The “Objective Truth” in the Strange Case of Migron

April 1, 2012
Media_httpwwwimemcorg_uxris

hmmm… no truth hmmm? I had a problem with a certain Chicago academic (updated because the story was never consistent for those without truth) alumni who was a teacher of mine. She claimed her husband was at University of Chicago (though that could be BS). I  pulled out a gun in an art video to describe why there was most certainly a reality of the situation. the video was not live… it was a hypothetical related to a debate about truth on a blog. She got the silly feminist authorities in Seattle to extradite me without ever having a felony. There was no understanding of prior restraint. She got the media to believe she was being cyberbullied and broadcast it on the news.,… all to cover the fact that she felt there was no truth. I’m not even allowed to say her name legally now… all because the law thinks people with these views have a privileged status to abuse those who try to explain why there most certainly is a truth. Being against the truth allowed her to deny sympathies for Palestine, but maybe she was telling the truth about that too. Her belief in no objective truth allowed her to scoff at anyone who had any convictions at all…. even though there were University records that have her screaming about Nazi Jews. Of course the moment she accused the entire campus of sexual harassment there most certainly was a truth for her… and some of the information released about her from two different colleges saved my ass. The authorities in Seattle still put me in a cage with skin heads with swatstikas all over their bodies. But they will probably deny that. The skin heads name was Chris Preteen. But there it is… when someone seems crazy… don’t explain it to them. They probably are. It doesn’t matter to our liberal courts however. These academic liberal fascists receive a privileged status… and you can’t question them without being accused and even convicted of misdemeanor stalking. This story is in Israel so the good guys won this one, but academics in America are rotting America from within.

The “Objective Truth” in the Strange Case of Migron

By: Yedidya Atlas (h/t Daled Amos) Sara Hirschorn, in her recent op-ed in The Times of Israel, “Who Has the Monopoly on Truth at Migron?”, challenged my article “Something is Rotten in the State of Israel: The Strange Case of Migron” criticizing Israel’s Supreme Court’s decisions regarding Migron. While she is certainly entitled to disagree with me, her article missed the point.
Sara’s main contention follows the argument of the late history Professor Peter Novick of the University of Chicago that there is no objective truth. However, whether or not, objectively or subjectively, this is true or even makes sense – it is not relevant.
By definition, in a court of law the truth is determined by accepted procedures applying to evidence. In the case of Migron, the Peace Now lawyers represented Palestinian Arabs who were purported to be the registered owners of the land upon which Migron is built. The court of law that dealt with validating or rejecting the plaintiffs claim was the Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court.
In that case, the Arab plaintiffs who claimed to be the owners of what is actually only one quarter of the land upon which Migron was built were unable to produce evidence to prove their claim. In fact, Migron’s lawyer at the time, now Supreme Court Justice Hanan Melcer, proved that their claims were false, and in fact, the Peace Now lawyers of said plaintiffs subsequently withdrew their case.
Again, this did not stop Peace Now from pursuing their legally baseless petition in the Supreme Court. Justice Melcer, then Migron’s attorney, in his written response to the Peace Now petition to the Supreme Court wrote:
Read the whole thing

The author is a veteran journalist specializing in geo-political and geo-strategic affairs in the Middle East. His articles have appeared in such publications as The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, Insight Magazine, Nativ, The Jerusalem Post and Makor Rishon. His articles have been reprinted by Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and in the US Congressional Record.


J-Street seeking rabbinic cover for anti-Israel activities

September 17, 2011
(EOZ: )Read this sickening pseudo-d’var Torah on the J-Street site by Rabbi Donna Kirshbaum, Congregation String of Pearls, a Reconstructionist congregation in Princeton, NJ that hold services in a Unitarian church. This is the most intricate pilpul on J-Street’s site:

Rabbi Donna Kirshbaum

[T]he Torah itself places our textual tradition squarely in the realm of a literary, rather than a literal, tradition. The need for a lively symbolism trumps the need for historical accuracy. But throughout this literary masterpiece, perhaps most clearly in Deuteronomy, its fifth book, we can discern a political stance that takes the form of an arc toward justice, especially distributive justice. The Torah claims that justice and peace can not exist without economic parity. And we also find in it the radical notion… that land does not belong to any of us, that we are all its tenants. As the narrative’s protagonist, God, says in parshat Yitro: indeed all the earth is Mine, ki li kol ha’aretz. …Right now we need to bring these resilient foundations of our tradition to bear on a seemingly intractable problem. Of course a sovereign state needs clear and verifiable boundaries, but let us remind ourselves that we come from a literary tradition in which land has long been revered for its symbolic value at least as much as its economic or strategic value; we do not come from a literal tradition. A literal interpretation would claim land ownership, down to the last hectare and dunam, based on our ancient ancestors’ understanding of what God wanted from them and from their descendants.

Yes – Reb Donna (which is what her temple’s website calls her) takes God’s words of “all the Earth is Mine” and applies it literally. But the eighth verse in Deuteronomy, the book she praises for its political stance, says quite clearly: Behold, I have set the land before you: go in and possess the land which the LORD swore unto your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give unto them and to their seed after them. (MORE)
She wanted to prove there was no truth: I have been known to pull guns out online when the concept of truth is questioned. It gets me into trouble, but I have to say it is worth it. It is supposed to be within the concept of the argument. The problem is when they take the gun out of context as well. When someone has a problem with objectivity it is best to stay away and not argue with them. Sadly there comes a point when dialog does no good. These people are out to hurt us. They understand reason; they make it seem like there is a debate, but the TRUTH is they are looking to trap whoever they can in their scheme. No, I’m not kidding. I leave a message on my blog for a reason: Because we can’t always know the answer doesn’t mean that Truth is subjective. Neither does it mean that Truth can be manipulated by data or manipulated out of context. When the Truth is obscured it fails to be Truth.

It is pointed out that all historical records are biased and inaccurate, or on the other hand, that modern physics has proven that what seems to us the real world is an illusion, so that to believe in the evidence of one’s senses is simply vulgar philistinism.

…Did Orwell say philistinism? oh… just in case any authority wants to try that little trick again of taking my thoughts out of context. No, I’m not threatening Rabbi Donna.

Updated: Philistinism is to make the weapons and the Jews depend on the Philistine weapon sharpeners. It says this in Samuel 1


Wikileaks Bombshell: New Israel Fund Official Endorses End of Jewish State

September 6, 2011
THE TRUTH STILL LOOKS GOOD TO ME… But then I think there is a truth and not merely a little information to hide around in theory. No feminist leftist is going to confuse me into not liking that which looks good.

Women in Israel ArmyHow come we are always on the defensive, always apologizing, and always losing the battle for global public opinion? It is true, of course, that millions of petro-dollars are being used for anti-Israel propaganda (whoops! I’m again buying into their story- this is not anti-Israel propaganda but rather, pure and simple anti-Semitism.) But how the hell did we manage to get to a situation where the truth – the basic, simple, fact-based truth – has gone out of fashion?

(Commentary Magazine) Two Wikileaks cables from 2010 confirm with stunning accuracy the critique of Israel’s foreign-funded NGO movement that many have been making for years — and they do so from the mouths of the NGO leaders themselves. The cables summarize meetings between U.S. officials and leaders of the New Israel Fund, B’Tselem, and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, called ACRI, a flagship NIF project. In one cable, we learn that leaders of these groups have been telling U.S. officials the Israeli legal system is incapable of investigating claims against the Israeli government and military. In fact, Israel’s judiciary, both civil and military, is among the world’s most independent, and the former president of Israel’s High Court was cited by President Obama’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, Elena Kagan​, as a significant role model. Yet advancing claims of judicial indifference to war crimes has become a central ambition of the NGOs, because establishing Israel’s supposed inability to investigate itself would open the door to international prosecutions where verdicts against Israel are foreordained. The credible prospect of such prosecutions would paralyze the IDF — which is exactly the point: Limor Yehuda of ACRI argued that military police investigations could not resolve the main issues of how Israel conducted the military operation [Operation Cast Lead​], including its targeting and policy decisions…she believed only international pressure could influence the GOI [Government of Israel] to create an independent investigation that could hold senior leadership accountable for alleged violations. And here is Jessica Montell, the head of B’Tselem: She wanted the highest level decision-makers held accountable for the decisions they made on how to prosecute the conflict, including Military Advocate General (MAG) Mandelblit…Her aim, she said, was to make Israel weigh world opinion and consider whether it could “afford another operation like this.” What Montell means by that last sentence is frighteningly clear: she wants to create the conditions in which “world opinion” can prevent the IDF from defending Israelis from attack. Then there is a cable about a draft Knesset bill (since extensively modified) that seeks greater transparency for foreign-funded NGOs: B’Tselem Director Jessica Montell…estimated her 9 million NIS ($2.4 million) budget is 95 percent funded from abroad, mostly from European countries. Here Montell is giving credence to what B’Tselem’s critics, such as NGO Monitor, have been saying for years: that the group is essentially an arm of European foreign policy, more interested in condemning Israel than in promoting human rights. And then there’s the bombshell: New Israel Fund (NIF) Associate Director in Israel Hedva Radovanitz, who manages grants to 350 NGOs totaling about 18 million dollars per year, [said] that the campaign against the NGOs was due to the “disappearance of the political left wing” in Israel and the lack of domestic constituency for the NGOs. She noted that when she headed ACRI’s Tel Aviv office, ACRI had 5,000 members, while today it has less than 800, and it was only able to muster about 5,000 people to its December human rights march by relying on the active staff of the 120 NGOs that participated. She commented that she believed that in 100 years Israel would be majority Arab and that the disappearance of a Jewish state would not be the tragedy that Israelis fear since it would become more democratic. [Emphasis added] The reasoning behind NIF’s multi-million dollar donations to Arab groups such as Adalah and Mada al-Carmel that seek the destruction of Israel as a Jewish State suddenly becomes clear: In the words of a high-ranking NIF official, the group believes Zionism itself — that is, Jewish national self-determination — is anti-democratic and should eventually yield to an Arab state where Jews will once again live as a minority. It seems the “New Israel” envisioned by NIF will not be a Jewish state. Has NIF made this clear to its American Jewish donors? During the past decade, as the New Israel Fund and European governments have funded and fueled the delegitimization war on Israel, critics have argued the NGOs they support have no real constituency in Israel; that they represent foreign interests; that they are funded — all told, the sum is around $100 million per year — almost entirely by foreign foundations and European governments seeking to impose their agendas; that they seek to overturn the democratic choices of the Israeli people; that they foment external pressure and “lawfare” to prevent Israel from protecting herself from threats; and that the groups’ activism is motivated not by the claimed values of human rights and international law, but by varying degrees of anti-Zionism and solidarity with Arab interests and leftist anti-Israel activism. At every turn, the NGOs have angrily denied these charges and smeared those who made them as being (take your pick) anti-peace, anti-human rights, anti-democracy, or extremist right-wingers attempting to silence dissent. It is a remarkable moment in this battle to see the NGOs admit in private the same things they slander their critics for saying about them in public. These revelations should encourage the Israeli government to finally make European funding of anti-Israel NGOs a major point of contention in bilateral relations, and they should encourage greater scrutiny of the New Israel Fund, a philanthropic giant that not only dispenses millions of dollars a year to anti-Israel groups, but creates and helps run the groups through its Shatil organization. The pro-Israel community can expose the destructive ambitions of NIF and its European collaborators for an eternity. But ultimately, the ability of foreigners to wage a political war on Israel from within Israel’s borders will only be stopped when Israelis and their elected representatives recognize the seriousness of the problem and enact legislation to address it. America passed just such a law in 1938. It’s high time Israel followed suit.


She wanted to prove there was no truth

August 8, 2011

Did she? She proved the system can be broken. She proved that facts can be subverted. Recorded conversations can be presented out of context. Legal occupants can let their bias towards class warfare based on gender guide their judgments. Lawyers can be bought. Power was proven to be based on elite relationships. Confessions can be squeezed out through intimidation. Speech can be silenced. Some blame the internet. Some say it would of never happened if I was not online…, but if this had happened one hundred years ago there might of never been records to free me. I might of actually had to really drink that hemlock. It would of cost me exponentially more to buy off a judge if she had come by horse in the 1800s, then to present irrefutable evidence that might still lead to my legal demise. Certainly they were still able to intimidate me into a confession. Certainly they can still silence me with threats. Certainly I am in danger merely by implying. The extent of censorship is not clear, it is left to the insane in power to have discretion. Certainly I can not say this person’s name still, but I am thankful for the information age. I am thankful that I can be silenced and yet the information out there can not be erased. I won even though I am legally guilty. There most certainly is a truth. That most ire; teeth clench. Those who deny G-d are shattered. The cult of victimization is based on a lie. The truth won the day. I might still be in danger. I might lose further legally. Shaking my conceptual genitals out there for the world to see. They might just still castrate me, but the truth still persists.

If I have no right, then how am I wrong?