Rabbi Slifkin, it is perfectly legitimate to generalize and say that people who are pro the two state solution are generally anti-Israel.
As you yourself write " If the majority of group A either has or supports attribute X, whereas the majority of the rest of society either does not have that attribute or does not support it, then it is legitimate to say, as a generalization, that attribute X is characteristic of group A." https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/generalizations-about-generalization
This is no different than what you do with chareidim. Quoting some guy named Shimon Felix who is pro the two state solution but is nevertheless pro-Israel is equivalent to quoting some chareidi who works and saying, see, chareidism and kollel have nothing to do with each other.
The bottom line is that being pro the two state solution is generally characteristic of those who are anti-Israel, and certainly not generally characteristic of serious friends who are sincerely trying to help.
First of all, I'm not convinced that your numbers are true - I don't think that it's a great majority. Second, we are discussing a specific person here, not a general trend. Third, and most significantly, the people I were responding to were claiming that anyone pro the Two State solution is *by definition* anti Israel.
None of your quotes support the interpretation that it is by definition anti-Israel, but rather fits the pattern of generalization. When I see somebody who is pro the two state solution, I don't need to say he is by definition anti-Israel, I can just say that in the absence of compelling evidence otherwise, he is most likely anti-Israel.
The majority of Israelis were pro 2 states until about a decade ago - understandably.
Israel's official legal position regarding the west bank is that it is temporarily occupied pending a settlement with the Palestinians.
And finally, I noticed a trend where the less you serve in the army and are integrated in Israeli society - where you'd have to back up your words with actions - the more fanatically extreme your views are. I think the Americans call such people Chicken hawks
I really think this is nonsense. People in favor of a two state solution believe that an interminable occupation is untenable, and that absorbing the Palestinians from the territories into a binational state is a catastrophe. You can disagree with this sober and rational position all you want, but you can't accuse people who have this position of being "anti-Israel."
You can rationalize your position however you want, but most will justifiably generalize the pro-two staters from the majority who are anti-Israel. They may also say that your advocacy of two states seriously calls into question your pro-Israel status, and that maybe you only believe that you are pro-Israel, but you are not really.
I don't think the majority of pro-two-staters are anti-Israel, especially since anti-Israel people will cast people out for being pro-2S. The majority of anti-Israel people are, well, anti-Israel. They don't want it to exist.
No one is distorting Josh Shapiros views. If you look at the context of what is going on it is perfectly clear that he is throwing his principles out the window for political gain. He is a very ambitious politician in a Democratic Party that has shifted far left and become anti Israel. He has shifted his positions on Israel because he wants to move up in the Democratic Party.
Josh Shapiro is campaigning for Kamala Harris and would have been her VP. This is the same Kamala Harris who is open to imposing an arms embargo on Israel.
“Just before her rally, Harris met with Abbas Alawieh and Layla Elabed, who, according to the report, "wanted to support her but... wanted her to consider an arms embargo." In response, Harris indicated she was "open to it" and introduced the two community leaders to her staff.”
Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz, on at least five occasions as governor of Minnesota, hosted a Muslim cleric who celebrated Hamas‘s Oct. 7 attack last year on Israel and promoted a film popular among Neo-Nazis that glorifies Adolf Hitler.
The NY Times doesn’t report what she actually said. However, the Uncommitted organization made a statement saying, “The Vice President shared her sympathies and expressed an openness to a meeting with the Uncommitted leaders to discuss an arms embargo.”
What we do know for a fact is the following:
1. The Uncommitted organization wanted a meeting with Harris to discuss an arms embargo on Israel
2. Harris did not reject the meeting knowing that the topic was an arms embargo on Israel.
Just the fact that she is willing to take a meeting whose agenda is an arms embargo on Israel sends a message that she believes that is a legitimate topic of discussion. Which is pretty much what the Jerusalem Post reported.
Telling a constituency that you are willing to meet with them to hear what they have to say does not indicate any willingness to actually do what they want you to do.
Sorry, if someone asks to meet with you on a topic where you have a definitive opinion which is opposite of theirs you just say no. Just taking the meeting gives at least the impression that you may accept their position. Which is of course exactly what the panderer Kamala wants. The woman has backed away from every position she ever took.
2020 no fracking - 2024 she won’t ban fracking
2020 ban private health insurance- 2024 flip flops
2020 - mandatory gun buybacks 2024 - it mandatory
2020 - those who crossed the border illegally shouldn’t be treated as criminals and called for getting rid of ICE 2024- she is tough on illegal immigration.
Taking the meeting gives the impression that you respect them as people and are willing to give them some of your time to demonstrate that. I personally think it is a positive for someone to have their views evolve over time as they gain new perspectives.
I had a comment but then reminded myself of this. “If you come across any special trait of meanness or stupidity... you must be careful not to let it annoy or distress you, but to look upon it merely as an addition to your knowledge—a new fact to be considered in studying the character of humanity. Your attitude towards it will be that of the mineralogist who stumbles upon a very characteristic specimen of a mineral.” —Arthur Schopenhauer
Anyone who could take this kind of statement seriously should not comment on military matters.
“that Hezbollah has 150,000 rockets and missiles while Israel does not have 150,000 Iron Dome interceptors,”
That statement is I’m sorry to say idiotic. Hezbollah cannot fire all 150,000 missiles at once. They can fire at most a few thousand a day. If there was a war with Hezbollah the first task of the IDF woukd be to destroy the missiles by any means possible. With complete air superiority that is something that is quite doable. So there is zero chance of Hezbollah firing anywhere close to 150,000 missiles. Secondly, Israel has a layered defense system consisting of iron dome, David’s sling and arrow plus other systems.
Honestly, I get it you don't like being the target, but you're really missing the point here. The point is not whether or not Israel should or could take out Hezbollah. The point is that the decision to go to war and how to do so involve complicated trade-offs that need to be considered thoughtfully, even if you ultimately arrive at the decision that you should go to war.
