The last recorded time this happened, was in the 1920, when the British arrested a Jew for blowing the Shofar at the kotel on Yom Kippur.
The rabbi of the Western Wall, Rabbi Shmuel Rabinovitch, told Arutz-7, "This is a very grave incident, and I have asked the local police commander, Yossi Priente, to check into it - both the violence and the prevention of the shofar blowing. It reminds us of the days of the British Mandate when Jews [had to make] super-human efforts to blow the shofar at the Western Wall."
He was referring to the late 1920's, when the British, in an attempt to appease the Arabs, and following violence at the Wall, forbade shofar-blowing at the Wall. In one famous incident in 1929, a man named Moshe Segal blew the shofar at the conclusion of Yom Kippur - and was immediately arrested by the British. Though he had fasted for the previous 25 hours, the British detained him without food until midnight, when he was released. It was later reported that the release came about when then-Chief Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Kook informed the commander that he himself would not eat until Segal was released.
Nearly 40 years later, following the first Yom Kippur service at the Wall under Israeli sovereignty, shortly after the Six Day War, the shofar was again sounded - by Moshe Segal.
The Jerusalem police department can be faxed at (972-2) 539-1190.
Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael
No tootin'
ReplyDeleteThe last time this happened was 1947. Between 1930, - when HaRav Moshe Tzvi Segal first "broke the law" when the British-appointed "international committee" decided that the Western Wall precinct was Muslim property and that while the Jews could pray there they could do a few other things like blowing the shofar - and 1947 (with intermissions), both Betar and Irgun members would blow the shofar there and be detained. Rav Segal got out a few hours later after Yom Kippur when Rav Kook Sr. threatened not to break his fast until Segal was out. Please note: no Bnei Akivnik was ever involved. It was "too nationalist" an action.
ReplyDeleteOy.
ReplyDeletethe Shofar was too loud for the Arab Children...
ReplyDeleteI thought it was supposed to upset Satan!
unbelievable. simply.... unbelievable.
ReplyDeleteThat is one sad story.
ReplyDeletei agree with jack...
ReplyDelete..in times of old, jews would cross the street in order to avoid passing a church, and now they bring them (ever present, non too pleasant cross) onto their blogs...
ReplyDeleteDid you ever consider that the police 1) never heard of not-talking-during-amidah
ReplyDelete(which, trust me, is much more honored in the breach than the practice in all the synagogues I've ever prayed in) and 2)never heard of the Sephardic minhag (which I never heard of until I read this post). Police, being police, generally tend to become unpleasant when someone appears to be ignoring them, whether they are Jewish or gentile.
Although why they would be surprised at someone blowing shofar on Rosh Hashanah, during amidah or otherwise, is beyond me. But I suspect sheer ignorance is at the bottom of this more than anything else.
lurker:
ReplyDelete"The Israeli Police have gone far, far, beyond anything exhibited by the British in their level of raw, vicious, antisemitic hatred and brutality."
this a horrible story on many levels, but don't exagerate. israel has never sentenced jews to government-sanctioned public floggings, or for that matter, to the gallows, both of which the british did.
a. kinsberg: israel has never sentenced jews to government-sanctioned public floggings
ReplyDeleteYou my friend, have never been present and witnessed the 'police' publically swarming a Jew not in the regime's favour...
Just in case the term 'swarming' is too obscure, it describes a mass of persons acting togethere with extreme physical force against a single (passive) target [person].
The swarming is more useful to the regime than a public flogging because it intsills similar reaction in the victim, whilst preventing a public outrage. Also, as we see, the victim can easily be charged with some kind of 'obstruction'/'violence' charge, thereby further denigrating him, whilst shoring up the well-known canard, 'the police were just [following orders] doing their job'.
One shoots a British colonial flunky, and is called 'hero' - the other shoots a treacherous dreg in the Kings of Israel Square, and is called 'criminal murderer'.
Consider that.
Truth.
To Truth: let me take this to another dimension. Police can be brutal all over. But there is a major difference, which maybe cannot at first be grasped, that the British police were "foreign". And as such, by their very essence as such were infinitely worse than the Israeli police even if you think that physically, the Israeli police "bettered" them in certain instances. But when the British police did nothing and allowed Jews to be killed (not all the time); and they permitted the British Mandatory authorities to fulfill policy of anti-Zionist nature, then their "foreign" essence becomes understandbly more injurious. What you are voicing is the neo-Satmar version of dumping on Israel as a state of the Jews, as a Zionist project and on the idea that since government policy is bad, then the whole enterprise is bad, too. I don't agree with that. Enough said.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletekishnevi:
ReplyDelete1. Never talking during the amida? Somehow, the police don't storm mosques during prayer, and have the barest minimum of intelligence to realize when someone is in the middle of prayer. I don't know where you daven, but I don't think I've ever been in a shul for musaf Rosh Hashana where it was noisy during the quiet amida. Perhaps you should look for an alternative, serious minyan?
2. I'm really sorry you've never heard of the sephardic minhag of shofar blowing during the quiet amida. Open any "nusach sephard" machzor and it's clearly stated. The OU has a link about it here -- just because you may have never heard of a specific minhag doesn't mean it may not be widespread. (And I would venture that it's probably the majority in Israel)
Sheer Ignorance? You give the police far too much credit.
ymedad: ...the British police were "foreign". And as such, by their very essence as such were infinitely worse than the Israeli police...
ReplyDeleteNo, they were not infinitely worse at all, their foreigness actually justified any action they took [to them, strategically]. It also justified any action we took against them, as long as that action was severe enough to be effective [eventually]. Only a nabob naively expects foreign colonial occupying powers to behave in a 'considerate' manner. Only a knave tolerates one's own national domestic security agencies/agents using these methodologies against their own people.
But when the British police did nothing and allowed Jews to be killed (not all the time);
Ah, yes, and when the regimes's police/military/security services do nothing and allow Jews to be killed (not all the time, too)...
Whilst they have plenty of time and means to beat up Shofar-blowers and destroy Jewish property and industries rendering no less than 10,000 jobless and homeless, run a 'pogrom' in places such as Amona, etc...
.. and they [British police I assume - Truth] permitted the British Mandatory authorities to fulfill policy of anti-Zionist nature, then their "foreign" essence becomes understandbly more injurious.
No again, 'they' were 'just following orders', unquestionably legitimate [objectively and subjectively to them]. They had the full rule of 'Mandatory Law' [internationally recognised and accepted] behind them. Distasteful, perhaps, but certainly true.
What is dispicable, was the behaviour of the gentilised rabble masquerading as 'Jewish statesmen' who would hound, villify and even assist the British in 'neutralising' effective opposition persons/activities [ie, 'The Season', etc.]
That's why the 'more violent' of the Jewish resistance movements were so neccessary and vital - without the proper level of aggression, I suppose we'd still be enjoying our tea and crumpets between Arab pogroms, and reading the villifications of our martyred heroes in The Palestine Post and Ha'aretz...
What you are voicing is the neo-Satmar version of dumping on Israel as a state of the Jews...
Hardly. Satmerde and their ilk and spawn are clearly and undeniably Amalek [as opposed to erev rav]. I'll be writing extensively about this soon.
...the idea that since government policy is bad, then the whole enterprise is bad, too.
I never said that at all, nor do I agree with that. It's far more simple and clear: Since government policy and action are bad [an understatement], the regime and its running dogs are vile scoundrels, too.
Eretz HaKodesh and AmHaNivchar are victims of this type of regime, as well as victims of 'anti-zionist Jews' of all religious persuasions.
Truth.
And people ask me why I don't do Aliyah?
ReplyDeleteOur goyishe neighbours don't complain about the Shofar blasts.
truth,
ReplyDeleteas i stated, this story is horrible on many levels? what did you think i was talking about?
"One shoots a British colonial flunky, and is called 'hero' - the other shoots a treacherous dreg in the Kings of Israel Square, and is called 'criminal murderer'. Consider that."
did you just infer that one who assasinates the prime minister of the state of israel is not a criminal murderer? what i am considering i don't think jameel would let me print.
It's not just Sephardim that blow in the middle of Mussaf Shmonah Esrei. I've been to Ashkenazi minyanim that blow in the middle too.
