Who are the Israelis?

[Coyote]

Hmmmm....Ovadia Yosef - Wikipedia

"A woman's knowledge is only in sewing...Women should find other jobs and make hamin, but not deal with matters of Torah."

Following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Yosef blamed the tragedy on U.S. support for the Gaza disengagement, and on a general lack of Torah study in the area where the hurricane occurred.

In an October 2010 sermon, Yosef stated that "The sole purpose of non-Jews is to serve Jews". He said that Gentiles served a divine purpose:

“ Why are Gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat. That is why Gentiles were created."[75] ”

In the same article in The Jerusalem Post, according to the journalist who interviewed him, Yosef compared Gentiles to donkeys whose life has the sole purpose to serve the master....

It doesn't get better...remarks about the holocaust....etc. This is a great spiitual leader? He sounds like the Jewish version of Pastor Hagee and some of tbe other American Evangelical leaders.

 

[rylah]

Hmmmm....Ovadia Yosef - Wikipedia

"A woman's knowledge is only in sewing...Women should find other jobs and make hamin, but not deal with matters of Torah."

Following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Yosef blamed the tragedy on U.S. support for the Gaza disengagement, and on a general lack of Torah study in the area where the hurricane occurred.

In an October 2010 sermon, Yosef stated that "The sole purpose of non-Jews is to serve Jews". He said that Gentiles served a divine purpose:

“ Why are Gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat. That is why Gentiles were created."[75] ”

In the same article in The Jerusalem Post, according to the journalist who interviewed him, Yosef compared Gentiles to donkeys whose life has the sole purpose to serve the master....

It doesn't get better...remarks about the holocaust....etc. This is a great spiitual leader? He sounds like the Jewish version of Pastor Hagee and some of tbe other American Evangelical leaders.

Yes, Maran Ovadia Yosef ztz"l was a great spiritual leader,
one of greatest rulers of Jewish Law in modern time who had a phenomenal memory and was a true genius. He had "broad shoulders" to solve and allow what other couldn't, like in the cases of hundreds of bereaved wives orphans of missing soldiers, for whom he spent many sleepless nights so that they could continue a normal life and build new homes and families in Israel.

That said, I can definitely see how someone basing her opinion on a bunch of controversial articles, who's sources are, putting it mildly are either lacking, distorted or simply based banal lies with no reference other than some journalists looking for sensation.

From a quick look at the statements you've brought up, it shows that even their links were either from biased sources, or taken off for being too evident as false stories, for anyone with a basic understanding of Jewish Law and knowledge of Maran Ovadia's rulings in his works, that at least in Israel have become common knowledge.

Let's examine:

Hmmmm....Ovadia Yosef - Wikipedia
"A woman's knowledge is only in sewing...Women should find other jobs and make hamin, but not deal with matters of Torah."

The context his remark is totally missing, I've actually read the entire article, and it refers to the detailed argument regarding the correct order of lighting candles for Shabat, where there's a slight differene between the tradition of the northern and southern diasporas. However Maran Ovadia ztz"l was arguing against anyone of them, but rather referring to bunch of reform female "rabbis" who for provocation went on to confuse the order of the traditional practice in both communities against the rule of their chief Rabbis and long line of heritage that in each exists for their own specific reasons.
Reading further examining the supposed reasoning mentioned in the article where out of complete ignorance the journalists supposedly quotes Maran Ovadia as giving an explanation that is in complete contradiction to basic tenants of Jewish Law, exposes the Achilles ankle of the journalist's fabrication.

Nevertheless, even though Maran Ovadia fought fiercely against the reformist's failed and shallow provocations and attempts at disconnecting virtually an entire generation from its heritage, he himself while establishing the goal of returning the positions of Jewish Law to their traditional origins, in accordance to the Poskim of previous generations, ruled to allow women to read the Megilah on Purim when it was required, showing the context and complexity of his rule.

Following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Yosef blamed the tragedy on U.S. support for the Gaza disengagement, and on a general lack of Torah study in the area where the hurricane occurred.

Well, I found no source for the quote in neither of the links, neither in English nor in Hebrew press.
But whether you like it or not, recently it is becoming clearly evident that there're consequences of reward and punishment for the nations historic support of or hurting Israel as a whole worldwide, as well as for Israel themselves. Egyptians may have not liked it neither to find their firstborn dead, or to give away their wealth and property, or find Pharaoh whom they considered a god drown. On the other hand look at what happened to Sharon, Rabin, Begin or the group of IDF commanders with their soldiers who instead of securing the hold of east Jerusalem, when it was available during the war of '48, decided to ride off to an opposite direction. I don't need Maran Ovadia's quote to see that.

