web analytics
July 27, 2016 / 21 Tammuz, 5776

Posts Tagged ‘talk’

VH1’s Newest Talk Show Host Supports a Boycott of Israel & Defends Hamas

Wednesday, July 13th, 2016

Reports indicate that a supporter of BDS – a boycott of Israel – a self-proclaimed radical who has supported numerous anti-American initiatives has been named the host of a new late nite talk show on VH1. Marc Lamont Hill, a CNN commentator will launch VH1 Live which will air weekly on the Viacom-owned cable network on Sunday, July 17 at 10 PM.

Would a supporter of segregation be rewarded with a talk show? How about someone who is fiercely anti-LGBT? It seems that racism is only ok if it is directed at Israel. Hill is a staunch opponent of Israel, a proud BDS supporter – and an outspoken advocate against the so-called “occupation of Palestine.”

Witness, on June 7, 2016, Marc Lamont Hill tweeted: “Israel is very much, by definition, an apartheid state.” An avid supporter of Boycott Divest Sanctions (BDS), he recently criticized New York State Governor Cuomo’s initiative to stop illegal American boycotts of Israel, and simplistically defends the movement insisting it is not seeking Israel’s destruction.  Hill, quite active on social media, says that “Blaming the Palestinian Authority for violence in the region is dishonest and unproductive,” noting that Jerusalem is occupied. Hill advocates the “return” of third- and fourth-generation descendants of Palestinian Arabs who left Israel in 1948 and 1967 – a position which would lead to the demographic destruction of the State of Israel.

Hill believes there is no religious component to the issue of Palestine.  In a remarkable denial of accepted facts, he denies Radical Islamists or religion at all is an issue between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs.

During a CNN appearance on August 4, 2014, Lamont-Hill complained that Israel’s defensive Iron Dome weapon ‘Takes Away Hamas’s Military Leverage’ Over Israel.

He said,But what the Iron Dome does is it also takes away all of Hamas’s military leverage which is very different than say, 10 years ago or 15 years ago in other wars like Lebanon, etc. As a result, it not only serves a defensive purpose but de facto serves an offensive purpose. It allows Israel to essentially assault and siege Gaza without any retribution or response on the other side. So again, to some extent, they are not just funding defense, they are funding an offensive war and ultimately an occupation. That for me is the problem.”

Hill appears to object to Iron Dome because it “serves an offensive purpose” by allowing Israel to stop Hamas – which he does not consider a terrorist group – from killing Israeli citizens in “retribution.”(Note to Mr. Hill: There is no moral equivalent between Israel & Hamas).

Hill is so passionate about this issue that he has said the Palestinian issue determines how he votes – and last election he voted for Cynthia McKinney for President, a radical who promotes conspiracy theories, including that ISIS works for Israel.

According to the Anti-Defamation League, Hill’s choice for President “..has a history of using anti-Israel rhetoric, including accusing the pro-Israel lobby of sabotaging her political career and alleging that Israel of committing genocide, apartheid and war crimes.”   In 2009, she “accused Israel of committing genocide”, has met with leaders of Hamas, and has criticized Israel for its military operation against Hamas. She has “…condemned the U.S. for supporting “Israel’s war machine.”

It is not just on Middle East issues that Hill holds radical viewpoints.  In 2009, Hill agreed with the America-hating professor Ward Churchill, who was fired from the University of Colorado at Boulder for an essay he wrote titled “On the Justice of Roosting Chickens” which said that the 9/11 World Trade Center victims deserved what they got.

Churchill’s essay asserted that the victims who died in the World Trade Center were akin to “little Eichmanns” [a reference to Adolf Eichmann, “architect of the Holocaust”] who, as a consequence of their status as faceless cogs in America’s allegedly destructive capitalist economy, had essentially brought the terrorist attacks upon themselves.