Assuming you know the exact course of action in a complex situation without any recognition of countervailing considerations or legitimate differences of opinion is not wise (though human and understandable and something I'm guilty of all the time).
I'm not sure what any of this has to do with very legitimate critiques of chareidi society. One can consider the world from the chareidi perspective and still arrive at the conclusion that it is deeply flawed and corrupt. This may be Natan's favorite dead horse, and his approach may or may not be effective, but ultimately the gist of most of his criticism is dead on and chareidi conduct vis-a-vis the state is of the most shameful behavior in Jewish history.
No one disagrees with your assessment that going to war requires a thoughtful consideration. But sometimes war is inevitable and is the only course of action. I don’t think anyone including Ben Gvir is making a rash decision to go to war. He believes that it’s the only course of action. You can disagree but that doesn’t make his decision any less reasoned. Ben Gvir has been delegitimized. Every thing he says every decision he makes is looked at as if he didn’t give it any thought.
My point about the charedim is similar. You can disagree with them but when you say that they are corrupting basic Jewish values you are delegitimizing them.
Obviously it's not "the only course of action," because this government - the most right wing government ever - has not gone to war in the last ten months.
The current government while right wing has the charedi parties with 17 seats. They can never push war due to the charedi exemptions from military service. That has a big impact on things. Secondly, until now, Gantz and Eisoncit were in the war cabinet and they are slaves to the conception of Oslo, the PA, not winning wars etc.
In 1938 chamberlain came back from Munich saying peace in our time with a deal with Hitler. Churchill understood that war with Hitler was necessary and inevitable. Who was right?
What's really ironic is that articles like these actually prove that Charedim are right, as they show that this is an intractable demographic problem which was caused by those who did not grow demographically (i.e., basically everyone but Charedim) and can only be solved demographically.
Yes only you and your obsession with charedim get the point. It’s quite rich that someone who has been waging a war against the charedi world accuses others of being intolerant and not getting it.
The tithe of the post is delegitimizing your opponents. That is exactly what you do with the Charedim. What else would you call “they corrupt basic Torah values” if not delegitimization?
This comment thread started with you talking about war with Hezbollah. I replied that you are still missing the point about war. Now you're switching to something else?
You have no idea what fraction of the missiles can be destroyed before launch. To this day Hamas is still launching missiles at us, despite 9 months of war and most of Gaza being painstakingly cleared by foot. In 2006 also we couldn't stop Hezbollah from launching rockets until the end of the war.
And of course you also have no idea how many interceptors we have.
So there is no basis for your claim that the number of interceptors is sufficient for all launched rockets.
Of course there are other systems like David's Sling (Arrow is unlikely to be used against a significant number of Hezbollah rockets), I just said "Iron Dome" for simplicity because this is not a military forum and Iron Dome is the best known and most used system.
I didn’t say that we have enough interceptors. All I said is that to say they have 150,000 missiles and we don’t have 150,000 interceptors is stupid. There is no question that the IDF could destroy many of their missiles before they are launched. How many depends on the political will. There is also a big difference between the types of missiles and rockets. Larger rockets require larger launchers and more complicated launch processes. Those are easier to detect and destroy. Smaller rockets are much more easily hidden and fired. Hamas today is firing a few small short range rockets. Most of Hezbollahs arsenal is still short range unguided rockets. The 2006 Lebanon war was a perfect example of a war fought not to lose and that is why the results were what they were.
There's a US based newsletter I subscribe to called Tangle whose goal is to report the news and work on this exact issue of people delegitamizing the people they politically disagree with. https://www.readtangle.com/
I'd highly recommend trying it out if you agree with what R' Slifkin is saying here, and especially if you disagree. Consider it a bein ha'meitzarim challenge. And of course, the founder and primary writer is Jewish. Not frum, but clearly identifies as Jewish and had a very interesting piece on why he's both a Zionist and pro a ceasefire. But to see the other side, he interviewed Haviv Gur on why a ceasefire is a bad way to end the the war now. A great example of understanding and respectfully disagreeing and not delegitamizing the other side.
I get truly annoyed by people who can't think things through. And I was very disappointed in Shapiro when he apologized for what he wrote at 20. (And yes like most, after decades of life, I can see that there are things that I wrote at 20 which were ridiculous). I found that pandering and rather slimy.
Saying there can not be a Palestinian state because the palestinians are war-like is not wrong. Every opportunity for a state has been rejected by the Palestinian leadership and they chose a continual war instead. That is neither antiPalestinian nor anti 2 state solution. That is the truth.
And being for an eventual 2 state solution is not wrong, if Palestinians are deradicalized. No Israeli government right now would support a 2 state solution. No Israeli, except for maybe the communists and Islamists want a 2 state solution right now.
Israel doesn't have to have another violent Islamist neighbor at her doorstep. October 7 proved that. Gaza, in fact, was the 2 state solution.
Several things can actually be true at the same time.
Maybe now would be a good time for the grown to be in charge again.
There is no fixed opinion that will be accepted universally. The Truth of modern times. .
We have our own History - that answers most if not all of our questions.
Let us look at one specific example.
The destruction of the Second Bais Hamikdash - was due to the hatred between 2 individuals -each one is condemned for their actions and reactions - equally.
Our Kohanim - sought power and honor - challenging each other.
The destruction was the punishment. Painful beyond reason.
We have no answer from the human perspective. We are the Blind.
Prayers, Humility and Unconditional Love for one another -this is our Battle Cry..
We shall soon see and hear the Shofar - together - we are all the Children of our long list of Victimizers and we are the Survivors.
Let us be gentle with our partners.- our Brothers and our Sisters.
Signed, With unconditional Love,
A Humble Orphan in History.
Dr. George
.
The Sages openly repeat the phrase - Ahavas Chinom - unconditional love.