“ Why are Gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat. That is why Gentiles were created."[75] ”

In the same article in The Jerusalem Post, according to the journalist who interviewed him, Yosef compared Gentiles to donkeys whose life has the sole purpose to serve the master....

Here too, everywhere I looked they all refer to an article in Jerusalem Post, but the link doesn't exist.
That said, I'm not denying such a statement (sort of) exists in the Torah, it's just that it doesn't mean what it looks like from first sight. Though I can understand how it's naturally misinterpreted when taken out of context or detail.

When one hears the word 'slavery', the association is with coercion, like practiced in Africa and the US. But Judaism has a totally different definition of the term. After all we too are called 'children' and 'slaves' of G-d!

Referring to a 'donkey' is a common in texts, the word itself is closely related to what what could be translated as 'material' and usually interchangeable with an allegorical reference to 'materialism'. Like in descriptions of the Messiah appearing as "riding on a donkey", that of course doesn't mean gentiles, rather an overall spiritual atmosphere of the generation. But again without basic knowledge of Hebrew it's easy to misrepresent the purpose or meaning of such expression.

The prophets said that in the end of times all the nations will recognize the true Messiah, and then they'll want to glorify and exalt the Israel and aid us in the study of Torah. Meaning, they'll recognize the importance of Torah, service at the Temple, and will want to aid every Jew with a willing heart and great love, not out of coercion or anger G-d forbid.

It doesn't get better...remarks about the holocaust....etc. This is a great spiitual leader? He sounds like the Jewish version of Pastor Hagee and some of tbe other American Evangelical leaders.

Well, I don't know what Evangelical leaders say, and frankly care little if any, as long as they stick to their business and don't try to convert Jews. But drawing conclusions about such giants as Maran Ovadia ztz"l, based on shallow headlines from sensationalist media, merely shows the level of your own intellectual and spiritual development.

To sum it up - Yes, the 'First to Zion' HaRav Ovadia Yosef ztz"l was a great spiritual leader who's legacy alongside other giants that our generation merited to absorb wisdom from, will remain at the heart of the Jewish world.

He was, and as the righteous are called 'living' in their passing away, remains - A True Lion!

 

[Coyote]

Source: Rabbi: Hurricane punishment for pullout

Notably, the rabbi chose to openly declare what many ultra-Orthodox believers have said for a while now, namely that recent naturally disasters in the U.S. are a direct result of American support for the pullout.

Source: Hurricane Katrina: Wrath of God?

Hurricane Katrina damaged the city of New Orleans in what seems like biblical proportions. Some say the human suffering alone could be a part of God's plan.

Reverend Franklin Graham, son of Reverend Billy Graham, suggests the city was targeted because of the city's sinful reputation.

At a speech in Virginia, he said, "This is one wicked city, OK? It's known for Mardi Gras, for Satan worship. It's known for sex perversion. It's known for every type of drugs and alcohol and the orgies and all of these things that go on down there in New Orleans. Reverend Graham continued, "There's been a black spiritual cloud over New Orleans for years. They believe God is going to use that storm to bring revival.

 

[rylah]

Source: Rabbi: Hurricane punishment for pullout

Notably, the rabbi chose to openly declare what many ultra-Orthodox believers have said for a while now, namely that recent naturally disasters in the U.S. are a direct result of American support for the pullout.

Source: Hurricane Katrina: Wrath of God?

Hurricane Katrina damaged the city of New Orleans in what seems like biblical proportions. Some say the human suffering alone could be a part of God's plan.

Reverend Franklin Graham, son of Reverend Billy Graham, suggests the city was targeted because of the city's sinful reputation.

At a speech in Virginia, he said, "This is one wicked city, OK? It's known for Mardi Gras, for Satan worship. It's known for sex perversion. It's known for every type of drugs and alcohol and the orgies and all of these things that go on down there in New Orleans. Reverend Graham continued, "There's been a black spiritual cloud over New Orleans for years. They believe God is going to use that storm to bring revival.

First of all there's still no reference to the actual source, they virtually all refer to a single article in a newspaper, without documentation or any mention of a specific time that was said,
which is strange to say the least.

But you're still missing the whole point, even according to that article the stated reason is not "sinful ways" of the inhabitants, but certain national decisions, be they disengagement or something else, to support actions that hurt Jews home and abroad.

The criticism is not only reserved to those nations, but as well Israeli politicians, and as I've presented in the examples above, which you refused to quote or address, resulted in dire consequences for them personally in short period of time. Which leaves little doubt as to the reasons mentioned above.

And if your goal wasn't obsessive shallow slandering, but actual discussion about the figure and work of a phenomenal leader and scholar, then you'd actually look into the overwhelming evidence, rather than ignore the detailed response and reserve to digging sensationalist headlines.

But I guess each one to his/her level of intellectual development.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who are the Israelis?
⁜→ Coyote, et al

Well, certainly the Rabbi spins a good tail.

Source: Rabbi: Hurricane punishment for pullout

Source: Hurricane Katrina: Wrath of God?

(COMMENT)

I have Amazon Prime, and one of the feature movies is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah from the Book of Genesis. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by the Hand of God (divine retribution) for their sinful ways; unable to follow the righteous path.

These are killer and threat stories → written like the Myths and Folktales of monsters that will come and get you if you are not good, stories to keep people in line. These are tools for the forced Adoration and Reverence by a used by the clergy and clerics to enforce the supernatural. Nothing more...



...........
Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Mindful]

As Democratic candidates for the presidency continue to move further to the left in an effort to distance themselves from the policies and politics of President Trump, the two frontrunners, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, have increased their rhetoric against what is normally an untouchable topic for Democrats and Republicans alike: the United States’ relationship with the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel. While no candidate could expect to survive the political cost of walking away from Israel completely—diplomatically and financially—Sanders and Warren have recently been spouting positions that show they apparently feel they can make support for Israel conditional and can fundamentally change the U.S./Israel partnership.

At the J Street conference this week in Washington, D.C., for example, Sanders suggested to the attendees of the liberal Jewish Middle East policy group that, while the $3.8 billion in aid the U.S. commits to Israel each year should remain intact, he wondered out loud if this aid could be conditional. “My solution is to say to Israel: you get $3.8 billion dollars every year, if you want military aid you’re going to have to fundamentally change your relationship to the people of Gaza,” Sanders said. “In fact,” he added, “I think it is fair to say that some of that should go right now into humanitarian aid in Gaza.” Perhaps Sanders has forgotten that the humanitarian crisis he alludes to in Hamas-controlled Gaza is largely the result of the terrorist group’s diverting of funds meant for schools, hospitals, food, and infrastructure in Gaza and using them instead for the construction of terror tunnels, rifles, bombs, and some of the 15,000 or so rockets and mortars that have been launched from Gaza against Israel since the 2005 disengagement.

Liz Warren's Immoral Desire to Sell Out Israel

 

[rylah]

As Democratic candidates for the presidency continue to move further to the left in an effort to distance themselves from the policies and politics of President Trump, the two frontrunners, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, have increased their rhetoric against what is normally an untouchable topic for Democrats and Republicans alike: the United States’ relationship with the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel. While no candidate could expect to survive the political cost of walking away from Israel completely—diplomatically and financially—Sanders and Warren have recently been spouting positions that show they apparently feel they can make support for Israel conditional and can fundamentally change the U.S./Israel partnership.

At the J Street conference this week in Washington, D.C., for example, Sanders suggested to the attendees of the liberal Jewish Middle East policy group that, while the $3.8 billion in aid the U.S. commits to Israel each year should remain intact, he wondered out loud if this aid could be conditional. “My solution is to say to Israel: you get $3.8 billion dollars every year, if you want military aid you’re going to have to fundamentally change your relationship to the people of Gaza,” Sanders said. “In fact,” he added, “I think it is fair to say that some of that should go right now into humanitarian aid in Gaza.” Perhaps Sanders has forgotten that the humanitarian crisis he alludes to in Hamas-controlled Gaza is largely the result of the terrorist group’s diverting of funds meant for schools, hospitals, food, and infrastructure in Gaza and using them instead for the construction of terror tunnels, rifles, bombs, and some of the 15,000 or so rockets and mortars that have been launched from Gaza against Israel since the 2005 disengagement.

Liz Warren's Immoral Desire to Sell Out Israel

Seven Principles for Maintaining Jewish Peoplehood

Personal comment: we should always remember this in the context of LIVING...
Namely that Israel, unlike the rest of the nations, despite it maybe sounding completely counter-intuitive, has survived the greatest empires that sought to eliminate us physically and spiritually, and saw them go to the dustbin of history - because our attitude was never like theirs. While many great nations focused on survival, for Israel it was always on living.

I know many rabbis warn us, that nothing is yet certain and we may face exile once again, but the reasons for this are natural care, as to motivate us to not ease up but sanctify more, and merit greater virtue in face of what all know is coming. While they know that not only Israel is eternal, but also that exile is coming to its conclusive historic end, though difficult times are ahead but these will be labor pains before the greatest good arrives - we will not be forced out ever again.

To paraphrase a lecture by Rabbi Mannis Friedman - before passing away, and before entering the land of Israel, Moshe Rabbenu A"H told the nation of all its future to come, about the short period of relative peace and growth, about ,then internal conflict and turning away from Hashem, about the eventual exiles and the horrific suffering when when we don't know what brings the night and the day after. Being astonished and almost paralyzed by this, Israel asked Moshe A"H: "This is what You tell us before leaving, and us reaching our destination? Why do You even tell us this?". To which Moshe Rabbenu A"H answered: "So that You forget about survival, and focus on LIVING".

Am Yisrael Chai!

 

[rylah]

RE: Who are the Israelis?
⁜→ Coyote, et al

Well, certainly the Rabbi spins a good tail.

Source: Rabbi: Hurricane punishment for pullout

Source: Hurricane Katrina: Wrath of God?

(COMMENT)

I have Amazon Prime, and one of the feature movies is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah from the Book of Genesis. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by the Hand of God (divine retribution) for their sinful ways; unable to follow the righteous path.

These are killer and threat stories → written like the Myths and Folktales of monsters that will come and get you if you are not good, stories to keep people in line. These are tools for the forced Adoration and Reverence by a used by the clergy and clerics to enforce the supernatural. Nothing more...



...........
Most Respectfully,
R

Well I don't know if 'supernatural' is a correct word for this discussion, but both friends and enemies of Israel seem to agree on one thing - if there's such a thing as "supernatural", or better sacred, there's no other people, in regards to whom this is a reality.

It takes a special kind of self imposed blindness to deny that not only historically, but in our modern times, everything about about Israel, for the good or the better, be it the catastrophes, the wars and inner conflicts seemingly mirroring the current tides concerning all nations, the return and revival - are all of Biblical proportions.

Where in other nations same destine questions may look as "Nothing more...", or without any sense or substance of hope, here being literally the heart of the world, those take a grand conclusive aspect.

But of course You can always reduce it to my lack of impartiality...

 

[Coyote]

As Democratic candidates for the presidency continue to move further to the left in an effort to distance themselves from the policies and politics of President Trump, the two frontrunners, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, have increased their rhetoric against what is normally an untouchable topic for Democrats and Republicans alike: the United States’ relationship with the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel. While no candidate could expect to survive the political cost of walking away from Israel completely—diplomatically and financially—Sanders and Warren have recently been spouting positions that show they apparently feel they can make support for Israel conditional and can fundamentally change the U.S./Israel partnership.

At the J Street conference this week in Washington, D.C., for example, Sanders suggested to the attendees of the liberal Jewish Middle East policy group that, while the $3.8 billion in aid the U.S. commits to Israel each year should remain intact, he wondered out loud if this aid could be conditional. “My solution is to say to Israel: you get $3.8 billion dollars every year, if you want military aid you’re going to have to fundamentally change your relationship to the people of Gaza,” Sanders said. “In fact,” he added, “I think it is fair to say that some of that should go right now into humanitarian aid in Gaza.” Perhaps Sanders has forgotten that the humanitarian crisis he alludes to in Hamas-controlled Gaza is largely the result of the terrorist group’s diverting of funds meant for schools, hospitals, food, and infrastructure in Gaza and using them instead for the construction of terror tunnels, rifles, bombs, and some of the 15,000 or so rockets and mortars that have been launched from Gaza against Israel since the 2005 disengagement.

Liz Warren's Immoral Desire to Sell Out Israel

Why not? Israel should be treated like our other allies. Nothing immoral about that.

 

[rylah]

As Democratic candidates for the presidency continue to move further to the left in an effort to distance themselves from the policies and politics of President Trump, the two frontrunners, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, have increased their rhetoric against what is normally an untouchable topic for Democrats and Republicans alike: the United States’ relationship with the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel. While no candidate could expect to survive the political cost of walking away from Israel completely—diplomatically and financially—Sanders and Warren have recently been spouting positions that show they apparently feel they can make support for Israel conditional and can fundamentally change the U.S./Israel partnership.

At the J Street conference this week in Washington, D.C., for example, Sanders suggested to the attendees of the liberal Jewish Middle East policy group that, while the $3.8 billion in aid the U.S. commits to Israel each year should remain intact, he wondered out loud if this aid could be conditional. “My solution is to say to Israel: you get $3.8 billion dollars every year, if you want military aid you’re going to have to fundamentally change your relationship to the people of Gaza,” Sanders said. “In fact,” he added, “I think it is fair to say that some of that should go right now into humanitarian aid in Gaza.” Perhaps Sanders has forgotten that the humanitarian crisis he alludes to in Hamas-controlled Gaza is largely the result of the terrorist group’s diverting of funds meant for schools, hospitals, food, and infrastructure in Gaza and using them instead for the construction of terror tunnels, rifles, bombs, and some of the 15,000 or so rockets and mortars that have been launched from Gaza against Israel since the 2005 disengagement.

Liz Warren's Immoral Desire to Sell Out Israel

Why not? Israel should be treated like our other allies. Nothing immoral about that.

If I may express my opinion on the subject... I'd like to mention that my position is against continuation of US aid to my country, at least as it is now, reasons for which I'll explain further.

Prior to addressing your question, we have to analyze the false premise on which it is based.
First there's no other ally country facing the same situation military and diplomatically wise as Israel.
Nor be it relative to its size, location or balance of power and natural resource in comparison to numerous enemies it faces. Neither do other allies provide anywhere the same investment value return.

Second, we should further look at the timing when the US started providing the aid - namely after the 1967 confrontation, when Israel showed its ability to stand not only to its regional enemies but also the Soviets, then America's no.1 ideological and military enemy, showing great results and advantage.
This led to a conclusion that Israel was not only a key strategic ally in the region and globally, but also that there was a need to create a leverage so as for the US to secure its own interest, an influence of veto in Israel's future key strategic decisions, be it real time decisions on the ground, or decisions regarding development of arms that could compete on the market.

And in fact since then we see that strategic decisions in all military campaigns as well as development of several technological projects have been a subject to orders "from above".

Now to further use this leverage to force Israel invest in its enemies, as well as enemies of the US, while knowing that it will be undoubtedly directed into sabotaging its security, submits Israel into a position that motivates confrontation at the expense of population of both parties involved, further confirming the perception of success of the enemy's tactics of racket. This position regarding both the future of the population held hostage by the enemy's corrupt rule, as well as the ally, that in fact is the only one taking them into consideration and everything possible to protect their lives more than Europe, US or any other actor - is not only in violation of binding International Law (UN Security Council Resolution 1373 ch.4),
but as well ultimately immoral.

As for my opinion regarding US military aid, that sums up to to approximately 10% of Israel's GDP,
and in light of reasons mentioned above, with all its advantages as measured against its undermining Israel's interests and sovereignty - is that it all should stop, and instead transferred into a framework of - Agreement For Mutual Development Partnership on equal terms.

 

[Mindful]

As Democratic candidates for the presidency continue to move further to the left in an effort to distance themselves from the policies and politics of President Trump, the two frontrunners, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, have increased their rhetoric against what is normally an untouchable topic for Democrats and Republicans alike: the United States’ relationship with the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel. While no candidate could expect to survive the political cost of walking away from Israel completely—diplomatically and financially—Sanders and Warren have recently been spouting positions that show they apparently feel they can make support for Israel conditional and can fundamentally change the U.S./Israel partnership.

At the J Street conference this week in Washington, D.C., for example, Sanders suggested to the attendees of the liberal Jewish Middle East policy group that, while the $3.8 billion in aid the U.S. commits to Israel each year should remain intact, he wondered out loud if this aid could be conditional. “My solution is to say to Israel: you get $3.8 billion dollars every year, if you want military aid you’re going to have to fundamentally change your relationship to the people of Gaza,” Sanders said. “In fact,” he added, “I think it is fair to say that some of that should go right now into humanitarian aid in Gaza.” Perhaps Sanders has forgotten that the humanitarian crisis he alludes to in Hamas-controlled Gaza is largely the result of the terrorist group’s diverting of funds meant for schools, hospitals, food, and infrastructure in Gaza and using them instead for the construction of terror tunnels, rifles, bombs, and some of the 15,000 or so rockets and mortars that have been launched from Gaza against Israel since the 2005 disengagement.

Liz Warren's Immoral Desire to Sell Out Israel

Why not? Israel should be treated like our other allies. Nothing immoral about that.

If I may express my opinion on the subject... I'd like to mention that my position is against continuation of US aid to my country, at least as it is now, reasons for which I'll explain further.

Prior to addressing your question, we have to analyze the false premise on which it is based.
First there's no other ally country faces the same situation military and diplomatically wise as Israel.
Nor be it relative to its size, location or balance of power and natural resource in comparison to numerous enemies it faces. Neither do other allies provide anywhere the same investment value return.

Second, we should look into further at the timing when the US started providing the aid - namely after the 1967 confrontation, when Israel showed its ability to stand not only to its regional enemies but also the Soviets, then the America's no.1 ideological and military enemy, showing great results and advantage.
This led to a conclusion that Israel was not only a key strategic ally in the region and globally, but also that there was a need to have a leverage so as for the US to have a leverage with which it could have a say, an influence of veto in Israel's future key strategic decisions, be it real time decisions on the ground, or decisions regarding development of arms that could compete on the market.

And in fact since then we see that strategic decisions in all military campaigns as well as development of several technological projects have been a subject of orders "from above".