ReplyDeleteYou've got to beyond being an ignorant policeman to not know that Jews blow Shofar in Israel on Rosh HaShana at the Kotel.
http://joesettler.blogspot.com/2006/09/where-are-police-when-you-need-them.html
ReplyDeletejoe settler,
ReplyDeletemy ashkenazi minyan blows in the middle too
a. kinsberg: ...what i am considering i don't think jameel would let me print.
ReplyDeleteI think that whatever it is you're thinking, jameel would print as long as it wasn't profanity or something like that. At most he'd ask you to remove it yourself...
did you just infer that one who assasinates the prime minister of the state of israel is not a criminal murderer?
I didn't infer it, buddy, I think I spelled it out loud and clear. The criminal murderer [of Jews, too] in question was the dead drunkard, not the sap who's sitting in prison. Something to do with "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." [T. Jefferson]
Unless one forgot how many people got murdered on the Altalena, as a direct consequence of the Oslo treasons, etc., or one attributes the execution to inter-regime conspiratorial machinations, or one actually supported that scoundrel and his misdeeds, the proper conclusion is unavoidable.
Truth.
truth:
ReplyDeletei can't believe i am even willing to entertain having a conversation with you about this matter, but i need to satisfy my curiosity about a particular point: "Unless one forgot how many people got murdered on the Altalena, as a direct consequence of the Oslo treasons"
well he was not the one only one from the left--and i am afraid to ask how you define the left--who is responsible for the deaths of jews, whether on the altalena or from negotiations with the palestinians. so tell me, do you have a whole list of "criminal murderers" whose assasination you would condone? who else is on your list (please be specific)? where do you draw the line? anyone to the left of kach perhaps? are we talking just about the political leaders (and diplomats) themselves, or those in the israeli electorate who put them into power?
truth,
ReplyDeletechecking out your blogs i see you are a kachnik. before i became a misguided hellinist-collaborator-commie-leftist i had read all of kahane's books (this is before all of the posthumously-published stuff came out). my memory may fail me (this was a long time ago), but i don't think i remember him ever condoning assasinating jews. am i not remembering correctly?
As for refering to Truth's approach as neo-Satmar and then realizing (and Ari confirmed) that you are a Kachnik, rest assured, whether I'm a nabob or knave or behave like one, you're still representing a neo-Satmar philosophy in my interpretation. And as (a) I really don't have all that free time to engage in disputations and (b) it probably wouldn't help, please excuse me for not continuing this argumentation. You may be enjoying it but I'm not.
ReplyDeletea. kinsberg: checking out your blogs i see you are a kachnik
ReplyDeleteIt seems your powers of observation are impaired - what do you base that on? The fact the 'sidebar' or my profile links to a Kahana blog? So I got invited to post there whenever I would like (which hasn't occured yet)? Maybe I'm a 'mad zionist', 'godol hador', 'joe settler', 'jameel', 'jerusalem cop', too? Not that there's anything wrong with any of them, of course...
Just out of curiousity, did you actually read anything I wrote on my blog?
before i became a misguided hellinist-collaborator-commie-leftist...
Unless you're a 'Hebrew Stalinist' [ie, old-time mapainik], your description is incorrect, and based on the level of most of your comments I'm a bit suprised that you chose the ridiculous route here...
i don't think i remember him [R. Kahana hy"d] ever condoning assasinating jews...
I doubt it; The Israeli penal code includes the death penalty as a punishment for severe crimes, such as terrorism, treason, mass murder. [Unfortunately only used in the Eichmann case]. But do you remember the Israeli penal code calling for the assasination of Jews?
Sure, it would have been far better if a just court would have convicted the scoundrel in question and imposed an apt punishment - but that didn't happen and wasn't going to happen, either.
In any case, our friend Mr. Medad could probably expound on A. Raviv and the implications of that on what really caused Rabin's death, at least if he hasn't changed his very public pronouncements on that matter over the years.
Truth.
"this a horrible story on many levels, but don't exagerate. israel has never sentenced jews to government-sanctioned public floggings, or for that matter, to the gallows, both of which the british did."
