Thursday, November 17, 2016

Paradigm shift: Truth is Dead as Post-Truth defines the Trump Era


It's official: Truth is dead. Facts are passe.

And this sentiment — 馃槀 — is so last year.

Oxford Dictionaries has selected “post-truth” as 2016's international word of the year, after the contentious “Brexit” referendum and an equally divisive U.S. presidential election caused usage of the adjective to skyrocket, according to the Oxford University Press.

The dictionary defines “post-truth” as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.”

In this case, the “post-” prefix doesn't mean “after” so much as it implies an atmosphere in which a notion is irrelevant — but then again, who says you have to take our word for it anymore?

Throughout a grueling presidential campaign in which accusations of lies and alternate realities flowed freely, in every direction, hundreds of fact checks were published about statements from both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Dozens of media outlets found that Trump's relationship with the truth was, well, complicated.

“We concede all politicians lie,” conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin wrote in September. “Nevertheless, Donald Trump is in a class by himself.”

She cited The Atlantic's David Frum, who described Trump's dishonesty in May as “qualitatively different than anything before seen from a major-party nominee.”

None of this seemed to matter significantly to those who supported him.

“There is no doubt that even in the quadrennial truth-stretching that happens in presidential campaigns, Trump has set records for fabrication,” Chris Cillizza wrote days before the election.

And yet, Cillizza noted, Trump was seen as more honest than Clinton by an eight-point margin, according to a Washington Post-ABC News tracking poll released on Nov. 2.[...]

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

A serious misreading of the Rambam: Jewish Community Watch's Rambam On Sexual Perversion

There are those who feel that all is fair in the battle against evil (which child abuse surely is). The following is an embarrassing essay produced by Jewish Community watch which falsely claims that the Rambam wrote against sexual perversion in his Mishna Torah. However when sloppy scholarship or false facts are used to justify something - it weakens and destroys legitimacy. The Rambam in fact is not discussing the issue of perversion in the halacha cited and there is no source that I am aware of that the Rambam ever discussed the issue. This is not a criticism of the serious and important work that the Jewish Community Watch organization does - but it is a criticism of poor scholarship being used in the name of a greater good. I did send them a letter protesting this essay - but have not as yet received a response.


RAMBAM ON SEXUAL PERVERSION

Rambam: Hilchos Yesodai HaTorah 5:7 
 讜诪谞讬谉 砖讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪拽讜诐 住讻谞转 谞驻砖讜转 讗讬谉 注讜讘专讬谉 注诇 讗讞转 诪砖诇砖 注讘讬专讜转 讗诇讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗讛讘转 讗转 讛’ 讗诇讛讬讱 讘讻诇 诇讘讘讱 讜讘讻诇 谞驻砖讱 讜讘讻诇 诪讗讜讚讱 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讜讗 谞讜讟诇 讗转 谞驻砖讱 讜讛专讬讙转 谞驻砖 诪讬砖专讗诇 诇专驻讗讜转 谞驻砖 讗讞专转 讗讜 诇讛爪讬诇 讗讚诐 诪讬讚 讗谞住 讚讘专 砖讛讚注转 谞讜讟讛 诇讜 讛讜讗 砖讗讬谉 诪讗讘讚讬谉 谞驻砖 诪驻谞讬 谞驻砖 讜注专讬讜转 讛讜拽砖讜 诇谞驻砖讜转 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讻讗砖专 讬拽讜诐 讗讬砖 注诇 专注讛讜 讜专爪讞讜 谞驻砖 讻谉 讛讚讘专 讛讝讛:
Those who don’t know of the greatness of the past tend to think that sexual deviancy is a fairly new battle with warriors gallantly taking arms in the throngs of this new millennium.  Well, think again.  
 As King Solomon proclaimed, “There is nothing new under the sun.”  One need only look into the Torah to see all of knowledge – past, present and future, as well as an all encompassing compass toward decency and decorum. 
The issue of sexual deviancy is stated in the five books of Moses and expanded upon by Rashi, and countless masters of the Talmud.  But let’s take a look at one of the most noted of Talmudic masters – the Rambam (Maimonides). 
 The Rambam writes: (Hilchos Yesodai HaTorah) “[When] someone becomes attracted to a woman and is [love-]sick [to the extent that] he is in danger of dying, [although] the physicians say he has no remedy except engaging in sexual relations with her, he should be allowed to die rather than engage in sexual relations with her. [This applies] even if she is unmarried.”
 The Rambam writes, with purposeful intent, the following:
“With regard to the killing of a Jewish person to heal another person or to save a person from one who is compelling him, it is logical that one person’s life should not be sacrificed for another. [The Torah has] established an equation between forbidden sexual relations and murder, as [Deuteronomy 22:26] states: “This matter is just like a case where a person rises up against his colleague and slays him.”” Lest someone conjure thoughts of misplaced excuses and understood desires, the Rambam makes it perfectly clear that destructive and abusive relationships are unacceptable to the extent of a person losing his life is acceptable.  
Indeed, “the killing of one person” is a direct response to perverse abusive sexual relationships.  Sexual abuse and molestation hurts the body and is an act of “murder” to the soul.  It is not “like” murder…not “compared to” murder….not “equivalent to” murder.   It is MURDER period.  To this the Rambam writes that, “is logical that one person’s life should not be sacrificed for another.”  
 The Rambam knew very well the weaknesses of the weak, the sick and the perverted.  He understood that someone just “dying” to molest and abuse another should do just that….die.

Donald Trump Requests Security Clearance for Son-in-Law Jared Kushner: The problem of nepotism


Donald Trump has taken the unprecedented step of requesting his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, receive top-secret clearance to join him for his Presidential Daily Briefings, which began Tuesday.

Multiple sources tell NBC News Trump received his first briefing on Tuesday and designated both Kushner and Ret. Gen. Michael Flynn as his staff-level companions for the briefings going forward.