Now to further use this leverage to force Israel invest in its enemies, as well as enemies of the US, while knowing that it will be undoubtedly directed into sabotaging its security, submits Israel into a position that motivates confrontation at the expense of both parties involved, further confirming the perception of success if the enemy's tactics of racket. This position regarding both the future of the population held hostage by the enemy's corrupt rule, as well as the ally, that in fact is the only one taking them into consideration and everything possible to protect their lives more than Europe, the US or any other actor,
- is not only in violation of binding International Law (UN Security Council Resolution 1373 ch.4), but as well ultimately immoral.

As for my opinion regarding US military aid, that is sums up to to approximately 10% of Israel's GDP, and in light of reasons mentioned above, with all its advantages as measured against its undermining Israel's interests and sovereignty - is that it all should stop, and instead transferred into a framework of - Agreement For Mutual Development Partnership on equal terms.

Netanyahu wanted to go his own way, but Bill Clinton talked him out of it.

I have the transcript of the speech to Congress, somewhere.

 

[rylah]

As Democratic candidates for the presidency continue to move further to the left in an effort to distance themselves from the policies and politics of President Trump, the two frontrunners, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, have increased their rhetoric against what is normally an untouchable topic for Democrats and Republicans alike: the United States’ relationship with the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel. While no candidate could expect to survive the political cost of walking away from Israel completely—diplomatically and financially—Sanders and Warren have recently been spouting positions that show they apparently feel they can make support for Israel conditional and can fundamentally change the U.S./Israel partnership.

At the J Street conference this week in Washington, D.C., for example, Sanders suggested to the attendees of the liberal Jewish Middle East policy group that, while the $3.8 billion in aid the U.S. commits to Israel each year should remain intact, he wondered out loud if this aid could be conditional. “My solution is to say to Israel: you get $3.8 billion dollars every year, if you want military aid you’re going to have to fundamentally change your relationship to the people of Gaza,” Sanders said. “In fact,” he added, “I think it is fair to say that some of that should go right now into humanitarian aid in Gaza.” Perhaps Sanders has forgotten that the humanitarian crisis he alludes to in Hamas-controlled Gaza is largely the result of the terrorist group’s diverting of funds meant for schools, hospitals, food, and infrastructure in Gaza and using them instead for the construction of terror tunnels, rifles, bombs, and some of the 15,000 or so rockets and mortars that have been launched from Gaza against Israel since the 2005 disengagement.

Liz Warren's Immoral Desire to Sell Out Israel

Why not? Israel should be treated like our other allies. Nothing immoral about that.

If I may express my opinion on the subject... I'd like to mention that my position is against continuation of US aid to my country, at least as it is now, reasons for which I'll explain further.

Prior to addressing your question, we have to analyze the false premise on which it is based.
First there's no other ally country faces the same situation military and diplomatically wise as Israel.
Nor be it relative to its size, location or balance of power and natural resource in comparison to numerous enemies it faces. Neither do other allies provide anywhere the same investment value return.

Second, we should look into further at the timing when the US started providing the aid - namely after the 1967 confrontation, when Israel showed its ability to stand not only to its regional enemies but also the Soviets, then the America's no.1 ideological and military enemy, showing great results and advantage.
This led to a conclusion that Israel was not only a key strategic ally in the region and globally, but also that there was a need to have a leverage so as for the US to have a leverage with which it could have a say, an influence of veto in Israel's future key strategic decisions, be it real time decisions on the ground, or decisions regarding development of arms that could compete on the market.

And in fact since then we see that strategic decisions in all military campaigns as well as development of several technological projects have been a subject of orders "from above".

Now to further use this leverage to force Israel invest in its enemies, as well as enemies of the US, while knowing that it will be undoubtedly directed into sabotaging its security, submits Israel into a position that motivates confrontation at the expense of both parties involved, further confirming the perception of success if the enemy's tactics of racket. This position regarding both the future of the population held hostage by the enemy's corrupt rule, as well as the ally, that in fact is the only one taking them into consideration and everything possible to protect their lives more than Europe, the US or any other actor,
- is not only in violation of binding International Law (UN Security Council Resolution 1373 ch.4), but as well ultimately immoral.

As for my opinion regarding US military aid, that is sums up to to approximately 10% of Israel's GDP, and in light of reasons mentioned above, with all its advantages as measured against its undermining Israel's interests and sovereignty - is that it all should stop, and instead transferred into a framework of - Agreement For Mutual Development Partnership on equal terms.

Netanyahu wanted to go his own way, but Bill Clinton talked him out of it.

I have the transcript of the speech to Congress, somewhere.

I didn't know that, would be interesting to look at.
And do You agree with what I said?

 

[Mindful]

As Democratic candidates for the presidency continue to move further to the left in an effort to distance themselves from the policies and politics of President Trump, the two frontrunners, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, have increased their rhetoric against what is normally an untouchable topic for Democrats and Republicans alike: the United States’ relationship with the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel. While no candidate could expect to survive the political cost of walking away from Israel completely—diplomatically and financially—Sanders and Warren have recently been spouting positions that show they apparently feel they can make support for Israel conditional and can fundamentally change the U.S./Israel partnership.

At the J Street conference this week in Washington, D.C., for example, Sanders suggested to the attendees of the liberal Jewish Middle East policy group that, while the $3.8 billion in aid the U.S. commits to Israel each year should remain intact, he wondered out loud if this aid could be conditional. “My solution is to say to Israel: you get $3.8 billion dollars every year, if you want military aid you’re going to have to fundamentally change your relationship to the people of Gaza,” Sanders said. “In fact,” he added, “I think it is fair to say that some of that should go right now into humanitarian aid in Gaza.” Perhaps Sanders has forgotten that the humanitarian crisis he alludes to in Hamas-controlled Gaza is largely the result of the terrorist group’s diverting of funds meant for schools, hospitals, food, and infrastructure in Gaza and using them instead for the construction of terror tunnels, rifles, bombs, and some of the 15,000 or so rockets and mortars that have been launched from Gaza against Israel since the 2005 disengagement.

Liz Warren's Immoral Desire to Sell Out Israel

Why not? Israel should be treated like our other allies. Nothing immoral about that.

If I may express my opinion on the subject... I'd like to mention that my position is against continuation of US aid to my country, at least as it is now, reasons for which I'll explain further.

Prior to addressing your question, we have to analyze the false premise on which it is based.
First there's no other ally country faces the same situation military and diplomatically wise as Israel.
Nor be it relative to its size, location or balance of power and natural resource in comparison to numerous enemies it faces. Neither do other allies provide anywhere the same investment value return.

Second, we should look into further at the timing when the US started providing the aid - namely after the 1967 confrontation, when Israel showed its ability to stand not only to its regional enemies but also the Soviets, then the America's no.1 ideological and military enemy, showing great results and advantage.
This led to a conclusion that Israel was not only a key strategic ally in the region and globally, but also that there was a need to have a leverage so as for the US to have a leverage with which it could have a say, an influence of veto in Israel's future key strategic decisions, be it real time decisions on the ground, or decisions regarding development of arms that could compete on the market.

And in fact since then we see that strategic decisions in all military campaigns as well as development of several technological projects have been a subject of orders "from above".

Now to further use this leverage to force Israel invest in its enemies, as well as enemies of the US, while knowing that it will be undoubtedly directed into sabotaging its security, submits Israel into a position that motivates confrontation at the expense of both parties involved, further confirming the perception of success if the enemy's tactics of racket. This position regarding both the future of the population held hostage by the enemy's corrupt rule, as well as the ally, that in fact is the only one taking them into consideration and everything possible to protect their lives more than Europe, the US or any other actor,
- is not only in violation of binding International Law (UN Security Council Resolution 1373 ch.4), but as well ultimately immoral.

As for my opinion regarding US military aid, that is sums up to to approximately 10% of Israel's GDP, and in light of reasons mentioned above, with all its advantages as measured against its undermining Israel's interests and sovereignty - is that it all should stop, and instead transferred into a framework of - Agreement For Mutual Development Partnership on equal terms.

Netanyahu wanted to go his own way, but Bill Clinton talked him out of it.

I have the transcript of the speech to Congress, somewhere.

I didn't know that, would be interesting to look at.
And do You agree with what I said?

Yes.

I'll search for that speech.

 

[Mindful]

And also to bear in mind. This aid from the Americans contains a vested interest for the USA.

Matti Peled, former Israeli major general and Knesset member, told Zunes that he and most Israeli generals believe this aid is "little more than an American subsidy to U.S. arms manufacturers," considering that the majority of military aid to Israel is used to buy weapons from the U.S.

Incase anyone doesn't believe me:

Stephen Zunes » » U.S. Aid to Israel: Interpreting the “Strategic Relationship”

 

[Mindful]

Also from that link:


In the fall of 1993-when many had high hopes for peace-78 senators wrote to former President Bill Clinton insisting that aid to Israel remain “at current levels.” Their “only reason” was the “massive procurement of sophisticated arms by Arab states.” The letter neglected to mention that 80 percent of those arms to Arab countries came from the U.S

 

[admonit]

RE: Who are the Israelis?
⁜→ Coyote, et al

Well, certainly the Rabbi spins a good tail.

Source: Rabbi: Hurricane punishment for pullout

Source: Hurricane Katrina: Wrath of God?

These are killer and threat stories → written like the Myths and Folktales of monsters that will come and get you if you are not good, stories to keep people in line. These are tools for the forced Adoration and Reverence by a used by the clergy and clerics to enforce the supernatural. Nothing more...

Much more. There is a difference between folktales and spiritual texts.

 

[admonit]

As Democratic candidates for the presidency continue to move further to the left in an effort to distance themselves from the policies and politics of President Trump, the two frontrunners, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, have increased their rhetoric against what is normally an untouchable topic for Democrats and Republicans alike: the United States’ relationship with the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel. While no candidate could expect to survive the political cost of walking away from Israel completely—diplomatically and financially—Sanders and Warren have recently been spouting positions that show they apparently feel they can make support for Israel conditional and can fundamentally change the U.S./Israel partnership.

At the J Street conference this week in Washington, D.C., for example, Sanders suggested to the attendees of the liberal Jewish Middle East policy group that, while the $3.8 billion in aid the U.S. commits to Israel each year should remain intact, he wondered out loud if this aid could be conditional. “My solution is to say to Israel: you get $3.8 billion dollars every year, if you want military aid you’re going to have to fundamentally change your relationship to the people of Gaza,” Sanders said. “In fact,” he added, “I think it is fair to say that some of that should go right now into humanitarian aid in Gaza.” Perhaps Sanders has forgotten that the humanitarian crisis he alludes to in Hamas-controlled Gaza is largely the result of the terrorist group’s diverting of funds meant for schools, hospitals, food, and infrastructure in Gaza and using them instead for the construction of terror tunnels, rifles, bombs, and some of the 15,000 or so rockets and mortars that have been launched from Gaza against Israel since the 2005 disengagement.

Liz Warren's Immoral Desire to Sell Out Israel

Why not? Israel should be treated like our other allies. Nothing immoral about that.

As for my opinion regarding US military aid, that sums up to to approximately 10% of Israel's GDP

About 3%.

 

[Mindful]

The recent focus on the Jerusalem issue is a telling reminder that Israel is treated according to a totally different standard than other countries in the international system.

Of course, Israel deserves attention and scrutiny — as does every other nation. But it also merits equal treatment — nothing more, and nothing less.

Yet here are ten ways that Israel is constantly treated differently from all other countries on earth........


Ten Ways That Israel Is Treated Differently

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who are the Israelis?
⁜→ rylah, et al,

I have a difficult time identifying the claim of a violation and matching it to a specific clause in some binding reference.

This position regarding both the future of the population held hostage by the enemy's corrupt rule, as well as the ally, that in fact is the only one taking them into consideration and everything possible to protect their lives more than Europe, US or any other actor - is not only in violation of binding International Law (UN Security Council Resolution 1373 ch.4),
but as well ultimately immoral.

(COMMENT)

What specific passage in is the claim made against in the case of the unspecified violation (either international or national).

As for my opinion regarding US military aid, that sums up to approximately 10% of Israel's GDP,
and in light of reasons mentioned above, with all its advantages as measured against it's undermining Israel's interests and sovereignty - is that it all should stop, and instead transferred into a framework of - Agreement For Mutual Development Partnership on equal terms.

(For Clarification Purposes

→ provides the following for Israel:

✦$3.3 billion in Foreign Military Financing (FMF), of which $815.3 million is for off-shore procurement;
✦$5 million in Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) for refugee resettlement
✦$2 million in a homeland security grant;
✦Reauthorization of U.S. loan guarantees to Israel through September 30, 2023; and
✦Reauthorization of War Reserve Stock Allies-Israel (WRSA-I) through Sept 30, 2020.​

P.L. 115-245, the Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019 and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019, provides the following for Israel:

✦$500 million in missile defense, of which $70 million is for Iron Dome, $187 million for David’s Sling,
✦$80 million for Arrow 3, and $163 million for Arrow 2.​

For FY2020, the Trump Administration requested $3.3 billion in FMF for Israel and $500 million in missile defense aid to mark the second year of the MOU. The Administration also requested $5 million in MRA humanitarian funding for migrants to Israel

(COMMENT)

The Philosophy and the Concept on the funding and the Individual aid Packages are coherent and cohesive when viewed separately. But when viewed collectively, there may be inconsistencies. It is impossible to put them all together and dovetail them without using politicalese. Increasing political-military - and development are just so much cosmetics for the global stage. This is why the proper analysis requires that each aid and funding partition requires specific examinations.

(SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP)

The US - Israeli Relationship, is a complex problem must be explained carefully and must be addressed in a logical manner. Why? (RHETORICAL) Because it is NOT one program, but a culmination of spot policies that change (or could change) in each White House Administration. AND! • Policy dictates that Israel’s ability and capacity to maintain a “Qualitative Military Edge” (QME) over other countries in its region cannot be lost.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

U.S. Congresswomen Ilhan Omar And Rashida Tlaib Set To Visit Israel