ReplyDeleteAri,
HaRav Moshe Tzvi Segal was thrown into administrative detention by the British in 1927 for blowing shofar at the kotel. His son-in-law, Rav Yitzchak Ginsburgh, was thrown into administrative detention by the Israelis (under direct ordeer of Shimon Peres) in 1996 for publishing divrei torah.
As a student of the legal system, I see administrative detention - imprisonment without charges - as being worse than capital punishment that has been ordered in a case that went to trial and resulted in conviction. So you tell me if yor math "adds up" here.
ymedad: As for refering to Truth's approach as neo-Satmar and then realizing (and Ari confirmed) that you are a Kachnik...
ReplyDeleteI'm not suprised by your keen powers of observation here, either... you realise then have confirmed by someone else something that isn't true - bravo.
As regards to anybody at all being a 'kachnik' or not, I wonder at that coming out of you - after all these years being a 'kachnik' is still relevant and meaningful (whatever one thinks of 'kachniks') - which is certainly not the case with someone who was a 'Tchiya' hack...
...you're still representing a neo-Satmar philosophy in my interpretation.
Well now, I sure am glad that you and Geula Cohen haven't got anything to do these days with making me (or anyone else) illegal. And thanks, coming from a state-worshipper I'll take that as a compliment.
(a) I really don't have all that free time to engage in disputations
Hmm, with me or with anyone? Is it because you use most of your time 'engaging in disputations', or do you prefer repetative, long-winded dissertations beating the same dead horse of 'passive resistance' in expectation of actually getting a ride somewhere on it?
Or lamenting the ineffectuality of the organ(s) you are/were an appendage of ["Information Resources Director at the Menachem Begin Heritage Centre in Jerusalem and serves as a spokesperson for the Yesha Council of Jewish Communities in Judea, Samaria and [....].", etc.]
Or perhaps keeping 'expert witness' status regarding 'nonviolent protest' so you can help people and org.s like you helped Zo Artzeinu in the sedition case?
(b) it probably wouldn't help...
I'd presume that if one had something one concluded was most likely close to true if not true to say, one wouldn't desist from saying it - after all, even if I can't be 'helped', maybe someone else reading here could be.
You may be enjoying it but I'm not.
I feel sorry for you, Mr. Medad - because it's what you do for a living. If your own tired, inneffectual drivel isn't shiny and new anymore, that's your problem, but also your fault.
I appreciate your poignant ranting in the world press or any other platform you can exploit for the purpose, dramatically exposing how Israel gets 'done rotten' in the media, and oh-how-nasty our enemies are these days.
I'll give you and your clique plenty of, if not all of the credit for idiocies like Kfar Maimon [that 'great victory' of tens of thousands being misguided into not walking by a tiny 'police' force, etc.]
Please disabuse me of my mistaken and perhaps even slanderous notions, and I will gladly apologise to you.
Otherwise I'll continue to consider you and your pseudo political-science of neo-whatever-ism to be as relevant now as Tchiya, Yeshu Kounsil, etc.
Finally, you're welcome to 'disputate' and 'argument' as much as you like [or not], I welcome the opportunity to shed light on what the philosophical guiding lights of your clique are espousing these days after decades of failure and uselessness [except as lackeys of corrupt regimes, which I commend you all on serving most honourably and extensively].
Truth.
ben bayit,
ReplyDeleteFor all the indignity and pain R. Segal and his son-in-law both suffered, both lived to tell of their experiences. Gruner and Itzhak Gurion's other martyrs did not. That is my algebra.
And just because you are student of the law does not mean that you don't need to qualify your statement that administrative detention is worse than the gallows. How do you come to that conclusion?
(In case you are speaking from personal experience: You may very well have sat in administrative detention and been abused yourself, but would you really have preferred the gallows?)
In most circumstances, at the end of the day I'd rather have a living, breathing Jew.
truth,
ReplyDelete"It seems your powers of observation are impaired . . ."
i did read your blog and that is exactly why i came to my conclusion that you are a kachnik (even if only a sympathizer and not an activist):
1) you rip into EVERY Jewish party on the political spectrum, including the transfer parties, but not the "banned/terrorist" one, i.e. kach.
2) your style and choice of language is classic kach. you must have read every kahane book yourself.
3) taking #1 and #2 into account, your involvement (albeit unfulfilled as of yet) in an outright kach site was just my confirmation.
of course your unmitigated and brazen support for rabin's murder (excuse me, punishment) is the final clincher.
and benatayim, you have not denied that you are a kachnik. you just question how i arrived at this conclusion. so here you have it.
"A. Raviv and the implications of that on what really caused Rabin's death"
who exactly killed rabin is irrelevant here. it could have been a martian visitor for all we are concerned. the point is that you condoned his murder.
and so i repeat my original questions: how do you define who is a leftist in Israel? do you have a whole list of "criminal murderers" whose assasination you would condone? who else is on your list (please be specific)? where do you draw the line? anyone to the left of kach perhaps? are we talking just about the political leaders (and diplomats) themselves, or those in the israeli electorate who put them into power?
Ari: I'm not going to defend Truth, but wanted to just comment on something you just wrote:
ReplyDelete"A. Raviv and the implications of that on what really caused Rabin's death"
This is not proof that someone is a Kachnik or not. Raviv was definitely a key component to Rabin's death, from many perspectives, and bringing up that point doesn't make anyone a kachnik. What I do find interesting though is the way some kachniks view this blog.
On the Revava website, there are those who bash me and my blog for "not getting it"...
What I find important is the freedom of expression -- be it those who say a posting of mine is inappropriate for bashing arabs, or those who say I'm an apologist for liberalism (reveva website).
Feel free to say whatever you want - just don't attack bloggers personally, and don't be rude. After all, I wouldn't want things to deteriorate to the level of Dovbear's blog ;-)
boker tov jameel!
ReplyDelete"This is not proof that someone is a Kachnik or not."
when i wrote "so here you have it," i was referring to what i had written until that point and not what followed.
i only then repeated truth's statement about "a. raviv . . ." to try and get back to my original question for him regarding his condoning rabin's assasination. as far as i am concerned for this context, i don't care who murdered him, but that truth condones the murder.
but as long as you are bringing it up now: as far as i am aware, very few people in israel, even among the right wing, would actually condone the murder. so the fact that truth does so unapologetically tells me something about where he is on the political spectrum. if he is not a kachnik, then he is to the right of it.
"Feel free to say whatever you want - just don't attack bloggers personally, and don't be rude"
i am really not sure which of my comments you are objecting to. i am the one was accused of having "powers of observation [that are] impaired." unless you consider it wrong to accuse someone of being a kachnik (which truth did not deny). i apologize (to you and to truth) if i violated the et0iquette of your blog and i will bow out of the thread at this point to avoid any further misunderstandings on my part.
(and are you telling me that you are not "an apologist for liberalism"? that is the only reason i follow your blog.)
gemar hatimah tovah!
Against my better judgment, I'll continue with some comments in the name of truth (with a small 't' to distinguish myself from the capital T I'm engaging):
ReplyDeletea) first of all – Jameel, do I get a little protection here (I'd use 'defense" but that might recall to use all the JDL and Truth wouldn't want that).
b) T wrote: "something that isn't true - bravo."
Okay, I apologize, you're not a Kachnik, or a card-carrying one if you say so. But I still think you are in the mindset of the Kach philosophy. And having first met Meir Kahane in 1964 and having worked with him on projects off and on since then until his murder and having read all his books, etc., etc., I think you are the closest thing to a closet Kachnik there is. But, please, take that as a compliment.
c) T wrote "coming out of you…a 'Tchiya' hack...".
Well, actually I was never employed by Techiya but rather Geula Cohen. As for your pejorative intention, well, if being a Kachnik bothers you and me being a former Techiya person, how far then are you off the right-wing scale?
d) T wrote: "I sure am glad that you and Geula Cohen haven't got anything to do these days with making me (or anyone else) illegal".
I never made you are Meir or Kach illegal. Meir did that all by himself. He could of worked within the system, manipulated it just like the Left do. He could have become a major parliamentary power and led a revolution – to a certain extent. But he decided to play games. As he told me personally in the Knesset: "I really don't know what I'm doing here but I'm having a lot of fun doing it". He insisted on walking too narrow a line and allowed, indeed, taunted the opposition to him to use his own faults to bring him down. Some may call that brave and true to his own self. Others might say, he flubbed it when he had it. I abstained on the vote whether or not to disallow Kach from running in the 1988 elections. My vote didn't make a difference. But I couldn't vote for him because of his shenanigans.
But I was already punished. Despite being, outside of family, one of the 20 most veteran acquaintances with Meir, having worked with him on operations, having during one period of several months meeting with him twice to thrice weekly, being involved in several highly, shall we say, delicate projects, I was denied the right to participate in his funeral by a bunch of hooligans who couldn't think for themselves.
e) T wrote: "or do you prefer repetitive [that should be repetitive], long-winded dissertations beating the same dead horse of 'passive resistance' in expectation of actually getting a ride somewhere on it?... Or perhaps keeping 'expert witness' status regarding 'nonviolent protest' so you can help people and org.s like you helped Zo Artzeinu in the sedition case?"
Well, I'm happy someone reads my articles in Hebrew and English. And I am truly ashamed that I did not have the wherewithal to convince the powers that be to do things differently. Having appeared as an expert witness at the trial of Feiglin and Sackett and having advised them in 1994-95 and having spoken at the summary assembly of Mivtza Kaful, I really do think my ideas on direct non-violent action could have made a better impact.
f) T wrote: "Or lamenting the ineffectuality of the organ(s) you are/were an appendage of ["Information Resources Director at the Menachem Begin Heritage Centre in Jerusalem and serves as a spokesperson for the Yesha Council of Jewish Communities in Judea, Samaria and [....].", etc.]"
Just for the record, I have acted voluntarily as a spokesperson for the Yesha Council to the foreign media. They really have no one else. And if you've read my blog, you know that just two weeks ago I was in London upon the invitation of the BBC and at their expense, to appear on a panel that debated MK Melchior. So I manage to attempt to help out the Yesha ideal even if most of the Yesha Council policies I am not in agreement with. I live in Yesha and despite their, at times, ineffectualism, I know that if I (and some of my close friends) don't get involved, the situation, in all humbleness, would be worse. I am sorry they did support Counterpoint better than they did or The Yesha Report or the IDCF or a few other things I managed to be involved in.
f) T wrote: "I feel sorry for you, Mr. Medad - because it's what you do for a living. If your own tired, inneffectual drivel isn't shiny and new anymore, that's your problem, but also your fault…I'll give you and your clique plenty of, if not all of the credit for idiocies like Kfar Maimon [that 'great victory' of tens of thousands being misguided into not walking by a tiny 'police' force, etc.]"
Actually, I don't do that for a living. And I had nothing, zero, to do with Kfar Maimon. Mamash.
g) T wrote: "…I'll continue to consider you and your pseudo political-science of neo-whatever-ism to be as relevant now as Tchiya, Yeshu Kounsil, [was that a purposeful misspelling?] etc."
If that's a compliment, I'll take it.
h) T wrote: "I welcome the opportunity to shed light on what the philosophical guiding lights of your clique are espousing these days after decades of failure and uselessness [except as lackeys of corrupt regimes, which I commend you all on serving most honourably and extensively]."
You like the word "clique". No problem. First time in over 40 years I've been accused of belonging to a clique. Feels, well, that it doesn't fit. But "lackey"? Oh, please, do me a favor. And as for failure and uselessness, I am proud to have done what I did for all the public campaigns I was involved in since 1963 and despite what you may think, Yesha is still the best thing going.
Oh, to explain my return above. Since I bowed out, I figured that T having had the last word would be satisfied but I saw that a lot of things were bothering him. I hope he's bothered now even more.
ReplyDeleteymedad: I hope he's bothered now even more.
ReplyDeleteActually, I'm not bothered one bit (nor was I before, neither by you nor a. kinsberg - you guys have too much style and wit to bother any thinking person). And I certainly hope you were jesting, because why would you waste your valuable time just to 'bother' me?
I honestly (and I know I'm not the only one) appreciate your lengthy and detailed responses - I believe (as I had hoped) that you certainly shed a great deal of light on previously little-known or unknown important facts of great value.
You see, sir, I don't use Truth. as a name - it is what I try to look for at all times in all situations - it is an ideal both intellectually and operatively. So as long as someone is providing facts that are known to them first-hand (or otherwise reliably), even 'subjective' facts(ie, from one's point of view), I applaud this and take no offense, even in the case of being proven gravely mistaken - because in this manner I am able to find more of Truth.
Obviously, there is only One who can know all - but to paraphrase, that doesn't allow one to desist from searching: im yagatta u'matzata - ta'amin.
You see, just as I prodded you (apparently effectively) into providing the pieces of Truth. that you are privvy to (in context of this discussion), I've been prodding others (of various statures, but all of relevance) for many, many years.
In many cases it's been a great deal more involved and requires much more effort than encountering an historical figure such as yourself [and I am completely serious about that, you sir are an important part of the history of Israel] on a comment section of a very good blog.
I'm suprised [but not much] by how many miss the point [in many areas] by throwing down a label which categorises the 'opponent' - "kahanist/kachnik", "secular", "liberal/leftist/hellinist/communist", "nationalist/fascist/right-winger/", etc., as opposed to deciding the value and validity of their position. What better way to find out than to ask them and hope they are willing/able to answer thoroughly? Many times, though, it is indeed useful to 'call a name' and then cause the person to elaborate on what exactly they think it means, and why or why not is it applicable to them.
Of course, a distinction must be made for 'knee-jerk', blind followers of any '-ism', no matter how 'mainstream' or not such an "-ism" is.
You [and others] categorise me in the context of your positions [quite understandably]. I understand it might not be immediately apparent that my context is a lot broader than the narrow window of "kahanism", but time will tell...
I'll state, finally, before answering all of the questions later, that my position and goal is clearly stated on my blog masthead: Veracity State - Dedicated to ending the oppression of the Jewish Nation in the Land of Israel, and of course finding and implementing the best, most direct, and successful way to do so, be"h ky"r.
Truth.
a) I just love absolutists. The first thing they do is convince themselves that only they are right and true and then the rest is all easy, especially if you only post once a month or so. And knee-jerks only work when you are kicking someone else.
ReplyDeleteb) Categorizing you might be more difficult they I previously conceived but your other website, Kahane Was Right! and all that's there and all the connecting links would lead someone to presume that you are/were/will be a Kachnik, so once again I apologize for packaging you in the context of my position although not to do so is quite difficult. I will try better in the future, if I so decide (I still can have my own opinions though, yes?).
c) and of course, I would hope that your position is much broader than Kahanism, one that is obviously way too narrow for such a broad-minded person such as yourself.
d) btw, no one has to prod for me to provide what I was privy to. Just ask.
ymedad: a) I just love absolutists. ...
ReplyDeleteAs I wrote, I'm not convincing myself of anything, I'm gathering facts for people to consider.
ymedad: ...knee-jerks...
Knee-jerk in the sense that I use it means a reflexive action, ie, involuntary reaction caused by an external stimulus, for example little tap on the right spot on a knee, causing it to [involuntarily] jerk. Conditioned-response would also be apt [and probably even more accurate].
In our case, a good example would be:
{tap} = ...drunken traitor.
{knee-jerk} = Kachnik!
It's very telling how you chose to use an agressive, [incorrect] 'absolutism':
ymedad: ...knee-jerks only work when you are kicking someone else.
Regarding the low frequency of my posting on my own blog, I hope to correct that.
ymedad: b)...your other website, Kahane Was Right!...
As I mentioned, it's not mine, nor are any of the other linked sites/blogs/etc. I was invited by the 'owner(s)' to post whatever I want, whenever I want there (as well as elsewhere by others), in addition to 'owing' several blogs 'guest postings'...
In any case, you pointed out very clearly that the approach I present is very close to [the great deal] you know about Rabbi Kahana's, so even if I had posted everything you've seen so far, for example, in my regular column on 'Al Jazeera', you'd still have considered me as 'are/were/will be a Kachnik'...
c) and of course, I would hope that your position is much broader than Kahanism...
Without a doubt.
d)...no one has to prod for me to provide what I was privy to. Just ask.
That's good to know.
Truth.
a. kinsberg: ...he is not a kachnik, ... he is to the right of it.
ReplyDeleteI'll accept that.
i apologize (to you and to truth)
No offense taken, buddy, as I mentioned I find your commentary witty and logical as well as stylish, so keep it coming as far as I'm concerned.
Now, to your questions:
1) you rip into EVERY Jewish party on the political spectrum, including the transfer parties, but not the "banned/terrorist" one, i.e. kach.
True. I also left out Rafi and Shlomtzion, etc. I was ripping into the ones who managed to glue their behinds to the knesset seats for decades (or at least a few terms) with (or without) grandiose proclamations and just managed to at best do nothing and at worst do what I detail there.
Thanks for pointing that out, I'll make sure to consider being more clear in that kind of article in the future.
2) your style and choice of language is classic kach.
I'll take your and ymedad's word for it, and I'll thank you all for the huge compliment.
you must have read every kahane book yourself.
Not at all. Not even most or several.
3) taking #1 and #2 into account, your involvement (albeit unfulfilled as of yet) in an outright kach site was just my confirmation.
Logical but not conclusive. I guess your points in 1) and 2) made a similar impression on the owner(s) of that site, so they invited me to have unlimited access there.
...your unmitigated and brazen support for rabin's murder (excuse me, punishment) is the final clincher.
No it's not, it's only the final clincher in the fact that I unmitigatingly call rabin guilty of and deserving of punishment as specified in the relevant clauses of the Israeli Penal code.
Regarding A. Raviv and 'conspiracies', if any of that is relevant/true, it's no more and no less than amusing and apt that rabin fell into the hole he was digging for his 'right-wing foes', pushed by his team of running dogs.
Answering your final group of questions regarding leftists and traitors who's murder you suppose I condone:
As I've said, I don't 'condone' murder. On the other hand, killing a violator of various serious crimes is prescribed by the Israeli penal code - does it condone murder? Your argument's only validity is with the execution itself[ie, no trial and in an 'extra-legal' manner].
You do know, that he and others did indeed admittedly (by themselves) violate these clauses (treason) with their meetings and agreements with the PLO, surreptitiously, which were then presented to the public as a 'fait accompli', and still later, the 'law' was actually changed (by them) to retroactively 'legalise' this treason.
So he and his cohorts knowingly, maliciously and brazenly commited treason, leading to the mass murder of Jewish citizens of Israel, in many cases victims of weapons, ammunition and training supplied by rabin and co. (as well as US sniper training; the main publicised case of that is the baby Shalhevet Pass murder by sniper-bullet in the head).
They did far more than condone murder, they caused it and gave material support.
I'd feel exactly the same about rabin and his death if it had been caused by him slipping on a banana peel.
Truth.
Truth wrote: "killing a violator of various serious crimes is prescribed by the Israeli penal code" and since we'll stick only to the facts, if I am not mistaken and welcome any corrections, there really isn't any death sentence in regular courts and no military court has ever handed down a death penalty. The one exception is Nazis, i.e., Eichman (ysv"z).
ReplyDeleteAnd I'll add this (but not before a plea to Jameel to find a way to allow us to run off the song & video or at least have it play but once and not continuously) to my running discussion with Truth that I think is relevant which comes from someone commenting on Blair's last Labour Party speech:
ReplyDelete"So what is it about Blair that makes him such a great communicator? Even people determined to dislike him usually find it hard to do so when they meet him in person. He has charm, a light touch and a good sense of humour. And he has a barrister’s ability to argue a persuasive case. But there is more, too. What makes Blair more likeable than most politicians...is that, inside, he is quite at peace with himself. He is not suppressing a roiling cauldron of negative emotions, that toxic mix of insecurity, frustration and anger that many of his colleagues display. Gordon Brown comes across as Mr Angry. He can’t contain his frustration. You can see him biting his lip, biting his nails, frowning and scowling. John Prescott is the same. Smiling is as alien to him as using the subjunctive..."