While Flynn has the necessary security clearance, Kushner does not, and it could take weeks — or even longer — for him to receive it.

It's the latest in a series of unorthodox developments in Trump's transition process that have cast a pall over his first week as president-elect.

On Tuesday, former Rep. Mike Rogers announced he was leaving the transition team, as part of what sources close to the transition process told NBC News was a "purge" of loyalists to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who was demoted from leading the effort last week due in large part to grudges held by Trump and Kushner, sources say.

Naming Steve Bannon, founder and chairman of controversial conservative Alt Right-leaning outlet Breitbart, as a chief strategist in his White House sparked backlash from Democrats and gave Republicans on Capitol Hill a new headache, as many dodged questions about Bannon's controversial comments about minorities, among other things.

And on Tuesday Trump also rolled out his Presidential Inaugural Committee leadership, a list that was packed with many of Trump's biggest donors and fundraisers and as such raised further questions about his pledge to "Drain the Swamp" and rid Washington of corruption.

While it's unclear when Kushner would receive security clearance, the legality of such a move is murky as well, as it raises questions about whether Trump is contravening the anti-nepotism law that bars presidents from appointing family members to cabinet positions or formal government jobs.[...]

Still, experts note the purpose of the 1967 anti-nepotism statute is to prevent nepotistic favoritism in the wielding of federal power and benefits, so any notion of granting such an important federal power to a non-employee family member contradicts the purpose and spirit of that law, as well as standard practice.

It's unprecedented for a "child or family member" to receive security clearances, said Bradley Moss, a national security lawyer who has held that kind of security clearance and clerked for the National Security Archive.

He added, "You can't hold a security clearance as an informal advisor — there is no such concept."

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

It is claimed that there is a 40% drop out rate from Israeli yeshivos - what is the solution?

BHOL

讗讞讚 讛住讜讚讜转 讛专讙讬砖讬诐 讘讬讜转专 讘讞讘专讛 讛讞专讚讬转 讛讜讗 砖讬注讜专讬 讛谞砖讬专讛 诪诪注专讻转 讛讞讬谞讜讱 讛讞专讚讬转. 诪讞拽专 砖诇 诪讻讜谉 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诇讞拽专 讬砖专讗诇, 砖驻讜专住诐 讘拽讬抓, 讘讚拽 讗转 谞转讜谞讬 讛谞砖讬专讛 诪讛讬砖讬讘讜转 讛拽讟谞讜转 — 讛转讬讻讜谞讬诐 讛讞专讚讬讬诐 诇讘谞讬诐. 注诇 驻讬 讛诪讞拽专, 诪住驻专 讛谞讜砖专讬诐 诪讛讬砖讬讘讜转 讛拽讟谞讜转 谞注 讘讬谉 2,000 诇–3,000 讘砖谞讛, 3.5%–6% 诪讛诪讞讝讜专. 讘讞讬砖讜讘 砖砖־砖谞转讬 诪讚讜讘专 讘砖讬注讜专讬 谞砖讬专讛 诪爪讟讘专讬诐 砖诇 20%–40% 诪讛诪讞讝讜专. 讗诇讜 讛诐 砖讬注讜专讬 谞砖讬专讛 注爪讜诪讬诐. 诇砖诐 讛讛砖讜讜讗讛, 诇驻讬 讛砖谞转讜谉 讛讞专讚讬 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 — 砖谞转讜谉 砖诪驻讜专住诐 讘诪砖讜转祝 注诇 讬讚讬 诪讻讜谉 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讛诪讻讜谉 诇讚诪讜拽专讟讬讛 — 讗诇讛 讛诐 砖讬注讜专讬 谞砖讬专讛 讻驻讜诇讬诐 注讚 讙讘讜讛讬诐 驻讬 讗专讘注讛 诪砖讬注讜专讬 讛谞砖讬专讛 讘诪注专讻转 讛讞讬谞讜讱 讛诪诪诇讻转讬转.

讛讛住讘专 诇砖讬注讜专讬 讛谞砖讬专讛 讛注爪讜诪讬诐 讛诇诇讜 讛讜讗 讗讜驻讬 讛诇讬诪讜讚 讛转讜讘注谞讬 讜讛谞讜拽砖讛 砖诇 讛讬砖讬讘讜转 讛拽讟谞讜转: 讘诪讛诇讱 砖诇讜砖 砖谞讜转 讛讬砖讬讘讛 (讻讬转讜转 讟'־讬讗'), 讛谞注专讬诐 诇讜诪讚讬诐 诇讬诪讜讚讬 拽讜讚砖 讘诇讘讚, 讘讚专讱 讻诇诇 讘诇讬诪讜讚 注爪诪讬 讘讞讘专讜转讗, 讘讬诪讬 诇讬诪讜讚 砖谞诪砖讻讬诐 诪砖注讜转 讛讘讜拽专 讛诪讜拽讚诪讜转 讜注讚 砖注讜转 讛诇讬诇讛 讛诪讗讜讞专讜转. 诇讻谉 诪专讘讬转 讛讬砖讬讘讜转 讛拽讟谞讜转 诪爪讬注讜转 转谞讗讬 驻谞讬诪讬讬讛. 转谞讗讬 讛诇讬诪讜讚 讛转讜讘注谞讬讬诐 诪注讜讚讚讬诐 诪爪讜讬谞讜转 — 讜讗转 讛讛爪诇讞讛 砖诇 诪转讬 讛诪注讟 砖讛诐 "转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐" 讗讜讟讜讚讬讚拽讟讬讬诐 — 讗讘诇 诪拽砖讬诐 诪讗讜讚 注诇 讛讘讬谞讜谞讬讬诐 讜讛讞诇砖讬诐. 讛转讜爪讗讛 讛讬讗 谞砖讬专讛 讙诇讜讬讛 讗讜 住诪讜讬讛 谞讬讻专转 讘讬砖讬讘讜转 讛拽讟谞讜转.

诪砖专讚 讛讞讬谞讜讱 讝讬讛讛 诇驻谞讬 讻诪讛 砖谞讬诐 讗转 谞拽讜讚转 讛转讜专驻讛 讛讝讜 砖诇 诪注专讻转 讛讞讬谞讜讱 讛讞专讚讬转, 讜驻转讞 诪讜住讚讜转 讞讬谞讜讱 讟讻谞讜诇讜讙讬讬诐 诇谞讜注专 讞专讚讬 谞讜砖专. 驻转讬讞转 讛诪讜住讚讜转 讛诇诇讜 诪住讘讬专讛 讗转 讛拽讬讟讜谉 讘诪住驻专 讛谞讜砖专讬诐 诪–3,000 诇–2,000 讘砖谞讛 (砖讬注讜专 讛谞砖讬专讛 砖诇 讛讘谞讬诐 讬专讚 诪–6% 诇–3.5% 诪讛诪讞讝讜专).

讜讗讜诇诐 诇讚讘专讬 讛专讘 讘爪诇讗诇 讻讛谉, 诪讚讜讘专 讘驻诇住讟专 诇讘注讬讛 注诪讜拽讛 讘讛专讘讛: "诪砖专讚 讛讞讬谞讜讱 谞讻谞住 注诐 转拽爪讬讘讬诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 诇讘转讬 讛住驻专 讛讟讻谞讜诇讜讙讬讬诐 — 讝讛 讗讬谞讟专住 砖诇 讛讞讘专讛 讛讞专讚讬转, 讜讛讬讜 讙诐 讻住驻讬诐 拽讜讗诇讬爪讬讜谞讬讬诐 诇讻讱 — 讜诇讻讗讜专讛 诪拽讟讬谉 讗转 讛讬拽祝 讛谞砖讬专讛. 讘驻讜注诇, 诪讚讜讘专 讘谞讜注专 砖讻讘专 诪转专讞拽 诪讛讚转, 注诐 讚讬诪讜讬 注爪诪讬 讜诪讜讟讬讜讜爪讬讛 谞诪讜讻讬诐, 讜注诐 讬注讚讬诐 讞讬谞讜讻讬讬诐 谞诪讜讻讬诐. 讘转讬 讛住驻专 讛诇诇讜 诪爪讬注讬诐 讘讙专讜转 讟讻谞讜诇讜讙讬转 讞诇拽讬转, 讜讝讛 诇讗 诪讗驻砖专 讗讜驻拽 诪拽爪讜注讬 诪专砖讬诐 诪讚讬".

=====================================================

讛专讘 讛讬专砖 讘诪转拽驻讛 讞专讬驻讛: 诇讬诪讜讚讬诐 讘讗拽讚诪讬讛 - 讞砖砖 讻驻讬专讛

讛讘讜拽专 诪转驻专住诪讬诐 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讞讘专 诪讜注爪转 讙讚讜诇讬 讛转讜专讛 砖诇 "讚讙诇 讛转讜专讛" 讜专讗砖 讬砖讬讘转 住诇讘讜讚拽讛 讛专讘 诪砖讛 讛诇诇 讛讬专砖, 砖讬讜爪讗 谞讙讚 讛诇讬诪讜讚讬诐 讛讗拽讚诪讬讬诐 诇讙讘专讬诐 讜诇谞砖讬诐 • "讗诐 讬砖 诪专爪讛 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讗诪讬谉 讘转讜专讛, 讝讛 诪讻谞讬住 拽专讬专讜转 讘讬专讗转 砖诪讬诐"


"讗讬谉 讞住讬谞讜转. 讘讻诇 诇讬诪讜讚讬诐 讘住讘讬讘讛 讗拽讚诪讗讬转 讬砖 住讻谞讛. 讗谞讞谞讜 诇讗 诪讚讘专讬诐  注诇 讚讘专 讚拽 讜注讚讬谉, 讗诇讗 注诇 讚讘专讬诐 讞诪讜专讬诐, 讛专讞拽 诪注诇讬讛 讚专讻讱 讝讜 诪讬谞讜转" - 讻讱 讛转讘讟讗 讛讙讗讜谉 专讘讬 诪砖讛 讛诇诇 讛讬专砖, 专讗砖 讬砖讬讘转 住诇讘讜讚拽讗 讜讞讘专 诪讜注爪转 讙讚讜诇讬 讛转讜专讛 砖诇 '讚讙诇 讛转讜专讛'. 

讛讚讘专讬诐 讛讞专讬驻讬诐 驻讜专住诪讜 讛讘讜拽专 (砖诇讬砖讬) 讘注讬转讜谉 '讬转讚 谞讗诪谉', 讻讞诇拽 诪诪住注 讛住讘专讛 讜拽诪驻讬讬谉 砖注讜专讱 讗讞讚 讛讗专讙讜谞讬诐 讘砖讘讜注讜转 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讻谞讙讚 诪讛 砖讛讜讗 诪讻谞讛 "驻讙注讬 讛讗拽讚诪讬讛". 讛讘讜拽专, 讻讗诪讜专, 讛讜讘讗讜 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 专讗砖 讬砖讬讘转 住诇讘讜讚拽讛, 砖诪砖转诪砖 讘砖驻讛 讞专讬驻讛 诪讗讚 谞讙讚 讛诇讬诪讜讚讬诐 讘诪住讙专讜转 讛讗拽讚诪讬讜转. 

讛讙专诪"讛 讛讬专砖 爪讬讟讟 讘讚讘专讬讜 诪讛讙诪专讗 讜讗诪专 讻讬 - "爪专讬讱 诇讛转专讞拽 诪讻诇 砖诪讬注转 讚讬讘讜专 诪讬谞讜转 讗驻讬诇讜 拽诇 砖讘拽诇讬诐... 谞讻谞住 诇拽讜专住 驻专讜驻住讜专, 讝讛 讙讜专诐 讘讛讻专讞 拽专讬专讜转 讘注讘讜讚转 讛'. 讬转讻谉 砖讛讗讘 讬讗诪专 注诇 讛讘转 砖诇讜: "讛讬讗 讘讞讜专讛 讞讝拽讛" – 讝讜 讟注讜转 讞诪讜专讛... 讬转讻谉 讘讞讜专讬诐 诪爪讜讬讬谞讬诐 讘讬讜转专 讘诇讬诪讜讚, 讘转驻讬诇讛, 讜讻讜', 讜讬砖 诇讛诐 讘诇讬讘诐 讛专讛讜专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘注讬拽专讬 讗诪讜谞讛, 砖讗祝 讗讞讚 诪讘讞讜抓 诇讗 讬讜讚注". [...]

On quest to clear Kasztner, historian ‘shocked’ to prove Nazi collaboration


But for British Jewish historian Paul Bogdanor, his ambition to find material defending the controversial wartime Zionist leader, Rudolf Kasztner, was cruelly thwarted.

Bogdanor was “extremely shocked” to find that everything pointed towards Kasztner’s having been “a collaborator” with the Nazis, and a “betrayer of the Zionist movement and the Jewish people.”

Bogdanor’s new book, “Kasztner’s Crime,” published in October, sets out the case against the Jewish leader in damning detail. Even the most devoted defender might have second thoughts after reading his book.

Ironically, Bogdanor set out to work on the book almost a decade ago in a bid “to prove Kasztner’s innocence.” He was tired of seeing Kasztner’s name come up repeatedly in anti-Zionist propaganda.

Kasztner was a leader of a small Zionist grouping in Budapest towards the end of World War II. He led a Jewish rescue committee which, before the Nazis entered Hungary, did succeed in saving the lives of a number of Jews. But once the Nazis arrived, Kasztner, an ambitious lawyer, became embroiled in prolonged negotiations with the Nazi leadership, particularly Adolf Eichmann.

After complex dealings with Eichmann, Kasztner succeeded in getting the Nazis to agree to the deportation of a group of 1,684 Hungarian Jews, the so-called “Kasztner Train,” who eventually ended up in freedom in Switzerland.

But thousands more continued on the doomed path to Auschwitz. Bogdanor says that not only did Kasztner know they were being sent to their deaths, but that he actively kept such information secret from other Jews in Hungary and the wider Jewish world.

Kasztner himself did not get on the train, but survived the war and made his way to Palestine. By 1952 he was a spokesman for the Ministry of Trade and a would-be member of Knesset, though he did not succeed in obtaining a place high enough on the Mapai list to become elected.

Nevertheless, when, in 1953, an embittered Hungarian Jew named Malkiel Gruenwald distributed a pamphlet about Kasztner, naming him as a Nazi collaborator, the Israeli government thought highly enough of him to bring a libel suit on his behalf, accusing Gruenwald of defamation.[...]

On March 3, 1957, right-wing extremists shot Kasztner dead. The following year, too late for him, the court verdict was reversed, suggesting that much of what was claimed against him was not correct. Leading the campaign in ensuing years to rehabilitate Kasztner was journalist and political Tommy Lapid, himself a Hungarian Jew and father of Yair Lapid, the leader of today’s Yesh Atid party.

“Kasztner didn’t start out as someone evil,” says Bogdanor. “He started out as someone who wanted to rescue Jews, and before March 1944, he did rescue Jews. But when the Nazis occupied Hungary, he began negotiating with them and, very quickly, I argue, he became a collaborator.” [...]

Bogdanor makes it clear that while the case against Kasztner is damning, the anti-Zionist claim “that Kasztner was part of a Zionist conspiracy with the Nazis to exterminate the Jews of Europe, is nonsense.”

“He was not acting on behalf of the Zionist movement, he betrayed it. This is proved in my book by the fact that he was feeding his contacts in the free world Nazi disinformation. If there had been a Zionist conspiracy with the Nazis, Kasztner wouldn’t have been feeding the Zionists Nazi disinformation,” says Bogdanor.

Joel Brand, who traveled to Istanbul, only to be arrested by the British. (Courtesy)
Joel Brand, who traveled to Istanbul, only to be arrested by the British. (Courtesy)

Kasztner was “drawn into this web of collaboration,” says Bogdanor, by degrees. Part of it was his own sense of aggrandizement and vanity that he was the sole conduit for the Nazis to deal with the Jews of Hungary.

Bogdanor notes members of Kasztner’s rescue committee were the only Jews in the country who did not have to wear a yellow star. They were permitted to continue to use their own cars and telephones and Kasztner, within a month of the occupation, was the only Jew allowed to travel from the capital to the provinces.[...]

The central charge made against Kasztner by the surviving Hungarian Jews was, says Bogdanor, “not just that he failed to warn them [of the Nazis’ intention]. It was that Kasztner had instructed local Jewish leadership to mislead them, and to deceive them into boarding the trains to Auschwitz. After Kasztner had visited the local communities, the leadership spread false information — which he had given them — that the Jews were going to be resettled inside Hungary. Agranat and the other judges overlooked this matter of deception.”

Bogdanor admits to being profoundly shocked by the depth and extent of what he found out about Kasztner. It would have been bad enough, he argues, if Kasztner had passively collaborated with the Nazis. But he actively collaborated, he says, taking steps to mislead both Jews inside Hungary and his Jewish contacts in the outside world.[....]

Bogdanor has met Holocaust survivors from Hungary “who are extremely distressed by the campaign to rehabilitate Kasztner. I felt a greater obligation to them to do what I could for them… Kasztner did know that Jews were being exterminated, he knew and he repeatedly admitted it. His defenders have to say he didn’t know, which is contrary to the facts.”

He saw “a tsunami of pro-Kasztner sentiment,” which had spurred him to write the book, and next year playwright Motti Lerner’s eponymous Kasztner is set for a revival production by Israel’s national theater.

Paul Bogdanor says he constantly asked himself during the decade it took him to write the book, “Am I wrong? Am I sure?”

“But yes,” he concludes. “I am as sure as it is possible to be. Kasztner was guilty.”

Monday, November 14, 2016

As expected Trump seems to be walking back promises about moving embassy to Jerusalem and dismantling Iran deal

update CBS News - how says he is not sure he wants to carry out his threat of appointing a special prosecutor to get Hillary Clinton

Times of Israel

Appearing to walk back statements made by president-elect and other advisers, Walid Phares says nuclear pact will be ‘renegotiated,’ US mission will only be moved to Jerusalem under ‘consensus,’ brokering Israeli-Palestinian peace deal will be top priority

A senior adviser to President-elect Donald Trump said the new US leader will “review” the Iran nuclear agreement, but will stop short of ripping up the landmark international pact.

Walid Phares, one of Trump’s top foreign policy advisers, also signaled that Trump might not move the US Embassy to Jerusalem immediately and indicated he would make negotiating an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal a priority right off the bat

The comments appeared to represent a break with some comments made by other Trump advisers and the president-elect himself, and highlighted persisting confusion over what the contours of a Trump administration’s foreign policy may look like.

Speaking to BBC Radio on Thursday, Phares said the nuclear deal, which Trump has railed against and vowed to dismantle, would instead be renegotiated with Tehran.

“Ripping up is maybe a too strong of word, he’s gonna take that agreement, it’s been done before in international context, and then review it,” he said, according to a CNN recording of the interview.

“He will take the agreement, review it, send it to Congress, demand from the Iranians to restore a few issues or change a few issues, and there will be a discussion,” Phares added. “It could be a tense discussion but the agreement as is right now — $750 billion to the Iranian regime without receiving much in return and increasing intervention in four countries — that is not going to be accepted by the Trump administration.”

During the election campaign, Trump described the nuclear deal as “disastrous” and said it would be his “number one priority” to dismantle it.

Yet he also sowed confusion when he said he would demand greater oversight over the deal and enforce it, at a speech to the pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC in March. In that same speech, he also said he would dismantle the deal.

“We must enforce the terms of the previous deal to hold Iran totally accountable. And we will enforce it like you’ve never seen a contract enforced before, folks, believe me,” he said then.

On Thursday, State Department spokesman Mark Toner warned that nothing was stopping Trump from tearing up the agreement, rebuffing comments from Iranian President Hassan Rouhani that the pact was enshrined by the United Nations Security Council and could therefore not be canceled by one party.

The agreement, reached in July 2014 to thwart suspected work toward an atomic weapon, requires Iran to curb its nuclear enrichment activities in exchange for sanctions relief.

Israel was and remains the world’s leading critic of the deal, calling it a “historic mistake” and arguing that it falls woefully short of preventing Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Toner said if Trump pulls out of the agreement, it could fall apart and lead to Iran restarting work toward a bomb.

It’s not clear if Iran, which remains deeply distrustful of the United States and has complained of receiving a raw deal under the nuclear pact, would be open to renegotiating the agreement, the hard-fought result of years of intensive diplomatic activity.

Will move embassy ‘under consensus’

Phares also told the BBC that while Trump was committed to moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, as other presidential candidates have vowed, he would not do so unilaterally.

“Many presidents of the United States have committed to do that, and he said as well that he will do that, but he will do it under consensus,” Phares said.

Phares did not elaborate on what consensus would be sought for such a move, which would break with decades of precedent and put Washington at odds with nearly all United Nations member states.[...]

The moral saviour waffles: Trump says 17-month-old gay marriage ruling is ‘settled’ law — but 43-year-old abortion ruling isn’t


Donald Trump sent a message about his priorities to social conservatives Sunday on "60 Minutes”: On abortion, I'll keep fighting. On gay marriage, not so much.

But his justification was confusing — and likely will be to some of his biggest supporters in the evangelical community. Trump basically said that the Supreme Court's 17-month-old ruling legalizing gay marriage nationwide is over and done with, but its 43-year-old decision legalizing abortion — Roe v. Wade — shouldn't be. And he did all of this in the course of a few minutes.

Here's the exchange on gay marriage:

LESLEY STAHL: Do you support marriage equality?

TRUMP: It — it’s irrelevant because it was already settled. It’s law. It was settled in the Supreme Court. I mean it’s done.

STAHL: So even if you appoint a judge that —

TRUMP: It’s done. It — you have — these cases have gone to the Supreme Court. They’ve been settled. And, I’m fine with that.

Just prior, though, Trump said he would appoint “pro-life” judges in hopes of reversing Roe v. Wade and sending the issue back to the states:

STAHL: During the campaign, you said that you would appoint justices who were against abortion rights. Will you appoint — are you looking to appoint a justice who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade?

TRUMP: So look, here’s what’s going to happen — I’m going to — I’m pro-life. The judges will be pro-life. They’ll be very —

STAHL: But what about overturning this law —

TRUMP: Well, there are a couple of things. They’ll be pro-life, they’ll be — in terms of the whole gun situation, we know the Second Amendment, and everybody’s talking about the Second Amendment, and they’re trying to dice it up and change it, they’re going to be very pro-Second Amendment. But having to do with abortion if it ever were overturned, it would go back to the states. So it would go back to the states and —

STAHL: Yeah, but then some women won’t be able to get an abortion?

TRUMP: No, it’ll go back to the states.

STAHL: By state — no some —

TRUMP: Yeah, well, they’ll perhaps have to go, they’ll have to go to another state.

To put it mildly, these two positions are irreconcilable. Trump could make the case that the country favors gay marriage more than it does abortion. He could argue that one is simply more important to him because it involves issues of life. He could say it would be easier to overturn one than the other.

But those aren't his arguments. Instead, he props up a 17-month-old decision on gay marriage as settled law, but a 1973 decision on abortion as something that could be overturned. That's having it both ways.[...]

Dovid Lichtenstein's interview with Rav Sorscher about abuse in Lakewood


From Jewish Community Watch
Former Rav of Whispering Pines Shul in Lakewood Rabbi Aharon Sorscher opened up on "Headlines with Dovid Lichtenstein" about his firsthand experience with community backlash after confronting a perpetrator who abused someone in his family.
Rabbi Sorscher confronted the predator, demanded he leave his post as teacher/camp counselor, and demand that he seek counseling. After initially admitting to abusing the child, the perpetrator denied the acts and members of the community started a campaign defending the man. Rabbi Sorscher then moved with his family to Michigan because members of his family were being harassed and no longer felt comfortable in their Lakewood community.
"'There's not enough awareness of the tremendous danger a molester brings [to the community]" Rabbi Sorscher said. "If the people [defenders of child abusers] realize that they wouldn't be able to justify their actions."
"If people would have empathy, they would think straight, and understand what they have to do."
During the in-depth radio show on abuse, Lichtenstein also interviewed survivors of notorious pedophiles Mondrowitz and Kolko. Their testimony is heartbreaking.

Convicted Sex Offender Yona Weinberg Sues Rabbi for Tweets Alerting Families in Israel


Israel has no national sex offender registry, so Rabbi Horowitz thought he was helping by tweeting to families about a convicted sex offender in their midst.

One would think that a convicted sex offender might want to stay out of the courts in his new country of residence.

Not so with Yona Weinberg.

The Brooklyn sex offender who moved to Israel in 2014 the day after police knocked on his door over new charges, is suing a New York rabbi for defamation after the rabbi, Yakov Horowitz, tweeted Weinberg’s whereabouts in Jerusalem. Israel does not have a public sex offender registry so the rabbi, a child advocate, warned residents via Twitter that Weinberg was a dangerous presence in their midst.

Weinberg’s Brooklyn-based lawyer Samuel Karliner, who helped him manage sex-offender registry requirements while he was in the United States, said his client did not flee to Israel, as Horowitz’s tweets contended, and that he had been planning to move there with his family for some time.


Few days ago, I tweeted warning from magainu
Har Nof residents:

Beware of Convicted sex offender yona Weinberg.
http://
-jason-weinberg/ 

deeply troubled some Har Nof ppl suppressing efforts to warn residents of Convicted sex offender yona Weinberg.
http://
-jason-weinberg/ 

After more than a year of legal wrestling, the two are set to appear in a Jerusalem court on November 23 for a preliminary hearing.

Rabbi Yakov Horowitz is flying to Israel to defend himself.

“The ticket is purchased. Let the games begin,” said Horowitz, founding dean of Orthodox yeshiva Darchei Noam in Rockland County, about 25 miles north of New York City

The rabbi feels he must fight the charges to avoid setting a dangerous legal precedent in a country that has become a destination of choice for some Orthodox child molesters due to its open door policies toward all Jews.

A loss would mean, “Every sex offender would be given the script: molest kids, move to Israel, sue anyone who posts anything about you,” said Horowitz, who is also the founder and director of the Center for Jewish Family Life/Project Y.E.S., a mentorship program for at-risk teens in New York.

Israeli courts leveled a $55,000 default judgment against Horowitz in June 2015 after he didn't show up in court. He said was unaware that he was being sued because he never opened the documents that a stranger threw at him while he was in the middle of teaching hundreds of people in a Jerusalem lecture hall at late at night.

“I assumed it was threatening stuff for my advocacy, which has happened before,” he said of the papers.

He ended up paying several hundred dollars to have the judgement removed, money he could have spent settling the case, he said. But that would have required him to admit wrongdoing and remain quiet.

He refused. “I will fight this until the end,” he said. Otherwise, “People will be terrified to post information about sex offenders.”

To win a defamation case in Israel, a plaintiff must only prove that degrading things had been said or written about him. Unlike in the United States, he does not have to prove his reputation, livelihood or social standing have been harmed, according to legal experts.[...]

Indeed, Weinberg silenced Jerusalem’s Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn by threatening him with a defamation lawsuit in May. The psychologist and child advocate, who had posted newspaper accounts of his 2009 conviction and warnings that included Weinberg’s address in Har Nof, immediately deleted all mention of the convicted sex offender from his blog. [...]

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid says Trump tries to "silence his critics with the threat of legal action."


Several hours after Donald Trump's campaign manager warned Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid to be careful "in a legal sense" after he released a statement calling the president-elect a "sexual predator," Reid's spokesman criticized Trump for trying to "silence his critics with the threat of legal action."

“It only took five days for President-elect Trump to try to silence his critics with the threat of legal action. This should shock and concern all Americans," Adam Jentleson, Reid's deputy chief of staff, said in a statement released Sunday.

“Trump has always used threats and intimidation to silence his critics," Jentleson continued. "Now he wants to silence a discussion of the acts of hate and threats of violence being committed in his name across the country. Silencing this discussion normalizes hate and intimidates the victims."

On Sunday morning, Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway, appearing on "Fox News Sunday" with host Chris Wallace, said she found Reid's public comments about Trump and other Republicans "to be beyond the pale."

"He should be very careful about characterizing somebody in a legal sense. He thinks — he thinks he's just being some kind of political pundit there, but I would say be very careful about the way you characterize it," Conway said to Wallace.

Conway then tried to backtrack from her comments, saying she was not suggesting Trump would sue the Nevada Democrat but was calling "for responsibility and maturity and decency for somebody who has held one of the highest positions in our government, in a country of more than 300 million people."

Daas Torah's voter recommendation: It has damaged the claim of Divine inspiration and truth. Please talk me off of a religious cliff

I received this letter before the elections and just obtained permission to post it. It is a further extension of the weakening of emunas chachomim that resulted from the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter and is a genuine problem.

Hi
I've been a regular reader of your site for some time. One thing which is unique about your blog is your willingness to stake out unpopular opinions. I was further heartened to see you take a critical stance on Trump.
So, I'm turning to you. Perhaps you can talk me off of this ledge.
'Daas Torah' has been heavily involved in this election. I've heard at least 4 different versions.
1. R Yeruchem Olshin said to vote for Trump. He compared it to Dovid and Shaul. Shaul sinned in public and lost the melucha, Dovid sinned privately and retained the melucha. Hilary is publicly corrupt, so don't vote for her. Trump sinned privately so vote for him.

2. R' Shmuel Kamentsky. R' Edelstein called America 'asray d'mar' (mar indeed) and r' Kamenetsky' view should be followed.

3. R' Yitzchok Yehuda Blum, respected rov in cleveland. He said Hilary is a rotzayach (apparently there are some conspiracy theories that have her murdering up to 50 people). He also said that she will put Jewish lives in danger; therefore it's pikuch nefesh. 
4. Satmer rebbe. Trump is a supporter of Israel. Since Israel is bad, Trump is bad too.
 5. Skvere rebbe. Vote for Hillary.

None of these views reflect the Torah's outlook. They are riddled with logical inconsistencies and rooted in hate. How has Trump sinned privately? Everything the man does is l'fnai kol aam v'aydah. How is giving an irresponsible demagogue access to nuclear bombs not pikuch nefesh? Satmer and Skver are hoping to capitalize on their existing relationships with Hilary to keep the gravy train rolling. 
I'm left with this: The concept of Da'as Torah is a farce. It's a masquerade. It allows rabbanim to take their personal political views and package it a divine mandate. I used to think that we're a nation of smart people. Now I see that we're just like everyone else. We are just as susceptible to bias and hate as all the other nations. 
And so, how can I rely on anything I hear? How can I trust anything I hear from our Rabbanim? How can I be sure that every utterance is not influenced by personal beliefs? Where is the limit to blindness and bias? How can we claim the halachic process is pure? How can we claim to authentically transmit our heritage? How can we be sure it has been shaped and molded by personal opinion and prejudice? How can we be sure personal opinion hasn't infiltrated our halacha? 
And if the masses blindly follow the rabbinic dicta, how can we trust mesorah at all? Instead of critically evaluating issues, like sheep, the masses just followed along. I used to rely on the Kuzari to explain Sinaic revelation - no one would make such a claim etc. Now I see that the opposite is true. The bigger the claim, the more outlandish, the more exaggerated something is, the higher the chance of people accepting it. Instead of using reason and truth as guiding principles, people rely on bias and superstition and exaggerations that align with their deeply held prejudice. 
I'd like to somehow still believe. Please help me walk away from this cliff

Sunday, November 13, 2016

In a recent post heading I mentioned Donald Trump as the Saviour of America - and I meant this literally

The following is a post regarding how to understand my post "I want to belief in the tooth fairy, killer clowns, Satanic abuse rings, the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt heter and that Donald Trump is the Saviour of America."

I meant the title to mean exactly what it says. A criticism of those who view Trump - not as potentially good and competent president but one who will literally save America in some mysterious manner. There was a similar attitude to Obama at the beginning of his presidency when he won the Nobel Peace Prize - even though he hadn't done anything to deserve it. It just was assumed he would get around to it because the expectations about him were so high. My correspondent disagrees and says that my readership understood it to be that I rejected the possibility of Trump being even a competent president. In short this is a question of reading comprehension. I had reiterated that I had meant this literally and was not rejecting Trump's potential to be a good president in a comment to the post. Nevertheless my correspondent asked that I explicitly bring up this issue.

============================================

Guest Post
I sent the following ‘warning’ in an email to Daas Torah regarding the Post, ‘I want to belief in the tooth fairy, killer clowns, Satanic abuse rings, the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt heter and that Donald Trump is the Saviour of America.’:
A Warning
Rabbi, conflating the hope people have for Donald Trump, the President Elect of the United States with belief in ‘killer clowns, the tooth fairy Satanic abuse rings, and the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt heter’, damages your credibly vis-脿-vis the Heter. With the Heter issue, you have been careful to distinguish between opinion and fact. As certain as you are that Trump is ‘insane’, unfit for the Presidency; your certitude is just an opinion. On a subtextual level, the above mentioned conflation relegates a Halachic certainly, i.e., the worthlessness of the Heter, to the realm of speculation.
Dass Torah wrote a new Post challenging my ‘warning’. DT posted my warning and responded:
An example of concerns which motivated my publishing of this post is an email I just received in response to this post. My unwillingness to accept that Donald Trump is the Saviour of America - is viewed as undermining my credibility that has been established by what I have published here - most of which is carefully documented. I find it unsettling that belief in Donald Trump as Saviour is the litmus test of a person's integrity and intellectual achievement. We are not talking about Donald Trump as a possibly competent president but as Saviour!
I responded with the following email:
I realize that I should have been more explicit in the ‘warning’ I sent you regarding your Post, ‘I want to belief in the tooth fairy, killer clowns, Satanic abuse rings, the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt heter and that Donald Trump is the Saviour of America.’. Please give this a fair reading. You are blogging, not submitting a treatise on Eschatology; thus, your readership understands your use of ‘Saviour’ in a colloquial sense, in an informal, conversational manner. This would lead to the logical conclusion that you were referring to Trump supporters in general, and would assume that you are conflating, comparing those who have hope and faith in Trump (like me) with those who believe in the ‘tooth fairy' and the legitimacy of the 'Heter’. This explains the push back you experienced. 
Obviously, you used the term in its explicit, formal sense, meaning “…those who in fact think he is the Saviour…”, as you posted in a reply. That is your opinion. However, Trumps negatives are so high, that this group of ‘meshiachists’, if it exists at all, are a miut of a miut. Thus, those who respect your ‘integrity and intellectual achievement’, as I certainly do, took it as a dvar pshut that you meant ‘Saviour’ to be understood implicitly, colloquially.
In the last sentence in the ‘warning’, I used the term ‘subtextual’ with great care. Subtext refers to the implicit meaning of a text. Thus, I repeat, “On a subtextual level, the above mentioned conflation relegates a Halachic certainly, i.e., the worthlessness of the Heter, to the realm of speculation.”
My Daf Yomi shiur is a bit behind. We learned the other day, on daf 30 or 31 the source that one is permitted to give tochacha to his Rebbi. I feel that unfortunately I am in that position here. I submit with great respect and fondness, that you damaged your credibility with the Post in question. You are a very tenacious man. However, tenacity can be confused with obsessiveness. In my humble opinion, continuing to issue Posts regarding Trump is not in your best interests.

Dass Torah response:

I understand what you are saying - but I disagree with your ready assumption that Saviour wasn't meant literally. After all the same thing happened with Obama. He wasn't viewed as just a positive person and I think that Trump is viewed by many in the same way. I didn't think that you meant it literally either but it provided a basis to illustrate the issue.
My response:
Rabbi you misunderstood my email. Your readership is sophisticated enough to think that if one truly believes that Trump is the Savior in a literal manner, that such a deranged individual would also belief in the 'tooth fairy', etc. Thus, if they assumed you meant Saviour in a colloquial way, there would have been no disagreement. However, your readership pushed back, taking issue with you, Why?, Because they assumed you meant Saviour in the literal sense. . I think you should reread the email I sent earlier in this new light.
DT’s response which led to my Guest Post is as follows: 
The only way this will be resolved is if you post a response on the blog and ask the question as to how my heading was understood. Now let’s hear from Daas Torah’s readership.

Donald Trump keeps up media attacks with lies about New York Times


President-elect Donald Trump sounded very much like presidential candidate Donald Trump on Sunday morning in a pair of misleading tweets about the New York Times.


Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Wow, the @nytimes is losing thousands of subscribers because of their very poor and highly inaccurate coverage of the "Trump phenomena"
4:16 PM - 13 Nov 2016


Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
The @nytimes sent a letter to their subscribers apologizing for their BAD coverage of me. I wonder if it will change - doubt it?
4:43 PM - 13 Nov 2016

According to the New York Times Co.'s latest earnings report, the number of print copies it sold in the third quarter was down from the same period in 2015, but the decline was more than offset by 116,000 new digital-only subscriptions. Overall, third-quarter circulation revenue rose 3 percent; through the first nine months of the year, circulation revenue was up 2.8 percent.

Since Trump launched his White House campaign in June 2015, digital-only news subscriptions to the Times have increased 35 percent, to more than 1.3 million.

Trump's suggestion that the Times is bleeding readers because of “very poor and highly inaccurate coverage” does not square with the numbers.

The president-elect's interpretation of a letter to subscribers as an apology for bad coverage is a stretch. Times publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. wrote Friday that one of the “inevitable questions” in the aftermath of the campaign is: “Did Donald Trump's sheer unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters?”

“As we reflect on this week's momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism,” Sulzberger added.[...]

Yet Sulzberger's full letter makes clear that he was simply renewing a promise that he believes the Times fulfilled during the campaign.

“We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign,” he wrote. “You can rely on the New York Times to bring the same level of fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team.”

We’ve seen two Donald Trumps. Who will show up at the White House?


We’ve seen two Donald Trumps in the past week. Which one will arrive at the White House on Inauguration Day?

The combative Trump who called President Obama “a disaster” and Hillary Clinton “a criminal,” or the gracious Trump who praised them after he won?

The vengeful Trump who vowed that Paul Ryan would pay if he didn’t support him fully, or the party-unifying Trump who met cordially with Ryan last week?

The prickly Trump who tweeted on Thursday about “professional protesters, incited by the media,” or the statesmanlike Trump who tweeted on Friday that he loved the demonstrators’ passion?

We won’t know for a while. It’s possible that Trump hasn’t decided yet.

More than most presidents-elect, Trump is still something of a blank slate — despite the millions of words he has spoken over the last year. He’s never held public office. He’s still an outsider in his own party. His attachment to his purported policies is unclear and subject to constant revision.

Almost the only thing we know for certain about Trump is that he is driven by a boundless will to win whatever competition he’s in. “My life has been about winning,” he told an interviewer last year.

But “winning” was easy to define in the heat of a presidential campaign, with an election as its goal.

The test Trump faces now is an essay question, not a zero-sum contest: What will his definition of “winning” be once he’s president?

We’ll get an early clue from one of his first decisions: whom he names as White House chief of staff.

Trump aides last week said two of the leading candidates were Stephen K. Bannon, the chief strategist for his presidential campaign, and Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee.

They represent a clear choice between two versions of Republicanism in the new Trump era. Bannon, head of the Breitbart News organization, is an apostle of the downmarket, blue-collar populism that helped Trump win millions of votes in the Rust Belt — and a defender of the “alt-right” camp that attracted white nationalists to the campaign. Priebus, by contrast, is a more conventional conservative, a Wisconsin party operative who built an effective organization at the RNC. Bannon has suggested that Ryan should be ousted as speaker of the House; Priebus is a Ryan fan.

The divide is more than ideological. Bannon and Priebus represent competing definitions of what a Trump presidency would be about and how it would govern.[...]

Trump was remarkably flexible during the campaign, even on issues at the core of his candidacy. His proposed ban on Muslims entering the United States turned into a milder suggestion for “extreme vetting.” His vow to deport millions of undocumented immigrants became a decision for “a later date.” His threat to withdraw U.S. troops from Europe, he said, was mostly a negotiating chip.

But in the weeks before his inauguration, he has to make real decisions that aren’t so easily undone: the appointments to his White House staff and other top jobs. An ancient rule in Washington holds that personnel is policy. Through his choices, we will soon discover what kind of president this chimerical man may turn out to be.