Clinton Accuses Israel of Being Occupying Force

When will this assclown shut her cake hole? All she does is stir the pot of the leftist trash.

I don’t know. Jewishness is determined, as far as I know, by the mother. Sounds strange in a still somewhat patriarchal society, and if I am wrong there are enough beloved Jewish Freepers here to correct me.

With Hillary, I will always assume that hate is her impetus in all things. Although the Bible tells me that even the wicked love their children.

In the end, I really do not care. If she starts knitting afghan comforters and baking cookies and shuts up I will be happy for America.

and still American Jews will overwhelmingly vote for Hillary the liberal dem.

Ping.

Off topic from the article but to run down a rabbit trail.

In Biblical times it was the fathers lineage that was important. I think it changed some time later in the middle ages or even more recently through rabbinic traditions - likely in the Talmud somewhere as a way to protect the people from dilution with gentiles.

Here’s part of an article I found on the topic

What impelled the Reform Movement to make such a break with an 1,800-year tradition? and why now? There was a sign on JFK’s desk in the Oval Office which read, “Whatever is not necessary to change it is necessary not to change.” Why then the change? why not stick to the traditional decision which is based upon matrilineal descent?

The Talmud states that “the child of a Jewish mother and non-Jewish father is Jewish; the child of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother is not Jewish.” That is the tradition. But that decision was made in the time of the Mishna and the Talmud and was itself quite innovative. Certainly the matrilineal principle appears to be a departure from the Bible itself, in which the bias favors patrilineality.

Consider some of the heroes of the Bible and the genealogy of Jews as recorded in the Bible: Joseph was married to the daughter of Potiphera, a woman by the name of Osnath whose father was an Egyptian priest of On. She bore Joseph two sons, Manassah and Ephraim. Both sons became heads of two of the twelve tribes of Israel, even though they were the progeny of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother. Until this day we bless our own male children with the blessing “May God make you as Ephraim and Manassah.”

Moses married Zippora, a Midianite daughter of a non-Jewish priest of Midian called Jethro. She bore Moses two sons, Gershom and Eleazer. They are Jewish according to patrilineal descent.

Solomon married foreign wives who were not Jewish. One of them recorded in the first book of Kings is called Naamah, who gave birth to Rehoboam, who succeeded Solomon on the throne of Israel.

The genealogy of the children of Israel as recorded in the book of Numbers is clearly patrilineal. We read, “Take ye the sons of all the congregation of the children of Israel by their families, by their fathers’ houses according to the number of names every male by their heads.” As the Talmud in Baba Bathra 109b puts it, “The family of the father is considered to be the family. But the family of the mother is not considered to be the family.” So patrilineality has biblical roots. Whether your son is a Kohen or Levi is determined by the father’s status exclusively. If the father is good enough to bequeath priestly status, why is he not good enough to bequeath the status of the child’s Jewishness?

Moreover, it is the father who is obligated to see that the child is circumcised or that the child is redeemed through Pidyon Ha-Ben on the 31st day after his birth. So when the rabbis introduced matrilineal lineage, they were advocating a radical change. What was their rationale? Since there is virtually nothing in the Talmudic text that explains the motivation for this change to matrilineal, we are free to speculate.

One theory is that the mother was chosen over the father as the person determining the religious status of the child because of the principle, “mater certa, pater incerta.” The identity of the mother is always known, but the identity of the father is uncertain. Hence, the prevalent matrilineal principle.

It is further argued that the rabbis chose the mother over the father because she was more intimate with the child and had greater influence on the identity and education of the child. Therefore, the status of the child was determined by the mother.

Another theory explains that the matrilineal principle was introduced in order to protect the integrity and purity of the priesthood. The priesthood is transmitted by the fathers. In a mixed marriage between a Jewish priest and a non-Jewish woman, the child would be a priest. Enter the matrilineal principle, and the child of a Jewish priest and a non-Jewish woman is declared non-Jewish, preventing the priesthood from being bequeathed to the son of such a union.

There is speculation that the change from patrilineal to matrilineal came about in the Mishnaic period, which was coincident with the Roman occupation of Israel during the wars of 67 BCE, and later 132 CE, when Jewish woman were raped by Roman soldiers. To save the children of those raped women for Judaism, to insure their Jewishness, the children were legally allowed to assume the religion of the mothers at birth.

This latter speculation seems particularly plausible. For if the rabbis wanted to prevent mixed marriage and to use the status of a child as a deterrent of mixed marriage, they should have said that for the child to be Jewish both parents must be Jewish. That bi-parental criterion would not be far-fetched reasoning. When Ezra comes to break up mixed marriage, he bases his argument on the biblical verse in Deuteronomy 23, “You shall not enter into marriage with them; you shalt not give your daughter to his son nor take his daughter for your son.” But the rabbis were apparently quite liberal in their interpretation. What they concluded, as formulated in Maimonides’ Mishna Torah was, “If a non-Jew should have relations with a Jewish woman the offspring is legitimate and is to be reckoned as the offspring of the mother without any regard to the religious status of the non-Jew.” They could have been stricter, insisting that both father and mother be Jewish. But to do so would be to lose the children of those women violated by the Romans.

FUHC!

Thanks PoloSec.

“When we left the city and visited Jericho, in the West Bank, I got my first glimpse of life under occupation for Palestinians, who were denied the dignity and self-determination that Americans take for granted,” Clinton writes.

IOW, watch as the Partisan Media Shills, J Street, CAIR, and other pro-jihadists parrot her views, which are identical to Zero's, Kerry's, Fatah's, the OPEC despotates, and Pat Buchanan.

My recall is not precise as I wish it to be. I believe, in the linaeage of Jesus Christ, I recall one of the ancestors kisted was Ruth, a Moabite? Descendant of Lot?

Thank you for the information. It is good to learn these things.

A Bible will suffice, if all other media is gone, if one has a Bible there will be no boredom.

You’re being too kind...

It is too easy to be dismissive of these comments. They need to be confronted head on.

There is a reason why Netanyahu is skeptical of the so called “land for peace” strategy - because it doesn’t work, and is a false premise. Israel gave up Gaza, and they got rockets almost every day for years. Israel left southern Lebanon, and they got how many tens or hundreds of thousands of rockets since then? And captured and tortured soldiers, too.

Netanyahu offers an alternative. Not land for peace but “Peace for peace”. The issue of the land can be resolved and negotiated. But to continue to endorse this stupid “land for peace” paradigm is in effect to endorse terror, because what it means is “no peace until you give up land”. It’s extortion/blackmail. It should be rejected. There should be no false equivalence.

So they aren’t?