web analytics
January 21, 2017 / 23 Tevet, 5777

Posts Tagged ‘majority’

Internal Report: Majority of IDF Soldiers Don’t Expect Support from Commanders in Case of Errors

Thursday, January 12th, 2017

Just 41% of IDF combat soldiers expect their commanders to support them should they make a mistake, according to an internal IDF survey reported by Ha’aretz Thursday. When the respondents include a sample of the entire IDF population, a small majority, 51%, believe they would receive support.

Only 61% of combat soldiers say they are pleased with their commanders. In 2014 the figure was 65%, in 2012 76%.

Only 23% of combat soldiers want to become officers. In 2014 it was 24%, and in 2012 33%. Only 25% of combat soldiers consider a military career, compared with 32% in 2014 and 41% in 2012.

The study authors noted that “it can be assumed that these findings were influenced by the events with Elor Azaria.”

Interestingly, despite their clear mistrust, 73% of IDF combat soldiers say they are satisfied with their service, compared with 76% in 2012. However, when asked if combat service contributes more to the country, only 40% of combat soldiers agreed, compared with 54% in 2014. Among the general IDF population 41% feel the same way.

The IDF Spokesman’s Office refused to comment on what they said was an internal survey.

David Israel

Netanyahu: Soon Majority of Jews Will Live in Israel

Thursday, November 10th, 2016

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday told an audience celebrating Aliyah Day in Jerusalem that “we are closing fast on the historic moment when the majority of the Jewish nation will be living in Israel.” The PM added, “I think this is the only way to secure the Jewish State.”

Netanyahu noted that Aliyah continues to be a key factor determining Israel’s destiny. He pointed out two fundamental reasons for Aliyah: the growing anti-Semitism in several countries, and, most important, “the Zionist fervor.” He promised that his government will utilize all its offices to bolster Aliyah.

The Knesset Committee for Immigration, Absorption and Diaspora Affairs held a festive meeting to mark Aliyah Day, attended by new immigrants, immigration activists, MKs and senior officials from the Jewish Agency and the Ministry of Aliyah and Immigration Absorption.

Committee Chairman Avraham Neguise (Likud), one of the initiators of the Aliyah Day Law, said that this day “emphasizes the oxygen of the State of Israel — the new immigrants — Jews who were motivated by the Zionist and biblical forces to return to their native land.”

Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein said, “Today, the 7th of Cheshvan, it is appropriate to speak about making Aliyah to Israel, because today we begin asking for rain of blessing, and such are the immigration waves to Israel, which bring a special blessing with them. Without the immigrants – we would not have a state, and therefore each day in Israel is ‘Aliyah Day.'”

Edelstein stressed that “we should establish a powerful, just and welcoming society which creates hope for the future,” and as a result “we will receive more and more immigrants, who will have many more opportunities.”

Minister of Immigration Absorption Sofa Landver said, “Immigrants continue to arrive each day, and the Zionist vision and dream are fulfilled each day, with the same enthusiasm. We should salute the strength and courage to leave everything behind and make Aliyah to Israel, despite the absorption difficulties and the language barrier.”

Noting that “nearly every person in Israel is an immigrant, or an offspring of one,” Lanver said that “we must strengthen our hospitality, and allow them the feeling of coming home.”

Jewish Agency Chairman Natan Sharansky said he still enjoys going to the airport and seeing the new immigrants step off the plane. “Thousands of generations have prayed that at least their children will come to Jerusalem – and here these prayers are answered,” he said. He added that “the absolute majority of immigrants do so out of free will, as they are faced with many opportunities – and still choose to come here, and this is a great victory for Zionism.”

Sharansky added, tongue-in-cheek, “We cannot forget our partnership with the world’s Jews – we cannot give up on any Jew, even if they are not ‘Orthodox.'”

MK Yehiel Hilik Bar (Zionist Camp), also one of the initiators of the Aliyah Day Law, said, “We tend to take immigration and Aliyah for granted, and so we are marking this day is in order to stress that it is not taken for granted, and that Aliyah has been achieved through hard work, self-sacrifice, loss of human lives, and through endless behind-the-scenes efforts.”

