The Day In Israel: Tuesday April 13th, 2010
In an interview with ABC, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has said that an Israeli strike on Iran would mean a global catastrophe.
An Israeli strike of Iran’s nuclear facilities could spark a nuclear conflict, which could spiral into a global catastrophe, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev told ABC on Monday, adding that he supported what he called “smart” sanctions on Tehran as part of attempt to make it abandon its nuclear program.
—-
Referring to the possibility that Israel may attack Iran if negotiations over its contentious nuclear programs fail, Medvedev told Good Morning America that “it would be the worst possible scenario,” adding that “war means lives lost.”
The Russian president also tried to estimate the meaning of what he sees as a war in the Middle East erupting as a result of such a move on Israel’s side, saying “everyone is so close over there that nobody would be unaffected. And if conflict of that kind happens, and a strike is performed, then you can expect anything, including use of nuclear weapons.”
“And nuclear strikes in the Middle East, this means a global catastrophe. Many deaths,” Medvedev said.
This doesn’t seem to have bothered Russia too much in the past.
You can see Medvedev’s thoughts on Iran’s from 16:15 in the interview, and on an Israeli strike from 21:40.
Notice how despite supporting “effective and smart” sanctions, he admits sanctions rarely turn out to be effective (from 19:00 onwards).
Updates (Israel time; most recent at top)
11:02PM: Meet Israel’s latest lottery winners.
10:02PM: Another poll that suggests most US Jews have rocks in their head.
10:00PM: Iran has stated they will soon join the ‘world nuclear club.’ Which is kind of like the ‘Mile High club’, since both involve screwing over the world.
7:55PM: The IDF has published this photo of the weapons found on the terrorists killed earlier today.
6:20PM: Mati Gill, a retired captain in the IDF and formerly the bureau chief for the minister of public security, explains how Anat Kamm’s actions were not in the name of freedom of the press.
In the aftermath of the publication of the Anat Kamm affair, which was catalyzed by Judith Miller’s op-ed in the Daily Beast Web site, we can now evaluate the lessons learned.
In this process I believe there are two issues which need to be separated and evaluated differently.
First, there is the public critique of Israel’s censorship rules for security-related matters, which has been voiced by Miller as well.
Secondly, there is the so-called jailing of a “23-year-old Israeli reporter” (to use Miller’s own words to describe Kamm) who supposedly acted in the name of a “free press” and the “right of the public to know.”
It is absolutely necessary to differentiate between these two issues so as to focus on the true nature of Kamm’s actions.
First, let’s be sure to keep this case in perspective. This is a case of an IDF soldier who served as a secretary at the Central Command in a position which gave her access to sensitive files. She (allegedly) used and abused this access to download/copy thousands of classified files and hand them over to the press.
She did not do so as a journalist, but as a soldier with security clearance.
Her motive is still unclear. It obviously wasn’t only ideological – to reveal unlawful misconduct of her commanders in a certain course of action – as has been suggested. For if that were the case, why would she feel the need to steal other documents that were completely unrelated?
WHAT IS clear is that Kamm (allegedly) broke the rules and the law, and should be prosecuted and punished accordingly. There is no case for her martyrdom in the name of freedom of the press.
This is not a similar case to that of Judith Miller’s, i.e the whole Bush-Cheney-Scooter Libby leak fiasco for which she was imprisoned for refusing to reveal a journalistic source.
This is also not like the Pentagon Papers affair. Kamm is not Daniel Ellsberg. Her actions were of a wider scope than just revealing unlawful misconduct on the part of the IDF. Therefore, any attempt to turn her into a martyr is outrageous. It is not only factually false, but also belittles truly heroic actions like those of Miller and Ellsberg.
Furthermore, the second issue which arises from this case is that the censorship rules in this country are outdated, especially in an age when de facto they are bypassed by foreign publications. The security establishment greatly erred in its insistence on preventing the Israeli press from reporting on the subject. In fact, the concealment of the affair only contributed to creating a mystery surrounding the actions of Kamm, and allowed foreign journalists to draw comparisons between Israel and such rogue countries as Iran, Cuba and North Korea.
The security establishment would have been better off forgoing any attempt at censorship and should have let Kamm’s (alleged) criminal actions be exposed. In this case, transparency would have truly been a strength, rather than a weakness.
5:45PM: Via MEMRI comes this clip of Dr. Sallah Sultan, President of the American Center for Islamic Research, “educating” Arabs about the Jewish Passover on Al Aqsa television.
Needless to say, his goal is not to increase peace, love and understanding.
Dr. Sallah Sultan: I want our brothers, and the whole world, to know what’s going on these days, during Passover. Read Dr. Naghuib Al-Kilani’s book, Blood for the Matzos of Zion. Every year, at this time, the Zionists kidnap several non-Muslims [sic] – Christians and others… By the way, this happened in a Jewish neighborhood in Damascus. They killed the French doctor, Toma, who used to treat the Jews and others for free, in order to spread Christianity. Even though he was their friend and they benefited from him the most, they took him on one of these holidays and slaughtered him, along with the nurse. Then they kneaded the matzos with the blood of Dr. Toma and his nurse. They do this every year.
The world must know these facts about the Zionist entity and its terrible corrupt creed. The world should know this.
Notice how he uses the word “Zionists” – as if this will shield him from charges of antisemitism – although he slips a few times and refers to “Jews.”
Meanwhile, I wonder if Donald Bostrom saw this clip. He could do with some new material (hat tip: Winds of Jihad).
2:58PM: Earlier today, IDF troops killed a number palestinian terrorists attempting to plant a bomb near the border fence.
The Israeli media is reporting at least 3 dead, while the palestinian Ma’an News is currently reporting 2 dead and 2 injured.
Either way, it’s Reaper time!
2:48PM: In an unprecedented ruling, the High Court of Justice has granted permission for an Israeli (Israeli Arab writer Ala Halihal) to visit an enemy state (Lebanon) for an international conference of Arab authors, despite opposition from Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Interior Minister Eli Yishai.
Why do I get the feeling Halihal and his fellow Arab authors will not be discussing peace at this conference?
******************************************************************************************
Want to learn how to shoot with top Israeli anti-terror experts? Click here for more details.
******************************************************************************************
About the Author
An Aussie immigrant to Israel, Aussie Dave is founder of Israellycool, one of the world's most popular pro-Israel blogs (and the one you are currently reading) He is a happy family man, and a lover of steak, Australian sports and girlie drinksFiled Under: General
Hold on. Didn't Russia sell Iran technology for their reactor?
As many of you know, Independance Day was moved forward a day to Iyar 6, to avoid Sabbath desecration (this sort of thing is commonly done). There is a fascinating article from Beit Orot (a Hesder yeshiva on Har HaZeitim that givesfree tours of Jewish East Jerusalem) written the first time this occurred.
http://www.beitorot.org/English/content.asp?pagei…
The most interesting bit is that just as American Independance was actually declared on July 2th, not the 4th, Israeli independance actually took place on Iyar 6. It was declared a day early – to avoid Chillul Shabbat! (The statement about the fate of Ariel Sharon is also interesting to note, considering what actually happened, although I have my own opinions about that.)
2nd
Smart sanctions on Zimbabwe have had no effect except to make the people on the sanctions list very angry.
There don't seem to be any good options here. I agree sanctions are not working and probably will not prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons under the current regime. A military strike on Iran would be catastrophic for everyone. Iran would surely strike back at the U.S., NATO and Israel with their proxy network of terrorists. The best we can hope for is regime change by the Iranian people themselves. It doesn't even have to be a true democracy; just get rid of those crazy mullahs.
I cannot speak for the U.S. here, but as far as Israel is concerned, Iran is already doing this. Whatever more they can do is much less of an issue than the Nuclear danger.
Forceable regime change is the only way the revolutionary guard will relinquish power. Dont forget the midget was/is in the RG. As the last farcical election illustrated, it doesnt matter who wins the vote, the group with the most guns will win as everyone else will be intimidated. A uclear nstrike on their facilities and leades of govt is the only wayt to go. Eliminate them all and get someone else who wants the power to be in charge through discussion with all the elders like in Afgan. IF they are not stopped there will be a repeat of the 1980-1990 I&I war only then will you libs realize that the only way to deal with a viper is to remove its head with force. Arabs need to realize that if Iran goes nuclear and atacks ISrael, Arabs in Lebannon, Jordan Syria and Egypt will suffer the effects of the blast or radiation based upon the earth's rotation and prevailing winds
Nuclear is not an option. There is a possibility for regime change by force if the goal is clearly set out that we will destroy the current one, work with the actual army, respect the religion, and oversee elections ASAP. Then leave. Make it very clear this will not be an Iraq or Afghanistan. We're just here to take out the regime and hold elections.
Actually, I would say Iran has more libery than any Arab state. Of course, as per Michavelli, this means they are MORE likely to be overthrown (c.f., Alexander II of Russia).
Almost any. I don't have a complete rundown.
Are you saying Iranians are freer? That is mostly true, especially during Khatami (We can thank Bush for the end of that era). Jordan beats them in some areas, Lebanon, Kuwait, UAE in others. Lebanon is more socially free in some respects (I have a Lebanese friend–Maronite, who says it has gotten much better and women can stroll the beach like in the West). Kuwait and UAE are more economically free.
But all in all, women have more rights than almost anywhere in the Muslim world except Turkey. The ycan drive, hold jobs, run for office, be professors, show some hair (I'm sure at parties the teenagers will take their veils off). etc…
The regime set its wakeup call last year and it's only a matter of time.
The women also have the vote in Iran. (Yes, I know the elections are not 100%.)
Yeah. Well they were fair until recently. 97 and 01 were very likely fair. The evidence being the winner was substantially moderate. 05 had some problems and 09 probably was conducted fair, but not counted fairly.
I was also referring to the control on who can run.
Yeah, that's how they rig elections and they messed up big time in 2009. So they had to count the ballots using dictator math.
I doubt Iran's terrorist network will keep silent if and when Iran gets nuclear weapons (and immunity from retaliation). There aren't any good options, and American policy (past and present) isn't helping here.
"Halihal is a Palestinian Arab citizen of Israel. He was born in the village of Jish in the Galilee in the north and lives currently in Acre. "
HE IS A WHAT? You mean he was born under the mandate? Where's Menachem Begin when you need him?
So are Jews born here Palestinian Jewish citizens of Israel? And why the discrimination against immigrants? Why can't I be one?
And, BTW, this is a good argument for the Knesset to just abolish the High Court and start over. Maybe something more like the U.S. Supreme Court, as flawed as it is.
Both the court and the current parliamentary system need to be restarted.
How would you change the Knesset? I can't see anything that would be better, in the current situation.
Big picture: election by representative – not party.
How to create representative districts? Dunno. I do know that this party system has been killing us from the start.
Districts will mean destruction of the minority vote. All reform is about disenfranchising the religious population; if this was not true they would have a high threshold and allow each party to designate an alternate to accept its votes if it missed the top; if they both did the one with the highest number would get them all. Also, multiple alternates.
The current system is the best way to have represent our society as it is. Majority rule without tyrranny of the majority.
Instead, we have tyranny of the coalition.
I agree with your conclusions. But that just means that the current situation is the lesser of 2 evils.
Is there a better way, no matter how convoluted?
"Democracy is the worst possible system, except for all of the others". Winston Chruchill, I believe.
We DO have a better alternative than the secularist clergy of the BaGaTz. The U.S. Supreme Court is the lesser of two evils.
Personal elections (in whatever form) would be a disaster for Israel. The Israeli media (all but owned by the Left, in ways that make Fox and MSNBC look really fair and balanced) would always build-up the Livni-like nonentities, and we'll end up like last election day, when an equal number of people liked both candidates even though the case against the previous government was overwhelming.
Also compare 1999 elections when Barak won the personal vote decisively, but the Right would have had a reasonable chance at a coalition under the current method (e.g. 32 normal Right wing parties + 22 Haredim + 6 from Israel BaAliyah and maybe 6 from Center party).
The Israeli media already build up the "Livni-like non-entities". So you wouldn't be any worse off as far as that aspect goes.
As per your comment about Barak:
1. Who's to say that the right would have not had a reasonable chance if some form (needs to be hammered out) of representative elections were employed?
2. The people got what they asked for. No different than the US now in a downward spiral with Barak Hussein (hello to Jim from Iowa).
Yes it would be worse. Much worse. I'm not against personal elections per se, but they often turn into media-fueled popularity contests. If there was a way to avoid that…
In a personal election you start to get people talking about how likable each candidate is, what tie color is best for them, and other crap stuff. In general, this cuts rightward in the US (maybe only until last election) – people would agree with the Democratic platform in polls but than go vote Rep. Per election results In Israel back when it had personal election for PM this tends to cut leftward most of the time (well, a lot of stuff is "reversed" in Israel, like the Likud's color being blue and Labour's red).
I recall that the one sparate Prime Minister election increased the small party (including religious) vote, because people could have their cake and eat it too.
I think what's happened in the U.S. is a warning against adopting their system. Except for a few states, almost the whole country is disenfranchised in Presidential elections, because in most states, one party ALWAYS wins. This is a recent developement, BTW – Richard Nixon carried 49 states.
I like Tzipi Livni's legs. Avigdor Lieberman's…not so much.
I suspect this would tend to favour Lieberman overall, as most of the electorate is female… (AFAIK, there's no "gender gap" in Israeli elections**, though I don't have results for last elections on this)
**http://www.idi.org.il/sites/english/parliament/Pa…
The left is supposed to be red. The US media messed that up in 2000, although there was already some existing colors. But originally Reagan was blue I think.
Geez Louise, what are you guys reading about us over there in Israel? Unless you invested with Bernie Madoff, you're probably doing ok. My 401K is back to where it was 2 years ago. Unemployment is still too high, but stimulus money may yet prove pivotal in our economic turnaround. I'll repeat what I've heard over the years from many, many Republicans: "This is just part of the normal business cycle of our capitalist system. Things are going to get better very soon. I like French Dressing on my salad. I'm down to a 3 handicap now, how about you Preston? That Glenn Beck says the darndest things! Isn't he a panic? I think I'm going to buy more gold bullion since G. Gordon Liddy has started to endorse it."
What are you referring to? I don't see anything like this.
I am still waiting for my 401K to get back. Luckily, my Dad invested our potential mortgage money in a Ginnie Mae, the olny American real estate investement that has consistently done well (thanks, Abba)! Since National Security covers the kitchen sink, it doesn't do much for your retirement, so we do get pensions, and often a savings plan that the company matches 100 – 300%, and you get free in 6 years.
If you were referring to my comment, even if my wife and I hadn't cancelled each other out, voting in Maryland made our votes worthless.
I'm a retired federal employee and my supplemental retirement fund called the Thrift Savings Plan is managed by Government bureacrats and is tied to the returns of the Standard and Poor's 500 (I think). Nothing fancy or high risk here. I think my experience is quite common for your average American, Michael. At least you weren't with Madoff. I would have wanted my pound of flesh from that guy if I had lost my life savings.
Hah! Pre-Reagan government worker plan. Wouldn't mind one of those!
Madoff lost my alma mater about 8% of its endowment.
Madoff should have been shot, not sent to jail for 100 years. That's where the death penalty works, in my opinion.
So you believe for the death penalty for property crimes when it bothers you enough?
I believe the reverse. A crime that deserves the death penalty ought ALWAYS to get it, if there is the right sort of evidence and no extreme extenuating circumstances. The others ought NEVER to.
Otherwise we have abritrary justice. The Supreme Court messed up big time here by only allowing it for certain types of murders, thus leaving it wide open to discrimination complaints.
I think it should be used where it will work to deter crime. It does not deter murder at all. People who murder rarely think of the consequences of their actions—they act on a whim or are mentally unstable. The only exceptions would be hits. I'm not certain that the death penalty would be effective against that.
What it would be effective against is: embezzlement, fraud, corruption, and bribery. I was calling for heads when all those E Coli scandals came out. Not that scandals involve corruption, but I think that there would be more responsibility if failure meant death. If the person responsible was under threat of death for things like corruption, I am certain they would think about their life before taking the money.
First, there are different sorts of murders. I will leave this for now, but just point out the killing the murders deters HIM. I also really don’t care that much about deterrence in this issue. I care more about whether it is deserved.
Well, the thing is most murderers are one hit wonders, so to speak. Serial killers and mass murderers are quite rare.
And deterrence is the purpose, not revenge. If the purpose is revenge, we may as well have trial by victim/'s family.
Not revenge, justice. Actually, in Judaism, the execution is carried out by the victim's closest relative, therwise by the witness. But I doubt this would work in the U.S.
But my point is the inverse. Deterrence should not override justice, and justice should not be arbitary, not in the American system.
Well then justice can be defined differently. It means fairness in law and your interpretation seems to have a revenge or payment interpretation, which I think is pointless. If you want payment, you may as well open work camps (which I support for other offenses).
I don't think your average American is a government employee…
They will be when Obama completes his socialist agenda! Workers of the world unite!
Which is it to be? Government employees or workers? Those are two mutually exclisivce subsets.
(Sorry, but it's the workers themselves who make that joke. And occasionally there is some truth to it.)
And where do you keep that time machine? (I assume that's where you get those republicans.)
I think that time machine is actually in their heads. While Obama is trying to lead us onward in the 21st Century, the Republicans are trying to transport us back to the robber barron days of the 19th.
"Surely something must be terribly wrong with a man who seems to be far more concerned with a Jew building a house in Israel than with Muslims building a nuclear bomb in Iran ."
– Bert Prelutsky
I love hyperbole. Mr. Prelutsky writes in a very entertaining style. I enjoyed the read. Thanks for sharing.
I rather think his head is stuck in the early 1900s. Socialism doesn't work, and destroys people's characters. Neither does fascism (dictating to corporations).
This isnt socialism. It's some moderate liberal crap with stripes of moderate conservatism.
Socialism would be investing in a hospitals and mass transit instead of continuing the Afghanistan war (which I somewhat support). Socialism would be instituting single payer health care instead of the public option (liberal) or subsidies (moderate conservative).
And socialism works: Take a trip to Europe. Socialism cant produce calculators, but it can do a hell of a better job with life's necessities like health care than capitalism. Yes it has it's problems and expenses, but most of those arise only because you cant maintain the same structure forever. All these concerns about Medicare and SocSec and European welfare states going broke just means a reorganization is needed. The fundamental concept is still sound.
But I'm sure you'll disagree.
I will only say that I prefer the U.S. health care system, and so do all of the people from socialized countries who go there to get treated. There are a lot of fake statistics out there, based on things like using completely different criteria for infant mortality, or ignoring social issues.
And Ive heard plenty of people say the other way. Many statistics even back it up. There have been distortions, but sometimes these distortions are not what they seem and you have to look behind the distortions.
There's the cancer curing rate, but I dont think people have really looked behind that statistic. It may be correct on its front, but we may also have more cancer and more of a focus on cancer.
Electoral districts is not reform, that would be a step back.
Of course, I also like the Electoral College.
http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3400:are-muslims-the-best-of-people&catid=173&Itemid=67
Is a great piece of honest information put together. This is what happens when you shun civilization as a whole.
Good day.
OH MY GOSH! He is justifying, nay spreading, the infamous Damascus Blood Libel!
For those of you unaware, this was started by the French Consul. The Turks, assuming the enlightened Europeans knew better (pace CNN / BBC), jailed the leaders of the Jewish community of Damascus. There was a world outcry, and they were released. By then, some had died in jail, and some were maimed for life.
Is this Nazi a citizen? Vermin like him ought to be deported forwith.
For those of you who do not understand why Jews are so sensitive to anti-semitism and attacks on Israel, This Is Why. There is a link between the BBC and the reason the last Jew had to leave Yemen.
And yet another reason to hate the French.
In case anyone is unclear, by "vermin" I mean murderous anti-semites, of whatever race or creed.
Zionists, indeed! We Are All Settlers.
He lost my sympaphy when he called Ellsberg a hero.
I'd like to know which American Jews they are polling. Because I haven't come across any mainstream American Jews who approve of Obama's treatment and handling of Israel at all.
Well, first it's the AJC, so that's suspect. Also, for American Jews, 55% plus for Obama is practically a slap in the face.
Insert (in)famous Pauline Kael quote here. I suspect these people are just not part of your social circle…
Or the pollers'. How can you get a decent sample of such a diverse group? For that matter, how can calling 1,000 Americans tell you what half-a-billion people are thinking?
For something specific like Jews in America, it's hard to get a good sample unless you have a way of targetting them properly. You would need something like all American Jews having special "Jewphones" that the polling firm could call and not worry about getting Christians or Muslims or whatever. This clearly is not reality, so they either get lists of Jews from organizations and synagogues (sketchy way to poll). Or they can do a standard telephone poll. The problem is when youre targetting 2% of a population ONLY, you have to make 500*50=25000 calls just to get a person answered. In actuallity, you would have to call 2,3,4,5 times that to get enough people answering. Even with robocalls, that costs a lot as you can imagine. So I really have no idea how they manage to do this and I would be a bit skeptical about this poll just from a mathematics point of view, let alone political (JStreet polls can naturally be biased or slanted).
500 is the amount of Jews you want in your sample to get a decent margin of error 4.3ish I think. If you want to get down belowe 3% moe, you need over 1000 and then 50000 calls answered and so on…
50 is 100% total population divided by 2% Jews.
Now as for how calling 1000 people can represent 500 million. It has been calculated that any sample of 1000 people from the population will almost always (95% of the time) get you the same results (MoE ±3%). So, technically you could get a poll that is completely wrong, but the odds of that happening is under 5%, which is considered insignificant. The margin of error is just the range of results you will get 95% of the time.
With 50% approval and ±3% MoE, 95% of polls done will have the approval between 47 and 53%. In practice, this can vary a lot for a whole host of reasons ranging from how the sample was taken (Rasmussen applies a strict likely voter screen, which leads to a conservative bias–the people most likely to vote are also more conservative than the electorate) to how the questions were asked. For example, asking about Obama approval as the first question, will get you an accurate response. But if you ask a whole bunch of questions about socialism, birth certificates, health care, etc. and then ask about Obama approval, the poll can drop as much as 10 to 15% or more!
And then we can get into how you ask a question…as seen during the health care debate. A question mentioning the public option as "government control" will get worse results than one saying "government run". To get even better results, you can compare it to Medicare.
"There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics."
I meant to add that the answer I gave you about how a small sample can be accurate is not as complete as I would like. I cant seem to find a better answer by searching and dont have any stat references with me unfortunately. But what I said is mostly why it works.
It's due to the Central Theorem of Statistics. (Nearly) all statistical distributions will converge to the Gaussian bell-curved one when summed. We know its deviation, so we can count how many people are needed to get a particular level of certainty. I didn't do the math, but apparently it doesn't take many people to get a low level of (mathematical) error…
Of course, this doesn't prevent non-mathematical error, like sampling bias or leading questions.
Yes Minister had a classic dialog about this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yhN1IDLQjo
This is not satire. It is reality, except for the part excepting the reputable polls.
I saw a poll when Obama was elected that had contradictory results in the SAME poll. And the naalysis by the good reporters of our largest paper was fraudulent.
Yeah it's usually around 500-1000 at a accuracy vs. cost basis. Some polls will go up to 1500 or even 2000 here during the presidential elections because the firms can afford it.
My question was more based on the fact the the coutry is not homogenous (where is the spelling checker when you need it)?
I saw a recent poll, if I did not misread it, where the sample size was 250,000(!). It was comparing sports viewing and politics. (They also had one on TV viewing.) One interesting result was that wrestling fans are mostly non-voting liberals.
There actually are such things as "Jewphones." It's true. I saw one of them in Bill Mahr's film "Religulous." Apparently there is a group of Halachic scholars in Israel who create devices to use during the sabath. One of these is a telephone (a "Jewphone" if you will) which constantly dials preprogrammed numbers but will only connect once you insert the stylus into the hole. Bill Mahr thought they were just trying to "fool God" but I appreciated its clunky '70's style and the ubiquitous beige earth tones of that decade.
Ah yes those sabbath legal devices are always interesting. But I meant more like something that only Jews have so you could be sure you are getting a Jew.
And unfortunately I have yet to see that movie despite being a big Bill Maher fan.
Sabbath devices?
Whoa why did I write Sabbath. I meant Shabbat.
I refer to things like the elevators that stop at every floor.
Yeah, that is more accepted, athoguh I don't use them, being able to walk. Recently there was an issue there – the problem is that there are so many automatic devices in elevators. Hotel rooms are becoming a big problem. and with many refrigerators, it's not just the old solution of uncrewing the light bulb (yes, it does go out!
).
This is the usual straw-man method that secularists use to make fun of religious people.
1. Make a false statement about what the religion believes.
2. Attack the religious person for not following it.
So Bill Maher really is an aboslute, complete, and total jerk. I wasn't sure until now.
I think that is the Machin, which my Dad's organization has had some connection with starting. This is likely the usual case of people completely mischaracterizing things that we religious Jews are so used to. It does not sound like the Shabbat phone I know of, but if it is, it is not meant for normal use, but for things like non-emgerency medical use. (One is REQUIRED to violate the Sabbath when a life is in danger, unless there is an obvious way of doing it otherwise.) They also gave one to the PM.
We don't WANT to get around the Sabbath; not using the telephone, radio, TV, etc. is one of the things that makes the Shabbat the day it is. These things are for extraordinary situations, not normal use.
We don't WANT to get around the Sabbath.
Institute for Science and Jewish Law, misreproted in Time (surprise!) as the Institute of Society and Halacha. And they completely misunderstood the point.
Oops. extra sentence.
Re: poll of attitudes of American Jews…Hey Dave. American Jews don't have rocks in their heads…they have… (wait for it)…BARACK in their heads. I love American Jews!
Yes, endangered species can be quite endearing.