of the public eye.
I fear you want him to shut up because he’s an embarrassment to Israel, but not so much because of his original crime. But perhaps I’m wrong.
No — the best thing would have been the death penalty, because that’s justice, and he doesn’t deserve to live after he did what he did. Nothing to do with shutting him up. Just like I think should happen to any number of Arab terrorists who murdered Israelis in cold blood.
Here’s a perfect example of why I believe Zionism, whatever branch one pretends to believe in is evil at its core and corrupts absolutely.:
“It was Yitzhak Rabin, who came from the Left, who took action to have my sentence reduced. […] Besides, Rabin wasn’t a leftist at all.”
Although, I vehemently abhor what was done to Rabin; this broken clock and twisted mind is ironically right once, because even this evil mind recognizes that Rabin, at the 11th hour would not summon the moral strength it takes to betray Zionism, and would betray the peace process instead. However, paranoia being one of the engines of Zionism is the reason he was murdered; merely as “just in case” insurance to protect Zionism. This was but another example of Zionism sacrificing conscience for the greater “good”.
“People in the street want to KISS BOTH MY HANDS, the hand that pulled out the pin and the hand that threw the grenade. I go to synagogues all over the country, with friends and acquaintances, and I am greeted with admiration everywhere. Even Ashkenazis tell me, ‘congratulations, we admire you.’”
He is describing the spectacle of the LEFT and the RIGHT coming together for the sake of Zionism, because really it will be the left hand and the right hand of Israel together that will strangle Democracy in the end.
This reminds me of Laughton’s film noir “Night of the Hunter”, where the villain preacher played by Mitchum has “love” tattooed on one hand and “hate” on the other.
This is what real evil looks like, when conscience, justice and democracy are sacrificed in the name of something that pretends to be the ultimate good.
There is the moral choice and then there is Zionism, and it’s not Grunzweig who killed the Israeli Left; the greater part of the Left were unable to sacrifice Zionism for the moral choice and have been hypocritically moving to the other side. Granted, there are some Jews who still cling to some form of Zionism and yet reject all that Zionism is doing, which begs the question: What will it take?
The Zionist hubris, deceit and lack of remorse of Grunzweig prove that Rabin was wrong to reduce his sentence. But was he wrong or just being a Zionist?
Too bad he can’t be born again. After what was done to him; he would make a different decision.
And finally, I would ask Zionists and even Rabin, if I meet him in the other world: is the life of a peace activist not worth as much as that of a Prime Minister under Zionist law?
Thus one can only imagine what the life of a mere Palestinian is worth!
The moral choice or absolute evil? It comes down to this.
Why would any reporter think that what this idiot has to say is interesting ?
Because he committed one of the most shocking, sensational political murders of a fellow Jew in contemporary Israeli history.
Emil Grinzvaig needs to be remembered.
That piece of **** you quoted needs to be forgotten and ignored. His name should be forgotten and there should be no place for his words.
You only serve him and his aims by providing him a place to spread his poison.
It’s interesting because it exposes his deceit. He pretended to be remorseful to get out of prison when in fact he is filled with hubris, self-righteousness and absolutely no remorse whatsoever.
I know a lot of Zionists would prefer that he shut up.
The fact is that Zionists kiss his hands in the street, but some would prefer more “discretion”…how hypocritical! Which reminds me, it’s interesting how Zionists are making such an effort to distance themselves from Breivik, when they spew the same hatred and ideology as he.
-No, he’s not like us; we didn’t inspire him…ah but Goldstein, had a shrine, Kahane has a park and this murderer is kissed on both hands by the left and the right.
Why not let him speak? Unless Zionism has something ugly to hide.
Breivik was inspired by Zionism the same way Muhamad Atta was inspired by the Quran.
Does that means that anyone who believes in the Quran, share the same beliefs as Muhamad Atta ? or does your racism works only toward Zionism ?
If you do drift towards racism, please at least pretend to be an equal opportunity one.
Uh-uh-uh…don’t try to put words in my mouth or misquote me to score a cheap point. I stated that Breivik was inspired by ZIONISTS and I should have added “Zionists… spewing racist, bigoted, paranoid, fear-mongering garbage, but I did not write that “Zionism” inspired him.
Very conniving to try to take a personal jab at me by twisting my words to suit your agenda. Not with me you don’t! I catch on real quick. So your whole Zionism/Quran analogy that was meant to diminish me is DOA. Your GOTCHA! moment is a lead balloon that never made it off the ground.
Don’t blame me, see; blame your Zionist colleagues who spew hatred against Muslims and inspire others to act on
One more thing, Zionism is not a religious book. If you were determined to create a proper analogy: you would compare Quran to Talmud or the Bible. Not apples to oranges.
But then you were zeroing in on scoring against me…”my racism”…I believe that’s an ad hom and it makes your frustration appear palpable. Don’t blame me for what other Zionists do, for murdering Zionists who don’t know when to shut up and perhaps for the embarrassment you feel in the realization that they’re doing what they do to protect the ideology you cherish.
Yet you said: “There is the moral choice and then there is Zionism”.
The only way that can be understood is, that in your opinion, Zionism itself is immoral. That is – the belief in the right of the Jewish People to a national home in their ancestral homeland, is in itself immoral. Is that, in fact, your belief?
People misinterpret religious scripture all the time, but on the whole the truth is a belief and respect for a higher being and the values that bring the believer closer to that being…that is the basis and truth. But Zionism has NOTHING to do with God or God’s will as Zionists pretend; it is not a religion but an ideology. Yes, I believe Zionism is immoral. And you can’t compare a religion to an ideology that is based on land theft and ethnic cleansing. I don’t care if the Jewish People aspire to land or a home, but not someone else’s land and not someone else’s home and especially not at the expense of the rights of others and I find the whole “ancestral” issue delusional. To dispossess and cleanse people based on some relative ties European Jews have with some tribe that once lived there thousands of years ago and to pretend that somehow this entitles these immigrants to that land over the people who were dispossessed is indeed immoral and racist.
And although not all Zionists spew the hatred Geller and Pipes do and although not all Zionists act on their hatred as Gunzweig did, they enable these and others by clinging to a racist, supremacist ideology that is hurting millions of Palestinians and an ideology that will never lead to anything good, nor was it intended to, since forcing others to submit to the dispossession of their land and inflicting cruel punishment on those who don’t submit is anything but good!
Grunzweig was murdered, not the murderer. That was Yona Avrushmi.
I think you do a radical disservice to the alternative form of Zionism in which I believe. But I don’t want to get into an argument w. you about it since my own views on this should be well known to readers.
“But Zionism has NOTHING to do with God or God’s will as Zionists pretend;”
I am afraid you don’t being to understand what Zionism is all about. Zionism is a national movement, based among other things on religious scriptures.
What do you think made the national movement, to demand a Jewish (religion originated group of people ) to demand self determination in the promised land ? The bible.
Zionism was created by Jews who went through the education revolution in Europe, who realized that the fact that Jews hang to religious only values and believes – among other the belief that return to Israel would be achievable, only upon the return of the Jewish messiah – was a key contributor for the lack of Jewish self determination (which led to some of the biggest massacres of the Jewish people) and the only way they were able to stray the Jewish people away from religion beliefs, was with the establishment of a new secular envelope to the religious idea.
The base for Zionism Is and always was the Jewish Religion, and the promise as described in the bible.
Not quite. Herzl wasn’t inspired by the Bible. He was inspired by anti Semitism & by the need to resolve the Jewish question in ways he saw other nationalities resolving their national questions. The connection bet. Zionism & Judaism is not quite as ironclad as you would have us believe.
Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, I don’t have more time to discuss this with you but I’ll give it one more try.:
“I am afraid you don’t being to understand what Zionism is all about. Zionism is a national movement, based among other things on religious scriptures.|
I understand one thing: Zionism is a misrepresentation of scripture and God’s will and has nothing to do with truth and God. We were put on this planet for one purpose only: to understand love through humility and compassion. That is the only path to honoring God or the Universe or whatever higher being we believe in. That’s it; that’s all! Anything that strays from that is not truth, not divine right and not God’s will.
There is nothing “holy” or religious about Zionism; Zionism is zealotry at its worst and it’s man-made. Zionism is a belief in supremacist entitlement based on spiritual misrepresentation and ego.
What you wrote is based on your interpretation of the script you belief in.
You are not different then a Jew or a Christian or a Muslim, who believes in his version of the Book.
To completely integrate, one needs to enable room for other believes to coexist, next to his own. You are as radical in your believes as the Zionist, in fact you are the mirror shape of Zionism (as you see it, not as it really is)
It isn’t the belief that’s immoral, it’s the implementation of the belief that is immoral. The fact that by creating this State they dispossessed 1 million Israeli Palestinians, then made the remaining ones 2nd class citizens, then conquered Palestinian land & held it illegally, all in the name of Zionism. That’s what’s morally offensive about yr brand of Zionism (but not mine, I should note).
What you say about Hertzel is true, but please don’t forget that Hertzel wasn’t the first. Pinsker, Lilenblum, Mohaliver are few of the famous names that in 1881 founded the “Hovevei Zion” foundation, 18 years prior to the Basel Congress.
One can guess from the name “Hovevei Zion” what was the agenda of the foundation.
Keep in mind that until the appearance of the Haskalah movement in Europe at the end of the 18th century, most of the Jews (in Europe) were religious, those religious Jews
were praying and mentioning Zion 26 times only during the morning prayers.
Those religious Jews had strong ties to the Bible and the land of Zion, there wish was to restore the glory days in the land of Zion, and that wish came straight out of the bible.
In Basel 18 years later they adopted the widest common denominator of the Jewish people, and called for the re-establishment of a national Jewish homeland in Israel.
Most religious Jews of that era were anti-Zionist.
“Zionism is a national movement, based among other things on religious scriptures”
I’m not sure this is a fair description but never mind, it makes it all that easier to oppose Zionism ‘from within’:
@ Deïr Yassin
Nice that you have am opinion on the subject of Zionism it’s structure and beliefs. would be even grater if you would outline your thoughts and we could have a discussion.
as for your video, i am so sorry but though in junior high french as a third language was mandatory, i never attended any of the classes. With the med sea less then 400 years away it was easy to skip french lessons.
Well, they are speaking English in the video !
With a clear ‘Ashkenazi’ accent. And if you don’t understand oral English even I can read the subtitles in Arabic, one of the local languages in the area.
Yes, I have an opinion on Zionism – even a strong one – and though I’ve read tons of Zionist classics, I don’t really care whether it’s a national movement based on only secular principles or on religious ones too. I see Zionism from the point of view of those who were its victims.
As concerning other colonized people, the motivations of the colonizers are NOT my first concern.
Why don’t you read Ella Shohat’s “Zionism from the Standpoint of its Jewish victims”. You can find most of it in Anne McClintock: Dangerous Liaison: Gender, Nation, and Post-Colonial Perspectives” on the net.
It’ll give you some input for your Hasbara-spinning, in case there’s no more wool in Edelstein’s basement.
i assumed that since the subtitles were in french so was the sound.
Not even funny.
as for my Arabic, i wasn’t discriminating, during French and Arabic i was at the beach.
Yes, reading your comments on this blog, I can understand that you generally didn’t follow classes ….
“Most religious Jews of that era were anti-Zionist.”
That’s not a true statement.
The short answer is they didn’t know anything else.
Zionism was the result of the Haskala movement, all those who left the religion were treated badly by their religious communities who treated them & their beliefs as rebels.
That with the fact that most Jews were religious who gave up hope for a national homeland, mostly due to the fact that for centuries Jews were powerless, suppressed, prosecuted and unable to protect themselves, attribute to the belief that Jews should not re-settle in Israel until the Messiah would come.
Despite all the obstacles, Zionism gained momentum and the within 30 years (1840 – 1870) “Hovevi Zion” Foundation gained a lot of momentum in Europe, and sent the first groups of immigrants to Israel (The Bilu movement) which considering all the obstacles was a huge achievements.
Zionism was, and still is, a great achievements, based upon the religious background of it’s founders.
First, you say the statement that Orthodox Jews of the era were anti-Zionist is untrue & then you say it is, but they didn’t know any better. If you study the Haredi community up to the 1920s in Israel (and outside) it was hostile to the secular Zionists & hence anti-Zionist. The Orthodox rabbis of the era publicly opposed the ideas & plans of the Avoda Zionists because they viewed them as godless Bolsheviks (which many were).
ZIonism was an achievement. Not sure I’d call it “great,” but I won’t quibble w. you on it. But it certainly is no longer a great achievement at least as practiced by the settler extremists & the current rightist government. Rather latter day Zionism represents thuggishness & brutality except for the thin minority represented by those on the Zionist left.
first i think you are splitting hairs, and just a bit uncomfortable from the huge mirror put in-front of your face, but let’s for the sake of discussion assume that i was wrong.
So you are saying that Breivik was inspired by people and not by ideology. So what difference does it makes if those people were Christian’s, Muslims or ZIONISTS ? unless in your mind those people represent the morals of the movement called Zionism, it really doesn’t matter.
Bavrik was mostly influenced by his mental makeup that made him execute on believes that many share in such a twisted way.
Sorry it’s Breivik of course and not Bavrik
No one put a giant mirror to my face and especially not YOU.
Zionists are at the forefront pushing Islamophobia. Let me put it this way, one can use the Quran to justify violence, but the Quran itself is not based on immoral values as the Bible is not based on immoral values. Yet violence is prevalent in the Old Testament so don’t even go there. We have a responsibility to the truth and the truth is self-evident to all; only some choose to use other methods sometimes in God’s name to achieve justice that distance them from morality and God.
However, Zionism which is an IDEOLOGY or a means to an end or whatever you want to call it is purely egocentric and supremacist because it has as its foundation to possess land by any means at the expense of the rights and wellbeing of others if necessary because of a hypothetical supremacist “entitlement”. Anyone who enables Zionism in any way is responsible since we are witnessing the evolution of Zionism and it’s not good. Therefore people with a moral conscience must distance themselves from Zionism the natural course of which is supremacy as is being proven by the facts on the ground in Israel.
So, again, anyone who believes there is something to hold on to in Zionism is not reading the writing on the wall or refuses to face reality and is indirectly enabling an immoral act even if he or she would never commit such an act or thinks they wouldn’t. Zionism must be rejected or at least put in the past in order to build something JUST and humane.
Actually, the Bible is filled with deeply troubling stories about immorality & the triumph of evil over good. The rape of Dinah is but one example. The sacrifice of Issac another. The extermination of the tribes competing w. the Israelites. But in a sense this is what makes it such a great book. It presents reality as complicated & acknowledges that good does not always triumph.
The fact that you think that Zionism reflects an Ideology, but the Quran and the Bible or the new testament do not, is ridiculous.
“However, Zionism which is an IDEOLOGY or a means to an end or whatever you want to call it is purely egocentric and supremacist because it has as its foundation to possess land by any means at the expense of the rights and wellbeing of others if necessary because of a hypothetical supremacist “entitlement”.”
Excuse me, what is the difference between what you wrote, and Dar al-Harb ? it’s the same thing, and by the way Dar al-Harb is not different then the biblical promise of g-d to Abraham to make him a grate nation which controls all of the middle east, the only difference is with the expansion of geographical area in Dar al-Harb.
You insist in looking at Zionism faults, But in the same time you refuse to look at your own.
Zionism has far more faults than Kalea, I assure you. At least Zionism as preached by Bibi, Yvet, et al.
@ Richard, the fact that you do not understand the story of Dina, and the actions of Shimon and Levi, make’s it an immoral act in your eyes, but that is not really the case.
The Sacrifice of Issac is not Immoral at all, as g-d never intended for Abraham to sacrifice him. It’s story of choices and one’s believe.
You should keep your days job, and do not drift into interpreting the bible.
That’s insulting & if u drift into this sort of language again you’ll face consequences.
The fact is that Dinah is raped. Then the rapists engage in subterfuge in order to wipe out Dinah’s family. An early act of Jewish genocide writ small. Later Jacob condemns the heinous crimes of his sons.
As for the Akedah, you’re bowdlerizing the text, in which Abraham clearly does not know that God will spare his son, nor does the reader. Which makes the story esp troubling for all but you.
All of us are entitled to our reading of sacred text. If u deny right to do so I will deny yr right to render yr specious interpretations here.
Richard, i am sorry if i offended you. below is the story of Dina it’s a bit off topic but…
The behavior of Jacob’s sons in the Dina story makes one wonders.
As a result of a crime (rape) committed by a single man (Shchem) the sons of Jacob’s retaliate in a serious of activities.
1. Cheating an entire community of Schem with a deceitful offer to circumcise them.
2. Killing all the males in the city, despite the fact that they had nothing to do with the crime their community member committed.
3. Seize all the community belongings including animals.
4. Demonstrate violence towards innocent women and children and taking them captive.
In 3 out of the 4 activities all of Jacob’s sons participate, the killing is committed by only two Shimon and Levi. How can their harsh response be explained?
It’s much harder to understand the forgiving text towards those horrible actions, and even what appears to be a justification towards the action of Jacob’s sons, with him letting Shimon and Levy the right for last word during the argument with their father Jacob.
It’s even harder to understand the sequence of events due to the fact that Schem the rapist was asking for forgiveness according to the custom. The bible teaches us later that it’s the rapist commitment to pay bride price to the father of the bride, and to marry her (דברים כב, כח-כט)
The rapist in our case is converting to Judaism fulfilling the instructions he receives from Jacob’s sons. He circumcises himself, and influencing his entire community to do the same, and he takes upon himself all the rules and regulations. His father Hamor is offering peace before his son speaks and offers the land to Dina’s family.
One may further wonder as Jacob’s sons were able to fulfill one of the biggest mitzvahs and convert a big crowd to Judaism and through that crowd influence their relatives from near and far to become Jewish, never the less Jacob’s sons choose (against their father will) in the exact opposite, deceit, murder, property seizer and appear in a bad light, like bad people.
The key to this enigma is in the text itself the sons of Jacob’s offer to the people of the city of Schem to become one people (“ בר’ לד’ טז – והיינו לעם אחד”) , and the people of the city of Schem accept the offer. What the term people have to do with the conflict? The text tells us that the dispute isn’t between private people the dispute is between tribes. And the text tells us that with the phrase (“בני יעקב באו על החללים ויבזו העיר, אשר טמאו אחותם” בר’ לד’ כז’ ). The text justifies the actions of the Jacob’s sons, claiming the deed was the deed of the ruler, but the community as a hole is responsible.
Jacob is afraid of the consequences of his sons deed, he’s afraid that all the tribes would gang on him and his sons (“ויאמר יעקב אל שמעון ואל לוי עכרתם אתי להבאישני בישב הארץ בכנעני ובפרזי ואני מתי מספר ונאספו עלי והכוני ונשמדתי אני וביתי”בר’ לד’ ל’ ) but Jacob never criticizing them for their actions.
Jacobs sons think that ignoring the rape effect on the tribe dignity would be a mistake that will end in the elimination of the tribe by its enemies, and only horrific actions will guarantee their survival.
The text tells us that Jacob’s sons were right in their assessment (“ בר’ לה ה ויסעו ויהי חתת אלהים על הערים אשר סביבתיהם ולא רדפו אחרי בני יעקב”)
Jacob not only doesn’t criticize his sons for their doings, later on Jacob acknowledge his approach was wrong and approaching Yosef he claims responsibility of the action (ואני נתתי לך שכם אחד על אחיך אשר לקחתי מיד האמרי בחרבי ובקשתי – בר’ מח’ כב’)
So Richard, yes you can read the bible however way you want. But if you truly understand Hebrew and Talmud and you study the text carefully you learn that there was a dispute between tribes, and one tribe killed the other to gain reputation and prevent other tribes from ganging up on them. Though neighborhood is the Middle East and apparently it always was. There was nothing immoral in their actions.
You’re right in one respect. I forgot that Dinah was a member of Jacob’s family. But my main pt still remains that the subterfuge used to get revenge on the men of Schechem is horrific. While Shimon is thoroughly condemned for this, even.the fact one of our ancestors is capable of such acts is sobering.
That is a heinous, disgusting interpretation of the text which I renounce utterly. They used subterfuge to murder the men of Schechem. Thank God it appears that Shmuel & I see this differently than you, as did Jacob when he said what he did cursing them on his death bed.
First, I don’t want any more extended Bible exegesis here. Second, you’ve made yr pt which I thoroughly disagree with. So move on. No further responses on this matter.
” While Shimon is thoroughly condemned for this, ”
huh ? where does that takes place ? could you please show me the verse ?
Both shimon and Levi are seriously condemned by Jacob later at the end of the book of genesis when Jacob “blesses” his sons on his death bed.
ארור אפם כי עז
Their punishment was having no territory in Israel. They were spread out amongst the other son’s territories
Jacob’s silence and not replying to their arguments directly should be a lesson to all commentators on blogs. Not having the last word doesn’t mean you lost the debate, justice is
meted out in the end, and harshly!
Levi has no property in israel because he has a different very prestigious role to teach Torah to the Israelite and be the liaison between the people and their g-d : ונחלה לא יהיה לו בקרב אחיו ה’ הוא נחלתו…” [דברים יח א-ב].
Shimon does receive a property mingled inside the Judea tribe property.
their “punishment” has to do with other things and not necessarily with the events around Dina.
Korach and his group – part of the Levi family.
Zimri son of Silo – Part of the Shimon Family.
There is no direct indication, in the story about Dina and Schem that they were punished, Jacobs expresses fear from retaliation but that’s about it.
I thoroughly agree with Shmuel on this one. Of course Jacob is condemning their massacre. Most commentators see it that way. You are in the minority.
Good that you are with Shmuel, The most prominent Jewish Scholars רמב”ם and the רמב”ן think that Shmuel is wrong in that aspect. So i guess he really needs your support
I would love, for the sake of expending my knowledge, if you would be able to link to a scholar who think differently.
As for Shmuel in the Tamlud is states במסכת שבת דף נו ע”א כתוב: “כל האומר דוד חטא אינו אלא טועה, I have nothing else to add.
I have no interest in continuing a discussion w. someone who claims things w/o providing any proof as you have done.
And yet you did, didn’t you? Would that you had kept to yr word…
And furthermore, their action received a place of honor in the Jewish lives.
in the Selichot we say : תפלטנו, היה לנו לצור מעוז לבית מצודות. לכה לנו לישועה, כלשמעון ולוי אחי דינה. ה’ לשעוועתנו האזינה. (סוף סליחה ס”ה
I told you your commenting was done in this thread. Now you will be moderated. When I say something I mean it. Ignore me at yr peril.
I don’t honor murderers. You can if you wish. But my Judaism doesn’t.
You suffer from the problem all fundamentalists suffer from, you prefer to let the Rambam and some poet to think for you instead of reading the text of the Torah.
The text is obviously as I stated. The Rambam etc bring ideas to support what they wanted to think.
אין המקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו
You’re way off the pshat.
If you choose to follow one rabbi’s view in the Talmud that David didn’t sin with batsheva then no one here will be surprised you support massacre as a justified reply to rape
1st the discussion is about Torah, not about what i do or do not believe in. You don’t know my views, and assumption is the mother of all fu.up
The one who integrated Scholar opinions was Richard, not me. I was asking for some links that proves him right, that’s all.
Both You and Richard, are not world known Scholars when it comes to the Torah, so i wouldn’t count on neither of you for interpretation.
And if you wish to talk about David and Bat-Sheva, anyone who was leaving for war used to give his wife a signed divorce papers (גט כריתות)in case he will get killed, so technically David did not cheat with a Man’s wife and the Talmud is 100% right.
