| | Rabbi Yehuda Lave from Jerusalem |
|
|
Judge People Favorably to avoid Anger
There is a mitzvah in the Torah to judge people favorably (Leviticus 19:15). When we fulfill this commandment properly, we will not get angry with others. Whenever you get angry with someone, it is because you are blaming him for doing or not doing something. If you realize that it's not his fault, you won't be angry with him. For example, if someone took your umbrella, you might get angry with him. If, however, you find out that he is blind and mistakenly thought he was taking his own umbrella, you won't be angry. By making it your habit to judge people favorably, you will be able to assume that perhaps the person made an honest mistake, and had different intentions than you assumed. While we should be on guard to protect ourselves from possible harm, when nothing practical can be done about a situation, we should not assume guilt. Keep asking yourself, "How can I judge this person favorably?"
Love Yehuda Lave |
|
|
| 10 Reasons Left-Wingers Cut Trump Voters From Their Lives
Dennis Prager
Many Clinton voters have ceased communicating with friends, and even family members, who voted for Trump. It is so common that The NY Times published a front-page article on the subject
Many Hillary Clinton voters have ceased communicating with friends, and even family members, who voted for Donald Trump. It is so common that The New York Times published a front-page article on the subject headlined, "Political Divide Splits Relationships — and Thanksgiving, Too." The article begins with three stories: "Matthew Horn, a software engineer from Boulder, Colo., canceled Christmas plans with his family in Texas. Nancy Sundin, a social worker in Spokane, Wash., has called off Thanksgiving with her mother and brother. Ruth Dorancy, a software designer in Chicago, decided to move her wedding so that her fiancé's grandmother and aunt, strong Trump supporters from Florida, could not attend." The Times acknowledges that this phenomenon is one-sided, saying, "Democrats have dug in their heels, and in some cases are refusing to sit across the table from relatives who voted for President-elect Donald J. Trump." A number of people who voted for Trump called my show to tell me that their daughters had informed them that they would no longer allow their parents to see their grandchildren. And one man sent me an email reporting that his brother-in-law's mother told him that she "no longer had a son." All of this raises an obvious question: Why is this phenomenon of cutting off contact with friends and relatives so one-sided? Why don't we hear about conservatives shunning friends and relatives who supported Hillary Clinton? After all, almost every conservative considered Clinton to be ethically and morally challenged. And most believed that another four years of left-wing rule would complete what Barack Obama promised he would do in 2008 if he were elected president — "fundamentally (transform) the United States of America." In other words, conservatives were not one whit less fearful of Clinton and the Democrats than Democrats were of Trump and Republicans. Yet virtually no conservatives cut off contact with friends, let alone parents, who supported Clinton. Here are 10 reasons left-wingers cut Trump voters from their lives. 1. Just like our universities shut out conservative ideas and speakers, more and more individuals on the left now shut out conservative friends and relatives as well as conservative ideas. 2. Many, if not most, leftists have been indoctrinated with leftism their entire lives. This is easily shown. There are far more conservatives who read articles, listen to and watch broadcasts of the left and have studied under left-wing teachers than there are people on the left who have read, listened to or watched anything of the right or taken classes with conservative instructors. As a result, those on the left really believe that those on the right are all SIXHIRB: sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist and bigoted. Not to mention misogynistic and transphobic. 3. Most left-wing positions are emotion-based. That's a major reason people who hold leftist views will sever relations with people they previously cared for or even loved. Their emotions (in this case, irrational fear and hatred) simply overwhelm them. 4. Since Karl Marx, leftists have loved ideas more than people. All Trump voters who have been cut off by children, in-laws and lifelong friends now know how true that is. 5. People on the right think that most people on the left are wrong; people on the left think that most people on the right are evil. Decades of labeling conservative positions as "hateful" and labeling conservative individuals as "sexist," "intolerant," "xenophobic," "homophobic," "racist" and "bigoted" have had their desired effect. 6. The left associates human decency not so much with personal integrity as with having correct — i.e. progressive — political positions. Therefore, if you don't hold progressive positions, you lack decency. Ask your left-wing friends if they'd rather their high school son or daughter cheat on tests or support Trump. 7. Most individuals on the left are irreligious, so the commandment "Honor your father and your mother" means nothing to those who have cut off relations with parents because they voted for Trump. 8. Unlike conservatives, politics gives most leftists' lives meaning. Climate change is a good example. For leftists, fighting carbon emissions means saving human existence on Earth. Now, how often does anyone get a chance to literally save the world? Therefore, to most leftists, if you voted for Trump, you have both negated their reason for living and are literally destroying planet Earth. Why would they have Thanksgiving or Christmas with such a person? 9. The left tends toward the totalitarian. And every totalitarian ideology seeks to weaken the bonds between children and parents. The left seeks to dilute parental authority and replace it with school authority and government authority. So when your children sever their bond with you because you voted for Trump, they are acting like the good totalitarians the left has molded. 10. While there are kind and mean individuals on both sides of the political spectrum, as a result of all of the above, there are more mean people on the left than on the right. What other word than "mean" would anyone use to describe a daughter who banished her parents from their grandchildren's lives because of their vote? I wish none of this were true. But there is a way to prove me wrong: Re-friend your friends and relatives who voted for Trump, and tell everyone who has ended relations with family members — especially with parents — to reach out to them and welcome them back into their lives. Dennis Prager About the Author: Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio show host and creator of PragerUniversity.com. His latest book is "Still the Best Hope: Why the World Needs American Values to Triumph."
|
|
|
Jimmy Carter to Obama: Grant Recognition to 'State of Palestine' at UN
Former US Pres. Jimmy Carter is again working to destabilize the security of Israel in a ninth-hour appeal to outgoing Pres. Obama.
Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter is urging incumbent President Barack Obama to support an anti-Israel resolution at the United Nations Security Council that would allow the Palestinian Authority to evade its obligation to negotiate a final status agreement and skip directly to independent statehood. The obligation to negotiate via direct talks with Israel was enshrined in the internationally-recognized Oslo Accords signed between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in the early 1990s. But the Ramallah government has spent the intervening years working to avoid its contractual obligations — the first of which mandate the abolition of incitement to violence and terror against Jews and Israelis and demand direct talks to negotiate a final status agreement. Instead, representatives for the Palestinian Authority made monumental and successful efforts to evade those responsibilities via proxies in the United Nations General Assembly who helped the entity to methodically upgrade its status unilaterally at the world body without having to negotiate at all. Now Jimmy Carter, known for years as an advocate on behalf of Gaza's terrorist leadership and that of the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah, is once again intervening to use his influence in the region. This time, Carter wrote an op-ed in The New York Times to urge an outgoing president to use his final days to sell out America's most loyal Middle Eastern ally at the UN. "It has been President Obama's aim to support a negotiated end to the conflict based on two states, living side by side in peace," Carter wrote. "That prospect is now in grave doubt. I am convinced that the United States can still shape the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before a change in presidents, but time is very short. "The simple but vital step this administration must take before its term expires on Jan. 20 is to grant American diplomatic recognition to the state of Palestine, as 137 countries have already done, and help it achieve full United Nations membership." Carter also wrote that security guarantees "for both Israel and Palestine are imperative," as if that were actually possible. Further measures, he wrote, "should include the demilitarization of the Palestinian state" but did not suggest how that might take place
|
|
|
The United Nations' Remorse for "Creating" Israel
Paul Gherkin
At the UN, the "Question of Palestine" ceased to be a territorial dispute, and became an ethical question for the United Nations: should the global body have created and voted for the Jewish State?
{Originally posted to the author's website, FirstOne Through} Some political analysts have suggested that Europeans tend to be more negative in their attitudes towards Israel than Americans, due to the former's rejection of their colonialist past. The retreating by the British, French, Dutch, Portuguese and Belgians from the colonies that they had established hundred-plus years prior in India, Algeria, Tunisia, Congo, Morocco and other countries, was part of a repositioning of the world back to local sovereignty. The colonialist era has been cast in a racist light and rejected by today's more "pluralistic" societies. Palestinians have taken note of the change in attitudes, and have adopted new vocabulary to instigate the Europeans against Israel whereby the charges of "colonialist" has accompanied the accusation of being racist. From "Zionism is Racism" to "Colonial Occupier" In the 1970s, the head of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, Yasser Arafat, led the world on a venomous attack against "Zionism." In 1975, Arafat succeeded in getting the United Nations to pass Resolution 3379 condemning "Zionism is Racism." Somehow, the world became convinced that the national aspirations of Jews to be self-governing was uniquely racist compared to every other nationalistic aspirations. It took sixteen years for the United Nations to erase the charge, but the venom remained in the UN bloodstream. At the UN, the "Question of Palestine" ceased to be a territorial dispute, and became an ethical question for the United Nations: should the global body have created and voted for the Jewish State? Did it do so, solely because of the guilt from the Holocaust? The current acting-President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, stokes that question to the mini-inferno that sits in the United Nations today. He constantly uses the term "colonial" to describe the emergence of Israeli "settlements," and characterizes Israel as a recent foreign transplant on Arab soil. For some of his listeners, the malicious appearance of Israeli Jews began in the "West Bank" in 1967. For others, the Jewish colony overran the entirety of Palestine when the United Nations voted to partition the land into a Jewish State and Arab State in 1947. As Abbas said in his address to the UN on November 29, 2012: " Israeli occupation is becoming synonymous with an apartheid system of colonial occupation, which institutionalizes the plague of racism and entrenches hatred and incitement." The Palestinian's pivot was subtle but significant. Self-determination (like Zionism) in itself was not a crime. Indeed, the Palestinian Arabs seek the same right for themselves. However, the Israelis' "colonial occupation" was unique and the root cause of the problem. It was not necessarily the Jews' goal of self-determination, but the act of colonialization that created "racism" and "incitement." Somehow, the Europeans and a growing number of countries, have embraced these narratives, particularly that Israel in its entirety was a UN mistake. International Remorse for Partitioning Palestine November 29, not June 4 The clarity of the global adoption of these positions can be found in the annual commemoration of the day of the partition vote on November 29, 1947. In 1977, while the "Zionism is Racism" edict was still fresh, the United Nations passed another resolution to annually commemorate the UN Partition vote, as the " International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People." The decision to partition Palestine was approved by Jews and rejected by Arabs in 1947, yet the UN specifically chose that date to stand in "solidarity with the Palestinian People." On its face, it would seem like a cruel decision to create a holiday for a people on the very day that those people despised. However, taken together with the "Zionism is Racism" resolution of 1975, the picture becomes more clear: the UN believed that the decision to partition the land was a mistake. The global body concluded that the Palestinians were correct in the assertion that the UN created a racist, anti-Arab entity in Palestine. The Palestinians were correct to reject the partition plan in 1947. The fault belonged to the United Nations, not the Palestinians, right at creation. The United Nations did not choose June 4 or June 10 as the date to stand together with Palestinians. Those dates in 1967 were the beginning and end of the Six Day War when the Jordanians (together with Palestinians who were then citizens of Jordan) launched an attack on Israel and consequently lost the "West Bank" which they had illegally annexed. If the root cause of the plight of Palestinians was "Israeli settlements" in the West Bank, then those dates would have been more appropriate to anchor the anniversary. But the United Nations wanted to mark its own poor decision. While the Palestinians rejected partition in 1947 and launched wars in 1948 and again in 1967, those bad decisions and actions were not deemed relevant. The UN chose to tell the Palestinians that it was not their fault. Their situation stemmed from decisions that the UN itself made. Today, while the UN may no longer outwardly state that "Zionism is Racism," the global body has adopted Abbas's narrative that the UN planted a colonialist flag in Palestine. The Europeans and liberal press now echo Abbas and the Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei who claim that Israel is a foreign and dangerous entity that was unnaturally inserted into the Middle East, and that the Arabs are the sole indigenous people and the land itself is inherently "Arab." It is well passed time for Israel to actively combat this claim of colonialization, the way activists overturned the "Zionism is Racism" UN edict in 1991. It is time to clearly educate the world that RE-ESTABLISHING the Jewish State and not banning where Jews can and cannot live is neither colonialist nor racist, but the essence of freedom and justice.
| |
|
|
ADL's Statement on Ellison Proves They ONLY Care About Protecting DEMOCRATS (Not Jews)
The Lid with Jeff Dunetz
Jeff Dunetz
The ADL is nothing but a tool for the progressive movement. If you wish to donate to the progressive movement that's OK, but if you want to donate to a Jewish Organization I suggest you avoid the ADL
he ADL finally weighed in on the Keith Ellison controversy, taking a stance which proved again it doesn't give a rat's arse about the Jewish community, they only care about the Democratic Party and progressive politics. Earlier this week we profiled Keith Ellison and warned about his track record of anti-Semitism, association with Muslim Brotherhood groups such as MAS, CAIR, and ISNA. ( MAS even paid for his Haj to Saudi Arabia), his anti-Israel actions in the House including being one of only eight members of congress voting against funding Iron Dome (whose only purpose is to block Hamas Rockets at civilian areas) and his infamous Gaza 54 letter asking Obama to lift the Gaza Blockade designed to prevent rockets and concrete for terrorist tunnels being shipped to Hamas. Ellison is also a featured keynote speaker at many BDS organization events including the American Friends Service Committee which runs a BDS boot camp, Progressives for Palestine, and is a favorite of the anti-Israel group ironically called Jewish Voice for Peace. After spending the last two weeks bashing Steven Bannon with false charges of Antisemitism, the Anti-Defamation League finally spoke out regarding Ellison (sort of). In a confusing statement (see below) the CEO of the Anti-Defamation League Jonathan Greenblatt, said that Ellison has taken positions that concern them, but doesn't he doesn't rip into Ellison (a Democrat) the way he ripped the unfounded claims against Bannon (a Republican) who has been proven to be a friend of the Jews and supporter of Israel. He ends his not by warning Ellison's critics to slander him based on his race or faith. Well Johnathan if you read my post from the other day you will understand why the ADL needed to take a much stronger stand on Ellison. And the post doesn't mention his race, and the only thing about his faith mention is that the Muslim Brotherhood paid for his Haj. But that isn't the real reason for Greenblatt's warning. Beginning with the term of his predecessor Abe Foxman, the ADL has made progressive politics its primary concern. For example, in 2011 they led an effort asking Jews not to criticize Barack Obama's anti-Israel policies. Other examples include: - Issued a "White Paper" promoting the progressive's negative PR spin about the Tea Party movement. They said the Tea Party was part of the " New Rage in America"
- Refused to recognize the anti-Semitism present within Occupy Wall Street, until public pressure embarrassed them into making a statement.
Please understand, the ADL is nothing but a tool for the progressive movement. If you wish to donate to the progressive movement that's okay, but allow me to suggest you donate to Organizing for Action–they do it better. If you want to donate to a Jewish Organization allow me to suggest you avoid the ADL, there are hundreds of Jewish Organizations dealing with Jewish, or other worthy charitable work, unlike the ADL those groups don't waste their time and your donations being a political wannabes.  Jeff Dunetz About the Author: Jeff Dunetz blogs at Yid with Lid
|
|
|
K A H A N E
The magazine of the authentic Jewish Idea
May-June 1989 Iyar-Sivan 5749 Israel – There Are No Moderates (excerpts) "Moderates." "Moderates." There are no Arab moderates. There are only clever Arabs and stupid ones. The stupid ones say exactly what they mean: eliminate Israel. The clever ones (and more and more are becoming so) mean exactly the same thing but they are clever. After defeats in four wars and numerous clashes they have learned the secret: "say nice, moderate things to guilt-ridden Jews, and they will love you. They will throw money at you. And the Sinai. And hopefully, the "occupied lands"… There are no Arab moderates. And one salutes in awe the ability of Arafat [today it is Abbas} the arch-murderer, to persuade the Jews of lemmingism of his "change of heart," of his "moderation." He must surely be a candidate for the Nobel Prize for not laughing, for not rolling on the floor in hysteria. He has renounced "terrorism?" Of course, but he firmly maintains that to attack the Zionists who "occupy his country" is not terrorism, but rather a war of national liberation. He accepts UN resolutions 242 and 338? To be sure, but within the context of all the UN resolutions on "Palestine," including resolution 181, the one that the "poor Palestinians" rejected in 1947, the one that originally established a Jewish State. Today, Arafat accepts it. He is good. Having been humiliated militarily he accepts it, knowing that it would bring the Jews back to the boundaries of 1947. He accepts all the UN resolutions, including the ones calling for Israel to allow the "refugees" to return to their homes in Israel if they desire to. All the "refugees" who were part of the "poor Palestinians" who attempted to wipe out Israel in 1948. Today, thanks to the 40 years of birth, there are more than two million of them. He has recognized the existence of Israel. True. Much in the same way that we all recognize the existence of earthquakes, disease and roaches. Of course we recognize them, because they exist. We recognize their existence in order to put an end to their existence. So too with Arafat. He recognizes Israeli existence… Arafat; the PLO; the "Palestinians:" the Arab states. Models of deceit and deception, paragons of duplicity and perfidy. Hands of blood and tongues of pretense. They plan new a Holocaust as they speak peace. No, there are no Arab "moderates." They are liars who cannot live together with themselves, let alone Israel. They all believe that the Jewish State of Israel is a bandit, settler state, that has stolen "Palestine" from them. And because of that, and with deep sadness, one knows that there will be no peace. And let none of the comfortable denizens of Peace Now in Beverly Hills or the woodpeckers of Hollywood or the pompous pulpiteers of Reform liberal temples screech in indignation. Kahane does not want peace! Kahane does not want peace? Where do I live and where do they live? I, who live in Israel and serve in its army and whose children serve in the army, desire peace a great deal more than the shallow liberals and leftists of Peace Now and those paragons of Reform shallowness, Alexander Schindler and Balfour Brickner, who regularly trumpet declarations of suicide through Peace. There will be no peace because the "poor Palestinians" do not wish peace. They wish "Palestine". All of it. And that includes Israel. So let us not delude ourselves and let us not believe in delusions. The great Rebbe of Kutzk once said: "It is a sin to deceive one's neighbor. It is a crime to deceive oneself." Wishing peace, yearning for peace does not mandate committing suicide for peace. And for all those who cry that Israel has been fighting for 40 years, let it be stated flatly that the Jewish people have been fighting for 4,000 years and had our forefathers been as depressed as some of their present day children, we would have been long since gone as a people. Cease the weeping and wailing! We have a state of our own and it can be a glorious one and let us give thanks to the Almighty for it. And let us understand clearly that a state is not given on a silver platter; neither is it won by writing a check. A state is a precious thing that is won by sacrifice and blood, and if there are those who are not prepared for this, let them walk away and leave it to those who are – unafraid, who have both faith in G-d and the willingness to climb the ramparts in battle. We are weary? We are weary of having to serve in the army each year to defend our state? How much would a Jew in Auschwitz have given for the opportunity to see a Jewish army, a Jewish tank, a Jewish plane – and with what joy he would have agreed to serve each year in a Jewish army of a Jewish State, created so as to help guarantee that never again will there be an Auschwitz for its Jewish citizens! Peace? Of course we want peace. Who does not want peace? It is not the monopoly of the guilt-ridden and self-hating hypocrites, the artists and intellectuals (sic) of the left. We all wish peace; we all fervently pray for peace. We all look for the day when the nations shall beat their swords into ploughshares. But, meanwhile, as they continue to have swords with which to destroy us, let us not be so mad as to wave ploughshares. Give up land. For "peace" that the "poor Palestinian" is prepared to grant us? The ultimate peace of the dead? Are we mad? The ones who launched four wars of aggression against Israel and lost for wars of aggression, dictate terms to us? The ones who launched four wars of aggression and a thousand terrorist attacks, who slew thousands of Jews, and who lost – now present us with demands? They insist that we, who won, give up land? Let the Arab aggressors and murderers learn a very basic rule of life: Losers lose. Winners win. Losers and especially losers who launched wars of murderous aggression, do not dictate terms. Aggression is not a game in which one attempts to wipe out innocent people, loses and then returns to "Go". No, aggression is a gamble and if the aggressor loses – let him know the full bitterness of his reality – that he has lost. Then, perhaps, he will think deeply and carefully before embarking on another adventure. For let the "poor Palestinian" know in every fiber of his body, that he had best leave well enough alone. Let him accept a peace that will see him establish a state of his own in Jordan, if he can do it. For should he be so foolish as to begin another murderous war of aggression, let him be certain that that which he still possess in Jordan will be ours too. Land for peace? By all means. The Jews who were the victims of countless efforts to destroy them and who are the rightful owners, will keep the land and be prepared to graciously give the murderous Arabs, peace. And above all, no guilt! What causes a Jewish people that has suffered thousands of dead and tens of thousands of wounded and maimed at the hands of the Arabs, fail to understand that they are a cruel and implacable enemy, bent on destroying Israel and decimating the Jews? What causes Jews who see the brutality and treachery and viciousness with which Arabs massacre each other, refuse to see what our fate would be if we would be so mad as to give them the slightest opportunity to do to us what they dream to do to us? Above all, what makes a Jewish people that has only one land and has returned to that land, to feel guilty over it and to accept the myth of a "Palestine" and a "Palestinian people?" There is no Palestinian people and there is no Palestine! There is not, there never was, and please G-d there will never be. |
|
|
| See you tomorrow my friends |
|
|
| | | |
 | | |
|  |
|
| |
|
