Yglesias’ strange definition of Jewish

May 27, 2011
Media_httpuploadwikim_atexgMany of the non Ashkenazi Jews I know are not as Zionist as the European ones and when they come to America they are not so much against Israel as they come to America to survive and make a buck to bring back home… what is more many really don’t want to go back to the army. It isn’t so much that they don’t support Israel, they do and they support it strongly, but they might not want to become career soldiers and coming to America is their chance at opportunity. If anything the born American European Jews have a home here and are more apt to become politically involved. I come from this background for instance and it was assumed that my political allegiance was to the left, but that was just the stereotype that people like Yglesias push. It is hard for Jews now to not support Israel, since the U.N. Goldstone Report was proven to be a fraud. there are Sephardic Jews like my father’s family who were here for hundreds of years before the Eastern European Jews started showing up. Those Sephards were loyal to George Washington, Israel did not yet exist. Jews such as Harmon Hendricks and Washington’s friend Rabbi Sextius. Other Sephardic Jews in my family would be Emma Lazarus, the poet and activist for both women’s issues and other social ills of the era. She also was a staunch Zionist. Lazarus was the fourth of seven children of Moshe Lazarus and Esther Nathan, Portuguese Sephardic Jews whose families had been settled in New York since the colonial period. She was related through her mother to Benjamin N. Cardozo, Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court. Her writings attracted the attention of Ralph Waldo Emerson. He corresponded with her until his death. She argued for the creation of a Jewish homeland thirteen years before Theodor Herzl began to use the term Zionism.  In the winter of 1882, multitudes of destitute Ashkenazi Jews emigrated from the Russian Pale of Settlement to New York; Lazarus taught technical education to help them become self-supporting. Her most famous work is “The New Colossus”, which is inscribed on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty.

Not exactly what Yglesias is talking about. I don’t think Yglesias knows WTF Yglesias is talking about.

Wondering why most Israelis don’t think like him anymore, Matt Yglesias claims that Israel is afflicted with ‘post-Jewish Zionism.’

The existence of Christian Zionists is, of course, not new. But what is new is that Israeli politics has drifted toward the hawkish right over the past ten years even as Jewish Americans remain on the progressive left. That change in Israeli politics, meanwhile, has been in part driven by a demographic shift away from the kind of secular ashkenazi Jews who predominate in the American population. At the same time, Christian Zionist sentiment has boomed in America and the Palestinian cause has never been less popular among America’s overwhelmingly non-Jewish population.
This is all part of what I’ve called the trend toward post-Jewish Zionism. That’s not to say that there are no Jewish Zionists in the United States (or Canada, etc.) but merely to observe that Jews as such are decreasingly relevant to the politics of Israel. In Europe, too, we’re seeing a boom of far-right parties (True Finns, Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party, the Danish People’s Party) with strong pro-Israel stands.

But look at whom he is defining as ‘post-Jewish.’

Daniel Levy’s article on Israeli demographics is also relevant to this. If you’re a typical Jewish American, this is quite literally not your father’s Israel. The Palestinian, Haredi, “national Orthodox,” and Russian immigrant shares of the population have all grown substantially.

While it’s true that the Haredi, national Orthodox (by which I assume he means National Religious) and Russian immigrant (by the way, most of whom are not religious and many of whom are not Jewish at all) populations have grown, that does not explain why Israelis have become what Yglesias calls ‘hawkish right,’ nor does it explain why fewer and fewer Israelis are sympathetic to the ‘Palestinian’ cause.
The Likud gets very few Haredi votes and probably not a whole lot of National Religious votes or Russian immigrant votes either. What’s driven Israel to the right is not changing demographics but changing perceptions of the possibility of peace (without scare quotes) with the ‘Palestinians.’ Most Israelis have realized the truth over the last 6-11 years (look up those dates): That it’s not peace or a state that the ‘Palestinians’ want. It’s that they want to destroy the Jewish state. We won’t roll over and play dead for them.
Some people would call that kind of shift democracy.
And by the way, those Haredim and National Religious Jews are more Jewish (in practice) than Yglesias will ever be. I would definitely not call them ‘post Jewish.’ That’s absurd.

Matt Yglesias, at Think Progress, writes about the Daily Caller op-ed in which Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Gevalt) castigates American Jews for not being his kind of American Jew. (Next up: Joe Walsh wishes wimmin were still ladies!)
I won’t pile more on Walsh — it seems gratuitous at this stage — but Yglesias seems to have contracted Walsh’s unseemly “they’re all alike” affect in this passage:

Israeli politics has drifted toward the hawkish right over the past ten years even as Jewish Americans remain on the progressive left. That change in Israeli politics, meanwhile, has been in part driven by a demographic shift away from the kind of secular ashkenazi Jews who predominate in the American population. 

Say what? Ashkenazim have a genetic predisposition toward liberal democracy?
Let me put it this way: Vus?


Are the FEMINISTS protecting WOMEN? Or are they just listening to the hysterical Jew haters?

March 10, 2011

The way the feminists went after the Orthodox is a crime. My mother did a lot of “Get” work. She was on the other side… and no doubt she is down stairs eating her pork, but I know in her heart she knows there is no safer place for women then in the Jewish community because Jews honor difference. Jewish women have a lot of power, not because of physical strength, but rather because community is where women’s power comes from. Judaism creates a framework for goals and expectations. It is very clear and honest. Feminists take power through female supremacy. To think in terms of individualism is to deny the nature of women. Females are natural to a collective. The Jewish family is a collectivism that works.

rav lipschitz.jpg
Every few months, we are presented with media reports about Jewish women rescued from their Muslim husbands in the Palestinian Authority or within Israel.
The stories are always similar. The women were tortured by their husbands, often locked in their homes or under constant guard by members of their husbands’ families. Either with or without the help of their Jewish families, they reached out to Yad L’Achim which rescues Jewish women and their children from Muslim husbands. Yad L’Achim volunteers plan and carry out often dangerous rescue operations and bring these women and their children to safety.
In January, Channel 10 presented live footage of one such rescue. Viewers saw relatives of a mother of four named Dana waiting anxiously at the Erez checkpoint as she and her children fled her husband and his family in Gaza and took their first steps of freedom.
During their courtship, Dana’s husband showed her every courtesy. After their marriage, he began regularly beating her and kept her under around the clock surveillance. A visit to Yad L’Achim’s website makes clear that her story is anything but unique.
Yad L’Achim’s work in saving Jewish women from violent Muslim husbands is especially notable given the nature of the organization. It is an anti-missionary haredi organization led by Rabbi Dov Lipshitz. It is not feminism that motivates its members to save these women. It is Jewish law. And specifically, the halachic command of the ransoming of Jewish hostages. According to the organization, it carries out scores of rescue missions like the one that rescued Dana every year.
The question naturally arises, why do haredim dominate what by rights ought to be a field occupied by secular feminists? Why aren’t Israeli and American Jewish feminists at the forefront of efforts to save these women from their violent husbands? Where, for instance, is the New Israel Fund? Its website brags, “The New Israel Fund founded or funded most of Israel’s women’s rights organizations and networks.”
Obviously Yad L’Achim, which defends these women’s right to live without fear is a women’s rights group. So why doesn’t NIF fund it? Yad L’Achim and other religious groups have been pilloried with allegations of racism in recent months for their public calls for Jewish girls and women not to date Arabs. In principle, these attacks seem fair. Blanket denunciations of Jewish- Muslim dating and intermarriage are problematic, even if they are justified from a religious perspective.
But whether one agrees or disagrees with the religious precepts that guide Yad L’Achim’s actions, the fact is they are not saving a principle. They are saving women and children. Shouldn’t that be enough to earn them the respect of the Left that is supposed to be motivated by concern for the weak and downtrodden? 
IN HER interview with Channel 10, Dana said that in Gaza, “what they do is curse the Jews 24 hours a day.”
The fact is that both misogyny and Jew-hatred are facts of life throughout the Muslim world. This state of affairs renders marriage to Muslim men a particularly dangerous prospect for Jewish women.
But the feminists throughout the Jewish world are silent on this issue. And this isn’t surprising. The egregious mistreatment of Jewish women by their Arab husbands involves two issues that the Left – which encompasses most feminist groups – is intent on ignoring: Islamic misogyny and Islamic Jew hatred. Just as the Left ignores, underplays, trivializes or justifies the fact that hatred of Jews is the most universal sentiment in the Muslim world today, so it systematically ignores, underplays or trivializes the endemic brutalization of women and girls throughout the Islamic world.
Take a purportedly feminist discussion of the impact of the Arab revolt on the position of women in the Arab world from ABC’s This Week with Christiane Amanpour on Sunday. In a segment that lasted roughly 15 minutes, Amanpour said essentially nothing about the appalling lives of women and girls under Islamic law.
When Newsweek editor Tina Brown mentioned “the barbaric custom of child brides,” in Yemen, Amanpour didn’t ask her to elaborate. In accordance with that Yemeni custom, little girls are routinely married off to grown men.
When Iraqi women’s rights activist Zainab Salbi noted that the key issue for women in the Muslim world is changing the family law that governs their societies, Amanpour didn’t ask her what she meant.
What she meant was that under Islamic family law, women and girls are considered the property of their male relatives. And their “owners” can legally beat them and rape them and genitally mutilate them and force them into marriages they object to. If the women and girls are “disobedient,” their male relatives can expect little or no punishment for murdering them.
Rather than discuss the real, truly life-threatening dangers faced by women and girls throughout the Islamic world, Amanpour presented her viewers with a superficial and false depiction of recent events in which a few well-dressed, perfectly coiffed, pretty young women in Egypt and two Western dressed women in Libya are supposedly transforming the position of women in their societies one tweet at a time.
It was a complete lie. But it wasn’t shocking. It would have been shocking if Amanpour had provided her viewers with any relevant facts about the subject she was purportedly discussing.
The contrast between Yad L’Achim and traditional feminist groups and icons worldwide is statement on the state of the free world today. Whereas the feminists obscure the plight of women living in the Muslim world, a haredi group is saving women living in the Muslim world.
For years the New Israel Fund and countless other Jewish and non-Jewish leftist organizations have waged a culture war against the haredim for what they allege is their mistreatment of women.
Many women – both Orthodox and non-Orthodox – disagree with the position of women in the haredi world. But it cannot be denied that today haredim are the only ones rescuing battered Jewish women from their abusive Muslim husbands.
Originally published in The Jerusalem Post 

Another Leftist Demonstration: Different Code, Same Old Message

February 28, 2011
Zion Square

24 of the Twelfth Month (Alef) 5771

Last Saturday night in Kikar Tzion (Zion Square), Downtown Jerusalem, there was yet another hate demonstration.
The demonstration was supposedly Against Racism. Yet, that was simply another code phrase for “Anti-Torah/Anti-Religious.” I say another, because there have been quite a few over the years. I reported on one last May, which proclaimed that “Zionists Are Not Settlers.” This code phrase should be self-explanatory. About a year ago, there was one about “Religious Pluralism,” the code phrase at that rally for “We hate Haredim.”
These demonstrations conveniently begin, just barely after Shabbath goes out. Religious Jews could not possibly get there to counter protest. Often, they begin with an unofficial march, from here to there, on Shabbath itself, saying “Look at us! We’re exercising our ‘democratic right’ not to desecrate Shabbath!”

Keeping a Jewish State as Jewish seen as Problem by Israeli Government

November 30, 2010

Jewish Rabbis were condemned by the international community for defending a Jewish Community from Intermarriage? Jews have to rent to non Jews in the only holy Jewish City on earth? What next? A Christmas tree for the Western Wall?

No one ever says a thing about Mecca where non Muslims are not even allowed to visit.

Weinstein: Criminal and disciplinary issues raised by state-employed rabbis’ statement about renting to non-Jews will be explored; Yad Vashem states rabbinic letters a “severe blow” to Jewish values.

Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein on Thursday stated that his office would check if the behavior of state-employed rabbis, who signed a letter against renting to non-Jews, was “criminal.” via jpost.com

Weinstein’s comments came in a letter to Meretz MK Ilan Gilon who had called on the rabbis to be ousted from their positions.

53% of Israelis say Arabs should be encouraged to leave:

The poll showed that the more religious respondents were, the less they believed Arabs should have equal rights, with 33.5% of secular Jews opposing rights for Arabs, as opposed to 51% of traditional Jews, 65% of religious Jews, and 72% of haredim. In addition, 86% of Jewish Israelis believe that important decisions should be made by a Jewish majority.

The Israel Democracy Institute released the results of its Israeli Democracy Ranking and poll on Tuesday, revealing that 53 percent of Jewish Israelis say the government should encourage Arabs to emigrate from Israel, and only 51% believe Jews and Arabs should have equal rights.

this is what happens when you deny the limitations of a Democratic Republic. Republics are not meant to mix hostile people into Democracy. That is what borders are for.  The problem is that Democracy has become a buzz word for what is ethical.  Even the Greeks (for example Plato) understood that pure Democracy is tyranny.  More and more Jews are starting to realize that Rabbi Kahane was right.  What is ethical for both Jews and Muslims is separation.