Origin of the word 'Hoax'

Michelango and Jewish symbols
Tue May 28, 2013 10:53 am (PDT) . Posted by: "Salomon L Vaz Dias" Well Judith, in the Vatican they just adore magic. Is their way though a hoax?

Origin of the word 'Hoax'
The word hoax first came into popular use sometime in the middle to late eighteenth century. It is thought to have been a contraction of the word hocus from the conjuror's term hocus pocus. The term hocus pocus itself first appeared in the early seventeenth century. It might have derived from the assumed name of a conjuror in the time of King James who called himself 'The Kings Majesties most excellent Hocus Pocus' because with the performance of every trick he used to call out the nonsense phrase, "Hocus pocus, tontus talontus, vade celeriter jubeo" (later magicians were known to use the phrase "Hax pax max deus adimax"). This phrase was itself probably an imitation (or mockery) of the phrase used by priests of the Church of Rome when they performed the act of transubstantiation, "hoc est corpus."

We all believe whatever we believe or?

Salomon

Is Islam Peaceful?

IS ISLAM PEACEFUL?
Thu May 16, 2013 4:39 am (PDT) . Posted by: "Rufina Mausenbaum" bernardetti _____

From: Denese Z

German's View on Islam - worth reading. This is by far the best explanation
of the Muslim terrorist situation I have ever read. His references to past
history are accurate and clear. Not long, easy to understand, and well worth
the read. The author of this email is Dr. Emanuel Tanya, a well-known and
well-respected psychiatrist.

A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a
number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people
were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward
fanaticism.

'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the return of
German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who
just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back
and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had
lost control, and the end of the world had come.

My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies
destroyed my factories.'

We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is
the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to
live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is
entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better,
and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the
globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is
the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting
wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or
tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire
continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder,
or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is
the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims
and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to
become suicide bombers.

The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent
majority,' is cowed and extraneous. Communist Russia was comprised of
Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were
responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority
were irrelevant. China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese
Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people..

The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering
sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia
in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million
Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet. And who can
forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the
majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our
powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:
peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.
Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because
like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the
fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans,
Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have
died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.

Now Islamic prayers have been introduced into Toronto and other public
schools in Ontario, and, yes, in Ottawa too while the Lord's Prayer was
removed (due to being so offensive?) The Islamic way may be peaceful for the
time being in our country until the fanatics move in.

In Australia, and indeed in many countries around the world, many of the
most commonly consumed food items have the halal emblem on them. Just look
at the back of some of the most popular chocolate bars, and at other food
items in your local supermarket. Food on aircraft have the halal emblem,
just to appease the privileged minority who are now rapidly expanding within
the nation's shores.

In the U.K, the Muslim communities refuse to integrate and there are now
dozens of "no-go" zones within major cities across the country that the
police force dare not intrude upon. Sharia law prevails there, because the
Muslim community in those areas refuse to acknowledge British law.

As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group
that counts -- the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this
email without sending it on, is contributing to the passiveness that allows
the problems to expand. So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on
and on! Let us hope that thousands, world-wide, read this and think about
it, and send it on - before it's too late.

And we are silent..

"NO AND NO"

From: Arlene Kushner
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 7:05 AM
To: A Kushner
Subject: From Israel: No and No!!

April 30, 2013
 
"No and No!!"
 
It gets more and more awful.  More disgusting.  More distorted.
 
The Times of Israel has the following headline this morning (emphasis added):
 
"In sea change, Arab League backs land swaps in peace talks"
 
http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-sea-change-arab-league-backs-land-swaps-in-peace-talks/
 
A sea change is defined as a marked change or a transformation.  But what we're looking at here is nothing of the sort.
 
Members of the Arab League, representing seven Arab nations, met with top US officials yesterday in Washington.  The topic of discussion was the "peace process" and ways in which the Arab nations might advance it. 
 
After the League delegation huddled for consultations at Blair House, Qatari Prime Minister Sheik Hamad Bin Jassem Al Thani announced "the possibility of 'comparable,' mutually agreed and 'minor' land swaps between the Israelis and the Palestinians."  (Emphasis added)
 
Note that "land swamps" are not agreed to firmly in principle.  There is a "possibility" of support for this, which means at the end of the day they might say, "Sorry, we won't do this after all."  After all, only seven of 22 nations of the League were represented here.
 
And even if they were to agree, in any case it would be "minor" swaps only.  Piddling. Only piddling. 
 
Most importantly, this entire notion is predicated upon an erroneous and unacceptable concept.
 
~~~~~~~~~~
 
Secretary of State Kerry, who seems to have staked his entire professional (sic) reputation on succeeding with the "peace process," gushed:
 
�We�ve had a very positive, very constructive discussion over the course of the afternoon, with positive results...�
 
He praised the League for the "important role it is playing, and is determined to play, in bringing about a peace in the Middle East."
 
~~~~~~~~~~
 
A bit of background is in order here:
 
The Arab League "Peace Plan" had originally been advanced by Saudi Arabia in 2002, then was adopted by the League, and subsequently "re-endorsed" by the League in 2007.  It was, and is, a horror:
 
If Israel will surrender all lands acquired in 1967, and provide for a "just" settlement of the Palestinian Arab refugee problem, based on UN General Assembly Resolution 194 -- which the Arab world interprets as giving the "refugees" "right of return," when in fact there is no such thing -- then the Arab world will "normalize" relations with Israel.  No specification of what normalization means re: diplomatic, security, economic interaction and ties.
 
Translation: If you will surrender the Temple Mount, and the Kotel, and the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hevron, and Shilo, and much more, including the Golan Heights.  And if you will return to the 1967 line [the Green Line], which, admittedly, was recognized by Security Council Resolution 242, passed after the Six Day War, as not providing a secure border.  And in addition, if you will take within your borders millions of so-called refugees, rendered radical and hostile by decades of UNRWA influence.  Then all 22 of the Arab states -- and not just "Palestine" -- will have some sort of ties with you.      
 
This was touted as a great opportunity for Israel, which would secure "normalization" with the whole Arab world in one fell blow.
 
There were to be no negotiations with this plan.  It was a take-it-or-leave-it deal.
 
~~~~~~~~~~
 
Israel rejected it out of hand.  Israel has legitimate rights to Judea and Samaria, based on a heritage that is more than 3,000 years old, as well as legally binding resolutions in the twentieth century, notably the Mandate for Palestine. Israel will never return to the '67 line -- which, in addition to everything else, provides insufficient strategic depth for adequate security.  Resolution 242 says the final border of Israel must be determined by negotiations.  Agreeing to pull back without negotiations is not the way to go.
 
~~~~~~~~~~
 
For years now, the Palestinian Authority and its supporters have promoted the idea that the '67 line is Israel's "real" border, and that everything on the other side "belongs" to the Palestinian Arabs.  It is a crock. A myth.  But unfortunately -- because successive Israeli governments have not been vigorous enough in countering this -- it has become accepted thinking in many places. 
 
It is this myth, this crock, upon which the Arab League fashioned its "peace proposal." 
 
And, more recently, it has been President Barack Obama who has advanced proposals based on the same myth.  Has he swallowed it whole, so that he really believes it?  There is no way to be certain, although there is ample reason to suspect so.  We only know what he says.
 
Obama's only deviation from the stipulation of return to the '67 line is the concept of "agreed-upon swaps" of land.  This means the principle of the '67 line as Israel's legitimate border is retained but if Israel wants to hold on to a community that, say, spreads over two square kilometers east of the line, then "Palestine" will be given two square kilometers of land west of the line, inside of Israel.  In the end, Israel will be defined by an area no greater than what rests within the '67 line.
 
No and no!!
 
~~~~~~~~~~
 
For the record, and this is terribly important: the '67 line, or Green Line, was, with very minor adjustments, the 1949 armistice line.  It is the line that was drawn when Israel and Jordan stopped fighting, at the end of the War of Independence: Israel fought that war defensively, having been attacked by the Arab nations on the day she declared independence.  It is referred to as the "'67 line" because Israel was behind that line until June 1967, when the Six Day war was fought.
 
The armistice agreement signed between Jordan and Israel stipulated that the line was temporary and that the permanent line would be determined by negotiations.  Actually, this stipulation was put in at Jordan's insistence.  And, please, note that it WAS Jordan on the other side of the line -- the nation with which, it was presumed, Israel would ultimately negotiate. There was no talk of "Palestine" or a "Palestinian people" with whom Israel had to negotiate.  Whatever existed on the other side of the armistice line, it certainly wasn't a Palestinian state, or land defined as belonging to a Palestinian people. 
 
How Israel could be required to "return" Judea and Samaria to the Palestinian Arabs is a genuine mystery.  The historical situation has been distorted:  It has morphed from the reality into what people of a certain political bent wish it to be.
 
You will be doing Israel an enormous service if you circulate this information -- this historical clarification -- as broadly as possible.
 
If you see reference in news sources to "Israel's '67 border," send a correction: It was never a border, it was an armistice line, and it was temporary; both the armistice agreement with Jordan and the subsequent UN Security Council Resolution 242, called for negotiations to determine Israel's final eastern border.
 
~~~~~~~~~~ 
 
What I see is that Kerry went to these Arab League members and asked them for some flexibility so that he might move ahead with the infernal process. And, to his delight, they delivered.  Not only delivered, but stated themselves willing to go along with parameters outlined by the president.  
 
At a press conference, Kerry declared:
 
"The US and Arab League delegation here this afternoon agreed that peace between Israelis and Palestinians would advance security, prosperity, and stability in the Middle East. And that is a common interest for the region and the whole world..."
 
Well, then, it's the Arab world that sees eye-to-eye with President Obama, yes? And Israel? 
 
We can anticipate that the secretary will now turn to Israel with a request/a veiled demand for more "flexibility," for the sake of stability in the Middle East.  But what has been tentatively proposed is no more acceptable to Israel than the previous formulation of the Arab League plan, or only very minutely so. (Now, presumably, there would be some negotiations to determine the "minor swaps.") 
 
The essential premises of the plan remain as unsatisfactory, and as faulty as a basis for peace, as ever.
 
(With this discussion we have left aside the fact that the entire notion of Israel striking a genuine peace agreement with the PA -- a weak, totally corrupt, terrorist-supporting entity -- is nonsense.  An issue to be re-visited on another day.)
 
I do not, for a moment, anticipate that Israel will agree to the terms tentatively outlined by the Arab League.  But I do anticipate a huge amount of pressure coming down the road.
 
It never hurts to communicate to Prime Minister Netanyahu very briefly to let him know you are with him and encourage him to stand strong.
 

E-mail: Memshala@pmo.gov.il and also pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il (underscore after pm) use both addresses

Maimonides as a Physician: Caring and Curing

Maimonides as physician: Caring and curing By JUDY SIEGEL-ITZKOVICH Tue Apr 2, 2013 11:33 am (PDT) . Posted by: "rufina" bernardetti Maimonides as physician: Caring and curing By JUDY SIEGEL-ITZKOVICH http://www.jpost.com/Health-and-Science/Maimonides-as-physician-Caring-a\ nd-curing-308369 An impressive English-language volume on the Rambam and his medical career has just been published, showing how he was way ahead of his time. [Maimonides] Maimonides Photo: Yair Haklai/Wikimedia Commons Centuries before the invention of the MRI and CT scans, x-rays, aspirin and antibiotics, the sphygmomanomter and even the thermometer, the medieval rabbi and philosopher Maimonides (Rambam) was a brilliant physician who treated the patient rather than the illness and espoused moderation and disease prevention. The great sage, especially during the last decade of his life as court physician to the sultan in Cairo, devoted himself to medicine and his patients and wrote 10 impressive works in Arabic including volumes on asthma, poisons and their antidotes, hemorrhoids and digestion, cohabitation and health promotion, and a glossary of drug names in Arabic, Syrian, Greek, Spanish, Persian and Berber. In recent decades, the Rambam's medical works were translated over nearly five decades into English by Jewish medical ethicist Prof. Fred Rosner of New York's Mount Sinai School of Medicine and the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. Rosner, Prof. Samuel Kottek (emeritus professor of the history of medicine at the Hebrew University) and Prof. Kenneth Collins (medical historian of the University of Glasgow) have written and edited an excellent new book, Moses Maimonides and His Practice of Medicine. The 202-page, $30 hardcover Englishlanguage volume was published by the Maimonides Research Institute of Haifa and New York and includes chapters by 10 authorities on various aspects of the Rambam's medical work. It is a joy to read, not only for people in medicine but also the layman interested in health promotion, Jewish philosophy and history. Born in Cordoba in the Almoravid Empire (Spain) on the eve of Passover in 1135, Maimonides also lived for a time in Morocco and the Holy Land. He died in Egypt in 1204. His body was buried in Tiberias, on the shores of the Kinneret. Although he himself advocated regular and balanced meals, he worked so hard as a physician in the sultan's palace that he would arrive home in the nearby town of Fostat, exhausted and hungry, where, he said: "I would find the antechambers filled with gentiles and Jews... I would go to heal them and write prescriptions for their illnesses... until the evening... and I would be extremely weak." Some scholars have even suggested that his health declined and he died prematurely because of his endless work as a physician. Maimonides took up the profession at the age of 37 after the death at sea of his brother David, a merchant of precious stones. He needed the income to support himself and his family, including his sisterin- law and nephew, writes Britain's Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks in his foreword. "Why should the work of Maimonides in medical science continue to be of interest to contemporary physicians?" Sacks asks. "After all, the physics of Aristotle, and even his metaphysics, have long been surpassed, even if his writings on ethics still inspire and instruct. The first reason is his status and stature as a role model for Jewish doctors and medical scientists, indeed for all those who engage in the worked of healing as a religious act in the spirit of the biblical phrase `I am the Lord who heals you.' ...Second is the religious gravitas Maimonides ascribed to the calling of medicine. It was a strikingly bold move to include rules of health." The British chief rabbi adds that the Rambam wrote clearly why health is important to Jewish belief and practice of medicine: "Since, when the body is healthy and sound, one directs oneself towards the ways of the Lord – it being impossible to understand or know anything of the knowledge of the Creator when one is sick – it is obligatory on man to avoid things that are detrimental to the body and seek out things that fortify it." Just as a Jew must return a lost object to its owner, doctors should restore the good health of their patients, the Rambam argued. Sacks concludes that the most impressive part of Maimonides' work is its integration, the result of his unrivalled ability to "see life Creator and see it whole." Thus he was a holistic medical practitioner before the term became popular in the 20th century. MAIMONIDES LEARNED a lot about medicine and anatomy from the ancient Greek physician Hippocrates, who established medicine as a profession and whose doctors' oath the rabbi replaced for Jewish physicians; and from Galen, the prominent Greco-Roman physician, surgeon and philosopher. The Rambam called Galen "the greatest medical scientist who ever lived." Hippocrates recommended "the drawing off of noxious humors, that diarrhea benefits eye disorders and if bald people contract large varicose veins, their hair grows back." Both of these ancient physicians made numerous errors, such as thinking the human heart has two chambers and the liver five lobes. The Rambam was willing to change his views. He "would have understood a world where medical advancement is rapid and sometimes even theories that have seemed to be well validated are speedily discarded," Collins writes in the introductory chapter. "He never claimed certainty for his own views but only that they were likely to be so, given the methods he employed and and his adherence to a scientific outlook... Always challenging, and sometimes controversial, and with very modern attributes even from our contemporary perspectives, Maimonides has much to say to physicians today." While the Rambam hardly mentions surgery, he very often discussed plants – both fruits and vegetables – to treat his patients' ills. Some, like rhubarb, were used to purge the body of harmful humors, while others were used to treat migraines, asthma, cough and constipation. Among his collection of medications were dill, fennel, fenugreek, finger, hyssop, beet juice, borax, celery, cinnamon, quince, saffron, sesame, licorice and pine nuts. K o t t e k stresses the importance the Rambam gave to having a close relationship between the doctor and patient, taking psychology into account and being careful not to harm him. If the patient doesn't trust his doctor fully, the healing process won't get far, the Rambam believed, "For each sick individual feels his heart constricted, and each healthy person feels his soul wide-spread." By this, Kottek explained, the Rambam meant the existence or lack of anxiety. He also understood the importance of the environment on the patient: "In case the sick individual is poor and lives in a place that is harmful for his disease but has nowhere else to go, he [the physician] has to remove him to another place." He even realized that asthma involves air quality. Although bloodletting was commonly used by Arab physicians as treatment, Maimonides realized it could be dangerous and urged care in using it. Health promotion was no less important to Maimonides than caring for the sick, wrote Kottek. The Rambam gave advice on "how to eat, what may be eaten and what not, how to practice exercise, to bathe, to sleep and how to have sexual intercourse." Medicine, for him, was "an art." Prof. Carmen Caballero-Navas of the department of Semitic studies at the University of Granada, notes in her chapter that Maimonides did not seem to practice gynecology, even though he treated women from the Cairo palace for ills not connected to their reproductive organs. This is not surprising, she writes, because male Arab physicians usually did not treat women. Midwives delivered babies rather than male doctors. However, Jewish physicians and rabbis had more of an understanding of female anatomy due to the importance of "impurity" (nidda) in women's menstrual cycles and the halachic rules that relate to them. The Rambam does differentiate between men (as being warm and dry) and women (as being cold and wet) and discussed the theoretical nature of women's conditions, from amenorrhea, uterine "suffocation," "phlegm in the womb," pregnancy, miscarriage and childbirth. THE DISCUSSION of nutrition and lifestyle as seen through the Rambam's eyes is as relevant today as it was in the 12th century. Prof. Elliot Berry, director of the department of human nutrition and metabolism at the Braun School of Public Health and the Hebrew University-Hadassah Medical School in Jerusalem, discusses this aspect along with Reut Ben-Ami, a master's degree graduate at the Hebrew University. Maimonides wrote much about keeping clean the air we breathe, observing a proper diet, and "regulating emotions, exercise, sleep and excretions." He even noted the psychosomatic aspects of asthma and the holistic approach to the disease. Just moving from Alexandria to Cairo, with its better air, improved asthma, the Rambam wrote. People should not exercise in extreme cold or heat or immediately after eating. Famously, he urged people not to overeat by getting up from the table before being satiated. Whole grains, Maimonides advised, were better for digestion than white flour, and "thick meat" should be avoided, as its digestion is "hard on the stomach." He recommended poultry as well as small saltwater fish, but did not endorse consuming large amounts of fish – apparently because there were no refrigerators, so they were preserved in salt, which he identified as not promoting health. He recommended dairy products because they are digested easily, but thought them "harmful for those suffering from headaches." He strongly endorsed fruits and vegetables as a regular part of the daily diet and drinking cool water some two hours after eating, when digestion had already begun. Dr. Helena Paavilainen, a history of pharmacology researcher at the HUHadassah Medical School, listed the many plant products that the Rambam prescribed for treating asthma and noted that modern pharmacology has validated their efficacy for controlling respiratory spasms. "Maimonides' medical legacy, rooted in the experience of generations and augmented by his own clinical experience, would be a valuable starting point for further research. His deep understanding of psychosomatic and philosophical aspects of medicine is given the appreciation it deserves," she declared. Although leprosy is given in the Bible as a spiritual disease, Maimonides differentiated in his writings between that condition resulting from slander and the dermatological condition that today is treated with antibiotics. SURELY, THE Rambam erred with regard to some medical beliefs, such as female fetuses lying on one side of the uterus and males on the other. But his knowledge and ability to diagnose were amazing. He deserved the praise given him by Rosner, who called him "one of the greatest physician-theologian-philosophers that ever lived on this earth. May his memory be blessed!"

Passover Lessons

Passover Lessons
 
Paul Eidelberg
 
A propos of Passover and the failure of Moses to persuade Egypt’s
pharaoh to let the Children of Israel go, despots can’t be talked out of their
despotism. Plague after was required to liberate he Jews from Egyptian bondage.
Every Passover is an object lesson that one cannot negotiate with evil.
Israeli prime ministers from Yitzhak Rabin to Benjamin
Netanyahu have simply lacked the intelligence to recognize the futility of negotiating
with “Palestinian” pharaohs. Israel’s leaders, past and present, could also have
learned this lesson from the bloody war that resulted from Chamberlain’s efforts
to negotiate with Hitler.
On the other hand, for any Israeli prime minister to think he
could win peace from the PLO-Palestinian Authority by yielding Jewish land manifests
not only naiveté but arrogance and contempt for Islam. It is to harbor the benighted
conceit that Muslims think nothing of their own religion! Did any Israeli prime
minister believe that he could undo 1,400 years of Islamic history? Did Rabin
or Sharon or Netanyahu believe that he could negotiate genuine peace with Muslims
animated by hatred and violence on the one hand, and utterly contemptuous of
reason on the other?  Leaving academics aside,
can you imagine a sober politician advocating a policy of “reciprocity” vis-à-vis
such an enemy—especially a politician that celebrates Passover?
Doesn’t he know that the Egyptian pharaoh was so fixated or
self-intoxicated that he had to suffer plague after plague before he deigned to
let the Children of Israel go—only to drown in a moment of liberalism?
Passover is an object lesson in despotic stupidity. Alas, this
stupidity has been at the helm in Israel for at least 20 years.  But let’s look at the bright side—especially
today when the democratic world is suffering serious economic and other woes.
Any intelligent observer—certainly if he’s Christian—should know
by now that Israel’s existence and remarkable prosperity is a demonstrable affirmation
of Biblical prophecy.  It seems, however,
that this affirmation of Biblical prophecy has yet to stimulate and embolden the
mentality of Israel’s ruling—or should I say apologetic—elites. It was as if
they were still in Egypt. Hey fellas! Dayenu! Wake up! The world is yours!

A Lily of the Valley

  

A Lily of the Valley

Prof. Paul Eidelberg
Israel-America Renaissance Institute 
 
1) Aristotle studies some 150 regimes before he composed The Politics, the greatest work in political science.  In Book IV of that classic, he set forth a myriad of political regimes by varying the parameters—tenure, powers, size, and mode of election—that shape their governing institutions.

2) Not until Hamilton, Madison, and Jay wrote The Federalist Papers, did there appear a text on how to design political institutions comparable to that which Aristotle's Politics can teach us. Unfortunately, this wisdom was ignored by the founders of the modern State of Israel--and it shows, to the Jew’s disadvantage and embarrassment, despite the vain boast that Israel as the only democracy in the Middle East—sink-hole of corruption and despotism

3) Aristotle describes five different types of democracy. All are based on the rule of the many, the poor. Since the many rule in their own interests, democracy is a bad or unjust regime, but not as bad as oligarchy, the rule of the few, primarily the rich. 

4) Aristotle shows that a "mixed regime" that combines various ingredients of democracy and oligarchy is the best practical regime. He calls this a “polity,” say a “republic.” A republic is the best practical because it’s stable, moderate, and favorable to the rule of law as opposed to the arbitrary will of men. Properly designed, a republic should give the appearance of being a democracy.

5) Of the five types of democracy, the worst, says Aristotle, lacks the rule of law and therefore approaches anarchy. The latter can hardly be called a "regime," since the term "regime" implies a distinctive way of life and a more or less stable relationship between the rulers and the ruled, where the former are accountable to the latter. 

6) Apart from other shortcomings, democracy exalts change. This undermines reverence for the law. The law can hardly be deemed venerable when it is here today and gone tomorrow.

7) According to Aristotle, the only type of democracy that can rightly be called a regime is one that has a constitution, a structure of institutions that regulates the power and alternating relationship of rulers and ruled.  

The preceding information casts some doubtful on whether Israel is a regime in the Aristotelian sense of the term. This doubt is intensified by plethora of parties in the Knesset. Seats are distributed on the basis of Proportional Representation with a very low electoral threshold, in consequence of which Israel has never had a majority party in control of the Government. Indeed, the Government has ever consisted of five or six rival parties, each with its own agenda, which cannot but undermine the cultivation of a strong sense of national unity and purpose characteristic of anarchy.
 
The question arises, how does Israel survive? It is hardly an exaggeration to say that Israel today is not a political regime so must as a sociological potpourri lacking any ruling principle. It’s more accurately defined economic and technological society devoid any Jewish philosophy. Its Zionism evaporated with the policy of “territory for peace.” As for Israel’s religious veneer, it has worn so thin as to be an embarrassment. 

All talk about Zionism and Jewish identity, either by old parties such as the Likud, or new parties such as Jewish Home and Yesh Atid, is sheer flapdoodle.

Not a single party leader in Israel has the brains to formulate a philosophy of government that could yield a genuine synthesis of Jewish and democratic principles—a synthesis which can actually be found in the Hebraic Republic of antiquity.

That synthesis recurred in colonial America, where it not only enriched the political thought of Harvard president Samuel Langdon and Yale president Ezra Styles. It also fructified the political creativity of America’s Founding Fathers. That synthesis once blossomed in the Land of Israel.

Dare we believe it can blossom again like a Lily of the Valley?

Time to teach Turkey a lesson

Time to teach Turkey a lesson
Tue Mar 5, 2013 5:05 am (PST) . Posted by: "Yaacov Levi" jlevi_us

 
  
Time to teach Turkey a lesson

Michael Freund
Time to teach Turkey a lesson
by Michael Freund
The Jerusalem Post
March 4, 2013
http://www.michaelfreund.org/13014/erdogan-zionism
Send RSS Share:
Be the first of your friends to like this.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has done it again. Despite his extensive efforts to masquerade as an enlightened and civilized statesman, his temper got the best of him last week, peeling away the veil to reveal for all to see his profound hatred of Israel and the Jewish people.
Speaking at the Fifth Alliance of Civilizations Forum in Vienna's Hofburg Palace, in the very same country where Hitler was born, the Turkish leader declared Zionism to be a "crime against humanity" and equated it with anti- Semitism, fascism and Islamophobia. This from a man whose country continues to deny its own acts of genocide against the Armenian people a century ago, and its brazen oppression of its Kurdish minority today.
Needless to say, this is hardly the first time Erdogan has shown his true colors. On more than one occasion in recent years, he has hurled venom and vitriol at the Jewish state. Just four months ago, on November 19, at a conference of the Eurasian Islamic Council in Istanbul, Erdogan accused Israel of carrying out the "mass killing of Muslims" and massacring children in Gaza.
"For this reason," he explained, "I say that Israel is a terrorist state and its acts are terrorist acts." And who can possibly forget his dramatic performance at the World Economic Forum in Davos four years ago? On January 29, 2009, Erdogan shared the stage with President Shimon Peres, and the two clashed over the IDF's counterterrorism operation in Gaza aimed at halting Palestinian rocket attacks. At a certain point in the discussion, the Turkish prime minister became incensed and got up from his seat. He was, the New York Times reported, "red-faced, and with one hand grasping the arm of the moderator." Erdogan then turned to Peres, one of Israel's biggest political doves, and said to him, "Your voice comes out in a very loud tone and the loudness of your voice has to do with a guilty conscience.
When it comes to killing, you know well how to kill," before storming out of the room.
And how about the Mavi Marmara affair, when Turkey facilitated the attempt to break Israel's blockade of Gaza? ERDOGAN'S RHETORIC and behavior is more befitting of a neighborhood thug than a regional power with diplomatic ambitions. As a member of NATO and a would-be EU candidate, Turkey clearly needs to be taught a lesson by the West, which cannot and must not tolerate such disgraceful behavior. Erdogan's radicalism and rancor only contribute to the further destabilization of the region, and undermine any chances of bringing about peace and understanding.
There are various political, economic and diplomatic levers that the US and European countries can use to bring about a change in Erdogan's conduct. But don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. If the virtual apathy which greeted Erdogan's eruption last week is any indication, Israel and its supporters should be very worried.
Take, for example, US Secretary of State John Kerry, who happened to be visiting Turkey the day after Erdogan's outburst. Speaking at a news conference with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu at his side, Kerry offered a mealy-mouthed denunciation, saying that, "We not only disagree with it, we found it objectionable."
Objectionable? When you are served the wrong soup in a restaurant, that would be considered objectionable.
But when someone says that the ideological underpinning of your nation's closest ally in the Middle East is akin to fascism, it is far more than merely objectionable.
It is loathsome and repugnant, Mr. Secretary.
Similarly, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who was present during Erdogan's speech, waited nearly 24 hours before dispatching his spokesman to mumble a few words of disagreement to the press regarding Erdogan's characterization of Zionism.
This cannot be allowed to stand. Hence, Israel should consider withdrawing its ambassador from Ankara, downgrading relations with Turkey and cutting back on Israeli tourism and investment, until Erdogan apologizes for his slur. We need to make it clear that any assault on Zionism is an attack on the very conceptual foundation of the Jewish state and its right to exist.
After all, Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, the set of ideas that give expression to our age-old hope of regaining sovereignty in the land of our ancestors. If someone opposes Zionism, it means they aim to deny freedom and self-determination to the Jewish people, which is akin to anti-Semitism. And that, Mr. Erdogan needs to learn, is the real "crime against humanity" which will not be tolerated.
Latest Featured Articles from the Pundicity Network
* Jacoby: Europe's Hezbollah cowardice
* Troy: From LBJ to Nixon to Obama, why the White House may 'regret' hassling the press
* Schanzer: It's Not An Intifada

You are subscribed to this list as jlevi_us@yahoo.com.
To edit your subscription options, or to unsubscribe, go to http://www.pundicity.com/list_edit.php
To subscribe to the Michael Freund mailing list, go to http://www.pundicity.com/list_subscribe.php
Pundicity