web analytics
January 21, 2017 / 23 Tevet, 5777

Posts Tagged ‘Steven Spielberg’

Clinton’s Big Jewish Donors are Hollywood Leftists

Tuesday, August 4th, 2015

If Hillary Clinton is elected President, her positions on Israel can be determined now by the Jews in Hollywood who are her biggest financial backers.

All of them are leftists with American-based dreams of Arabs and Jews living in peace and love while racism in America goes from bad to worse.

The one exception to the Hollywood Hit List is Haim Saban, who is on the right side of the left. It is not coincidental that he was born in Egypt and lived there 12 years before his family made Aliyah to Israel.

No one understands the Arab culture better than Sephardi Jews who are from Muslim countries. That explains why pure Ashkenazim like Shimon Peres think exactly like “liberal” American Jews who view peace as a handshake between Yasser Arafat and Yitzchak Rabin.

Among those American Jews are Hollywood moguls Spielberg and Katzenberg, both of whom donate generously to Jewish causes and passionately love an Israel that exists in their dream of a country that allows them to feel comfortable as Jews in the Diaspora.

Soros needs no introduction. He is the sugar daddy for J Street, the self-acclaimed pro-Israel lobby that promotes peace with Hamas and has come out in favor of the nuclear agreement with Iran, coined as the ObamaDeal.

Hillary Clinton has lots of support from Hollywood Jews, among them Barbra Streisand, who warmed the hearts of Jews around the world two years ago with her version of the Aveenu Malkeinu prayer in one of the two-month-long 90th birthday parties for Peres.

She also is a big donator for promoting Arab-Jewish relations, a seemingly lofty ambition that in reality is based on the idea of the American melting pot where everyone destroys their roots in order to be a giant tree without roots.

Is it any wonder why assimilation in the United States is near 70% and Arab-Jewish intermarriages are becoming more commonplace in Israel?

Katzenberg is known to be a very close with President Barack Obama and contributed heavily to his election campaigns.

Spielberg undeniably has promoted Jewish causes but his latest film on the Munich Massacre is making him more of an outcast to anyone to the right of Soros.

The movie described the Mossad agents’ hunt for the Black September terrorists who murdered 11 Israeli athletes at the Olympics in Munich in 1972.

The London Guardian reported two months ago:

Although almost nobody has yet seen the film, it has already been criticized by both Israelis and Palestinians fearful of reports about how they are portrayed.

However, the director told Time Magazine that the film is a ‘prayer for peace,’  and that the biggest enemy in the region is not the Palestinians or the Israelis but the intransigence that exists between the two sides.

If Clinton wins the Democratic party’s nomination for president in the 2016 race, it is clear where she will lean when it comes to Israel.

Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

Israeli Anti-Terror Expert: America’s Challenges And Successes

Wednesday, January 20th, 2010

Juval Aviv’s exploits as an Israeli counterterrorism agent are widely believed to be the inspiration for Steven Spielberg’s 2005 film “Munich.” After wrapping up his career as a major in the Israel Defense Forces (and reportedly working for the secretive Mossad), Aviv launched a lucrative career as a security consultant and investigator.

His Interfor corporate intelligence firm was hired by Pan Am to investigate the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. After setting up shop in Manhattan, Aviv wrote Staying Safe, a book focusing on how individuals, business entities and families can protect themselves from criminals and terrorists.

In an interview with The Jewish Press, Aviv spoke of the security challenges facing the U.S.

The Jewish Press: Is it really possible to prevent an in-flight terrorist episode in the U.S., considering the size of many major American airports?

Aviv: I don’t believe it is possible to prevent an in-flight episode in the U.S. from ever happening. Terrorists will always be working on new ways to get around whatever security measures are put into place. However, as we have seen numerous times since 9/11, if someone does try something while a plane is in flight, the passengers will fight back, making it very difficult for terrorists to succeed even if they do manage to make it on board a plane with some sort of weapon.

Is another 9/11 or Detroit episode inevitable?

I don’t know about another 9/11, but another attempt to take down an airplane is very likely. Again, whether such an attempt would be successful is another question.

