arutz7
resident Reuven Rivlin spoke Wednesday at the memorial ceremony for casualties of the Altalena incident of 1948, during which soldiers of the newly-created IDF were ordered to fire on the “Altalena” ship, on which Irgun fighters carried arms to Israel’s shore for the War of Independence. The ceremony took place in the Nahalat Yitzhak cemetery in Givatayim.
The ceremony was attended by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Chairman of the Irgun Martyrs' Association Yair Assiskovitz.
"Seventy years have passed since the command was given, since the lights were extinguished, the light of reason and human discourse, the light of mutual responsibility, and as always in our history when one man raises his hand against his brother, the shock hits the foundations and the house trembles."
The ceremony was attended by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Chairman of the Irgun Martyrs' Association Yair Assiskovitz.
"Seventy years have passed since the command was given, since the lights were extinguished, the light of reason and human discourse, the light of mutual responsibility, and as always in our history when one man raises his hand against his brother, the shock hits the foundations and the house trembles."
"Seventy years have passed and the wound has not yet healed, and that’s a good thing. There are wounds that must remain open, so that we do not think we can just go on," Rivlin added. There was never an incident like the Altalena. An order to our soldiers - to fire on our soldiers? This is inconceivable. We did not think that in the course of a war of survival, they would kill defenders of the land, fighters from among the best of the people, the remnants of the camps who came to fight for the people and the land. Brothers."
"Seventy years later, we must salute the Altalena fighters not only for their devotion, but mainly for the fact that even though they received crossfire, brothers’ fire, they did not respond. They did not meet fire with fire, they did not meet death with death.”
"Seventy years later, we must salute the Altalena fighters not only for their devotion, but mainly for the fact that even though they received crossfire, brothers’ fire, they did not respond. They did not meet fire with fire, they did not meet death with death.”
"This was the most important lesson that the young State of Israel, the young Israeli society, learned. The most difficult and painful disputes we will not resolve by force, as Menachem Begin said: ‘My brother, I call you: Do not raise your hand on a brother.' Even today, the lesson of the Altalena is not to stop talking. Brothers have to talk to each other. "
an empty vessel makes a lot of noise - I am referring the the lack of seichel Mr Rivlin is displaying
ReplyDeleteNext the Zionists can apologize for murdering the tzadik Reb Yaakov Yisroël de Haan HY"D.
ReplyDeletede haan was not a ger of any sort, he was a secular Jew who became more religious, except he had intermarried in Holland , and never divorced his non Jewish wife, and all along was a practicing homosexual. NK was founded by a feigele, and continued by Amalek/Arafat Associates.
ReplyDeletehe was a mishkav zachar, feigele, and only went to the Kotel to pick up Arab boys. Rav Sonnenfeld said that he took no responsibility for what de Haan did form below his shoulders.
ReplyDeleteYou characters call this feigele a "Tdaddik" then complain about Gay pride marches in Tel Aviv. De Haan was the first public figure for Gay Pride, and The Eidah gave him their hechsher!
"Seventy years later, we must salute the Altalena fighters not only for their devotion, but mainly for the fact that even though they received crossfire, brothers’ fire, they did not respond. They did not meet fire with fire, they did not meet death with death.”
ReplyDelete"This was the most important lesson that the young State of Israel, the young Israeli society, learned.
===================
This is not according to Daas Torah.
My Torah teaches:
הבא להרגך השכם להרגו
If you have a gun, use it to shoot back at those who are trying to kill you.
Self defense is NOT murder. The murderers were Yitzchak Rabin, who commanded the IDF and Palmach forces on the shore, and his cohorts. [Hashem paid Rabin back years later for this dastardly deed.
על דאטפת אטפוך]
Actually, it was Menachem Begin, hoping to avert civil war, that ordered his men not to shoot back, and the ship raised the white flag. However, the firing continued, and some Irgun men on board reportedly returned fire.
On the beach, a battle between the IDF and Irgun forces along the shore erupted, and clashes between IDF and Irgun units also took place throughout Tel Aviv.
All of what you say is completely false.
ReplyDeleteWhatever he did or was before he became frum is all entirely irrelevant as his teshuva started him a clean slate. And after he became frum he did absolutely none of which you falsely claim about the tzadik de Haan.
ReplyDeleteI can't get into discus. if it's ok, correct moe ginzberg's belief
ReplyDeletehttp://daattorah.blogspot.com/2018/05/rivlin-we-salute-casualties-of-altalena.html
that Dehaan was a Ger. He was, I believe, a Ball Teshuvah
from wiki
Early life[edit]
De Haan was born in Smilde, a village in the northern province of
Drenthe, and grew up in Zaandam. He was one of eighteen
children[citation needed] and received a traditional Jewish education.
His father, Yitzchak HaLevi de Haan, was poor and worked as a hazzan
and Shochet. His sister, best known under her married name Carry van
Bruggen (née, Caroline Lea de Haan), became an important Dutch author.
Your assertions about the tzadik de Haan are all complete falsehoods.
ReplyDeleteHe was no tzadik, he remained married to his christian wife, and was involved in unholy gaydom in the Holy city.
ReplyDelete"The
ReplyDeletemost radical turn de Haan made was in Palestine
when he changed color from zionist to orthodox Jew. What he rejected in zionism
was its nationalism and disregard of all other interests. The male macho
attitudes and heterosexual demands of zionists must have been anathema to him.
The orthodox did not pursue a Jewish state in the modern sense, a geographical
area with boundaries and an army, for them the Jews were in the first place a
religious community, a brotherhood instead of a nation of citizens. According
to de Haan the zionists should not follow the examples of other nationalisms
that were exclusive and possesive and always negated, even destroyed the other.
Apparently the orthodox Jews were in those times less judgmental on his affairs
with Arab boys than the zionists as long as he kept them secret. They had lived
for ages in Jerusalem
among Muslim Arabs and Turks and orthodox Greeks who had probably fewer qualms
about boy love and sexual affairs based in inequality. This neglect of his
pederasty was made easier because de Haan expressed his love for Arab boys in
poems and articles in Dutch that were published in Holland
– far away from the hotbed of Jerusalem."
https://www.uva.nl/binaries/content/documents/personalpages/h/e/g.hekma/en/tab-three/tab-three/cpitem%5B2%5D/asset?1355373455184
That's all complete falsehoods without an ounce of truth.
ReplyDeleteTzadikkim have enemies. The Zionists hate tzadikkim in general but especially a tzadik such at de Haan, so they invent all sorts of lies such as above.
ReplyDeleteThis is not an article by Zionists, but by Dutch academic. Just like he is a gadol for your lot, he is also a Gadol for the gay movement, becasue he wrote kuntres on how to be gay. you think he is one of the 36 hidden tzaddikim, but it is hard for you to accept that he is actually one of the 36 hidden feigeles.
ReplyDeleteThe Zionists tried to save many Yidden in Europe, including Yeshivas. R' Zerach Warhaftig went to many major yehivoth with visas, and permits to live in agricultural Yeshivot in Israel. They all refused him, except for the Mir yeshiva. Mir was saved, and there are tales of "miracles". The miracle was that they accepted life saving help from zionists, whereas the other yeshivos all perished. So don't talk to me about Zionsits vs. tzaddikim, especially when your favored "tzaddikim" behave lo k'darka.
ReplyDeletehe wrote about this in his gay poems in Dutch language, which were published in the Netherlands.
ReplyDeletehttps://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/893e9e4bb5b3b8a37109a8f3f6b93bb999a97793a1ec3458c08809e2c272188b.gif
ReplyDeleteThis is the flag you NK people should be flying
The Zionists collaborated with the Nazis. e.g. Kastner and Eichmann.
ReplyDeleteNothing after he became frum.
ReplyDeletePeriod.
That's the Zionist flag. The Zionists love gay pride. The Zionists, including the Zionists Prime Minister, promote the homo pride parade in Tel Aviv r"l. Zionists Tel Aviv has been the most "gay friendly" city in the universe r"l.
ReplyDeleteKastner was not a "musmach" Zionist, was an egomaniac, and was fooled by Eichman. He thought he could save Jews by his negotiations. In any case he was a menuval, and was assassinated by Zionists , just like your gay icon was.
ReplyDeleteThe Eida were Gay friendly when this Toeva was illegal even by the Goyim! At least today the secularists can say they are in tune with the rest of the goyim, but the Badatz people were way ahead of their time in being gay-friendly, and they claim that the gay icon Mr/Mrs De haan was a great "Tdaddik". A least the secularists don't claim that the gays are Tzaddikim, they just accept it as the rest of the goyim have accepted it.
ReplyDeleteOf course you will cover it up, but there is evidence that not only did he continue with his wickedness, but he was a a mumche on that matter, was a darkness to the Nations, who still consider him as an "ilui" in such matters.
ReplyDeleteYou respond to the truths presented to you with falsehoods.
ReplyDeleteThe only "evidence" is your vivid imagination.
ReplyDeleteI forgot, every single word you say is the truth! 😂
ReplyDeleteA) de Haan was verified gay
ReplyDeleteB) neturei karta was founded in his memory, and call him a txaddik
C- this is pride in him, a very gay pride.
Speaking of which, do you have any evidence to support what you are claiming?
ReplyDeleteSpecifically, which part are you asking about? A lot has been said here.
ReplyDeleteA) That was never verified.
ReplyDeleteB) Even the claim he was only relates to the time before he became frum.
C) No one ever seriously claimed that anything untoward occurred after he became frum.
D) Even had it been true before he was frum, becoming a Baal Teshuva cleaned the slate.
Neturei Karta has nothing to do with him and was not founded in his honor. NK existed when he was alive. And de Haan was not affiliated with them. He was affiliated with the mainstream Orthodox community in Jerusalem and their rabbinic leadership.
ReplyDeleteI need proof that a person is innocent and not guilty because some random anonymous internet poster claims he engaged in whatever behavior after he became frum? Is there guilty until proven innocent or is it innocent until proven guilty? If someone claims you're a serial murderer, must I not discount that claim in the absence of proof of your innocence of being a murderer?
ReplyDeletehe sounds like a Shabbetai Zvi character, moodswings etc.
ReplyDeleteYou are discounting out of hand the possibility that he continued to engage in those behaviors after he developed a relationship with the Ultra-Orthodox in Jerusalem. I am asking how you are so sure about that.
ReplyDeleteIn the extremely tumah-netherworlds of gay Netherlands, de haan is celebrated as an author of ...I don't even want to use the terminology, but he was considered a literary exponent of the gay lifestyle. It was well known in Israel at the time what he got up to - the Haganah or early Mossad , whoever assassinated him, knew that this was a big source of embarrassment for him.
ReplyDeleteEveryone knew he was a feigele - the Jews, the Arabs, the Dutch , the goyim. He published a book about it, and his non-Jewish wife and his male chum saw it was ruining his reputation, so they had to buy up all the copies to prevent word getting out.
ReplyDeleteThe stuff from "Quatrains" seems to be from his Jerusalem days. Was he "frum" then?
ReplyDeleteHow do you translate "frum"?
https://books.google.co.il/books?id=1OkYBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA286&lpg=PA286&dq=Jacob+Isra%C3%ABl+de+Haan+quatrains&source=bl&ots=99I9RRxIHM&sig=sHF1l2PZ-Mz8ODxfbrbR8H1qo9w&hl=iw&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjc4c6ag73bAhVGCiwKHWJSDusQ6AEIdzAN#v=onepage&q=Jacob%20Isra%C3%ABl%20de%20Haan%20quatrains&f=false
The stuff from "Quatrains" seems to be from his Jerusalem days, which supports Eddie's argument against Moe.
ReplyDelete@Eddie
@Moe Ginsburg
https://books.google.co.il/books?id=1OkYBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA286&lpg=PA286&dq=Jacob+Isra%C3%ABl+de+Haan+quatrains&source=bl&ots=99I9RRxIHM&sig=sHF1l2PZ-Mz8ODxfbrbR8H1qo9w&hl=iw&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjc4c6ag73bAhVGCiwKHWJSDusQ6AEIdzAN#v=onepage&q=Jacob%20Isra%C3%ABl%20de%20Haan%20quatrains&f=false
Sorry, but you did not write earlier that since he had a chezkas kashrus, you assume until proven otherwise that he did not sin. You wrote that there is: "Nothing after he became frum. Period." You wrote: "No one ever seriously claimed that anything untoward occurred after he became frum." You wrote: "All of what you say is completely false." You wrote: "And after he became frum he did absolutely none of which you falsely claim about the tzadik de Haan."
ReplyDeleteAll of these are positive assertions that indicate that you have active knowledge that the claims are false, not just that you have not been presented with proof.
the proof is that he was writing his gay literature for publication in Holland while he was living an otherwise "frum" lifestyle in Jerusalem. At least he was otherwise -frum, In the Langer case we discussed, mr Borokovsky was eating treif when he allegedly converted (for which no evidence was provided), and ontinued to live a secular lifestyle. His son was Jewish from the mother's side, so he went to the barmitzvah, but it is common here for Gentiles to be invited to barmitzvah's of their close friends.
ReplyDeleteI would write all those same things if Eddie alleged here that you're a serial murderer.
ReplyDeleteWell, then, you have a habit of expressing with certitude facts of which you know nothing about. That is not a good habit.
ReplyDeleteIf someone were to write that you are a serial murderer, the most I would say is that I have no reason to think that is the case, and would not entertain that thought unless there was evidence for it.
And you still have not addressed the fact that a volume of his poetry discussing those topics was published very late in his life.
As previously noted, his work 'Kwatrijnen' ('Quatrains'), was published in 1924, just months he was murdered on 30 June, 1924.
ReplyDeleteStill waiting to your response concerning the poetry he published in 1924.
ReplyDeleteWhat is your certain source that he wrote it or that he published it in 1924 (even putting aside whether he wrote it in the first place, even before he was frum), that you're willing to condemn him for it - l"h/rechilus/ms"r be damned?
ReplyDeleteI am wondering if he relied on the concept that someone should dress in black and go to a place where he is not known?
ReplyDeleteIn any case, the objection is that he is called a "tzaddik". There is someone who has an Orthodox semicha, is a Rabbis, and is openly gay, and is - I think - in the OO movement. Would Badatz allow such a person to be called a Tzaddik too, if his other practices are quite frum?
Title page:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dbnl.org/tekst/haan008kwat01_01/haan008kwat01_01_tpg.gif
Perhaps he didn't exist at all, and wasn't from Holland but from Australia, and only had an interest in Kangaroos.
ReplyDelete1: Have you read the article by Gert Hekma?
ReplyDelete2: There is no l"h etc. re. dead people.
3: Earlier, you wrote that you had no "inside info" that he did not engage in those behaviors later in life. So why are you unwilling to accept seemingly clear evidence that he did?
A) he wasn't frum,
ReplyDeleteB) his wife was Christian (never divorced her
C) he wrote several "seforim" on toevah.
D ) the Dutch knew him , he was one of their own.
E) the gentile nations at the time would imprison people for toeva.
F) the eda at the time honored him and called him a tzaddik.
So someone apparently published this in 1924. Who is to say it was him? Even if he had written this years earlier, his original publisher may have maintained intellectual rights to it and republished it without his acquiescence after he became frum.
ReplyDeleteThis is especially likely as he no longer even lived in Amsterdam in 1924.
This is far from any "clear evidence" of such. See my reply to Eddie. A publisher publishing an old work years later without the original author's acquiescence, as it is unneeded if the publisher retained intellectual rights to it, is evidence of no such thing as you imply.
ReplyDeleteWhy are you so willing and/or insistent on assuming the worst on the part of a true Baal Teshuva? Do you assume the worst about every BT you meet? We know he was born not frum and/or wasn't frum earlier in his life and became a Baal Teshuva later in life, just as so many BTs today do.
Q. Why did Hashem make people with twisted illogical minds?
ReplyDeleteA. To be able to be "dan lekaf zechus".
He has poems that discuss his trips to the Kotel where he wonders of he is going for Hashem or to pick up Arab boys. It has nothing to do with whether it was published with or without his consent. The content itself speaks of a time when he was observant. Now, you could argue that one should not infer any autobiographical behavior based on the poems, and that they may be purely fictional, but I don't know of other Torah-observant authors who write in that manner.
ReplyDeletethis is the book where he says he goes to the Kotel to pick up Arab boys, behaviour that got him into trouble, and was the cover that the Haganah or whomever did shoot him used, ie he was shot by Arabs enraged with his gay behaviour.
ReplyDeleteIf had written in whilst still in Holland, then the business about arab boys would not be mentioned
sadly, this seems to be the case with people who have ever been gay, it stays with them, they can never really leave. I've heard stories of people who get married, despite them being gay, and they end up going back to a same sex relationship. Being "frum" has really got nothing to do with it.
ReplyDelete