Posted on 12/25/2011 6:56:14 AM PST by markomalley
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stepped up pledges to curb Jewish zealotry in Israel on Sunday after an 8-year-old girl complained of being menaced by ultra-Orthodox men who deemed her dress immodest.
While his conservative government insists such incidents are fringe phenomena in the mostly secular country, Netanyahu's repeated announcements on the matter reflected concern about widening religious and political schisms.
"In a Western, liberal democracy, the public realm is open and safe for all, men and women both, and neither harassment nor discrimination have any place there," he told his cabinet in broadcast remarks.
Netanyahu said he had ordered law enforcement authorities to crack down on "whoever spits, whoever lifts a hand (in violence), whoever harasses" and to remove street signs segregating men from women in some ultra-Orthodox districts.
(Excerpt) Read more at old.news.yahoo.com ...
Did you finish the sentence? It is unclear what you mean. Are you casting aspersions upon your priest and half of the dads or are you intending to say they would talk to the child in an effort to correct her dress and her thinking about dress?
I understand that.
But conservative US support for the State of Israel is divided into two camps:
Those who support Israel based upon its so-called Abrahamic patrimony should fully approve of the actions of the ultra-orthodox in this article.
Those who support Israel based upon its status as the only modern, western democracy should fully disapprove of the actions.
My problem is that Israel tries to simultaneously get the support of both camps.
And, unfortunately, some people on this side of the ocean are confused enough to in one breath condemn the actions of these ultra-orthodox (in other words, imply that Israel is a modern, western democracy) and in the next breath state that God gave that land to the House of Abraham in perpetuity. And, in my opinion, the two claims are mutually exclusive.
Me, I can buy off on the first proposition with no concerns. But if I am to accept the second proposition, then they need to follow the Torah and the Talmud to the letter in their public policy.
wow, Marko. In the old Testament they were commanded to do unto others..........or aren’t you aware of that?
You are kidding right?
Marko
What has happened?
You are off the deep end today.
Here's what I read in the Old Testament:
Deuteronomy 12 1 "These are the statutes and ordinances which you shall be careful to do in the land which the LORD, the God of your fathers, has given you to possess, all the days that you live upon the earth. 2 You shall surely destroy all the places where the nations whom you shall dispossess served their gods, upon the high mountains and upon the hills and under every green tree; 3 you shall tear down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and burn their Asherim with fire; you shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy their name out of that place.
Sorry. But it says what it says. And if we are to support Israel based upon their Abrahamic patrimony, then they need to follow unpleasant rules, including that one.
IIRC, the ones who pull this crap are usually Neturei Karta, who are virulently anti-Zionist. Israel shouldn’t put up with this bs.
I've long had the opinion that when the Israelis took Jerusalem in 1967, one of their first acts should have been to remove the mosque from the Temple Mount, and expel all Muslims (paying double fair market value for their houses). They would have had some screaming from the Islamic states, but they would have that regardless, and it would have settled things.
>>Did you finish the sentence?<<
Ooops. I have a bad habit of hitting , instead of .
It was finished. But to clear it up, yes, to get her AND her mother, I may add, to think about the appropriateness of dress.
Words across your buttocks, even “Princess” does not scream “lady”.
“The prayers of the Orthodox help protect Israel. They pray and make up for the atheists in Tel Aviv and the J backsliders like me.”
Lehrer had it right with this:
“The Lord’s my shepherd says the psalm,
but just in case, we better get a bomb”.
And they did.
Looking up what G*d commanded the Jews to do with the Canaanites is quite educational.
True.
And don't get me wrong, I don't personally prefer that (I would hate to see the Christian Holy Sites demolished -- though I could not care less about the Muzzie sites). But the Scriptures say what they say. And if Israel is claiming its legitimacy from Divine Patrimony, then they need to act that way. Else they need to drop it...and quit shining on American Evangelicals.
I mean, compare the extract from Deuteronomy above with this from the The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel:
The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; [vs] it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
How in the world can it comply with what was envisaged by the prophets (like the quote from Moses, above) while guaranteeing freedom of religion? Did not a prophet command: You shall surely destroy all the places where the nations whom you shall dispossess served their gods, upon the high mountains and upon the hills and under every green tree; you shall tear down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and burn their Asherim with fire; you shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy their name out of that place?
I don't see how you can do both?
And, to the point of the article, did not a prophet utter the following:
(Isaiah 3:16-24)
The LORD said: Because the daughters of Zion are haughty and walk with outstretched necks, glancing wantonly with their eyes, mincing along as they go, tinkling with their feet;
the Lord will smite with a scab the heads of the daughters of Zion, and the LORD will lay bare their secret parts.
In that day the Lord will take away the finery of the anklets, the headbands, and the crescents;
the pendants, the bracelets, and the scarfs;
the headdresses, the armlets, the sashes, the perfume boxes, and the amulets;
the signet rings and nose rings;
the festal robes, the mantles, the cloaks, and the handbags;
the garments of gauze, the linen garments, the turbans, and the veils.
Instead of perfume there will be rottenness; and instead of a girdle, a rope; and instead of well-set hair, baldness; and instead of a rich robe, a girding of sackcloth; instead of beauty, shame.
The above seems rather inconsistent to me with what I see from Israel (which, despite the terrorism, seems like a very nice modern, Western democracy)
Foisting your religious standards on others is evil.
(see Islam)
This does not mean that expecting others to adhere to basic human principles like not murdering, stealing..etc is improper. (abortion, esp late term, is against all human principles..or should be)
Do no harm to others, treat them like you wish to be treated...this is the bedrock of civilization.
How do you interpret this passage, then:
Deuteronomy 12 1 "These are the statutes and ordinances which you shall be careful to do in the land which the LORD, the God of your fathers, has given you to possess, all the days that you live upon the earth. 2 You shall surely destroy all the places where the nations whom you shall dispossess served their gods, upon the high mountains and upon the hills and under every green tree; 3 you shall tear down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and burn their Asherim with fire; you shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy their name out of that place.
I don’t interpret it, nor do I adhere to it.
OK...fine...
It is very convenient for you, as a (presumable) Christian, to throw out Scriptures that you don't like. Your business. Very liberal of you.
“And that’s fine...if they wish to be a western, liberal, secular state. But don’t try to have it both ways. And that’s my point.”
Israel is a secular, liberal, state. As a secular state, we permit Jewish people to be as Orthodox or not as they want. Here, this neighborhood, was (apparently) made of weirdo Mizrahim from Yemen.
Such neighborhoods are bad places to be for outsiders, just like there are bad neighborhoods for outsiders in the USA. Harlem comes to mind.
It could have been worse; if she was in an arab neighborhood, she would have been brutally raped, beaten, held captive, and eventually killed or sold into slavery.
Of course, that would not be news worthy.
Only when the random Jewish folk act weird is there a controversy.
Well, there you go.
So the next time I read something asking for unquestioning support for Israel because of the prophecy in the Scriptures, I can reply that Jewbacca says, "Israel is a secular, liberal, state" -- therefore, any resemblance to prophecy is strictly coincidental.
Thanks.
You are muddling two distinct concepts in a rather silly manner.
I don’t think there is any dispute that that the government of Israel is democracy and is not run by the Mosiach.
I also don’t think there is any dispute (aside from anti-semites) that the land promised to Abraham (a much larger area) for all times is partially encompassed by the modern state of Israel -— regardless of whether ones accepts the Torah is true.
Nor is there any serious questioning (again, aside from anti-semites) that the historical, pre-Diaspora, Israel was located right where it is located today (albeit in a smaller footprint today).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.