Why has profiling and other security measures worked so well at Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport, but not so well elsewhere?

The methods used by terrorists are constantly evolving. Many security measures that have been put into place since 9/11 in the U.S. and other countries were in response to specific threat scenarios. These scenarios may not occur again and terrorists will always be coming up with ways to work around whatever new measures are put into place. Also, some of the measures are often randomly and erratically enforced, because to do so for every person traveling through the airport would take too much time.

Behavioral profiling works [at Ben Gurion] because it looks for factors [other than what] an actual weapon or method of attack might be. Someone who is planning to kill a large number of people and probably themselves in the process is going to be nervous, highly agitated. There are certain behaviors that security personnel can be trained to recognize. Ultimately this will be more successful than forcing travelers to remove their shoes or randomly searching the carry-on luggage of old ladies.

Did the Israeli security firm hired at Amsterdam/Schipol Airport fail, or was it the entire system?

This was a systemic failure. There were many warning signs along the way that should have been picked up. The most simple was the fact that someone traveling from Yemen, a terrorism hot-spot, to the U.S. on a one way, cash-paid ticket with no checked baggage should have been thoroughly screened. Regardless of the warning from the suspect’s father, those factors were more than enough red flags to mark this person as a potential threat.

Do you agree with those who say U.S. Homeland Security is hopelessly flawed due to politics, rivalries and ineptness?

I think politics, rivalries and ineptness contribute to the flaws that currently plague U.S. Homeland Security, but I do not believe the situation is hopeless. The United States has had very few incidents of terrorism, either domestic or foreign in origin, in the entire history of the country. The situation this country is facing is relatively new. U.S. Homeland Security has a lot of catching up to do, but I believe they are doing many things right. Since 9/11 numerous terrorist threats have been discovered and stopped.

Will the growing number of Israeli hi-tech security start-ups turn Israel into a global security superpower?

I think Israel has a well-deserved reputation for security expertise and that any security firm coming out of Israel would automatically have a certain cach?. Israeli firms are at the forefront of new security technologies so the possibility of Israel becoming a superpower in the security industry is definitely a strong one.

How does your company assist American businesses, governments, etc.?

Interfor is a corporate intelligence and physical security consulting firm that provides investigative and security services for Fortune 500 companies, major law firms as well as state and federal agencies and international governments.

Steve K. Walz

Letters To The Editor

Wednesday, December 28th, 2005

Spielberg’s Selective Equivalency

It is clear that Steven Spielberg’s latest movie, “Munich,” attempts to portray the Muslim killers of the unsuspecting Israeli athletes as just simple family men, no different from the Israelis they murdered at the Munich Olympics.

We all should ask ourselves, given that we cannot ask it of Spielberg or his ultra-leftist screenwriter, Tony Kushner, why Spielberg’s earlier war movie, “Saving Private Ryan,” did not turn into a showcase of moral equivalency. Why were the Nazis not portrayed as simple family men and the Americans who fought them as guilt-ridden, tormented souls?

Here’s why: Because Spielberg knew he would have been lynched and his studio burned to the ground had he tried foisting that bit of morally equivalent liberal trash on the American public.

Jerry Boris
Philadelphia, PA
He’s No Icon

It’s a sign of the Jewish community’s spiritual bankruptcy that a man like Steven Spielberg was ever accorded iconic status in the first place. So he knows how to make an entertaining movie. Good for him. He’s rich beyond the average millionaire’s dreams thanks to his filmmaking ability. But how that makes him someone we as Jews should look up to is beyond me.

Daniel Graubart
(Via E-Mail)


Like Father, Like Son

I read Naomi Klass Mauer’s article about Shlomo Aumann,z”l, with great emotion (“A Teacher, a Boy, a Prayer and a Nobel Prize,” op-ed, Dec. 9). You see, Shlomo befriended me at Yeshivat Sha’alvim where I studied for two years. He was a great all-around guy, and with his fluent English he made us chutz l’aretz bochurim feel at home. He was the nephew of the rosh yeshiva, Rav Meir Schlesinger, but you would never have known it. He was just one of the guys.

