Replies

I do not usually go out looking for liberal tripe (is there any other?) But one of the feeds on the right hand side of the APRPEH blog is a Google news about Israel feed. Most of the time the main stories of the day appear there originating from various news services around the world. In terms of Israel news, it doesn't really make too much of a difference which news service you read. While the product of bias can be expressed through endless variation, begging indulgence in the mixing of metaphor, when it comes to pigs in a poke, a squeal is still a squeal. Characterizing the comments of these "well-informed Middle East observers" as anything other than an exercise in anti-Jew reflux would be to unfairly attribute a benefit of the doubt to the undeserving. But then again it is "Mother Jones". I do not usually go out looking for liberal tripe (is there any other?) But one of the feeds on the right hand side of the APRPEH blog is a Google news about Israel feed. Most of the time the main stories of the day appear there originating from various news services around the world. In terms of Israel news, it doesn't really make too much of a difference which news service you read. While the product of bias can be expressed through endless variation, begging indulgence in the mixing of metaphor, when it comes to pigs in a poke, a squeal is still a squeal. Characterizing the comments of these "well-informed Middle East observers" as anything other than an exercise in anti-Jew reflux would be to unfairly attribute a benefit of the doubt to the undeserving. But then again it is "Mother Jones".

Briefly skimming the surface of the comments for the basic assumptions of the questions, objectivity requires an honest assessment of credibility. None can be found. Israel's legal right to all of Yosh (setting aside the strongest case for not only developing Yosh but for retaining sole authority in Yosh; that is, G-d deeded assignment of this land to the Jews) is not only more credible than that posed by the Arabians it is justified by history and precedent. Using the terminology of "colonization" and "apartheid" muddy the waters of reason with emotional appeals relying on sound bites. All states set their boundaries, by fighting if necessary, and determine who is a citizen and who is not entitled to remain within those borders. If this is what the so-called “well informed observer” above means, than guilty as charged. Since Israel is by right, owner of Yosh, then these decisions justifiably are as legal for Israel to make as is for any state. Further, the idea that Israel is the reason for arabian extremism somehow causing barbarians living in and around Israel to act barbaric must be measured against the actions of those arabians who do not live in and around Israel. And not only in comparison to the nearness to Israel but also to the lengths of years for which arabian barbarism has existed. If Israel is to blame for the attacks of islamic facism and arabian terrorism, what was the cause for this behavior prior to Israel's re-establishment or prior to Jews even returning to the land in large numbers in the late 1800s? Such a line of reasoning and questioning is based solely on blame the Jew illogic. Briefly skimming the surface of the comments for the basic assumptions of the questions, objectivity requires an honest assessment of credibility. None can be found. Israel's legal right to all of Yosh (setting aside the strongest case for not only developing Yosh but for retaining sole authority in Yosh; that is, G-d deeded assignment of this land to the Jews) is not only more credible than that posed by the Arabians it is justified by history and precedent. Using the terminology of "colonization" and "apartheid" muddy the waters of reason with emotional appeals relying on sound bites. All states set their boundaries, by fighting if necessary, and determine who is a citizen and who is not entitled to remain within those borders. If this is what the so-called “well informed observer” above means, than guilty as charged. Since Israel is by right, owner of Yosh, then these decisions justifiably are as legal for Israel to make as is for any state. Further, the idea that Israel is the reason for arabian extremism somehow causing barbarians living in and around Israel to act barbaric must be measured against the actions of those arabians who do not live in and around Israel. And not only in comparison to the nearness to Israel but also to the lengths of years for which arabian barbarism has existed. If Israel is to blame for the attacks of islamic facism and arabian terrorism, what was the cause for this behavior prior to Israel's re-establishment or prior to Jews even returning to the land in large numbers in the late 1800s? Such a line of reasoning and questioning is based solely on blame the Jew illogic. MORE HERE

Thanks for the flag. I've been very out of sorts lately. I'm still recovering from some "home improvement" that had things in chaos here last week, and I'm so down and disgusted about so many things right now. My man Duncan Hunter has dropped out of the race, which means that to me Fred is the next choice. But I've also been to the web site of The Jewish Press and still can't get over the "yellow-dog Democrats" who act as if Hillary Clinton is a perfectly legitimate candidate from a Jewish point of view (which, leaving aside the fact that her philosophy is at variance with the Universal Noachide Laws, doesn't even make sense so far as Israel is concerned!). I don't understand this. My folks have been Republicans since the Civil War. I thought the Union was right in that conflict. Why do so many Jews who claim to sympathize with the Union have an almost inborn sense of identification with the other party? And why do Jews, whose tradition knows nothing of an unnatural separation of religion from the rest of life, insist on this enlightenment philosophy in the United States and use it to justify supporting people who oppose Universal Noachide morality? (Of course, nowadays some conservatives sound just like this when it comes to moslems. I'm waiting for some conservative to advocate abortion clinics in Indonesia.)

The Mother Jones article is also indicative of something else that has me down in the mouth. I don't know if the old gal herself was an atheist materialist or not. But the fact is, today's Left claims as its own all the "strugglers" in the causes of yesterday, because they, like the perverts of today, are the "antithesis" in the Hegelian drama of history. So naturally it makes no difference if Mother Jones herself would have been horrified by sodomy; her poor coal-mining hillbillies were "the gays of their day." I'm just waiting for some magazine in the future to call itself The Tennessee Valley Authority as it campaigns for the "right" to commit bestiality.

Did you know that the people who are trying to invent a "right" of "gay marriage" (for the first time in human history) are claiming that us bad old reactionaries are trying to "outlaw" it? How in the name of all that is reasonable can you outlaw something that doesn't exist??? The Left always insists that pushing ever farther into perversion is moderation while "standing still" and refusing to "change with the times" is a sign or "dangerous radicalism!"

I'm a simple person and there is a great deal I don't understand. I believe in G-d--and not just any "gxd," but HaShem explicitly and exclusively. Why do so many Jews (even Orthodox Jews, unfortunately) seem to be pulling in the other direction? Why do Orthodox Jews celebrate Judaism's totalitarian claim on all life while at the same time ridiculously invoking the "separation of religion and state" and the "gorgeous mosaic of cultures" (from which Bible-thumping rednecks alone are totally excluded)??? Why do "religious" Jewish publications deal with Israel in purely secular terms? Caramba.

Thank you for invoking G-d on your blog. There's only one reason to support Israel, and it is all sufficient: that it is G-d's will. This is also the only reason to be against homosexuality, infanticide, or even theft and murder. I notice no one on the left is advocating the legalization of undeniable murder yet, though I'm sure that will come. After all, the law against murder has the very same source and justification as all those "oppressive" and "outdated" old sexual taboos.

Sorry. I realize I'm rambling here. Shame on Mother Jones, on Ms., and on every other such publication (though what can you expect from people who don't acknowledge the G-d of Israel?).

May G-d redeem Israel and all mankind soon, speedily, and in our days!