Israel (now broader Mid East discussion) (3 Viewers)

[DaveXA]

Good example of "don't judge an article by the headline". Really did not see that coming.

‘I went through hell:’ Released Hamas hostage describes being kidnapped and taken into tunnel system

An Israeli hostage released by Hamas has described her ordeal after she was kidnapped by gunmen and taken into a tunnel system in Gaza during the Palestinian militant group’s deadly assault in Israel on October 7, saying “I went through hell.”

www.yahoo.com

Just keep in mind that hostages freed are still held "hostage" because their loved ones are still left behind. Both ladies released have husbands in captivity, so they're not gonna say anything that jeopardizes their spouse or other hostages.

The videos of their release and prior are purely propaganda.

 

[jboss]

Just keep in mind that hostages freed are still held "hostage" because their loved ones are still left behind. Both ladies released have husbands in captivity, so they're not gonna say anything that jeopardizes their spouse or other hostages.

The videos of their release and prior are purely propaganda.

Of course the release footage is propaganda. Any footage I see at this point at all I immediately default to propaganda. It was more a comment on the framing of this by media outlets across the board. Shouldn't be surprising at this point, but I can't believe that headline got approved for that article.

 

[DaveXA]

Of course the release footage is propaganda. Any footage I see at this point at all I immediately default to propaganda. It was more a comment on the framing of this by media outlets across the board. Shouldn't be surprising at this point, but I can't believe that headline got approved for that article.

Agreed.

 

[BigFrosty]

 

[SamAndreas]

This is going to be a long post. In real life someone casually mentioned to me, "I heard that some of the Hamas came in wearing IDF uniforms and those floppy helmets." Along with that he asked, "what are those floppy helmets the Israeli troops wear for?"

They are floppy cloth covers over a hard dome shaped combat helmet like the US uses. They are for camouflage in the desert, they are useful in the sun for reflection away the heat of the sun, and they have ancient Jewish religious significance as well.

They are called Mitznefet, (in English), in the bible that is Mitre, (in English), means headdress. The headdress the chief priest wore in the temple. Arron and his sons wore them.

How arrogant of them. The enemy has clearly taken time to study, and from that study they knew how to highlight the quality of their extreme arrogance to make it a high affront.

As I said above in the bible they are called a Mitre. According to the Talmud, (the Law) the wearing of the Mitre atoned for the sin of haughtiness (of arrogance) on the part of the Children of Israel. The priest wore it for Israel.

Israel being the common Jewish people. In the Torah, (Old Testament) there will be phrasings like "tell Israel ... ". God would say it to Moses on the mount, and that meant that he was giving the law to Moses for the common Jewish people, (the common law).

God would also say "tell Arron and his sons ... ". That was similar to our Constitution in that it was the law that set up the government. It was the law that regulated the temple, (the government).

The finial piece of this is that war is arrogance. Today when an Israeli solderer is serving in a war and is wearing a Mitznefet, which is similar to a Mitre, they are atoning for the sin of arrogance, arrogance which they have to commit, but still needs to be atoned for before they die. Since they might die in battle ... .... .

I think I covered the point. However when the enemy who is not of Israel wears one while fighting Israel then they are committing a high affront. A Golden Calf kind of affront.



I will now quote for you Zevachim 88b which is one page from the Talmud. I will place in bold the part about the Mitre. Note that the very first paragraph of this page is part of the topic from page 88a being carried over. That page covered the laws which regulated the laundry of priestly garments. (Very important stuff, it was all very important). I will set that part in Italics.

As soon as that part is covered, what the high priest should wear is covered by the Legal code. The Talmud is very similar to our supreme court rulings. Many centuries of legal rulings, each prefaced by "Rabbi XXXX said ... ." and "Rabbi YYYY said ... ," and Rabbi ZZZZ said ... ." None of that is dated because dates would create president and there should not be president created.

That's my ten cents Talmud primer. What follows is an English translation of Zevadhim 88b from the Babylonian Talmud. Do note that there are about 10,000 pages to the Talmud. The Talmud is not just one thick ordinary book, it's about 20 very thick books with very large pages. Everything past this point is a quote of that one page:



But if the garments became so dirty that they reached a point that laundering them would require the use of natron or soap, then one may not launder them, even with water. And some say: One may not launder the priestly vestments at all, even if laundering them with water would suffice, because there is no poverty in a place of wealth, i.e., only priestly vestments that were clean as new should be worn, as is befitting the Temple service, and those that were laundered should not be worn.

§ With regard to the priestly vestments, the Sages taught in a baraita: The robe of the High Priest was sewn entirely of sky-blue wool, as it is stated: “And he made the robe of the ephod of woven work, all of sky-blue wool” (Exodus 39:22). With regard to its skirts, concerning which it states: “And they made upon the skirts of the robe pomegranates of sky blue, and purple, and scarlet, twined” (Exodus 39:24), how were they fashioned? The tailor brings sky-blue wool, and purple wool, and scarlet wool, which are twined together, and fashions them to appear as pomegranates that have not opened their mouths, i.e., they are sewn in the appearance of pomegranates that are not yet ripe enough for the crown on top to open, and as the cones [konaot] of the helmets [kenasot] that are found on the heads of children.

And in order to fulfill that which is stated: “And they made bells of pure gold, and put the bells between the pomegranates” (Exodus 39:25), he brings seventy-two bells, i.e., the outer part of bells, made from gold, that contain inside them seventy-two bell clappers, and he suspends them on the skirts: Thirty-six of each, i.e., pomegranates and bells, on this side of the robe, and thirty-six of each on that side, as the verse states: “A bell and a pomegranate, a bell and a pomegranate, upon the skirts of the robe around it” (Exodus 39:26). Rabbi Dosa says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda: There were thirty-six bells suspended around the skirt, eighteen from this side and eighteen from that side.

Rabbi Inini bar Sason says: Just as there is a disagreement here between tanna’im with regard to the total number of bells suspended around the skirt of the robe of the High Priest, so is there a disagreement between tanna’im with regard to the total number of shades of leprous marks. As we learned in a mishna (Nega’im 1:4): With regard to the total number of shades of leprous marks,
Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas says: There are thirty-six, while Akavya ben Mahalalel says: There are seventy-two.

§ The Gemara cites another statement of this sage: And Rabbi Inini bar Sason says: Why was the passage in the Torah that discusses offerings (Leviticus, chapters 1–7) juxtaposed to the passage that discusses the priestly vestments (Leviticus, chapter 8)? It was juxtaposed to tell you that just as offerings effect atonement, so too, priestly vestments effect atonement.

The tunic atones for bloodshed, as it is stated with regard to the brothers of Joseph after they plotted to kill him: “And they killed a goat, and dipped the tunic in the blood” (Genesis 37:31). The trousers atone for forbidden sexual relations, as it is stated with regard to fashioning the priestly vestments: “And you shall make them linen trousers to cover the flesh of their nakedness” (Exodus 28:42).

The mitre atones for the arrogant. From where is this derived? Rabbi Ḥanina says: It is logical that an item that is placed at an elevation, i.e., on the head of a priest, shall come and atone for the sin of an elevated heart.

Rabbi Inini bar Sason continues: The belt atones for thought of the heart. The Gemara elaborates: The belt atones for the sins occurring where it is situated, i.e., over the heart. The breastplate of the High Priest atones for improper judgments, as it is stated: “And you shall make a breastplate of judgment” (Exodus 28:15). The ephod of the High Priest atones for idol worship, as it is stated: “And without ephod or teraphim” (Hosea 3:4), meaning that when there is no ephod, the sin of teraphim, i.e., idol worship, is found. Therefore, it may be inferred that if there is an ephod, there is no sin of idol worship.

The robe of the High Priest atones for malicious speech. From where is this known? Rabbi Ḥanina says: It is logical that an item that produces sound, i.e., the robe, which has bells, shall come and atone for an evil sound. And the frontplate of the High Priest atones for brazenness. This is derived from the fact that with regard to the frontplate it is written: “And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead” (Exodus 28:38), and with regard to brazenness it is written: “And you had a harlot’s forehead” (Jeremiah 3:3).

The Gemara asks: Is that so, that the priestly vestments atone for these sins? But doesn’t Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: There are two matters that we do not find for them an atonement with offerings, but we find for them an atonement from another place, and they are: Bloodshed and malicious speech.

With regard to bloodshed, its atonement comes from the heifer whose neck is broken. This is referring to a case where a murdered body is found but the identity of the murderer is not known. In such an instance, the Torah mandates that the neck of a heifer must be broken as an atonement for the murder. And with regard to malicious speech, its atonement comes from incense, as Rav

Ḥananya teaches in a baraita: From where is it derived that the incense effects atonement? As it is stated after the Israelites spoke slanderously against Moses and Aaron and a plague was sent against them: “And he put on the incense, and made atonement for the people” (Numbers 17:12).

The Gemara continues: And similarly, the school of Rabbi Yishmael teaches: For what does incense effect atonement? It effects atonement for malicious speech, in order that an item that is offered in private, i.e., the incense, which is offered by a priest acting alone, shall come and atone for an action generally occurring in private, i.e., malicious speech.

Accordingly, there is a difficulty between that which is stated with regard to malicious speech and that which is stated with regard to malicious speech, as according to Rabbi Inini bar Sason the robe atones for malicious speech, whereas according to the baraita it is only the incense that effects atonement for that transgression. Likewise, there is a difficulty between that which is stated with regard to bloodshed and that which is stated with regard to bloodshed, as according to Rabbi Inini bar Sason the tunic effects atonement for bloodshed, whereas according to the baraita only the heifer whose neck is broken effects atonement for it.

The Gemara answers: With regard to bloodshed, it is not difficult, as this, the tunic, effects atonement for bloodshed in an instance where it is known who killed the victim, and this, the heifer, effects atonement in an instance where it is not known who killed the victim. The Gemara challenges: If it is known who killed the victim, that man is deserving of death, and there is no atonement for the community otherwise, as it is stated: “And no atonement can be made for the land for the blood that is shed within it, but by the blood of him that shed it” (Numbers 35:33). The Gemara responds: It is referring to a case where he murdered intentionally but witnesses did not forewarn him of the consequences of committing murder. Therefore, the court may not execute him, as no earthly punishment may be administered without forewarning.

And with regard to the contradiction between that which is stated with regard to malicious speech and that which is stated with regard to malicious speech, it is also not difficult. This, the incense, effects atonement for malicious speech spoken in private, whereas this, the robe, on which the bells that produce noise are placed, effects atonement for malicious speech spoken in public.

 

[GrayMatter78]

This is going to be a long post. In real life someone casually mentioned to me, "I heard that some of the Hamas came in wearing IDF uniforms and those floppy helmets." Along with that he asked, "what are those floppy helmets the Israeli troops wear for?"

Good read. Just another example that goes to show how much Hamas planned this attack with the most evil intentions.

 

[Mr. Sparkle]

its not just Harvard that has a problem. There's being "pro Palestinian but anti-Hamas" and then there is this stuff

 

[Maxp]

Doesn't Harvard push free expression? I may not completely agree with the students, but I'm not bothered by their projection on the building.

 

[DaveXA]

Doesn't Harvard push free expression? I may not completely agree with the students, but I'm not bothered by their projection on the building.

So, if the KKK does this, will you feel the same?

 

[Mr. Sparkle]

Doesn't Harvard push free expression? I may not completely agree with the students, but I'm not bothered by their projection on the building.

Harvard (and GW and dozens of other schools) are in a bit of a bind as they have been generally hostile to free expression if its from the "wrong" viewpoint, and are now being pressured to take action from Jewish students/alumni.

Personally I'm a free speech absolutist - I'm not suggesting they expel students for projecting "GLORY TO OUR MARTYRS" or even stating that the murder of Israeli families is totally justified. But at the same time we shouldn't fool ourselves into believing that all these groups are simply "pro-Palestinian." Let's call a spade a spade - even it means some tough conversations about what sort of students/faculty are on campus.

 

[GrayMatter78]

Harvard (and GW and dozens of other schools) are in a bit of a bind as they have been generally hostile to free expression if its from the "wrong" viewpoint, and are now being pressured to take action from Jewish students.

Personally I'm a free speech absolutist - I'm not suggesting they expel students for projecting "GLORY TO OUR MARTYRS" or even stating that the murder of Israeli families is totally justified. But at the same time we shouldn't fool ourselves into believing that all these groups are simply "pro-Palestinian." Let's call a spade a spade - even it means some tough conversations about what sort of students/faculty are on campus.

It is important to distinguish between supporting free expression and endorsing the content of that expression. Universities like Harvard often aim to uphold principles of free speech, allowing students to voice their opinions and engage in debate. However, when it comes to controversial or offensive expression, there can be a fine line between protecting free speech and maintaining a safe and inclusive environment for all students. As you mentioned, this protection of free speech seems to teeter on a slanted point depending on the political lean of one group versus another.

These projections do fall within the realm of free expression, but others may find them concerning or offensive. It is crucial to encourage open dialogue and respectful discourse, even when faced with viewpoints that we may strongly disagree with. It is also important to foster an environment where individuals feel safe and respected, while still upholding the principles of free expression.

Personally, I feel like, as a society - especially with young adults, that the text bolded above is lacking or non-existent.

 

[Maxp]

So, if the KKK does this, will you feel the same?

The KKK is not a student organization on their own campus. If an outside group were doing the projection then I would take issue with it.

 

[DaveXA]

The KKK is not a student organization on their own campus. If an outside group were doing the projection then I would take issue with it.

So, a Nazi student organization projecting Swastikas and such is ok?

What I'm getting at is where is the line? Surely there are limits?

 

[Maxp]

So, a Nazi student organization projecting Swastikas and such is ok?

I would personally find it offensive, but I don't think it is quite an apples to apples comparison. I remember seeing all kinds of objectionable displays when I was a college student. I looked at it as a free speech, sometimes I engaged conversation others I walked.

 

[Semper]

What the hell is going on in this country…