On the last point of severing relations with right-wing cousins, uncles, etc. the rabbi is WRONG, and probably disqualified as a rabbi.

He's right about the idea to form relationships with Palestinians, to hear, to understand their experience. To form current convivial real relationships.

Difficult if Palestinians and their solidarity form a litmus test that anyone that has ever expressed any severe criticism of Hamas violence, or any support for Israeli defense from terror, is "enemy", or "right-wing".

Your brothers and sisters are still your brothers and sisters. Your parents still your parents. Your cousins still your cousins.

In the name of integration, you advocate for separation.

You confuse me horribly.

Now, check this out:

January 03, 2009

Israel Gears Up for a Ground War in Gaza (News Round-Up & Commentary)

by Teh Nutroots | So says The Murdoch Times.

Israel is poised to launch a major ground offensive into Gaza tonight after allowing hundreds of foreigners living in the devastated territory to evacuate.

After a week of air strikes that have killed at least 420 Palestinians and left scores of buildings in rubble, the Israeli army was set to fling hundreds of troops and tanks into a blitz to stamp out Hamas’s military wing, The Times understands (Times of London).

The UN says that more than a quarter killed so far have been civilians. (Reuters) Their sufferings continue to be severe. Meanwhile, Hamas does its all to keep the violence going:

Despite the looming onslaught, more Hamas rockets – which have so far killed four Israelis – were fired into southern Israel today.

The Islamist group vowed that its attacks, which have lasted for years and which finally provoked the massive Israeli campaign, would not stop.(Times of London).

Its leaders vow it will meet the challenge, etc., etc.

In Damascus, Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal sounded a defiant note in a televised speech.

"We are ready for the challenge, this battle was imposed on us and we are confident we will achieve victory because we have made our preparations," Meshaal said. (Reuters)

UN Special Reporter on Human Rights Richard Falk provides a perspective at HuffPost you won't see reflected in the American media or in the public comments of any America politician.

For eighteen months the entire 1.5 million people of Gaza experienced a punishing blockade imposed by Israel, and a variety of traumatizing challenges to the normalcy of daily life. A flicker of hope emerged some six months ago when an Egyptian arranged truce produced an effective ceasefire that cut Israeli casualties to zero despite the cross-border periodic firing of homemade rockets that fell harmlessly on nearby Israeli territory, and undoubtedly caused anxiety in the border town of Sderot. During the ceasefire the Hamas leadership in Gaza repeatedly offered to extend the truce, even proposing a ten-year period and claimed a receptivity to a political solution based on acceptance of Israel's 1967 borders. Israel ignored these diplomatic initiatives, and failed to carry out its side of the ceasefire agreement that involved some easing of the blockade that had been restricting the entry to Gaza of food, medicine, and fuel to a trickle.

Israel also refused exit permits to students with foreign fellowship awards and to Gazan journalists and respected NGO representatives. At the same time, it made it increasingly difficult for journalists to enter, and I was myself expelled from Israel a couple of weeks ago when I tried to enter to carry out my UN job of monitoring respect for human rights in occupied Palestine, that is, in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as Gaza.
At The Nation, freelance journalist Laila Al-Arian—whose grandfather lives in Gaza—discusses the suffering of some of Gaza's civilians:

Much of the territory's civilian infrastructure, including police stations, universities, mosques and homes, has been decimated. In the Jabalya refugee camp, five sisters, the eldest aged seventeen and the youngest only four, were killed on Monday as they slept in their beds when an Israeli air strike hit a mosque by their home. Their parents told reporters they assumed they were safe, since houses of worship typically are not military targets. The cemetery where the girls were buried was filled to capacity, so they were placed in three graves.

A United Nations spokesperson said the killing is a "tragic illustration that this bombardment is exacting a terrible price on innocent civilians." The bereaved father expressed the sentiments of so many in Gaza in an interview with the Washington Post. "I don't have anything to do with any Palestinian faction. I have nothing to do with Hamas or anyone. I am just an ordinary person." A few days after the attack, I found out that the girls were relatives of our family friends in Florida. (The Nation)
Glenn Greenwald comments on the disconnect between political rhetoric and the actual views of a substantial number of citizens.

