When you have meaningful goals, you create a meaningful life.
Being goal-oriented gives you a direction. Goals create a focus for your efforts. Setting goals that you want to reach makes it easier to have the quality of enthusiam. When a goal is very important to you, you are driven to do what you need to do to achieve that goal.
When you have clear goals, you can accomplish more than someone without clear goals. The most accomplished people in the world are experts at setting and reaching goals. Learn from them.
All great people are great because they have made meaningful goals and took action to reach those goals. All joyful great people are among the happiest people in the world because they enjoy all that they are doing to achieve their meaningful goals.
Love Yehuda Lave
Watch: Arab MK Removed from Podium for Calling IDF Soldiers Murderers
A storm took the Knesset plenum, last week on Wednesday, following MK Hanin Zoabi's remarks during the presentation of her own bill, which deals with awarding additional funding to parties with a high female representation.
Shortly after MK Zoabi had taken the podium with her bill, she said, "When you talk about women in Gaza, theirs is not a pain that was created out of thin air. We talk about full Israeli responsibility for this suffering. After the State of Israel destroyed the civil and agricultural infrastructures in Gaza, it now tells the women and men in Gaza what to eat and how to eat. You should be banned. The people in Gaza are refugees, their land is here. Not to mention the people being murdered by the soldiers. Democracy is a nightmare in this Knesset."
If you thought "Not entirely coherent," you were right. The Joint Arab List MK, who functions normally at 11 on the rage scale, lost it, and was on the verge of tears when the Knesset ushers, directed by the Deputy Speaker on hand, moved in to remove her for using language that is not permitted in the House (the Knesset eschews calling Israeli soldiers "murderers").
The distraught MK refused to budge from the podium and was finally removed by force.
Tourism Minister Yariv Levin (Likud) responded, saying: "We witnessed another hate speech, incitement, a disgrace that no other parliament in the world would have allowed."
"Truth be told," Levin continued, "how can we complain about MK Zoabi when she is sitting here only because the High Court of Justice annulled the decision of the Central Elections Committee to disqualify her and prevent this disgrace from serving in the Knesset. Why not open the gates of the Knesset to every traitor, to every terror supporter?"
"I suggest that instead of shouting at MK Zoabi we will draw the right conclusions and finally correct what needs to be corrected in the system that makes this whole thing happen here: the judicial system."
Minister Levin was referring to legislation that's emerging in Netanyahu's coalition government, to allow the Knesset to overturn with a special majority the high court's revoking of Knesset laws.
The New York Times published an article on June 5, 2018 about the 50th anniversary of the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. Regarding his murderer, the Times wrote the following:
"Sirhan Bishara Sirhan, said to be motivated by Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and his hatred of Mr. Kennedy for his support of Israel, was later convicted of the murder."
Page A10 of the June 5, 2018 New York Times According to the NY Times, the root cause for the killing was Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. A country's mistreatment of individuals. Might against right (presumably).
This is the narrative that the Times uses today to describe the anger of Palestinian Arabs and left wing radicals against the Jewish State.
And it stands in sharp contrast to the unvarnished truth that the Palestinian Arabs have stood against the "invasion" of Jews into the region from the time of the Balfour Declaration 100 years ago until today. Sirhan Sirhan was against the presence of Jews and the existence of Israel; he was not "motivated by Israel's treatment of the Palestinians." It was Jew-hatred and anyone supporting the Jewish State.
To illustrate the point, here are some quotes from the Palestinian Arabs themselves in the 1960's:
"It is a national duty to bring up individual Palestinians in an Arab revolutionary manner. All means of information and education must be adopted in order to acquaint the Palestinian with his country in the most profound manner, both spiritual and material, that is possible. He must be prepared for the armed struggle and ready to sacrifice his wealth and his life in order to win back his homeland and bring about its liberation."
"Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it ."
"Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war. "
"The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national (qawmi) duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine."
"The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood."
"Zionism is a political movement organically associated with international imperialism and antagonistic to all action for liberation and to progressive movements in the world. It is racist and fanatic in its nature, aggressive, expansionist, and colonial in its aims, and fascist in its methods. Israel is the instrument of the Zionist movement, and geographical base for world imperialism placed strategically in the midst of the Arab homeland to combat the hopes of the Arab nation for liberation, unity, and progress."
"The demand of security and peace, as well as the demand of right and justice, require all states to consider Zionism an illegitimate movement, to outlaw its existence, and to ban its operations,"
This updated 1968 Charter was changed from the original 1964 charterwhich had many of the same comments. An interesting modification between the two charters is in Article 7, trying to reconcile what to do with Jews that had lived in Palestine for generations.
1964 charter: "Jews of Palestinian origin are considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestine."
1968 charter: "The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians."
By 1968, the concept of "living peacefully" with Jews was abandoned.
Beyond the Palestinians, the Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser sought to unite the Arab world, including the Palestinian Arabs. His May 1967 speech before the start of the 1967 War against Israel spelled out his desire to end Israel and combat its supporters including the United States and Great Britain:
"Preparations have already been made. We are now ready to confront Israel. … It is the aggression which took place in Palestine in 1948 [the establishment of the State of Israel] with the collaboration of Britain and the United States. It is the expulsion of the Arabs from Palestine, the usurpation of their rights, and the plunder of their property. It is the disavowal of all the UN resolutions in favour of the Palestinian people. … If the United States and Britain are partial to Israel, we must say that our enemy is not only Israel but also the United States and Britain and treat them as such."
And after the June 1967 war in which the Arabs not only failed to destroy Israel but lost additional territory, the Arab states passed the Khartoum Resolution on September 1, 1967 stating:
"no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country.
The conference of Arab Ministers of Finance, Economy and Oil recommended that suspension of oil pumping be used as a weapon in the battle [against western countries]."
The Arab war against Israel's supporters – including Robert Kennedy – was about the reestablishment of the Jewish people in their homeland, nothing less.
With such a boldface lie, should we wonder why the Times did not state clearly that Sirhan Sirhan was himself a Palestinian Arab? Is the Times perhaps promoting the idea that many non-Arabs are also upset with Israel's treatment of Palestinians and might take similar actions against politicians supporting Israel?
Let's be clear, especially since The New York Times is lying directly and explicitly to its readers: Sirhan Sirhan killed Robert Kennedy because he hated the existence of Israel and all of the country's supporters, not because of Israel's treatment of Palestinian Arabs.
ROCKEFELLER BROS FUND GIVES TO GROUPS FUNDING PALESTINIAN TERRORISM
The PFLP is responsible for hijacking an Air France plane to Uganda in 1976, which led to the famous IDF raid on Entebbe; attacking a preschool on Kibbutz Misgav Am in 1980,BY LAHAV HARKOV JUNE 6, 2018
he Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF), a major American foundation that contributes to many pro-Palestinian causes, gave grants to organizations which funnel money and support to terrorist groups, and continued to do so after being told about the NGOs' activities, The Jerusalem Post has learned.
The two organizations are Education for Just Peace in the Middle East, also known as the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights, and Defense for Children International-Palestine, which received grants of $60,000 and $25,000, respectively, from the RBF in March 2017.
Consul-General to New York Dani Dayan said on Monday that he met with RBF president Stephen Heintz in early 2017 to inform him of these connections. Dayan came to the meeting with documentation on RBF-funded NGOs that encourage terrorism or do not recognize Israel's right to exist.
"He denied the claims, but the facts were too strong," Dayan said.
Defense for Children International-Palestine (DCI-P) is a Ramallah-based NGO meant to promote Palestinian children's rights, and tries to convince foreign governments and UN bodies that Israel is systematically abusing Palestinian children. Many of its officials and board members are linked to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), designated as a terrorist organization in the US, EU, Canada and Israel.
The PFLP is responsible for hijacking an Air France plane to Uganda in 1976, which led to the famous IDF raid on Entebbe; attacking a preschool on Kibbutz Misgav Am in 1980, killing two-and-a-half-year-old Eyal Gluska; and for massacring Jewish worshipers in a Jerusalem synagogue in 2014, among many other terrorist attacks.
A report by the NGO Monitor research institute found several examples of DCI-P's ties with PFLP.
DCI-P employee Hashem Abu Maria was hailed as a leader of the PFLP, after he was killed by the IDF in a violent confrontation in Beit Umar in July 2014. DCI-P director Rifat Odeh Kassis spoke at Abu Maria's memorial service, surrounded by PFLP flags and posters.
