Wednesday, July 9, 2014

Untangling the Situation

There's a lot of confusion about the relationship beteen the current events with Gaza and the murder of the Isralei and Palestinian teens. I received the following excellent summary of the situation from Rabbi Pini Dunner, of Young Israel of North Beverly Hills.


Dearest Members and Friends

 Earlier today, in Israel, the rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel began to escalate to new levels. People in Tel Aviv were forced to run to bomb shelters, and in Jerusalem the air raid sirens were sounded. Interestingly, the ‘conflict’ has suddenly attracted the attention of the international media, particularly because the media, in all their superficiality and lazy journalism, are able to attach this escalation to the murder of the 3 kidnapped Israeli teens, and the subsequent murder of an Arab teenager. I feel, therefore, for the sake of clarity, that I should share some basic information and facts with you, so that you are fully informed. In particular, at this critical time, every Jew has the duty to act as an ambassador and an advocate for our brothers and sister in Israel, who, once again, are threatened by the forces of evil, eager and intent on causing as much mayhem and damage as possible, driven by their implacable hatred of Jews and of the State of Israel.

 The first thing you should know is that the latest round of rocket fire from the Gaza Strip began on June 12, the same day that three Israeli teenagers were abducted and murdered. It clearly had nothing whatsoever to do with the much later kidnapping of an Arab boy, and if anything was motivated by the euphoria felt by Hamas at the successful abduction of the 3 innocent Israeli teens. The rocket attacks escalated significantly on June 30, before the bodies of the 3 murdered teens were found, and well before the murder of the Arab boy. The rocket attacks reached a new peak yesterday, when no fewer than 80 rockets were launched at Israeli cities. Between June 12 and today, 284 rockets have been launched at Israel from the Gaza Strip! And I am sure that since I started writing this email, more have been fired.

 Meanwhile, Israel has characteristically shown great restraint during three weeks of continuous rocket fire from Gaza. Israel's measured response was driven by a desire to restore the calm without a major military action. However, in response to the incessant and unceasing attacks by Hamas on the civilian population of Israel, Israel decided yesterday to initiate Operation “Protective Edge.” The objective of the operation is to restore stability and quiet for the residents of Israel, and to destroy all terror infrastructures directed against citizens of the State of Israel. Israel's actions, as always, are measured. They are directed at the missile launchers and the terror infrastructure of Hamas, who have turned the Gaza Strip into the center for attacks against Israel.

 The US State Department said yesterday that they “strongly condemn the continuing rocket fire into Israel [and] we also support Israel's right to defend itself against these attacks.” Finally, it is important to recall that Israel left the Gaza Strip completely in August 2005. Since then there has been no Israeli presence at all, civilian or military, in the Gaza Strip, nor does Israel have any territorial claims there. Hamas and the other terrorist organizations in Gaza nevertheless fire on communities inside Israel indiscriminately, with the intention of killing civilians. They also do not hesitate to launch rockets from the midst of Palestinian civilian concentrations, deliberately using Gaza residents as human shields for their terrorist activities. It is they who maintain a state of war between Gaza and Israel.

The State of Israel has no desire to wage war against Gaza or in Gaza. The only desire for the State of Israel is for Gaza to run its own affairs, and to ensure that Israelis who live close to Gaza are secure from attack, and safe in their homes. This peaceful intent can be easily demonstrated by the constant flow of goods from Israel into Gaza. There is no blockade of the Gaza Strip; goods enter and exit the Gaza Strip freely. For example, this past Sunday, despite ongoing rockets being launched against Israel, 137 trucks carrying goods and 218 tons of gas entered Gaza from Israel.

 Let us pray for an end to this new saga of meaningless and causeless violence against Israel, and for the safety of our brothers and sisters who are threatened by the evil intentions of Hamas. And please can you be in touch with your political representatives to make sure that they clearly understand that the attacks against Israel are intolerable, must be stopped, and that Hamas, an organization that openly calls for the destruction of the State of Israel, cannot and must not be partners with the Palestinian Authority, which receives significant financial support from the United States. Otherwise your tax money could find its way into the pockets of terrorists who seek to kill innocent Jews, and destroy Israel, which is the only country in the Middle East that is a true and reliable ally of the United States.

