JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Israel Chai on August 21, 2014, 05:40:17 PM
-
He's the Rabbi Kahane of the generation:
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/eliana-benador-rabbi-yosef-mizrachi-on-the-war-against-hamas/#
Despite having lost almost 70 young soldiers during this war and after 3,488 rocket attacks between July 8 and August 10, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu still insists in negotiating with the Hamas terrorists.
Meanwhile, a fiery Israeli-born Rabbi from Monsey, New York, is becoming the lightning rod trying to do “kiruv,” salvaging Jewish souls from the grip of unorthodox Jewish currents and a ramping liberalism.
He addresses thousands each week, getting rave reviews. His audiences encompass men and women of different ages, economic background and cultural origins.
Rabbi Yosef Mizrachi is having increasing success in social media and an impressive hit count on his English, Spanish and Russian websites.
During a recent visit to New York, Mizrachi was kind enough to accept my invitation for an interview about the situation in Israel. Here is what he had to say:
So Many Jews are Democrats. How Does Judaism Identify with Democracy?
“Democracy is the antithesis of Judaism. It is one of the most corrupt political systems in the history of mankind and the exact opposite to what G-d prescribes and says in the Torah. For instance, the Torah says the leader has to be a perfect person, not a handsome movie star, or a multibillionaire. One of the greatest Jews, Moses, raised and groomed as the adopted Pharaoh’s grandson, was a shepherd who stuttered, and was not rich. On contemporary Israeli TV he would never have been able to make it and certainly he would not have become the most legendary leader in history.
“The Torah does not say that the majority should rule the minority just because they are the majority. On the contrary, it states that the minority must rule the majority for the simple reason that if you take 500 people, a maximum of 50 will be wise, clever, smart, or genius. The rest will be average or below average.
“Therefore, by the rules of Democracy, the ignorant would dictate the experts how to run the military, the economy, politics, and the justice system. In other words, the ignorant who are the majority and maybe are unable to read or write their name, would be in a position to decide for the people who have education, experience, and true leadership skills. That doesn’t make sense.
“In the vast majority of countries, the masses are not educated. For instance, if the Arabs were run by their ignorant majority, instead of the educated minority, we would be in an even more dire situation.
“Anyone with a clear mind can see that Democracy is a self-defeating, suicidal, and corrosive system of governance.”
And, About the Current Situation in Israel?
“Abu Mazen and his people, regardless of their opinion about Israel, concluded that they have to reach some kind of political agreement to end this conflict.
“Hamas, their supporters, and the people who voted for them have decided to fight this war against Israel. They do not want a solution because their leitmotif is to annihilate all Jews and Israel.
“While it may have been possible to make peace with Mazen and his partisans, Hamas’s intentions will never change and therefore any political solution will be doomed from the onset, making it impossible to conquer some peace at least for the next 10 to 20 years.
“That is why the problem must be solved in a war, because we must fight for our survival. There is no other solution.”
Your Opinion on Negotiating With Hamas?
“It is impossible trying to do civilized politics with Hamas, which is a terrorist organization.
“The conflict is based on their religion, which orders them to annihilate Jews and destroy Israel. Killing Jews is urgent for them because Israel is right in their midst.
“They are also holding slaughtering orgies of Christians, and as history repeats, the world is emphatically demonstrating their deafening silence.
“Muslims who do not obey the strict rules of sharia, or are from a different denomination, are also victims of serial butchering massacres at the hands of their savages.
“The barbarians do not care about life and they are proud to die, they don’t mind if tens of thousands of their people die. In average, they give birth to so many children that they show total indifference to how they live, who dies and how many die.
“The Koran tells them to destroy all Jews and that’s their agenda. How can you make any agreement with people who have this kind of agenda?
“There is, obviously, no other solution than be strong and disregard the complaints of the world, their politics, and their hypocrisy.
“No matter who would have to deal with this kind of threat – the United States, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Russia, or any other country – it is sure that their response to it would be much more crushing than Israel’s.
“Remember what King Hussein did in Jordan during Black September in 1970, when the Palestinians tried to demonstrate against him? He killed them all in one single day and nobody heard a single complaint.
“In principle, in order to to minimize risks, an attack should be done from the air. A massive military action should solve the problem. In the Middle East, all else is a waste of time.
“If someone is coming to kill you, you must kill that person first.
“In a situation like the current one in Israel, where the government sends troops to face such a deadly enemy, the Torah explains that one is not allowed to risk Israeli soldiers to save the enemies who are seeking to destroy us.
“The Israeli military target the Hamas terrorists and if these decide to use their own women and children as shield to protect themselves, ethically speaking, they are solely and directly responsible for the death of their human shields. Not Israel.”
As part of the ethics of self-defense as appears in the Torah, Mizrachi explains further:
“Should a thief enter your home to steal and should he aim at you, at first, you should try not to kill him. Nonetheless, if you realize that he still could kill you, you must aim to neutralize him in an act of self-defense. However, once the thief is on the way out with the bounty, one cannot shoot him on the back, given that there is no longer a life-threatening risk.
“This is a rule of absolute self-defense, naturally also applicable in the case that a Jew wants to kill another Jew.
“When it comes to a Hamas terrorist, after unsuccessfully trying to kill you, and he is on his way out of the tunnel, at any rate, one has to shoot him because one knows he will return to finish the job and he will continue attacking others.
“Their agenda is to destroy the Jews and to destroy Israel. So there is only one solution.”
Is There Any Way to Make the Israeli Government do What Needs to be Done?
“Since it is a Democracy, there is not much to do until next elections. If people made the wrong choice, they are going to suffer the consequences.
“Given that Netanyahu is morally challenged, he always gives in to pressure from the left and from President Barack Obama. A phone call would suffice and he would immediately forget the sacrifice of almost 70 soldiers who were murdered by Hamas.
“Obama, Germany, France or the rest of the world are Netanyahu’s concern. If he would care about the Jewish people, the job would have already been done, but he is still ‘negotiating.’
“In a different country, the army would take over and place the prime minister under house arrest for ‘being a risk to the people,’ so the army would continue the job with or without him.
“The only thing that can be done is if half a million people put tremendous pressure on him and rally from morning to night, and tell Netanyahu ‘Finish the job. If not, your political life is finished,’ until he gets it.
“Netanyahu is no Itzhak Shamir [the former prime minister], who would have already finished the job, regardless of what the world says or thinks.
“If Shamir was the prime minister, Hamas would be history now. The problem is the poll-addicted politically correct leaders.”