Good piece. These are all good examples of the classic theme of rhetorically painting opponent's view in the most extreme way possible, with no nuance. A tale as old as time. This is one of the reasons why discussing contemporary politics is often an exercise in frustration and ad hominem attacks, because of the emotions tied into "you're attacking my team"
Rabbi Slifkin - perhaps you may consider raising the standard of discussion by removing any comments under a pseudonym……how dare this fluffy coward criticise a thinking committed Zionist like Mr Felix obviously is, as being anti-Israel!
I wholeheartedly agree with the idea of not exaggerating your opponents stand and then labeling them or arguing against the strawman position you concocted.
However, Josh Shapiro ABSOLUTELY walked tried walking back his positions on Israel so he can be more palatable to antisemites. The folks who were uncomfortable with him as VP were uncomfortable with him before the 20 year old writings came out. Shapiro's position has been clear and it has been in line with all the other Democrat leadership. However, the Democratic leadership is actually at odds with their base, unfortunately, which today is an extremely anti-Israel group and many antisemites too. So, yes, shame on Josh Shapiro for groveling and selling his real opinions in order to appease the hideous mob. Honestly, people like him are the opposite of leaders. If you have a personal conviction that you have believed wholeheartedly your whole life, instead of discarding it just for prestige and a career jump, you ought to use your spotlight to push back. He did not. In fact, he's still going to support and stump for Kamala and her awful VP puck, because he doesn't want to be unpopular in his party, that didn't want him only because he was Jewish. That is pathetic.
Finally, on another note, you have certainly made remarks in the past that have suggested that the charedi community doesn't care about Israel or, really, anyone but themselves. You have not considered their position that their learning and praying and living more righteous lives IS what saves the country. Using your own logic, you can vociferously argue that such a position is wrong, maybe dangerously and delusionally wrong, but you cannot ignore the reason that they believe and suggest they care about nobody because of that position.
1. Yes, shame on him for selling himself out to appease the mob. But this still doesn't mean that he is not pro-Israel.
2. As I discussed in another post, the charedim *themselves* are not interested in exploring their own professed position. Nor are they interested in visiting injured soldiers or even davenning for them. And some leaders even threatened to leave the country. For these reasons, and others, I think it's clear that they are only interested in themselves.
I'm certain that there are some fringe chareidi folks that act like that. I'm not Israeli Chareidi I'm American professional so I don't intimately know thd community but the majority of those I know definitely care about the soldiers and do daven for them amd genuinely (again, erroneously possibly) believe that their contribution is equally as important and without it there would be no merits to save the army from annihilation. To be fair, the army needs God badly. On paper, it is unable to fight all its enemies and not have the country completely decimated. In any event, those that legitimately take from the country and actually hate soldiers and act arrogantly against them are definitely terrible people that need to do serious thinking about their actions and repent for such selfishness. But, in my experience, it is not the majority of them.
I found an extended quote of what Josh Shapiro wrote after the signing of the Oslo Accords:
“Palestinians will not coexist peacefully,” Shapiro wrote. “They do not have the capabilities to establish their own homeland and make it successful even with the aid of Israel and the United States. They are too battle-minded to be able to establish a peaceful homeland of their own.”
I have argued online with pro-Palestinians/Palestinians for years. Instead of them ever trying to convince me how much they are in favor of a peaceful resolution with Israel, their rhetoric is almost always accusatory, saying that Israel's policies about "x" is the reason for the conflict: the settlements, the occupation, checkpoints, the blockade on Gaza, etc. I practically feel like I'm being yelled at through the keyboard. Figuratively bashing me over the head to convince me that the Palestinians really deep-down want peace.
Similarly with Josh Shapiro: the supposedly liberal Democrats are forcing him to regret being in the IDF for a short time 30 years ago, and twisting his arm to say that "his stance has changed".
Shapiro was never in the IDF. He participated in one of several programs in which non-citizens do various types of volunteer work within Israel *as civilians*. This is an important distinction.
Please note the Harris campaign vetted each candidate extensively. While there are many Jews claiming Shapiro was not selected because he is Jewish, such a claim is pure speculation since the fact is, you don’t really know what the campaign knows about the reason behind their decision. For all anyone knows, there may have been some finding or input from someone eg strong Israel supporter Senator John Fetterman who advised the Harris campaign against selecting Shapiro, that indicated to them he wasn’t the right person for the position.
So to state Democrats did not select Shapiro “because he was Jewish” as it is a statement of fact without knowing the real reason is what is really pathetic. Are we that arrogant to think that just “because he was Jewish”, he had to be selected? In a race between equals, Walz was selected. This Jewish American is tired of being the victim so please cease trying to make it seem Democrats are against us. The greatest threat to Jewish Americans is from demagogues like vile vicious Trump who runs on hate, division and intolerance against “the other” which includes Jews. History has shown that it doesn’t end well for Jews with demagogues in power.
You are out to lunch. Even MSNBC said that Shapiro was the front runner until a very coordinated campaign started against him because of his Israel stand, which they noted, is no different than Kamala Harris's. They called it antisemitism. Ritchie Torres, a Democrat, called it antisemitism. You, however, think it's "something else". Yes, bend over backwards to judge openly antisemitic people favorably but say that those who call a duck a duck are pathetic. I suggest you begin exercising your rational part of your mind and begin living an evidence based life instead of a emotionally opinionated one.
Sir, again you don’t know all the information the Harris campaign had on each of the potential candidates and thus whatever anyone believes is pure speculation and is colored by their own bias in which if those want to believe it was “antisemitism” then it fits their narrative to imply, wink wink, Harris is really antisemitic which is poppycock being pedaled by some to justify their support of the real antisemitic Trump which is not poppycock given his extensive history of anti-Semitic tropes, NeoNazis are “fine people”, American Jews are “dumb”, “I know you people and money” to a room full and Jews, and accusing American Jews of dual loyalty.