The worst sort of casuistry (i.e. pilpul). Only someone like you would defend David’s adultery & virtual murder of Uzziah. Even the Bibilical text doesn’t defend it. Yet you do. You’re offensive. But I guess it’s to be expected.
Breivik was inspired only by that aspect of Zionism which rejects Arabs & Islam, which has maximalist territorial goals, & which seeks to expel Arabs fr. Israel. In other words he’s a Revisionist Jabotinskian type who supports Likud & parties farther to the right. So to say that “Zionism” inspired him is wrong or at least incomplete.
Could you please provide a link to the Likud Platform (http://www.idi.org.il/elections_and_parties/Documents/halikud%20%2017.pdf) that support your interpretation of the Likud Zionism version ?
The Likud and Bibi’s announced on more then one occasion (once in front of the US house) that they are in favor of territorial compromise. Your statement have no base in reality when it comes to the Likud or Bibi.
Oh, please. Shtay gadot la’Yarden (“2 banks has the Jordan & both are ours”). Or did you forget that catchy little ditty written by the forefather of Likud, Jabotinsky. Whose ideas resonate more for modern Likudniks: Jabotinsky’s or Barack Obama’s (i.e. the 2 state solution). BIbi’s “embrace” of the 2 state solution is a outright sham. He no more embraces it than he would a 3 headed snake in a circus freak show.
Shamir gave up the idea of the “two banks of the Jordan river” a long time ago. Begin did that before him signed a piece treaty with Egypt and returned Sinai to the Egyptians.
Bibi himself signet the Y agreement in 1996, and gave Hebron back to the PA.
Your hatred / dislike of the Right-Wings Israeli politics clogged your vision.
“Bibi himself …. gave Hebron back to the PA”
This is another example of right-wing Zionist chutzpah.
I don’t think most Israelis are aware at all of Breivik’s pro-Zionist philosophy. If they are they’re only vaguely aware.
over the past year it seems to have become quite stylish to include references to/ comparisons with/ Nazism, inevitably paired with the virtuous declaration, “but we’re not as bad.” What’s going on? Are zionists afraid that Nazism or the Holocaust will be forgotten?
The female lead in some British detective serial was asked the secret of her success in obtaining confessions from the bad guy. She said, “People want to confess, they want to get it off their mind; I just give them the opportunity.” Do zionists feel the need to exonerate themselves by persistently comparing zionism to nazism?
If so, zionists should be reminded that some of us can count– Nazism was the situation of at most 12 years; Palestinian Arabs have been under the boot of Israeli oppression for over 60 years.
Are you always this incoherent? I have no idea what this means.
@Kalea “I don’t care if the Jewish People aspire to land or a home, but not someone else’s land and not someone else’s home”
Where then would you suggest the homeland for the Jewish People be located?
Can someone please explain why the Jewish people need a homeland at all? Judaism is a religion, not a political entity. Do other religions, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, need homelands? Home is where the heart is, and most Jews hearts are in the countries in which they reside; The UK, USA, France, etc. If they wish to have symbolic homes like Jerusalem, Mecca, etc., all well and good. But why whole countries? The majority of Jews have no desire to “return” to Israel. End Zionism now and bring peace to the world!
Gene, because 1000’s of years of prosecution and murder.
are you looking for a real answer ?
@The Nudnik: So now they’ve got their “homeland” which most Jews don’t even visit, they have the right to perpetrate a thousand years (62 down and counting) of persecution and murder on a population that had nothing to do with Jewish persecution?
You chose the right name for yourself.
Do you have the statistic showing that “most Jews don’t even visit” Israel? The fact is that Israel is the country with the highest number of Jews in the world.
In any case, the hearts of most Jews was in Europe in the 1930s, and we saw where those hearts ended up. Of course, now you’ll tell me this kind of horror could never happen again. I’m sorry to say it, but history tells us otherwise. Look around you: Libya, Syria, Yemen, Congo, Sudan, etc. etc. Is the world really a place where genocide could not happen?
5% of American Jews have visited Israel.
Yes & the genocide could just as easily be perpetrated BY Israel as against our fellow Jews.
Sam, it might do you some good to study the demographics. There are many more Jews outside Israel than in.
In all those places you mention, like Libya, it seems the horror being visited on them is perpetrated by the US and Israel and other Western powers.
42.5% of the world Jewry lives in Israel.
39.3% live in Israel
3.6% in France
2.8% in Canada
2.2 in UK
1.5% in Russia
1.4% in Argentina
if the number of world Jews who visited Israel is about 10% then it’s possible that most world Jews, either live in or visited the state of Israel, the number are real close.
look at page 23
How Israel has anything to do with the events in Libya ?
“Judaism is a religion, not a political entity.”
First of all – have you never heard of the concept of “self-determination”? Judaism is indeed a religion, but that does not negate the concept of “the Jewish People”. The Jewish People has existed, AS A PEOPLE, for centuries – nay, for millennia. Christianity and Islam always defined themselves as universal RELIGIONS, but Jews have always defined themselves as belonging to the Jewish People (or, before that, as Israelites) – and were so defined by other nations.
Explain to me, if you will, in what way the Palestinians are any more a “people” than the Jewish People.
“Home is where the heart is, and most Jews hearts are in the countries in which they reside”
Excuse me? You’ve done a survey? And before you tell me that the fact that most Jews don’t live in Israel is proof of this claim, I would suggest that most Jews feel much safer knowing that they have a place of refuge available, should Europe – or, indeed, any other country where they are now living – succumb to trends such as manifested themselves in Europe in the 1930s. Even 2000 years ago, when there was still a Jewish political entity in the Land of Israel/Judaea, (in fact, since the return from the Babylonian Exile), there were still many Jews who chose (for financial or other reasons) to live outside the Jewish homeland. That did not mean that their heart was not in the homeland.
“End Zionism now and bring peace to the world”
Was Zionism responsible for the 30 Years War? For the Hundred Years War? For the American Civil War?
Was Zionism responsible for the civil war which has just ended (we hope) in southern Sudan?
Was Zionism responsible for the Falklands War? For the war in Chechnya?
If Israel were to disappear tomorrow, would that make the tension between India and Pakistan disappear? Would it bring about an end to the rebellion of the Tamil Tigers? Would it put a stop to the oppression of the Tibetans by the Chinese? Would it bring about the end of hostilities between Muslim rebels in the Philippines and southern Thailand and the respective governments of those countries?
“End Zionism now and bring peace to the world”?!
Give me a break!
“Give me a break!” You’ve got it, Simone. No point in trying to reply to a rant from someone who’s understanding of the history of her own people comes from Zionist hasbara. I’d recommend a few history books for you if I thought you could read them.
“I’d recommend a few history books for you if I thought you could read them.”
It’s so easy, isn’t it, Gene, to resort to ad hominem insults of this sort when you don’t actually have an answer.
The point is, you made the absurd claim that if there were to be an end to Zionism, it would bring peace to the world. When I pointed out to you the many conflicts there have been over the course of history, and the many conflicts there are even today, all over the world, which have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Zionism, you made snide remarks about your perception of the source of my understanding of the history of the Jewish People (BTW, I’d be interested to know just WHY you made the assumption that I am Jewish) – but you cannot refute what I wrote, can you?
Now, just for the record, I challenge you – once again – to explain why, in your opinion, the Palestinians are any more “a people” than the Jews are.
Actually, I would suggest that most Jews understand that Israel makes the world LESS SAFE for Jews by its current policies. That is at least in part why there is more of an outflow of population from Israel to the Diaspora than inflow to Israel. Israel is not a particularly safe place for Jews & it also creates danger for Jews around the world.
My heart too is with Israel. But that doesn’t mean that I endorse its boneheaded political policies.
As for the conflicts you list, the actual conflicts that Israel HAS created more than suffice to prove the level of instability Israel’s current policies bring to the region & the world.
“My heart too is with Israel. But that doesn’t mean that I endorse its boneheaded political policies.”
Richard, you have a rare talent for sidestepping what I actually wrote and answering something which I did not, in fact, say. We are not talking about whether or not Diaspora Jews endorse Israel’s policies. We are talking about whether or not there is such a thing as a Jewish People. This is a different question entirely.
“As for the conflicts you list, the actual conflicts that Israel HAS created more than suffice to prove the level of instability Israel’s current policies bring to the region & the world.”
(a) Conflicts in the plural? Other than the long-lasting Israel-Arab conflict, to which conflicts are you referring?
(b) In any case, what I wrote was in answer to Gene’s absurd insinuation that Zionism is responsible for all the conflicts in the world – a claim which, BTW, comes perilously close to the claims by certain “celebrities” that JEWS are responsible for all the wars in the world.
Conflicts Israel has created:
Lebanon War I
Lebanon War II
Of course there is a Jewish people, but it must not be conflated with Israel as Bibi loves to do.
Silverstein says “BIbi’s “embrace” of the 2 state solution is a outright sham. He no more embraces it than he would a 3 headed snake in a circus freak show.”
No more a sham than Abu Maazen’s embrace of the 2 state solution.
An outright lie. FAtah & the PA have advocated a 2state solution for decades. Bibi made 1 speech under pressure fr Obama & trots out the same speech whenever he speaks to a non Israeli audience.
?? the link please ??
The link that Abu Mazan talks about two states Palestine and Israel living side by side in peace.
Where is your link ? It will be good to hear it, just like we heard Netanyahu say it.
Abu Mazen is going to the UN, demanding a Palestinian state on the ’67 borders. Israel is doing everything possible and impossible to prevent that. That SHOULD be enough for an answer.
Did we ever hear anything about the borders proposed by Bibi ?
Honestly, your comments here are getting more and more nonsense. At least earlier there were occasionnaly something reasonable, that’s long gone. ‘Agent provocateur’ ?
Sorry. You’ll have to do yr own research on that one. Fatah’s & Abbas’ views on 2 states are so well known that the fact u need proof to believe it only shows how abysmally uninformed u are.
Any 30 sec. Google search will offer u all the proof a reasonable person should need.
When Abu Maazen pays lip service to a 2-state solution, but at the same time says that he will never accept Israel as a Jewish State and demands “the Right of Return” to the area allocated for the Jewish state, for millions of Palestinian refugees, who will, within the space of one generation, outnumber the Jewish population, then yes, I say his embrace of a 2-state solution is a sham.
That is certainly not at all a rejection of a 2 state solution. And he doesn’t say what you have him say. He says that he will not accept Bibi’s demand that the basis of negotiation bet. the PA & Israel be an acceptance on the PA’s part that Israel is a Jewish state. That is far diff. than what you claimed & you’ve either deliberately misread Abbas or willfully misrepresented what he said. Abbas has specifically said it’s not for him to accept or reject Israel as a Jewish or any other kind of state. And that’s an entirey legitimate position to take on his part.
Almost all Palestinians demand ROR in some form or other. In fact, the Geneva Accord, which polls showed were accepted by almost 40% of Israelis polled, contains a form of ROR as well. So a good number of Israelis don’t object to ROR at least partially implemented.
So I say YOU are a sham as is yr interpretation of what Abbas has said & believes.
“In fact, the Geneva Accord, which polls showed were accepted by almost 40% of Israelis polled, contains a form of ROR as well. So a good number of Israelis don’t object to ROR at least partially implemented.”
Which Geneva Accord and which polls? Links please.
“Abbas has specifically said it’s not for him to accept or reject Israel as a Jewish or any other kind of state.”
If it isn’t for him, then who is it for?
” And that’s an entirey legitimate position to take on his part.”
Then it’s also entirely legitimate for Netanyahu to distrust his motivation to make peace. Because the existence of Israel AS A JEWISH STATE lies at the very heart of the Arab-Israel conflict.
“So I say YOU are a sham as is yr interpretation of what Abbas has said & believes.”
I’m afraid you are becoming rather incoherent here. Why am I a sham (and why the ad hominem insults, aren’t they against your comment rules)?
The definition of “sham”: “Something false or empty that is purported to be genuine; a spurious imitation. 2. The quality of deceitfulness; empty pretense. …” (See http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sham).
You’ve never heard of the Geneva Accords (or Geneva Initiative)? You’ve been living in a hasbarist cocoon. Go to the group’s website & you should be able to find links to the articles about the polls. I remember reading them when the Initiative first came out a few years ago.
Do I demand that the prime minister of Canada define the U.S. as a Christian nation? He’d think I was nuts if I did. Just as I think Bibi is nuts for trying to force Abbas to do what Israel itself must do–define what sort of nation it is. Israel’s job–not Palestine’s.
The existence of Israel as a supremacist Jewish state will in fact prevent any settlement of the conflict.
As for defining shams, anyone who spouts nonsense as regularly as you do without regard to accuracy or truth is reasonably called a sham. Your claims about Abbas’ views are completely wrong, not even a shred of evidence to support them. Hence you’re a sham.
Yasser Abed Rabbo said in an interview on that ‘recognize-Israel-as-a-Jewish-State’-tactics: Lets them show us the BORDERS of that State they want us to recognize as Jewish first and we’ll talk.
He was first supposed to have said: If Israel gives us a signed paper recognizing a Palestinian state within the ’67-borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, we’ll recognize within an hour Israel as whatever they want: even as a Chinese State !
Sylvan Shalom stated before anyone had time to react that there was NO question of Israel going back to the ’67-borders, and even Hamas attacked Abed Rabbo for leaving aside the ROR etc.
It seems that the interview was distorted by Haaretz, and Abed Rabbo denied the recognition of Israel as a Jewsih State.
But the border-thing is still a very valid point.
Silverstein said: “Do I demand that the prime minister of Canada define the U.S. as a Christian nation? He’d think I was nuts if I did.”
First of all, I spoke of RECOGNIZING Israel as a Jewish STATE. She defines herself as such – and THAT is what Abu Maazen (as the representative of the Palestinians) is refusing to do.
No-one is asking him to define Israel, merely to ACCEPT Israel’s definition of herself as a Jewish State.
Secondly, since you draw a parallel between a Jewish State and a Christian nation, ie. between two religions, I understand that you too believe that there is no such thing as a Jewish People, merely a Jewish religion.
Silverstein says: “The existence of Israel as a supremacist Jewish state will in fact prevent any settlement of the conflict.”
Supremacist, in what way? How about the existence of Israel as a non-supremacist Jewish State? Do you think Abu Maazen would deign to accept that?
Silverstein says: “As for defining shams, anyone who spouts nonsense as regularly as you do without regard to accuracy or truth is reasonably called a sham. Your claims about Abbas’ views are completely wrong, not even a shred of evidence to support them. Hence you’re a sham.”
I regularly spout nonsense, do I? Well, I could remind you of your flagrant disregard for the truth regarding several matters, such as the accusation you have made in the past, that any journalist supporting a boycott of Israel would be guilty of a serious crime and subject to severe punishments. That was a barefaced lie. So if I am a sham, Richard – what does that make you?
After reading all the uninformed crap you write, Simone, I can easily answer your question on Richard’s behalf: YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!!!!
“After reading all the uninformed crap you write, Simone, I can easily answer your question on Richard’s behalf: YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!!!!”
That’s the usual response of the pro-Palestinian hasbarists when they have no response. Personal insult. Well, I can’t say I’m surprised, having noted the general intellectual level of your comments until now. Would you care to explain what I have written that could be defined as “uninformed” – together with RELIABLE sources proving that it is uninformed?
Gene Schulman – still no answer from you as to what conflicts has created (leaving aside the Israel-Arab conflict, of course – and we could argue who was responsible for that till the cows come home).
correction: that should be, what problems Israel has created (leaving aside the Israel-Arab conflict…)
I for one have no problem recognizing such a thing as a Jewish people. I do know Jews who consider being Jewish as a purely religious affiliation, others to whom it is belonging to a culture, and thus a people. I am not the one to define this, it’s up to the Jews themselves to sort that out, BUT apparently the State of Israel has some problems with that ‘Jewish people’-thing too.
I read today – but I’ve heard that kind of stories before – about a Jew who converted to Christianity, became even a priest, and was denied to settle down in Israel under the Law of Return. Huh ! Could you ask your Ministry of ‘Explanation’ to explain that: if ‘Jewish’ is belonging to the Jewish people, how come one can’t convert and still be a Jew ? A Jew can be an atheist or BECOME an atheist, but he can’t become a Christian. While on the other hand, we know a non-ethnic Jew who converts to Judaism becomes a Jew instantly.
How do you convert to become part of the Chinese of the American people ?
Honestly, personally, I don’t care about these things, but as your State is obsessed with origin, religion etc, it is facing many cases of deep hypocrisy and let’s say ‘cognitive dissonance’.
Erratum: ‘Chinese OR the American people’
Deir Yassin, nice of you to accept the existence of a Jewish People. Do you also accept the right of the Jewish People to a national home, like other peoples? And if so – where?
You didn’t address the utter hypocrisy in the Israeli defintion of a Jew, did you ? Showing once again that it’s a waste of time tryng to debate with you. I should have known, reading your earlier comments.
@Deir Yassin, It is true that Israel is still struggling with the definition of “Who is a Jew” but I do not see that this has any relevance to the question I put to you,ie. do you accept the right of the Jewish People to have their own state – anywhere in the world? If so – where?
However, since you insist on debating something else, I will attempt to gratify you – but I would like some more information first. Can you please tell me where you read about the Jewish-born priest who was denied permission to immigrate to Israel under the Law of Return?
Yishai’s Interior Ministry has routinely rejected numerous such applications for citizenship. They’ve even turned down such applications fr practicing Jews who once had a vague affiliation w. an evangelical group. If u haven’t heard about this u haven’t been following the Israeli news.
I have been following the Israeli news for quite some time now (about 30 years) and i am unfamiliar with such stories.
so in the spirit of this site, how about a link ?
I’ve read at least 3 such stories in Haaretz in the past month or two. One case involved Barbra Streisand’s half brother. You should be able to find it. I’d not I can ask my friend Joel Katz who writes the excellent Religion & State in Israel blog. This is his bread & butter.
According to Haaretz it’s not her half brother it’s her cousin.
And he was denied alyia as he was involved with missionary work, which appeared on his facebook page – he his saying that his facebook page was hijacked.
and it wasn’t a month or two it was six.
Alyia has financial meaning to it. The state of Israel supports financially the new immigrants, to get the benefits you need to convince everyone that your intentions are pure, nothing wrong with that. It’ similar to gree card process in the USA, if you cheat you will be denied.
He’s a Jew, hence entitled to Aliya, citizenship, & all those goodies. He didn’t cheat. There’s nothing saying he’s disqualified fr citizenship because he did missionary work (which he denies). Let the interior ministry prove he is disqualified using legitimate criteria instead of Shas’ made up rules.
Doesn’t work like that.
When a green card application is being denied in the US, INS doesn’t need to prove that you are lying. You need to prove you are not. They can decline your application for whatever reason. You need to prove their reasoning is wrong.
Same thing in Israel, your application is denied please prove them wrong.
Israel is not the U.S. A Jew need only declare his intent to make aliya to be given Israeli citizenship. Until this Shas Mafiosi became Interior Minister Jews were NEVER denied citizenship for the lame excuses offered by Yishai.
But it’s good to know you’re an apologist for one of Israel’s most corrupt politicians (& that’s saying something!)
These are distinction w/o a difference. The Canadian premier’s job is neither to recognize, define or accept the U.S. as a Christian nation. His job is to recognize us as a nation. What kind of nation we are is our business, not his.
You’ve conveniently omitted the part about Israel as a DEMOCRATIC state. Defining Israel solely as a Jewish state while omitting its definition as a democratic state is NOT an Israeli consensus. Therfore u are wrong in yr claim.
But I also take issue w. the claim that Israel being a Jewish supremacist state offering inferior citizenship rights & status to non Jewish citizens is an Israeli consensus. It may be a Likud consensus but not the same as an Israeli one.
“You’ve conveniently omitted the part about Israel as a DEMOCRATIC state. Defining Israel solely as a Jewish state while omitting its definition as a democratic state is NOT an Israeli consensus. Therfore u are wrong in yr claim.
But I also take issue w. the claim that Israel being a Jewish supremacist state offering inferior citizenship rights & status to non Jewish citizens is an Israeli consensus. It may be a Likud consensus but not the same as an Israeli one.”
Was this directed at me? Because I made no claim whatsoever about any Israeli consensus.
However, since you have raised the subject, in what way do you think non-Jewish citizens have “inferior citizenship rights”?
“Abed Rabbo denied the recognition of Israel as a Jewsih State.”
I read about that interview. Thanks for prrovong my point for me.
See also this one:
Nah, Simone. After what I’ve read from you here, I don’t think neither I nor Yasser Abed Rabbo have proved any of your points. That could only be after much manipulation from your part, but that IS a speciality in certain circles.
Sorry, that should be “proving” my point.
“Conflicts Israel has created:
Lebanon War I
Lebanon War II
Sidestepping the issue yet again, Richard? I asked what conflicts Israel had created BESIDES the Israel-Arab conflict that could possibly justify Gene’s outrageous and malicious accusation that Zionism is responsible for all the conflicts in the world. There are many conflicts in the world besides the Israel-Arab conflict – but you keep conveniently ignoring that, don’t you? Just as with your usual intellectual dishonesty, you conveniently ignore the question I posed and answer a question which you pretend that I posed. And you call me a sham?
“I’ve read at least 3 such stories in Haaretz in the past month or two. One case involved Barbra Streisand’s half brother. You should be able to find it. I’d not I can ask my friend Joel Katz”
Please do ask him – and ask him to provide a reliable link, in the spirit of your own comment rules (“3. support claims you wish to make using credible sources and links; do NOT make unsupported claims”)
Oh – and Ha’aretz is NOT a reliable source.
You do the work my friend. I’m not here to hold yr hand.
As for Haaretz, it’s a lot more reliable source than u are. And since I make the rules regarding which sources are reliable here, Haaretz is reliable unless u can prove very specifically that something it publishes isn’t liable (as I have done a few times).
Silverstein says: “You do the work my friend. I’m not here to hold yr hand.”
You made the claim – you prove it.
Besides which – you OFFERED to ask your friend Joel Katz.
No. I said I would ask him if u couldn’t find the references. As u haven’t even tried I won’t either. If u do try & fail let me know & I will follow through as I promised.
But another reader did find the reference to Streisand’s cousin being denied citizenship despite the fact that the is Jewish. U should be able to find that link here in the thread (posted yesterday) or is even that bit of work too tough for u?
Silverstein said: “But another reader did find the reference to Streisand’s cousin being denied citizenship despite the fact that the is Jewish. U should be able to find that link here in the thread (posted yesterday) or is even that bit of work too tough for u?”
No, I read that. One thing that is glaringly obvious is that you yourself didn’t bother to check your facts, as that other reader pointed out. You also conveniently “forgot” that the reason for the denial of the visa was said cousin’s alleged missionary activity (which would fall under the heading of acting against the interests of the Jewish People, I suppose).
It is a fact, however, that Israel has admitted thousands of immigrants under the Law of Return, who openly identify as Christians (mostly from the former Soviet Union).
Greetings, Richard. Just because I don’t always comment on your blog, does not mean that I’m not reading it. And I have noticed that you have not posted anything for several days now. I certainly hope that there are no untoward reasons for this: Health, technical, etc. Actually, I would understand if it is a result of just plain boredom. Some of the comment streams of late are a pain to read. They can be so bad that they seem even to affect your commentary in response.
Anyhow, I hope all is well and that I will soon be seeing you back on line.