Marc Lamont Hill commented on Churchill’s termination:

“This is a really sad day for American academic life and American public life. Ward Churchill should not have been fired. This has been about free speech from the beginning…. A witch hunt began the moment that he made those comments about the 9/11 victims. And regardless of what we think about his comments, he has the right to make them. In fact, he has the responsibility to make them as an academic if he believes them to be true … and if he can empirically substantiate them, and I think he’s done that…. When you look at his ‘Little Eichmann’ comment, he’s explained this. He was referring to Hannah Arendt, on of the great theorists of our time, in which he was saying that often times, the big bad person that you think is this crazy killer is actually an ordinary technocrat, someone in a building who pushes buttons, who does things without any sort of sensibility about how bad they are.

And he is saying that many times the people who were in that building may have been advancing an American global financial empire without any thinking about it. And I don’t necessarily agree that we should be indifferent to their suffering. I happen to be a little more sympathetic to the victims and their families than Ward Churchill is, but he certainly had a valid point…”

When Bill O’Reilly subsequently took issue with what he called Churchill’s “Little Nazis”comment, Hill replied: “He [Churchill] didn’t say Little Nazis … Not Little Nazis, Little Eichmanns…. That’s different than calling them Nazis. He added context and texture to it.”

Hill defended President Obama’s former green jobs czar Van Jones who was forced to resign in September 2009, amid controversy over his self-proclaimed communist activism,  saying:

“[I]t’s so disappointing that the Obama administration didn’t fight for Van Jones. They put him up there. They hired the guy. And then throw him under the bus when it’s politically expedient. It’s very disappointing.”

In this age of political correctness, if one would take such radical public positions against the LGBTQ community or individuals within it, or be openly hostile to the Latino community, that person would hardly be considered for his own talk show on VH1, a source of information and entertainment for the younger generations.  Marc Lamont Hill has the right to his beliefs – yet these radical, extremist positions which are so at odds with the majority of Americans of all political persuasions should not be rewarded with a talk show on VH1.

Ronn Torossian

Soul Talk – Why Can’t I Connect with Formal Prayer? [audio]

Tuesday, July 12th, 2016

Prayer is a very important way to connect to G-d and connect to ourselves. Yet, it can sometimes feel easier to make that connection when I say my own personal prayers. After all, they are in my own words infused with my own thanks, worries and desires. How can I more effectively connect to formalized prayer from the prayer book?

Join Leora Mandel and Rabbi David Aaron, where you will get a new understanding of what prayer is all about and a new perspective that will likely change and empower your prayers.

Please feel free to send your questions for Rabbi Aaron at soultalk@israelnewstalkradio.com.

Soul Talk 10Jul – PODCAST

Israel News Talk Radio

How to Talk to Jews about Israel

Monday, July 11th, 2016

{Originally posted to the author’s website, Abu Yehuda}

Quite a few years ago, I went to a meeting in San Francisco about Israel advocacy, sponsored by the ADL (when the ADL was still interested in Israel advocacy). One of the speakers suggested a form of triage: There are those that are strongly against us, those that are strongly with us and those that haven’t decided. Talk to the ones that are undecided, he said.

I decided to take his advice, and in particular I wanted to talk to the Jews in my own community who (I thought) simply didn’t have the information they needed to understand what was happening.

I failed, utterly, both in my personal appeals and via the media.

The media was less than helpful. During one of our wars, a local TV station asked to interview my wife and me, since our children lived in Israel. I talked to the pleasant reporter on camera for at least a half hour. I mentioned how Hamas fires rockets from populated areas, how Arab casualty figures are inflated, how Israel takes great care not to hurt civilians, and how the terrorism never stops. The reporter kept asking me “but aren’t you worried about your kids?” I deflected the question several times, but finally said “Of course I’m worried, who wouldn’t be?” Guess what 10 second sound bite appeared on the news program!

I tried to buy a day sponsorship from the local NPR station “in honor of the 1000 [or whatever the number was at the time] Israeli victims of Palestinian terrorism since 2000.” They refused, saying that I couldn’t prove that there were so many victims. I provided names, dates and locations. They said that it was ‘too political.’ I said it wasn’t political, it was factual and asked how it was different from the sponsorship they did accept “in honor of the victims of the Stonewall Uprising.” That’s different, they said. That was a matter of civil rights, not politics. Anyway, you can’t prove that there were so many victims.