It doesn’t surprise me that his students loved him as a math teacher. He was beloved by all the b’nei yeshiva. He was serious in his learning, and so very focused. Of course, nothing can bring back Shlomo, Hashem yikom damo, but may the family take comfort in knowing that both son and father were mekadesh Shem Shamayim – Shlomo in making the ultimate sacrifice to protect

the Jewish people and his father, a proud Orthodox Jew, in receiving the Noble Prize for economics.

Rabbi Mordechai Bulua
Montreal, Canada
The Meaning Of  `Na?ve’

I have never minded criticism, but I must admit to be rather taken aback by a critique by an individual who apparently doesn’t understand the English language. I was charged by reader Chaim Silver (Letters, Dec. 16) as having committed the “major error” of mistranslating the Hebrew word tam as na?ve and therefore as not having understood the classical Hebrew word.

He writes that throughout the Tanach tam is used in the sense of “honest, sincere and wholehearted devotion and is idiomatically linked to the kindred adjectiveyashar, honest and straightforward.” If he had only bothered to check Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary (1949) he would have found that the word na?ve comes from the Latin “nativus” which means “natural or unaffected simplicity, candid, frank and artless, actuated by candor and love of truth.”

It would seem that my translation of na?ve is precisely the one that Chaim Silver felt should have been used – had be but understood the meaning of na?ve.

He also charged me with calling Jacob “out of touch,” although he did not cite my phrase in context. I was explaining the Malbim who attempted to justify Rebecca’s action, and in that context I wrote that she was trying to prove wrong Father Isaac’s contention that the “studious, spiritual, out-of-touch Jacob could never manage the materialistic political and military machinations involved in blessing.”

If you check the source in the Malbim you will see that this is exactly what the commentary was trying to say.

Rabbi Shlomo Riskin
(Via E-Mail)

We’re Not Worthy

I’m a student at a well-known yeshiva. Before you continue to call your publication “The Jewish Press,” let me introduce something to you. It’s called Judaism.

Several weeks ago I saw a copy of your paper on the table in my house and was astonished that the front page had a photo of an Arab man without a shirt on. (It is a halacha that a man may not walk around without a shirt – except in a pool or other bathing facility – even in the privacy of his own house.) I let that pass as perhaps some kind of technical error.

More recently, however, I was again shocked at your choice of a photo for the front page – a lady kissing her husband. The Gemara discusses the topic of looking at women. One amora concludes that a man may not look at the pinkie of a woman. Perhaps that only refers to looking at a woman with non-kosher thoughts. However, everyone agrees that looking at a man and woman making physical contact in any way, shape or form is forbidden.

I see no difference between your paper and the garbage that is sold at newsstands in Manhattan. Your publication is about as “Jewish” as the pope.

Chaim Goldman
Brooklyn, NY
Editor’s Note: The photograph of the “man and woman making physical contact” depicted – as the caption made clear – the proud granddaughter of Prof. Robert (Israel) Aumann giving her grandfather an affectionate kiss on the cheek after he’d been awarded the Nobel Prize. The Palestinian without a shirt was photographed as he took part in the looting and burning of a Gaza settlement after the Israeli pullout.
Weissman Si

The sum of the “few people” who claim Chananya Weissman is “an unusually courageous person” (Mr. Weissman’s words from his Nov. 4 op-ed article “I`ll Sign My Name To It”) increased by one (yours truly) once I read his Dec. 16 front-page essay, “A ‘New’ Understanding of Talmud Torah.” Despite growing up myself defining torah l’shmah as a “self-contained pursuit” – the belief Mr. Weissman differs with – I find his article less incensing than thought-provoking.

I therefore itch to read the spitfire challenges sparked by his thesis, as well as how he meets them, just as he fields the presumed objection from the case of ben sorer u`moreh, where he points to its moral lessons to show that it’s not for study alone.

Ari Bornstein
Brooklyn, NY
Weissman No

Chananya Weissman has written provocatively in this paper aboutsimcha reforms and his specialty, shidduchim. He’s clearly out of his league, however, when it comes to Talmud Torah. His front-page essay was, as always, well written and passionately argued, but in this case intellectually corrupt.