Former director general of the Ministry of Aliyah and Immigration Absorption, MK Oded Forer (Yisrael Beitenu), said emotionally, “The prayer and hope of ‘next year in Jerusalem’ is fulfilled in front of our eyes.”

The Knesset also held a special plenary session in honor of Aliyah Day.

David Israel

Survey: Vast Majority of Israeli Businesses Prefer to Stay Shut on Shabbat

Thursday, October 13th, 2016

As many as 92% of business owners in Israel are not interested in keeping their shops open on Shabbat, and 98% stated that they are not asked by their customers to stay open on the Jewish day of rest, according to a new survey released by Israeli business information group CofaceBdi.

The survey covered 135 Israeli businesses spread countrywide, and clearly showed a reluctance on the part of business owners to work on Shabbat, despite calls from secular Israelis to designate Shabbat as a vibrant shopping day.

While only 8% of business owners said they would like to stay open on Shabbat, almost all the respondents, 98%, said they are not receiving requests from their customers to make their shops available on Shabbat. A mere 2%, about 3 shops, reported hearing from customers that they’d like to shop there on Shabbat.

Interestingly, only 21% of respondents said they would see a rise in their daily income should they stay open on Shabbat. 32% expected their Shabbat income to match their regular days’ yield, and 47% expected to take in less on Shabbat.

The vast majority of respondents said staying closed or open on Shabbat should be left to them to decide, while 19% preferred that the decision be enforced by the authorities.

All of that having been established, 51% of business owners, who mostly don’t want to work on Shabbat, said there should be countrywide public transportation on Shabbat — 49% said there shouldn’t be.

CofaceBdi Co-CEO Tehila Yanai told Ynet that the majority of business owners said they just needed a day off. Others said the kind of traffic that they’d get isn’t worth staying open. A few said they were religious.


Majority Compromise

Thursday, September 1st, 2016

Mr. Landau, builder, had just finished doing extensive renovations on Mr. Naiman’s house. When the time came for the final payment, a dispute arose over certain additional charges Mr. Naiman refused to pay. Mr. Landau tried unsuccessfully to reach an agreement with Mr. Naiman, who refused to pay anything extra.

“I have no choice but to sue you,” Mr. Landau said.

“Go ahead,” said Mr. Naiman. “I am convinced that I’m exempt and am willing to litigate in any reputable beis din.”

Mr. Landau sued Mr. Naiman in Rabbi Dayan’s beis din.

“We serve as a beis din,” the secretary said, “but we require the two parties to sign a binding arbitration agreement, to make the ruling of beis din enforceable in civil court.” The two parties signed the form.

The case was complicated. There were disagreements over factual issues with conflicting evidence; the halacha was also subject to a wide-ranging dispute between the authorities.

The three dayanim wrestled with the case, but could not achieve a clear-cut ruling. Two wanted to obligate Mr. Naiman for 40 percent of the disputed amount as an imposed compromise, whereas the third wanted to exempt him completely. The three continued to deliberate but remained entrenched in their positions and could not reach a unanimous agreement.

Rabbi Dayan announced to the parties: “In accordance with the majority view, Mr. Naiman must pay 40 percent as a compromise.”

“I accept the ruling,” said Mr. Naiman. “However, I have a question, if I may ask.”

“Certainly,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “Go ahead.”

“You said the compromise ruling is based on the majority,” said Mr. Naiman. “While a legal ruling clearly follows the majority, I recall learning that compromise arbitration must be a unanimous decision; perhaps we should not follow the majority in our case.”

“Indeed, the Shulchan Aruch cites from a number of Rishonim that compromise arbitration requires a unanimous decision of the arbitrators,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “They limit the Torah’s decree of majority rule to beis din, but other forums, which are based on the parties’ agreement, require unanimous decision to obligate a person in payment.” (C.M. 12:18; Rama 18:1; Responsa Rashba 5:289)

“What is this based on?” asked Mr. Landau.