 With warmest wishes, Rabbi Pini Dunner

23 comments:

  1. It is interesting to note that frequently it is countries and governments that are in a weak position that start wars. The First World War started exactly 100 years ago, and the first move was when Austria, an empire that was in the process of disintegrating decided to declare war on Serbia in order to get the people to rally around the government. Russia, which had been humiliated in a recent war in 1905 with Japan and which also had a revolution that almost toppled the government believed that a nice war would also strengthen the regime.
    In 1939 Hitler decided to go to war five years earlier than he had originally planned, before his rearmament program was completed because the German economic boom of the 1930's was based largely on non-viable economic policies that might have lead to a major collapse.
    Nasser, in 1967 prior to his threat to go to war with Israel was facing a stalemated war in Yemen, economic stagnation, public discontent and the break-up of his dreamed-of "United Arab Republic", so he thought that threatening Israel would rally the public around him.
    The same can be said about HAMAS who initiated this round of violence. They are isolated, their regime in Gaza is very unpopular, their old ally Egypt has turned their back on them, and other groups like "DA" (The so-called Islamic State) and the mass killings in Syria and Iraq are stealing their terrorist thunder. I am convinced that if the IDF were to enter the Gaza Strip (something we are all very leery of), they would at first be greeted as liberators, at least for a week or two. Thus, HAMAS started a war hoping it would strengthen them. The opposite will happen, as happened to the examples I mentioned above. It is our job to be strong, patient and to realize that time is on our side as we see our enemies destroying themselves in front of our very eyes.

    May G-d give us strength, protect our soldiers and civilians and confound our enemies.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I guess many of us have had a problem explaining to ourselves and others why we're attacking Gaza. There's a reason we've had a problem; there is no good explanation.

    Israel has been attacking the Palestinians for weeks now, since the kidnappings. Netanyahu, at his political best, took a tragedy and simply used it for his own political purposes, to try to weaken the Palestinians and drive a wedge between the PA and Hamas. Hundreds of houses ransacked, hundreds of Palestinians arrested, dozens of Palestinians killed, and still not a shred of evidence that Hamas had anything to do with the kidnapping. At the same time, we've been conducting airstrikes in Gaza since the kidnapping. So far in Gaza we've killed about 30 people including 10 kids.

    The idea that the rockets "started" the same day as the kidnapping is undoubtedly manufactured nonsense. That they escalated while the IAF was bombing Gaza is more than expected. It will get worse. More Gazan rockets (which are unlikely to actually hurt anyone), more Israel missiles (which will kill hundreds more people), probably an Israeli ground incursion, and eventually Israel will stop when the international pressure becomes too great. This was a deliberate choice on Israel's part, "Time to mow the lawn," as they say.

    Not that this is particularly relevant to the current situation but simply to clarify more of the intentional nonsense in this post, Israel may not have a (constant) presence in Gaza, but it is still considered to be occupying Gaza by the international community. Israel still controls Gazan airspace, water, and borders. That you can claim Israel has no blockade of Gaza is really the proof that the entire letter was written as an intentional lie. You might have actually convinced yourself that attacking Gaza was in response to rockets (fired in response to Israeli bombings in Gaza and Israeli arrests of hundreds of people), but that you deny an easily demonstrable, unambiguous, known to anyone who knows anything about the situation in Israel, fact is conclusive proof that the letter is intentional horse manure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The blockade on Gaza started only with the Hamas takeover in 2007. Since Hamas states openly that they want to destroy Israel, there is no reason to allow them open borders.

      According to the Oslo Accords, even civilian Israelis are/were supposed to be able to enter freely into Gaza and buy produce etc. It's clear that there was never a time since 1994 when the situation was safe enough to actually do that.

      Delete
    2. Moshe Dick write:
      Dear Mr. Harry!
      I could write a whole book replying to your misguided (am being kind) comments. Let me just say that I think israel shold totally ignore so-called international pressure- They could not care one iota whether israel survives. I am waiting fo the day that an israeli leader finally shows the finger to the "international' community.

      Delete
  3. Jews need to stop thinking that "restraint" is a good and noble thing. The Allies (most of your heroes) didn't use any "restraint" when dealing with the Germans and certainly didn't weep for days on end that 1 German was killed by an American (or Britanian). They bombed full cities non-stop with many civilian deaths until they got the Germans to surrender. They also understood that those same civilians were NOT innocent. They supported the German army and were the people who elected Hitler. Today its the "Palestinians" who elected and support Hamas. THEY want Israel's and in fact all of the Jews total destruction and eventual Islamic dominion over the world. Just like Nazis wanted Jews destruction and their dominion over the world.
    If you want to survive, fight to win.

    Warren Burstein

    ReplyDelete
  4. True, but the media will still argue that the intensified action of the last day was because of Israel ' s actions and the murder of the Arab teen.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Links or footnotes available for this article?

    ReplyDelete
  6. "This peaceful intent can be easily demonstrated by the constant flow of goods from Israel into Gaza"

    What this actually demonstrates is that Israel is hellbent on suicide, even when it enters into phoney wars designed to dupe the Israeli public into thinking the government has a clue what it is doing.

    We all await David Ohsie explaining to us why none of this would happen if only we gave land to the Palestinians to trash up like we did already.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This article says it all. There is nothing left to say. There is no possible response to someone whose only ambition is to destroy you but to destroy him first. This is a basic halachic principle. To do otherwise is a mortal sin.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Zoo news- elephants in Ramat Gan protect children during siren:

    http://www.mynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4540490,00.html

    ReplyDelete
  9. is this the same Pini Dunner who advocated in 2004 for israelis to move to france because it was safer there; for jews in the diaspora not to make aliya because israel was incapable of defending them?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Moshe Dick writes:
      I know Pinni Dunner. Are you sure he made these comments in 2004? Any source? Or maybe you are confusing him with Avram Burg?

      Delete
  10. I have a message and proposal for President Obama and other leaders in the world.

    Please show restraint with Al Qaeda. You cannot destroy Al Qaeda. It is true that Al Qaeda will continue to perpetrate acts of terrorism and kill innocent civilians. This is just a reality you need to live with. What you can do and need to do is give Al Qaeda hope that they can have a more promising future. Offer them a place in America to live and prosper. Provide them with funds. Release their prisoners. These people only want to live a healthy, happy and prosperous life, tolerant of others. Please continue to provide Al Qaeda with humanitarian aid, electricity, gas, television and medical services in the meantime - it is the only hope of a better future.


    We must admit that we are very concerend about any escalation of violence between US soldiers and Al Qaeda - especially since the events of 9/11. We obviously respect your right to defend yourselves, but entering Afghanistan and killing Osama Bin Laden is taking it way too far. We are also very concerned about the death of innocent civilians brought about by your actions.

    Israel would be very happy to try and broker a peace deal with Al Qaeda. Please accept our offer at your earliest convenience.

    Israel the concerned

    ReplyDelete
  11. I am convinced that if the IDF were to enter the Gaza Strip (something we are all very leery of), they would at first be greeted as liberators, at least for a week or two.

    While I admire your optimism, it is clouding your judgement, IMO.

    The Allies (most of your heroes) didn't use any "restraint" when dealing with the Germans and certainly didn't weep for days on end that 1 German was killed by an American (or Britanian).

    Actually, as in all wars, there were political constraints. If the Germans were hiding out in a church tower, they didn't just blow away the tower; they had to find other ways to root them out. This obviously makes some sense, since destroying Europe in the process of liberating it would have defeated the purpose. And of course we didn't just kill POW's and in fact, on the Western front, neither did the Germans.

    They bombed full cities non-stop with many civilian deaths until they got the Germans to surrender.

    The Germans didn't surrender due to strategic bombing. They surrendered because the Allies occupied their territory and Hitler killed himself. In fact, strategic bombing of London is thought to have saved England in the battle of Britain, since, had the German air resources instead been spent taking out the British radar, the war may have had a different outcome.

    I'll agree with you to the following extent: when the Allies bombed Dresden, it was at the same time that the Nazi's were rounding up the few Jews who were left (e.g. those married to Gentiles). The bombing allowed the Jews there to blend in and escape with the other refugees. As a result, I have a hard time considering the moral dimensions that others consider important in that instance.

    They also understood that those same civilians were NOT innocent. They supported the German army and were the people who elected Hitler.

    And yet when they occupied Germany, they didn't just indiscriminately kill civilians. In fact, in both Germany and Japan, they avoided doing what was done at the end of WWI and leaving them with onerous obligations.

    "This peaceful intent can be easily demonstrated by the constant flow of goods from Israel into Gaza"

    What this actually demonstrates is that Israel is hellbent on suicide, even when it enters into phoney wars designed to dupe the Israeli public into thinking the government has a clue what it is doing.


    Or maybe they realize that not allowing in any goods would not stop the rocket attacks; would cause both humanitarian and political problems; and that their own citizens would likely not support the results.

    We all await David Ohsie explaining to us why none of this would happen if only we gave land to the Palestinians to trash up like we did already

    Let's get this one straight. On your side are the idealists who feels that the problem can be solved by referring the solution key at the back of their Tanach. I am the realist who understand that there is likely no path to a wonderful solution and we do our best to take what we can get, rather than trying to pretend that we are Yehoshua crossing the Yarden.

    There is no possible response to someone whose only ambition is to destroy you but to destroy him first.

    Should we tear up the treaties with Egypt and Jordan and try to "destroy them first"? Maybe another invasion of Lebanon? Or perhaps there is really not such a universal and we have to treat each situation as best we can.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Mr. (Rabbi?) Ohsie!
      usuallly, your comments are on the mark and factually correct. In this instance, not only are your own opinions incorrect bt gthr facts do not support you at all.
      The Allies bombed and destroyed many oa religious instittion. Monte Cassini may be the most famous one but yo also have the Kaiser William memorial church in Berlin, mostly destroyed and left so, damaged. In Dresden, churches were destroyed by the bushellfull during the bombings. Throughuot the Normady invasion and more, if a spyre was used by sharpshooters, it was destroyd. I am sure that you can find many other examples. Your facts are just plain wrong.
      Your example of how civilains were treated AFTR the war makes no sense whatsoever. German population centers were bombed continually and millions of civilians were killed without anyone on the Allied side objecting. War is wa agaisnt the whole poplation, as cruel as it may be.
      And you are absolutely worng about the effect of the bombings on the spirit of the Germans. It was devastating and certainly contributed to their surrender.
      I, actually, would just cut off all electricity to gaza and let them stew in their juices. The eworld will scream but they are screaming whatever we do.
      Your last comment ,about Egypt and Jordan, is in thre best tradition of slick politicians (Obama does this all the time); You put up a strwa man (our treaties with these countries) and then use it as means to discredit a response to a toally different party. BTW- in the Six Day war,. israel did just that- pre-emptive strike- and thank G-d, we are all the better for this.
      No one- Mr, Ohsie- is advocating attacking Egypt or Jordan. But Hamas is actually attacking us ! repeat- attacking us! And wanting to destroy us!So, we should not respond? What an absurd opinion!

      Delete
    2. I'm not a Rabbi and please call me David.

      The Allies bombed and destroyed many oa religious instittion. Monte Cassini may be the most famous one but yo also have the Kaiser William memorial church in Berlin, mostly destroyed and left so, damaged. In Dresden, churches were destroyed by the bushellfull during the bombings.

      I didn't make the claim that strategic bombing wasn't used. I'm ignorant to what degree they could or would be able to spare specific structures.

      Throughuot the Normady invasion and more, if a spyre was used by sharpshooters, it was destroyd.

      I believe that this is false based on what I've read, but I can't quote a source easily. I'm not claiming to be an authority.

      Your example of how civilains were treated AFTR the war makes no sense whatsoever. German population centers were bombed continually and millions of civilians were killed without anyone on the Allied side objecting. War is wa agaisnt the whole poplation, as cruel as it may be.

      I added that in response to the notion that all Germans were guilty because they "elected" Hitler.

      The escalation of the strategic bombing was just that: an escalation, with the Germans providing justification for the British to respond in kind. I believe that Dresden was an outlier and later condemned (although I don't agree for the reasons mentioned above). In addition, the British didn't want to admit what they were doing and censored reports indicating that they were "terror bombing". It simply isn't true that they bombed wherever they liked and no-one cared about the morality of it.

      And you are absolutely worng about the effect of the bombings on the spirit of the Germans. It was devastating and certainly contributed to their surrender.

      I'm sure that it affected morale on both sides, but it did not force England to give up (as I mentioned, it may have help them survive) and Germany didn't surrender until they were occupied. I'm not sure how they could have surrendered any later than that.

      I, actually, would just cut off all electricity to gaza and let them stew in their juices. The eworld will scream but they are screaming whatever we do.

      "Stew in their juices" seems to be a euphemism. I presume that if you cut off electricity, you're going to get, for example, people in hospitals dying when their respirators cut off and other quite negative humanitarian effects.

      More importantly, it is not true that "whatever we do", Israel gets the same response. For example, Israel was successful in having Hamas put on the EU terror organization list, in part by making it obvious that they were the guilty party in not recognizing Israel's existence and renouncing prior agreements after Israel allowed the elections to proceed.

      Delete
    3. Your last comment ,about Egypt and Jordan, is in thre best tradition of slick politicians (Obama does this all the time); You put up a strwa man (our treaties with these countries) and then use it as means to discredit a response to a toally different party. BTW- in the Six Day war,. israel did just that- pre-emptive strike- and thank G-d, we are all the better for this. No one- Mr, Ohsie- is advocating attacking Egypt or Jordan.

      I was responding to this logic: There is no possible response to someone whose only ambition is to destroy you but to destroy him first. This implies that the treaties with Egypt and Jordan are a mistake. But as you mention, no one wants to tear them up because they are beneficial. Therefore there are responses other than "destroy him first" that have to be considered in all cases.

      But Hamas is actually attacking us ! repeat- attacking us! And wanting to destroy us!So, we should not respond? What an absurd opinion!

      Kindly point to the place where I said that we should not respond. You'll have trouble finding it, because I didn't say any such thing. I responded to what I felt was the faulty logic in this thread about the appropriate response.

      The politicians in charge of the response are not perfect and likely to make mistakes because there is not science here that can give the right answer. But they have skin in the game and have to take into account all the relevant factors, while we who post comments on blogs pay no price for being completely wrong. So I'll put my faith the politicians in this case as the most likely to make the optimal decision.

      Delete
    4. Brooklyn Refugee SheygitzJuly 13, 2014 at 11:41 AM

      After twenty plus years it is time to accept the fact that the supposed "rationalists" who supported negotiations with the worst terrorist thugs and handing them territory and weaponry were actually highly irrational and delusional. Numerous books and articles have been written on this.
      People who have such irrational views when it comes to Israeli real-politic and the middle east are really bad spokesmen for rationalist judaism advocacy.
      You should reconsider your guest commentator policy.

      Delete
    5. Moshe Dick writes!
      Dear David!
      by the way, the "anomymous" comment also came from me,
      I thank you for clarifying your comments. Now, you are much more in line with my own thoughts and the pragmatic ones in israel. Where I differ from some of the so-called rational voices is in its virtual fear of international responses. Whatever we do, we are condemned. Witness the irrational comments of the UN High Commisioner for Human Rights (!) who actually said that the hundreds of rockets are NOT a reason for retaliating. Read the statement of William Hague, British prime minister, who could barely disguise his anymosity for israel. And,of course, many other comments by hostile nations.
      It is a delicate tightrope that the Israeli governemt must walk. the one person I do trust in the governemt is Moshe Yaalon (Boogie), the Defense Minister. he is not a liberal and, in many ways,not an average politician. Instinctively, I will follow his advise. Bibi is great at doing our PR (if you watched todays morning programs, yo will concur) but he is too much of a politican and too cautious. let's see what the next few days bring us.

      Delete
    6. Brooklyn Refugee SheygitzJuly 14, 2014 at 11:24 AM

      As Amnon Lord correctly points out in his most recent column, the politicians "with skin in the game" don't always make their decisions based on national priorities. They have other - political - agendas as well.
      That's why the supposed "rational" view of relying on the "experts" (usually espoused by RYB Soloveitchik and his students) is actually highly irrational and promotes irrational behavior and an inability to admit ones mistakes. Once the militray industrial echelons and the politicians are motivated by other factors they cannot be relied upon as impartial experts. As General Uzi Dayan wrote in a national security report which Ariel Sharon forced him to bury - political corruption undermines the national ethos and will destroy society from within. It is pretty clear why Sharon had that report buried.
      So the theory of relying on the "experts" is a nice drash but has no practical relevance halacha lemayseh. Relying on such experts has as much value as relying on the "expert" opinion of a doctor who is hired by the ill person;s son-in-law who has his eyes on the yerusha.
      It was very easy to rely on the "experts" and to state that the right-wingers were all acting on irrational messianic basis. Some were - but that's neither here nor there - many - probably most - weren't. Many were relying on security doctrines, game theory, simply taking the Arabs at their word (in arabic) and many other reasons. Similary many, many experts were stating early on that the government was driven by corruption and/or irrational delusions (Dr Kenneth Levine's articles and books came out in the 1990's).
      I'm still waiting for one - just one - leading "rational" rosh yeshiva who supported the Oslo Accords and/or the Gaza "disengagement" to come out and admit that they were wrong - and were acting based on irrational reasoning and false assumptions. That when they wrote that it just couldn't possibly be true that Ariel Sharon was driven by external corrupt considerations - that they were wrong. That wehn they wrote that the disengagement is "like people moving house" - they were callous and insenitive and rarher than spending the next year teaching lomdus in a yeshiva they should write a mea culpa and spend it volunteering in a soup kictchen in Sderot

      Delete
    7. As Amnon Lord correctly points out in his most recent column, the politicians "with skin in the game" don't always make their decisions based on national priorities. They have other - political - agendas as well.

      Welcome to the real world. Politicians influenced by politics? Who knew?

      That's why the supposed "rational" view of relying on the "experts" (usually espoused by RYB Soloveitchik and his students) is actually highly irrational and promotes irrational behavior and an inability to admit ones mistakes. Once the militray industrial echelons and the politicians are motivated by other factors they cannot be relied upon as impartial experts. As General Uzi Dayan wrote in a national security report which Ariel Sharon forced him to bury - political corruption undermines the national ethos and will destroy society from within. It is pretty clear why Sharon had that report buried.
      So the theory of relying on the "experts" is a nice drash but has no practical relevance halacha lemayseh. Relying on such experts has as much value as relying on the "expert" opinion of a doctor who is hired by the ill person;s son-in-law who has his eyes on the yerusha.


      You're absolutely right. Once you put human beings in charge, not only to do the make mistakes, but they have their own agendas. Instead, we should put trained monkeys in charge, or perhaps we can install some robots once the technology gets there. We can be ruled by Iron Dome itself!

      It was very easy to rely on the "experts" and to state that the right-wingers were all acting on irrational messianic basis. Some were - but that's neither here nor there - many - probably most - weren't. Many were relying on security doctrines, game theory, simply taking the Arabs at their word (in arabic) and many other reasons. Similary many, many experts were stating early on that the government was driven by corruption and/or irrational delusions (Dr Kenneth Levine's articles and books came out in the 1990's).

      I agree with you that just because someone is more hawkish, that means that they are acting on irrational motives. The argument that the Rav and Rav Ovadiah Yosef made are that the halacha does not preclude any reasonable compromise including conceding land, not that peace plan A, B, or C is the one to go with. Now it becomes foreign and military policy question, just like any other, to be handled by elected official in the inefficient and mistake-filled way that these things have been handled throughout history.

      Likewise, the fact that "experts" say "early on" that their ideological opponents are driven by corruption or irrational delusions is likewise devoid of meaning.

      I'm still waiting for one - just one - leading "rational" rosh yeshiva who supported the Oslo Accords and/or the Gaza "disengagement" to come out and admit that they were wrong - and were acting based on irrational reasoning and false assumptions.

      You didn't look closely. Rav Ovadiah Yosef was a proponent of Oslo, but later came out against the disengagement, not based on the principle that giving away land is against the Torah, but because he though that we had no partner to work with and that this would not lead to peace. I don't know if he was a "rational rosh yeshiva", but he fits precisely the description you are looking for otherwise.

      Delete
    8. That when they wrote that it just couldn't possibly be true that Ariel Sharon was driven by external corrupt considerations - that they were wrong.

      Anything could be true, but you believe this because you want to, not because you have evidence. I think Sharon was pretty consistent in his pragmatic approach at the end of his life. The disengagement was not a left-wing scheme of some sort.

      That wehn they wrote that the disengagement is "like people moving house" - they were callous and insenitive and rarher than spending the next year teaching lomdus in a yeshiva they should write a mea culpa and spend it volunteering in a soup kitchen in Sderot

      If they anyone said disengagement is "like people moving house", they were callous and insensitive. That doesn't mean that there doesn't come a time where we say that having settlements in the middle of enemy territory is not a good idea and we have to unfortunately go another way, despite the high cost to the settlers. There were and are high costs all around including costs and high risks to being a "pioneer".

      Delete
  12. I think the guys manning Iron Dome should move someplace safer too.

    ReplyDelete

Comments for this blog are moderated. Please see this post about the comments policy for details. ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED - please use either your real name or a pseudonym.