The local newspaper sometimes printed my letters, all 200 words of them, and sometimes not. They rarely printed op-eds that I wrote. Meanwhile the ‘news stories’ that ran every day pushed the ‘cycle of violence’ line that presented the attempts to kill us as a squabble between two parties both at fault.

My personal approaches were, if anything, more frustrating. People were polite, but noncommittal. As time went on, I realized that they weren’t uninterested; rather, they sensed that my position wasn’t shared by many Democratic politicians, NPR and the New York Times. They suspected that I was influenced by Republican ideas or even becoming a Republican myself. I realized, in 1960s slang, that they were shining me on. Anything I said was tainted and could be ignored.

As time went by and Barack Obama became president and Israel more and more a partisan issue, it got much worse. Now it wasn’t the ‘cycle of violence’ anymore, it was ‘Netanyahu won’t negotiate and won’t stop building settlements’. The local Reform rabbi refused to allow a film critical of J Street to be shown in his building. The Jewish Federation, of which I was a board member, was increasingly nervous about programs related to Israel.

It soon became clear that there weren’t very many ‘undecideds’. There were those that were pro-Israel, those that were against us, and those that would not listen because being pro-Israel was out of their political comfort zone.

Last night I attended another meeting, also dealing with Israel advocacy, in Jerusalem. One of the speakers was the brilliant Evelyn Gordon, and one of the things she said was that maybe trying to convince the unconvinced – at least by means of logical arguments – didn’t pay, and we should concentrate on providing the facts and the ideological basis to support those who were already emotionally on our side.

Another speaker, young activist Alexandra Markus contrasted her campus experience of pro-Israel people reciting facts with the emotionally effective drama staged by Students for Justice in Palestine.

I immediately realized that they were right. One of the lessons gleaned from Jonathan Haidt’s insightful book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, is that our emotions are in the driver’s seat, and reasoning only comes along as a rider that helps us explain the choices our emotions have already made.

All those years in California, it turns out, I was doing it wrong. That TV reporter understood that in order to make an impact on her viewers, she had to pick out the most emotionally powerful moment in her footage – even if it didn’t help my cause.

The Jewish woman who is emotionally invested in the ‘first black president’, who sees him as a father figure, who comments “I love this man” on a picture of him in Facebook,  is not going to hear me when I list the ways that Obama has damaged Israel and helped her enemies. She is not likely to listen when I bore her to tears by explaining the basis in international law for Jewish settlements across the Green Line. Her President said they were ‘illegitimate’ and if she is anything, she is loyal and patriotic.

What I should have said to her (instead of “armistice lines, 4th Geneva Convention, blah blah”) was something like this:

You are a loyal person, but what are you loyal to? Your ancestors came out of slavery in Egypt, were thrown out of Judea by the Romans, scattered across the world, lived in ghettos, paid jizya to Muslim kings, were burned in the ovens of the Holocaust, and now the Jewish people, your people have finally become sovereign in their historic homeland, and you side with this mediocrity from Kenya instead of them?

And to the Jewish students cowering on their campuses in fear of black and Arab students, I would say this:

You are not ‘privileged white colonizers’, you are an ancient people, the most ancient around. Where is your pride? Nobody has the right or the power to define you. Learn your language and speak it among yourselves, practice your krav maga and deter them from harassing you. Learn the truth about your homeland – and make it your goal to join your people there.

The best thing that pro-Israel American Jews can do is to exemplify Jewish pride, self-respect and self-reliance (like the Jewish state itself). Trying to be ‘Americans of the Mosaic persuasion’ is not a good strategy, as Jewish students are discovering. They should act like Jews, representatives of the people whose roots are in ancient Judea.

They will be accused of ‘dual loyalty’ – a misnomer, because the accusation is that their loyalty to the Jewish people and state is greater than that to America. It can’t be avoided, because they are required to be loyal to their people.