Mizrachi illustrates with great clarity the ethical path that Israel should follow in the war against Hamas according to the over-three-millennia-old Judaism. The Torah and its uplifting teachings stand tall when compared to the Koran. This one, on the contrary, sends their followers to annihilate the dhimmis or non-Muslims, Jews and Christians alike, including Muslims who choose not to follow Sharia to the letter. Therein lies the insurmountable and abysmal differences between Judaism and Islam, civilization versus barbarism.
Eliana Benador: strategist consultant, adviser, opinion writer, and speaker, was founder of Benador Associates and is head of Benador International, based in Geneva, Switzerland. Her website is www.elianabenador.com. You may follow her on Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook.
-
I very much enjoyed his statements especially vis a vis Netanyahu. However there is one exception which should caution you and all of us against thinking he could be a leader like Rabbi Kahane. He said that it. May be possible to make peace with Abu Mazen. Anyone with that thought process is not fit to be a jewish leader. I hope he will rethink that misunderstanding because otherwise he is pretty intelligent.
-
Democracy is not necessarily COMPLETELY incompatible with Judaism and I wouldn't call it the antithesis. The Torah does have democratic values in it.. He is right about it being incompatible when it comes to voting for leaders though because the majority of people are ignorant and fools. (Especially in Israel and the U.S.)
Here is a chabad article dealing with this issue.
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1493834/jewish/Is-Democracy-Jewish.htm
-
I very much enjoyed his statements especially vis a vis Netanyahu. However there is one exception which should caution you and all of us against thinking he could be a leader like Rabbi Kahane. He said that it. May be possible to make peace with Abu Mazen. Anyone with that thought process is not fit to be a jewish leader. I hope he will rethink that misunderstanding because otherwise he is pretty intelligent.
When did he say this?
-
When did he say this?
He said it in the article. I know many times he has said that everyone in Gaza is a terrorist, so you can't make peace there, and in response to the question "can we say "death to all Arabs"" he said no, because some Arabs aren't bad. Anyways, that statement isn't really saying that we should live with the a Fraudestinian state, it's just like now, they live there and aren't attacking. He already mentioned the statement that if you allow non-Jews to live in the land, you will be punished for what they do. Most important is the context of the statement, which is serving as an explanation to separate the Arabs that the readers say "they're good people" and the bad ones, so he's using the statement that peace between Israel and Fatah is a physical possibility to explain why Gaza needs to be destroyed. I think if you pushed him on that issue, you'd see that he takes the Torah position completely.
Also, you have to interpret the statement to get to the point you did, when I see "it may be possible" instead of "it is possible" as saying they will probably want to kill us because of all their factors, but they aren't all terrorists like in Gaza, just maybe 50-60%, so their government can keep their population from killing us and a peace is possible that way. Still press him on that, and I'm sure he'll say things off camera like he said to me that would impress you more than any other Rabbi I could name.
-
Rabbi Mizrachi is great. But I hesitate to compare him to Rabbi Kahane. Nobody will ever be able to replace him, his contribution has been immeasurable. But we need a leader 'like' Rabbi Kahane and I think that is what you are asking for. I don't know if Rabbi Mizrachi has any political ambitions though (never heard him say anything about trying to run for office). Also I don't know if he is an Israeli or an American (I believe he was born in Israel and moved to America, though I am not sure of his citizenship status)...
-
Rabbi Mizrachi is great. But I hesitate to compare him to Rabbi Kahane. Nobody will ever be able to replace him, his contribution has been immeasurable. But we need a leader 'like' Rabbi Kahane and I think that is what you are asking for. I don't know if Rabbi Mizrachi has any political ambitions though (never heard him say anything about trying to run for office). Also I don't know if he is an Israeli or an American (I believe he was born in Israel and moved to America, though I am not sure of his citizenship status)...
Lol everyone says we need a leader, so we need a leader. Nobody thought Rabbi Akiva who was illiterate until 40 would fight Rome.
-
When did he say this?
It's in the article.
-
I'm sorry but anyone who says it is possible or worthwhile goal to make supposed peace with abu mazen is unfit as a Jewish leader. This mindset has gotten Jews murdered maimed and injured for decades, and it is plain wrong.
-
I'm sorry but anyone who says it is possible or worthwhile goal to make supposed peace with abu mazen is unfit as a Jewish leader. This mindset has gotten Jews murdered maimed and injured for decades, and it is plain wrong.
I don't see that he said what you suggest. He said 'It may have been possible to make peace with Abu Mazen'... This is in the past tense, so it implies that it is no longer possible to make peace with his faction... I don't see this as something to be concerned about. I don't believe that Fatach is any better than Hamas though.
-
We can work together on some issues with Rabbi Mizrachi but he can not be in any way a substitute for Rabbi Kahane.
-
I don't see that he said what you suggest. He said 'It may have been possible to make peace with Abu Mazen'... This is in the past tense, so it implies that it is no longer possible to make peace with his faction... I don't see this as something to be concerned about. I don't believe that Fatach is any better than Hamas though.
What in the world are you talking about, muman?
It was never possible nor desirable to make supposed peace with abu mazen. Rabbi Mizrachi (and it sounds like you are agreeing with him which I find shocking!) is parroting the narrative of the establishment (such as Bibi) which says that we can make peace with Abbas but not now that he has joined with hamas.
You are then also unfit to be a leader if you accept this fraud of a viewpoint.
No, we cannot make peace with arafat, we cannot make peace with abu mazen, I do not liike green eggs and ham, not in a boat or in a car - we cannot afford to make "peace" which all peace means is handing over money, weapons, sovereignty to terrorists and refusing to kill our enemies. No, I do not like the arab fake peace, Sam I Am.
-
What in the world are you talking about, muman?
It was never possible nor desirable to make supposed peace with abu mazen. Rabbi Mizrachi (and it sounds like you are agreeing with him which I find shocking!) is parroting the narrative of the establishment (such as Bibi) which says that we can make peace with Abbas but not now that he has joined with hamas.
You are then also unfit to be a leader if you accept this fraud of a viewpoint.
No, we cannot make peace with arafat, we cannot make peace with abu mazen, I do not liike green eggs and ham, not in a boat or in a car - we cannot afford to make "peace" which all peace means is handing over money, weapons, sovereignty to terrorists and refusing to kill our enemies. No, I do not like the arab fake peace, Sam I Am.
KWRBT,
No you read my post wrong again... See the sentence 'I don't believe that Fatach is any better than Hamas though.'... That is my opinion. I never believed peace was possible with Fatach... But some did. And that has been shown to be an erroneous conclusion.
-
KWRBT,
No you read my post wrong again... See the sentence 'I don't believe that Fatach is any better than Hamas though.'... That is my opinion. I never believed peace was possible with Fatach... But some did. And that has been shown to be an erroneous conclusion.
And yet, despite it already having been proven false, this rabbi STILL holds of it? That's exactly what I'm talking about. And you say this is not something to be concerned with, about a potential leader of our people?!
You are saying I misread your post, but actually your post didn't make any sense because it was self-contradictory. On the one hand you say that muman thinks fatach and hamas are no different. But while Rabbi Mizrahi IS saying they are different, you say no problem.
-
I'm sorry but anyone who says it is possible or worthwhile goal to make supposed peace with abu mazen is unfit as a Jewish leader. This mindset has gotten Jews murdered maimed and injured for decades, and it is plain wrong.
Yes.
-
And yet, despite it already having been proven false, this rabbi STILL holds of it? That's exactly what I'm talking about. And you say this is not something to be concerned with, about a potential leader of our people?!
You are saying I misread your post, but actually your post didn't make any sense because it was self-contradictory. On the one hand you say that muman thinks fatach and hamas are no different. But while Rabbi Mizrahi IS saying they are different, you say no problem.
I do not consider him a leader of the Jewish people. I consider him a good Rabbi who is onto something good.
The overall message he conveyed is correct. There is no peace with people who want to kill us. Whether Rabbi Mizrachi thinks that peace was possible or not, to me it is irrelevant because it has been shown that there is no peace with Abbas and Fatach.
You should look at the good things which were said by the Rabbi rather than try to tear it down based on one thing you disagree with. He is not a 'leader of the Jewish people' at this time. I support what he says and think it can bring people to see that we must not accept peace with them, especially with the history we have witnessed.
-
Yes.
But he did not think it is possible or desirable to make peace with them at this time. He said 'it may have been possible' which is clearly past tense, moving forward he says that there is no possibility.
“While it may have been possible to make peace with Mazen and his partisans, Hamas’s intentions will never change and therefore any political solution will be doomed from the onset, making it impossible to conquer some peace at least for the next 10 to 20 years.
“That is why the problem must be solved in a war, because we must fight for our survival. There is no other solution.”
I do believe that there will be peace with them, when they are out of the land, far away... But I don't think we will wipe them out of existence.
-
Assuming the following quote attributed to Rabbi Mizrachi is accurate
“While it may have been possible to make peace with Mazen and his partisans, Hamas’s intentions will never change and therefore any political solution will be doomed from the onset, making it impossible to conquer some peace at least for the next 10 to 20 years.
This shows Rabbi Mizrachi is not correct about an important Torah principle.
The Arabs of Israel have the status of the 7 nations of Canaan and the Torah does not want us to make peace with them. The Torah wants them removed from the Land!
If Rabbi Mizrachi thinks that in 10 years from now we can have peace with these evil people, it shows he is totally off on this subject.
-
I do believe that there will be peace with them, when they are out of the land, far away... But I don't think we will wipe them out of existence.
If that is true then how come (to give 1 example) Iran doesn't want to make peace with Israel, being "so far away".
Muman like it or not there will never be peace with them. If they're out of The Land of Israel they can kill no Jews but still hate and prepare for war.
-
Assuming the following quote attributed to Rabbi Mizrachi is accurateThis shows Rabbi Mizrachi is not correct about an important Torah principle.
The Arabs of Israel have the status of the 7 nations of Canaan and the Torah does not want us to make peace with them. The Torah wants them removed from the Land!
If Rabbi Mizrachi thinks that in 10 years from now we can have peace with these evil people, it shows he is totally off on this subject.
edu, do you have a source for this? I cannot believe that Rabbi Kahane thought like this because I have heard his speeches and he said that he didn't want to kill them all, he wanted them out of Israel (far far away). I also have never heard a rabbi say that the current arabs in Israel are considered Caananite. Firstly we have said that the Caananites were decimated at the time of Joshua, secondly they claim to be Philistines (which were not a part of the seven nations), and third we consider them as descendents of Ishmael who were not Caananites. Could you provide a source for your claim that they are of the status of the 7 nations of Caanan?
-
It is a positive commandment to destroy the seven nations of Caanan, according to Rambam it is mitzvah #188... But according to Rambam these nations no longer exist.
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/961561/jewish/Positive-Commandment-187.htm#footnote4a961561
Positive Commandment 188
The 187th mitzvah is that we are commanded to kill and destroy the seven nations [of Canaan]1 because they are the prime worshippers and original source of idolatry.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He), "You must wipe them out completely." [Scripture3] explains the reason for this commandment is to keep us from learning from their heresy. Many verses encourage and urge that they be killed, and waging war against them is a milchemes mitzvah [mandatory war].
Since these seven nations no longer exist4 a person could think that this commandment is not noheg l'doros [for all generations5]. But only someone who does not understand the concept of noheg l'doros would think such a thing. A command that can be fulfilled without being limited to a certain time is considered noheg l'doros, because if the act would become possible in any generation, the mitzvah would apply. When G‑d will totally destroy the descendants of Amalek and remove them for all time — as will be speedily in our days, as G‑d (exalted be He) promised,6 "I will wipe out the memory of Amalek" — will we say that the mitzvah to wipe out the memory of Amalek7 was not noheg l'doros? This is not true, for in any generation when one finds a descendant of Amalek, he must be killed. The same applies to this mitzvah of killing all descendants of the seven nations, which is a milchemes mitzvah. In every generation we are required to uproot them and search after them down to the last individual. We did this until King David destroyed them completely, with the survivors being scattered and assimilated among the nations until they disappeared.
But although they no longer exist, the mitzvah to kill them is still considered noheg l'doros, just as the mitzvah to wage war against Amalek is considered noheg l'doros even after their destruction. This is because it is not dependant on a certain time or place, such as in Egypt8 or in the desert.9 The mitzvah is dependant solely upon the object of the mitzvah: whenever they are found, the mitzvah must be fulfilled.
The general rule is that you must understand and contemplate upon the difference between the commandment itself10 and this that the commandment deals with.11 There are mitzvos where the object of the commandment has ceased to exist in a certain generation,12 but this does not render the mitzvah not noheg l'doros, since the commandment itself applies forever.
For a commandment to be considered not noheg l'doros, the opposite would be true. The specific object in the specific state does exist; but the obligation to perform the specific act or follow the certain law only applies at a certain time. Today, even though the object exists, the commandment does not. An example of this would be an elderly Levite, who was not allowed to serve [in the Mishkan] in the desert, but is allowed today, as we explained in the proper place.13 Be sure you understand this and keep it in mind.
FOOTNOTES
1. Chitti, Emori, Canaani, Prizi, Chivi, Yevusi and Girgashi — Deut. 7:1.
2. Deut. 20:17.
3. Ibid., 20:18.
4. See Hilchos Melachim 5:4.
5. In the Third Introductory Principle, the Rambam explains that in order to be counted among the 613 mitzvos, the commandment must apply for all generations. Since the seven nations no longer exist, it would therefore seem that this commandment shouldn't be counted.
.
.
.
I would like to hear the source to consider them one of the seven nations... I am not saying there is no source, but I have not heard it.
-
edu, do you have a source for this? I cannot believe that Rabbi Kahane thought like this because I have heard his speeches and he said that he didn't want to kill them all, he wanted them out of Israel (far far away). I also have never heard a rabbi say that the current arabs in Israel are considered Caananite. Firstly we have said that the Caananites were decimated at the time of Joshua, secondly they claim to be Philistines (which were not a part of the seven nations), and third we consider them as descendents of Ishmael who were not Caananites. Could you provide a source for your claim that they are of the status of the 7 nations of Caanan?
In or harayon. I can tell you exact pages later if you request it. And he also explains that the canaanim dpbt all have to be killed. They are fist given choice of peace then choice to leave and then if the fight they get killed.
-
One should not say, "Death to all Arabs" because not all Arabs are bad.
Rather we should say, "Death to all of the enemies of the Jewish People."
-
One should not say, "Death to all Arabs" because not all Arabs are bad.
Rather we should say, "Death to all of the enemies of the Jewish People."
Or "Death to all Muslims". That would be more accurate.
-
When it was said to work together what does that necessarily entail?
-
In or harayon. I can tell you exact pages later if you request it. And he also explains that the canaanim dpbt all have to be killed. They are fist given choice of peace then choice to leave and then if the fight they get killed.
Wait... What you wrote does not make sense. If they are Caananite nations then there is no option to make peace... The commandments is that they must be destroyed (wherever they are found). So either they are, or they aren't... Please check the source you refer to.
-
Wait... What you wrote does not make sense. If they are Caananite nations then there is no option to make peace... The commandments is that they must be destroyed (wherever they are found). So either they are, or they aren't... Please check the source you refer to.
its not like that. read Or harayon. the sources are brought down and quoted. 1st option is peace, but in our terms. last option is war and fight all the way.
-
I do not consider him a leader of the Jewish people. I consider him a good Rabbi who is onto something good.
The overall message he conveyed is correct. There is no peace with people who want to kill us. Whether Rabbi Mizrachi thinks that peace was possible or not, to me it is irrelevant because it has been shown that there is no peace with Abbas and Fatach.
You should look at the good things which were said by the Rabbi rather than try to tear it down based on one thing you disagree with. He is not a 'leader of the Jewish people' at this time. I support what he says and think it can bring people to see that we must not accept peace with them, especially with the history we have witnessed.
Sorry, but you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. The premise of LKZ's post was to promote this rabbi as a leader (so your comment that he is not a leader at this time as a challenge to what I said, is irrelevant). Lkz proposed him as a Rabbi Kahane of our generation. That's false and I stated its falsehood. That is not "trying to tear it down" it is simply an honest response to LKZ. Rabbi mizrahi is a big boy, he can handle someone critiquing his view, so you should strap the big boy pants on and stop demanding that I only see the good and nothing else or else keep my mouth shut. No one is under any obligation to keep silent on falsehood.
-
its not like that. read Or harayon. the sources are brought down and quoted. 1st option is peace, but in our terms. last option is war and fight all the way.
The commandment of destroying the Caananites has no provision for peace or allowing them to flee. I posted above the commandment as brought down by Rambam. So maybe Rabbi Kahane doesn't consider them to be Caananites?
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/961561/jewish/Positive-Commandment-187.htm
http://www.torah.org/learning/halacha-overview/chapter83.html
We are commanded to destroy the seven nations of Canaan and it is forbidden to let any Canaanite live, as it says "[But from the cities of these nations...] you shall not let any soul live; for you shall destroy them... [in order that they do not teach you to imitate all their abominations]".7 It is forbidden to forget the evil deeds of Amalek; we are commanded to remember them and to destroy all trace of him, as it says "Remember what Amalek did to you... you shall wipe out the memory of Amalek... you shall not forget".8 However, if these nations accept peace terms they are not to be killed. Before declaring war we are commanded to offer peace terms, as it says "When you approach a city to make war on it you must call out to it regarding peace".9 (We are forbidden to do this with Ammon and Moab, as it says "You shall not seek their peace or welfare"10; but if they make peace with us we accept it.) War must not be conducted destructively; for example, it is forbidden to cut down fruit trees during a siege, as it says "[If you besiege a city many days...] you shall not destroy its trees".11,d
So I am a bit confused at this stage. If Rabbi Mizrachi was wrong or right to suggest that peace may be had with them (if they are indeed counted among the seven caananite nations)...
Maybe the solution is that they are not 'Canaanite' nations but fighting them is a Milchemet Mitzvah... Hope to learn the answer after Shabbat...
-
But he did not think it is possible or desirable to make peace with them at this time. He said 'it may have been possible' which is clearly past tense, moving forward he says that there is no possibility.
But it was never true. NEVER.
“While it may have been possible to make peace with Mazen and his partisans, Hamas’s intentions will never change and therefore
When? When was that ever true? It wasn't and it is misleading to suggest otherwise.
The rabbi's statement implies that up until the minute abu mazen made a coalition govt with hamas, bibi should be hard at work making "peace" with him, but no longer. That is establishment nonsense. Oslo policy. Death.
-
But it was never true. NEVER.
When? When was that ever true? It wasn't and it is misleading to suggest otherwise.
The rabbi's statement implies that up until the minute abu mazen made a coalition govt with hamas, bibi should be hard at work making "peace" with him, but no longer. That is establishment nonsense. Oslo policy. Death.
Rabbi Mizrachi has stated numerous times that Oslo was a failure and we must learn from the mistakes.
-
The commandment of destroying the Caananites has no provision for peace or allowing them to flee. I posted above the commandment as brought down by Rambam. So maybe Rabbi Kahane doesn't consider them to be Caananites?
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/961561/jewish/Positive-Commandment-187.htm
http://www.torah.org/learning/halacha-overview/chapter83.html
IT actually does. That is why their were the Gevyonim (I believe that's what they were called if Im not mistaken) who were Canannites and who even though they tricked us into a peace treaty and gave a false identity to themselves they still weren't harmed (even though technically the deal wasn't just because it was based on a lie).
Rav Kahane quotes the Rambam. Its not a contradiction at all. Their are different options including fighting.
I don't have the time now to go into it. Overall I highly recommend you read Rav Kahane's Sefer Or Harayon. He goes deeply into this subject (and the different opinions and the bottom line Halacha as well) and does mention the Arabs as well and their is a specific highlight stating that they have the status of the Cananites. Maybe this last point is a disagreement with the Rambam but according to Rav Kahane and the sources he brings he does make this specific point. About the other points of first giving option for peace (according to our terms) its in the Rambam as well.
-
edu, do you have a source for this? I cannot believe that Rabbi Kahane thought like this because I have heard his speeches and he said that he didn't want to kill them all, he wanted them out of Israel (far far away).
What's that have to do with peace? They are hateful people and they will always hate unless they assimilate and forget (and then its not really peace with them but with completely different people).
Haters gonna hate.
-
IT actually does. That is why their were the Gevyonim (I believe that's what they were called if Im not mistaken) who were Canannites and who even though they tricked us into a peace treaty and gave a false identity to themselves they still weren't harmed (even though technically the deal wasn't just because it was based on a lie).
Rav Kahane quotes the Rambam. Its not a contradiction at all. Their are different options including fighting.
I don't have the time now to go into it. Overall I highly recommend you read Rav Kahane's Sefer Or Harayon. He goes deeply into this subject (and the different opinions and the bottom line Halacha as well) and does mention the Arabs as well and their is a specific highlight stating that they have the status of the Cananites. Maybe this last point is a disagreement with the Rambam but according to Rav Kahane and the sources he brings he does make this specific point. About the other points of first giving option for peace (according to our terms) its in the Rambam as well.
Is the Ravs Sefer available in English today?
-
The commandment of destroying the Caananites has no provision for peace or allowing them to flee. I posted above the commandment as brought down by Rambam. So maybe Rabbi Kahane doesn't consider them to be Caananites?
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/961561/jewish/Positive-Commandment-187.htm
http://www.torah.org/learning/halacha-overview/chapter83.html
So I am a bit confused at this stage. If Rabbi Mizrachi was wrong or right to suggest that peace may be had with them (if they are indeed counted among the seven caananite nations)...
Maybe the solution is that they are not 'Canaanite' nations but fighting them is a Milchemet Mitzvah... Hope to learn the answer after Shabbat...
The undeniable fact that there cannot be peace with the nazi terrorists of fatah and abu mazen has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with how you classify the arabs currently living in Israel or what the Torah presents as options for dealing with cananites
-
I'm sorry but anyone who says it is possible or worthwhile goal to make supposed peace with abu mazen is unfit as a Jewish leader. This mindset has gotten Jews murdered maimed and injured for decades, and it is plain wrong.
He never says it's a worthwhile goal, nor did he promote it, but it's true that in order to remove all the nazis from Gaza, we have to artillery them first, while removing them from the north is easy, we just go in and say go, and that is the differentiation he was making. He's not speaking of it as a political issue that this is the right choice to make, it's just to understand how bad they are in Gaza.
I do not consider him a leader of the Jewish people. I consider him a good Rabbi who is onto something good.
The overall message he conveyed is correct. There is no peace with people who want to kill us. Whether Rabbi Mizrachi thinks that peace was possible or not, to me it is irrelevant because it has been shown that there is no peace with Abbas and Fatach.
You should look at the good things which were said by the Rabbi rather than try to tear it down based on one thing you disagree with. He is not a 'leader of the Jewish people' at this time. I support what he says and think it can bring people to see that we must not accept peace with them, especially with the history we have witnessed.
I agree with everything you say, except I would end the first sentence with yet, obviously, nobody is even able to do what Rav Kahane Z"TL did. He is willing to go against the establishment, he has shown that he can make a massive following and convince people of the truth. All he needs is to get involved with politics, and it's finished, we can make all of Israel baalei teshuva. Imagine the difference in Israel if he was the head of Shas, or had his own party and Bennet brought him to Likud instead of his fellow traitor.
That's what I want to do Tag. I want him to be the new Micheal Ben Ari, besides the new facebook, and just push for Jewish education and have a 100% kosher platform, and people will rally to him like they did with Rabbi Kahane, because "in the world of the blind, [that] one-eyed man is king", G-d willing.
The undeniable fact that there cannot be peace with the nazi terrorists of fatah and abu mazen has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with how you classify the arabs currently living in Israel or what the Torah presents as options for dealing with cananites
You're right, and if you want to send him an email to clarify his position (it's clear to me, but I'm interested to see if he'd spell it out, but I'm too scared to waste his time for this question, in all the conversations we had I barely told him a few things about me or anything outside the point), use this form http://www.divineinformation.com/contact-us/ and I'm certain his position is congruent with ours.
-
He never says it's a worthwhile goal, nor did he promote it, but it's true that in order to remove all the nazis from Gaza, we have to artillery them first, while removing them from the north is easy, we just go in and say go, and that is the differentiation he was making. He's not speaking of it as a political issue that this is the right choice to make, it's just to understand how bad they are in Gaza.
This is what you're saying.
This is not what he said in the interview. In fact he said something contrary. Have a good shabbos.
-
Muman613
It appears that the english translation 2 volumes of Ohr Haraayon of Rabbi Meir Kahane is
available for sale at
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss/184-0572576-2539858?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=ohr%20haraayon
In addition Muman613 you quoted before Rambam's opinion on the 7 nations of Canaan but there are other Rabbis on Rambam's level who don't see it the way he does.
See for example, Rashbam and Chizkuni to Breishit 22:1, Ramban's addition #4 to the list of Positive Commandments in Sefer Hamitzvot.
-
Like Amnon Yitzhak, Mizrahi
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Radio/Author.aspx/6260
has brought thousands back to belief in Hashem.
All though they have their good points and are not avowed Shasniks, but being Sefardim they cannot but help having partial reverence for Ovadiya Yosef ie that "Land for Peace" is at least nominally permitted for "pikuach nefesh".
This is the antithesis of Kahanism.
(http://www.divineinformation.com/thumbs/Mizrachi2.jpg)
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HhtSU4PFhFg/hqdefault.jpg)
(http://mosaicmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/135499519.jpg)
-
Like Amnon Yitzhak, Mizrahi
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Radio/Author.aspx/6260
has brought thousands back to belief in Hashem.
All though they have their good points and are not avowed Shasniks, but being Sefardim they cannot but help having partial reverence for Ovadiya Yosef ie that "Land for Peace" is at least nominally permitted for "pikuach nefesh".
This is the antithesis of Kahanism.
Not gonna argue for the sake of arguing, you're right in this, Y-----a.
-
Is the Ravs Sefer available in English today?
Definitely. Check amazon. English is 2 volumes.
-
The fact remains that as prime minister, if he said something on the news to the homo riot like "you want to do sins and make Hashem angry, don't show it off. Stay in your closet. Actually you should go in a closet inside a closet, just in case you were thinking about leaving the first one." would be epic. It's not like if Rav Ovadia was in power, he would have actually given land himself. Don't pretend you wouldn't kill to see him PM Y-----a.
-
The fact remains that as prime minister, if he said something on the news to the homo riot like "you want to do sins and make Hashem angry, don't show it off. Stay in your closet. Actually you should go in a closet inside a closet, just in case you were thinking about leaving the first one." would be epic. It's not like if Rav Ovadia was in power, he would have actually given land himself. Don't pretend you wouldn't kill to see him PM Y-----a.
It is imo immature thought processes which cause someone in denial to ascribe thoughts and views of their own onto someone else who actually in actual deed, written, and/or public statements supported, facilitated and defended the opposite views. It is also a futile exercise. Why play a game of , "but if ravv x was prime minister he might have..." He was not prime minister, he was who he was and did whathe did.
If the idealized version of any person I could make up in my head was prime minister, they would all kick out arabs. So what?
-
Muman613
It appears that the english translation 2 volumes of Ohr Haraayon of Rabbi Meir Kahane is
available for sale at
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss/184-0572576-2539858?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=ohr%20haraayon
In addition Muman613 you quoted before Rambam's opinion on the 7 nations of Canaan but there are other Rabbis on Rambam's level who don't see it the way he does.
See for example, Rashbam and Chizkuni to Breishit 22:1, Ramban's addition #4 to the list of Positive Commandments in Sefer Hamitzvot.
However none of that matters. A group of people hellbent on your extermination has given up any rights to peaceful engagement.
-
It is imo immature thought processes which cause someone in denial to ascribe thoughts and views of their own onto someone else who actually in actual deed, written, and/or public statements supported, facilitated and defended the opposite views. It is also a futile exercise. Why play a game of , "but if ravv x was prime minister he might have..." He was not prime minister, he was who he was and did whathe did.
If the idealized version of any person I could make up in my head was prime minister, they would all kick out arabs. So what?
The idealized prime minister in your head doesn't matter most likely.
What maybe it is is that you can't get an all-in-one Rabbi Kahane in this generation, but if you put Rabbi Mizrachi, Jews for Judaism, JTF, and some right wing guys in the knesset together in a group, you're getting close.
-
The idealized prime minister in your head doesn't matter most likely.
What maybe it is is that you can't get an all-in-one Rabbi Kahane in this generation, but if you put Rabbi Mizrachi, Jews for Judaism, JTF, and some right wing guys in the knesset together in a group, you're getting close.
You changed the subject away from you drooling about Rav Yosef Zt''L in your idealized mold which never existed in real life.
-
Or "Death to all Muslims". That would be more accurate.
No it's not more accurate because there are non Muslims who are our enemies
-
You changed the subject away from you drooling about Rav Yosef Zt''L in your idealized mold which never existed in real life.
What?
-
What?
You said that if Rav Yosef would have been prime minister, then magically he would have adopted the Kahanist view and transferred the arab enemy even though in his life and actual political role he never supported that and actually he actively worked against it. Do you believe you know this from ruah hakodesh, lol? When I called you on it, you replied with something convoluted in which you said a vague comment that the idealized prime minister in MY (kwrbt's) head doesn't matter but that you want to combine rabbi mizrahi with jtf and a few other groups. So that is why I said you changed the subject. Because you did.
-
You said that if Rav Yosef would have been prime minister, then magically he would have adopted the Kahanist view and transferred the arab enemy even though in his life and actual political role he never supported that and actually he actively worked against it. Do you believe you know this from ruah hakodesh, lol? When I called you on it, you replied with something convoluted in which you said a vague comment that the idealized prime minister in MY (kwrbt's) head doesn't matter but that you want to combine rabbi mizrahi with jtf and a few other groups. So that is why I said you changed the subject. Because you did.
Oh I did? It's amazing how much I can say and do here without doing anything. Must be the ruah hakodesh I just acquired. Or maybe it takes one to know one, and you can see what I'm thinking or will say.
Anyways, I said Rav Ovadia wouldn't have given land to terrorists. Whether he would keep them in Israel is unknown.
As for your imaginary prime ministers, I'm not trying to imagine what a perfect president would do, what I am saying is that of the people in the world to work with, meaning support and political appeal, Rabbi Mizrachi is the best candidate.
However, I expect that any candidate running that is normal would encounter ferocious resistance, and that's why I said imagine him as the head of Shas. If more parties were normal, it would make JTF running easier.
Of course you're looking to attack me first and call me immature to resolve whatever self-esteem issue I couldn't care less about. Personally, I get amused by being able to return insults, except it isn't particularly useful, and shameful that that's what you have to contribute in regards to what I say here, as usual. Anyways, your posts earlier were poorly expressed, and therefore I didn't change the topic, I responded to a misunderstanding, and was trying to say that I don't believe any one person would measure up to the man Rav Kahane ZT"L was, but put Rabbi Mizrachi's love for Torah and courage to speak it (hence the gay parade response), Jews for Judaism's outreach program and our political message together, and together we could do what Rabbi Kahane did and wanted to do.
By the way, I couldn't give a crap if you attack me, but now your twisting made Chaim attack (and thank G-d he didn't say he believed it) Rabbi Mizrachi, and better either of us had never said a word here than for that to happen.
Re-read the sentence "“While it may have been possible to make peace with Mazen and his partisans, Hamas’s intentions will never change and therefore any political solution will be doomed from the onset, making it impossible to conquer some peace at least for the next 10 to 20 years."
May have are the key words. Anyways in his lecture he said they'd attack in 10 or 20 years at least, so yes, he did say [elsewhere] that a political agreement could be reached with Fatah, but not that it would bring actual peace. In this article, shows clearly he's not talking about making any peace with Fatah or really talking about them at all, he's saying that at some other time Israel tried to give land, Fatah would have taken it, and they would be happy for a few years. Hamas would attack before they start unpacking. He spoke against giving land, which is clearly what he's talking about in a peace agreement here, so it's obvious that he DID NOT IN ANY WAY promote making peace with Fatah, he just mentioned them for the sake of showing 1. That Hamas is that bad, 2. That you can't even get your tribute's worth out of giving a piece to Hamas.
-
Oh I did? It's amazing how much I can say and do here without doing anything. Must be the ruah hakodesh I just acquired. Or maybe it takes one to know one, and you can see what I'm thinking or will say.
Anyways, I said Rav Ovadia wouldn't have given land to terrorists. Whether he would keep them in Israel is unknown.
Equally absurd comment. He DID enable Oslo in his role which he actually served. It could not have happened without Shas blessing it and voting for it. And he paskened that for peace you give away land. That was his psak. It is magical thinking to say that if he was prime minister instead, he would have reversed his worldview and done the opposite.
The point of view is infantile and deserves to be lambasted. It's nothing personal against you. It's the unrealistic idealizing of a person, and probably you are doing it because this was a great Torah scholar. I think this problematic approach ties in directly with your refusal to take the living Rabbi Mizrahi's statements at face value.
-
The late Rabbi Ovadia Yosef did unspeakable damage to Israel and for that reason JTF will never support him. You should listen to Chaim on the matter. I do not think being a great biblical scholar can negate his political views or how he made rulings on the basis of government funding for Shas institutions.
Martin Luther (ysv) was a phenomenal Christian theologian, too, but his head-knowledge did not undo the fact that he was a Nazi monster.
-
Equally absurd comment. He DID enable Oslo in his role which he actually served. It could not have happened without Shas blessing it and voting for it. And he paskened that for peace you give away land. That was his psak. It is magical thinking to say that if he was prime minister instead, he would have reversed his worldview and done the opposite.
The point of view is infantile and deserves to be lambasted. It's nothing personal against you. It's the unrealistic idealizing of a person, and probably you are doing it because this was a great Torah scholar. I think this problematic approach ties in directly with your refusal to take the living Rabbi Mizrahi's statements at face value.
I never argued with the facts of his actions and that of Shas enabling the horrible tragedy of giving land. What did Rav Ovadia do after? He cursed Sharon, and clearly G-d took the Rav seriously, because he made his curse into reality. What that shows, is despite him doing what he did for whatever reason in that environment, were he the prime minister at the time, it is wholly unimaginable that he would have done what Sharon (YS"V) did.
-
I never argued with the facts of his actions and that of Shas enabling the horrible tragedy of giving land. What did Rav Ovadia do after? He cursed Sharon, and clearly G-d took the Rav seriously, because he made his curse into reality. What that shows, is despite him doing what he did for whatever reason in that environment, were he the prime minister at the time, it is wholly unimaginable that he would have done what Sharon (YS"V) did.
Pure wishful thinking. If he was prime minister, the only realistic assumption is that he would have done what rabin did, which is exactly what he helped rabin to do in his lifetime.
If you think that a big scholar can tell God what to do,I think you are being taught incorrectly..
Until just now, no one had even raised the subject of expulsion of Jews in the context of our discussion of Rabbi Yosef or Rabbi Mizrahi. It sounds like you are just changing your story as we go along.
-
The late Rabbi Ovadia Yosef did unspeakable damage to Israel and for that reason JTF will never support him. You should listen to Chaim on the matter. I do not think being a great biblical scholar can negate his political views or how he made rulings on the basis of government funding for Shas institutions.
Martin Luther (ysv) was a phenomenal Christian theologian, too, but his head-knowledge did not undo the fact that he was a Nazi monster.
It didn't have to do with funding. He came with that Psak (that we don't agree with) before their was even a Shas party.
-
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/184194
MK (Eli Yishai- Shas) Pushes to Make Oslo Accords 'National Tragedy'
-
Going back to the original concern about R Mizrachi and Abbas- I wouldn't take it too seriously. I don't think that is what he really believes it was just in the context of that saying and talking about Hamas that that is why he said it that way (and often times when people speak a lot they even make mistakes and contradictions). For this we don't need to sweat it, BUT perhaps someone can get a clear confirmation and I would and do believe that he was say against Fatah as well when asked directly.
That being said I wouldn't call him a Rabbi Kahane ZTL HYD because their is that possibility of falling back into the "Haredi" mindset and even after the murder of the 3 Datei Leumi boys, after one of the good lectures where he speaks about killing the murderers and killing them quickly and anyone involved in terror in any way (even funding) he then also blames the murder of the 3 boys because they were Settlers which means part of the Bayit Yehudi. And he blames their murder on the fact that Bayit Yehudi is part of the coalition and the coalition is against (and/or not including) the Haredim. I would say that THIS aspect is more dangerous and serious about him then about the Abbas words which I don't even believe that he believes and meant.
-
Pure wishful thinking. If he was prime minister, the only realistic assumption is that he would have done what rabin did, which is exactly what he helped rabin to do in his lifetime.
If you think that a big scholar can tell God what to do,I think you are being taught incorrectly..
Until just now, no one had even raised the subject of expulsion of Jews in the context of our discussion of Rabbi Yosef or Rabbi Mizrahi. It sounds like you are just changing your story as we go along.
Considering that he called him a rasha for doing it, that's highly unlikely, and really, this is the fifth time you twist my words to make me look stupid, so to give the benefit of the doubt and assume it was an accident, no retard, he can't tell Hashem what to do, but (I forget the source, but ironically did hear it from Rabbi Mizrachi) Hashem takes the blessings of Torah scholars more seriously than with others, and the same would logically go for curses.
Anyways, stop trying to win an argument and read into the discussion for a change. Unless you're incapable, in which case you're also hostile for a reason I could figure out if I cared. What story? That we should work with Rabbi Mizrachi in one or both of the proposed ways? What the heck are you talking about? It's baffling to me how either you would think I care about your intellectual approval or winning a conversation on a forum.
The point of raising the expulsion was to say that in an environment of evil people, even decent people act incorrectly. Shas today, despite Tag's post there showing what seems to be more of an exception, is overall a monstosity that has members which support many evil causes. I'm saying that even Rav Ovadia with his liberal position on the chilul Hashem of land surrender, if Chaim had the governing party would be a great help and do many more good things, and the same would logically go for Rabbi Mizrachi, even with this position.
By the way, Wonga brought up land surrender. Scroll ^
-
In the last year of R. Ovadia Yosef's life, when the latest elections were held in Israel, shortly before the election, both heads of Shas, Deri and Yishai went to an Arab village and promised for true peace they would support painful concessions.
That is to say there were no real regrets for Oslo. They only regretted that this or that "guarantee" wasn't added to the process, so we got the results that we are seeing today.
-
In the last year of R. Ovadia Yosef's life, when the latest elections were held in Israel, shortly before the election, both heads of Shas, Deri and Yishai went to an Arab village and promised for true peace they would support painful concessions.
That is to say there were no real regrets for Oslo. They only regretted that this or that "guarantee" wasn't added to the process, so we got the results that we are seeing today.
That's why I would like to see Rabbi Mizrachi as the head of Shas.
-
We need more cross-pollination with the Hebrew forum. What do they say about the Rabbi, and are his lectures the same in Hebrew?
-
Considering that he called him a rasha for doing it, that's highly unlikely, and really, this is the fifth time you twist my words to make me look stupid, so to give the benefit of the doubt and assume it was an accident, no retard, he can't tell Hashem what to do, but (I forget the source, but ironically did hear it from Rabbi Mizrachi) Hashem takes the blessings of Torah scholars more seriously than with others, and the same would logically go for curses.
Anyways, stop trying to win an argument and read into the discussion for a change. Unless you're incapable, in which case you're also hostile for a reason I could figure out if I cared. What story? That we should work with Rabbi Mizrachi in one or both of the proposed ways? What the heck are you talking about? It's baffling to me how either you would think I care about your intellectual approval or winning a conversation on a forum.
The point of raising the expulsion was to say that in an environment of evil people, even decent people act incorrectly. Shas today, despite Tag's post there showing what seems to be more of an exception, is overall a monstosity that has members which support many evil causes. I'm saying that even Rav Ovadia with his liberal position on the chilul Hashem of land surrender, if Chaim had the governing party would be a great help and do many more good things, and the same would logically go for Rabbi Mizrachi, even with this position.
By the way, Wonga brought up land surrender. Scroll ^
Jeez, can you stop taking it personally and just debate the issues? You waste your breath and waste the time of JTFers with the ad hominem nonsense.
Do you know who Rabin is? Read my comments carefully, please, before throwing a tantrum. It was YOU who brought expulsion of Jews into this discussion. Rabin didn't have a chance to expel Jews but started the Oslo process. The logical conclusion of that process is to expel Jews so it would not surprise me if any of the shas people did it as "painful concessions" and the only means of truly implementing oslo.
But by "oslo" and referring to rabin and what R Yosef helped him to do, it refers to importing arafat and his fatach thugs into Israel, giving them land, money, and sovereignty for future statehood. Yes that happened, yes R Yosef enabled it. Stop denying this basic fact and stop conflating "oslo" with "gaza expulsion."
Oh yes and these are the same thugs Rabbi Mizrahi says we could make peace with. Let's stay on topic.I haven't twisted any words here. Quit acting like a victim.
-
Jeez, can you stop taking it personally and just debate the issues? You waste your breath and waste the time of JTFers with the ad hominem nonsense.
Do you know who Rabin is? Read my comments carefully, please, before throwing a tantrum. It was YOU who brought expulsion of Jews into this discussion. Rabin didn't have a chance to expel Jews but started the Oslo process. The logical conclusion of that process is to expel Jews so it would not surprise me if any of the shas people did it as "painful concessions" and the only means of truly implementing oslo.
But by "oslo" and referring to rabin and what R Yosef helped him to do, it refers to importing arafat and his fatach thugs into Israel, giving them land, money, and sovereignty for future statehood. Yes that happened, yes R Yosef enabled it. Stop denying this basic fact and stop conflating "oslo" with "gaza expulsion."
Oh yes and these are the same thugs Rabbi Mizrahi says we could make peace with. Let's stay on topic.I haven't twisted any words here. Quit acting like a victim.
"Jeez, can you stop taking it personally and just debate the issues? You waste your breath and waste the time of JTFers with the ad hominem nonsense."
Happily, pot.
I know who Rabin (YS"V) was, and Wonga brought up the expulsion of Jews, for the second time. The purpose of Oslo was expelling Jews, and while Rav Ovadia not fighting it made him have a hand in it (bad things come to the world because of the sins of the tzadikim, the Rabbis teach), he wasn't fighting for it, and Shas would not be protesters against Torah if there was a Jewish state lead by one doing what Torah says. Also, stop accusing me of things like a whiner. I never "denied" that Rav Ovadia had a hand in the surrender of land. To respond to my point with this baseless accusation is another example of why this entire "conversation" of me repeating myself after you make baseless attacks against me and Rabbi Mizrachi is a complete and utter waste of time, and as such, comment away, I'm done talking to you here. It's wasting my personal time.
To conclude, Rabbi Mizrachi never said that we can currently make peace with the Fatah murderers, and to take that article and say it's promoting such a thing after you twist the Rabbi's words to make your lashon hara palatable is indicative that you wanted to attack the Rabbi in the first place.
-
That Rabin was mentioned I remember another thing as well. Rabbi Mizrachi called and referred to Yigal Amir as "the murderer", multiple times. Rav Kahane would never have done that against Yigal Amir. I personally and specifically told him about this but he then again continued to do so as well.
LKZ maybe you can ask him again and now about this and what he refers to Yigal Amir as but it is wrong to disparage Yigal Amir with such words especially in public.
-
In the last year of R. Ovadia Yosef's life, when the latest elections were held in Israel, shortly before the election, both heads of Shas, Deri and Yishai went to an Arab village and promised for true peace they would support painful concessions.
That is to say there were no real regrets for Oslo. They only regretted that this or that "guarantee" wasn't added to the process, so we got the results that we are seeing today.
I did not know that but am not surprised. Those two thugs took every single one of their orders from ROY.
-
That Rabin was mentioned I remember another thing as well. Rabbi Mizrachi called and referred to Yigal Amir as "the murderer", multiple times. Rav Kahane would never have done that against Yigal Amir. I personally and specifically told him about this but he then again continued to do so as well.
LKZ maybe you can ask him again and now about this and what he refers to Yigal Amir as but it is wrong to disparage Yigal Amir with such words especially in public.
I don't really understand his answer to that. He said they're all terrorists and they all want to kill Jews, so you can't just go out and kill them all.
-
I don't really understand his answer to that. He said they're all terrorists and they all want to kill Jews, so you can't just go out and kill them all.
What are you talking about? I am talking about Yigal Amir and not the Jews who burned that Arab ; supposedly.
-
What are you talking about? I am talking about Yigal Amir and not the Jews who burned that Arab ; supposedly.
He said it in that context, but it's an answer to the same question, and I don't really understand the statement as applied to either case. If they are all murderers, then yes we should kill them imo.
-
No when he mentioned yigal amir it had no connection to the burned Arab. It was way before that. What you brought is another example of not being like Rav Kahane.
-
No when he mentioned yigal amir it had no connection to the burned Arab. It was way before that. What you brought is another example of not being like Rav Kahane.
Don't have to be the good Rav to have value. You're not being like Rav Kahane. None of us are. But some elements of his mission are fought on by others. Rabbi Mizrachi embodies his love for secular Jews, and his desire to return Hashem's sons to him. We don't have Rabbi Kahane, and we don't have any choice but to work together with any Jew carrying out a part of what he did, and maybe as one we can start to accomplish what he did, and G-d willing even a fraction of what he hoped for.