“The Gemara (Avodah Zarah 72a) addresses the case of a buyer and seller who agree the price will be established by a panel of evaluators,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “If they say, ‘As a group of three evaluates,’ it reflects a legal ruling that follows the majority, whereas if they say, ‘As three say,’ it reflects arbitration that requires unanimous agreement. Nonetheless, in most cases nowadays, a compromise arbitration decided by the majority of the dayanim suffices.”

“Why is that?” asked Mr. Naiman.

“First, when coming before a beis din for arbitration, you signed an arbitration agreement that authorizes the beis din to rule either according to the letter of the law or by imposed compromise,” explained Rabbi Dayan. “It is recommended that the agreement explicitly state the requirement to follow even the majority of a compromise. Even if it doesn’t, some maintain the compromise is implicitly made parallel to a ruling that follows the majority.” (See Sma 13:20; Pischei Teshuvah 13:6; Aruch Hashulchan 12:15)

“Furthermore,” added Rabbi Dayan, “the compromise imposed by the beis din is usually intended to be close to the letter of the law. The dispute between the dayanim regarding the compromise often reflects a dispute over what the law should be, so that the majority of the compromise actually reflects a majority of ruling.” (Divrei Malkiel 5:10)

“Finally, some suggest that when the litigants initially came before the beis din for a judicial decision and the dayanim encouraged them to accept imposed compromise,” concluded Rabbi Dayan, “they continue to serve as dayanim who rule not as arbitrators, so that we follow the majority opinion.” (Cheishev Ha’efod 2:17)

Rabbi Meir Orlian

Survey: Majority of Israeli Jews Favor Keeping Judea and Samaria, Israeli Arabs Favor Keeping Large Settlement Blocs

Tuesday, July 5th, 2016

“Sometime after the Six Day War the settlement enterprise began to develop. In your opinion, from a perspective of 50 years later, has the settlement enterprise contributed to or damaged Israel’s national interest?” was one of the opening questions in a June survey comparing the attitudes of Israeli Jews and Arabs on the liberated territories.

The survey found that 52% of the Jewish public thinks the settlement enterprise has contributed to the national interest.

And so the survey noted that “some claim that over the years Israeli governments have invested many resources and monies in developing the Jewish settlements and infrastructures in the West Bank/Judea and Samaria, and previously also in Gaza, at the expense of other areas and populations in Israel that are disadvantaged and would have needed these resources and budgets. Others claim that there is no connection between the two because one does not come at the expense of the other.” Then it inquired, “With which claim do you agree?”

49% of the Jews said there is no connection between the two; 45% say the investment in the territories comes at the expense of budgets for deprived areas and disadvantaged populations.

In the Arab public, a two-thirds majority considers the investments in the territories a detraction from investments in deprived areas and disadvantaged populations inside green line Israel.

The Peace Index is a project of the Evens Program for Mediation and Conflict Resolution at Tel Aviv University and the Guttman Center for Surveys of the Israel Democracy Institute. The June survey, conducted by phone on June 28-29, 2016, included 600 respondents — 500 Jews, 100 Arabs, who constitute a representative national sample of the entire adult population of Israel aged 18 and over. The maximum margin of error for the entire sample is ±4.1%.

The survey also found that a majority of the Jewish respondents do not know for sure the size of the Jewish or of the Palestinian population in the West Bank/Judea and Samaria. Asked how many Jews live in these territories (not counting the neighborhoods of expanded Jerusalem such as Gilo or Pisgat Ze’ev), about 25% underestimated the figure to be 100,000-250,000, 30% answered correctly that the number is 250,000-500,000, 13% gave an overestimate of 500,000-750,000, 3% thought the correct number was 750,000 to a million, and about 25% did not know at all.

As to the Arab population in Judea and Samaria, not counting Jerusalem, the estimates were: 24%—half a million to a million, 36%—one to two million, 10%—two million to three million, and 3%—over three million. 27% did not know.

The fact is that no one really knows how many Arabs live today in the parts of Judea and Samaria governed by the Palestinian Authority, and so, in this instance, there is no wrong answer.

