The renowned psychiatrist, Carl Jung, explained the phenomenon of why and how aggressors justify attacking a selected victim – individual or collective.  The aggressor first plans and assembles itself and cohorts for the attack.  But, it needs an excuse to attack and conquer.  That is accomplished by a propaganda campaign, claiming that “it” – the aggressor – is the intended victim.   That is, the victim is the provocateur who plans on attacking the aggressor.

         Generally, the excuse is that the intended victim is going to do exactly what the aggressor has planned.

         The Muslim-Arab-Islamists are successfully moving in this direction as they claim “victimhood” wherever they are or have migrated to.  As they grow more aggressive when they reach “critical mass”, they incite their followers, claiming that any resistance by a defending nation or people to their takeover is an act of hatred and war against Islam.

         This charge supposedly justifies recruiting more Muslim Jihadists who are told that they are hated and under attack.  It is a well-entrenched system, used time and again through the centuries to justify hostile expansion of Islam.   Conquest and Islam are interchangeable, descriptive titles coupled with a parasitic looting of those they succeed in conquering in the name of Allah and the great Global Caliphate which will rule the world under Sharia Law.

September 4, 2010

According the renowned Torah philosopher and Talmudist, the late Rabbi Dr. Haim Zimmerman, the Halakha is not merely a vast body of laws and rules having only practical significance.[i]  Underlying these laws and rules he discerns a logic conceptually comparable to that of mathematical physics.  This means that the Halakha is a thoroughly axiomatic system of law which determines the logical status and comparative value of the concrete variables coming under its purview. 

Enough! (spit)

Enough anger, enough cursing out, and enough blaming others for 'the situation'.  Yes, I am referring to the latest gruesome terror attack near Hebron, and most of our reactions to it.

So bottom line... what is to be done?

We are not the Prime Minster of Israel or the President of the United States.  We can't send out armies to go after the terrorists, we can't set foreign policy, we can't send orders to security forces.  Again, we must ask ourselves the question, 'What CAN we do?". 

Anger, justified anger, is important, it has a purpose.  But it is not the complete answer, and it does not absolve us of taking responsibility.  Some think, because they got angry, because they shed some tears, because they talked to people about the horrible attack, that they are now patur (absolved) of doing anything else.  This is wrong.  This is futile.  And I believe that the victims of the terror attack would want us to move forward, to take the anger, the tears, the frustration of 'the situation' and DO something about it.  "Don't let us die for nothing!" their voices cry out from the grave.

         Jews have always been ready for peace all the way back to the time the Jewish Quraish (alternative spelling: Koreish or Qurayzah) tribe in Mecca agreed to Mohammed’s 10 year Hudaibiya Peace Treaty.  But, Mohammed broke that treaty in 2 years when he was stronger militarily.  He massacred the Quraish tribe, decapitating the men, selling the women and children into slavery.

         The Arab Muslims have always used the ploy of “Hudna” (temporary peace) to trick their adversaries with an offer of a false peace and then come to kill them.

         Yassir Arafat told his Arabic audience on the day that the Oslo Peace Accords were signed September 13, 1993 that Oslo was a “Hudaibiya Treaty”.   His speech to them in Arabic was taped and translated.

         Clearly, it is not up to Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu or Defense Minister Ehud Barak to accept a “Hudna” in the name of the Jewish people.   They would have to surrender Israel’s sovereignty over the heart of her ancient Jewish homeland to secure even a “Hudna”.

By Matthew M. Hausman
ISRAPUNDIT
September 3, 2010

The proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero has prompted passionate debate about freedom of religion and the open nature of American society. Defenders of the project solemnly intone that the terrorists will win if the mosque is not permitted, although they cannot credibly articulate why. Through all sanctimony, responsibility for tolerance is placed solely on the American public, never on the religious ideology that spawned the 9/11 terrorists. Secular liberals ignore the significance of shrine building at sites of victory over the “infidel” and demure on whether there is any obligation to accommodate non-Muslim sensitivities. They also fail to acknowledge that the conflict between Islamist goals and western culture constitutes a clash of civilizations or recognize that jihad seeks to supplant democratic values with theocratic rule. Omitted from the debate is that freedom of religion is not absolute, and that the rights of one may be limited when they infringe upon the liberties of many. These are the real issues informing the mosque controversy, which liberals – and even some conservatives – refuse to address.

Those who purport to preach tolerance never hesitate to condemn conservative Christians for their views or observant Jews for their supposed formalism. Yet, they refuse to challenge an Islamist ideology that is antithetical to the social ideals they claim to hold dear. Though secular liberals often cite the Constitution to justify their perverse political correctness, the First Amendment does not mandate acquiescence to religious extremism or support for dogmatic institutions. As with other Constitutional rights and privileges, freedom of religion is not absolute, and government has a legitimate interest in monitoring and controlling supremacist ideologies that threaten the rights and liberties of others.

By defining the controversy simply as a dispute over religious freedom, the mosque’s advocates and their secular allies deflect the underlying issues. Through all the charges and accusations, no critic of the mosque has denied that Muslims are free to worship in America. The real issue is one of sensitivity, of respecting the norms and priorities of a host society that throughout its history has welcomed and accommodated a diverse array of religious communities and institutions. Because cries of racism are often used to denigrate those who criticize militant Islam, it is important to recognize that Islam is a religion – it is not defined by race, ethnicity or national origin, and should be accorded no greater rights or privileges than any other belief system in American society. The race card is also used to quell any discussion of the history of Islamist conquest, colonialism and subjugation of non-Muslim peoples. However, such discussion is necessary to determine whether and when government intervention is warranted.

When discussing the Israeli Palestinian dispute, some Palestinian supporters who like to point to a history of Jewish abuses against innocent Arabs over the last six decades sometimes refer to a particularly infamous battle during the War of 1948 that took place in a small town on the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem Hwy called Deir Yassin. For many reasons, not the least of which concerns political infighting between the major factions of the Israeli body politic, Deir Yassin has taken on a life of its own over the last 61 years.

Brandeis University’s Maurice and Marilyn Cohen’s Center for Modern Jewish studies is out with a survey on American Jewish attitudes toward Israel. The lengthy report is certainly worth reviewing in its entirety. I will highlight a few findings as well as some of the conclusions that the study’s authors draw. One caveat: the study as released does not break down responses by denomination (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform). I have e-mailed the center asking if such material is available and will certainly report back with the response I receive.

The study begins by telling us:

(Israelnationalnews.com) The closer reality comes to blowing down—or blowing up—the Obama administration’s house of cards, the more its jokers succumb to pressure and bend their warped values beyond recognition.

Even the mainstream media covering the U.S. State Department have finally begun not to swallow the daily report, i.e. hogwash, spewed out by State Department Spokesman Phillip. J. Crowley.

His credentials are impeccable: He is a former Senior Fellow and Director of Homeland Security at the left-wing think tank Center for American Progress, which is partly funded by J Street founder billionaire George Soros.

With those credentials, it is not surprising that Crowley crossed all the red lines of decency when he spoke to reporters just hours after Palestinian Authority terrorists riddled the bodies of four Israeli civilians, including a woman in her ninth month of pregnancy.

September 2, 2010

In as much as I have frequently faulted Israel's religious parties on the territorial issue, and since I deem them, along with non-religious parties, complicit in the truncation of this country, the reader should refrain from using simplistic labels to describe the present author. 

They were massacred.  They died and who cares?  Certainly not Leftist politicians or Leftists who either ignore or rejoice when settlers’ families are murdered by Arab Muslims.   Certainly not the Leftist Media.  (More on that later.)
         
Trying to capitalize on the positive spin, Palestinian Authority Terror groups are scrambling to claim credit for a second shooting attack north of Jerusalem that miraculously left Rabbi Moshe and his wife Shira Moreno "only" wounded late Wednesday night.

(Israelnationalnews.com) The PA-based Ma’an News Agency has solicited opinions from people in the news on the negotiations that are about to begin in Washington: two Arabs, one Peace Now member, and, surprisingly, a “Jewish settler” from the heart of Shomron, David Ha’Ivri.

Ha’Ivri concentrated in his remarks on the lack of helpfulness inherent in the U.S. pressure on both Israel and the Palestinian Authority. This pressure is “actually counterproductive,” he writes. “Peace is not made by negotiators; peace is made by neighbors. Twisting the arms of our leaders and forcing them to pose for a photo op with American President Barack Obama will not make our people love each other any more.”

“These direct talks are really not about Israel and the PA,” Ha’Ivri states, “and not even about Netanyahu and Abbas. This charade is all about Obama, who is losing popularity in both Muslim and Jewish support bases in America… America's unaccomplished president will have his prize as soon as he finishes posing with the two leaders and can hang that picture next to similar ones of Jimmy Carter and George Bush.”

“Traveling 9,000 kilometers away from the problem does not bring us any closer to the solution,” Ha’Ivri wrote on Ma’an. “True peace in the region will only emerge through local efforts based on local prescriptions… If peace is the ultimate goal, talks in these circumstances will surely take us further from it; we see that both sides have become aggravated from the pressure and [are acting] like trapped animals looking for a way out. The time has come for our peoples to develop our own brave leadership that will have the wisdom to say ‘Thank you but, no thank you’ to foreign powers who wish to impose their policies on our local issues… We are in no need of their timetables and frame-works. We will work out our differences at our own pace with our own local solutions that very well might be totally revolutionary to the Western concepts that they wish to force-feed us.” 

September 2, 2010

Whereas religious man starts out in this world and ends up in mystical realms, Judaic man takes up his position in this world and deals with it in a manner comparable to that of a mathematical physicist who, at the same time, is also a physician.  Like the physicist he has "a priori, ideal constructs" (the laws of the Torah).  If he were only a physicist, his sole aim would be to reveal the correspondence between the ideal world and concrete reality.  But since he is also a physician living in an imperfect human world, he tries, on a case by case basis, to make part of that world approximate the "a priori, ideal constructs" of the Halakha.

For those looking for some context to understand how Israel came to be in this dire situation, it’s helpful to look back at where it all started – the 1993 Oslo Accords, or what might be better termed ‘The Ostrich Accords’.

For the creators of Oslo were people who refused to face reality, and when reality did intrude, chose to bury their heads in the sand. A popular TV show, “Mythbusters,” has as its tagline “I reject your reality and substitute my own.” This should have been the official tagline of the Oslo Accords.

     Since the idea of a 'Middle East peace process' was first raised in the international community, its ostensible purpose was based on the concept of achieving peace between Israel and her neighbors in exchange for a two state solution - one for Israel and one for the 'Palestinians'.

     This concept was officially established in 1977 when then-President Jimmy Carter took up the banner for Yassir Arafat and publicly called for the creation of a "Palestinian homeland". Two intifadas, two wars, and countless lives lost in terrorist attacks on civilian populations later, the quest for successful 'peace talks' is still going on. This has been a political priority for every successive American president since Carter. Each president has given Middle East peace a high position on his list of presidential goals. Each president appears to have wanted to go down in history as the one who achieved peace in the region.

     While the aim may be laudable in principle, it is flawed from beginning to end. In what is perceived as a possible peace framework, every president since Jimmy Carter has overlooked or ignored the realities of the region, and the true character of the people most critically affected by the outcome. By accepting the 'Palestinian' leadership as a viable and honest partner in the process, American administrations have not only entered a no win situation, but endangered the lives of millions of civilians in the region.

Yesterday evening, President Obama made a speech from the Oval Office, in which he declared that the Combat Mission in Iraq is over. Only last month, Lt. Gen. Babakir Zebari, head of the Iraqi army, was claiming that Iraq was not able to defend itself properly. Zebari suggested that the Iraqi army would not be fully ready until 2020, but it would be inconceivable to imagine America remaining that long.

         This is the future when Palestinians are living near or among Jews.  Of course, we will hear from President Barack Hussein Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressing sadness.  Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are saying this wouldn’t have happened if Israel had peace with the Palestinians accepting of Israel as the State of the Jewish people - which cannot happen according to Islam’s unchangeable mandate of the Koran.

         However, Obama desperately needs a political win at any price the Jews can be forced to pay.  Obama will fight to the last Jew (G-d forbid).

         Leftist Jews, like Ehud Barak, will babble about how he will catch the killers, forgetting that it was on his orders that 19 Army checkpoints were opened, including 15 in the vicinity of Route 60 and the Terror attack.   Roads are now open to all hostile Muslim Arab traffic.