"Even MSNBC said." You mean that a panelist on MSNBC suggested this. The reliable reporting since the decision is that it was based on 2 factors: A personal ease that Harris had with Walz and the fact that Shapiro indicated that to give up his role as governor, he would want assurances that he would have a significant role in the administration. Walz, by contrast, said that he is willing to serve in whatever capacity Harris would want.
Sir, rest assured I’m not out to lunch and so yet again you don’t know all the information the Harris campaign had on each of the potential candidates and have zero evidence to support your claim and thus whatever you or anyone believes is the reason is pure speculation and is colored by your own bias in which if you want to believe it was “antisemitism” then it fits your narrative to imply, wink wink, Democrat Harris is really a closet antisemitic or against Israel which is poppycock being pedaled to justify support of the real antisemitic Trump which is not poppycock based on the evidence of his extensive history of using anti-Semitic tropes, statement following Charlottesville that NeoNazis are “fine people”, American Jews are “dumb”, “I know you people and money” to a room full of Jews, and accusations of dual loyalty. I also have a suggestion which is to remove the blinders as to the real threat to Jewish Americans which is Trump who appeals to NeoNazis, White Supremacists and Christian nationalists and to think 20% of Jewish Americans are included in that coalition should give everyone pause.
Palestinians want to see the destruction of Israel, period. Two state solution would be a stepping stone in that direction. People remove your blinders and wishful thinking
I am fervently pro-Israel, and I believe that a Two-State Solution (which will be forever de-militarized, and whose sovereignty will be gradually increased by its ability to demonstrate adherence to verified security agreements with Israel) is the only way to insure the future for the Jewish State. I am not a leftist. I am very moderate.
Agree, the options are limited 1) two separate countries 2) one country where all people are given equal rights or 3) apartheid state in which the Palestinians are herded into Bantu lands and denied any rights.
Of the three, rationally, the only solution that would maintain a Jewish majority is the Two State. In their rebuttal to two state, the No, No Way, No How groups repeat their dogma why two-state is impossible followed by “Israel tried” but their rebuttal never offers any other potential solutions other than the status quo which has lead Israel into a corner threatened by heavily armed proxies, embroiled in Vietnam-like war in Gaza and with its citizens held hostage. By any rational measure, it is clear the status quo has lead Israel to the edge of an abyss.
"Note: And to those who would respond “But you delegitimize the charedim!” I would point out that they are not at all serious friends who are sincerely trying to help"
Ummm I'd say you just delegitimized them....
It would be funny if it wasn't so sad and frustrating
"As you know, there are many here in Israel, patriots all, who think that those working against the 2 state solution, by functionally annexing Judea and Samaria, are doing great damage, and will, ultimately, doom us. I am one of them."
I recently saw a video of Dr. Einat Wilf, where she said that, although the number of West Bank settlers has grown, they still are only 13% of the total population in the West Bank. And that has been the ratio since the 1990s.
The only difference is, it would be a lot more difficult now for Israel to uproot the settlements, than it was when Barak or Olmert were saying that they'd do that. So, annexing the entire West Bank is impractical, and removing the settlements is also impractical.
However, Dr. Wilf's argument is that the conflict will always remain--regardless of the borders, regardless of the settlements being there or not--unless the Palestinian ideology will change. (Good luck with that. Elsewhere, she says that even changing the Palestinian textbooks and education system would only have a limited effect.)
There is a world-wide superficial discourse. Why superficial? Because he defines things easily: I am right; The whole world is against me. This way it is easy to respond via the Internet with a word or a short sentence.
When there is a will there is a way on the flip side, when there is no will, there is no way.
Peace will only come when there is more of a collective will to wage peace than to wage war. Logically and intuitively, it makes more sense for human beings to wage peace because of the high price paid for waging wars that always leads to more deaths, more suffering and more destruction which is well known and at the end of the conflict, after the terrible costs are added up, there are no real winners. Again logically, one would want to find solutions to end conflicts. However, as history has shown, logic breaks down when religion is involved which is ironic since religion is supposed to be about blessing the peacemakers not the war-makers. So, Is there any reason to hope that continuing this war will bring peace to Israel solution? No. Logic dictates that Continuing the war will only bring more misery, more suffering, more deaths and more destruction to Israel which ergo, means bringing the war to an end is in everyone’s best interest.
I think there's another important point that should be made: The entire concept of a Palestinian state was "born in sin", to use a popular phrase, namely, the whole concept exists as a way of attempting to destroy Israel altogether. As is pointed out, the PLO was created three years before the Six-Day War. And, not surprisingly, it *continues* to be used, primarily perhaps, in the same way. Again, proof is legion, all the way to the fact that you don't see the same amount of attention being devoted to, say, East Turkestan or Kurdistan or Western Sahara.
Now, does this mean the idea is *necessarily* anti-Israel? No: Many ideas born illegitimately end up having meaning. Columbus was trying to sail to Asia, after all. But it *does* put it under a cloud. Or, at the very least, you can't blame people for looking at it askance.
Does this mean that people supporting it want to see Israel destroyed? Of course not. Not consciously, at least, outside of Israel, and not at all, inside Israel. But that doesn't mean they're not being used, much the way we've seen people used for other purposes on the streets over the last two years. And so you can't blame people who are a little extreme in their accusations- the suspicions are real.
Rabbi Slifkin, it is perfectly legitimate to generalize and say that people who are pro the two state solution are generally anti-Israel.
As you yourself write " If the majority of group A either has or supports attribute X, whereas the majority of the rest of society either does not have that attribute or does not support it, then it is legitimate to say, as a generalization, that attribute X is characteristic of group A." https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/generalizations-about-generalization
This is no different than what you do with chareidim. Quoting some guy named Shimon Felix who is pro the two state solution but is nevertheless pro-Israel is equivalent to quoting some chareidi who works and saying, see, chareidism and kollel have nothing to do with each other.
The bottom line is that being pro the two state solution is generally characteristic of those who are anti-Israel, and certainly not generally characteristic of serious friends who are sincerely trying to help.
