A strategic threat to Israel

Unfortunately Mr Millis has a penchant for calling those people with whom he does not agree demeaning names. Mr Yishai is anything but a clown. I note that amazingly Mr Millis blames Mr Yishai for the Carmel fires when the failure to provide adequate fire fighting facilities has been endemic throughout the 63 years of the State's existence, Mr Yishai was unfortunate that it happened on his watch.
I have no idea why Mr Yishai decided at this moment in time to go with this you should ask him. However Mr Millis has made some startling and baseless claims which do need to be addressed.
Here I am quoting exrensively from http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm
First, traditional Judaism maintains that a person is a Jew if his mother is a Jew, regardless of who his father is. The liberal movements, on the other hand, consider a person to be Jewish if either of his parents was Jewish and the child was raised Jewish. Thus, if the child of a Jewish father and a Christian mother is raised Jewish, the child is a Jew according to the Reform movement, but not according to the Orthodox movement. On the other hand, if the child of a Christian father and a Jewish mother is not raised Jewish, the child is a Jew according to the Orthodox movement, but not according to the Reform movement! The matter becomes even more complicated, because the status of that children's children also comes into question.
Second, the more traditional movements do not always acknowledge the validity of conversions by the more liberal movements. The more modern movements do not always follow the procedures required by the more traditional movements, thereby invalidating the conversion. In addition, Orthodoxy does not accept the authority of Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist rabbis to perform conversions, and the Conservative movement has debated whether to accept the authority of Reform rabbis.
In March, 1997, the Agudath Ha-Rabonim of the USA issued a statement declaring that the Conservative and Reform movements are "outside of Torah and outside of Judaism." This statement clarification. Three points are particularly worth discussing: 1) the statement does not challenge the Jewish status of Reform and Conservative Jews; 2) the statement is not an official statement of a unified Orthodox opinion; 3) the statement was made with the intent of bringing people into Jewish belief, not with the intention of excluding them from it.
First of all, the statement does not say that Reform and Conservative Jews are not Jews. Their statement does not say anything about Jewish status. Status as a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe; it is simply a matter of who your parents are. Reform and Conservative Jews are Jews, as they have always been, and even the Agudath Ha-Rabonim would agree on that point. The debate over who is a Jew is the same as it has always been, the Reform recognition of patrilineal decent, and the validity of conversions performed by non-Orthodox rabbis.
Second, the Agudath Ha-Rabonim is not the official voice of mainstream Orthodoxy. Their statement does not represent the unified position of Orthodox Judaism in America. In fact, the Rabbinical Council of America (the rabbinic arm of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America) immediately issued a strong statement disassociating themselves from this "hurtful public pronouncement [which] flies in the face of Jewish peoplehood."
Finally, before one can denounce a statement like this, one should make an attempt to understand the position of those making the statement. According to Orthodoxy, the Torah is the heart of Judaism. All of what our people are revolves around the unchanging, eternal, mutually binding covenant between G-d and our people. That is the definition of Jewish belief, according to Orthodoxy, and all Jewish belief is measured against that yardstick. You may dispute the validity of the yardstick, but you can't deny that Conservative and Reform Judaism don't measure up on that yardstick. Reform Judaism does not believe in the binding nature of Torah, and Conservative Judaism believes that the law can change.
The Agudath Ha-Rabonim did not intend to cut Reform and Conservative Jews off from their heritage. On the contrary, their intention was to bring Reform and Conservative Jews back to what they consider to be the only true Judaism. The statement encouraged Reform and Conservative Jews to leave their synagogues and "join an Orthodox synagogue, where they will be warmly welcomed."
The opinion of mainstream Orthodoxy seems to be that it is better for a Jew to be Reform or Conservative than not to be Jewish at all. While we would certainly prefer that all of our people acknowledged the obligation to observe the unchanging law (just as Conservative Jews would prefer that all of our people acknowledged the right to change the law, and Reform Jews would prefer that all of our people acknowledged the right to pick and choose what to observe), we recognize that, as Rabbi Kook said, "That which unites us is far greater than that which divides us."
The State of Israel is not as Mr Millis would have you believe becoming a ste of the Orthodox if that were so there would for example be total Sabbath and kashruth observance - there is not.
Secondly wther or not the number of people professing to be jewish is made up of more non-orthodox than orthodox is neither here nore ther. Judaism is not a club where the majority can change the rules. The rules are set in stone and that is what has preserved the Jewish nation throughout the ages!

Give it time, and Shas' Ayatollahs will make sure the only Judaism allowed in Israel will be their own narrow form. That's why Israel is becoming a state for only the Orthodox.

This comment by Joe Millis has been moderated

This comment by amber has been moderated

This comment by Joe Millis has been moderated

This comment by amber has been moderated

Do you mean Churchill, the great Zionist and defender of truth? Both things you know nothing about.

This comment by amber has been moderated

Who's annoyed? I'm having a good old chuckle about you. I wonder if the manager at Boris House knows about this.

Does this mean Amber doesn't have Joe's pic as her screen saver at work?

No of course not millis - it's just annoying for you when you have your own little fiefdom interrupted by people who don't hate Jews.

miligram, why don't you answer the question you have studiously avoided on the other blog?

Loser.

I've had a word with Andrew Gates. He'll be dealing with the problem shortly

This comment by amber has been moderated

who is Andrew gates ?

Comments for this page are now closed.