59% of the Jews and 73% of the Arabs favor holding a referendum on Israel leaving the territories. As to how the respondents would vote in such a referendum, 52% of the Jews reported that in the existing situation they would vote against a withdrawal, while 36% answered that they would vote in favor.

Among the Arabs 69% said that if a referendum were to be held today, they would vote in favor of leaving the territories while retaining the large settlement blocs.

Only 51% the Jewish respondents believe all the citizens of the state would be entitled to participate in such a referendum. 44% believe that only the Jewish citizens of the country should be entitled to participate.

David Israel

Egypt Coptic Christian Leadership Condemns Western Media Coverage

Tuesday, August 20th, 2013

In the face of an unprecedented wave of violence directed against Coptic Christians amid the turmoil in Egypt that has left hundred’s dead, the church’s leadership issued a statement condemning the Western media’s biased coverage of the events in Egypt.

“We strongly denounce the fallacies broadcasted by the Western media and invite them to review the facts objectively regarding these bloody radical organizations and their affiliates instead of legitimizing them with global support and political protection while they attempt to spread devastation and destruction in our dear land,” reads the statement, according to a Google translation.

“We request that the international and western media adhere to providing a comprehensive account of all events with truth, accuracy, and honesty,” the statement added.

The Coptic Church also reaffirmed its support for the military-backed government, calling on the army and security forces to continue their fight against the “armed violent groups and black terrorism.”

One of the oldest communities in Christianity, Coptic Christians have survived numerous persecutions in the past. But the recent violence is unprecedented. The Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR), an independent human rights organization, has documented 39 attacks against Coptic Christian churches, schools, monasteries and businesses since late last week, NPR reported.

Coptic Christians constituted a majority of Egypt’s population until the Middle Ages, when Islam, introduced by the Arab invasions in the 7th century, eclipsed their religion. Today, Coptic Christianity comprises nearly 10 percent of Egypt’s 85 million people, making it the largest single Christian community remaining in the Middle East.

JNS News Service

Krugman’s Lament

Monday, August 19th, 2013

Originally published at The American Thinker.

Paul Krugman laments but does not condemn the voting public for getting it wrong. We are, after all,  “… often misinformed, and politicians aren’t reliably truthful.” So it is at least not our fault when we get it all wrong. Get what wrong?

Well, Krugman wondered whether the public was clueless about whether “the deficit has gone up or down since January 2010.” He got one of his pals, Hal Varian, to run a Google Consumer Survey on the question. And guess what? We got it wrong, “A majority of those who replied said the deficit has gone up, with more than 40 percent saying that it has gone up a lot. Only 12 percent answered correctly that it has gone down a lot.” So, according to Krugman, under [in spite of?] Obama the deficit has gone down a lot since 2010.

The amount of the deficit in 2010 was 1.3 trillion. The amount of the deficit in 2011 was 1.3 trillion.

Obama’s 2011 deficit same as 2010: $1.3 trillion

That means big things must have happened in  2012, right?

For fiscal year 2012 the federal budget deficit will total $1.1 trillion

Wow. Did we get that wrong. For Krugman the move from 1.3 trillion to 1.1 trillion is “down a lot.”

Now maybe Krugman had the projected government deficit for 2013 in mind. That is projected to be .7 trillion.  But he didn’t ask that did he? He didn’t even ask if the deficit for 2012 is lower than the deficit in 2011. He just asked if the deficit has gone up or down.

But which is it Mr. Krugman? You’ve been telling us that deficits don’t matter. If they don’t matter why should we, the clueless misinformed, pay attention? But now you seem to be suggesting that a reduced deficit is a good thing and that you and the Obama administration should take credit for the reduced deficit in 2013 – forced sequestration, condemned by you and the Obama administration, had nothing to do with the 2013 drop in the deficit?

So if deficits go up it doesn’t matter but if they go down it’s a good thing? Well, count me among the clueless.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/08/krugmans_lament.html#ixzz2cRV1ZhGB
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Richard Butrick

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/krugmans-lament/2013/08/19/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: