More on Modern Media

To restate the gist of my previous post:

Measles and societal decadence (apparent in the Eminem video in question) have something in common.

Both are communicative diseases.

Not all communication is benign. Just because an "artist" has the right to disseminate his "artwork" doesn't mean that it is wise or healthy for me or my children to view and absorb the message he is trying to communicate.

If you clicked on every spam email that enters your inbox, you'd infect your computer. No longer would your operating system operate the way it's supposed to.

Why is your mind any less sensitive?

For our $600 dollar laptop, we buy the fanciest antivirus and antispyware protection that money can buy. We delete suspicious or flagged attachments immediately, lest it damage or taint our precious hard drive.

Why don't we regard our psyche with at least the same degree of protectiveness?

According to the Torah, the product manual of the soul, exposure to licentious, immodest or violent imagery and lyrics taints our innocence and leaves an indelible blemish on our soul’s motherboard. It can possibly cause our soul’s most vital applications, i.e. thought, speech and deed, to malfunction.

Perhaps we ought to firewall ourselves from such undesirable communication?

Extreme Makeover

Several months back, I blogged about some of the misleading terms used in our media to describe current events.

Here's another one: extremism. In fact, this one is my pet peeve.

The media's use of this term bothers me. Not because it insults me personally, whom many might consider to be an extremist of sorts.

The reason it's incorrect is because it implies that the extremist's core beliefs are okay. His only vice is that he (or she -- sorry for the gender profiling) is extreme in his convictions. If he'd only become less zealous, a bit more mellow and moderate, he'd be a great guy. "Your views are fine," we are telling the jihadist. "Just don't take them to such extremes."

I remember a decade back, shortly after September 11th, 2001, I was driving in my car listening to a radio talk show host bemoan the "religious extremism" of the Taliban. "As a matter of fact," he ranted, "they are so extreme, so barbaric... why, they even wear beards!" I listened thoughtfully while stroking my unkempt beard -- no, make that: my extremely unkempt beard.

My initial thought was to call the station and complain, but never got around to doing so. Instead, I devoted my Shabbat sermon to it. I explained to my congregants:

Extremism is not bad if you are being extreme about something good. Example: someone who is extemely charitable, excessively peace-loving, exceedingly modest, intensely studious, extraordinarily selfless, ultra kind, giving, humane, just, etc. Even if you're extreme about something that others might consider archaic, aberrant, or defiant of social norms, such as sporting an untrimmed beard, so long as your eccentricity causes no harm to yourself or to others, surely everyone should concede that such hairy "extremism" (if one could rightly call it that) is rather benign. To the smooth-faced moderates who deride bearded males as extremists, I say: "Live and let live."

However, if one is extreme about something bad, i.e. he believes in an extremely evil ideology, is extremely violent, extremely deceptive, extremely malicious, etc... then THAT is bad.

What's bad about this individual is not that he's extreme. It's that he's BAD. What makes him worse than a moderately bad person is that he is EXTREMELY bad.

So when our media refers to a jihadist as a "religious extremist," they are doing humanity a huge disservice.

Their description of the "extremist" masks the real underlying problem. The jihadist's problem is that his views are violent, malevolent and vindictive. By censuring "extremism," we are not confronting the real enemy, but instead are getting sidetracked by focusing on something irrelevant. In fact, we are emboldening him by acknowledging his right to his noxious ideology but merely pleading with him not to be so devout. This only reiterates his opinion of us, that we (i.e. the Western world) are spineless enemies of faith.

Instead of protesting his extremeness, we ought to refer to him by what he is: an Islamofascist hatemonger. Or, if he actualized his ambition and committed an act of terrorism, then he is an Islamofascist genocidal murderer.

He is not merely an "extremist." He is an enemy of G-d, an enemy of mankind.

To describe Ahmadinejad as an extremist is obscuring the facts. Fact: his main vice is that he is blood thirsty and an outspoken proponent of genocide. Why does it matter that he is extremely blood thirsty? And what if he were only moderately blood thirsty? Would we then sigh a breath of relief? Is mild genocide then okay?

So let's be honest and address the real issues. If someone believes that it's okay to murder a non-believer, his vice is not extremism. His problem is his abhorrent beliefs. If his religion sanctions murder, then he has a perverse religion. Calling him an extremist vindicates his blood thirsty religion. Instead, his only shortcoming has now been reduced to a mere lack of moderation.

Furthermore, the media often calls "settlers" like the Fogels' (may G-d avenge their blood) "religious fundamentalists" or "extremists" as well. Why not? The settlers have beards too.

So thanks to our wonderfully unbiased media, we now have moral equivalence between peace-loving Jews who are "extreme" in their views by insisting on their right to live anywhere in the world, including Samaria, and their blood-thirsty Arab counterparts who feel that Samaria ought to be Judenrein, whose stated objective is ethnic cleansing of the entire Levant, and who celebrate the most incomprehensibly brutal form of infanticide, all out of their extremely Islamofascist convictions.

Indeed, the media has created a moral equivalence between all settler Jews (99.9% of whom do not advocate violence or murder of any kind, and would love nothing more than to live in peace with their Arab neighbors) with jihadists (99.9% of whom advocate mass murder of Jews and ethnic cleansing).

In fact, all ultra-Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Protestants, or any other extremely devout individual of another faith or creed, are now lumped together in the same boat as radical Islamists and Jihadists. (ultra = extreme). And since many people might consider me ultra-orthodox thanks to my ultra-non-conformist beard (in addition to the fact that I am extremely opinionated), I guess that makes me a fundamentalist extremist who is capable of hijacking a plane. Thank you media for another job well done at skewing everyone's perspective and corrupting our minds.

As you can see, I'm getting extremely irate. I think I'd better call it a day.

Have an extremely good night! :-)


PS Maimonides does write that extremism in any form, even in the benign sense of being extremely and excessively generous, extremely miserly, etc., are both incorrect, and that one ought to "take the middle path" and do everything in moderation. While this is an objective truth that everyone ought to strive toward, it has no bearing on what I wrote above. Even if someone is extremely serious or extremely light headed, both attributes negated by Maimonides as "extreme," he still is not an evil or dangerous villain. No one is his right mind would equate an extremely self-effacing but harmless hermit with an extremely blood thirsty Jihadist.

Just Say No

Westboro Video Controversy, part II


Well, it looks as though the local controversy surrounding a teacher who showed an objectionable Eminem video to her seventh-grade class is now over.

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/x1781765262/Westborough-teacher-resigns-after-video-incident

However, in reality, this issue is far from over. It continues to jeopardize our youth and our adults of all ages. (See previous post)

What particularly concerns me is the reaction of numerous local parents with whom I have discussed the matter.

One highly intelligent father remarked that he believes some (read: his) kids are mature enough to view anything and not be negatively influenced. Yet in the same sentence, he was infuriated that a teacher dare show such material to his or anyone's children. In his mind, an adult who shows such obscene images to children might well be a predator seeking to cause them harm.

I countered: "And what about the possibility that by simply viewing the video at home they might be causing themselves harm?"

While the dad agreed that not all material out there might be beneficial for children to watch, he emphatically maintained that "mature" kids must be granted the freedom to explore the world on their own. "Preventing their exposure to such videos," he asserted, "might be more damaging to their souls than their viewing of the video itself."

(Parenthetically, it is important to note that the teacher showed the video to students, some of whom had presumably viewed before, without audio. She merely played it in order to point out the unhealthy image of women in today's society. While I agree with the outraged parents that it was inappropriate to show in school, the irony can not be overstated. On one hand, many of these parents are allowing their teens to watch anything they wish, without any supervision or parental guidance. But when an experienced teacher attempts to point out the dangerous attitudes advocated by these videos, the parents are up in arms! If parent mustn't restrict freedom, lest he or she be viewed as too judgmental or controlling, and teachers are forbidden to discuss such issues, who will then teach the children how to discriminate between right and wrong?)

Here is a humorous episode I heard recently that sheds brilliant light on this issue:

A Chabadnik woman was shopping in the supermarket one day when she heard something most peculiar. A young African American child asked his mother, "Hey Mom, are these cookies kosher?" The mom replied no, and her son put the cookies back on the shelf.

The curious onlooker approached the mother, who did not seem to fit the stereotype of your average kosher consumer.

"Excuse me, m'am," she said, "are you Jewish?"

"No," replied the mom.

"Just curious, then, why do you keep kosher?"

"Oh, I don't really keep kosher," answered the woman. "I just borrowed the term."

She proceeded to relate the following:

"For years, my kids have been harassing me at the supermarket that they want this snack, that candy bar, etc. I had a hard time saying no, as the kids would just carry on and whine. One day while shopping, I overheard a most unusual exchange between an Orthodox Jewish mother and her own kids. It was at the check-out line where all the sweets are enticingly on display.

"'Could we get that, Mommie?' her kids asked.

"'Nope, we can't get it. It's not kosher.'

"The kids quietly accepted her response, and the conversation ended there. I was so impressed, I asked the Jewish mother how she was able to raise such obedient kids. My kids would have begun pleading and pouting. The woman explained that it wasn't about obedience, but simply the knowledge that the food wasn't kosher. Her kids knew that if it wasn't kosher, they don't eat it. Period.

"I was so jealous. What a brilliant idea, I thought to myself. From then on, I introduced the idea of 'kosher' and 'not kosher' to my own kids, even though we're not Jewish and don't keep kosher. When they want something and I say 'It's not kosher,' they know that they're not getting it and that's it."

If only modern-day parents could understand this simple idea. You owe it to your kids to teach them right from wrong, to inspire them to make the right moral choices in their own lives.

It's not about being too controlling or judgmental. By teaching your kids that some images and lyrics are simply not kosher, not fit for consumption, you are empowering them to make the right choices later in life.

More importantly than teaching them, we as parents ought to teach by example. If it's not kosher for kids or young adults, it's not kosher for adults either.

It doesn't matter if the viewer is mature or immature, whether or not he is firmly rooted in his values or not. If it is not kosher, we don't consume it. It's not up for negotiation.

And we'll be happier and healthier as a result.


Teacher your kids to "just say no."

Just a Measly Video

Dear Friends and Readers,

By now I'm sure you've read last week's two disturbing news items involving our town, Westborough, MA.
I never imagined my sleepy New England town would make national or even statewide news. Not once, but twice in one day!

Most fascinating is the common theme of these two stories.

Here's news item number one:
A teacher in our local middle school was suspended after allegedly showing an objectionable video called "Superman" to a class of seventh graders.
Click here for Boston Globe story, or here to view all 35 news stories.

News item number two:
A case of measles in Westborough -- an employee at the local Bose Corporation has allegedly fallen ill with the contagious and potentially fatal disease. Here's a link about it.

Now, I must first state that I do not know the teacher or students personally, nor have I ever watched the Eminem video in question. In fact, until today, I didn't even know who "Eminem" was, nor do I care to know. All I know is what I've read, that the video contained lots of immodest, explicit and violent scenes. The superintendent acknowledged that the video was (sic) inappropriate.

As a rabbi in the community where this occured, I would like to make two comments and ask several questions:

Comment #1:
Isn't it uncanny that both news items reflect a contagion that threatens the health and well-being of not just Westborough locals, but our entire modern society?

Comment #2:
We immunize to protect people from diseases like measles. Should we be "immunizing" children to protect them from negative societal influences by exposing them to it in the form of Eminem videos? By doing so, are we immunizing them or predisposing them, or worse, poisoning them? A vaccine contains weakened or dead virus particles. Imagine injecting a healthy patient, child or adult, with live, virulent pathogens. Are you protecting your unsuspecting patient, or infecting him? Perhaps the best way to provide immunity to the diseased behaviors glorified in Eminem's videos is by teaching kids to avoid exposure entirely. Teach them to "Just say No."

Some questions about the video:
1. Is it only inappropriate for children, or is it inappropriate for adults too?
2. Is it only inappropriate for a teacher to show in school, but ok for kids to view at home?
3. Eminem is referred to repeatedly in the news articles as an "artist." Is "Superman" artwork?

A NY congressman recently lost his job and reputation because he sent inappropriate images of himself to a few individuals via electronic media. Why? Isn't he just an "artist" like Eminem? Of course, the latter is a much more seasoned "artist" because he sends similar images to not just several, but millions of individuals. And while the congressman reserved his "artwork" for several adult acquaintances, Eminem's "artistic" imagery and lyrics target minors, and lots of 'em. So why does a teacher and politician get canned, but the "artist" makes millions? What am I missing?

I know some of you are rolling your eyes. Come on, rabbi. It was just a measly video (pun intended) It's not for real. It's just harmless "art."

So let's consider the second news item about measles. What's the commotion? So what if one person caught the disease from a migrant worker in an isolated plant on Route 9. Why is that newsworthy?

The answer is obvious. This is a highly contagious disease. We are all at risk. If it's at Wall Street, it will trickle down to Main Street.

For the youth who is growing up watching videos by Eminem (and others of his ilk), the behaviors showcased in such pieces of "art" are now part of the young viewers' reality. His or her pure mind has now been infected with images of licentiousness, vulgarity, violence and misogyny. And thanks to the wonders of modern media, the contagion now spreads rapidly from friend to friend, tainting the minds of countless other young people.

Will all the young people who watch "Superman" try to emulate that behavior? Hopefully not. But then again, most people will survive measles too. Can we afford to take the risk?

The Torah exhorts us "Do not stray after your heart and after your eyes..."

Watching a video or listening to music is like consumption of food or drink. Just like the food has to be clean, healthy, nourishing and kosher, so too the videos we view need to be fit for consuption. Indeed, every image or lyric we consume becomes indelibly etched into the whiteboard of our mind, conscious and subconscious, in permanent ink.

Ever hear the cliche "You are what you eat?" Well, it really ought to be: "You are what you watch."



PS With regards to the Gibbons Middle School class, the facts have still not emerged, and it is entirely possible that the teacher is blameless. What I have written above is not an indictment against the teacher or school, nor is it an opinion about what has actually occured. Rather, it is a commentary on the reality that children all over (perhaps many children in that very class) are in fact viewing this video (and others like it) at home or elsewhere.

Correction on 67 Borders

Ok, time for a correction. Thank you to several astute readers who brought this to my attention:

President Obama didn't exactly say that Israel should "return" to her "pre"-67 Borders.

Instead, he said: "We believe the borders of Israel and 'Palestine' should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps..."

I couldn't agree more. The borders of Israel should be based on the lines of June 10th, 1967, the cease-fire lines at conclusion of the Six Day War.

(See image. The 6/10/67 borders we refer to include the yellow and pale orange areas.)

Israel should definitely return to these borders, and without delay.

Firstly, by now it is obvious to everyone that the "peace" treaty with Egypt in 1979 brokered by Mr. Obama's predecessor, Jimmy Carter, is an utter failure. Although it is debatable as to whether the treaty was ever really honored by the Egyptians, it has now been flagrantly violated, as the border to Gaza is wide open and arms may be brought to Hamas in broad daylight. Hamas just moved their terrorist headquarters to Egypt, and terrorist activity is rising in the Sinai. Time to take back the Sinai and return to the armistice lines of June 10th, 1967.

Secondly, it is also painfully self-evident that Israel's disengagement from Gaza in '05 was a grave error. This blunderous move only enabled Hamas to take power and set up a inimical police state that fires Qassam rockets into Israel on a daily basis, targeting civilians. By returning to the borders of June 10th, '67, Israel could then do what it needs to to protect its civilian population: eliminate Hamas and restore security.

Thirdly, Israel gained nothing by evacuating Northern Samaria in '05, and stands to gain nothing by evacuating and uprooting 558,000 Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria. Not only will Israel not gain peace or security, Israel will only be advancing the front lines of her mortal enemies, those bent on her utter destruction. It would be purely suicidal from anyone's point of view! It is absurd that this needs to be articulated in public forum, it is so obvious.

Moreover, history has proven time and time again that contiguous borders with maniacal hate mongers yield disastrous results. Cases in point: Sudetenland in 1938; Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty in 1939, etc.

Borders with neighbors like Hamas or the PA are simply unacceptable. Would the US tolerate a border with a Muslim-Brotherhood-dominated police state? Does any sane, objective thinker really believe that such borders will bring peace or security?

Yes, Israel's borders should certainly be based on the 1967 cease fire line.

All the hostile, blood-thirsty Jew-haters and would-be terrorists who currently reside in Gaza, Judea and Samaria can be relocated to Arab Palestine (currently known as Jordan) on the east bank. This must be the "mutually agreed swaps" Obama was referring to.

Well said, Mr. President.

* * *

One more clarification:

Several readers have misinterpreted my previous post as a politically-motivated attack on President Obama. Some have even accused me of unfairly singling out Obama for having said something similar to what former President Bush had said.

Nothing could be further from the truth. First of all, I am not being unfairly critical of Obama. I have always been consistent. I deplored and criticized both statements.

Far be it from me to discriminate between presidents, black or white, Republican or Democrat. If a president is wrong, then he's wrong, regardless of which party he hails from or where he attended church or mosque.

I was completely disgusted by Bush's ill-advised policies toward Israel too, and was quite vociferous about it at the time. The Bush-inspired "Road Map" was nothing more than a dangerous collision course.

However, there is something far more troubling about this president's recent statements and his timing. Here we are dealing with a Hamas government, an admittedly terrorist organization. Hamas and the PA are seeking unilateral statehood. Israel faces greater existential threat than any time before in history. Mr. Obama stands by idly while Tehran races toward nuclear weapons and brazenly calls for Israel's destruction. To invoke the indefensible borders of pre-1967 at this critical time is nothing short of overt Antisemitism. "Mutually agreed-upon swaps" doesn't mitigate the gravity of what he said. There is no mutual agreement with Hamas, or even with Abbas. They just want to mass-murder us. They say it and they mean it.

Mr. President, what part of that don't you understand?

I am not a Democrat nor a Republican. I am a Jew and an American. I believe that any Jew and any American ought to have the moral fortitude to stand up and protest the president's foolish and malicious statements.

To all the American Jews who still support Obama, I say:

This is not about party lines or petty politics. Just because he's "your man" and you voted for him, it's time to stand up for the truth. The fate of Israel, no, the fate of the entire world hangs in the balance.

Today is exactly forty-four years since the beginning of the Six Day War. The world has learned little since then.

It's time to speak up for the truth. For ultimately, the truth will prevail.

* * *

One final point:

My intent in the previous post was not to ridicule Obama's call to return to the indefensible borders of the past, although I may have done so in the process. In light of current times, his call is so utterly ridiculous, it needs no pointing out. No need to state the obvious.

I merely sought to derive an inspiring lesson from his objectionable words.

And most importantly, with regard to Obama:

The real problem here is not the POTUS. He may say what ever he likes. In fact, that's his job. He needs to show his constituents that he's trying to make "peace." It is pointless to pressure the Arabs. They are inflexible. Conversely, Israel is flexible and willing to make concessions. So it's a no-brainer that any American president is going to place undue pressure on Israel.

The problem is Israel. Mr. Prime Minister, don't "engage." Just say no.

G-d gave us this land. Bibi, it is not yours to negotiate or use a political bargaining tool. It is the property of every Jew who ever lived and who ever will live. It is the property of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Moses, Miriam, David, Solomon, me and you. You may go jump in the Mediterranean if you wish, but you may not dispossess me of what is eternally and inseparably mine.

Bibi, you said that Jerusalem is not negotiable. It is the "heart of our people" and will always remain one and undivided. If only you realized that the same is true of the entire Land of Israel.

Return to 67 Borders!

Dear Friends,

In light of recent statements by President Obama, I feel it's necessary to veer from this blog's usual apolitical stance and share my thoughts on the matter:


Personally, I am in complete agreement with the president's audacious remark. I too earnestly believe that Israel needs to return to her pre-67 borders.

In fact, therein lies the solution to all of Israel's problems, and, in fact, all the world's problems. Return to the pre-67 borders will unquestionably bring peace to the Middle East and to the entire world. It will effectively end the plights of all displaced exiles and refugees, thereby alleviating their suffering, compensating them for their millenia of yearning and eons of wandering. Indeed, it will right all historical wrongs and establish a new world order.

That's right, my friends. All this can be accomplished, if only Israel is willing to return to her pre-67 borders.

Yes, Israel needs to return to the borders of before 67 CE, the year Vespasian embarked on his military campaign to conquer and lay waste to the land of Israel and ultimately destroyed the Holy Temple (in 68 CE).

What were the pre-67 CE borders, you ask?

Well, for one, these borders contained areas most vital to Israel's security and defense (e.g. Golan, Gaza, West and East Banks, part of the Sinai, etc.). Moreover, they contained the heartland of Biblical Israel, including Judea, Samaria, and even Transjordania.

In 67 CE, there was no "Palestine," but only Israel, land of the Jews. No "Aelia Capitolina." No "East" and "West," but only one united Jerusalem.

But that's not the main point.

The greatest thing about year 67 CE and prior is the Holy Temple in Jerusalem.

What we need is a return to pre-67. We need to rebuild the Holy Temple in Jerusalem. And we need to do it right away!

The Third Holy Temple in Jerusalem will surely establish peace on earth and usher in the Messianic Era. It will end all violence, terror and injustice. "They shall neither harm nor destroy on all My holy mount, for the land shall be filled with the knowledge of G-d as the waters covers the sea bed." (Isaiah 25:9)

Obama was right! (Sort of. He was just 1900 years off. At least he had the last two digits right)

The expression "Israel needs to return to her... borders" is great too. It recalls the poignant words of Jeremiah (31:14) "A voice is heard upon high, bitter sobs...(Matriarch) Rachel cries for her children, she will not be comforted… (Says G-d) "Withhold your voice from crying and your eyes from tearing, for there is a reward for your actions… and your children will return to their border."

Fellow Israelites! Listen to our president. He is telling us to "return to our border" as prophesied in Jeremiah. It's high time to return to our roots. Let's bring Moshiach and "return to our border" once and for all!

Actually, the more I think about it, the 67 CE borders are not enough. What we really need is a return to the 67 BCE borders, back to the time that there was true Jewish sovereignty and independence from foreign domination, shortly before Pompeii invaded Jerusalem (during the civil war of the two Hasmonean brothers, Aritobulus and Hyrcanus, thereby commencing a long and painful period of Roman occupation). Now that would truly be something. Imagine an Israel free of foreign interference or prejudice. No UN bias, boycotts, or unfair pressure from US presidents. No foreign power telling Israel how or how not to protect her citizens.

Upon further reflection, I must now conclude that the pre-67 BCE borders are not enough either. What we really need is a return to the pre-567 BCE borders, before the ten northern tribes of Israel were exiled (in circa 556 BCE). Now here's a pre-'67 borders that would really solve our problems. Not only would it restore the territorial integrity of Israel, it would finally achieve true unity to the People of Israel by bringing back all lost and straggling Jews from all over the globe. The long-awaited ingathering of the exiles!

In fact, I must finally admit that I am not in agreement with Obama after all. What we need most of all right now is not a "return" to anything. We need to move forward, not backward.

The borders and conditions of 67 CE, 67 BCE, or even 567 BCE, etc., are not enough. No sir!

The Third Temple with be infinitely greater than its two predecessors, and the Third Commonwealth of the Messianic Era will be vastly and incomparably superior to anything we've ever seen in history. So no, we should not be returning or turning back the pages of history. Instead, it's time to move forward and achieve our destiny.

For then, and only then, mankind will achieve its destiny as well. All of humanity will turn to G-d together as one. No longer will there be war or intolerance, hatred or competition, disease or poverty. The occupation of the entire world will be to know G-d to the fullest of human potential.

Unlike some other deviant belief systems, the true coming of Moshiach doesn't involve any foreboding Armageddons, warlike Mahdis, or worlds coming to their end on Saturday at 4pm. Nor does it necessitate any cataclysmic tornadoes, tsunamis, earthquakes or nuclear fallout. Moshiach's coming is something that everyone can look forward to.

In fact, after the Redemption, there will no longer be any need for borders. "The Land of Israel is destined to spread over the entire world, and Jerusalem is destined to spread throughout all the Land of Israel." (Yalkut Shimoni)

Forget about 67 borders, or even defensible borders. We need an Israel with no borders.

Don't mean to border on sounding utopian or out of touch with reality. Quite the contrary. Realistically speaking, it seems painfully self-evident that the only better and safer option to Israel's current post-'67 borders is expanded borders. And the best and safest option is the Messianic description of no borders at all. A borderless Israel!

(Parenthetically, if you honestly believe that Israel sharing a border with a hostile, so-called "Palestinian" State is a solution, even a temporary one, then you are the borderline delusional. Maybe within the borders of your quixotic dreamworld, but not in the real world. In either case, this short-sighted viewpoint articulated by our president is alas more unrealistically utopian and dream-like than anything Isaiah, Jeremiah or the Yalkut Shimoni ever conceived of.)

If you truly wish to solve the Mideast crisis, and thereby solve all mankind's crises, personal, communal and global, for once and for all, let's discuss the only truly viable and lasting solution, the true and complete Geulah (Redemption).

So it's not about returning to borders, but about advancing and expanding our horizons to usher in a new era of Redemption.

So let's rephrase the president's ill-advised statement:

"Israel needs to advance to her destiny that will infinitely expand her borders and shine her light to the whole world."

Summary

Some have commented that my previous post wasn't clear enough.
I shall state my position more concisely:

1. Should one rejoice over the elimination of Osama Bin Laden?
Yes.

2. Should we give thanks to G-d for OBL's death?
Yes.

3. Should we be proud of our military, and appreciate our government for their decision to do the right thing in eliminating OBL?
Yes.

4. Should we publicly celebrate?
No. The world is still a very unsafe place, with far too many OBLs who have yet to be eliminated.