Thank g-d that Rabin croaked.

[DownwithIslam]

I was reading an article on jpost now which said that Yitzchak Rabin, the former dictator of Israel(my words) had put down a "deposit" that he would withdraw from the entire Golan Heights if Assad just for a second said that he would not slaughter jews. Thank hashem that this drunken pig kicked off or Israel might not be in the golan right now(g-d forbid).






Abdullah floats 'deposit' to spur Israel
By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER, JPOST CORRESPONDENT, WASHINGTON
Print   Subscribe   Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com
E-mail   Toolbar   
   
+ Recommend:
facebook    del.icio.us    reddit    newsvine    fark
What's this?
   

Decrease text size Decrease text size
Increase text size Increase text size
Talkbacks for this article: 8
  |  Avg. rating 2.5 out of 5rated 2.5 by 28 people | Top Rated Articles [?]

King Abdullah of Jordan told Jewish leaders here Friday that Arab countries need to take steps to encourage Israel to advance final-status negotiations with the Palestinians, according to several participants in the closed-door meeting.
Jordan's King Abdullah II,...

Jordan's King Abdullah II, listens to his Romanian counterpart Traian Basescu during a press conference in Bucharest, Romania, Monday.
Photo: AP
SLIDESHOW: Israel & Region  |  World

The participants said that Abdullah's comments were notable because, in contrast to several similar meetings with him in recent years, it was the first time he spoke about Arab responsibilities for moving the process forward beyond the confines of the Arab Peace Initiative, and suggested it indicated new possibilities for regional peace-making.

Several meeting attendees said that Abdullah staked out the concept of an "Arab deposit," or commitment of deliverables, echoing the formulation of the Rabin deposit - a reported pledge of former prime minister Yitzhak Rabin that Israel would withdraw from the Golan if the Syrians met certain conditions - used to push forward the peace process with Damascus.

Jordanian sources, however, denied that Abdullah referred to a "deposit" or otherwise articulated such a position at what they stressed was an off-the-record meeting.

The Jordan Embassy press office issued a statement after the event saying simply that in meetings with Jewish, as well as Arab and Muslim American groups, the king had stressed the urgency of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a two-state solution and that "the Arab Peace Initiative offers a significant opportunity to reach a comprehensive peace that will meet the legitimate rights of all parties and ensure normal relations for Israel with all its Arab neighbors."

Jewish leaders who participated in the conversation, however, said Abdullah also referred to Iran and the impetus it provides for working together to solve the regional discord.

"He thought that there was more common ground than ever existed before between Arabs and Israelis, given the common threat of Iran," said one of some 20 Jewish officials at the 45-minute meeting, who described Abdullah as more optimistic about prospects for progress than in other conversations.

The issue of Iran is expected to come up between Abdullah and US President Barack Obama in their meeting Tuesday, with the Jordanian leader making the argument that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian crisis provides the key for weakening the potency of Iran and its proxies, Hamas and Hizbullah, on the Arab street by denying them a central argument for their approach.

Towards that end, Abdullah indicated he would like to see the US present its own plan for an Israeli-Palestinian peace, perhaps along the lines of the Clinton parameters for a two-state solution outlined by America during then-president Bill Clinton's term.

American sources, however, say that the new administration is still getting to know the key players and learn their positions, rather than developing an independent proposal.

While US officials see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a major issue whose resolution could help improve the overall situation in the Middle East, they rejected the premise that it was the central problem driving regional developments, including Iranian influence.

Still, the US sees Jordan as a crucial moderate ally in the Middle East and is welcoming Abdullah, the first Arab leader to be received by Obama, as a means of invigorating its efforts to spur Israeli-Palestinian peace.

US officials are increasingly referring to the Arab peace plan as an approach that could provide a way forward, and appreciate Abdullah's efforts to maintain support in the Arab world for the program.

The proposal offers Israel full normalization with Arab countries in return for a complete withdrawal from the lands captured in the Six Day War, including east Jerusalem, creation of a Palestinian state and a "just solution" for Palestinian refugees who wish to return to Israel.

[Sentinel For Truth]

All worthless taqiyya.  Any negotiation between a muslim and a non-muslim is not binding on the muslim.  This is a tactic used by Mohammed in the Treaty of Hudaibiya to promise peace for 10 years and then invade in 10 months; the lesson is to negotiate until you're strong enough to annihilate.  Only Bolshevik traitors who want Israel destroyed would fall for this crap.

Israel should instead expel the arab enemy once and for all and let the arab countries worry about their own people.  The Saudis alone are wealthy enough to put all the fakestinians into mansions with swimming pools.  They can occupy all the apartment buildings in Dubai that have been abandoned by ex pats.  But Israel is not theirs, not one square inch.

[דוד בן זאב אריה]

I thank G-d every day that Arafat Yimach Shemo said no to Rabin's offer. He got what he deserved and may he rot in hell. Hamas and the PLO will never accept Israel as a Jewish State and if Netanyahu stands true to his word that there will be no negotiations until they do then we are good.

[TruthSpreader]

 

[Adrian Wainer]

I was reading an article on jpost now which said that Yitzchak Rabin, the former dictator of Israel(my words) had put down a "deposit" that he would withdraw from the entire Golan Heights if Assad just for a second said that he would not slaughter jews. Thank hashem that this drunken pig kicked off or Israel might not be in the golan right now(g-d forbid).






Abdullah floats 'deposit' to spur Israel
By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER, JPOST CORRESPONDENT, WASHINGTON
Print   Subscribe   Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com
E-mail   Toolbar   
   
+ Recommend:
facebook    del.icio.us    reddit    newsvine    fark
What's this?
   

Decrease text size Decrease text size
Increase text size Increase text size
Talkbacks for this article: 8
  |  Avg. rating 2.5 out of 5rated 2.5 by 28 people | Top Rated Articles [?]

King Abdullah of Jordan told Jewish leaders here Friday that Arab countries need to take steps to encourage Israel to advance final-status negotiations with the Palestinians, according to several participants in the closed-door meeting.
Jordan's King Abdullah II,...

Jordan's King Abdullah II, listens to his Romanian counterpart Traian Basescu during a press conference in Bucharest, Romania, Monday.
Photo: AP
SLIDESHOW: Israel & Region  |  World

The participants said that Abdullah's comments were notable because, in contrast to several similar meetings with him in recent years, it was the first time he spoke about Arab responsibilities for moving the process forward beyond the confines of the Arab Peace Initiative, and suggested it indicated new possibilities for regional peace-making.

Several meeting attendees said that Abdullah staked out the concept of an "Arab deposit," or commitment of deliverables, echoing the formulation of the Rabin deposit - a reported pledge of former prime minister Yitzhak Rabin that Israel would withdraw from the Golan if the Syrians met certain conditions - used to push forward the peace process with Damascus.

Jordanian sources, however, denied that Abdullah referred to a "deposit" or otherwise articulated such a position at what they stressed was an off-the-record meeting.

The Jordan Embassy press office issued a statement after the event saying simply that in meetings with Jewish, as well as Arab and Muslim American groups, the king had stressed the urgency of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a two-state solution and that "the Arab Peace Initiative offers a significant opportunity to reach a comprehensive peace that will meet the legitimate rights of all parties and ensure normal relations for Israel with all its Arab neighbors."

Jewish leaders who participated in the conversation, however, said Abdullah also referred to Iran and the impetus it provides for working together to solve the regional discord.

"He thought that there was more common ground than ever existed before between Arabs and Israelis, given the common threat of Iran," said one of some 20 Jewish officials at the 45-minute meeting, who described Abdullah as more optimistic about prospects for progress than in other conversations.

The issue of Iran is expected to come up between Abdullah and US President Barack Obama in their meeting Tuesday, with the Jordanian leader making the argument that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian crisis provides the key for weakening the potency of Iran and its proxies, Hamas and Hizbullah, on the Arab street by denying them a central argument for their approach.

Towards that end, Abdullah indicated he would like to see the US present its own plan for an Israeli-Palestinian peace, perhaps along the lines of the Clinton parameters for a two-state solution outlined by America during then-president Bill Clinton's term.

American sources, however, say that the new administration is still getting to know the key players and learn their positions, rather than developing an independent proposal.

While US officials see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a major issue whose resolution could help improve the overall situation in the Middle East, they rejected the premise that it was the central problem driving regional developments, including Iranian influence.

Still, the US sees Jordan as a crucial moderate ally in the Middle East and is welcoming Abdullah, the first Arab leader to be received by Obama, as a means of invigorating its efforts to spur Israeli-Palestinian peace.

US officials are increasingly referring to the Arab peace plan as an approach that could provide a way forward, and appreciate Abdullah's efforts to maintain support in the Arab world for the program.

The proposal offers Israel full normalization with Arab countries in return for a complete withdrawal from the lands captured in the Six Day War, including east Jerusalem, creation of a Palestinian state and a "just solution" for Palestinian refugees who wish to return to Israel.

"Thank g-d that Rabin croaked", is it within the tenets of the Jewish religion to thank G-d that a person has died?

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

Absolutely, Adrian. Judaism commands the condemnation of Erev Rav (Jewish traitors) and other scum.

[Adrian Wainer]

Absolutely, Adrian. Judaism commands the condemnation of Erev Rav (Jewish traitors) and other scum.

Well is there a special formulation under the rule of Erev Rav, that in respect of a person who is classed as Erev Rab, that one should thank G-d for their death? In that whilst G-d might dispense death to the unrighteous, G-d can do as he so chooses with infinite justice, whereas human beings are anything but infinite in their capabilities? 

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

[Moshe92]

Here is some information about erev rav.

http://www.mishpattsedek.com/Docs/MODERN_EREV_RAV.pdf

[Moshe92]

According to the link I posted, it says in the zohar that the erev rav delay redemption much more than all the nations of the world.

[muman613]

Adrian,

In general we are not supposed to wish death on anyone. But there are cases when a Jew goes outside what is acceptable as a Jew and then we should rebuke them, and if it comes to it, we should condemn them. It saddens me that some of the Jewish people have given up their heritage and forsaken their birthright.

Hashem, our L-rd, is the master of justice. Measure for measure we are rewarded and punished.

I do not join in those who wish death on others. I join with those who seek to bless all who return to Hashem.

[Adrian Wainer]

Adrian,

In general we are not supposed to wish death on anyone. But there are cases when a Jew goes outside what is acceptable as a Jew and then we should rebuke them, and if it comes to it, we should condemn them. It saddens me that some of the Jewish people have given up their heritage and forsaken their birthright.

Hashem, our L-rd, is the master of justice. Measure for measure we are rewarded and punished.

I do not join in those who wish death on others. I join with those who seek to bless all who return to Hashem.

Yes but who is deciding, what is acceptable as a Jew. Furthermore, it is one thing to rebuke a living person to their face if one believes they are engaged in wrong doing, in that they have a possibility of making arguments against one's criticism of them, it is quite another thing to speak critically of a dead person, since they do not have a possibility of argument against one's criticism of them. And by using the phraseology "thank G-d", unless it has been specifically allowed by G-d to use the phrase "thank G-d" in respect of the death of certain persons, to use that phrase is to my mind seeking to place oneself in an elevated position alongside G-d.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer 

[muman613]

<snip>

Yes but who is deciding, what is acceptable as a Jew. Furthermore, it is one thing to rebuke a living person to their face if one believes they are engaged in wrong doing, in that they have a possibility of making arguments against one's criticism of them, it is quite another thing to speak critically of a dead person, since they do not have a possibility of argument against one's criticism of them. And by using the phraseology "thank G-d", unless it has been specifically allowed by G-d to use the phrase "thank G-d" in respect of the death of certain persons, to use that phrase is to my mind seeking to place oneself in an elevated position alongside G-d.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer 

Who is deciding? We know that a traitor to the Jewish people should be rebuked. The fact is Rabin could be considered a traitor to the Jewish people because he was intending to give away much more than should be given. Israel is the land which Hashem gave to the Jewish people as an inheritance. I didn't wish him to die but I do not mourn him. He was like Olmert in that he is a self-hating Jew.

It does nothing to rebuke the dead. But we can thank Hashem that justice was served and Rabin was not able to succeed in implementing a suicidal policy in Israel.

[Adrian Wainer]

<snip>

Yes but who is deciding, what is acceptable as a Jew. Furthermore, it is one thing to rebuke a living person to their face if one believes they are engaged in wrong doing, in that they have a possibility of making arguments against one's criticism of them, it is quite another thing to speak critically of a dead person, since they do not have a possibility of argument against one's criticism of them. And by using the phraseology "thank G-d", unless it has been specifically allowed by G-d to use the phrase "thank G-d" in respect of the death of certain persons, to use that phrase is to my mind seeking to place oneself in an elevated position alongside G-d.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer 

Who is deciding? We know that a traitor to the Jewish people should be rebuked. The fact is Rabin could be considered a traitor to the Jewish people because he was intending to give away much more than should be given. Israel is the land which Hashem gave to the Jewish people as an inheritance. I didn't wish him to die but I do not mourn him. He was like Olmert in that he is a self-hating Jew.

It does nothing to rebuke the dead. But we can thank Hashem that justice was served and Rabin was not able to succeed in implementing a suicidal policy in Israel.

Winston Churchill evacuated the British expeditionary force from France in 1940 to England, leaving all their tanks, artillery, motor transport, ammunition and supplies behind in France with the soldiers escaping with nothing more than the shirts on their backs and rifles. Maybe Churchill was a traitor and a self hating British person?



Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

[muman613]

<snip>

Yes but who is deciding, what is acceptable as a Jew. Furthermore, it is one thing to rebuke a living person to their face if one believes they are engaged in wrong doing, in that they have a possibility of making arguments against one's criticism of them, it is quite another thing to speak critically of a dead person, since they do not have a possibility of argument against one's criticism of them. And by using the phraseology "thank G-d", unless it has been specifically allowed by G-d to use the phrase "thank G-d" in respect of the death of certain persons, to use that phrase is to my mind seeking to place oneself in an elevated position alongside G-d.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer 

Who is deciding? We know that a traitor to the Jewish people should be rebuked. The fact is Rabin could be considered a traitor to the Jewish people because he was intending to give away much more than should be given. Israel is the land which Hashem gave to the Jewish people as an inheritance. I didn't wish him to die but I do not mourn him. He was like Olmert in that he is a self-hating Jew.

It does nothing to rebuke the dead. But we can thank Hashem that justice was served and Rabin was not able to succeed in implementing a suicidal policy in Israel.

Winston Churchill evacuated the British expeditionary force from France in 1940 to England, leaving all their tanks, artillery, motor transport, ammunition and supplies behind in France with the soldiers escaping with nothing more than the shirts on their backs and rifles. Maybe Churchill was a traitor and a self hating British person?



Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

I think you are making an error in comparing British and Israeli/Jewish world politics. Israel was given the land by Hashem, as written in the Bible which is holy to most modern religions. It is one thing to let territory go for Britian, but an altogether another story when concerning Israel which is a tiny land surrounded by viscious enemies.

And I don't really understand what Brittan had against the Jews of Palestine before 1948 but it sounds like it was very unfair.  I have heard that Jews were not allowed to have guns or weapons, leaving them vulnerable to viscious arab gangs.

Any leader of Israel who thinks that his popularity will increase by giving land to enemies is an enemy of the Jewish people. The land of Israel is not to be divided by mere politicians, it is G-d given land and it is the birthright of all Jews around the world. I look at any 'leader' who is willing to bend to the enemy in order to allow more Jews to die in terrorism and murder, is a traitor and should be judged harshly.

[Adrian Wainer]

I think you are making an error in comparing British and Israeli/Jewish world politics. Israel was given the land by Hashem, as written in the Bible which is holy to most modern religions. It is one thing to let territory go for Britian, but an altogether another story when concerning Israel which is a tiny land surrounded by viscious enemies.

And I don't really understand what Brittan had against the Jews of Palestine before 1948 but it sounds like it was very unfair.  I have heard that Jews were not allowed to have guns or weapons, leaving them vulnerable to viscious arab gangs.

Any leader of Israel who thinks that his popularity will increase by giving land to enemies is an enemy of the Jewish people. The land of Israel is not to be divided by mere politicians, it is G-d given land and it is the birthright of all Jews around the world. I look at any 'leader' who is willing to bend to the enemy in order to allow more Jews to die in terrorism and murder, is a traitor and should be judged harshly.

My point is not a religious one, my point is a political and military one, is that sometimes in politics or military affairs, one only has the choice between a bad thing and an even worse thing, Churchill had a choice between making a humiliating and very risky evacuation and leaving the troops in France and possibly have them defeated and captured by the Nazis. It is all very well saying G-d promised this or G-d promises that and if people have faith in G-d I would make no criticism of them, but where was G-d in Auschwitz?  G-d may have promised Israel to the Jewish people but G-d doesn't seem too good at stopping Syrian tanks what with thunderbolts and stuff but the centurions did.



Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

[muman613]

I think you are making an error in comparing British and Israeli/Jewish world politics. Israel was given the land by Hashem, as written in the Bible which is holy to most modern religions. It is one thing to let territory go for Britian, but an altogether another story when concerning Israel which is a tiny land surrounded by viscious enemies.

And I don't really understand what Brittan had against the Jews of Palestine before 1948 but it sounds like it was very unfair.  I have heard that Jews were not allowed to have guns or weapons, leaving them vulnerable to viscious arab gangs.

Any leader of Israel who thinks that his popularity will increase by giving land to enemies is an enemy of the Jewish people. The land of Israel is not to be divided by mere politicians, it is G-d given land and it is the birthright of all Jews around the world. I look at any 'leader' who is willing to bend to the enemy in order to allow more Jews to die in terrorism and murder, is a traitor and should be judged harshly.

My point is not a religious one, my point is a political and military one, is that sometimes in politics or military affairs, one only has the choice between a bad thing and an even worse thing, Churchill had a choice between making a humiliating and very risky evacuation and leaving the troops in France and possibly have them defeated and captured by the Nazis. It is all very well saying G-d promised this or G-d promises that and if people have faith in G-d I would make no criticism of them, but where was G-d in Auschwitz?  G-d may have promised Israel to the Jewish people but G-d doesn't seem too good at stopping Syrian tanks what with thunderbolts and stuff but the centurions did.



Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Adrian,

G-d was where he has always been... Hashem does let bad things happen to us. It is a long and difficult topic to ask 'why' the Holocaust happened. I am not prepared at this time to cover that topic, but it has been explained and it satisfies me. As I am a direct victim of 9/11 and I am in a position to ask why these things happen, faith in Hashems providence in the world comes from understanding that he is the source of all, good and bad.

The politics of Israel is an integral part of the dream of Zion which all religious Jews should have. This dream requires the establishment of an independent Jewish state in the land of our forefathers. I don't know what the feeling of those in Brittan is, but I doubt it is as strong a yearning as a Jew who wants to bring back the Temple which was destroyed 2000 years ago. This is in our prayers daily, and I yearn for the establishment of a Jewish Israel.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

Adrian, Churchill was NOT a self-hating British leader or traitor. He may not have been good for the Jews at all, but he was good for British territorial integrity. The British HAD NO CHOICE but to flee at Dunkirk. The Germans had overwhelming land and air superiority at the time and the soldiers would have all been annihilated if they did not retreat back to Britain. Yitzhak Rabin, on the other hand, commanded a nation more militarily powerful than all others in the Middle East combined, and yet tried to surrender to an enemy that was about as militarily powerful and effective than the black and Hispanic street gangs of urban America. Apples and lima beans, my friend.

[Nadav]

SerbAvenger, Torah isn't and shouldn't be used as a source of intellectual pleasure. You have completely distorted the meaning of Erev Rav which is the mixed multitude. I kindly ask you stay from Torah. The only exception is if you want to educate yourself on Noahide laws.

[DownwithIslam]

SerbAvenger, Torah isn't and shouldn't be used as a source of intellectual pleasure. You have completely distorted the meaning of Erev Rav which is the mixed multitude. I kindly ask you stay from Torah. The only exception is if you want to educate yourself on Noahide laws.

Nadav, their is no question that Rabin was a pursuer of Jewish blood. I hope his tuchis is roasting in gehenom.

[DownwithIslam]

YItchak Rabin the drunken murdering rapist used the precious land of Israel as his personal "deposit" towards his lovely muslim buddies. We can use his farshtunkena bones as a deposit.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

SerbAvenger, Torah isn't and shouldn't be used as a source of intellectual pleasure. You have completely distorted the meaning of Erev Rav which is the mixed multitude. I kindly ask you stay from Torah. The only exception is if you want to educate yourself on Noahide laws.

Your opinion has been duly noted, Clockwork.

[Nadav]

YItchak Rabin the drunken murdering rapist used the precious land of Israel as his personal "deposit" towards his lovely muslim buddies. We can use his farshtunkena bones as a deposit.

Well this is true. It's just that erev rav is the wrong term. Rabin betrayed the Jewish people, no doubt about it.

SerbAvenger, Torah isn't and shouldn't be used as a source of intellectual pleasure. You have completely distorted the meaning of Erev Rav which is the mixed multitude. I kindly ask you stay from Torah. The only exception is if you want to educate yourself on Noahide laws.

Your opinion has been duly noted, Clockwork.

SerbAvenger, there are restrictions for gentiles to study Torah. Earlier you gave an incorrect definiton of erev rav, this only proves why there is a restriction. It's not that you couldn't figure it out, but you're just not allowed to. Ask any Rabbi about this, he'll agree.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

Unfortunately the cat is kind of out of the bag Clockwork, about 1 billion Christians use the Tanach as a holy book, and I don't think that you of all people are going to stop that trend.

[muman613]

Unfortunately the cat is kind of out of the bag Clockwork, about 1 billion Christians use the Tanach as a holy book, and I don't think that you of all people are going to stop that trend.

Christians do not study the Torah. They study a greek translation. And besides they are missing over half of the Torah.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

Christians do not study the Torah. They study a greek translation. And besides they are missing over half of the Torah.

The comments weren't addressed to you, but an instigator in this thread. But for the record I will say:

1--we may not use the term Torah, but the Pentateuch is an integral part of the O.T., and therefore the Bible

2--the Septuagint is considered a very accurate translation, and was always validated by ancient Hellenic-Jewish rabbinic authorities (and by the way, some Christians do study the Tanach in its original Hebrew)

3--the point being made to Nadav is that Christians do use half the Torah, whether he likes it or not