First of all, I'm not convinced that your numbers are true - I don't think that it's a great majority. Second, we are discussing a specific person here, not a general trend. Third, and most significantly, the people I were responding to were claiming that anyone pro the Two State solution is *by definition* anti Israel.
None of your quotes support the interpretation that it is by definition anti-Israel, but rather fits the pattern of generalization. When I see somebody who is pro the two state solution, I don't need to say he is by definition anti-Israel, I can just say that in the absence of compelling evidence otherwise, he is most likely anti-Israel.
Utter nonsense.
The majority of Israelis were pro 2 states until about a decade ago - understandably.
Israel's official legal position regarding the west bank is that it is temporarily occupied pending a settlement with the Palestinians.
And finally, I noticed a trend where the less you serve in the army and are integrated in Israeli society - where you'd have to back up your words with actions - the more fanatically extreme your views are. I think the Americans call such people Chicken hawks
I really think this is nonsense. People in favor of a two state solution believe that an interminable occupation is untenable, and that absorbing the Palestinians from the territories into a binational state is a catastrophe. You can disagree with this sober and rational position all you want, but you can't accuse people who have this position of being "anti-Israel."
You can rationalize your position however you want, but most will justifiably generalize the pro-two staters from the majority who are anti-Israel. They may also say that your advocacy of two states seriously calls into question your pro-Israel status, and that maybe you only believe that you are pro-Israel, but you are not really.
I don't think the majority of pro-two-staters are anti-Israel, especially since anti-Israel people will cast people out for being pro-2S. The majority of anti-Israel people are, well, anti-Israel. They don't want it to exist.
No one is distorting Josh Shapiros views. If you look at the context of what is going on it is perfectly clear that he is throwing his principles out the window for political gain. He is a very ambitious politician in a Democratic Party that has shifted far left and become anti Israel. He has shifted his positions on Israel because he wants to move up in the Democratic Party.
Josh Shapiro is campaigning for Kamala Harris and would have been her VP. This is the same Kamala Harris who is open to imposing an arms embargo on Israel.
https://m.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-813817
“Just before her rally, Harris met with Abbas Alawieh and Layla Elabed, who, according to the report, "wanted to support her but... wanted her to consider an arms embargo." In response, Harris indicated she was "open to it" and introduced the two community leaders to her staff.”
So much for his great support of Israel.
Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz, on at least five occasions as governor of Minnesota, hosted a Muslim cleric who celebrated Hamas‘s Oct. 7 attack last year on Israel and promoted a film popular among Neo-Nazis that glorifies Adolf Hitler.
She did not say that she is open to an arms embargo. The jpost is misquoting the NYT.
The NY Times doesn’t report what she actually said. However, the Uncommitted organization made a statement saying, “The Vice President shared her sympathies and expressed an openness to a meeting with the Uncommitted leaders to discuss an arms embargo.”
What we do know for a fact is the following:
1. The Uncommitted organization wanted a meeting with Harris to discuss an arms embargo on Israel
2. Harris did not reject the meeting knowing that the topic was an arms embargo on Israel.
Just the fact that she is willing to take a meeting whose agenda is an arms embargo on Israel sends a message that she believes that is a legitimate topic of discussion. Which is pretty much what the Jerusalem Post reported.
Telling a constituency that you are willing to meet with them to hear what they have to say does not indicate any willingness to actually do what they want you to do.
Sorry, if someone asks to meet with you on a topic where you have a definitive opinion which is opposite of theirs you just say no. Just taking the meeting gives at least the impression that you may accept their position. Which is of course exactly what the panderer Kamala wants. The woman has backed away from every position she ever took.
2020 no fracking - 2024 she won’t ban fracking
2020 ban private health insurance- 2024 flip flops
2020 - mandatory gun buybacks 2024 - it mandatory
2020 - those who crossed the border illegally shouldn’t be treated as criminals and called for getting rid of ICE 2024- she is tough on illegal immigration.
Taking the meeting gives the impression that you respect them as people and are willing to give them some of your time to demonstrate that. I personally think it is a positive for someone to have their views evolve over time as they gain new perspectives.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg798l439ydo.amp
The headline is quite misleading. Harris didn’t say anything. She never does. It was the person who will be her national security adviser tweeting it.
I had a comment but then reminded myself of this. “If you come across any special trait of meanness or stupidity... you must be careful not to let it annoy or distress you, but to look upon it merely as an addition to your knowledge—a new fact to be considered in studying the character of humanity. Your attitude towards it will be that of the mineralogist who stumbles upon a very characteristic specimen of a mineral.” —Arthur Schopenhauer
Anyone who could take this kind of statement seriously should not comment on military matters.
“that Hezbollah has 150,000 rockets and missiles while Israel does not have 150,000 Iron Dome interceptors,”
That statement is I’m sorry to say idiotic. Hezbollah cannot fire all 150,000 missiles at once. They can fire at most a few thousand a day. If there was a war with Hezbollah the first task of the IDF woukd be to destroy the missiles by any means possible. With complete air superiority that is something that is quite doable. So there is zero chance of Hezbollah firing anywhere close to 150,000 missiles. Secondly, Israel has a layered defense system consisting of iron dome, David’s sling and arrow plus other systems.
But I am the unreasonable one.
Marty, once again you are entirely missing the point and thereby proving it.
You wrote the following about charedim “They corrupt basic Torah values in order to maintain their purported Torah way of life.”
So tell me who is delegitimizing their opponents?
Honestly, I get it you don't like being the target, but you're really missing the point here. The point is not whether or not Israel should or could take out Hezbollah. The point is that the decision to go to war and how to do so involve complicated trade-offs that need to be considered thoughtfully, even if you ultimately arrive at the decision that you should go to war.
Assuming you know the exact course of action in a complex situation without any recognition of countervailing considerations or legitimate differences of opinion is not wise (though human and understandable and something I'm guilty of all the time).
I'm not sure what any of this has to do with very legitimate critiques of chareidi society. One can consider the world from the chareidi perspective and still arrive at the conclusion that it is deeply flawed and corrupt. This may be Natan's favorite dead horse, and his approach may or may not be effective, but ultimately the gist of most of his criticism is dead on and chareidi conduct vis-a-vis the state is of the most shameful behavior in Jewish history.
No one disagrees with your assessment that going to war requires a thoughtful consideration. But sometimes war is inevitable and is the only course of action. I don’t think anyone including Ben Gvir is making a rash decision to go to war. He believes that it’s the only course of action. You can disagree but that doesn’t make his decision any less reasoned. Ben Gvir has been delegitimized. Every thing he says every decision he makes is looked at as if he didn’t give it any thought.
My point about the charedim is similar. You can disagree with them but when you say that they are corrupting basic Jewish values you are delegitimizing them.
Obviously it's not "the only course of action," because this government - the most right wing government ever - has not gone to war in the last ten months.
The current government while right wing has the charedi parties with 17 seats. They can never push war due to the charedi exemptions from military service. That has a big impact on things. Secondly, until now, Gantz and Eisoncit were in the war cabinet and they are slaves to the conception of Oslo, the PA, not winning wars etc.
In 1938 chamberlain came back from Munich saying peace in our time with a deal with Hitler. Churchill understood that war with Hitler was necessary and inevitable. Who was right?
For some people it’s the only course of action. For those still living in the past with conceptions of Oslo etc. it’s not.
What's really ironic is that articles like these actually prove that Charedim are right, as they show that this is an intractable demographic problem which was caused by those who did not grow demographically (i.e., basically everyone but Charedim) and can only be solved demographically.
Yes only you and your obsession with charedim get the point. It’s quite rich that someone who has been waging a war against the charedi world accuses others of being intolerant and not getting it.
I'm accusing you of not getting the point that I'm making re. arguments about war. Nothing to do with intolerance.
The tithe of the post is delegitimizing your opponents. That is exactly what you do with the Charedim. What else would you call “they corrupt basic Torah values” if not delegitimization?
This comment thread started with you talking about war with Hezbollah. I replied that you are still missing the point about war. Now you're switching to something else?
You said that I am delegitimizing my opponents view. I just pointed out that you do the same with your polemics against charedim.
You have no idea what fraction of the missiles can be destroyed before launch. To this day Hamas is still launching missiles at us, despite 9 months of war and most of Gaza being painstakingly cleared by foot. In 2006 also we couldn't stop Hezbollah from launching rockets until the end of the war.
And of course you also have no idea how many interceptors we have.
So there is no basis for your claim that the number of interceptors is sufficient for all launched rockets.
Of course there are other systems like David's Sling (Arrow is unlikely to be used against a significant number of Hezbollah rockets), I just said "Iron Dome" for simplicity because this is not a military forum and Iron Dome is the best known and most used system.
I didn’t say that we have enough interceptors. All I said is that to say they have 150,000 missiles and we don’t have 150,000 interceptors is stupid. There is no question that the IDF could destroy many of their missiles before they are launched. How many depends on the political will. There is also a big difference between the types of missiles and rockets. Larger rockets require larger launchers and more complicated launch processes. Those are easier to detect and destroy. Smaller rockets are much more easily hidden and fired. Hamas today is firing a few small short range rockets. Most of Hezbollahs arsenal is still short range unguided rockets. The 2006 Lebanon war was a perfect example of a war fought not to lose and that is why the results were what they were.
There's a US based newsletter I subscribe to called Tangle whose goal is to report the news and work on this exact issue of people delegitamizing the people they politically disagree with. https://www.readtangle.com/
I'd highly recommend trying it out if you agree with what R' Slifkin is saying here, and especially if you disagree. Consider it a bein ha'meitzarim challenge. And of course, the founder and primary writer is Jewish. Not frum, but clearly identifies as Jewish and had a very interesting piece on why he's both a Zionist and pro a ceasefire. But to see the other side, he interviewed Haviv Gur on why a ceasefire is a bad way to end the the war now. A great example of understanding and respectfully disagreeing and not delegitamizing the other side.
I get truly annoyed by people who can't think things through. And I was very disappointed in Shapiro when he apologized for what he wrote at 20. (And yes like most, after decades of life, I can see that there are things that I wrote at 20 which were ridiculous). I found that pandering and rather slimy.
Saying there can not be a Palestinian state because the palestinians are war-like is not wrong. Every opportunity for a state has been rejected by the Palestinian leadership and they chose a continual war instead. That is neither antiPalestinian nor anti 2 state solution. That is the truth.
And being for an eventual 2 state solution is not wrong, if Palestinians are deradicalized. No Israeli government right now would support a 2 state solution. No Israeli, except for maybe the communists and Islamists want a 2 state solution right now.
Israel doesn't have to have another violent Islamist neighbor at her doorstep. October 7 proved that. Gaza, in fact, was the 2 state solution.
Several things can actually be true at the same time.
Maybe now would be a good time for the grown to be in charge again.
There is no fixed opinion that will be accepted universally. The Truth of modern times. .
We have our own History - that answers most if not all of our questions.
Let us look at one specific example.
The destruction of the Second Bais Hamikdash - was due to the hatred between 2 individuals -each one is condemned for their actions and reactions - equally.
Our Kohanim - sought power and honor - challenging each other.
The destruction was the punishment. Painful beyond reason.
We have no answer from the human perspective. We are the Blind.
Prayers, Humility and Unconditional Love for one another -this is our Battle Cry..
We shall soon see and hear the Shofar - together - we are all the Children of our long list of Victimizers and we are the Survivors.
Let us be gentle with our partners.- our Brothers and our Sisters.
Signed, With unconditional Love,
A Humble Orphan in History.
Dr. George
.
The Sages openly repeat the phrase - Ahavas Chinom - unconditional love.
We lack the Wise men of yesterday.
