Rabbi Eric Yoffie of all people, is Getting Serious about Iran . In fact he urges liberal Jews to move effectively to get the Government to counter the Iranian threat.
-
[..] A nuclear Iran poses a threat as grave as that faced by Israel in the dark days of May 1967. The debates among experts about whether or not Iranian leaders should be taken seriously in their calls for Israel’s destruction have a surreal quality to them; the very fact that such debates are taking place serves as confirmation that the risk of a nuclear Iran to Israel is unacceptably high.
Even if Iran were to develop nuclear weapons and never use them, the danger to Israel would still be intolerable. Israel cannot live in the shadow of a nuclear Iran. In the minds of its own citizens and of the world community, Israel would cease to be a safe place to live. In addition, any possibility of an Arab-Israeli peace might disappear forever, as moderate Arab states drift out of America’s orbit and into Iran’s.
The time has come for the centrist and liberal elements of the American Jewish community to get serious about mobilizing support against a nuclear Iran. Their failure to do so until now is somewhat of a puzzle. It may be that they have simply not recognized the absolute urgency of the situation. It may also be that they are not championing this issue because others see it as a parochial one, and American Jews do not like to be perceived as self-serving. Yet it would be a terrible mistake to fall into this trap.
American Jews should never hesitate to promote the welfare of Israel, a democratic ally of the United States. In any case, there is another argument to be made: A nuclear Iran is a clear threat to America’s strategic interests. It would increase the risk of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists and encourage Egypt and Saudi Arabia to seek nuclear weapons of their own, leading to an arms race that would destabilize the region and the world.
The time has also come for the conservative wing of the Jewish community to get serious about Iran. Jewish conservatives have been more aware than liberals of the magnitude of the Iranian threat, but they have been acting in ways likely to make matters worse rather than better.
There is no conceivable solution to the threat of a nuclear Iran that will not require American leadership. All of the options — whether economic sanctions or military action — are impossible without American support. The Obama administration has a reasonably good record to date, and has recently adopted a tougher, more confrontational tone. Nonetheless, the major test of American intentions lies ahead. Despite the progress recently announced by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, crippling economic sanctions have not yet been approved and implemented by the U.N. Security Council, and the resolve of America’s allies remains uncertain. If sufficient support from the international community is not forthcoming, the United States must be prepared to unilaterally enact tough sanctions of its own.
American Jews, therefore, need to be doing several things: pushing their government hard to take decisive action on Iran, working equally hard to develop trust and good will with the administration, and minimizing areas of tension that are of secondary importance.
However, too many American Jews — many, but not all, in the conservative camp — have chosen to pour out contempt for the Obama administration in language that is harsher than anything I have heard in three decades of involvement in American Jewish life. I have also watched in dismay as these voices obsess over America’s position on settlement disputes, which — however sensitive and complicated — are simply not the central issue at a moment when Iran threatens Israel’s very existence.
I am not suggesting an obligation to agree with the Obama administration on everything. In fact, I am suggesting the opposite: Now is the time to pressure our government to move more emphatically to counter the Iranian threat. But the best way to achieve this goal is not to demonize the president and members of his team. The wise course is to work on cultivating the strong ties to which we have aspired in our relations with all administrations, whether Republican or Democratic.
The dangers of a nuclear Iran are real, and the time has come for American Jews to wake up. We need to act and to act now, but to do so in a way that is smart, strategic and effective.
Rabbi Eric Yoffie is president of the Union for Reform Judaism.
Ted another comment not getting through can you release it?
Levinson: who and what determines natural rights in Libertarian philosophy?
Actually Judaism has it all but ignoramuseswouldn’t know it.
Fascisicism is not against private ownership including property and it was valued and protected as long as it could be perceived as advancing the state.at least not anti-state. Our founding fathers were not liberals but based their concept of natural law on the Biblical concept of G-d. natural rights for them is what the bible says or G-d given rights. Not man created rights invented by committee or consensus philosophers? 18th century philosophers although did have much influence, so the subject becomes very complex in this regard.
In Judaism there is no concept of Natural Law and natural rights. In Judaism Jews have no individual rights only obligations. No believing Jew can accept the concept of natural Law and Natural rights as primary but only when those rights can be tied to the Cosmic.
Judah Halevy says there are no two philosophers who reached the same conclusions, and this shows the mind cannot be relied upon. It is the mind’s fault that the Jew has ceased to see borders, while the giving of the Torah was set-off, bounded, by the three days of separation. The concept of G-d is limited: He is the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – that is the limit. More than that is metaphysics, philosophy. Our nation has a G-d who is limited, racially and historically. This anti-metaphysical base is central to Judaism.
Our sages based many of their thoughts on the concept of revelation at Sinai and the giving of the Torah. The “three days of separation” which preceded the giving of the Torah at Sinai is also a basic concept in Judaism. Judaism means setting limits, boundaries, separations. Limits to human knowledge, to G-d, to the country, to the nation. Another of the symptoms of our crisis is the lack of limits, of borders. We are vague. The mind knows no limits; emotion moves and limits. Judah Halevy says there are no two philosophers who reached the same conclusions, and this shows the mind cannot be relied upon. It is the mind’s fault that the Jew has ceased to see borders, while the giving of the Torah was set-off, bounded, by the three days of separation. The concept of G-d is limited: He is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – that is the limit. More than that is metaphysics, philosophy. Our nation has a G-d who is limited, racially and historically. This anti-metaphysical base is central to Judaism.
Until the Emancipation there was no spiritual crisis in Judaism, because there was no crisis in the self-awareness of the Jews, who knew who they were. Even though there were conflicts and differences of opinion concerning various commandments, or over whether to give precedence to one’s intention or to fulfilling the letter of the law, or whether to try to hurry the Messianic era, there was still a clear feeling of being part of a collective and of a continuum. The basic question: Who are we? was not a problem. This problem arose when we left the ghetto. When the Jew had to answer the question: Are you a Jew or a Frenchman? What are you? – if you want equal rights in France.
It was with good reason that part of our people surprised the world by opposing equal rights. Jews opposed to getting equal rights?! The world couldn’t understand that. But those Jews who didn’t want the rights had an instinctive awareness: This is the beginning of the end of the Judaism, which till then was a structure without cracks. The Jews who chose to leave the structure found their solution: they were “of Mosaic persuasion.” At that moment, a new schizophrenia entered Jewish awareness, which we are still suffering from today; it is one of the thorns we must clear away. We cannot plough the fields of sovereignty without clearing these thorns. One of the worst of these thorns is: the two-pronged approach: being a man and a Jew. Even our nationalists accept the division between the Jewish and the human point of view. This division began with the Emancipation.
The disaster resulting from the Emancipation was the division between the Jewish and human aspects of a Jew. This is the reverse of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai’s clear and brilliant formulation: “You are called man, and the nations of the world are not called man.” Note: the first word, “you,” in the Hebrew is atem, not atah – it is in the plural. “You” means the whole nation as a collective.
The Jew, in all his history, felt himself a man in the fullest sense of the word: a man, in the image of G-d. All other forms of life were not men. According to the Jewish view, form and content do not exist separately. There is no meaning to the hybrid political attempt, propounded by the some of the founding fathers of the State of Israel, to “be nationalist in content and socialist in form.” The Jew as Jew – that is a man. What should a Jew have as a human being that he doesn’t have as a Jew? The Torah does not have commandments that are Jewish and others that are human. What laws for human beings are not already found in our Shulchan Aruch, the Code of Jewish Laws? Judaism did not leave a vacuum that needed to be filled with “humanity,” where a person acts as a person rather than as a Jew. Judaism is total. Judaism includes the whole person and Jew. It is the union of person and Jew. Judaism was not a religion, but a complete way of life. It included all of life. Any phenomenon that was new to man, was included by Judaism in its commandments.
Religious spokesmen today have confined Judaism to a ghetto of its own.
Yamit,
what can I say?? in full agreement with your thesis on Conservative Judaism too!!
Are you sure Canadian Conservative Rabbis have agreed to gay/lesbian marriages and female or gay/lesbian “Rabbis”? I’ve never seen one and I’ve been to many Conservative shuls in Canada.
Back in the 1975, Meir Kahane derided the Jewish Conservative movement. “They make a mockery of conserving it [Judaism],” he wrote. As usual, Kahane was right. The old joke goes,
In that case, it was twenty-one years.On December 6, 2006, the Conservative Movement allowed same-sex unions and homosexual rabbis.
The Conservative Movement is just that, a movement, a chaotic crowd without spiritual leadership. In the fashion of political parties, the movement’s main goal is broadening its support base. That comes at the cost of values. The movement broke away from Jewish tradition by instituting the principle of mara d’atra which allows each rabbi to set his own rules applicable to his congregation. In civil life, that’s called anarchy, lawlessness. The principle could make sense for highly qualified spiritual teachers; even in their case, it would turn Judaism into a bunch of sects which adhere to incompatible rules. In practice, the conservative rabbis are often unskilled and highly dependent on their jobs. They say what the atheist Jews who pay them want to hear. Isaiah, Ezekiel, or Rabbi Nahman condemned the people’s wrongdoings; conservative rabbis legalize them.
The movement’s statement emphasizes human dignity and respect for all Jews. Go respect Jewish murderers, rapists, socialists, and idolaters! Human dignity is unrelated to the issue of lesbian rabbis. Polynesian aborigines are as dignified as any other humans and are entitled to the same rights; that does not entitle them to serve as rabbis. Every US citizen has a right to become president; few do. Rights are realized through certain procedures. Moral purity in the biblical sense and adhering to the Torah law are the preconditions for being ordained a rabbi.
Honest anti-semites from Reform Judaism congregations allow gay marriage and rabbis. Cowardly Conservative rabbis shrank from the decision. Unlike the Reformists, the Conservative establishment is sufficiently educated to understand that homosexuality is a plain violation of Jewish law. So the Conservative elite washed its hands, and pushed decisions about sinning onto the lower rabbis. Now each congregation can decide about admitting gays. Under pressure from atheists, leftists, and human rights groups, most will succumb to the abomination. Some will rejoin orthodoxy.
To crown the comedy, the Conservative Movement should appoint a lesbian its chief rabbi. A porn star, preferably.
A study by Hebrew university indicates a third of Israeli Conservative rabbis in favor of ordaining homosexual colleagues. When Israeli political clique is permanently embroiled in sexual scandals, the rabbis understandably want more choices at workplace. It became old-fashioned to sexually harass women; gay rabbis can make headlines by harassing males.
Faithless Jews spearhead moral objectivism. Communist Jews destroyed societies in the name of moral idealism, but conservative Jews don’t try to establish new values. They succumb to the pressure of liberal US opinion, thus commonsense Canadians show much less support for gay rabbis. Major Christian churches reject gay priests and expelled scores of high-ranking homosexuals. Christians and Muslims accept that abomination always exists, could never be fully extirpated; Conservative Jews solve the problem by elevating abomination into the moral norm.
Hardly any Conservative believes that the Torah actually intended moral equality of perverts. Rather, they are skeptical of Torah’s divine origin and feel free to modernize the text, ignoring it here and twisting there. Thus ordaining gay rabbis in direct violation of the commandment to purify Jewish nation from homosexuals. Nothing stands between gay rabbis and gay marriages; once Conservatives reject the biblical condemnation of homosexuality, they must logically agree to same-sex marriage and to homosexuals’ right to adopt others’ children.
Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism are silent on homosexuality, but implicitly condemn it as a failure to meet the major societal obligations of familial life and procreation. Conservative rabbis who allow same-sex relations ignore the commandment to be fruitful and multiply. Some accept homosexuality as parallel orientation after the gays establish normal families with women and bear children. But married people who engage in homosexuality violate the injunction against adultery, offend their wives, and perform abomination for pleasure only – clearly unacceptably.
Of all major religions, only Judaism and Islam explicitly prohibit homosexuality. Ataturk understood the importance of sexual morality for religion, thus protected and promoted homosexuals in his drive to uproot Islam. In Egypt, relaxation of anti-gay laws similarly took place when secular government confronted Islam.
Most societies tolerate homosexuality among laypeople, but Conservative and Reform Judaism are the only two major religious movements that accept gay and lesbian priests. These rootless movements have no values to defend and act as political parties: vote for us and do whatever you like, we only need your vote. Just like political parties pander to every audience with senseless, mutually exclusive promises, so the Conservative movement allows local rabbis to act on the wishes of their atheist congregations and either admit or ban gays. Conservative and Reform rabbis impose no demands on the Jews: homosexuality is nice, eating pork acceptable, violation of Sabbath – okay. They redefined Judaism from religion into communal activity where the members only have to participate in parties held for bar mitzvah and high holidays. Their Judaism is hollower than empty eggshell.
By admitting homosexual colleagues, Conservative rabbis do not voice a religious opinion but lower the common denominator of values to expand their movement.
Conservative Judaism never evolved into a religious teaching. Since its inception in the mid-nineteenth century it was a social movement designed to prevent Orthodox Jews from sliding into Reformism. While Conservative Judaism asserts the Torah was revealed to Jews non-verbally,
Reformists believe that Jews were inspired to write down the Torah; that difference is a trifle. Conservative Judaism originally held sound
potential: it postulated that Jewish religious interpretation (halacha) must evolve as it always did; Orthodox rabbis insisted that
thousand-year old interpretations must apply today, even though the rabbis of old continually adapted Jewish law to changing circumstances.
Conservative Judaism, however, sold itself out to atheist Jews. In return for acceptance and donations by middle-class American Jews,
Conservative Judaism pandered to their wishes; they wished, of course, an unobtrusive religion. Consequently, Conservative Judaism followed
Reform Judaism in abandoning the entire halacha and in wholesale review of the Torah. Competing with Reform Judaism, the Conservative Movement
practically abandoned demands for kosher food and Sabbath observance, ordained lesbian rabbis, and now conducts same-sex marriage
(“commitment”) ceremonies. For the end user, Conservative synagogues differ from Reform temples only in their more traditional liturgy.
The new generation of atheist Jews opts for the authentic thing and abandon the Conservative Movement for Reform Movement.
Conservative Judaism never evolved into a religious teaching. Since its inception in the mid-nineteenth century it was a social movement designed to prevent Orthodox Jews from sliding into Reformism. While Conservative Judaism asserts the Torah was revealed to Jews non-verbally, Reformists believe that Jews were inspired to write down the Torah; that difference is a trifle. Conservative Judaism originally held sound potential: it postulated that Jewish religious interpretation (halacha) must evolve as it always did; Orthodox rabbis insisted that thousand-year old interpretations must apply today, even though the rabbis of old continually adapted Jewish law to changing circumstances. Conservative Judaism, however, sold itself out to atheist Jews. In return for acceptance and donations by middle-class American Jews, Conservative Judaism pandered to their wishes; they wished, of course, an unobtrusive religion. Consequently, Conservative Judaism followed Reform Judaism in abandoning the entire halacha and in wholesale review of the Torah. Competing with Reform Judaism, the Conservative Movement practically abandoned demands for kosher food and Sabbath observance, ordained lesbian rabbis, and now conducts same-sex marriage (“commitment”) ceremonies. For the end user, Conservative synagogues differ from Reform temples only in their more traditional liturgy. The new generation of atheist Jews opts for the authentic thing and abandons the Conservative Movement for Reformism.
He does, but his version of G-d wrote Das Kapital.
Yamit,
loved your thesis on Reform Judaism!
Lubavitch, Aish HaTorah, etc also welcome everybody, but with the goal to make them “Jews”.
By the way, Conservative Judaism, while much better than Reform in theory, is actually not much better in practice. Would I have to wait for a major conservative Rabbi to make a public pronouncement on Obama to get to hear your thesis on Conservative Judaism???
Bird I tend to agree with you and I do pray for earthquakes in Persia, 6 months of torrential rain with no let ups etc. What ever works.
Since we have lost the Turks for the time being The Kurds are in and they sort of like us; are linked to Israel by DNA and they got oil, A match almost made in heaven. Psst. we are already there in Northern Iraq, and it’s not even a well kept secret. Israel in Kurdistan even opens Iran to Israel ground forces and Kurdish air strips might be very useful to us.
Our problem is less than how but political. We have the Jellyfish BB running the show. He may yet get us all killed.
Birdalone. I think you are right. He could be trying to change the target of Jewish ire from Obama to Iran.
Yoffie is using Iran as a red herring to stop other Jewish criticism of Obama, especially his position on settlements and Jerusalem.
Challenge Yamit? not a chance 🙂
Regime change in Iran can not happen in time, and might not even change Iran’s quest for regional hegemony, nuclear weapons, and escalation of the Shi’a-Sunni schism.
Better for everyone to pray that Teheran gets the next big earthquake. Teheran has the highest risk of a major earthquake of any urban center in the world. Recent rumours in Iran fuelled the belief that the Revolutionary Guard was going to somehow trigger such an earthquake in order to garner global sympathy in order to pre-empt any further thought of military strikes against Iran’s nuclear installations.
Another thing to pray for is a coordinated insurgency by Iran’s Sunni Kurds (in the northwest) and Sunni Baluchi (in the southeast) minorities. I am not sure if the Shi’a Azeri minority and Shi’a Arabs along the Iraq border would join in, but Shi’a Persians are less than 60% of the population.
A big part of Turkey’s recent friendliness with Syria and Iran is about their Kurdish minorities, and common fear of the strength of Iraq’s Kurdistan. All of these Kurdish populations control the water sources. Kurds have the best real estate in the world.
He would say that he does.
Proving your point would require walking him through the Ten Commandments, and contrasting whatever virtues he acknowledged were therein contained with his opinion of the Communist Manifesto.
His version of G-d doubtlessly bears a striking resemblance to Karl Marx, which explains why he is a reform rabbi.
Will anyone challenge Yamit? Not me, except on the question of regime change. I do not believe that Iran would continue to pursue hegemony after such a defeat. With the Mullahs gone and the Revolutionary Guards destroyed, Iran will look inward.
I would love to ask (rabbi) Eric Yoffie if he believes in G-d? I know the ans. but would love to hear hism say it in public. Curious that nobody ever asks or even seems to care yet he takes the title rabbi? How many people in the average reform temple believe in G-d? None, including their lesbian rabbi. The enlightened audience cannot believe in the G-d who created the Earth and listens to our prayers. Liberal Jews cannot stand the concept of their own chosenness. Jews with analytical minds refuse to believe that G-d spoke to us from Mount Sinai and gave us every commandment. Even if they had believed in G-d’s existence, that would be of no practical consequence to them. If the Torah is not of divine origin, what should we make out of G-d’s existence? What laws should we follow? Reformists, therefore, fall into the comfortable position that they follow those commandments which fit their pan-human consciences. Here comes a vicious circle: they test the religion against the ethics, and consequently their religion is always narrower than even their ethics. And their “Judaism” is indistinguishable from the ethical maxims of a well-mannered Swede.
Indeed, reform Jews are doctrinally less ethical than gentiles. Liberalism dictates tolerance to immorality because to those who don’t believe in the Bible there is no objective criterion of morality. So the reformists proclaim every individual’s freedom to pick and choose commandments—essentially, to disregard them. Ask yourself, what possible sin disqualifies a person from being a reform congregant? True, all types of abominations are accepted in many Orthodox synagogues, but tacitly, while the reformists’ professed disregard for private observance encourages the wicked. If the Reform temples welcome those who intermarry, transgress Shabbat and kashrut, and practice sexual immorality, what possible reason prevents the temples from admitting unethical persons as well? In practice, unethical people are welcome there, especially if they contribute substantially. In reform temples, there is no pressure on the wicked to reform.
Internalizing observance put men above G-d. Whatever G-d said in the Bible, now each man decides for himself which commandments to follow, if any. Logically, each reform congregant should pray to himself, as in their theology his own conscience is the source of his personal religious law. How bizarre it is to pray to G-d while disregarding his commandments! Moreover, the internalized observance precludes any commonality of congregants. The only thing common among the members of an average temple is their atheism. They differ in every matter of Jewish religious practice, and are united only in their disregard of that practice.
Any Jew who hates and disdains leftism must by definition and intellectual honesty apply those same feelings and opinions to the reform Jewish movement and those who identify with it.(Reform Jews) especially those who head and lead this non Jewish atheistic cult. Reform Judaism is religious leftism. Reformism follows the basic precept of leftism: that everything can be comprehended and changed at will. Communists changed societies, Reformists wish to change religion. Societies are complex, religion is subtle, but otherwise the approach of the communists and the reformists is similar: destroy a finely tuned system—societal or religious—and build a new one from scratch. Both communists and reformists have little idea of what their dream society or religion would look like, nor do they have clear rules. They build their dream houses through arbitrary, ad hoc moves. No wonder that both movements failed. The Communists created totalitarianism, the opposite of their dream, and the reformists arrived at atheism. Humans who redesign societies always position themselves as supermen, the ruling caste, and oppress the others. Humans who redesign religion place themselves above G-d. If the reformists create their version of the divine law, why don’t the flock worship them? Judaism without kosher laws and Sabbath, with the heroic actions of Moses and the Maccabees declared ancient barbarism—how different is that from a schoolbook on ethics? Reformism has no firm values or doctrines, only the lack thereof. In reform “Judaism,” there is not a single value or doctrine which is specifically Jewish. Reformists explicitly reject Jewish uniqueness by their leftist outreach to gentiles. They talk of things too universalist even for Lenin, of repairing the entire world and of social justice for all. Never mind that social justice for some means unjustly robbing others, and repairing the world in Africa means neglecting the Jews in Shderot,for example.
Reformism, a universalist religion, embracing universalist values—but the most universal values are those with the lowest common denominator. Reformism reaches out to everyone by refusing to reject anyone. Reformism embraces moral abominations in nihilist fashion, including lesbian “rabbis” and gay marriages. They make the silly argument that every person is made in G-d’s image. But that applies to murderers, thieves, and other criminals—should we tolerate and actually welcome them as well? In the end, G-d will ask each of us, “What have you done to My image?”
In Reform Judaism, there is no reason to remain Jewish; a Jew is no different from others. In fact, reformists explicitly promote interfaith dialogue meant to prove that Jews are similar to others. What possible reason is there to be Jewish, to bear specifically Jewish children?
Just like their communist cousins, reform “rabbis” resort to lies and hatred. They massively misinform the flock about Orthodox and haredi practices, ridicule observances they have neither the brains to understand nor the guts to follow, and arouse resentment and hatred toward religious Jews.
The reformist experiment failed. Rav Kahane noted that Christian churches retained more of Judaism than did the reform temples. Jewish children who pass through reform Hebrew schools in America despise their Jewish background. Children feel the hollow hypocrisy of reformism. The reformist schools viciously destroy the inborn sense of Jewishness and replace it with empty pronouncements. The degree of assimilation among the graduates of reformist Hebrew schools testifies to their failure.
I think anyone who advocates regime change is either ignorant or delusional.
All of the opposition to the current regime are no better than the current one.
while for Iranians there might be some internal reforms mostly and probably cosmetic,were a regime change to materialize; in so far as Persian
regional and world hegemonic ambitions are concerned I see just more of the same.
I see no difference when all Iranian leaders in the opposition are no less anti Israel and desire Nukes no less than the current regime.
In fact the original movers for Iranian Nukes today are the main opposition.
who are the Iranian main opposition to current regime: Mir-Hossein Mousavi
Although I praised Yoffie for his call to arms against Iran, I very much agree the the criticisms here. Attacking or supporting Obama is irrelevant here so why does he mention it. Why he thinks that supporting Obama woud induce him to take on Iran I have no idea. The more Obama loses support the more he will take on Iran to regain support.
In any event I strongly favour regime change in Iran.
Furthermore Jews didn’t make settlements in Jerusalem the issue , Obama did.
sorry Rabbi Yoffie, Jerusalem is NOT a settlement. It is the capital of Israel. Stop attacking other Jews!
The irony of this plea is that the only issue I do believe Obama IS committed to is nuclear non-proliferation. He has been remarkably consistent on this one issue. It is very clear than the Obama administration is losing leverage over many foreign issues for a variety of complex reasons, not least of which are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.. North Korea is the prelude to what is becoming an increasingly unstable world. Obama will do what he can to stop Iran. The problem is that only Russia and China have the leverage over whether Iran goes nuclear. It certainly matters what Saudi Arabia says, and they have been working on China. And the Russians have to be truly crazy to think they can control a nuclearized Iran.
http://www.wor710.com/weekday-personalities/The-Steve-Malzberg-Show/3600488
Listen to the stream or download hour 2 of the Steve Malzberg show as he interviews the Jewish Manhattan borough president who supports a mosque at ground zero. He also referred to a tea party guy as hitler because the tea party guy made a truthful comment about islam.
Then listen to hour three of Steve’s debate with Alan Colmes about islam. Even for a typical delusional Jewish liberal like Colmes, he manages to outdo himself here.
Dear “Rabbi” Yoffie,
I share your contempt for these Jews. What could they be thinking? Criticizing a swell guy like Obama when they could be groveling to convince him that he must do something he will never ever do in a hundred trillion bazillion quatrillion years…protect Jews at the expense of his Muslim brethren who seek to murder them.
Failing that (which you will), the next best thing is to remain relentlessly obsequious towards the anti-Semite in the Oval Office.
It is this task with which we entrust Reform Jews.
Shalom (That means “peace” and “goodbye”),
Your friend ayn