Mr. Weissman asserts “there is no such concept in Judaism” as learning for the sake of learning. Even casual students of the Torah are familiar with the Nefesh HaChaim by R’ Chaim of Volozhin, the prime disciple of the Vilna Gaon. In what is undoubtedly the most famous exposition of Torah lishma, he explains (based on the Rosh Ned. 62a), a concept eerily similar to what Mr. Weissman claims doesn’t exist. While there may be differing opinions, to insist there is no such concept is either egregious ignorance of the primary sources or a willful distortion of them.

Mr. Weissman states the ramifications of this “new understanding” include the complete upheaval of the yeshiva curriculum and virtual obliteration of the kollel system. He goes so far as to equate learning as it is expressed in most yeshivas with bittul Torah. Of course, Torah study in our yeshivos and kollelim is not perfect, and there is definitely room for improvement, but that’s a far cry from Mr. Weissman’s challenge of the entire institution.

All too often people who acknowledge their relative inferiority when it comes to matters of halachic significance become self-proclaimed authorities when it comes to Torah hashkafa. Whereas I presume most Orthodox Jews will defer to recognized Torah authority when it comes to hilchos Shabbos or kashrus, many seem to have no qualms dismissing rabbinic consensus on fundamental Jewish philosophy. What they fail to realize is that Judaism is not a democracy – every opinion is not created equal.

Mr. Weissman correctly points out that Torah means instruction. It is the Source of not only laws but also our world view. I feel safe with our gedolim and Torah leaders as guides.

Rabbi J. Rosenblatt
(Via E-Mail)
Cheap Shots At Scientists Don’t Change Truth

Virtually every point made by Rabbi Eidensohn in his letter of December 9 reflects significant misunderstandings about the science that he is attempting to criticize. However, it’s not the errors in Rabbi Eidensohn’s letter that I find most troubling. What disturbs me more is the smug belief, evidently shared by many in the yeshiva world, that the working scientist is on average less intelligent than the typical potted plant.

How else can we explain the rabbi’s readiness to believe that he has discovered fundamental problems in the theories of physics or biology that have escaped the notice of scientists who study these fields professionally? Such an attitude reflects either an unusual degree of hubris or a fundamental belief that scientists are all bumbling idiots. I suggest it’s the latter.

For example, the rabbi triumphantly cites the second law of thermodynamics as evidence against the possibility of evolutionary processes. Does he think the scientists who study thermodynamics and biological processes have absent-mindedly overlooked this issue? Or that because of their unfortunate stupidity they just cannot quite grasp the basic principles of thermodynamics that the rabbi somehow innately comprehends?

Surely even the faintest degree of respect for scientists’ intellectual capacities would have led the rabbi to inquire whether they had previously considered this issue. And they have. It’s discussed in many popular science books and on about 300,000 websites, which I assume are not yet banned in Monsey.

(Incidentally, if the rabbi will re-read his own letter, he will find that his repeated use of the term “closed system” provides an important clue to understanding why evolutionary processes do not violate the second law.)

The yeshiva world has long found it convenient to ridicule science and scientists, and the rabbi’s letter exposes a common conceit that a yiddishe kup and high school diploma provides better insight into the fundamental questions of science than does eight years of dedicated graduate study and a career of scientific experimentation. Well, let me break the bad news – a yiddishe kup and high school diploma provide virtuallyno insight whatsoever into the fundamental questions of science, especially considering the cadaverous state of most yeshiva science curricula.

I don’t mean to suggest that the layperson shouldn’t exercise his or her full intellectual abilities in trying to critically assess and assimilate the latest scientific findings. One need not believe everything one is told, by scientists or by anyone else.

But the fact of the matter is that scientists are generally highly educated and intelligent people who have a substantial level of competence in their fields of study. Their methods of investigation and analysis have proved staggeringly effective over the past 300 years.

The image of the “idiot scientist” conjured up in Rabbi Eidensohn’s letter may be comforting to some, but it’s ultimately just crude escapism.

David Fass
Highland Park, NJ

Letters to the Editor

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/letters-to-the-editor/letters-to-the-editor-118/2005/12/28/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: