Iran steps up war of
words against Israel
Fri. 22 Jul 2005
Tehran, Iran, Jul. 22 – A news agency run by the office of Iran’s Supreme
Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei claimed that Israel was behind the assassination
of 7,000 Iraqi officials since the end of the 2003 U.S.-led war on Iraq.
Fars News Agency used as its source several unnamed “Iraqi security
officials”, who claimed that the Iraqi security had uncovered a “terrorist
network with ties to Israel”. It said that tools and devices
belonging to the Israeli military and a list of
assassination targets were found in an insurgent safehouse.
The latest accusations against Israel in Iran’s state-run media follow
remarks by Ayatollah Khamenei, who told Iraq’s visiting Prime Minister
Ibrahim Al-Jaafari earlier this week that “it would
not be surprising to find that Zionist agents are involved in the turmoil in
Iraq”, the official news agency, IRNA, reported.
Eretz ISREALHELL Babylon proper of
Shinar of shem the "Name"
1: And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
2: And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
3: And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.
4: And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven;
and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
5: And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
6: And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
7: Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
8: So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
9: Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
10: These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:
Fars news agency had previously claimed that the July
7 London bombings were planned by the Jewish state. “The London
bombings were also part of the mischief by Israel”, it said. “The Zionist
entity is using the mask of Al-Qaeda and [Abu Musab] Zarqawi to hunt down
diplomats based in Iraq”.
“Israel is now in control of religious extremists, particularly the Wahabis
and the Salafis, in Arabia and North Africa”, it added.
In recent days, Iran’s state-run media and press have been full of stories
portraying Israel as being behind the London bombings.
The semi-official daily Jomhouri-Islami wrote on July 7 that “The terrorist
attacks in London have been seen by some analysts as a pre-planned action with
specific objectives by the security services of Israel
and the U.S., with the cooperation or connivance of British security
“Hours after the blasts in London, the Press Association quoted an Israeli
embassy official in London as saying that British
security officials had warned the embassy of terrorist attacks only hours
before the bombings”, Jomhouri Islami wrote.
“The racist Zionists
stepped up their occupation after the September 11, 2001, incidents. The
Zionist regime’s actions after the attacks in the U.S., Madrid and London were
such that they must have been planned long in advance…The best tools
for the Zionists and the Americans would be to use groups like Al-Qaeda or its
European branches for such attacks, which will be impossible to prove”, the
semi-official daily, which is close to Ayatollah Khamenei, added.
Analysts see the rise in anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic
invective in Iran’s state-run media after the election of ultra-conservative
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as being linked to the more aggressive posture of Iranian
leaders in the region and on the international scene.
… Moshe Tendler, an Orthodox rabbi and biologist who teaches at
Yeshiva University, was one of the leading spokesmen against
the Oslo Accords. In a long phone conversation, Tendler said that
for several weeks he has been trying to enlist Orthodox rabbis and
organizations for the struggle against the evacuation. He says that not
only is he encountering refusal and evasion - but many are accusing him of
interfering in Israeli politics.
Tendler, who has 53 grandchildren and great-grandchildren living in
Israel, some in settlements, participated in a visit to Gush Katif
organized by Moskowitz. He says he speaks out everywhere, but nobody is
listening, and he tells his rabbinical colleagues that even the Shin Bet
security services and Israel Defense Forces commanders say that after the
disengagement the terrorism will resume.
UNLESS THERE IS NOAHIDE ENSLAVEMENT
Tendler says that U.S. Orthodox rabbis and organizations are not
willing to join a public struggle against the evacuation, and points out
that all of a sudden, the religious organizations have decided that a
protest against uprooting Jews from their homes is not politically
Tendler recently turned to the leaders of Young Israel, a mainstream
Orthodox organization that includes dozens of synagogues in North America,
and suggested that they use their influence to organize a protest march in
Washington against the disengagement. He says that with the help of other
organizations, Young Israel could enlist 50,000 Jews for such a march, but
that they ignored his suggestion, not even bothering to reply to it.
The head of Young Israel, Rabbi Pesach Lerner, says in response that he
doesn't recall such a request by Tendler. Lerner confirms that Orthodox
rabbis are refraining from openly opposing the disengagement.
Lerner adds that the silence of the rabbis reflects "fatigue and
confusion." He says that people are simply
tired and confused, and don't understand exactly what's going on.
Sharon was the "father of the settlements," and suddenly he is
uprooting them, he says.
Lerner is trying to enlist support for Gush Katif settlers outside the
Orthodox organizations. He says that synagogues and other
bodies in the U.S. raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay
for the buses that transported the thousands of Israelis who visited Gush
Katif during Pesach.
Tendler is particularly angry at the Union of Orthodox Jewish
Congregations of America (OU), which is considered the most influential
Orthodox organization there. He says the OU is has been deliberately
refraining from expressing an opinion on the disengagement. A few weeks
ago, the organization initiated a videoconference with the head of the
Disengagement Administration, Yonatan Bassi, with the participation of
Orthodox rabbis and activists.
"The discussion was an embarrassing failure," says one rabbi
who participated in the meeting.
OU president Steve Savitsky and his deputy, Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Weinreb,
say they have reservations about the disengagement plan
and are very concerned about the planned evacuation of settlements and the
uprooting of thousands of Jews. But they say that their organization is
adhering to its long-standing policy of supporting official positions of
the Israeli government.
Savitsky says that senior Israeli officials told him that Israel will
not implement the road map
before the Palestinian terrorist organizations are dismantled.
Noahide Law imposed
He admits that the OU is upset about the disengagement, but says they
support the government and the prime minister.
Rabbi Shraga Schoenfeld, one of the most well-known and admired rabbis
in New York, has serious complaints about his colleagues. He says that in
general, U.S. Orthodox rabbis are "paralyzed." He says that in
private conversation, rabbis express opposition to the uprooting of
settlements, but that his attempts to organize a public protest have been
fruitless. He says that the rabbis are afraid to speak out, and adds that Sharon
has apparently "bewitched" them.
Schoenfeld is the former head of the Rabbinical Council of American
(RCA), the largest organization of Orthodox rabbis in North America.
Recently, he says, he suggested to the heads of the RCA that they publish
a statement protesting against the uprooting of settlements and the
evacuation of settlers. He says that the proposal was rejected firmly and
out of hand. The heads of the organization told him that the Israeli Chief
Rabbinate had refrained from taking an official stand against the
Recently, he turned to the leaders of Agudath Israel in America, an
ultra-Orthodox organization, and tried to convince them to publish a
protest against the disengagement. They replied, he says, that educational
issues are more important to them than the evacuation of Gush Katif.
Rabbi Marc Schneier, former chair of the New York Board of Rabbis, says
that the passivity of local rabbis on the issue is to a great extent the
result of lessons they learned from the murder of prime minister Yitzhak
Rabin in 1995. He says that they discovered that words and declarations
can be very dangerous. Schneier says that one of the reasons why rabbis
are afraid of declarations against the evacuation of Gush Katif and
refrain from criticism of Sharon is that the
disengagement plan is supported
by U.S. President George W. Bush.
Quite a number of rabbis are angry about the support of the Conference
of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the U.S. Jewish umbrella
organization, for the disengagement. The head of the conference, Malcolm
Hoenlein, is Orthodox.
"I don't understand what happened to the Presidents
Conference," says one rabbi. "I don't
recall that the conference supported the Oslo Accords. But it decided to
support a plan that is worse and
more serious than the Oslo Accords."
Rabbis who were interviewed for this article expressed a strong desire
for authoritative spiritual leadership;
in their opinion, its absence has created an oppressive vacuum.
"There is no Orthodox rabbi in America today who is accepted by most
of his colleagues and who is capable of ordering that a Torah scroll be
taken out into a city street as a step of protest and sorrow," says a
veteran New York rabbi, who was one of the main spokesmen against the Oslo
It is no wonder that some of the interviewees long for the late
Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, who dictated priorities and
patterns of response on current issues to much of U.S. Orthodox Jewry, for
example, on the question of who is a Jew.
"Since the death of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, there is nobody to lead
a public debate on an issue that involves Israeli security," one of
the rabbis said.
Give us a king they cry, "give us the
Where is the Sanhedrin? for July?
Appointing A King
by Rav Mosheh Lichtenstein
Having analyzed in previous shiurim some of the different
aspects inherent in monarchy, the time has come to direct
our attention to individual components of the halakhic system of government.
Which of the various possibilities for selecting a king does
the Torah endorse? Actually, the formulation of the Torah itself is ambiguous.
On the one hand, the narrative states that the people will
set a king upon themselves (Devarim 17:14 - "Ve-amarta asima alai
melekh"). On the other hand, the king is described by the Torah, in the
very next verse, as being chosen by God.
In the Sumerian Doctrine of the
Sanhedrin this god who is not the ONE LORD GOD, is the chief of the devils, the
The Ramban, who points out
the discrepancy between the two verses, quotes the opinion of "the
commentators" (da'at ha-mefarshim) who explain that the choice of the king
is in God's hands, made known to us by means of the urim ve-tumim or the
prophet. The first verse, which describes the people as choosing their king
should be understood to mean that they shall coronate
the person chosen by God. The Ramban himself, however, believes that it is the
people who appoint the monarch, offering various other suggestions to understand
the phrase that the king will be God's choice.
It is he the Creator who sends this
false Christ upon an ungodly people and to Judge them according to their laws
A third approach is adopted by the Rambam who combines the
two elements, ruling that both the Sanhedrin
(High Court) and a navi (prophet) are required.
The Sanhedrin Revived beat from the sea
Revelation of Jesus the Christ chapter 13, and the Dragon will give this king
his seat and power and authority
Actually, the Rambam is fusing together two Tannaitic
sources. The Tosefta (Sanhedrin
3:4) states that the Sanhedrin
is required to appoint a king, while the Sifri explains that the prophet
determines God's choice.
The false prophet who will call fire
down from heaven in the sight of his beast
Rather than assuming that the two sources disagree, along the
lines of the Ramban and "the commentators," the Rambam posits a system
which accepts both elements as necessary to appoint a monarch. What is the
relationship between the functions? Obviously, if the navi selects a person as
being worthy of the position, the Sanhedrin
would not be able to contradict his choice, for they cannot dare claim that
their knowledge or information is better than his. "For man can see the
eyes, but God sees into the heart." Therefore, we must understand the
Rambam as requiring human participation in order to
establish an additional source of authority. Though the prophet is the ultimate
search committee, whose ruling is final, the Sanhedrin
must be involved as representing the people.
Their acceptance and appointment of the king establishes the
monarch as deriving his authority from the people's election.
1: And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
2: And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the
dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
do not function here in their judicial but rather in their representative
capacity. By involving the Sanhedrin
in addition to the prophet, the Rambam roots the monarchical powers in the will
and acceptance of the nation.
What great folly they have raised upon
their unbelieving anti-Christ nation and the earth apostate and oblivious
The same point is explicit in a gemara in Berakhot (55a),
though in somewhat of an aggadic context.
"R. Isaac said: We must not appoint a leader over a
community without first consulting it, as it says: 'See, the Lord has called
by name Bezalel, the son of Uri.' The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses:
Do you consider Bezalel suitable? He replied: Sovereign of the Universe, if
you think him suitable, surely I must also! Said [God] to him: All the same,
go and consult them. He went and asked Israel:
Do you consider Bezalel suitable? They replied: If the Holy One, blessed be
He, and you consider him suitable, surely we must!"
Thus they maketh them a prophet
Even though the Almighty has chosen Betzalel, He requests
that the people also participate in the selection. Moshe's reaction is that
since God Himself has made the decision, what need is there for any additional
input? After all, the proper choice has certainly been made.
being they they say in their law that
God said they are as gods, the walah, there you have it, built in authority.
Except the sad part is, he by whom the Laws were given they Crucified and cried
out then as well as this time "Give us a king to be over us" then they
cried, Crucify him and give us the "ROBBER". They deny that God has
come in the flesh, and their god is not the Father, but the murderer from the
beginning, who has no SON. Apostate Judeo Churchinsanity are now in bed with
their whoredoms and they too say the non-god of the jews is now their god, and
they are also anti-Christ, they say LORD LORD but their mammonizing fleshite
hearts are far fromthe LORD the WORD GOD
The Almighty, though, responds that the participation of the
people is necessary, not in order to select the best candidate, but in order to
provide him with the necessary mandate for his authority.
Majority vote....See Heil Bu-shit-lers
[The idea of the Sanhedrin
functioning as the representative body of Am Yisrael, at least in the Rambam's
doctrine, is well established and has been advanced by various Acharonim, basing
themselves upon the Rambam's formulations in Hilkhot Terumot 1:2 and Hilkhot
Melakhim 5:2. See Rav Soloveitchik's article on kiddush ha-chodesh in Kovetz
Chidushei Torah and Rav Goren's discussion in the opening essay of his sefer
Meishiv Milchama, amongst others. See also Prof. Blidstein's book, "Ekronot
Medini'im," p. 58. Actually, as pointed out by Prof. Blidstein, the Rambam
himself already formulated this very idea in his Peirush Ha-mishnayot on Horayot
(1:6). There, the Rambam states explicitly that the Sanhedrin
is "Kahal Yisrael bi-khlaliyuto" (The Congregation of Israel
in its entirety).]
14: And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall.
Having concluded that the Rambam requires a mandate from the
people and therefore rules that the Sanhedrin
must be involved in the selection, we must now look into the role of the
prophet. Is he serving only as a search committee, better
equipped than mere mortals to identify the proper candidate, but not
invested with any special authority, or does he also serve as the representative
of Divine authority? In other words, is the source of monarchical power rooted
only in a human source of authority or is a Heavenly source required as well?
The implications of this for our current situation are obvious. If the only
necessary source of authority is the decision of the people, then it is
available nowadays, no less than in yesteryear, and open to democratic as well
as monarchical heads of government. If, however, Divine authority is also
required, then we can only grant legitimacy by means of a
prophet or the urim ve-tumim. (Other possible sources of authority for
democratic functions will be discussed in future installments, b"n.
The halakhic expression of this query is the issue whether a
navi (prophet) is required only le-khatchila
or also be-di'eved. If we support the former position that the navi is no more
than a search committee, then his involvement is not crucial.
sorry folks the false prophet comes
after Sanhedrin abnd the false king Moshiach...Because he is not of the Father
Rv:13:11: And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
If he can assist in the selection process - thank God;
if not, then Beth Din
(the court) will apply their own judgment.
For, even since Ezekeil dug into the
Wall and saw the abominations the seventy ancients have done in the house of
ISREALHELL, they have not had their Authority from the Living God of heaven.
When they Crucified the LORD they served the Dragon, and that is why they hate
Their god is the Mystery Babylon gods
of Sumerian doctrine unto their Dragon
However, the latter position maintains that God must
grant His authority, and therefore the navi is indispensable. The Keren Ora, in
his commentary on Horayot (11b) seems to suggest that this issue is a machloket
(dispute) between the Talmud Bavli and the Yerushalmi.
The tradition which Makes the WORD of
GOD of none effect to them and their Sanhedrin of the Dragon, this Mishnah Torah
of ORAL Lies
The Bavli is of the opinion that any leader accepted by
the people is considered a king, while the Yerushalmi, which states that all
Israelite kings after Yehu were thieves (since they were not appointed by a
prophet), insists upon the authority of the navi alone to grant the mantle of
And Both are Liars and in complete err
and lead the children into the abyss of the dragon
He also quotes a Tosafot (Sanhedrin
20b) that requires election by God in order to exercise royal authority, since
Divine authority alone can grant one man power over his fellow man. In contrast
to this Tosafot, the Rambam in his commentary on the Mishna (Keritut 1:1) raises
various scenarios regarding the accession of a prospective king, including
popular acclaim, use of force, appointment by a navi, the Sanhedrin
or Kohen Gadol, all of which are recognized as granting him royal authority.
The Only Power comes from the KING of
KINGS the IAM, Jesus the Christ, Our LORD and OUR GOD the same redeemer from the
beginning the same Word from the start. Whom they Replaced with their
"replacement Theology" unto the Sumerian gods they worship by their
Two other well-known sources who address this issue are
the Radvaz (Melakhim 3:8), who opines that a king may be chosen either by a
prophet or by the people, and Rav Kook, who ponders this issue in a teshuva (Mishpat
Kohen 144:15) and tends to accept the first option, that a navi is dispensable,
thus paving his way for legitimizing the Hasmonean kingdom.
see JOR-DAN the Hashemites, obedient
Thus, the question of the necessity of Divine involvement in
the appointment of a king is the subject of a (possible) machloket between the
Bavli and the Yerushalmi and between Rambam and Tosafot, and is also the subject
of further discussion in Acharonim.
Having presented the above mentioned opinions, we cannot yet
conclude this segment without connecting them to the issues and concepts dealt
with in previous shiurim. Throughout all of the above discussion, we did not
disbetween different functions of royalty. However, as we explained in previous
shiurim, it is obvious that not all halakhot (Law)
relating to a melekh (King) can be lumped together
without analyzing their essential nature. Therefore, we must now proceed to
review our conclusions in light of this. As a starting point, we may take a
remark of Rav Kook's in the closing lines of the responsum cited above. Having
been questioned as to the right of the Hasmoneans to wage war (a royal
prerogative) and concluding that they were legitimate rulers since appointment
by a navi is dispensable, he adds the following:
wars and murders are their
primary thoughts. Then when they "REVEAL" their murderer he will
murder the saints of Jesus the Christ wonderfully
"Aside from this, it seems reasonable that at a time
when there is no king, these privileges revert to the hands of the nation as a
whole, since the prerogatives of monarchy also pertain to the general
condition of the nation. In particular, it seems that every Judge who arises
in Israel has the
status of a king, as regards several royal prerogatives, particularly those
pertaining to governance of the nation." (Mishpat Kohen, 144)
The truth of his remarks rings loud and clear. As long as we
are concerned with the public weal - what we defined as issues of malkhut
(government) rather than personal status - it is eminently logical that the
people have the ability to grant the authority and prerequisites of power to a
ruler (or, in the absence of a monarchy, to any governing administration set up
by the people). To the extent that a navi is needed, it is only for matters
pertaining to the king's personal status. Conversely, if we accept the claim
that the Davidic kingdom confers a personal sacral status, that clearly can be
authorized by Divine authorization alone.
How they set up the Fall of secular
zion, Aholibah the whore Judah, Sharon, to place False king Moshiach of their
Thus, the sources cited above must be analyzed as to which
element of monarchy they are dealing with. Since both the Bavli and Yerushalmi
are discussing the issue of korban nasi
(leader's sacrifice), they are obviously disagreeing; however, it is not
necessarily a machloket regarding the legitimacy of the governing authority, but
rather a narrower question of whether the korban is a function of personal
status or abuse of power. The Radvaz makes his comment regarding the halakha of
mored be-malkhut; Tosafot discuss mishpat ha-melekh (royal privileges); the
Rambam deals with the halakha of anointing a king after a
and Rav Kook is confronted by the issue of
Regarding each, a separate analysis must be made. At
the moment, we will not undertake this task; however, we must point out that the
issue at stake may be the understanding of each particular function and its
relationship to the varying royal elements, rather than a sweeping machloket as
to the need for a navi to legitimize royal power and person.
In conclusion, it is worthwhile to point out that the Ramban
also claims, basing himself on the phrase, "Ve-amarta asima alai melekh,"
that the people's request of a king
is itself part of the mitzva, (Law requiremement)
requirement which would indicate that the source of authority is rooted in the
people, who must express their
willingness to establish a human king over themselves.
Give us the "ROBBER they
News Part 240
14 "The Protocols of the Illuminated Elders of Tzion"
section 16 "The Beast Has Risen"