(Ehud) Barak and Barack (Obama) plan to force Israel’s surrender of Judea, Samaria, the Jordan Valley, the Golan Heights and all of Jerusalem that was occupied and desecrated by Jordan for 19 years from 1948 to 1967. 

They are certain that these cruel abandonment of Jewish Land and eviction of as many as 500,000 Jewish men, women and children will not only bring peace but will cause the Islamic nations to change their murderous ways developed and unchanged over almost 1400 years.   They are willing to bet, to gamble with the lives of Jews for something that will never happen.  They also commit child abuse by teaching their own children to hate and kill Jews.

Foundation for Constitutional Democracy 
September 1, 2010

Part II concluded with the statement that the Torah, like scientific inquiry, must and can be tested by its internal logical consistency and by its power to elucidate history and nature.

This statement stands opposed to the dichotomy of science and religion, more precisely, of reason versus revelation.  In his Kuzari, Judah Halevi writes: "God forbid that there should be anything in the Torah that contradicts reason."  Consistent therewith, principles based on logical reasoning have the validity of a biblical statement and therefore do not require biblical proof.  (See Ketuvot 22a.)  If, by logical reasoning, one arrives at a biblical statement, the latter must have additional meanings which can be rendered explicit by various hermeneutical rules contained in the Talmud. 

The dichotomy of reason and revelation, probably the most crucial in the entire history of philosophy, has ever been misconceived.  For what is decisive in revelation (or prophecy) and scientific thought alike is not the subjective process by which the mind gains knowledge or insight into some reality, but the linguistic product of that process, which alone can be communicated and tested by logical and empirical means. (Mental processes are not communicable because, unlike language, they transcend space and time.)  The Torah is, of course, a "linguistic product." 
But now, thanks to modern science and the computer, that "linguistic product" is being tested by logical and empirical means.  The evidence, apart from being mind-boggling, is dissolving the dichotomy between reason and revelation.

Interestingly, the Torah itself warns us against this stultifying dichotomy which has led skeptics and believers alike to confuse the Torah with the fantasies of mysticism and with the otherworldliness of religion: "The Torah is not in heaven that you should say: 'Who will go up for us to heaven and bring it down to us and make us understand it and keep it.'" (Deut. 30:12). In Rabbi Hirsch's words:

It won’t be Obama’s demand that Jews be prohibited from building synagogues, schools and homes in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria.

Netanyahu won’t be wondering how long Abbas can keep up with his “Palestinian president” act before his people chase him out of town. Abbas’s term ended in January 2009.

Israel’s elected leader will be thinking about Iran. He will be wondering how the US government will react if he sends the IAF to bomb Iran’s nuclear installations. Will the US permit IAF jets to overfly US-controlled Iraqi airspace? Or will Obama follow the advice of his foreign policy mentor Zbigniew Brzezinski and order the US Air Force to shoot down those jets, abandon the US-Israel alliance and embrace a new role as protector of Iran’s nuclear weapons program? While Netanyahu wonders if the US can be trusted, other Israelis sleep soundly at night knowing that Uncle Sam has their back.

In any imagined deal, except for Israel possibly accepting a token amount of “refugees”, everyone assumes they will resettle in the new Palestine. This may seem doable but in reality it would prevent a peaceful two-state solution from emerging.

Israel now has about 6.0 million Jews including those living east of the greenline and 1.5 million Arabs. Gaza and the West Bank have about have about 1.4 and 1.6 million Arabs respectively. In total there are 4.2 million Arabs in the combined territory. The total number of Arab refugees including their descendants exceed 4.2 million located as follows; 400,000 Lebanon, 400,000 in Syria, 2 million in Jordan some of whom have been given citizenship and the rest in Gaza and elsewhere.

Now if 2 million “refugees” return to the New Palestine, there will be over 6.5 million Arabs compared to 6.0 million Jews in the combined territories. This influx of Arabs will cause civil unrest in the New Palestine due to income and educational disparity and will severely test availability of resources particularly, water. These new residents will then attempt to infiltrate into Israel just as Africans are attempting to do so and just as Mexicans are infiltrating the USA.

Israel would have to double its manpower defending the fence with orders to shoot any infiltrators. There is no way that Israel would put itself into such a position.