Good piece. These are all good examples of the classic theme of rhetorically painting opponent's view in the most extreme way possible, with no nuance. A tale as old as time. This is one of the reasons why discussing contemporary politics is often an exercise in frustration and ad hominem attacks, because of the emotions tied into "you're attacking my team"
Rabbi Slifkin - perhaps you may consider raising the standard of discussion by removing any comments under a pseudonym……how dare this fluffy coward criticise a thinking committed Zionist like Mr Felix obviously is, as being anti-Israel!
Good idea. The quality comments, in my opinion, do indeed seem to mostly come from people not using a pseudonym
Clearly you didn't even read my comment, and totally missed my point.. I never indicated that this Mr. Felix (whoever he is) is anti-Israel.
I wholeheartedly agree with the idea of not exaggerating your opponents stand and then labeling them or arguing against the strawman position you concocted.
However, Josh Shapiro ABSOLUTELY walked tried walking back his positions on Israel so he can be more palatable to antisemites. The folks who were uncomfortable with him as VP were uncomfortable with him before the 20 year old writings came out. Shapiro's position has been clear and it has been in line with all the other Democrat leadership. However, the Democratic leadership is actually at odds with their base, unfortunately, which today is an extremely anti-Israel group and many antisemites too. So, yes, shame on Josh Shapiro for groveling and selling his real opinions in order to appease the hideous mob. Honestly, people like him are the opposite of leaders. If you have a personal conviction that you have believed wholeheartedly your whole life, instead of discarding it just for prestige and a career jump, you ought to use your spotlight to push back. He did not. In fact, he's still going to support and stump for Kamala and her awful VP puck, because he doesn't want to be unpopular in his party, that didn't want him only because he was Jewish. That is pathetic.
Finally, on another note, you have certainly made remarks in the past that have suggested that the charedi community doesn't care about Israel or, really, anyone but themselves. You have not considered their position that their learning and praying and living more righteous lives IS what saves the country. Using your own logic, you can vociferously argue that such a position is wrong, maybe dangerously and delusionally wrong, but you cannot ignore the reason that they believe and suggest they care about nobody because of that position.
1. Yes, shame on him for selling himself out to appease the mob. But this still doesn't mean that he is not pro-Israel.
2. As I discussed in another post, the charedim *themselves* are not interested in exploring their own professed position. Nor are they interested in visiting injured soldiers or even davenning for them. And some leaders even threatened to leave the country. For these reasons, and others, I think it's clear that they are only interested in themselves.
2. It's crazy how blind your are, that even when discussing this very issue you absolutely can't see how one sided you are. Whatever man.
I'm certain that there are some fringe chareidi folks that act like that. I'm not Israeli Chareidi I'm American professional so I don't intimately know thd community but the majority of those I know definitely care about the soldiers and do daven for them amd genuinely (again, erroneously possibly) believe that their contribution is equally as important and without it there would be no merits to save the army from annihilation. To be fair, the army needs God badly. On paper, it is unable to fight all its enemies and not have the country completely decimated. In any event, those that legitimately take from the country and actually hate soldiers and act arrogantly against them are definitely terrible people that need to do serious thinking about their actions and repent for such selfishness. But, in my experience, it is not the majority of them.
I found an extended quote of what Josh Shapiro wrote after the signing of the Oslo Accords:
“Palestinians will not coexist peacefully,” Shapiro wrote. “They do not have the capabilities to establish their own homeland and make it successful even with the aid of Israel and the United States. They are too battle-minded to be able to establish a peaceful homeland of their own.”
I have argued online with pro-Palestinians/Palestinians for years. Instead of them ever trying to convince me how much they are in favor of a peaceful resolution with Israel, their rhetoric is almost always accusatory, saying that Israel's policies about "x" is the reason for the conflict: the settlements, the occupation, checkpoints, the blockade on Gaza, etc. I practically feel like I'm being yelled at through the keyboard. Figuratively bashing me over the head to convince me that the Palestinians really deep-down want peace.
Similarly with Josh Shapiro: the supposedly liberal Democrats are forcing him to regret being in the IDF for a short time 30 years ago, and twisting his arm to say that "his stance has changed".
Shapiro was never in the IDF. He participated in one of several programs in which non-citizens do various types of volunteer work within Israel *as civilians*. This is an important distinction.
Please note the Harris campaign vetted each candidate extensively. While there are many Jews claiming Shapiro was not selected because he is Jewish, such a claim is pure speculation since the fact is, you don’t really know what the campaign knows about the reason behind their decision. For all anyone knows, there may have been some finding or input from someone eg strong Israel supporter Senator John Fetterman who advised the Harris campaign against selecting Shapiro, that indicated to them he wasn’t the right person for the position.
So to state Democrats did not select Shapiro “because he was Jewish” as it is a statement of fact without knowing the real reason is what is really pathetic. Are we that arrogant to think that just “because he was Jewish”, he had to be selected? In a race between equals, Walz was selected. This Jewish American is tired of being the victim so please cease trying to make it seem Democrats are against us. The greatest threat to Jewish Americans is from demagogues like vile vicious Trump who runs on hate, division and intolerance against “the other” which includes Jews. History has shown that it doesn’t end well for Jews with demagogues in power.
You are out to lunch. Even MSNBC said that Shapiro was the front runner until a very coordinated campaign started against him because of his Israel stand, which they noted, is no different than Kamala Harris's. They called it antisemitism. Ritchie Torres, a Democrat, called it antisemitism. You, however, think it's "something else". Yes, bend over backwards to judge openly antisemitic people favorably but say that those who call a duck a duck are pathetic. I suggest you begin exercising your rational part of your mind and begin living an evidence based life instead of a emotionally opinionated one.
Sir, again you don’t know all the information the Harris campaign had on each of the potential candidates and thus whatever anyone believes is pure speculation and is colored by their own bias in which if those want to believe it was “antisemitism” then it fits their narrative to imply, wink wink, Harris is really antisemitic which is poppycock being pedaled by some to justify their support of the real antisemitic Trump which is not poppycock given his extensive history of anti-Semitic tropes, NeoNazis are “fine people”, American Jews are “dumb”, “I know you people and money” to a room full and Jews, and accusing American Jews of dual loyalty.