The PFLP wrote on its website that Abu Maria "was in the ranks of the national liberation struggle and the PFLP from an early age, arrested several times, and was a model for a steadfast struggler and advocate for the rights of our people through his work in Defense for Children International."
DCI-P general assembly president Nasser Ibrahim, a former editor of the PFLP's weekly publication, can be seen in a 2015 video claiming Palestinians have a "right of resistance," including the right to "raise the gun." He also co-wrote The Palestinian Intifada: Cry Freedom, a 2002 book in which he said, "Every checkpoint, every soldier and every settler are legitimate targets in the struggle for freedom... everything becomes a target: Jerusalem, Haifa, Hadera, Tel Aviv, Ashkelon, the settlements."
IN ADDITION to the RBF, DCI-P receives money from UNICEF as an "implementing partner" for the UN agency's projects, even though it violates both UNICEF and UN guidelines for partners to be "neutral, impartial and independent from all parties to the conflict."
Last week, Tablet online magazine reported how the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights, a major US-based organization calling to boycott Israel, facilitates the funneling of tax-free donations to several Palestinian terrorist groups, including the PFLP, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The organization coordinates the work of 329 organizations that advocate for the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel and to shift US policy toward Israel and the Palestinians.
The US Campaign is the fiscal sponsor of the Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC), the Ramallah-based branch of the international BDS campaign, which counts the Council of National Islamic Forces in Palestine as a member. That council includes Hamas, PFLP, the Popular Front-General Command, the Palestine Liberation Front and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. BNC has also held events with leaders of these terrorist groups.
Since November 2017, the BNC website has allowed Americans to make tax-deductible donations through fiscal sponsorship, by which an organization can share its tax-exempt status with another organization that applies for similar status with the US tax authorities or is taking part in a short-term project or campaign.
As a result, Tablet reporters received an email after they donated to the BNC that said: "This is a receipt for your kind donation to the Palestinian BDS National Committee, the broadest coalition in Palestinian civil society that leads the global BDS movement for Palestinian rights. For your records, the Palestinian BDS National Committee is fiscally sponsored by Education for Just Peace in the Middle East [US Campaign for Palestinian Rights' legal name], which is registered as a 501(c)3 charitable organization...."
The email concluded: "Our fiscal sponsor's EIN is 42-1636592," which is the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights' IRS identification number.
NGO Monitor president Prof. Gerald Steinberg said, "About 25 years ago, the PFLP leadership recognized the potential benefit of having their own NGO network under the banner of human rights. This has proven very useful for funding and granting legitimacy in institutions where they would otherwise have no access."
Most donors do not undertake due diligence, Steinberg lamented. He pointed out that after the Swiss and Danish governments were recently confronted with DCI-P's PFLP links, they cut funding to the organization.
The Rockefeller Brothers Fund "provides an imprimatur for other donors," who may see that a major foundation supports these organizations and then follow suit. The RBF also funds BDS groups in the US like Jewish Voices for Peace and IfNotNow.
"Various attempts to discuss the destructive impacts of this funding have not made any progress," Steinberg said, "but the newly uncovered links to the PFLP, which is classified as a terrorist group by the US, may have exposed the RBF's due diligence failures." The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, US Campaign for Palestinian Rights and Defense for Children International – Palestine did not respond to requests for comment.
Hiking In And Around Jerusalem: Ancient Agriculture in the Sataf Reserve
Be courageous as a leopard, light as an eagle, swift as a deer, and strong as a lion to do the will of your Heavenly Father (Ethics of the Fathers 5:23).
Numerous traits comprise the character of a human being. We tend to consider some traits as commendable and others as undesirable.
Traits per se are neither good nor bad. They acquire a value according to the way they are applied. Hate is generally assumed to be a very loathsome trait, but when one despises evil and injustice and seeks to eradicate them, it becomes a constructive and admirable trait. Love, on the other hand, is generally looked upon as a very positive trait. Yet, when misapplied, love can transgress the boundaries of decency and result in grossly immoral behavior.
Rather than seek to eradicate an undesirable trait, we might consciously redirect it so that it serves a useful function. While redirection can happen with some drives at an unconscious level (which constitutes the psychological defense mechanism of sublimation), we have no control over what happens in the unconscious. Preferably, we should avoid dismissing a trait which is generally considered unacceptable and consciously redirect it into a positive channel. It is obviously to our advantage to redirect energy, rather to have to repress it, since maintaining that repression requires expenditure of energy.
Today I shall ...
try to direct all my traits in a way that will serve a constructive purpose.
RABBI ELI MANSOUR
Yehoshua and Kaleb Parashat Shelah tells the tragic story of the Meragelim, the scouts sent to Eretz Yisrael who came back with a discouraging report and urged the nation not to proceed into the land. Two the twelve scouts – Yehoshua and Kaleb – dissented and presented a favorable report about the land and the prospects of its conquest. Unfortunately, the majority prevailed, and the people were persuaded not to proceed. When the Torah lists the names of the twelve scouts, it refers to Yehoshua – who was the closest disciple of Moshe Rabbenu – by the name "Hoshea." Rashi explains that this was Yehoshua's original name, but Moshe added the letters "Yod" and "Heh" to form the name "Yehoshua." These letters, which spell a Name of Hashem ("Y-ah"), were added as a prayer to G-d that "Y-ah Yoshi'acha Me'asat Ha'meragelim" – "G-d shall save you from the plot of the scouts." Moshe knew through prophetic insight that the scouts would plot to dissuade the people from entering the land, and he thus prayed that his dear student would be protected from their influence and have the fortitude to oppose them. The second dissenter, Kaleb, also received the strength to oppose the majority through the power of prayer. As Rashi tells later in the Parasha, when Kaleb arrived in Eretz Yisrael he temporarily separated from the other spies and went to Hebron, to the site of Me'arat Ha'machpela, where the patriarchs are buried. He went there in order to pray for assistance in resisting the influence of the scouts. Yehoshua and Kaleb were outstanding Sadikim, and yet the needed special prayers for protection from the influence of their peers. Moshe was concerned about his closest and most outstanding disciple, and Kaleb did not feel confident in his ability to withstand the pressure without reciting a special prayer at a holy site. The power of peer influence is so strong that even the greatest Sadikim are vulnerable to its force, and can get thrown off course by their surroundings. As great as Yehoshua and Kaleb were, they needed special divine protection to be able to withstand the pressure exerted by the other ten scouts. This message assumes special importance in contemporary times, when we live in a society that has, unfortunately, plummeted to such depths of immorality. We are bombarded on a daily basis by messages that run in direct contrast to the Torah values which we hold dear. We are far from the level of Yehoshua and Kaleb, and yet we are exposed to unrelenting - sinful influences constantly. If Yehoshua and Kaleb needed special prayers to protect them, then we can only imagine what kind of lengths we must go to in order to protect ourselves and our children from the negative influences exerted upon us. In every generation, but especially in ours, we must work vigorously to shield ourselves from the influences around us, through prayers, Torah learning and education, and by surrounding ourselves with like-minded devoted Jews so we come under their positive Torah influence instead of being exposed to the negative influences of contemporary society.
We need a Supreme Court decision defending religious liberty. The Cakeshop case wasn't it. By Nathan Lewin June 8, 2018
WASHINGTON (JTA) — The Supreme Court's much-anticipated decision in the case of the Colorado baker who was penalized because he refused, on religious grounds, to create a cake for a same-gender wedding ceremony must have disappointed both sides.
The baker won, but the majority's reasoning leaves him unsure whether he may reject a similar request tomorrow.
The court's ruling also was a setback for the LGBTQ groups that insist that a retail establishment's statutory duty to service the celebrations of newly recognized sexual-privacy ceremonies prevails over religious conscience. These advocates may still win, however, if and when the court revisits the issue, and it can do so as soon as the next term of court.
The baker's case presented immensely important constitutional issues for religious observance by America's Jewish community. It tested whether the legal advances the Supreme Court has granted recently for sexual liberty will trump private religious obligations. Supporters of the Colorado decision censuring the baker view religious observance as secondary to the right to engage in conduct that society used to condemn but now, with Supreme Court approval, have become an integral component of liberty in the United States.
I noted in the amicus curiae brief I filed in the case for a number of Orthodox Jewish organizations that Jewish law prohibits active participation in violations of halachah under the biblical principle of not placing a stumbling block before the blind ("lifnei iver lo titeyn michshol"). The Colorado baker was really invoking this rule against aiding and abetting violations when he refused to take an active role in a gay marriage. Since the gay couple could obtain a similar wedding cake from other bakers (and actually received one free), the legal action against the baker was an assault on religious observance.
The case was argued orally on Dec. 5, 2017, in a session that the Supreme Court extended to accommodate vigorous questioning from the bench. Justice Anthony Kennedy unexpectedly asked the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's lawyer to comment on a gratuitous slap at religion made by one of his clients. A Colorado commissioner had said publicly that "freedom of religion used to justify discrimination is a despicable piece of rhetoric." Kennedy pressed the lawyer twice on whether he "disavowed or disapproved" the commissioner's statement. According to the Supreme Court's official transcript, the lawyer finally stammered like a reluctant groom: "I … I … I do, yes, Your Honor."
The commissioner's remark turned out to be a poison pill for the commission's conclusion that the baker violated Colorado's law on public accommodations. Six of the justices agreed with Kennedy's opinion that the commissioner's statement (not disavowed, Kennedy noted in his opinion, in its written brief), made when the commission was considering the baker's case, demonstrated unconstitutional "hostility to religion."
Moreover, the commission had not condemned three bakers who had turned away a customer who ordered a cake with an anti-gay marriage text. This "disparity in treatment," said the Supreme Court majority, was "a signal of official disapproval of … religious beliefs" and amounted to unconstitutional "hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint."
If the Colorado baker now refuses to create a cake for another same-gender couple, the Colorado commission may behave in a way that avoids offending religious belief in public. It can then stand by its earlier ruling, fine the baker and order him to teach his employees to be law abiding. Colorado's civil rights commissioners will not again make the foolish mistake of publicly insulting religious observance. And since the Supreme Court insists, it presumably will condemn equally all bakers who refuse to create a cake with a message that personally offends them.
The high court pointedly ignored the constitutional argument that had captivated the baker's lawyers and the Department of Justice, which switched sides and abandoned the Obama administration's support of the same-gender couple. Rather than claiming that the baker's religious freedom was infringed by requiring him to participate in a ceremony that violated his religious convictions, the baker's lawyers maintained in briefs and in their oral presentations that creating a wedding cake was artistic speech that overrides the public accommodations law. That led to unanswerable questions from the justices about hairdressers and chefs. Aren't their creative efforts entitled to the same speech protection as a baker's?
There is, to be sure, a lawyerly explanation for the advocates' emphasis on speech rather than religion. In a highly controversial 1990 decision (Oregon v. Smith), a Supreme Court majority led by the late Justice Antonin Scalia cut the heart out of the Free Exercise of Religion Clause in the First Amendment. In that case, a court majority effectively overruled past precedent and ruled that the constitutional protection for the "free exercise" of religion did not require exemption from a "valid and neutral law of general applicability" — in other words, a law, even one that might impose a burden on religious practice, is constitutional as long as there is a rational or legitimate reason for it.
Justice Kennedy – who had joined the Scalia opinion in 1990 – circumvented this rule when he condemned the Colorado commission's "hostility" to religion and accordingly vacated its decision. But the time has come – as some friend-of-the-court briefs suggested in the Colorado baker's case – for the court to invite briefs testing the limits of laws "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion.
A case raising the same constitutional issues as the Colorado baker incident has been pending on the Supreme Court's calendar since July 14, 2017. It concerns a Washington florist who, while sympathizing with a gay customer who regularly patronized her florist shop, refused on religious grounds to create a flower arrangement for his same-sex wedding. She was found to have violated the state's public accommodations law.
After the ruling in the baker's case, lawyers for the florist claimed in a written brief that she, too, was subjected to religious hostility. They asked that her case be reopened in the lower courts to hear such evidence. Her opponents denied the allegations of hostility and want the Supreme Court to refuse to hear her case.
The Supreme Court should, however, grant review and invite the parties and friends of the court to submit briefs on whether the 1990 Oregon v. Smith decision should be overruled and religious freedom restored as a preferred constitutional right.
(Nathan Lewin is a Washington lawyer with Lewin & Lewin LLP who has argued 28 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. He filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Colorado baker's case on behalf of the National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs, or COLPA, and several Orthodox national Jewish organizations.)