This Weeks Torah Portion: Terumah

Wishing ya'll a Shabbat Shalom from Brooklyn, New York!

Your friends at Chabad – Lubavitch,

Rabbi Chaim & Chavie

******

Help us transform the landscape of Montanan Jewry:
www.JewishMontana.com/Donate

******

This weeks Torah portion: Terumah (Exodus 25:1-27:19)

******

This week's ETorah is dedicated in honor of the birthday of my dear brother and friend

Mr. Yochanan Brook

May G-d grant him and his wife Peri, a wonderful year, materially and spiritually, with much success in all his endeavors and Jewish Nachas from Mushkie and Sholom!

******
For candle lighting time in your area:
http://fridaylight.org/page/sunset-almanac.php

******

G-dly connection: Wired or Wireless?
By Rabbi Chaim

I had a very busy President's week, as I began packing for our big move to Bozeman. While skimming through the life story of our beloved President Abe Lincoln, I was deeply touched by the words he said to the 166th Ohio Regiment "I happen temporarily to occupy this big White House. I am living witness that any one of your children may look to come here as my father's child has." Mr. Lincoln felt that everyone has a chance to make it in life; and utilize his or her potential to the fullest, while living on G-d's green earth. It is with this in mind, that I saw the following bit of wonderful news. A U.S. Army captain Jesse Damsky, a Sunni Muslim, befriended an Iraqi citizen while serving in the military. After overcoming two years of tough challenges, he persevered and arranged for his new friend's young daughter, who has a rare facial deformity, to come to New York's Mt. Sinai Hospital to receive professional medical treatment. This was certainly a bit of heartwarming news in the midst of a world going Bonanza. Now, to the weekly Parshah we go…

The Torah commands us this week "And you shall make two golden Cherubim; you shall make them of hammered work, from the two ends of the ark cover ." One of the many mysteries and miracles of the Mishkan (Tabernacle) were the Cherubim (Cherubs), the angelic, child-like, winged "sculptures" that ornamented the Holy Ark. It was from between these two Cherubim that G-d spoke to Moses. The Talmud teaches that these child-like sculptures were actually in the image of a young boy and girl, facing each other in love, thus reflecting G-d's infinite and factual love to his children Israel. Furthermore, when the Jewish people would come up to Jerusalem for the three major Jewish holidays of Passover, Shavuot, and Sukkot, the Cherubim were uncovered; and it was quite visible to all the Jewish pilgrims, just how much G-d loves them.

Under the Cherubim, hidden in the ark, were the Torah tablets, the foundation of the Jewish way of life. Our heavenly father was indeed trying to send us a loving message, that although he very much appreciates and would like us to fulfill every last detail of the Torah and its Mitzvot, the love for His People Israel transcends even Torah observance. It was from between these Cherubim where G-d would offer forgiveness for the transgressions of the Jewish people. The Jew is forever bound to Hashem, no thoughts, speech or action can separate a child from his father. Externally, some are connected with Dial-Up, some connect by fax, and others may still be connected by snail-mail, but internally, every Jew at his core is connected with our loving Aibershter.

I just want to conclude with a fascinating episode:

Mr. George Rohr is a prominent businessman and longtime supporter of Chabad-Lubavitch who enjoyed a special relationship with the Rebbe of Blessed Memory.

While standing in line with people requesting the Rebbe's blessings before Yom Kippur, he prepared for the Rebbe a gift of good news to balance the endless stream of requests about pain and suffering that people bombarded the Rebbe with.

When his turn came, he told the Rebbe that on Rosh Hashanah he had organized a beginners' service in his synagogue for more than 130 Jews who had no Jewish background.

"What?" the Rebbe asked, looking at Rohr intently.

Assuming the Rebbe did not hear everything he said, Rohr repeated himself.

"No Jewish background?" asked the Rebbe

"Go back and tell them that they have a background. They are the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah!"

Where upon the Rebbe's smile returned.

A wired connection is vital, but essentially, our relationship with G-d is wireless!

May G-d guard our brethren in Israel and the world over from harm and send us Moshiach speedily. May He protect the armed forces of the United States wherever they may be. Chazak! L'Chaim!
******

The ETorah is an educational project of
Chabad Lubavitch of Montana

This Weeks Torah Portion: Mishpatim

Wishing ya'll a Shabbat Shalom from Brooklyn, New York!

Your friends at Chabad – Lubavitch,

Rabbi Chaim & Chavie

******

Help us transform the landscape of Montanan Jewry:
www.JewishMontana.com/Donate

******

This weeks Torah portion: Mishpatim (Exodus 21:1-24:18)

******

This week's ETorah is dedicated in merit of a wonderful Yiddishe Mame

Rochel Bas Leah

May G-d grant her a speedy recovery and may she merit to spend many more happy and healthy years with her beloved family until One Hundred and Twenty!


******
For candle lighting time in your area:
http://fridaylight.org/page/sunset-almanac.php

******

Can body and soul live in harmony?
By Rabbi Chaim

I was caught off guard and pleasantly surprised to see that a fellow member of my community in Crown Heights, namely Mr. Matisyahu Miller, AKA Matisyahu, was nominated for a Grammy Award for "Best Reggae Album". Although he didn't win, it was definitely a milestone in music and Jewish history, as a full fledged Orthodox Observant Jew receives a Reggae nominee. It was an awkward moment to see him up there with the not-so Orthodox crowd, yet, as he uses his Reggae talents to help our youth lead a meaningful life, he truly epitomizes the fusion of the body and soul, the material and spiritual. Which bring me to this week's Parsha…

In this week's Torah portion we are commanded "If you see the donkey of your enemy lying under its burden, and you might not want to help him…Make every effort to help him ". G-d - in yet another gesture of his infinite kindness – commands us to overcome our natural feelings, ignore our instincts that are shouting "let him suffer", and treat your enemy with care and compassion, despite him being totally unworthy of your help and support. In a most mesmerizing esoteric teaching, The Baal Shem Tov, founder of the Chassidic movement, explained this verse on a much deeper spiritual level:

Ki Tireh - when you will come to the realization that - Chamor - the physical matter of the body is - Son'acha — your enemy — because he is engaged in attaining physical pleasures, and thus, hates the Neshamah which is striving for G-dliness and a high spiritual level - [and the body is] Roveitz Tachat Masa'o - lying under his burden not wanting to get up and serve Hashem - Vechadalta Mei'azov Lo - you may think that you will begin to torture him and deny him the food he needs. Be advised that this is a wrong approach. Instead, 'Azov Ta'azov Imo' - help him! Give him his bodily needs and attune your mind and soul to worship Hashem. Eventually, your body will become purified and cooperate in your worship."

The Maggid of Mezritch, a devotee of the Baal Shem Tov, followed suit, and commanded his son Reb Avraham that he must tend to and care for his physical health, "for a miniature illness or ailment in the body, can cause severe illness in the Jewish soul ". Yet, one must wonder, why do we attribute this profound Jewish way of life to the Baal Shem Tov, while many years before him, the codifiers of Jewish Law ordained that "one must never hurt themselves, even by depriving them self from eating and drinking"? Maimonides writes clearly that "Keeping healthy, is a way of G-d"? So what's the grand invention of the Baal Shem Tov?

The Rebbe explains: that according to Jewish Law there are specific circumstances, in which one is permitted to fast, and mistreat his physical body for the sake of repentance to Hashem. Until the revelation of the Baal Shem Tov and the Chasidic way of life, it was common Jewish knowledge that to rectify ones past wrongdoings and to return to G-d, we must break our physical bodies, abuse the materialistic life we enjoy, thus becoming more spiritual and a proper vessel for a solid relationship with our Heavenly Father. Then along came Reb Yisroel Baal Shem Tov and said "Enough Abuse! G-d didn't give us physical bodies and place us in a materialistic world, for us to neglect our G-dly gift".

Ever since then, when one wants to return to G-d, we do it with positive action. We elevate the physical, we make a blessing before and after we eat the rib eye stake, we enjoy the physical to enable us to serve G-d with heart and soul; and we drink wine and say L'Chaim to each other, while blessing each other with all the goodies in the world. In short, the Baal Shem Tov taught us that physical is not a curse, but rather a wonderful blessing. Body and soul must work in unison, and together they can work wonders.

Your body may be a semi enemy, but you can make him your best friend!

May G-d guard our brethren in Israel and the world over from harm and send us Moshiach speedily. May He protect the armed forces of the United States wherever they may be. Chazak! L'Chaim!
******

The ETorah is an educational project of
Chabad Lubavitch of Montana

Dissing the Pac

I could have almost predicted the response to one of my posts concerning AIPAC and Zionism, but to read what I can only surmise was a retort of my assertions, coming as they were from the viewpoint of Matthew Yglesias, Jay Stevens, and Bozeman's "notorious" anti-Semite CPA, Mark Tokarski, it seemed just a little too delicious to digest all at once, a virtual trinity of bulimia if you will.

Stevens seems to suggest that Yglesias:

...claims that those that subscribe to this new “anti-semitism” identify “anti-semitism – hatred of Jewish people – with anti-Zionism, or the belief that Israel should not exist as a Jewish state.” Of course, this new anti-semitism is applied with a broad brush, so that folks like Tony Judt – who espoused a “binational, secular state encompassing all the territory west of the Jordan River” — is labeled an anti-semite when, as Yglesias correctly notes, he’s actually “unrealistic.”

Bret Stephens, writes in "Anti-Anti-Semitism Defended" at TNR as it specifically concerns Judt:

Regarding Tony Judt, he writes that what most provoked the critics was Judt's call for the Jewish state to be replaced by a binational one. Please. Binationalism is too obviously stupid an idea to qualify as vile. What made Judt's polemic uniquely nasty was its curious indulgence of Arab youth whose violence against Jewish persons or property he defined as a "misdirected effort ... to get back at Israel." No
anti-Semitism there, just legitimate anti-Zionism with the wrong mailing address!

Still, were it up to me Judt, Mearsheimer, Carter et al would be run out of polite society. What's wrong with that? A decade ago, Judis himself tried to do the same to Charles Murray for the "ominous racial theory" suggested by The Bell Curve. The plain fact is that some ideas simply foul our public discourse. Some "controversies" open doors to scoundrels. Some small truths serve as vehicles for big lies. It is not a resort to censorship to ask of the people who hold the keys to magazines like The New Republic or newspapers like The Wall Street Journal to exercise judgment and discretion. Indeed, it is the essence of our responsibility.

I'm having difficulty ascertaining who exactly called Tony Judt an anti-Semite from the referenced paragraph above. GMU Law Professor David Bernstein, writing at The Volokh Conspiracy notes specifically:

Consider how Matthew Yglesias (note: who, for the record, I think is neither anti-Semitic, nor even "anti-Israel", but is far too kind to those who are, perhaps under the "an enemy of my enemy [Bush foreign policy] is my friend" theory) portrays the recent AJC study on leftist Israel-hating Jews, who, according to the study, are playing into the hands of growing genocidal anti-Semitism in the Muslim world by engaging in highly inflammatory rhetoric criticizing Israel in terms normally reserved for brutal dictatorships. Yglesias sums it up as "AJC's 'Jews who have different political opinions from ours are anti-semities' [sic] essay."

Just as when you (Yglesias-mh) said Abe Foxman branded Wesley Clark an anti-semite, only except for where Abe Foxman expressly stated he wasn't.

Just as when you (Yglesias-mh) criticized Leon Wieseltier for calling Tony Judt an anti-semite, only except for that part where he explicitly wrote "Tony Judt is not an anti-semite." You know, for someone in the midst of a crusade against rhetorical sophistry re: Israel & anti-semitism, & someone who defended Clark's inartful expression against accusations of anti-semitic conspiracy theory, you seem to have a nasty habit of misrepresenting other's views re: Israel/Jews. In the Matthew Yglesias equation, the rules are turned completely on their head; anyone who criticizes another commentator for treating the subject of Israel & the Jews in a manner, to quote Wieseltier "Icily lacking in decency" is accused of anti-semitism baiting.

Unfortunately, Yglesias is hardly alone.

So on the one hand, we have friends of Israel who are too quick to label others anti-Semitic, though I believe that this phenomenon is declining, as it has received increasing scrutiny and criticism. On the other hand, we have critics of Israel who try to portray anyone who defends Israel as a hysteric who sees anti-Semitism everywhere. This seems to be on the rise. And the most vociferous critics of the former phenomenon tend to be the most egregious participants in the latter.

As it continues to relate to the now false assertion that anyone of consequence has called Tony Judt an anti-Semite it might be useful to further explore some of Judt's views in more detail, in addition to the outright fabrication coming from the "notorious" and virulent anti-Semite Mark Tokarski...

They are ruthless - it is not enough to shut off the money spigot - they also aggressively seek too unseat them. Tony Judt found he couldn’t even speak on an open forum - Abe Foxman of ADL had called ahead and had his gig canceled. That’s the kind of power they wield.

It's always confusing attempting to watch the retarded weave back and forth between which pro-Israel group they wish to defame. In the case of Judt's "gig" at the Polish consulate in New York being cancelled, once again by the nefarious "Jewish lobby," it's an assertion that Abe Foxman himself has refuted.

Sadly, Mr. Judt is now using this incident to mount a campaign of disinformation to tar his critics and to further his claim of a conspiracy to stifle anti-Israel activists from having their say. His arguments lack credibility, given the many prominent public forums he has enjoyed over the years including, the op-ed page of the New York Times and many speaking engagements in New York City, most recently at Cooper Union, and elsewhere.

Leon Wieseltier, writing at The New Republic, comments further regarding Judt:

I wonder whether the shahid of Washington Square and his champions have spoken or signed anything against the boycotts of Israeli academics; but I will leave the double-standards research to others. The more significant point is that what Judt was prevented from delivering at the Polish consulate was a conspiracy theory about the pernicious role of the Jews in the world. That is what the idea of "the Lobby" is. It is Mel Gibson's analysis of the Iraq war. It is not just an analysis of the impact of AIPAC on particular resolutions and policies: such an analysis requires a detailed knowledge of American government, specifically of Congress, that I suspect Judt does not possess and that his fellow heroes Mearsheimer and Walt have been shown to lack. It is a larger claim, a historical claim, a claim about a sinister causality, about the power of a small group to control the destiny of a large group. And it is a claim with a sordid history. Is it an anti-Semitic claim, or just a claim with an anti-Semitic past? I am told that at the recent debate about "the Lobby" at Cooper Union in New York, the moderator, Anne-Marie Slaughter, began by stipulating that the question of anti-Semitism was off the table, which was an attempt to inhibit the discussion.

Tony Judt is not an anti-Semite, and bully for him. But here he is, on October 6, describing Joe Lieberman as "very ostentatiously Jewish." What the hell does that mean? Is Barack Obama very ostentatiously black? A person's politics is not just a reflection of a person's origins, of course; but Judt's writing about Israel and its Jewish supporters is icily lacking in decency, in hesed, a word that even an unostentatious Jew can understand. No amount of sympathy for the interests of the Palestinians requires this amount of antipathy to the interests of the Israelis. There are more scrupulous, more humane, more complex, and more helpful things to do with one's freedom.

Indeed. The quickest way that I can separate justified criticism of Israel from inherently anti-Semitic criticism is to say that criticism of Israel is always justified, just as is criticism of any other state. Holding Israel to a higher standard is what's anti-Semitic. Citing human rights violations perpetrated by Israel is justified; the fact that there are more U.N. human rights sanctions against Israel than against China and North Korea is anti-Semitism.

Both Judt and Tokarski seem stupified by America. They both seem to indicate that this is the one place where what they claim to be Israeli propaganda has succeesed beyond measure, and where Pali propaganda has miserably failed. Permit me to be preachy....you cannot build a culture on refusal, hatred, and martyrdom, and earn sympathy from America. Until this fact registers not only with Palestinians but their armchair supporters, no amount of Judt's, Tokarski's, or Yglesias's will make a lot of difference.

Consider, for instance, the words of Mark Tokarski:

Once outside US, where media is heavily influenced by the Jewish lobby, Israeli stock falls precipitously. It's easier to get a clear idea of what the Israelis have become, what they are up to, once you leave our bubble.

Israel is a terrorist state, and an enemy of peace. The more I read about her, the more I get an unclean feeling - these are horrible people.

Zionists are good at the slime business - whenever someone is critical of Israel, we quickly hear that person is a Holocaust denier or anti-Semitic. Character assassination is part of the Zionist game - take no prisoners, even be open and brazen about such scurrilous methods.

Might I expect an anonymous letter and veiled threat? A knock on my door? Will my cat disappear?

So, we not only have the spurious claim that the US media is in some way controlled by Jewish interests but the dismissal that her "people" are, in toto, "horrible people." He then assumes the role of potential martyr by ascribing to supporters of Israel the potential for receiving an "anonymous letter and veiled threat." My guess is that the only folks this asshat has had to shoo-away from his front door are Jehovah's Witnesses and perhaps, when he's in a particular funky mood, Girl Scouts hawking their Zionist Chocolate Chip Cookies. As for the disappearance of his pussycat (how could one have possibly guessed he was a cat person?) well, even a cat has moments of clarity now and then...and if I, as a cat, were forced to share the same space with Mark Tokarski on a regular basis I might find the small space between the rubber of a truck tire and the asphalt a welcome respite from actually sharing a house with the bastard.

Of course, with Tokarski, there's no place to go but down. In comments over at Jay's place he again makes imaginary claims based upon his own prejudices:

In the meantime, Israel is in the process of brutal Apartheid in Palestine, making life so miserable for them that their only real alternative is to get up and leave. Israel regards Jordan as the Palestinian’s natural home, and wants them to leave, is ofrcing them to leave, with US support. Oddly, there is more criticism of this policy in Israel than here - many have remarked how freedom of speech is alive and well over there, but dead here.

Generally I tend to put more stock in people who at least have a grasp of what the fuck they're talking about. Muslim scholar, and author of "The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith," Irshad Manji writes:

In a state practising apartheid, would Arab Muslim legislators wield veto power over anything? At only 20per cent of the population, would Arabs even be eligible for election if they squirmed under the thumb of apartheid? Would an apartheid state extend voting rights to women and the poor in local elections, which Israel did for the first time in the history of Palestinian Arabs?

Would the vast majority of Arab Israeli citizens turn out to vote in national elections, as they've usually done? Would an apartheid state have several Arab political parties, as Israel does? In recent Israeli elections, two Arab parties found themselves disqualified for expressly supporting terrorism against the Jewish state. However, Israel's Supreme Court, exercising its independence, overturned both disqualifications. Under any system of apartheid, would the judiciary be free of political interference?

Would an apartheid state award its top literary prize to an Arab? Israel honoured Emile Habibi in 1986, before the intifada might have made such a choice politically shrewd. Would an apartheid state encourage Hebrew-speaking school children to learn Arabic? Would road signs throughout the land appear in both languages? Even my country, the proudly bilingual Canada, doesn't meet that standard.

Would an apartheid state be home to universities where Arabs and Jews mingle at will, or apartment blocks where they live side by side? Would an apartheid state bestow benefits and legal protections on Palestinians who live outside of Israel but work inside its borders? Would human rights organisations operate openly in an apartheid state? They do in Israel.

For that matter, military officials go public with their criticisms of government policies. In October 2003, the Israel Defence Forces' chief of staff told the press that road closures in the West Bank and Gaza were feeding Palestinian anger. Two weeks later, four former heads of the Shin Bet security service blasted the occupation and called on Ariel Sharon to withdraw troops unilaterally, which later happened in Gaza. Would an apartheid state stomach so much dissent from those mandated to protect the state?

Above all, would media debate the most basic building blocks of the nation? Would a Hebrew newspaper in an apartheid state run an article by an Arab Israeli about why the Zionist adventure has been a total failure? Would it run that article on Israel's independence day? Would an apartheid state ensure conditions for the freest Arabic press in the Middle East, a press so free that it can demonstrably abuse its liberties and keep on rolling? To this day, the East Jerusalem daily Al-Quds hasn't retracted an anti-Israel letter supposedly penned by Nelson Mandela but proven to have been written by an Arab living in The Netherlands.

Even the eminence grise of Palestinian nationalism, the late Edward Said, stated flat out that "Israel is not South Africa". How could it be when an Israeli publisher translated Said's seminal work, Orientalism, into Hebrew? I'll cap this point with a question that Said himself asked of Arabs: "Why don't we fight harder for freedom of opinions in our own societies, a freedom, no one needs to be told, that scarcely exists?"

I disagree: some people still need to be told that Arab "freedoms" don't compare to those of Israel. The people who need reminding are those who now push the South Africa analogy a step further by equating Israel with Nazi Germany. To them, Zionists are committing hate crimes under the totalitarian nightmare that they dub "Zio-Nazism" (like neo-Nazism).

When it comes to granting citizenship, Israel discriminates in the same way as an affirmative action policy, giving the edge to a specific minority that has faced genocidal injustice. Does this amount to Nazism? Spare me. As a Muslim, I could become a citizen of Israel without having to convert. After all, Israel was one of the few countries anywhere to grant shelter, then citizenship, to the Vietnamese boatpeople who sought political asylum in the late 1970s. I don't have to wonder how Syria compares on that score.

Now for the ultimate proof of Israel's flimsy credentials as a bunker of Hitlerian hate: It's the only country in the Middle East to which Arab Christians are voluntarily migrating. And they are also thriving there, notching much higher university attendance rates than the Arab Muslim citizens of Israel, and enjoying better overall health than Jews.

Thought I was finished with Tokarski? Think again. He then pulls this gem from his ass:

Prime Minister Olmert, in addressing the US Congress, claimed all of Palestine for Israel, and said that Palestinians were only guests. I think his claim rests on religious fundamentalism, and the notion that only Jews have the right to return to their native land. Religious zealots. Is there any more to say?

I personally never caught Olmert's address so I thought it might be useful to actually research what the Prime Minister did say when addressing Congress...and it should come as no surprise to find yet another work of fantasy. You can read the entire address here if you wish.

Israel yearns for peace and security. Israel is determined to take responsibility for its own future and take concrete steps to turn its dreams into reality.

The painful but necessary process of disengagement from the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria was an essential step.

Israel's goal remains the same. As Prime Minister Sharon clearly stated, the Palestinians will forever be our neighbors. They are an inseparable part of this land, as are we. Israel has not desired to rule over them, nor to oppress them. They, too, have a right for freedom and national aspirations.

On behalf of the state of Israel, we are willing to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority. This authority must renounce terrorism, dismantle the terrorist infrastructure, accept previous agreements and commitments, and recognize the right of Israel to exist.

Let us be clear: Peace without security will bring neither peace nor security. We will not -- we cannot -- compromise on these basic tests of partnership.

With a genuine Palestinian partner for peace, I believe we can reach an agreement on all the issues that divide us. Our past experience shows us it is possible to bridge the differences between our two peoples.

These treaties involved painful and difficult compromises. It required Israel to take real risks. But if there is to be a just, fair and lasting peace, we need a partner who will reject violence and who values life more than death.

The lesson for the Palestinian people is clear. In a few years, they could be living in a Palestinian state, side by side in peace and security with Israel. A Palestinian state which Israel and the international community would help thrive. But no one can make this happen for them if they refuse to make it happen for themselves.

We have to compromise in the name of peace, to give up parts of our promised land in which every hill and every valley is saturated with Jewish history and in which our heroes are buried.
We have to relinquish part of our dream to leave room for the dream of others so that all of us can enjoy a better future.

We hope and pray that our Palestinian neighbors will also awaken. We hope they will make the crucial distinction between implementing visions that can inspire us to build a better reality and measures that will only lead us further into the darkness. We owe a quiet and normal life to ourselves, our children and our grandchildren. After defending ourselves for almost 60 years against attacks, all our children should be allowed to live free of fear and terror. And so I ask of the Palestinians: How can a child growing up in a culture of hate dream of the possibility of peace? It is so important that all schools and all educational institutions in the region teach our children to be hate-free.

Now, does anything read above or via the link provided resemble even remotely the event as noted by Tokarski? And I get criticized for throwing around the anti-Semite label too freely?

Jay indicates in his post supporting the false claims of Yglesias:

The label of anti-semetic is earned for some for simply criticizing the worst policies of Israel’s most fervent nationalists, for example, or for questioning whether the hard-right Israeli lobbying group, AIPAC, wields disproportionate influence within the U.S. government.

It might come as as a surprise for those unfamiliar with anything but talking points from the American Prospect that, as commentor MontanaFats correctly stated, "Simply put AIPAC is a lobby in Washington not controlled by Democrats or Republicans. They only have one issue and that is to promote a continuing friendship between Israel and the United States. Other things continue to be said by so called and self described Left Wing activists. Please note that past chairman of AIPAC, Steve Grossman, was the former Chairman of the Democratic Party during the Clinton years. That is about as close as one can get to the American Left. Irv Kenen, the originator and founder of AIPAC once said "We have friends and people we would like to be friends with" That is a very positive statement and is really the only agenda of AIPAC."

Jay continues...

Such smear tactics are, of course, overt attempts to intimidate critics of hard-line Israeli foreign policy into silence.

Who exactly is being intimidated into silence? TNR's Stephens:

How does joining a debate become an effort to suppress it? I am not aware that Mearsheimer and Walt have been sent from the field to cower behind the bleachers. Indeed, nothing so perfectly gives the lie to their claims about the vast power of the Israel lobby as the fact that they have now been contracted--by Farrar, Straus and Giroux, no less--to turn their article into a book.

I really have a hard time with anyone giving credence to the views of someone like Yglesias who has had the temerity to refer to yet another anti-Semite, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, as having a "sweet, hipster style."

"I keep talking about this with people in real life, but it deserves a blog mention as well -- Mahmoun Ahmadinejad has a pretty sweet hipster style... There was also this clip of him walking down some hallway shooting the shit with Kofi Annan. It's like diplomacy! Bush should try it."

Omri Ceren at Mere Rhetoric sums it up perhaps better than anyone I've read to date:

It's the usual nonsense - the pro-Israel lobby prevents anyone from anyone from criticizing them. This argument is always contradictory- if you can publish an article about censorship, then it's not very effective censorship. And in a global environment where Israel is trashed by a UN that it pays dues to with annual events demanding that it cease existing - well, then the "we can't say anything bad about Israel" goes from contradictory to stupid. But now it's just getting pathetic. These over-educated Che wannabes (or is that now suicide bomber wanabes) just want soooo much to be chic resistance fighters. They're willing to pretend that there's this big bad Jewish conspiracy stifling "legitimate criticism of Israel" in America - which is convenient, since that makes them the brave, lone voices of patriotic dissent. How willfully stupid do you have to be to believe that criticizing Israel is brave in a liberal think tank or on a college campus? Seriously.

Yglesias is among the elite of the elite of liberal bloggers and grassroots opinion-setters. He's a staff writer for The American Prospect, one of the bastions of contemporary leftist intellectualism. In his own mind he is a serious person - so much so that he modestly subtitles his blog "a reality based weblog".

Though - while being a Nuanced And Serious Person in his own mind (as opposed to the President, to whom he talks down) - he also thinks that it's oh so witty to dress like a terrorist:

Terrorist chic is merely the latest retarded hipster trend to confirm the brutally obvious: spoiled liberal Ivy kids are not ready to talk to adults yet. The Left is not serious. They just don't get things. Like "terrorism is not ironic or cool". They just don't get it. They're in it for the smirks - and for their parochial back-patting sessions regarding their imagined cosmopolitan superiority.

What remains painfully obvious is that those who take Yglesias's claims about Israel and anti-Semitism seriously, much less continue to give credence or platform to any utterance coming from the "notorious" Mark Tokarski are reckless at best. At worst? Judge for yourself. Piece of Mind my ass. Piece of Shit is more like it.

Mike

Local News

Caroline Glick, who must be willing to serve in a future Netanyahu administration, writes that the State of Palestine already exists:

In the world of international diplomacy few issues receive more wall-to-wall support than the notion that it is essential to establish a Palestinian state. Leaders worldwide are so busy speaking of how essential it is for a State of Palestine to be founded that none of them seems to have noticed that it already exists.

This state was officially founded in the summer of 2005, when Israel removed its military forces and civilian population from the Gaza Strip and so established the first wholly independent Palestinian state in history. Israel's destruction of four Israeli communities in Northern Samaria and curtailment of its military operations in the area set the conditions for statehood in that area as well.

And so it is that as statesmen and activists worldwide loudly proclaim their commitment to establishing the sovereign State of Palestine, they miss the fact that Palestine exists. And it is a nightmare.

Palestinian journalist Fadi Abu Sada begs Israel to bomb Gaza and spare civilians the ravages of civil war:

We can no longer regret anything, what is happening already killed every emotion, we will not regret if we got more pain, and if Israel attack houses in Gaza and attempted to target the leaders of the Palestinian resistance, that this would be the only solution to stop the fighting.

The great tragedy would be that Israel did not do what we hope, I do not know where cycle of blood and revenge ongoing will lead us, no one even responded to the appeals of citizens to go down to the streets in an attempt to stop the bloodshed, and this confirms the loss of the sense of anything.

"Everyone here is disgusted by what's happening in the Gaza Strip," said Shireen Atiyeh, a 30-year-old mother of three working in one of the Palestinian Authority ministries. "We are telling the world that we don't deserve a state because we are murdering each other and destroying our universities, colleges, mosques and hospitals. Today I'm ashamed to say that I'm a Palestinian." At least you have some armchair activists back in the States telling the rest of your people what to think Shireen.

Ed Morrisey writes about the omnipresent Pali cease-fire in their Civil War Captains Quarters:

The world may soon adopt "Palestinian cease-fire" as a self-evident oxymoron. Hours after announcing the latest cessation of hostilities between Fatah and Hamas, both groups conducted major attacks on the other, leaving a broadcast station in ruins and ambulances dodging bullets across Gaza.

A U.S. Court rules against Palestinian terror.

The B’Tselem human rights group is accused by CAMERA, a media watchdog group, of using deceptive terms and selective omissions to slant the perspective of its annual report on Arab casualties.


A two-state solution based on Israeli territorial concessions to the Palestinians will not lead to broader stability in the Middle East, former Israeli army chief of staff Moshe Yaalon warned Monday.

Shoah scholar and author Elie Wiesel was attacked outside his hotel room in San Francisco by a Holocaust denying loon.

Palestinian Muslims rioted on the Temple Mount yesterday and again this morning in protest over the Israeli building project meant to protect access for visitors to the most holy site in Judaism via the Mughrabi Gate...perhaps in an act of transference over how they treated Jewish artifacts (they threw them in the city's dump when uncovered) in the years preceeding Israeli control of Jerusalem.

Defense minister appoints MK Raleb Majadele Science, Technology, Culture, and Sports Minister...the first Arab to hold a portfolio in Israeli Government. The world waits with baited breath for Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or Yemen to do the same.

Saudi's criticize their school curricula again...because not enough attention is given to Jihad for the sake of Allah.

And finally...because it's lunch time, Senator Clinton reveals anti-Israel and anti-Western bias in textbooks meant for Palestinian children.

Mike

The "Lobby"

I've been struggling for a long time to figure out exactly why so many folks in this country, including some back in Montana, have developed such animus towards AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby. The fact is, and it is no longer simply supposition, that the Left of which I used to at least consider myself a nominal member, has simply refused to dismiss the anti-Israel rhetoric coming from its ranks en masse. While I firmly agree that it's possible to criticize Israel, Jews in general, or me in particular, and not be anti-Semitic is a given, and I've dealt with this issue in the past sufficiently, I think, that I don't have to narcissistically provide a link.

But what's the problem with AIPAC and pro-Israel advocacy specifically? I've personally lost count of the number of e-mails I receive that have called me everything from a "traitor" to "Jew-bastard," and everything in between. And lest you believe the tragically mainstream people of Montana aren't capable of such vitriol I assure you, thanks to IP addresses and other methods used, the majority of those e-mails appear to originate in Montana.

Save me the bullshit arguments that AIPAC, acting as an "agent" for Israel, is responsible for our involvement in Iraq, or in Al-Qaeda's particular problem with our nation. To listen to some of the batshit crazy elements of the Left, who are so sorely lacking a physician qualified in the timeless art of electro-convulsive therapy, the United States is a dog on a leash, being guided by AIPAC, Israel, and "Jewish money."

To be sure, everyone knows that AIPAC and other Jewish organizations enjoy a vast influence over US policy in the Middle East...and why shouldn't they? Is the influence of AIPAC in advocating towards Middle East policy any more nefarious than what is exerted by the Cuban-American community towards our Cuba policy? What about the influence of various Irish-American groups during the so-called glory days of the IRA terrorist organization in Ireland and Great Britain? Thanks to the influence of these groups (and I might add Senator Edward Kennedy) Congress never passed a resolution condemning IRA terror. Why are there no marches on the street conemning Cuban or Irish-American influence in foreign policy?

Domestic political concerns have always influenced our foreign policy. The Us should have been tougher on IRA terrorism but wasn't because of Irish Americans. Our policy on Cyprus was influenced by Greek-Americans. We have an embargo that Cuban-American "leaders" want but is broken by Cuban Americans, including those “leaders”, who send money back to their families in Cuba. No where at any time does this result in street marches, protests, shoddy work by pseudo-academics using the imprimatur of an Ancient Eight university, or vitriolic attacks against Irish, Greek, or Cuban-Americans. However, let that lobby be AIPAC, and let those activists be Jewish, and suddenly the rules change.

If the Jewish stranglehold on policy has been so absolute since the days of Harry Truman, then what was President Eisenhower thinking when, on the eve of an election just a little more than 50 years ago, he peremptorily ordered Ben Gurion out of Sinai and Gaza on pain of canceling the sale of Israeli bonds? On the next occasion when Israel went to war with its neighbors, 11 years later, President Lyndon Johnson was much more lenient, but a strong motive of his policy (undetermined by Israel) was to win Jewish support for the war the "realists" were then waging in Vietnam. (He didn't get the support, except from Rabbi Meir Kahane.)

If it is Israel that decides on the deployment of American force, it seems odd that the first President Bush had to order them to stay out of the coalition to free Kuwait, even when Saddam's Scud missiles were raining down on Israeli cities, and it is even more odd that the first order of neocon business was not an attack on Iran, which would have been universally supported by many, but on Iraq, an event even the hawkish Ariel Sharon personally warned President George Bush from taking.

These anti-AIPAC wingnuts speak forebodingly about neocon and Israeli maneuvers in respect to Tehran today, but they entirely fail to explain why the main initiative against the mullahs has come from the European Union and the International Atomic Energy Authority, two organizations where the voice of the Jewish lobby is, to say the least, distinctly muted. Their theory does nothing to explain why it was French President Jacques Chirac who took the lead in isolating the death-squad regime of Assad's Syria, a government that for reasons of their own invention is viewed as a force for stability in the Middle East.

As for the idea that Israel is the root cause of the emergence of al-Qaeda...Bin Laden's gang emerged from a whole series of tough and reactionary battles in Central and Eastern Asia, from the war for a separate Muslim state in the Philippines to the fighting in Kashmir, the Uighur territories in China, and of course Afghanistan. There are hardly any Palestinians in its ranks, and its communiqués have been notable for how little they say about the Palestinian struggle. Bin Laden does not favor a Palestinian state; he simply regards the whole area of the former British Mandate as a part of the future caliphate. The right of the Palestinians to a state is a just demand in its own right, but anyone who imagines that its emergence would appease—or would have appeased—the forces of jihad is quite simply a fool. Is al-Qaida fomenting civil war in Nigeria or demanding the return of East Timor to Indonesia because its heart bleeds for the West Bank?

For purposes of contrast, let us look at two other regional allies of the United States. Both Turkey and Pakistan have been joined to the Pentagon hip since approximately the time of the emergence of the state of Israel, which coincided with the Truman Doctrine. Pakistan was, like Israel, cleaved from a former British territory. Since that time, both states have carried out appalling internal repression and even more appalling external aggression. Pakistan attempted a genocide in Bangladesh, with the support of Nixon and Kissinger, in 1971. It imposed the Taliban as its client in a quasi-occupation of Afghanistan. It continues to arm and train Bin Ladenists to infiltrate Indian-held Kashmir, and its promiscuity with nuclear materials exceeds anything Israel has tried with its stockpile at Dimona. Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974 and continues in illegal occupation of the northern third of the island, which has been forcibly cleansed of its Greek inhabitants. It continues to lie about its massacre of the Armenians. U.N. resolutions have had no impact on these instances of state terror and illegality in which the United States is also partially implicated.

But here's the thing: There is no Turkish or Pakistani ethnic "lobby" in America. And here's the other thing: There is no call for "disinvestment" in Turkey or Pakistan. We are not incessantly told that with these two friends we are partners in crime. Perhaps the Greek Cypriots and Indians are in error in refusing to fly civilian aircraft into skyscrapers. That might get the attention of the "realists." Or perhaps the affairs of two states, one secular Muslim and one created specifically in the name of Islam, do not possess the eternal fascination that attaches to the Jewish question.

Amir Taheri wrote a piece in Commentary asking, "Is Israel the Problem?" and concludes:

All told, in the past six decades, this region has witnessed no fewer than 22 full-scale wars over territory and resources, not one of them having anything to do with Israel and the Palestinians. And these international disputes, as I mentioned at the outset, are quite apart from the uninterrupted string of domestic clashes, military coups, acts of sectarian and ethnic vengeance, factional terrorism, and other internal conflicts that have characterized the greater Middle East, not infrequently attaining impressive heights of cruelty and despoliation. Nor is that the end of it. Underlying all of this are the unmoving facts, documented at length in the annual volumes of the Arab Human Development Report, of chronic instability, severe economic underachievement, social atrophy, and cultural backwardness. The greater Middle East is the only part of the world still largely untouched by the wave of positive change that followed the end of the cold war.

The notion that all of these problems can be waved away by “solving” the Arab-Israeli conflict is thus at best a delusion, at worst a recipe for maintaining today’s wider political, diplomatic, and social paralysis.

In December, Indiana University professor of English and Jewish Studies, Alvin Rosenfeld, published, "Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism." The study hints at what I believe is now the central theme that many on the Left use against AIPAC in general and Israel in particular.

In some quarters, the challenge is not to Israel’s policies, but to its legitimacy and right to an ongoing future. Thus, the argument leveled by Israel’s fiercest critics is often no longer about 1967 and the country’s territorial expansion following its military victory during the Six-Day War, but about 1948 and the alleged “crime,” or “original sin,” of its very establishment. . . . As Jacqueline Rose, the author of The Question of Zion (Princeton University Press, 2005), puts it, “the soul of the nation was forfeit from the day of its creation.”

Because the ideological package that informs progressive politics today links anti-Zionism to anti-capitalism, anti-imperialism, anti-globalization, anti-racism, etc., one is expected as a matter of course to be against Zionism and the supposedly “racist,” “colonialist,” and “oppressive” state it has created. As political scientist Andrei Markovits puts it [in a 2005 article in Dissent entitled “The European and American Left since 1945”], “If one is not at least a serious doubter of the legitimacy of the state of Israel (never mind the policies of its government) . . . one runs the risk of being excluded from the entity called ‘the left.’”

I guess the only solace that I can gain from writing at length on the subject is the knowledge that those who oppose the pro-Israel lobby are rejected from the mainstream of the Democratic Party establishment as being on the fringe of what is considered acceptable to the body as a whole, and if recent polls are any indication, derelict of any support from the population in general. What they have is the internet, the "people-powered" movements and websites that empower the flaccid looking for a validation, via the machination of conspiracy theories, that has so far eluded them in real-life.

Mike

Shabbos Mélange

I'm not sure what is the best option regarding US and World pressure on the Iranian Government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is, but I know an awful lot of folks out there are trying to frame this important debate on the supposed involvement of AIPAC in "war-mongering" the US administration into action on behalf of Israel. For some, it always is, and will forever be the Jooz at the center of evil in their universe. Fuck 'em!

Despite what you'll read elsewhere...that we need to prevent a war against Iran it seems to me we may already be rightly involved in a sort of "Cold War" against them. Correct me if I'm wrong but did the US not raid an Iranian Consulate in Irbil weeks ago? Rather than ultimately care what happened to the five Iranians seized by US forces (I could care less) it would seem that particular raid was more an attempt by US intelligence to gain access to Iranian codes, ciphers and other cryptologic equipment that could be used to our favor should a full-scale war ever rear its ugly head. Recent news also indicates the US seized an Iranian diplomat in Baghdad only days ago, and of course an Iranian General was arrested in Gaza during the same time frame...perhaps his tour bus got lost?

During other times in our history the above acts alone would have consituted an Act of War by one party against the other. I'd say the US is reasonably prudent in attempting to seize equipment from an Iranian Consulate which could ultimately aid us should a full scale war break out. I might also add that Iranian officials arrested in Baghdad or Gaza are most definitely not there on sightseeing tours.

Still, we need to try something to get the Iranians to abandon their plans for nuclear weapons before we are left with no choice and must simply bomb the place a bit further back in the Stone Age to prevent it, an action we MUST do if left with no other choice.

Daniel Doron writes a compelling piece in The Weekly Standard exploring how Iran's oil income could be stopped, forcing it's leadership into the age old debate between "butter and guns" for the Persian people.

Finally, Mehdi Khalaji, a Next Generation fellow at The Washington Institute posits that stepped up pressure on the Iranian regime from the outside is helping to fragment support of Ahmadinejad within Iran.

Meanwhile, Steve Sailer proposes that multiculturalism doesn't make vibrant communities but defensive ones...an observation that I tend to agree with, especially following my yearly visits to Florida. Seems the folks of Herouxville, Québec, also agree.

Is Wal-Mart in the sights of a national movement promoting universal healthcare? If the SEIU gets their way, it is.

And finally...Does the President Need to be Commander-in-Chief, and what would the implications be if George Bush removed himself from the title? Lee Harris suggests President John Adams had no illusions about his fitness to command an army when it looked like the US would go to war against France in 1798, so he delegated the responsibility to the man responsible for arresting my Great-Great-Great-Great-Great Grandfather following the Battle of Trenton on Boxing Day 1776, George Washington. Good stuff!

Mike

Happy Black History Month

From News For Members Of The Tribe via Bluestar PR:








Mike

March for Stupidity

So...the piece of shitniks are at it again. I don't have a particular problem with rallies that are either in favor of a cut and run strategy as it pertains to Iraq or in support of just about any other worthwhile cause.

Last month's march in Washington was, I suppose, a worthwhile and cathartic effort for those in attendance...if street theater and the myth that such gatherings are actually going to change the direction of the country are what gets your rocks off by all means you're welcome to it. I guess it doesn't matter that many were surprised to learn that often rallies such as the one that occured in Washington often take a life of their own, with little or no effort made to keep them on topic, which is perhaps why they're such a waste of time in the first place.

It should therefore come as no surprise that I share the disdain that fellow blogger John Aravosis felt while watching part of the event on C-Span.

"...and I'm asking myself - though I'm not surprised - why is some woman from the "US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation" speaking? And why is she speaking, ad naseum, about the "Israeli occupation of Palestine" rather than speaking about the war in Iraq? She gave 10% of her speech to Iraq and spent the rest of the time railing against Israel?

First off, wrong topic.

Second off, way to alienate most Jews in America, a rather influential group of people we could use as allies.

Third off, way to alienate the rest of us who don't hate Israel, don't hate the Palestinians, and don't feel that the problem over there will be solved by simply blaming everyting on Israel - there's more than enough blame to go around. And in any case, this rally has nothing to do with Israel leaving Palestine, so STFU and stay on topic.

I'm sorry, but as many of you know, I tend to have issues with "peace rallies," not because I have issues with peace or rallies, but because I find myself cringing when I see the substance of them, who's attending, the issues they feel compelled to bring up (Mumia, Israel, trans fats, the suffering of amoeba, whatever). Would it kill someone organizing these events to tell the speakers to speak about Iraq or don't speak at all? Would it kill people to try to present their message in a way that appeals to the majority of Americans?

What's not surprising to those of us who are following the descent of the neo-Socialists who masquerade as "Progressives," perhaps in an attempt to make more palatable the poison they wish to sell, is that the asshat's behind last month's march on Washington are planning yet another gathering...this time a more ostensibly anti-Israel, anti-Zionist hatefest to take place in Washington in June.

“The purpose of the event is to hopefully call greater attention both to the ongoing Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, but also to call attention to the role that the U.S. plays in supporting that, and specifically the financial role, of course,” said UFPJ’s national coordinator, Leslie Cagan.

National coordinator Cagan, a veteran left-wing activist, has been a particular lightning rod for critics, who have accused her of being sympathetic to Cuba’s communist regime and of equivocating about the Iraqi insurgency. In a 2003 interview with the Forward, Cagan, former director of the Cuba Information Project, called Fidel Castro “a very smart man who has worked very hard to help organize his country in a way that he thinks is valuable and positive.” Asked in the same interview about the then months-old Iraqi insurgency, she said that UFPJ “doesn’t have a position on that, and personally I’m neither condemning them nor applauding them.”

So, the shrew behind January's march on Washington thinks highly of Fidel Castro AND, AND doesn't have a position on the Iraqi insurgency, which is responsible for the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of US servicemen and women? I actually can't wait to see the speakers list for this rally and then sit back and enjoy the vapid spectacle on C-Span. Of all the good and noble causes out there that could use a march on Washington to bring to the forefront of our consciousness, these twats are going to waste their time and a city's resources on ending the supposed occupation of Palestine while the Palestinians themselves are involved in a civil war and deserve at least the lions share of the credit for the plight of their own people? What a waste of human spirit.

Mike

This Weeks Torah portion: Yitro

Wishing ya'll a Shabbat Shalom from Brooklyn, New York!

Your friends at Chabad – Lubavitch,

Rabbi Chaim & Chavie

******

Help us transform the landscape of Montanan Jewry:
www.JewishMontana.com/Donate

******

This weeks Torah portion: Yitro (Exodus 18:1-20:23)

******

This week's ETorah is dedicated in loving memory of the Rebbe's wife, who loved the Rebbe's Chassidim to no end:

Rebbetzin Chaya Mushka Schneerson of Blessed Memory

May her merit shield and protect all of the Mushkie's around the world and the rest of Klal Yisroel.


******
For candle lighting time in your area:
http://fridaylight.org/page/sunset-almanac.php

******

Are you a transformer or a blown fuse?
By Rabbi Chaim

As Montanan's were enjoying 50 degree weather this week, we in the northeast were praying with all our heart and soul for immediate global warming. While skimming through the news of the week, I came across a very interesting poll. A survey by the Gallup Organization shows that a majority of U.S. adults say that the overall health of the nation's economy is dependent on how spiritual Americans are. Of those surveyed, more than half say their religious beliefs greatly affect their feelings about the future, and more than one-third say they affect their relationships at work and how involved they are in volunteer activities. Seventy-two percent say that their faith is what gives their life meaning, but a smaller percentage, 65 percent, considers themselves spiritually committed. This fascinating report coincides perfectly with this week's Torah portion.

At the most awe inspiring moment in world history, G-d descends onto Mount Sinai in the midst of the wilderness, and personally delivers his Torah – his infinite wisdom, to His recently chosen nation of Jews. From that day and on, every Jewish person is obligated to fulfill 613 commandments, many rabbinic laws, and basically, to live a different lifestyle then everyone else on planet earth. Yet, although this Sinai revelation was quite powerful and earth-shattering, one must wonder: Didn't our forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob fulfill the Mitzvot years before this splendid experience? Doesn't it say in many commentaries and Midrashim that there were Yeshivos back in the day, even in the midst of the Egyptian exile? So, what changed after Matan Torah – the giving of the Torah? Yes, we understand that it was a spiritual gift to see G-d alone on the mountain, but was there more to it?

Thank G-d we were blessed with Chassidus – the esoteric teachings of the Torah, which sheds much light on the true meaning of this vital part of Jewish life and history:

Before the giving of the Torah, one was capable of bonding with G-d in the most spiritual union. Abraham kept the laws of family purity, Isaac studied Torah, and Jacob performed the Mitzvah of laying Teffilin. Yet, up until the Sinai revelation, both the physical and the spiritual stayed as is, and was not open to change. There was a decree; that spiritually stay on high, and physicality stay on earth, and they may never unite. You can bond with G-d at your leisure, but the material world will stay status quo no matter what.

After G-d descended onto the mountain; and the ultimate being of spirituality; kissed the material earth, by giving a Torah that is filled to capacity with rules and a lifestyle involving the most physical of objects, it was all over. The distinctions, the barriers, the separation came to a short stop, and from here on, we have the power to transform everything in our crude world into a spiritual conduit for the Creator Himself. To further expand on this idea, I would like to share with you a fascinating Torah tale:

When Moses ascended to Heaven to get the Torah, the angels were very upset. "What? Are You about to bestow upon frail man that cherished treasure which has been with You for nine hundred and seventy-four generations before the world was created? The angels were cynically reminding G-d that human beings have consistently desecrated His name through all their evil deeds. "How can You give human beings your holy Torah? Keep it in heaven. Give it to us!" They said.

G-d says to Moses, "Please respond to the protesting angels". Moses holds on to the Holy Throne, and is charged with amazing confidence to face the angels. He demands answers from the angles, and they are left speechless. Moses asks G-d "What is written in the Torah?" "Keep the Shabbat. Honor your father and mother. Don't murder. Don't commit adultery. Don't steal." "Angels," Moses challenges, "do you work hard? Do you need rest? Do you have fathers and mothers that you have to honor? Does jealousy exist among you? Do you have an evil inclination?"

After a tough Q&A session with Sir Moses, the angels concede to Moses and are indeed impressed. They even want to befriend humankind, and give Moses useful secrets to help humans in their difficult mission. Why? What was Moses' point? Does having so many human challenges make us worthy of a Torah? Indeed, this is G-d's plan, for us, the imperfect Jewish people, to take our coarse and ultra ego-centric, materialistic, and anti-holy world and make it a home for G-d. Not a home away from home, that's not enough, but rather to make it his ultimate dwelling place. This world is G-d's botanical garden, and we are his gardeners to make sure it's the nicest one in town.

Before the giving of the Torah, G-d was only for the spiritual. G-d was in the Synagogue, at the Bar Mitzvah, and on Yom Kippur. This all changed 3,318 years ago. Ever since Sinai, Judaism, G-d, and the Torah are all part and parcel of the Jewish home, office, and soccer game. Every aspect of our lives, from the kitchen to the bedroom can and should be empowered with spiritual intentions, motivation and action. Everything we think, speak or do can either just be another fictional part of our somewhat fairy tale life or be a true partnership with our heavenly father in his grand plans of world peace in a Messianic era.

If you don't think you can be an ultimate transformer in G-d's master plan, just remember the words of the former prime minister of England Sir Harold Wilson "He who rejects change is the architect of decay. The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery.

May G-d guard our brethren in Israel and the world over from harm and send us Moshiach speedily. May He protect the armed forces of the United States wherever they may be. Chazak! L'Chaim!
******

The ETorah is an educational project of
Chabad Lubavitch of Montana

Are You a Liberal Anti-Semite?

Quiz courtesy Joe Lanzmann at Slate.

1. Who deserves the most blame for the Iraq war?

a) George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld
b) Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Bill Kristol
c) Blame? Don't you support the troops?

2. Which group exerts too much influence on America's Mideast policy?

a) Conservative jingoes
b) Not the Jews per se but a "pro-Israel lobby" composed mainly of wealthy New York financiers (who may well all attend the same shul)
c) Arabists at the State Department

3. How would you characterize debate about America's Mideast policy?

a) Robust, with a full range of opinions available in various publications
b) Nonexistent, since all criticism of Israel is "taboo"
c) Biased, because the Sulzberger family of the New York Times is afraid to seem "too Jewish"

4. Which state's offenses against humanity bother you most?

a) Sudan
b) Israel
c) Massachusetts

5. Criticism of Israel is:

a) Sometimes warranted, but needs to be kept in context and perspective.
b) The civic duty of every truly patriotic citizen who cares about America's self-interest.
c) Why are you always criticizing Israel?

6. What do you think of Joe Lieberman?

a) I liked him OK when he ran with Gore, but he lost me on Iraq, school vouchers, and Social Security.
b) The most dangerous man in the Senate
c) At least there's one Democrat who isn't soft on terrorism!

7. On what basis is Iran a threat to world peace?

a) I'm concerned that its unchecked nuclear-arms program will destabilize the region.
b) I'm afraid Israel will use its saber-rattling as a pretext to start World War III.
c) I pray Ehud Olmert will have the chutzpah to pull another Osirak.

8. Jimmy Carter's use of the term "apartheid" in his new book is:

a) intended to provoke debate but clearly ill-considered
b) a gutsy, rare example of someone "speaking truth to power"
c) more of the same from the putz who put Andy Young at the UN

9. Which describes your view of the Holocaust?

a) The most horrific crime in recorded history
b) A tragedy that, incidentally, gets far more hype than the Turks' slaughter of the Armenians or the white man's annihilation of the Indians
c) Child's play compared with what Iran's Ahmadinejad has planned

10. The term neoconservative suggests:

a) Erstwhile leftie radicals who grew disenchanted with the welfare state.
b) A cabal of pro-Israel intellectuals who have hijacked our foreign policy.
c) A code word for "Jews" used by the people who answered (b).

Your Results

Give yourself 1 point for each (a) answer, 2 points for each (b) answer, and 0 points for each (c) answer.

0-3: OK, you're not an anti-Semite. But you're not a liberal either. You win a lifetime subscription to Commentary and this sheaf of old AIPAC newsletters.

4-7: You display trace elements of atavistic fears. Your prize: a copy of The Plot Against America.

8-12: Phew! You're an unbigoted liberal—painfully capable of striking a middle ground and excruciatingly tolerant of all points of view. Please enjoy this complete set of Barack Obama's speeches.

13-16: You're clearly not nuts about Zion, but Abe Foxman won't be calling you just yet. To be safe, steer clear of any petitions emanating from British universities. Meanwhile, please claim your dinner with Tony Judt and two tickets to My Name Is Rachel Corrie!

17-20: You're an anti-Semite! You win a tour of synagogues in Italy, Argentina, and Turkey bombed by militants who are merely anti-Israel and not anti-Jewish. Also, an extended director's cut DVD of The Passion of the Christ.

Canada's Progressive Shame

Kol HaKavod to Canada's Prime Minister, Steven Harper, and his Conservative allies in Parliament for creating the Israel Allies Caucus in Ottawa.

However, a hearty dose of shame belongs to Canada's habitually regressive Progressives. This week the self-loathing group known as the Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians condemned the creation of the Caucus in a screed that could have served as an introduction to Dhimmi Jimmy's already discredited tome.

"The creation of this caucus will only further discredit Canada in the eyes of the international community. It means condoning a brutal forty-year occupation of Palestinian civilians. It means condoning the illegal wall that is imprisoning them in enclosed ghettos. It means condoning the seizure of their land and water, the strangulation of their economy, and the daily military assaults against innocent civilians and makes life in the occupied territories a living hell."

You'll notice that the neo-Socialist's at no point make reference to the suicide bombers that have killed thousands of Israeli's since the intifada began, nor do these revolting people lay any blame for the suffering of the Palestinian people towards the leaders and organizations who have so miserably failed them throughout their "history." There is nothing "progressive" about the thoughts or actions of these miscreants, merely the denaturation of the same propaganda used against Zionism or the State of Israel since it's inception.

Mike

This Weeks Torah Portion: Beshalach

Wishing ya'll a Shabbat Shalom from Brooklyn, New York!

Your friends at Chabad – Lubavitch,

Rabbi Chaim & Chavie

******

Help us transform the landscape of Montanan Jewry:
www.JewishMontana.com/Donate

******

This weeks Torah portion: Beshalach (Exodus 13:17-17:16)

******

This week's ETorah is dedicated in honor of my dear friend and brother:

Mr. Yanky Bruk

Who really looks out for us; and is helping us make Montana a reality.

May G-d grant him all his hearts desires, both in the material and the spiritual, Amen.

******

For candle lighting time in your area:
http://fridaylight.org/page/sunset-almanac.php

******

Feeding the birds or a pre super bowl partying?
By Rabbi Chaim

I write to you today while flying aboard my Delta flight from Salt Lake City to New York. Chavie and I just spent four days in Bozeman. We looked for a new home, a car, and visited with a few local friends. It was actually quite relaxing to spend a few days out of busy New York; in snowy cold Montana . A few moments ago, I finished praying the morning services – Shacharit in the back of the plane. I must say, that every time I pray in the public domain, in an airport, on a plane, train, or elsewhere; I feel compelled to pray with intense devotion and concentration. I feel obligated as an observant Jew; to sanctify G-d's name, and show the world the importance of G-d in our personal life. As we took off from Salt Lake, I saw the birds flying in the sky; alongside the breathtaking mountains, and I realized that this week is Shabbat Shirah…..

One of my most fond childhood memories were from Shabbat Shirah. We would wait this entire mid-winter week for the annual "feeding of the birds". Friday, sometime before sundown, we would take lots of bread crumbs and pounds of " Kashe" – buckwheat; and put it out for the birds to enjoy. Some must be wondering, "Once a year? You should be doing that more frequently?" while other may be wondering "Why haven't I heard about this Jewish custom in Hebrew School? And what's it all about anyway?" So please listen in as I share with you a beautiful Torah tale:

This week's Torah reading contains the "song at the sea" sung by the Children of Israel upon their deliverance from the Egyptians, when the Red Sea split to allow them to pass and then drowned their pursuers. Hence this Shabbat is designated as Shabbat Shirah, "Shabbat of song." Our sages tell us that the birds in the sky joined our ancestors in their singing; for this reason it is customary to put out food for the birds for this Shabbat.

Furthermore, the Midrash shares with us another most intriguing reason for this custom. We read in the Torah portion about G-d giving the "Man", manna, to the nation of Israel, for their sustenance. Moses told the nation of Israel that the manna would not fall on Shabbat, and therefore they should collect a double portion on Friday. There were rabble-rousers who wanted to embarrass Moses and weaken his authority. They took manna they had collected on Friday, and after dark placed it out on the ground. Come morning, they hoped that people would think that the manna did indeed fall on Shabbat, and Moses, whom they contended made up the laws as he went along. However, no manna was around on Shabbat morning. Why? Because the birds carried it away before the nation awoke, so that the nation would indeed trust in Moses and respect the sanctity of the Shabbat. To reward the birds for this noble deed, we feed them the week on which we read of the surrounding incident.

There are many lessons one can learn from these phenomenal episodes. We can talk again about the concept of giving thanks or about the birds saving the faith of Jewish people; but I would like to focus on one detail of this story " Moses told the nation of Israel that the manna would not fall on Shabbat, and therefore they should collect a double portion on Friday". You see, G-d didn't tell the Jewish people "Don't work on Shabbat; and you family can go hungry", that would be unfair and too much to ask for from his dear children stuck in a desert. G-d is a loving father, and he told the Jews not to work on Shabbat and he will provide the Saturday portion in Friday's delivery.

Being that G-d is our loving and caring provider; it is incumbent on us to show him our weekly Shabbat respect. I am not saying that you should cancel your pre super bowl parties and become fully Orthodox and observant today, that would be impossible, but I am asking you to integrate Kiddush in your super bowl party, to learn part of the Torah portion with your buddies at the party, and when you are drinking the kegs of bear, make sure to say " L'Chaim" and wish your drinking partner all the best; both physically and spiritually.

As Herman Wouk once said "... The telephone is silent. I can think, read, study, walk or do nothing. It is an oasis of quiet. My producer one Saturday night said to me, "I don't envy you your religion, but I envy your Shabbat."

Good Shabbos!

May G-d guard our brethren in Israel and the world over from harm and send us Moshiach speedily. May He protect the armed forces of the United States wherever they may be. Chazak! L'Chaim!
******

The ETorah is an educational project of
Chabad Lubavitch of Montana

Life Is Good

'Nuff said.

Mike