Candace Owens: "I DO NOT support George Floyd!" & Here's Why! and What three things should 70-year-olds avoid and Israeli Doctors Remove Tooth from Patient’s Lungs By David Israel and Rare Historical Photos and The Place Where I Belong and should we reopen?
Yehuda Lave is an author, journalist, psychologist, rabbi, spiritual teacher, and coach, with degrees in business, psychology and Jewish Law. He works with people from all walks of life and helps them in their search for greater happiness, meaning, business advice on saving money, and spiritual engagement. Now also a Blogger on the Times of Israel. Look for my column
Love Yehuda Lave
Should we REOPEN the country?
Should We Re-open the Country?
Here's what the experts said:
The Allergists were in favor of scratching it, but the Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves.
The Gastroenterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it, but The Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.
Obstetricians felt certain everyone was laboring under a misconception, while The Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted.
Many Pathologists yelled, "Over my dead body!" While the Pediatricians said, "Oh, grow up!"
Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the Radiologists could see right through it.
Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing and the Internists claimed it would indeed be a bitter pill to swallow.
The Plastic Surgeons opined that this proposal would "put a whole new face on the matter."
The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but The Urologists were pissed off at the whole idea.
Anesthesiologists thought the whole idea was a gas, and those lofty Cardiologists didn't have the heart to say no.
In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to the rear ends in Washington.
Ideas, that help explain how the world works
New Age Noah
A new flood is foretold by the world's weather specialists and they say that nothing can be done about it. In three days, the waters will wipe out the world.
The Dalai Lama appears on television and pleads with everybody to turn to Buddhism. That way, they will at least reach enlightenment.
The Pope goes on television and says that the world must accept Christianity in order to attain salvation.
The Chief Rabbi of Israel takes a slightly different approach: "We all have three days to learn how to live under water."
Candace Owens: "I DO NOT support George Floyd!" & Here's Why!
Candace Owens took to her Facebook Live to address why she does not support George Floyd.
Israel: The Settlements Are Not Illegal By Gatestone Institute
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), adopted by the UN General Assembly on September 13, 2007, by a majority of 144 states in favor, 4 votes against, and 11 abstentions, recognized that indigenous people (also known as first people, aboriginal people or native people) have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired (Art. 26.1) and that the exercise of these rights shall be free from discrimination of any kind (Art. 2).
With domestic state practice, the legal status and rights of indigenous peoples has evolved and crystallized into international customary law. For example, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights declared that "there is an international customary law norm which affirms the rights of indigenous peoples to their traditional lands". The African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights affirmed that land rights of indigenous people are protected and that these rights are "general principles of law".
Among others, Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Israel and Luxembourg voted in favor of the Declaration. Since 2007, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States, who voted against, formally endorsed the Declaration in 2010. In their relations with Israel, these states cannot claim that the Declaration does not apply to Israeli Jews, since such position would amount to blatant racial discrimination.
According to international law, the Jews are the indigenous people of the lands referred to as Judea, Samaria, Palestine, Israel and the Holy Land, and therefore fulfill the criteria required by international law. The Jews are the ethnic group that was the original settler of Judea and Samaria 3,500 years ago, when the land was bestowed upon the Jews by the Almighty. Leaders of this world, who chose to make abstraction of history, misleadingly refer to Judea and Samaria as the "West Bank" of the Jordan River (which includes Israel) or the "Occupied Palestinian Territories".
After the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the Treaty of Lausanne (1923), British Mandate for Palestine (1922), San Remo Resolution (1920), and Treaty of Sevres (1920) created international law, and recognized and re-established the historical indigenous rights of the Jews to their land. The signatories of these treaties and the Mandate (Britain, France, Turkey, Japan, Italy, etc.), are bound by them.
With the Mandate for Palestine, accorded to Great Britain in August 1922, the League of Nations recognized "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country". The Jewish people's right to settle in the Land of Palestine, their historic homeland and to establish their state there, is thus a legal right anchored in international law.
UNDRIP reaffirms the right of the Jewish people as the indigenous people, and "especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources."
Recent UN General Assembly Resolutions stating that the settlement of Jews in Judea Samaria is contrary to international law are no more than recommendations and have never led to amendments of existing binding treaties. UN Security Council Resolutions, stating that Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria are illegal, are not binding. Only resolutions taken under Chapter VII of the UN Charter are binding on all UN member states. For example, Security Council Resolution 2334 was adopted on December 23, 2016 by a 14–0 vote. Four permanent members of the Security Council — China, France, Russia and the United Kingdom — voted in favor; the US abstained. This resolution was not adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter. It is not binding. That resolution states that Israel's settlement activity constitutes a "flagrant violation" of international law. It has "no legal validity". This resolution violates the UNDRIP, the British Mandate and the other treaties.
The right of the Jewish people to "settle" in the so-called West Bank, and Israel's right to annex parts of Judea and Samaria (part of Palestine) derive from the Mandate (Levy Report of July 9, 2012). Pursuant to the Mandate, the right to annex some parts of Judea and Samaria is a direct consequence of the right of the Jews to settle in all Palestine i.e. the territory of the 1936 Mandate.
Article 80 of the United Nations Charter (1945) recognized the validity of existing rights that states and peoples acquired under the various mandates, including the British Mandate for Palestine (1922), and the rights of Jews to settle in the land (Judea and Samaria) by virtue of these instruments. (Pr. E. Rostow). These rights cannot be altered by the UN.
"Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements…nothing in this Charter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties." (Article 80, paragraph 1, UN Charter)
In a series of decisions and advisory opinions on Namibia, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that a League Mandate is a binding international instrument like a treaty, which continues as a fiduciary obligation of the international community until its terms are fulfilled. In the case of Namibia, the Court upheld the Security Council's ruling that South Africa had abandoned its rights as Mandatory Power by breaching some of its fundamental duties. The Mandate survived as a trust, based on legal principles confirmed by Article 80 of the Charter.
Like the South West African Mandate, the Palestine Mandate survived the termination of the British administration as a trust under Article 80 of the UN Charter (Pr. E Rostow).
Jewish rights of "settlement" in the so-called "West Bank" therefore exist; it cannot seriously be contended, as the EU, France, Britain, Russia, China and other states do, that Jewish communities in the West Bank are illegal and that annexation is contrary to international law. This position is political, not legal. Despite UN resolutions to the contrary, the establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not inconsistent with international law.
Israel, the Jewish State, as a member of the international community has the right but also the duty to fulfill the Mandate that most nations disregarded, fearing terrorism and the Muslim world, and animated by 2,000 years of religious hatred and anti-Semitism.
One hundred and three years passed since the Balfour Declaration, 73 years since the 1947 UNGA Resolution 181 was rejected by the Arab states, 52 years since the 1967 Six Day War, and 27 years since the Oslo Accord. The Oslo Accords of 1993 and 1995 were signed but did not lead to peace. The Palestinian Authority (PA) does not want peace; they refused Israel's offers, made in 2000 and in 2008, for a Palestinian state and to live in peace.
The participation of the Palestinian Authority security apparatus in the murders of Jews since 1993 is proof, as well as the pay-to-slay program for prisoners implicated in terror-related offenses. PA President Mahmoud Abbas' threats that the Palestinians will provoke an "uprising" after the Bahrain Conference and after an annexation should be taken seriously. Abbas is definitively not interested in peace.
Israel has the duty to draw the logical consequences of this behavior and annex all or some of the territories in Area C, to secure the existence of its population within secure borders, and to be able to receive those of the millions Jews still living in exile who wish to settle in Israel.
 S. Wiessner, 'The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples' in A Constantines and N. Zaikos (eds.), The Diversity of International Law (Brill, Leiden, 2009) at 343–362.
 France, which voted for the Declaration, pushed for a tough EU response to any Israeli annexation move. This is no surprise since on June 2015, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination remains concerned by the failure of France to fully recognize the existence of indigenous peoples in its overseas territorial collectivities.
Israeli Doctors Remove Tooth from Patient's Lungs By David Israel
Eid Ahmed, 69, from the Arab village of Kafr Kanna in Galilee, was admitted at Baruch Padeh Medical Center in Poriya, near T'veria, after his family doctor referred him with fever, difficulty breathing and coughing.
The team of doctors at the internal department suspected pneumonia, but then, as Dr. Salah Nazal, director of lung service, noted, "In the CT imaging, we saw an elongated, foreign body in the right lung we were unable to identify. In light of this finding, we decided to perform a bronchoscopy. On examination, we detected tissue that was blocking one of the bronchi at the base of the right lung. We realized that a foreign body had reached into the airway and tissue was formed around it. To extract the foreign body we had to isolate the tissue that was created during the days and weeks when the foreign body was stuck in the bronchial tubes."
Dr. Salah Nazal with patient Eid Ahmed / Baruch Padeh Medical Center SpokespersonAdvertisement
In the operating room, under general anesthesia in collaboration with the anesthesiologist team, the doctors performed the complex operation using advanced equipment and managed to extract the foreign body from the lung.
"When I pulled it out, it became clear that it was a tooth that the patient apparently inhaled with the root, into his lung," Dr. Nazal reported. "The tooth caused inflammation, resulting in airway obstruction in the area, and pneumonia developed later."
Dr. Nazal stressed that the tooth could have caused irreversible damage to the base of the right lung and even sepsis—a potentially life-threatening condition caused by the body's response to an infection.
Two days after the tooth was removed, Ahmed's condition improved greatly and he was released.
What three things should a person avoid once they are past 70?
It's hard to keep this answer to just three. But I'll try.
At 78 (this month), I guess I can bring a little credibility.
From my experience, here are three things to avoid:
1.Most other 70-year olds. That sounds cruel - and it may blow a big hole in my circle of friends, many of whom are 70+ and who I do love and cherish. I suspect I may have some explaining and repair work to do. But here's my rationale.
Many, if not most, 70-year-olds are innocently in the "decay mode", attitudinally and biologically, with resignation to the myths of automatic senescence and accelerating physical decline. Dinner conversations rarely progress beyond the latest knee replacement or shoulder surgery, concerns about memory lapses, or a friend with this or that malady.
"Getting old isn't for sissies" and "aging is a bitch" are common cliches.
Rarely does the conversation swing to how to continue to honor one's birthright of good health and counter the accelerating decline with good practices that should have been a part of life all along. There is little appreciation for "it's never too late to start, but always to early to quit."
As an outspoken advocate for living to 100 or beyond (I've set my target at 112 1/2), I've learned not to bring it up at gatherings of my 70-something friends as I've endured enough derision to know not to put my hand on that hot stove again. The repulsion is deep and wide.
Famed motivational speaker, Jim Rohn said: "You rise to the average of the five people you spend the most time with." Selfishly, as time squeezes in, I ask myself how can I grow through this relationship and is this person open to considering that life doesn't need to be one of accelerating decline. I love hanging with a kick-ass 70-year old who is relaunching and not landing. But there's a lot of chaff and not a lot of that type of wheat in that demographic.
Edith Wharton once said: "In spite of illness, in spite even of the arch-enemy, sorrow, one can remain alive long past the usual date of disintegration if one is unafraid of change, insatiable in intellectual curiosity, interested in big things, and happy in small ways."
Maybe it's just my circle, but I don't find many that peer into elderhood with excitement or have that "unafraid of change, insatiable curiosity, big thinking" attitude. I'm more inclined to find it existing in the youngers and suggest that, as 70-year olds, we are better served by increasing our efforts to hang with the generations behind us with two thoughts in mind: (1) to grow and learn from their creativity and energy and (2) to help guide them with our acquired wisdom and experience.
If you would like a big dose of the logic behind this and the results of this type of effort, check out Chip Conley and his book "Wisdom at Work: The Making of a Modern Elder."
2.The retirement trap. OK, here again, I'm trespassing and entering sacred ground. But the evidence is there to support this heretic suggestion. The traditional leisure-based, "vocation to vacation" retirement
that has been pounded into our heads for 5–6 decades is a Trojan-horse that has lead several generations into a lifestyle counter to our biological nature and to a pattern of "living short and dying long" in the western cultures where it exists.
Retirement doesn't exist in nature nor did it exist anywhere on the planet 150 years ago. It's a Euro-American concept that doesn't exist in many countries, some of which can claim the longest-living citizens.
It is a concept constructed for political purposes and has no relevance to today's world.
because it implies "winding down" is preferable to staying in the growth mode. Unfortunately, we are given only two choices with our bodies and brains - grow or decay. Retirement, which is derived from the French verb "retirer" which means retreat or go backward, can put us on the decay path - and does for most.
What are the fruits of traditional, leisure-based retirement? Here a few that we see that are not-life enhancing:
. Work is a key factor in longevity - retirement takes us in the other direction.
Fortunately, we are waking up to the fallacy and irrelevance of traditional retirement as we find ourselves in the unfamiliar territory of having a 20–40-year longevity bonus. Unretirement and semi-retirement now represent a rapidly developing trend.
3. Drifting. Because, as boomers and pre-boomers, we've been indoctrinated to covet the leap from labor to leisure, most of us move into that "third age" space between end-of-career and true-old age without a roadmap or plan for what that now-extended period is going to look like. We are now in new territory with 20–40 more years with limited precedents to guide us.
The result, for many, is entering an extended period of life in a drift, feeling their way through at the expense of the reservoir of energy and drive that exists in the early stages of this phase.
For example, we know that 2 of 3 retirements commence with no semblance of a non-financial plan that addresses the mental, physical, psychological, emotional, spiritual sides of life in this new territory.