This Rasmussen Reports poll — the first to survey American public opinion specifically regarding the Israeli attack on Gaza — strongly bolsters the severe disconnect I documented the other day between (a) American public opinion on U.S. policy towards Israel and (b) the consensus views expressed by America's political leadership. Not only does Rasmussen find that Americans generally "are closely divided over whether the Jewish state should be taking military action against militants in the Gaza Strip" (44-41%, with 15% undecided), but Democratic voters overwhelmingly oppose the Israeli offensive — by a 24-point margin (31-55%).
By stark constrast, Republicans, as one would expect (in light of their history of supporting virtually any proposed attack on Arabs and Muslims), overwhelmingly support the Israeli bombing campaign (62-27%).
In fact, Bush weighs in as follows:

"Another one-way ceasefire that leads to rocket attacks on Israel is not acceptable."
"And promises from Hamas will not suffice — there must be monitoring mechanisms in place to help ensure that smuggling of weapons to terrorist groups in Gaza comes to an end," he said in remarks prepared for his weekly Saturday radio address, which was released Friday.

The United States has demanded Hamas, which Israel says has been smuggling weapons through tunnels under Gaza's border with Egypt, take the first step by halting rocket attacks on Israeli. (Reuters)

Let's hope they do. Though they won't. And the civilians get caught in the middle.

As Greenwald says, it's clear why Republican politicians support the Israeli offensive, but not so clear why Democratic politicians do.

…Democratic Party leaders — including Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi — are just as lockstep in their blind, uncritical support for the Israeli attack, in their absolute refusal to utter a word of criticism of, or even reservations about, Israeli actions. While some Democratic politicians who are marginalized by the party's leadership are willing to express the views which Democratic voters overwhelmingly embrace, the suffocating, fully bipartisan orthodoxy which typically predominates in America when it comes to Israel — thou shalt not speak ill of Israel, thou shalt support all actions it takes — is in full force with this latest conflict.
Is there any other significant issue in American political life, besides Israel, where (a) citizens split almost evenly in their views, yet (b) the leaders of both parties adopt identical lockstep positions which leave half of the citizenry with no real voice? More notably still, is there any other position, besides Israel, where (a) a party's voters overwhelmingly embrace one position (Israel should not have attacked Gaza) but (b) that party's leadership unanimously embraces the exact opposite position (Israel was absolutely right to attack Gaza and the U.S. must support Israel unequivocally)? Does that happen with any other issue? (Salon)

At Whiskey Fire, Thers remarks:

On Israel, there's no particular difference in substance between the statements of Nancy Pelosi and, say, Pamela Oshry. As Glennzilla goes on to glumly observe, wingnuts — the very people who have been so colossally and disastrously wrong about Iraq — are completely in charge of the way Israel/Palestine is discussed in America. They have a monopoly on the definition of "legitimate" opinions about the conflict, the ones you can express officially. Hence they are able to get away with the most preposterous and insulting declarations — that disagreeing with Israeli actions makes one an "anti-Semite"; that Israeli and American interests are identical; that criticizing Israel equals support for terrorists.
What this means is that discussion of Israel/Palestine is at best puerile and at worse insane. Here's both, from Krauthammer:

Some geopolitical conflicts are morally complicated. The Israel-Gaza war is not. It possesses a moral clarity not only rare but excruciating.
Anyone who can look at dead children and preserve "moral clarity" is a psychopath. Clearly.

As to the merits of the non-argument, Greenwald says:

Ultimately, what is most notable about the "debate" in the U.S. over Israel-Gaza is that virtually all of it occurs from the perspective of Israeli interests but almost none of it is conducted from the perspective of American interests. There is endless debate over whether Israel's security is enhanced or undermined by the attack on Gaza and whether the 40-year-old Israeli occupation, expanding West Bank settlements and recent devastating blockade or Hamas militancy and attacks on Israeli civilians bear more of the blame. American opinion-making elites march forward to opine on the historical rights and wrongs of the endless Israeli-Palestinian territorial conflict with such fervor and fixation that it's often easy to forget that the U.S. is not actually a direct party to this dispute.

Though the ins-and-outs of Israeli grievances and strategic considerations are endlessly examined, there is virtually no debate over whether the U.S. should continue to play such an active, one-sided role in this dispute. It's the American taxpayer, with their incredibly consequential yet never-debated multi-billion-dollar aid packages to Israel, who are vital in funding this costly Israeli assault on Gaza. Just as was true for Israel's bombing of Lebanon, it's American bombs that — with the whole world watching — are blowing up children and mosques, along with Hamas militants, in Gaza. And it's the American veto power that, time and again, blocks any U.N. action to stop these wars.

For those reasons, the pervasive opposition and anger around the world from the Israeli assault on Gaza is not only directed to Israel but — quite rationally and understandably — to America as well. (Salon)
For a different perspective, see Michael Cohen at Democracy Arsenal.org.

Opinions on both sides are so hardened that it's become nearly impossible to have a cogent and unemotional conversation on the topic. But, I love a challenge – and after all we are a foreign policy blog — so I'm going to give it a try.
First, as I noted over at TPM cafe the other day, the root of the current crisis is not Israel's settlement policy or even Israel's economic blockade of Gaza (both of which are odious), it is the continued refusal of Hamas to renounce terrorism and recognize Israel's right to exist. This is not to say that one side in this conflict is wrong and the other is right, but that the presence of a group (Hamas) that rejects the very outlines of a two-state solution and the land for peace model is not a group that is going to play a positive role in peace negotiations. If Israel dismantled all its settlements tomorrow, Hamas would not turn around and renounce violence; but if Hamas were to recognize Israel the path to reconciliation would be far easier to achieve.

It's worth noting that the acceptance of a two-state solution is today largely the norm in the Arab world (as demonstrated in part by the Saudi peace plan, which is now more than 6 years old) and in Israel – Prime Minister's Ehud Olmert's extraordinary September interview with Yedioth Ahronoth, a fascinating example of the movement even by former Israeli hawks toward tacit recognition of the need for a viable Palestinian state.

Considering Hamas's continued rejection of this solution – and it's continued reliance on terror tactics — it's hardly surprising that Israel would respond with devastating attacks on Gaza. To be honest, it's also rather justified. After all, Israel has a right and need to defend its citizens from terrorism.

Yes, but… well, see Matt Yglesias's response.

Michael Cohen writes:

If Israel dismantled all its settlements tomorrow, Hamas would not turn around and renounce violence; but if Hamas were to recognize Israel the path to reconciliation would be far easier to achieve.

This is totally true. But consider this proposition:

If Hamas were to recognize Israel tomorrow tomorrow, Israel would not turn around and renounce settlements; but if Israel were to dismantle all settlements the path to reconciliation would be far easier to achieve.

That’s also true. But by arbitrarily shifting the standard, so that Israeli actions are judged according to whether or not they would magically cause the other side to become reasonable, whereas Palestinians are merely asked whether or not making unilateral concessions would in some sense make reconciliation easier to achieve, Cohen has managed to put a heavily pro-Israel spin on the banal observation that both sides could do more to improve the situation but that achieving real peace requires steps on both sides.

Meanwhile, of course, there’s still such a thing as ethics and so forth…Israeli actions that are wrong are wrong independent of whether or not Hamas is launching rockets.
It's the latter point that seems to elude the unquestioning pro-Israel side of the argument: because Hamas is wrong—and all the critics of Israel agree: HAMAS IS WRONG—doesn't mean that Israel's response is the best response.

Cohen responds to a different point: that Hamas is more an obstacle to the peace process than Israel.

After all, movement on the peace process only began in 1993 when the PLO pledged to recognize Israel and renounce terrorism and Israel accepted the idea of a two-state solution that would involve the creation of a Palestinian entity in the West Bank and Gaza. Today, Israeli accepts the two-state formula; so does Fatah. Hamas does not.

This isn't a pro-Israel observation; it's a pro-common sense observation.

Again, I don't know anyone who would argue with this. No one I know is arguing that Israel can't, or shouldn't, defend themselves. Most of the people who are criticizing Israel are arguing that what they are doing now in Gaza goes beyond what is needed for "self-defense." We're arguing at cross-purposes.

At LGM, Paul Campos avers that he knows too little about the issue to comment, but adds:

[T]he present conflict illustrates some depressing things about the orthodoxy of the American political elites, the assumptions of bad faith on the part of one's opponents by everyone who argues about this, and the increasingly meaningless status of the word "terrorism."

Phil's and any good rabbi is right about the idea to form relationships with Palestinians, to hear, to understand their experience. To form current convivial real relationships.

Difficult if Zionists and their solidarity form a litmus test that anyone that has ever expressed any severe criticism of Israeli state policy violence or racist laws, or any support for Palestinians' right to be free from American-sponsored terror, is "enemy", or " anti-semitic terrorists".

Your brothers and sisters are still your brothers and sisters. Your parents still your parents. Your cousins still your cousins. But since when in the modern age post 1945 should the full weight
of the USA superpower be placed at the whim of Zionists?

In the name of peace and the best interests of the USA which you see as the same as Israel's, you advocate for separation, and against the principles of Nuremberg and international law.

You confuse me horribly.

Talmud is a dialog, a dialog that includes comments that support assertiveness and comments that support compromise.

When Talmud is misunderstood as halacha (Jewish law), it is misused. When Jews or non-Jews quote an interpretation from Talmud as "authority", they lie.

It is solely the documentation of discussion. Interesting and often profound discussion, but not authority.

Shit, I would be, just based on our family's history.

Severing intimacy over politics is idiotic. Its idiotic for Phil to recommend. Its idiotic for a rabbi to recommend.

That is one reason why the Israeli bombardment has slowed slightly. It knows that it has few actual militarily strategic targets remaining.

Hopefully, every party will conclude that "enough is enough", as Livni stated on day 1.

The talmud has never remained merely the documentation of the free flow of ideas around any given point. And, anyone who really cares to can take a gander at those recorded issues–make sure you get a copy that has not been redacted and included changes
made to certain core labels.

Lie #1) Israel is only targeting legitimate military sites and is seeking to protect innocent lives. Israel never targets civilians.
The Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated pieces of property in the world. The presence of militants within a civilian population does not, under international law, deprive that population of their protected status, and hence any assault upon that population under the guise of targeting militants is, in fact, a war crime.
Moreover, the people Israel claims are legitimate targets are members of Hamas, which Israel says is a terrorist organization. Hamas has been responsible for firing rockets into Israel. These rockets are extremely inaccurate and thus, even if Hamas intended to hit military targets within Israel, are indiscriminate by nature. When rockets from Gaza kill Israeli civilians, it is a war crime.
Hamas has a military wing. However, it is not entirely a military organization, but a political one. Members of Hamas are the democratically elected representatives of the Palestinian people. Dozens of these elected leaders have been kidnapped and held in Israeli prisons without charge. Others have been targeted for assassination, such as Nizar Rayan, a top Hamas official. To kill Rayan, Israel targeted a residential apartment building. The strike not only killed Rayan but two of his wives and four of his children, along with six others. There is no justification for such an attack under international law. This was a war crime.
Other of Israel’s bombardment with protected status under international law have included a mosque, a prison, police stations, and a university, in addition to residential buildings.
Moreover, Israel has long held Gaza under siege, allowing only the most minimal amounts of humanitarian supplies to enter. Israel is bombing and killing Palestinian civilians. Countless more have been wounded, and cannot receive medical attention. Hospitals running on generators have little or no fuel. Doctors have no proper equipment or medical supplies to treat the injured. These people, too, are the victims of Israeli policies targeted not at Hamas or legitimate military targets, but directly designed to punish the civilian population.
Lie #2) Hamas violated the cease-fire. The Israeli bombardment is a response to Palestinian rocket fire and is designed to end such rocket attacks.
Israel never observed the cease-fire to begin with. From the beginning, it announced a “special security zone” within the Gaza Strip and announced that Palestinians who enter this zone will be fired upon. In other words, Israel announced its intention that Israeli soldiers would shoot at farmers and other individuals attempting to reach their own land in direct violation of not only the cease-fire but international law.
Despite shooting incidents, including ones resulting in Palestinians getting injured, Hamas still held to the cease-fire from the time it went into effect on June 19 until Israel effectively ended the truce on November 4 by launching an airstrike into Gaza that killed five and injured several others.
Israel’s violation of the cease-fire predictably resulted in retaliation from militants in Gaza who fired rockets into Israel in response. The increased barrage of rocket fire at the end of December is being used as justification for the continued Israeli bombardment, but is a direct response by militants to the Israeli attacks.
Israel’s actions, including its violation of the cease-fire, predictably resulted in an escalation of rocket attacks against its own population.
Lie #3) Hamas is using human shields, a war crime.
There has been no evidence that Hamas has used human shields. The fact is, as previously noted, Gaza is a small piece of property that is densely populated. Israel engages in indiscriminate warfare such as the assassination of Nizar Rayan, in which members of his family were also murdered. It is victims like his dead children that Israel defines as “human shields” in its propaganda. There is no legitimacy for this interpretation under international law. In circumstances such as these, Hamas is not using human shields, Israel is committing war crimes in violation of the Geneva Conventions and other applicable international law.
Lie #4) Arab nations have not condemned Israel’s actions because they understand Israel’s justification for its assault.
The populations of those Arab countries are outraged at Israel’s actions and at their own governments for not condemning Israel’s assault and acting to end the violence. Simply stated, the Arab governments do not represent their respective Arab populations. The populations of the Arab nations have staged mass protests in opposition to not only Israel’s actions but also the inaction of their own governments and what they view as either complacency or complicity in Israel’s crimes.
Moreover, the refusal of Arab nations to take action to come to the aid of the Palestinians is not because they agree with Israel’s actions, but because they are submissive to the will of the US, which fully supports Israel. Egypt, for instance, which refused to open the border to allow Palestinians wounded in the attacks to get medical treatment in Egyptian hospitals, is heavily dependent upon US aid, and is being widely criticized within the population of the Arab countries for what is viewed as an absolute betrayal of the Gaza Palestinians.
Even Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has been regarded as a traitor to his own people for blaming Hamas for the suffering of the people of Gaza. Palestinians are also well aware of Abbas’ past perceived betrayals in conniving with Israel and the US to sideline the democratically elected Hamas government, culminating in a counter-coup by Hamas in which it expelled Fatah (the military wing of Abbas’ Palestine Authority) from the Gaza Strip. While his apparent goal was to weaken Hamas and strengthen his own position, the Palestinians and other Arabs in the Middle East are so outraged at Abbas that it is unlikely he will be able to govern effectively.
Lie #5) Israel is not responsible for civilian deaths because it warned the Palestinians of Gaza to flee areas that might be targeted.
Israel claims it sent radio and telephone text messages to residents of Gaza warning them to flee from the coming bombardment. But the people of Gaza have nowhere to flee to. They are trapped within the Gaza Strip. It is by Israeli design that they cannot escape across the border. It is by Israeli design that they have no food, water, or fuel by which to survive. It is by Israeli design that hospitals in Gaza have no electricity and few medical supplies with which to treat the injured and save lives. And Israel has bombed vast areas of Gaza, targeting civilian infrastructure and other sites with protected status under international law. No place is safe within the Gaza Strip.
Jeremy R. Hammond is the editor and principle writer for Foreign Policy Journal, an online publication dedicated to providing news, critical analysis, and commentary on U.S. foreign policy, particularly with regard to the “war on terrorism” and events in the Middle East, from outside of the standard framework offered by government officials and the mainstream corporate media, and
as Richard Witty desires to also reproduce on Phil Weiss's blog, a lone voice crying in the wilderness intentionally planted in all major media to manipulate America public opinion, as usual.

The pounding will never work as long as Israel holds 5 million Palestinians in oppressive, humiliating, impoverishing conquest. Under which condition the cost/benefit equation (this is an economic blog, no?) is a few (hundred?) Palestinians die v. millions attempting any desperate measure to free themselves from their daily hell.

Potentially, Gaza and the West Bank could be happier than Syria — same economic level plus democracy. What would raining artillery on Israel possibly get them under decent living circumstances but more desperate (on the part of the Israelis this time) counter attacks? No benefit whatsoever.

Gaza objects to Israel's existence? :-) :-) :-) Israel has as many tanks on short notice as the US Army had on active duty at the height of the cold war: 3000 (on 2% of the population base, yet). Israel went 90-0 against the Syrian Air Force in 1982 (the first revelation of the dominating superiority of US weapon systems). Israel is reputed to have 200 nuclear bombs. Israel has the United States Navy.

Levi Brackman:

RE
Jewish critics of Gaza op
Making a decision not to fight terror based on compassion is not only immoral and un-Jewish, it is also idiotic and deeply irresponsible
Published: 01.02.09, 09:04 / Israel Jewish Scene
There are two types of Westerners who have been critical of Israel’s defensive actions in Gaza this week: Anti-Semites and some in the so-called Jewish intellectual elite. Whilst most non-Jews I have met over the last few days have expressed support for Israel’s actions, I have run into a number of Jews who have expressed their moral outrage at the Israeli bombardment of Gaza.

However, the most shocking and offensive criticism came from Harvard University’s Sarah Roy. Writing in the Christian Science Monitor, Roy observes that the fighting started on Chanukah and asks: “How am I to celebrate my Jewishness while Palestinians are being killed?”

She then goes on to ponder “whether the Jewish covenant with God is present or absent in the face of Jewish oppression of Palestinians? Is the Jewish ethical tradition still available to us? Is the promise of holiness – so central to our existence – now beyond our ability to reclaim?”

I don’t intend to defend Israel’s actions in Gaza—in my view they are self explanatory. What I would like to explain, however, is how a seemingly intelligent person such as Professor Sarah Roy could so badly misunderstand Judaism and its sense of ethics.

The answer comes from within Roy’s own writing. In a piece written in April 2007 about the Lebanon war she described growing up in a home where “Judaism was defined and practiced not so much as a religion but as a system of ethics and culture. God was present but not central.”

But Judaism is a religion and God is control to it. Taking those two elements away is to remove the foundation of Judaism. What the Torah says about an issue and the fact that the Tanach is packed full of war stories where God tells the Israelites to fight and kill is lost on Sarah Roy. Simply stated, what Roy describes as Judaism is her version of ethics and morals and has nothing to do with the real Judaism at all.

Keep your criticism to yourself
Sarah Roy writes that being Jewish means “bearing witness, raging against injustice and refusing silence. It means compassion, tolerance, and rescue. In the absence of these imperatives…we cease to be Jews.”

However, a deeper reading of Judaism shows that whilst Jews as a people have been defined by their capacity for compassion and tolerance of others, there are times when we are forbidden to act upon those feelings because such action would be destructive. The liberal culture which says “follow your heart and feelings no matter what” has caused destruction on multiple levels. The high divorce rate in the West can be ascribed to that prevailing, yet erroneous, attitude.

Maimonides, the great 11th century Jewish jurist and philosopher, declares that a wise person is one who is able to overcome emotions to act in an intellectually responsible manner. Judaism often sees free choice as the ability to choose between an emotional impulse and an intellectual imperative. Judaic commentators see the intellectual imperative as coming from the religion and the Torah. Hence, it is easy to see why without the Torah as an intellectual counterbalance pure compassion can take over in a destructive manner.

It is important to feel compassion for the residents of Gaza, but that feeling of concern and sympathy must not be confused with ethical and moral clarity. On the contrary, making a decision not to mount a defense against lethal terrorists based on a feeling of compassion is not only immoral and un-Jewish it is also idiotic and deeply irresponsible.

In this case, despite their intelligence, Sarah Roy and her ilk are unable to rise above their emotional impulses and their conclusions are therefore offensive, unethical and very dangerous. It is a waste of time trying to defend Israel’s actions to such people—their impulsiveness denies them the ability to understand the ethical and moral imperative for this type of action. However at a time when our brethren in the Holy Land are at war, all I ask of them is to stop abetting our enemies and keep their incessant criticisms to themselves.

Rabbi Levi Brackman is author of Jewish wisdom for Business Success LOL–it's true!)

If you want to see an exact copy of the good rabbi's line of thinking, google Himmler's speech to his troopers. It takes a real SS man to get over his compassion, empathy, and use his intellect
to enhance and assure the truth of life on this earth. Shame on
Phil and Sarah Roy for being blinded by their heart. Shame on those Poles who rescued Jews, despite their own experience with
the USSR's jewish legions, shame on the White Rose, those traitors.