[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

International News
See other International News Articles

Title: American-Israeli Rabbi compares Obama to Haman
Source: Jerusalem Post
URL Source: http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Am ... compares-Obama-to-Haman-395457
Published: Mar 30, 2015
Author: GREER FAY CASHMAN, JEREMY SHARON
Post Date: 2015-03-30 09:47:44 by redleghunter
Keywords: None
Views: 1567
Comments: 19

Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, chief rabbi of Efrat, on Saturday night compared US President Barack Obama to Haman and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Mordechai.

Speaking at the Jerusalem Great Synagogue, the American-born Riskin said that he could not understand what was going through Obama’s mind.

“The president of the United States is lashing out at Israel just like Haman lashed out at the Jews,” he said.

“I’m not making a political statement,” he clarified, “I’m making a Jewish statement.”

When a woman in the audience shouted out that he was being disrespectful to the US president, she was booed by the crowd. Riskin said he didn’t need any help from the audience.

“I am being disrespectful because the president of the United States was disrespectful to my prime minister, to my country, to my future and to the future of the world.”

Just as Mordechai was focused on saving the Jews of Persia from destruction, he said, so Netanyahu is focused on saving Israel and the world from destruction.

He said more than once throughout his address that he was proud of Netanyahu, and added that he did the right thing in speaking to Congress “even if it angered Obama.”

Riskin drew an analogy between the conquest of Babylonia by ancient Persia and the armed conflict between Iran and Iraq.

In relation to Iran, he said that the only difference between Iran and the Islamic State was who would be using power to control the world.

Closer to home, he said that one of Israel’s greatest tragedies is that the rabbinate is enmeshed in politics.

Alluding to Shas leader Arye Deri, Riskin declared that he didn’t know how someone who went to jail for bribery could be put back into the same place without ever admitting to his guilt or expressing remorse.

Riskin insisted that this was not compatible with Jewish philosophy.

“What we’re all about is compassionate righteousness and moral justice,” he said. “We have to have a free voice that is not politically fettered.”

Riskin was not the only prominent rabbi to criticize Obama over the weekend for his diplomatic policies.

The World Values Network, founded and run by American rabbi and public figure Shmuley Boteach, took out a full page advertisement in The New York Times on Saturday comparing the deal being drawn up with Iran on its nuclear project to the Munich Agreement signed in 1938 by British prime minister Neville Chamberlain with Adolf Hitler, widely seen as an act of appeasement that emboldened the Nazi leader.

The Times ad bore a picture of a pensive-looking Obama with an inset picture of Chamberlain holding aloft a copy of the Munich Agreement that he infamously declared to represent “peace for our time,” just 11 months before Hitler ordered the invasion of Poland marking the beginning of the World War II.

The ad described Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as a “terror overlord” and a “Hitler-wannabe,” and said that the deal being discussed with Iran would “enable the world’s foremost sponsor of terror to become a nuclear power.”

It called on Obama to demand that Khamenei personally and publicly repudiate his threats against Israel, that Iran cease support for terrorist groups and for the US president not to approve a deal that “allows the potentially catastrophic one-year-weapons-breakout period, which endangers Israel, the Middle East, America and the world.


Poster Comment:

For those who want a profile on the Haman of the Bible: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Esther+1&version=KJV

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 11.

#5. To: redleghunter (#0)

The Rabbi's analogy is bad. Haman wrote up the order to exterminate the Jews. He didn't just despise them, he wanted them all dead and sought to do it directly by legislation he authored.

That's not Obama. Obama is not actively seeking to slaughter the Israelis. He is simply indifferent to them.

The comparison with Neville Chamberlain is also quite imperfect. Chamberlain's performance at Munich was embarrassing, in hindsight. But Chamberlain saw Hitler's aggressiveness in taking more than the Sudentenland, and Chamberlain's government launched Britain's rearmament. It was Chamberlain who presided over the declaration of war on Germany over Poland. Chamberlain resigned just as the Germans were invading France, and Churchill took over just in time to preside over a disaster.

Still, the RAF, the Royal Navy and Army were put on a war footing and rearmed under Chamberlain.

Chamberlain made a grand strategic error in trusting Hitler would keep his agreement. That's true. France made the same error. So did Stalin. But Chamberlain was not completely blind. He saw Hitler break the terms of Munich. He rearmed his country. He drew the line at Poland and declared when Hitler attacked. He showed poor judgment at a crucial time, but the steps he took to rearm Britain DID put Britain in a position to be able to survive the onslaught, if only just.

Chamberlain really was an English patriot. He'd seen the horror of the First World War and wanted to avoid that for his country again, and if that cost some small countries some territory he was willing to trade their territory for peace, yes. But he was not a complete fool. He also rearmed Britain and prepared for a war that did come.

I don't see what Obama is doing as being really anything like Chamberlain. Chamberlain didn't CONNIVE at giving Hitler the Sudetenland. He recognized that the Germans did have a point: it was full of Germans, and World War I had ended with an ethnic sorting that left Germany with Germans outside its border. Hitler had a point. He didn't give over all of Czechoslovakia. Hitler took that - and Chamberlain knew that he could not deal with him anymore, and drew the line of war at Poland, and went to war too, even though he saw it was a disaster. And he rearmed Britain.

I don't see Obama's motives as being the same, and I don't see him taking the backup steps in case his policy fails. Chamberlain took a risk to avoid war, but he DID prepare for war. Obama? Not so much. He looks almost like an ADVOCATE for Iran against our ally.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-30   11:40:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Vicomte13 (#5)

Chamberlain really was an English patriot. He'd seen the horror of the First World War and wanted to avoid that for his country again, and if that cost some small countries some territory he was willing to trade their territory for peace, yes. But he was not a complete fool. He also rearmed Britain and prepared for a war that did come.

A strong argument can be made that Chamberlain's maneuvers actually brought Britain some time to catch up with Germany in rearming. Barely enough.

That doesn't really excuse Britain and France for failing to put a stop to Hitler when he took the Rhineland back. At that time, his hold on power was so shaky that he almost certainly would have fallen from power discredited if Britain and France had dispatched even a small force to eject German re-occupation of the Rhineland zone.

I always thought it was a lesson of doing the necessary thing when it is easy rather than wait until the threat is so much larger. But you can't really generalize such hindsight to grind out prescriptions for foreign policy. Hindsight has its limits in application to current circumstances. This is why discussions of Chamberlain and Hitler and Churchill and the Rhineland and Sudetanland may increase our scholarship of the era but not provide much illumination of which are the wisest choicest in policy today.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-30   11:47:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: TooConservative (#6)

always thought it was a lesson of doing the necessary thing when it is easy rather than wait until the threat is so much larger. But you can't really generalize such hindsight to grind out prescriptions for foreign policy. Hindsight has its limits in application to current circumstances. This is why discussions of Chamberlain and Hitler and Churchill and the Rhineland and Sudetanland may increase our scholarship of the era but not provide much illumination of which are the wisest choicest in policy today.

The wisest policy for FRANCE would have been to not declare war when Hitler took Poland, and to have sought to maintain the peace. If Hitler and Stalin want to kill each other, let them.

During that long war, rearm and prepare, and solidify an alliance with the UK and the USA. Then await developments. If Hitler could have overrun the USSR and avoided a war with the West, he probably would have done it. He didn't want war with Britain at all. And France? Well, France declared war on Germany. Had they not, the national honor over Poland would have been sorely tried. But the national honor ended up being wrecked by Vichy anyway. A lot of French lives would have been saved.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-30   12:29:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Vicomte13 (#7) (Edited)

If Hitler could have overrun the USSR and avoided a war with the West, he probably would have done it. He didn't want war with Britain at all. And France? Well, France declared war on Germany.

Hitler gave repeated indicators and statements that he would not go east until he neutralized the French threat in the west. He had a horror of the two-front war from WW I. Neutralizing France seemed to always be at the top of his list. He couldn't trust France not to attack while his forces were committed in the USSR.

And Hitler had a particular grudge against France over Versailles. Recall his little re-enactment of the German surrender in the same train car, only with the French surrendering in that forest clearing.

Besides, we're already way off-topic from the thread's article. This thread isn't the place to refight WW II with the usual pet theories.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-30   12:50:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: TooConservative (#8)

Hitler definitely perceived France as a threat. And Churchill perceived France as the great bulwark that would hold the German tide in the West while the forces of the Commonwealth, and eventually the USA, could be mustered.

Nobody expected the collapse of 1940. Nobody. It gave Hitler the opportunity to...go and blow himself up in Russia instead of in France.

But France wasn't going to go to war without Britain (or vice-versa).

It's an implausible "what if" that what were perceived as the two most powerful countries in the world at the time, the British and French Empires, would allow an upstart Germany to overrun an ally, Poland.

But suppose that Poland had backed down over Danzig. That certainly WAS possible. Danzig passes to Germany without war. East Prussia is reunited to the mainland.

Now what?

Europe is not at war, and Germany has the supplied frontage for an assault on Russia.

If Poland concedes Danzig, do the Germans invade anyway? If not, the French and British don't declare war.

Then what? Britain, France and Germany all supported Finland in the Winter War, but not directly. It was a difficult time because they were already at war with Germany.

If, however, no war with Germany was one, Stalin's blundering into Poland could well have touched off a pressure-releasing way for the three Western powers to cooperate against the Communists (whom all feared) while avoiding war with each other. The French and British were ready to send troops across Sweden; the Swedes were afraid of the Germans if they permitted it; and the Soviets. But if French, British and Germans were not at war and all were eager to protect Finland, once could easily see a British intervention to protect Petsamo, an allied (including Swedish) force to protect Finland by land, and the Germans plunging through the Baltic States to "liberate" them from the USSR while aiming at cutting the Soviet war resource hub at Leningrad.

A three way allied war with the Soviet Union could have occurred in Winter 1939, with Japan taking up the rear as well.

France would never declare war on Germany alone. And Britain wasn't going to without a pretext. The British didn't WANT a war, and Chamberlain was eager to avoid one. If by working with Mr. Hitler for the protection of Polish and Lithuanian sovereignty, Britain could avoid a war and the Tories could roll back the Communist threat...AND the Japanese could be kept off of British and French soil in the East...well, there were reasons why the war moment might pass.

Paradoxically, had there been no war with the West, the Jews might have survived. They were in labor camps, that is true, and that is bad. But those were like prisons. They didn't become DEATH camps until after 1942, once it became clear that Germany could not win. If Germany was going to win, the Final Solution may very well never have happened. And had Israel been declared anyway, Hitler may have been more than happy to ship every Jew in Eastern Europe to Israel to get rid of them.

A Hitler who had a path to his vision - which was the destruction of Communism and German living room in the East - may have been amenable to avoiding war with the West in order to pursue Russia.

Would the British and French Empires, though, have been willing to do that, or were they going to go to war no matter what?

It's all fascinating speculation.

Today, when dealing with ISIS, none of those speculations have any bearing. We're talking about radical Islam and Arabs and Persians, and Jews, not Western Europeans.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-30   13:08:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Vicomte13 (#9)

If Poland concedes Danzig, do the Germans invade anyway?

Yes.

It's all fascinating speculation.

And that's all it is.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-30   13:14:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: TooConservative (#10)

And that's all it is.

All historical "What if's" are counterfactual, of course.

There are other more plausible "What if's" that more likely could have happened. Probably not much use in discussing them, though, they just give people more things to fight about. People already fight about actual history, past and present. Counterfactuals give people even more to fight about.

The interesting thing about historical counterfactuals is that, looking backwards with greater vision, we can generally see the folly of decisions. Example: The Prussian decision, all alone, to declare war on Napoleon in 1806. Just the year before they saw Austria utterly euchered and surrender, and saw a Russian army wrecked and withdraw in tatters from Austria. And so Prussia, alone, decides to pro-actively declare war on France and march alone. How could the Prussians have POSSIBLY made such a calculation? Of course they were utterly routed. The "Army built by Frederick the Great", with all of the "Prussian military discipline", was blasted to pieces in a pair of battles. Then the whole country was overrun and conquered in under a year. Russia withdrew from the war and made peace, and stayed that way, until France invaded Russia.

You look at that, you look at what the Prussians had, and their forces, and their position. You look at what the French had, and their long string of victories, and you scratch your head and wonder what the Prussians could have possibly been thinking. How could they possibly have thought they had any chance at all against Napoleon? And yet they declared war on him anyway and marched, and were blown to smithereens and conquered.

The collapse of the French Army in 1940 is another one of those instances. Who could have foreseen that? Nobody did. Literally nobody. But there it was.

Given these sudden reversals in history, what can we do when looking at the world today? Well, we can look at the history of nations that wear themselves out with debt, and we can discern that things never end well for them.

We can look at our situation and wonder why we think it's different this time.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-30   13:29:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 11.

#12. To: Vicomte13 (#11) (Edited)

Counterfactuals give people even more to fight about.

If you want to debate historical comparisons, stick with Haman and Mordechai.

But they aren't as sexy as Nazis.

On Usenet, this thread would be closed and you would be declared the loser according to Godwin's law.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-30 13:36:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 11.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com