"Even MSNBC said." You mean that a panelist on MSNBC suggested this. The reliable reporting since the decision is that it was based on 2 factors: A personal ease that Harris had with Walz and the fact that Shapiro indicated that to give up his role as governor, he would want assurances that he would have a significant role in the administration. Walz, by contrast, said that he is willing to serve in whatever capacity Harris would want.
Sir, rest assured I’m not out to lunch and so yet again you don’t know all the information the Harris campaign had on each of the potential candidates and have zero evidence to support your claim and thus whatever you or anyone believes is the reason is pure speculation and is colored by your own bias in which if you want to believe it was “antisemitism” then it fits your narrative to imply, wink wink, Democrat Harris is really a closet antisemitic or against Israel which is poppycock being pedaled to justify support of the real antisemitic Trump which is not poppycock based on the evidence of his extensive history of using anti-Semitic tropes, statement following Charlottesville that NeoNazis are “fine people”, American Jews are “dumb”, “I know you people and money” to a room full of Jews, and accusations of dual loyalty. I also have a suggestion which is to remove the blinders as to the real threat to Jewish Americans which is Trump who appeals to NeoNazis, White Supremacists and Christian nationalists and to think 20% of Jewish Americans are included in that coalition should give everyone pause.
You are a lying about Trump because you are a shill for democratic party which panders to Hamas supporters.
Palestinians want to see the destruction of Israel, period. Two state solution would be a stepping stone in that direction. People remove your blinders and wishful thinking
I am fervently pro-Israel, and I believe that a Two-State Solution (which will be forever de-militarized, and whose sovereignty will be gradually increased by its ability to demonstrate adherence to verified security agreements with Israel) is the only way to insure the future for the Jewish State. I am not a leftist. I am very moderate.
"which will be forever de-militarized"
My God, the fantasies people are willing to entertain to avoid just admitting that they were wrong.
Agree, the options are limited 1) two separate countries 2) one country where all people are given equal rights or 3) apartheid state in which the Palestinians are herded into Bantu lands and denied any rights.
Of the three, rationally, the only solution that would maintain a Jewish majority is the Two State. In their rebuttal to two state, the No, No Way, No How groups repeat their dogma why two-state is impossible followed by “Israel tried” but their rebuttal never offers any other potential solutions other than the status quo which has lead Israel into a corner threatened by heavily armed proxies, embroiled in Vietnam-like war in Gaza and with its citizens held hostage. By any rational measure, it is clear the status quo has lead Israel to the edge of an abyss.
Those are all the options, huh.
"Note: And to those who would respond “But you delegitimize the charedim!” I would point out that they are not at all serious friends who are sincerely trying to help"
Ummm I'd say you just delegitimized them....
It would be funny if it wasn't so sad and frustrating
I should note that aside from the alleged hypocrisy, I did appreciate the message of this post
"As you know, there are many here in Israel, patriots all, who think that those working against the 2 state solution, by functionally annexing Judea and Samaria, are doing great damage, and will, ultimately, doom us. I am one of them."
I recently saw a video of Dr. Einat Wilf, where she said that, although the number of West Bank settlers has grown, they still are only 13% of the total population in the West Bank. And that has been the ratio since the 1990s.
https://youtu.be/IZz7iNqLVAM?si=L12QRnCf7l34B-LG&t=1751
The only difference is, it would be a lot more difficult now for Israel to uproot the settlements, than it was when Barak or Olmert were saying that they'd do that. So, annexing the entire West Bank is impractical, and removing the settlements is also impractical.
However, Dr. Wilf's argument is that the conflict will always remain--regardless of the borders, regardless of the settlements being there or not--unless the Palestinian ideology will change. (Good luck with that. Elsewhere, she says that even changing the Palestinian textbooks and education system would only have a limited effect.)
There is a world-wide superficial discourse. Why superficial? Because he defines things easily: I am right; The whole world is against me. This way it is easy to respond via the Internet with a word or a short sentence.
When there is a will there is a way on the flip side, when there is no will, there is no way.
Peace will only come when there is more of a collective will to wage peace than to wage war. Logically and intuitively, it makes more sense for human beings to wage peace because of the high price paid for waging wars that always leads to more deaths, more suffering and more destruction which is well known and at the end of the conflict, after the terrible costs are added up, there are no real winners. Again logically, one would want to find solutions to end conflicts. However, as history has shown, logic breaks down when religion is involved which is ironic since religion is supposed to be about blessing the peacemakers not the war-makers. So, Is there any reason to hope that continuing this war will bring peace to Israel solution? No. Logic dictates that Continuing the war will only bring more misery, more suffering, more deaths and more destruction to Israel which ergo, means bringing the war to an end is in everyone’s best interest.
I think there's another important point that should be made: The entire concept of a Palestinian state was "born in sin", to use a popular phrase, namely, the whole concept exists as a way of attempting to destroy Israel altogether. As is pointed out, the PLO was created three years before the Six-Day War. And, not surprisingly, it *continues* to be used, primarily perhaps, in the same way. Again, proof is legion, all the way to the fact that you don't see the same amount of attention being devoted to, say, East Turkestan or Kurdistan or Western Sahara.
Now, does this mean the idea is *necessarily* anti-Israel? No: Many ideas born illegitimately end up having meaning. Columbus was trying to sail to Asia, after all. But it *does* put it under a cloud. Or, at the very least, you can't blame people for looking at it askance.
Does this mean that people supporting it want to see Israel destroyed? Of course not. Not consciously, at least, outside of Israel, and not at all, inside Israel. But that doesn't mean they're not being used, much the way we've seen people used for other purposes on the streets over the last two years. And so you can't blame people who are a little extreme in their accusations- the suspicions are real.