That is the basic contradiction of Diaspora life. If you like living in America, you can decide to live with it. Or you can make aliyah.

Vic Rosenthal

Abbas: If Liberman Supports 2-State Solution We’ll Talk to Him

Tuesday, May 31st, 2016

Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas on Tuesday responded for the first time to the appointment of Avigdor Liberman as Israel’s Defense Minister and stated that he does not judge people based on their party affiliation nor even what they say, but only based on their action to promote peace, Israel Radio reported Tuesday evening.

Abbas, who spoke at the Mukataa, the PLO headquarters compound in Ramallah, to Israeli Arab regional council heads from Galilee, added that if Liberman is saying he supports the two-state solution, nothing will stop the Palestinians Authority from opening a dialog with him.

“If Liberman really means it, the Palestinian will forget that he accused them of being terrorist diplomats, and will judge him only based on his future action,” Abbas concluded.

But as JoeSettler reported on JewishPress.com Tuesday, Liberman has always supported a 2-State solution, and would evacuate his home in the settlement of Nokdim for peace, however, Liberman envisions a Palestinian State consisting of all the Arabs on this side of the Jordan River – with no Jews, and an Israeli state on this side of the Jordan River – with a lot less Arabs citizens.

David Israel

Straight Talk

Wednesday, May 18th, 2016

I am finally doing what I should have done long ago
l am learning Arabic.

I have been studying in a course for about half a year now and let me tell you – it is empowering.

Firstly, if you know Hebrew, it is certainly a step up in learning its sister Semitic tongue.
Arabic, like other Semitic languages, was influenced by the earlier Hebrew.

When Arabs realize that I can address them in their own language, it really makes them pause and wonder who is that person before them? You get “some respect.” Looks like an Ashkenazi Jew, even a tourist but… how, where, why…who is he?

You can imagine the possibilities…

Some weeks ago for the first time, I took my Arabic outside the class room  to the “Machane Yehuda” outdoor market in downtown Jerusalem. The colorful stalls are often manned by young boisterous Arab employees, yelling for the attention of the shopping crowd.

Most of these hawkers live in East Jerusalem or beyond and have little opportunity to really talk to Jew for more than a quick fruit or vegetable sale.

Well, I stopped at my favorite bread and pita stall, as I normally do, and I asked for bread, in his language, Needless to say he was surprised. I actually was able to get out a couple of short sentences and he was convinced. He glanced at his fellow employee with a look that said, “Who is he”?
So he asked me, “Where are you from”? I answered “from the US”.

They were really puzzled now. I added, “but now I live here in Israel.” I asked him, and where are you from’? He answered very matter of factly, from here, Palestine”

I gave him an incredulous look and asked, “Where?” He repeated, “Palestine” I corrected him. We are in Israel. not Palestine.”.
He then corrected me. There is no Israel, just Palestine.”  I had to explain to him that there is in fact no such place as Palestine.
It is not mentioned in the Koran even once nor for that matter is Jerusalem mention in the Koran.
I think that they were not aware of this fact and my mention of their Koran made them rather upset. One of them had to be calmed down by a fellow worker.
I pointed out that “Palestine exists only in your head, no where else.”
Boy was I pleased with myself. I spread the truth in the language of denial.
The pita was extra tasty.

Then there was a short conversation I had the other day with a Muslim woman, scarf and all, which began with simple pleasantries on the train.
When was the last time a Jewish man–or any man– spoke to her on the train? Who was this stranger speaking her language?

She was happy to inform me that she lives in a village outside Jerusalem, Nakuba, and went on to add that her family originally comes from a different village, Tzuba. I said, “yes I know that place. It is a kibbutz today. From that village on the hill, the Arabs shot down on Jewish transportation coming and going to Jerusalem, strangling the city.” Therefore I reminded her, the Arab militia and the residents had to be expelled.
Well, she didn’t expect a tough love history lesson and the niceties were gone. So was my Arabic.

But we were talking, in Hebrew, which was interesting.

She said how would you feel if someone took YOUR house?”
I had to explain to her the very basics of how this “conflict’ arose.
She had no patience for facts. She said,”you shot on us, not WE on you’!
Now, this is not an illiterate worker in the market. She is an educated student from our best Israeli schools.

Yet, her “narrative” is stronger than facts and fae more resilient than higher education, logic, or any benefits the Jewish state can bestow upon her.

A great man once said that, a “dumb, illiterate Arab is far less dangerous to Israel than a smart educated one – especially the ones that WE educate.”

That man was pretty smart.

I can say that in Arabic.

Shalom Pollack

Soul Talk – Giving Your Children the Right Values [audio]

Monday, May 9th, 2016

Rabbi David Aaron discusses how to instill religious values in your kids.

Rabbi David Aaron

Rabbi David Aaron

Israel News Talk Radio

Temple Mount Talk is Cheap

Tuesday, April 19th, 2016

This past week the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Association (UNESCO) adopted a resolution ignoring Jewish ties to the Temple Mount and Western Wall. The resolution, which is riddled with polemical condemnations of Israel as the “Occupying Power,” refers to the Temple Mount strictly as Al-Aqsa Mosque/Al-Haram Al-Sharif, the Arabic names for the holy site. The resolution does make mention of the Western Wall, but only twice in quotations following its Arabic name Al-Buraq.

The contents of the resolution are quite disturbing. Among other things, UNESCO blasted Israel for creating the new egalitarian prayer section by the Western Wall (so much for pluralism), and accused Israel of “banning Muslims from burying their dead in some spaces [and] planting Jewish fake graves in other spaces of the Muslim cemeteries,” an allegation that rings of a modern day blood-libel.

Israeli politicians, among them Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, lambasted UNESCO for denying the Jewish people’s historic connection to the Temple Mount. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s thunderous condemnation certainly fits the absurdity of the resolution, however, the Israeli Government’s subsequent inaction regarding its policy towards the Temple Mount is perhaps more absurd than the resolution itself.

We can expect very little, if anything, from the UN and its institutions whose hypocritical and virulently anti-Israel bias shows no sign of respite. But we can’t expect the UN to be more Zionistic than the Israeli Government itself. UNESCO’s resolution is the logical product of Israel’s own draconian policies enforced on Jews at the Temple Mount.

In the democratic State of Israel in the year 2016, Jews are only permitted to ascend to the Temple Mount at two designated timeslots each day (excluding Friday and Saturday), and are strictly forbidden from praying at Judaism’s holiest site. Religious objects such as a tallit, prayer book, or even a Star of David are prohibited. Violators of these regulations are arrested on the spot.

To demand from the world to recognize the Jewish people’s historic ties to the Temple Mount while simultaneously restricting Jewish access and prayer rights on the Temple Mount is in essence a schizophrenic acquiescence to Muslim ownership of the holy site.

If that wasn’t bad enough, two days following the resolution, Israel’s Police Commissioner announced a renewal of an open-ended ban of Israeli MKs visiting the Temple Mount. For all intents and purposes, the Israeli Government is providing the UN with positive reinforcement for bad behavior.

The Government’s discriminatory policy towards the Temple Mount lends further credence to the UN’s false assertion that the Jewish people have no ties to the spot on which the First and Second Temples stood. After seven years of a right-wing coalition, the unfortunate reality is that the Government has no intention to change the inequitable status quo and provide equal rights to Jews on the Temple Mount.

In addition to the discriminatory nature of this policy, the Government’s abdication of responsibility over control of the Temple Mount has national ramifications. Israeli poet Uri Zvi Greenberg famously said, “He who controls the Temple Mount, controls the land.” Currently, the Islamic Waqf controls the Temple Mount.

As for the Prime Minister and the politicians who blasted the UNESCO resolution – talk is cheap. The people of Israel deserve action.

Eytan Meir

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/temple-mount-talk-is-cheap/2016/04/19/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: