https://www.newsweek.com/carlson-makes-russian-state-tv-again-guest-comments-against-ukraine-1684345
Fox News host Tucker Carlson was featured on Russian state TV once again after Kremlin speakers told Ukraine to listen to Fox's pro-Russia talking points and surrender to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Kremlin-funded media outlets ran translated clips from Fox News' conversation between Carlson and retired Colonel Douglas Macgregor, who has consistently urged Ukraine to retreat and give in to Putin. Russian TV ran the clips pushing Kremlin propaganda.
Macgregor, who previously supported Russia's annexation of Crimea, also said that Putin is being "demonized" by the U.S. and firmly opposes America's involvement in the conflict.
Between 1918 and 1921 an estimated
ReplyDelete100,000 Jewish people were killed, maimed or tortured in pogroms in
Ukraine. Hundreds of Jewish communities were burned to the ground and
hundreds of thousands of people were left homeless and destitute,
including orphaned children. A number of groups were responsible for
these brutal attacks, including the Volunteer Army, a faction of the
Russian White Army.
The Pogroms in Ukraine, 1918-19: Prelude to the Holocaust is
a vivid and horrifying account of the atrocities committed by the
Volunteer Army, written by Nokhem Shtif, an eminent Yiddish linguist and
social activist who joined the relief efforts on behalf of the pogrom
survivors in Kiev. Shtif’s testimony, published in 1923, was born from
his encounters there and from the weighty archive of documentation
amassed by the relief workers. This was one of the earliest efforts to
systematically record human rights atrocities on a mass scale.
Originally written in Yiddish and here skillfully translated and introduced by Maurice Wolfthal, The Pogroms in Ukraine, 1918-19
brings to light a terrible and historically neglected series of
persecutions that foreshadowed the Holocaust by twenty years. It is
essential reading for academics and students in the fields of human
rights, Jewish studies, Russian and Soviet studies, and Ukraine studies.
https://www.openbookpublishers.com/product/1012
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Russia
ReplyDeleteJews died in all European countries and therefore?
Yes, but for sheer numbers Ukraine takes the cake. Poland had a one time mass massacre, during the War but Ukraine had three!
ReplyDeleteUkraine was the centre of anti-semitism, already going back to Khielmnecki yemach shmo. he was the archetypal Nazi/Amalek, but it continued all the way into the last century.
ReplyDeleteAnd therefore?
ReplyDeleteAnd therefore you support Putin in denazifying Ukraine?!
ReplyDeletetherefore, I'm less likely to feel rachmanus for them, than, for example Tunisia, who themselves never persecuted their Jewish compatriots.
ReplyDeleteWow they must be devastated. I thought you were cheering Putin because Russia has might have killed fewer Jews over history
ReplyDeleteThe question of Russia is also not clear - they apparently killed 20 million in Stalin's purges - since Jews were part of the communist movement, it is not inconceivable that a significant number of jews were also killed. We just don't know the data.
ReplyDeleteno one is supporting Putin .
ReplyDeleteHe can do as he pleases, because he runs a superpower. The west want to covnert Russia into a democracy, with coca cola, CNN, free elections and cheap energy. Until they acheive this, they will pressure Russia until it collapses.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thenation.com/article/archive/neo-nazis-far-right-ukraine/tnamp/L.
ReplyDeleteLong term neo Nazi problem in Ukraine
old article !
ReplyDeletemany places including Europe, USA, South America etc have neo nazis problems so what is your point?
ReplyDeleteCelebrating Nazi war criminals and naming many streets or erecting monuments in their memory.
ReplyDeleteZelensky never removed any of these so he shouldn't be compared to Biblical or hasmonean Heroes
They don't generally have public memorials for such.
ReplyDeleteOld problem - so are you claiming modern ukrainiam\ns are ant- Semites?
ReplyDeleteSome are. Zelensky was unable to remove the neo Nazi elements.
ReplyDeleteBut Britain Europe and USA also are unable to remove them - therefore?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis
ReplyDeletehttps://theintercept.com/2022/02/24/ukraine-facebook-azov-battalion-russia/
The difference is that in Ukraine, they have many memorials for Nazis who slaughtered many jews and others in WW2, and this is accepted by their society.
In France, UK,. USA, this does not exist.
really?!
ReplyDeleteyes
ReplyDeletehow about actual evidence for your claims
ReplyDeleteAfter all Trump said some of them are fine people
here, look at all the Nazi monuments
ReplyDeletehttps://forward.com/news/462916/nazi-collaborator-monuments-in-ukraine/
you forgot to read the headline!
ReplyDelete"collaborator"
ReplyDeletetypical sleight of hand on your part
as if a genocidal "collaborator" is any less culpable than a german co-sponsor.
you just cant admit an error in your claims
ReplyDeletethe error is irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteIt distinguishes between Ukrainian murderers and German murderers. But they were all murderers. So your objection is moot.
Nope!
ReplyDeleteTry harder- think before you comment!
Likewise
ReplyDeleteTorah thought daf hayomi
ReplyDeleteYevamoth 3b
“[They were intended] to exclude the respective rulings of Rab and R. Assi [Infra 11a and 12a]. What, [however, do the numerals] exclude according to Rab and R. Assi? If they share each other's views, one numeral would serve to exclude the rival of one who made a declaration of refusal [A minor who was one of the wives of a deceased childless brother, on declaring her refusal to marry the levir, exempts thereby her rivals from the levirate marriage but not from halizah], and the other to exclude the rival of a wife whom [her husband] remarried after having divorced her [If one of the widows of a deceased brother was divorced once, and then remarried to him after she had married another man, she causes the exemption of her rivals from the levirate marriage, v. infra 11b. The halizah, however, must be performed]. If they do not share the views of each other, [each would regard] one [numeral as serving] to exclude the ruling of his colleague [according to Rab that of R. Assi, and vice versa]; and the other numeral, as serving to exclude either the rival of one who made a declaration of refusal or the rival of a wife whom [her husband] remarried after having divorced her. According to Rab and R. Assi these [The subjects of their respective rulings, i.e., the sotah (v. Glos.) and the barren wife, who, they maintain, infra 11a, 11b, exempt their rivals both from the levirate marriage and from halizah] should have been enumerated in our Mishnah! [This could not be done] because the law of the rival's rival [V. our Mishnah] is not applicable [to these cases] [Since neither a sotah nor a barren woman may marry any one of the brothers.].”
My theory. The Mishnah at the start of Yevamoth wisely left out the adulteress, the barren woman, the woman that remarried her husband after getting divorced---why? The common people would then say, the Torah with Yeebum permits marrying a sister-in-law and the rabbis start talking of ineligible women. No. The 15 women in the Mishnah are righteous good women. Beautiful. Of course forbidden to marry ineligible women---but rivals of them, maybe. Follow, KA.
I support Zelensky: not one inch of the Ukraine to concede to Putin and going to war fighting, God bless him. Large aliyah coming to Israel from the Ukraine, wow. Will Biden/Harris empower Iran, Heaven forbid?
Allow me to elaborate on daf hayomi Yevamoth.
ReplyDeleteYevamoth 2:
“Mishnah. Fifteen [categories of] women exempt their rivals [Heb., zarah, צרה rival. Where a husband has more than one wife, each woman is a zarah in relation to the other. The term is derived from צרר which signifies oppression, hence rival, adversary, as in I Sam. I, 6 (cf. Kimhi a.l.). or to tie up, to bind, hence associate, co-wife] and the rivals of their rivals [the cowives of a rival through a second marriage] and so on, ad infinitum [עד סוף העולם lit., to the end of the world], from the halizah [ חלצה (rt. חלץ, ‘to take off’ or ‘to loosen’), the ceremony of drawing off the shoe of the brother of her husband who died without issue. According to Biblical law (v. Deut. XXV, 5-9) the brother-in-law must either marry the widow (v. following note) or be subjected to halizah] and from the levirate marriage [ יבום rt. יבם to marry the levir]; and these are they: his daughter [Who had been married to his brother who subsequently died childless. Since he is forbidden to marry his daughter he is thereby also forbidden to marry any of her rivals, the widows of his deceased childless brother. HIS DAUGHTER includes even one born to him as a result of outrage, v. infra.], the daughter of his daughter [All the fifteen categories enumerated are among the near relatives whom a man is forbidden to marry in accordance with the explicit and implicit prohibitions in Lev. XVIII, 6ff] and the daughter of his son; the daughter of his wife [from a former husband], the daughter of her son and the daughter of her daughter; his mother-in-law [Who, after the death of her husband, had married his brother who subsequently died childless], his mother-in-law's mother [The prohibition to marry in this case is derived in Sanhedrin 75a from Lev. XVIII, 17], and his father-in-law's mother; his maternal sister, his mother's sister, his wife's sister and his maternal brother's wife; the wife of his brother who was not his contemporary [lit., in his world, i.e., who died before he was born], and his daughter-in-law [who married his brother after the death of his son. The marriage of a daughter-in-law is forbidden forever, even after the death of one's son]. all these exempt their rivals and the rivals of their rivals, and so on, ad infinitum, from the halizah and from the levirate marriage.”
“6None of you shall come near לא תקרבו anyone of his own flesh to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord. 17Do not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; nor shall you marry her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter and uncover her nakedness: they are kindred: it is a depravity הנה זימה הוא.” (Leviticus 18:6 17)
My theory. The Mishnah wisely focuses on unlawful marriages in Leviticus 18 and 20 who may be righteous good women. It would a distraction to mention bad women. Hertz Chumash p. 489:
“All unions between the sexes that are repellent to the inner feelings of man, or would taint the natural affection between near relations, are sternly prohibited. Primary prohibited marriages are: (a) blood relations mother, sister and mother’s sister; and (b) cases of affinity the wives wives of blood relations and of the wife’s blood relations. Al unions whether temporary or permanent between persons belonging in these groups are classed as ‘incestuous’ (עריות). They have no binding force whatsoever in Jewish Law and can in no circumstance be deemed a ‘marriage’; hence, no divorce (Get) is required for their dissolution. The issue are illegitimate (mamzerim).”
Wrong question: Is Putin a bad man? Better question: How shall we deal with Putin? Wrong question: Are the new arrivals from the Ukraine coming to Israel good people? Better question: How shall we deal with them? KA, Joseph Orlow, Garnel any thoughts? Yevamoth Mishnah does not ask if the women are good or bad. Not relevant.
Allow me more on Daf Hayomi just now
ReplyDeleteYevamoth 4a:
“Furthermore, R. Shesheth stated [Mak. 23a] in the name of R. Eleazar who stated it in the name of R. Eleazar b. Azariah: Whence is it proved that a sister-in-law, who falls to the lot of a levir who is afflicted with boils, is not muzzled [i.e., she is not prevented from objecting to the levirate marriage, and is entitled to halizah. Muzzled (rt.oxj) is taken from Deut. XXV, 4 from which this law is derived]? From the Biblical text, You shall not muzzle לא תחסם an ox שור while it is threshing בדישו and in close proximity to it is written If brethren dwell together [Ibid. v. 5, forming the introduction to the law of halizah. Thus it has been shewn that a law may be based on the proximity of Biblical texts, and this confirms the conclusion in respect of ‘mingled stuff’ in zizith (v. Deut. XXII, 11)].”
My theory. In Yevamoth 4a the woman wins in her complaint to the court: her refusal to marry the Yeebom. I like the language here: she’s not muzzled. “But God said to Abraham: Do not be distressed over the boy or you slave; whatever Sarah tells you, do as she says שמע בקלה, for it is through Isaac that offspring shall be continued (called) for you יקרא לך זרע.” (Genesis 21:12).
I like when the woman wins versus the man, the Talmud says she’s not muzzled. Men, when they win versus a woman, say the man is a recalcitrant husband, the rabbis never say not to muzzle the man. Why? Men talk foolish; their talk is nothing. Women talk with Divine inspiration. Joking. When she’s in the right do as she says שמע בקלה. She has to offer good reasons for refusing to marry the Yeebom. Interesting, KA, Garnel, IsraelReader—yes?
I don’t think Putin is a רשע גמור: he is good to Jews and to Israel.