Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has announced that Israel had severed all working relations with the United Nations Human Rights Council as of Monday this week, and will block a U.N. fact finding team from entering Israel or Judea and Samaria to investigate Jewish settlements.

According to the Israeli government, the council has shown a clear anti-Israel bias, both in the content of its references to it, and its disproportionate attention to Israel’s Palestinian policy, as compared to all the other human rights issues on the planet.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said this “means that we’re not going to work with them. We’re not going to let them carry out any kind of mission for the Human Rights Council, including this probe.”

Speaking in Copenhagen, after a meeting with the Danish foreign minister, Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki said “Israel never cooperated with all fact finding missions that were sent and established by the U.N. to investigate the Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians.”

The PLO ambassador at the United Nations on Wednesday condemned Israeli settlement activity in a series of letters to senior UN officials.

“There have been confirmations by the UN Security Council and General Assembly, Human Rights Council and the Social and Economic Council on the illegality of all settlement activity in a number of resolutions which are still available, and we are still calling on Israel to respect and implement the resolutions,” Mansour said.

The UN ambassador sent letters to the President of the Security Council and head of the General Assembly, criticizing ongoing settlement building.

Israel is obligated under the Road Map to freeze all settlement activity, Mansour said.

“Israel, however continues directly to neglect and violate all international commitments,” he added.

The ambassador added that settlements are proof that Israel rejects a two state solution based on 1967 borders.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu this week has legalized three Jewish outpost communities which were erected in the 1990s.

At a meeting late Monday, a ministerial committee legalized Bruchin (home to 350 residents) and Rechelim (home to 240 residents) in Samaria, and Sansana (home to 240 residents) in Judea.

US State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland reacted by saying, “We don’t think this is helpful to the process. We don’t accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity.”

Palestinians and Israeli anti-settlement organization Peace Now slammed the government, saying the government is hereby creating new settlements for the first time since 1990.

Senior PLO official Hanan Ashrawi said that the legalizing ” sends a clear message to both the international community and to the Palestinians that Israel is more committed to land theft than peacemaking.”

http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/2012/04/romneys-road-blast-obamas-failures-and.html

I wrote this article before Mitt Romney made what might be called his first speech directed at the general election (see the end of this article for the link). And I was pleasantly surprised that he seems to be following the strategy I’ve outlined below. It appears that Romney is changing gears after being bland, centrist, and nasty to win the Republican nomination. This is a superb speech full of sharp and clear points, and I urge you to read it.

What are the weaknesses of Obamaism that my “Marxist-style” analysis highlighted, and how do they suggest the way in which the presidential and congressional electoral campaigns should be conducted?

1. The current policies don’t work for a basic structural reason. You cannot apply highly statist, left-wing socialist policies to the American system and have them work. It is like beating your automobile with a buggy whip to make it go faster or, alternatively, buying a Leaf.

There is no way that Obama’s policies can  revive the American economy precisely because they are based on an ideology that doesn’t fit the system it is supposed to govern. And if he’s reelected, things will become far worse. Mitt Romney and others must highlight this total mismatch.

Obama ignores the facts and doubles down on applying failed strategies, as he did by refusing to increase drilling in the face of high prices or as he continues to do by investing in “green energy” when the green in it is the mold growing on bankrupt facilities.

2. The philosophy and policies of the Obama administration run counter to all previous American thought and practice. Obama can reach to find precedents, but they are very unpersuasive. When he does come up with something, it is either taken out of context or argued as if the America of today hasn’t changed in a century, with cigar-smoking, top-hatted capitalists oppressing workers that have no unions.

Romney should highlight Obama’s departure from the Constitution and consensus. He is the mainstream candidate, Obama is the extremist.

3. Obamaism throws the American system out of balance. There is nothing wrong with having a state capable of balancing big business and the banks from having unbridled power, but that is nowhere close to reality. Instead, the federal government has grown to ridiculous proportions, to the point where it is dictating to society and the individual. Romney should be the candidate of reasonable balance, explaining why the government, taxes, and regulation must be scaled back to reasonable proportions.

4. The Obama approach is not some social justice system protecting the masses, but rather the instrument of a privileged class trying to enrich itself and accumulate power. It is a bid for power by wealthy and upper middle class people who benefit from their relationship to the state to enrich themselves, rather than produce jobs, products, and wealth.

They pretend to serve most Americans, but actually steal the property of the people to benefit parasitical crony capitalists and non-productive upper middle class sectors. Romney must show how government programs that pretend to be altruistic are actually forms of greed that hurt the voters.

5. Romney needs to wage an old-fashioned anti-Washington campaign against big government, high taxes, and excessive regulation, and against a swollen government full of waste, fraud, and abuse.

When they call him rich, he must respond by calling them arrogant, power-hungry, and liberty-stealing. He must provide case after case of massive government waste and fraud to trash the lie that money to the federal government merely keeps the water and air clean, clothes the poor, and does assorted other good deeds. He and the congressional candidates need to show the waste and corruption involved in funding crony capitalism and the turning of government into a foundation that uses tax money to make left-wing groups rich.

He needs to talk about big cuts in spending as ejecting non-productive — indeed, anti-productive — bureaucrats rather than worthy programs. He needs to expose how institutions like the departments of Energy, Education, the Environmental Protection Agency, and others are counterproductive.

How should this strategy be implemented? First and foremost, Romney and congressional candidates should aggressively denounce Obama’s policies. Let me put it clearly: Romney must do to Obama what he did to Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. If he pulls punches and tries to be too restrained, he will repeat the mistake of John McCain and make a humiliating defeat inevitable.

Second, Romney should not try to get the media or the statist-oriented elite to like him — that’s the kryptonite of the opposition — but should appeal over its head to the people. Nothing Romney can do besides going soft on Obama, minimizing the difference, and ensuring his own defeat will get the media to say anything nice about him.

A turning point has been reached that challenges the reigning paradigm of German-Iranian relations.

There are sentences that can trigger wars. Among them is this sentence from the International Atomic Energy Agency’s report on Iran of 8 November 2011: “The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device.”

Contrary to prior assumptions, Iran continued pursuing its nuclear weapons program after 2003. The regime has been conducting research into the conversion of uranium metal into a form usable in warheads, working on the complex detonating mechanisms for nuclear bombs and making preparations for a nuclear test.

Admittedly, since 1945 the world has got used to living with the idea of nuclear weapons in the hands of secular or semi-secular states. But why is Iran determined to push forward with its nuclear program at absolutely any price?

Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad answered this question in August 2007: “The nuclearization of Iran is the beginning of a fundamental change in the world”. Iran’s nuclear technology, he went on to promise, would “be used in the service of those who are determined to resist the brutal powers and aggressors.”

These remarks show that the Iranian President does not consider Iran’s nuclear weapons program to be defensive in intent. It is also clear that Iran is ready to pass on its nuclear capabilities to other regimes and movements. There is, moreover, absolutely no doubt about where the “fundamental change” is to begin: “The Zionist regime will be erased and humanity will be liberated”, Ahmadinejad promised the audience at the 2006 Holocaust denial conference in Teheran.

Furthermore, once Iran’s revolutionary leader has the bomb, it will be difficult to disarm him and deprive him of his power without this bomb being used. The world would then have to decide whether to make further concessions to a fanatical regime or defeat it – now at an inconceivably high price.

The small disaster is approaching

So there are sentences that can trigger wars. The above-quoted sentence has brought the moment when American and/or Israeli jets take off to destroy Iran’s nuclear sites menacingly close. The small disaster intended to ward off the great one is approaching.

Is it going to happen or will the international community summon up the will to use all the non-military instruments envisaged by the UN Charter to bring regimes such as the one in power in Iran to see reason? According to Article 41 of the Charter, such measures include “complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations”.

At the moment, apparently not. On the contrary, the sextet of the five permanent Security Council members plus Germany initially entrusted with tackling the Iran issue is less united than ever.

On the one side are China and Russia. They seem reconciled to the Iranian bomb and reject increased pressure on Iran. According to a recent study from the Washington-based Atlantic Council, “China does not feel threatened by the prospect of a nuclear weapons-capable Iran. … Some elements in the Chinese defense establishment would actually prefer a nuclear Iran … if that compels the United States to retain substantial military forces in the Gulf rather than East Asia.” Similar considerations may also be at work in the Kremlin.

On the other side are the UK, France and the USA. Last Monday they sharply stepped up their pressure on Teheran. On 21 November the USA reinforced its sanctions against the Iranian oil and petrochemical industries. On the same day France called for an end to purchases of Iranian oil and a freeze on all Iranian Central Bank assets and the UK suspended all financial cooperation with Iran with immediate effect.

That leaves Germany, which seems to be treading water midway between these two positions. In Germany’s Foreign Office, it is being said that the Western proposals “are heading in the right direction”, but must first be “intensively studied”.

The spokesperson for the Social Democrats’ Bundestag group, Rolf Mützenich, even sounded a note of disappointment, finding it “regrettable that individual governments are going ahead with further sanctions on Iran.” We have heard no specific proposals responding to the deepening of the crisis.

The German government, however, has the power to tip the scales. Will it come down on the side of Israel or Iran?

Germany as the founder of Persian industry

Back in the 1920s, Persia was ruled by a man who adored the Germans: Reza Shah. He arranged for 70 German officials to run the Iranian State Bank. He ensured that all the machinery for Iran’s mining, cement, paper, textile and other industries came from Germany. This process reached its climax at the beginning of the 1940s, when 43% of all Iranian imports came from Germany and 47% of all Iranian exports went in the opposite direction.

Welcome once again to “You’re Asking Me?” It’s pretty much like your typical ask the expert column, with one minor difference (if you want to get technical): I’m not an expert on anything.  Just ask my wife.  A lot of these “experts” kind of talk to you like they know more than you, just because maybe they do.  Is that the type of person you want to ask?  Or would you rather vent in the general direction of someone whose life is just as messed up as yours, and won’t judge you, unless your question is really weird?

We’ll start off today with a really weird question that someone sent in, although I would never say so to his face.

Dear Mordechai,

            I was at Kosherfest (a kosher-food trade show) last month, trying and tasting kosher products, but I couldn’t find a single wig on display.  Are wigs kosher?

JB, Brooklyn, USA  

Dear J,

Thanks for your question, and thanks for telling me which country Brooklyn is in.

Yes, wigs are definitely kosher, if by “kosher” you mean “a Jewish thing”.  In the Goyish world, wigs and toupees are extremely socially awkward.  In fact, if you work in an office with a lot of Goyim, at some point they’re going to talk about it behind your back:

“Um…  Is she wearing a wig?  I don’t want to say anything.”

“Quiet!  She’s right there!”

“I mean it!  Is she bald, do you think?”

“I don’t know.  I’m pretty sure that’s a ponytail bump in the back there.”

“You think that’s weird?  That other guy is wearing a potholder on his head!  With his name on it!”

Ok, don’t look at me like that.  Every guy has, at some point, used his yarmulke to hold a pot or unscrew a light bulb or take something out of a toaster, or open a pickle jar.  (Okay, that last one is just ridiculous.)  Mostly it’s yeshiva guys that do this, because even if they remembered, when they bought food, that they also needed to buy a pot, there’s no way they remembered to buy something to hold it with.  They didn’t even buy something to stir what they were cooking, and have been using a series of rapidly-melting plastic forks.

Come to think of it, even if you’ve never used your yarmulka for this, it would actually be a great use for that pile of old yarmulkas under your bed.  You can just keep them in your kitchen drawers.  You already have your old undershirts under the sink for polishing silver, and your kids are using your old Shabbos shirts as smocks.  Pretty soon the entire house will be covered in Totty clothes.

And no, I don’t know what to do with old sheitels, weird swimming-pool pranks notwithstanding.  But if you think I’m going to answer the question you were really asking back there, you’re crazier than I am.

Dear Mordechai,

            What is the most unfortunate item you’ve ever gotten as a housewarming gift?

AS, Philadephia  

Dear A,

A houseplant.  Especially since I have kids.  I don’t mean to sound ungrateful, but it’s basically like getting a big pot of dirt to keep in the house until it tips over.  Like there’s not enough dirt in my house. 

“No!  There’s also leaves!”

People like getting each other houseplants as housewarming gifts, because it has the word “house” right in the name.  But my feeling is that if Hashem wanted plants to grow inside, He would have planted them inside, like He does at the mall.  The only way to keep plants alive inside is to make them think that they’re outside – to keep them huddled up against a window, remember to open that shade every day AND NOT SPILL THE DIRT.  And that’s besides the fact that the average person can only remember to feed either his kids OR his plants.  Not both.  And the kids make noise when they’re hungry.  So it’s not looking good for the plants.

Seriously, though?  The only people I know that have successfully kept houseplants alive have decent-sized houses with lots of windows and no kids living at home.  Having a house full of plants is the socially acceptable alternative to having 27 cats.

Dear Mordechai,

            I have a sibling who I never really got along with, but now that we’re both grown up and have kids, I would like to show her that I’m an adult now.  What should I get her for Chanukah?

LR, Maryland  

Dear L,

A houseplant.  Especially if she doesn’t have a house.  You can tell her it’s an “apartment plant.”  Come to think of it, you can just bring her a pot of dirt and tell her there’s something planted in it, even though there isn’t.

We have now lived in Israel for more years than we lived in the USA, and our joy in living in Israel knows no bounds. We are living in our homeland with our people. We loved America and are proud to be American citizens, but Israel is our home. We strive each day to keep our focus on the wonderful things that life in Israel offers. We are happy that Israel and the USA are allies and help each other. Unfortunately, we are often upset and concerned by the political situation and by the attitude of the world to the Jews.

Israel has again been forced to make a major concession to the Arabs. The building of new structures in our community will be halted for the next 10 months (as is all building in Judea and Samaria). The Arabs have made no pledges in return. Nothing. They have not even pledged to stop murdering Jews, and they are complaining that the building freeze is not enough. These “moderate” Arabs want more before they will even sit down to talk to us. We wonder what value any agreement with “moderate” Abu Mazen would have.

The main factions among the Palestinian Arabs are the “moderate” PLO terrorists and the violent Hamas terrorists. The world wants us to capitulate to Abu Mazen, but Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip and much of Judea and Samaria, has declared that the “moderates” may not negotiate in its name and that it will not be bound by any agreements.

Why stop building in Judea and Samaria just because a new U.S. President wants us to? Few Jews seem to wonder how the president can, on one hand, send in thousands of new troops to Afghanistan, while demanding that Jews negotiate with the Palestinian Arabs. America’s forced rule over countries like Afghanistan and Iraq are OK because it is in America’s interest. America can invade, rule and send more troops to kill the local population and, I guess that is reasonable, even though the Afghanis are not murdering American civilians. Yet, in America’s view, Israel must negotiate with the murderers of local Jewish civilians and may not send in troops to kill the terrorists.

If we must negotiate with terrorists whose main manifesto is to murder Jews and throw us into the sea, why doesn’t the president of the USA not sit down and negotiate with the Afghanis and Iraqis?  Why sacrifice American servicemen/women for these Arab terrorist countries? Let them kill each other if that is what they want. How can the president, in good conscience, send more troops to murder locals in one sector of the Middle East, while forcing Israel to negotiate with the terrorists in its sector? Sorry, Mr. President, despite all of our respect for America, you must realize that it is impossible to negotiate with Arab terrorists.

Unfortunately, Israeli leaders feel that they must capitulate to incredible demands from Hamas terrorists. There is little long-range planning or thinking on the part of Israeli politicians. Israel has captured hundreds of terrorists, some before they murdered Jews, some after. The Arabs have kidnapped one soldier, Gilad Shalit. In return for this one kidnapped soldier, the terrorists are demanding the freeing of hundreds of their fellow terrorists. If the Arabs had, G-d forbid, kidnapped one of my children, I would be doing exactly what the Shalit family is doing. I would demand that Israel free all of the terrorist prisoners so that my child would be freed. Like the Shalit family, I would speak to every world politician willing to hear me out, to solicit his or her help to free my child. No price would be too high to pay.

Question: What should a person who davens nusach ashkenaz do during kedushah in a shul that davens nusach sefard? Should he use his own nusach or that of the shul he’s in?

Response: This issue is a matter of debate between HaRav Ovadya Yosef, shlita, and HaRav Moshe Feinstein, zt”l.

HaRav Ovadya Yosef  (Yabia Omer, VI, siman 10:4) contends that during the silent recitation of kedushah, a person whose minhag is nusach sefard may recite the kedushah according to his minhag even though he may be davening in a synagogue that is nusach ashkenaz. His logic is that since he is not the shliach tzibbur and is davening silently, there is no halachic mandate to alter his personal nusach. (See Maishiv Davar [Netziv], siman 17, who rules that in silent tefillot it is prohibited to deviate from the nusach of one’s family.)

HaRav Moshe Feinstein, zt”l (Igrot Moshe, Orach Chayyim II, siman 23),   disagrees. His position is that the obligation to say kedushah is generated by the tzibbur for there is no obligation to recite kedushah when davening alone. Accordingly, even a silent recitation must be in accordance with the nusach of the tzibbur that enabled kedushah to be said. The silent shmoneh esrei, however, may be recited according to one’s own nusach since the obligation to say shmoneh esrei is not dependent on the tzibbur.

Both Rav Yosef and Rav Feinstein agree that any public recitation of a shliach tzibbur should follow the nusach of the tzibbur.

What confuses the matter is that in Israel a number of minyanim don’t follow any set nusach. Rather they follow the nusach of whoever happens to be the shliach tzibbur that day. The Mizrachi Kehilla in Melbourne, Australia once had such a custom. This, however, generated numerous problems. The community thus took a vote to select a nusach (nusach ashkenaz was chosen) and all shlichei tzibbur were mandated to use it henceforth.

I’m sorry to say that here in the USA this preference for a dual standard still exists. One of our members in Florida, a rav, served as shliach tzibbur and davened nusach Sefard in our shul which is nusach ashkenaz. When requested to daven using nusach ashkenaz, he replied that he was given a psak that he had the right to daven in any nusach he desired. My response was that in other synagogues he may so practice, but in our synagogue he had to use nusach ashkenaz in order to be the shliach tzibbur. He capitulated. At no time was I told the name of the posek who gave him this advice.

Several new wines have arrived stateside just in time for Sukkot.

There are so many wonderful things about wine. People have different palates and, therefore, prefer different wines. Each new year brings a new vintage of wines, giving the wine lover an opportunity to taste the latest version of their favorite wine. But among the most exciting occurrences for any wine lover is sampling a brand new wine.

5771 is here and with it arrive new wines from Australia, Italy, France and, of course, Israel, not to mention California in the USA.

Australia is famous for their Shiraz (elsewhere often known as Syrah). Yet for many years the kosher varieties of Shiraz available in the U.S. have typically been “value” wines, those that are nice table wines but do not quite qualify as premium and rarely garner high scores from the critics. Harkham winery is looking to change that with their Harkham Shiraz, new to the U.S. market. Keep your eyes out for this densely colored, with rich fruity and spice flavors in the bottle with the slick black and silver label.

 Italy has a long history of making great wines, especially wines that go well with food. Despite this history, only a few of the best kosher Italian wines have ever found their way to the USA. Recently, however, new wineries have been contracted to produce kosher wines and the results have been clean, fresh and affordable wines that wonderfully complement cuisine.

 Recently released for the first time is the Ovadia line of Italian wines. The Ovadia Chianti, priced at about $15 is a very nice example of an Italian village wine. The Ovadia Barbera d’Alba is a few dollars more and has appealing berry notes. Finally, the Ovadia Morellino di Scansano presents a wine from a lesser-known region that with its juicy fruit and fresh acidity is a great complement to meat, chicken or fish.

When people think of French wines the great Bordeaux usually come to mind. There is certainly no shortage of great red wines hailing from France, but sometimes an unexpected pleasure can be derived from wine from an unexpected source. In this case, from the Rhone region of France comes the Beaumes de Venise Muscat, a white wine that adds complexity and food friendliness to your everyday Moscato. Its balance between sweetness and acidity make the Beaumes de Venise a great pairing for salad, gefilte fish or even spicy food such as Moroccan fish or Chinese food. It of course can also be enjoyed with or in place of dessert.

Israel has been a prime player in the quality kosher wine revolution. But most of the best Israeli wines have been Cabernet Sauvignon based wines. While “Cab is king,” a little variety is always nice. Domaine Netofa is a new winery founded by the traveling kosher winemaker Pierre Miodownick. The first wine released by Netofa is a blend of Syrah and Mourvedre – a fruity, food friendly winner. Rose’ is a great Sukkos wine, given that is has the flavors to hold up to lots of food and is intended to be served chilled – perfect for an afternoon in the sukkah.

From the Yogev line is the new Malbec/Carignan Rose’ with its deep pink color and expressive notes of red berries and lavender. Barkan has released a new blend, the Barkan Classic Merlot/Argaman. Argaman is indigenous to Israel and Israeli vintners are figuring out the best way to use the grape. This is a medium bodied blend and a welcome addition to the well-priced Barkan Classic line. Finally Shiloh, a boutique winery that has previously released the cult favorite “Secret” Cabernet, come two new 100 percent varietal wines. The Shiloh Barbera has expressive fruit and a mouth-watering acidity while the Shiloh Petite Sirah is a dark wine with gripping tannins and a full body.

Not to be left out of the New Wine Party, California wineries are also constantly looking to keep “Cali”wine lovers happy with new and exciting products. Recently released is the Baron Herzog Pinot Grigio, Herzog Wine Cellars answer to the easy drinking white wine made famous in Italy. My sources tell me, however, that many new exciting wines are on the horizon as Herzog Reserve is getting ready to add to its already impressive line of premium wines with a new To Kalon wine from Sonoma’s famed Trestle Glen Vineyard, and a wine from Napa’s famed Mount Veeder.

            Whatever the country and no matter the grape, this Yom Tov season make sure to take advantage of the bounty of new wines available on the market. Your taste buds won’t be disappointed.

Gary Landsman, aka the “Wine Tasting Guy,” makes, sells, writes about and, of course, tastes wine. He is presently doing PR/marketing for Royal Wine. You can contact him with any wine-related question at gary@winetastingguy.com.