Obama forcing Israel to 67' borders thru UN Security Council

After years of blocking U.N. efforts to pressure Israelis and Palestinians into accepting a lasting two-state solution, the United States is edging closer toward supporting a U.N. Security Council resolution that would call for the resumption of political talks to conclude a final peace settlement, according to Western diplomats.

The move follows Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decisive re-election Tuesday after the incumbent publicly abandoned his commitment to negotiate a Palestinian state — the basis of more than 20 years of U.S. diplomatic efforts — and promised to continue the construction of settlements on occupied territory. The development also reflects deepening pessimism over the prospect of U.S.-brokered negotiations delivering peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Shortly before this week’s election, the United States informed its diplomatic partners that it would hold off any moves in the U.N. Security Council designed to put Israel on the spot at the United Nations in the event that Netanyahu’s challenger, Isaac Herzog, won the election. But U.S. officials signaled a willingness to consider a U.N. resolution in the event that Netanyahu was re-elected and formed a coalition government opposed to peace talks. The United States has not yet circulated a draft, but diplomats say Washington has set some red lines and is unwilling to agree to set a fixed deadline for political talks to conclude.

“The more the new government veers to the right the more likely you will see something in New York,” said a Western diplomat.

Netanyahu’s government will likely be made up of right-wing and Orthodox parties adamantly opposed to making concessions to Palestinians. According to a statement from Netanyahu’s office, the Israeli leader has already consulted with party leaders he plans to add to his coalition, including Naftali Bennett of the pro-settlement Jewish Home party, Avigdor Lieberman of the far-right nationalist Yisrael Beitenu party, and leaders of the ultra-Orthodox Shas and United Torah Judaism parties.

On Wednesday, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki did not rule out the possibility of the United States supporting a U.N. resolution on Israel-Palestine.

“We’re currently evaluating our approach. We’re not going to prejudge what we would do if there was a U.N. action,” she told reporters.

For decades, Democratic and Republican administrations have resisted a role for the U.N. Security Council in dealing with the Middle East crisis. They have argued consistently that an enduring peace can only be achieved through direct negotiations between the parties. Israeli leaders have also strongly opposed giving the world body a greater role in bringing about a deal.

However, the prospect of direct negotiations appeared to evaporate with Netanyahu’s pre-election declaration that he would never allow the creation of a Palestinian state. The comment completely reversed the Israeli leader’s previous support for an independent Palestine as part of a permanent peace deal between the two sides.

The deliberations over the future of the U.S. diplomatic efforts are playing out just weeks before the Palestinians are scheduled to join the International Criminal Court, a move that is certain to heighten diplomatic tensions between Israel and the Palestinians. On Wednesday, the Palestine Liberation Organization’s top diplomat in the United States told Foreign Policy the Palestinians would move forward with plans to use the ICC to try to hold Israel accountable for alleged war crimes during last summer’s war in Gaza. (Israel says it worked hard to avoid civilian casualties, of which there were many, and blames Hamas militants for taking shelter in populated areas.)

“The fact that we have a government in Israel publicly opposing a two-state solution just reinforces our position that this conflict must be handled by the international community,” Maen Rashid Areikat said.

Ilan Goldenberg, a former member of the Obama administration’s Mideast peace team, told FP that Washington might be inclined to support a Security Council resolution backing a two-state solution as an alternative to the Palestinian effort to hold Israel accountable at the ICC.

“If it was done, it could protect Israel from a worse outcome,” he said.

Under this scenario, the United States would seek guarantees from the international community to hold off on ICC activity in exchange for a Security Council resolution outlining international standards for a final peace agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians.

“The Israelis will probably resist and say this is a bad idea, but they could also be convinced that this is better than the alternative,” said Goldenberg.

The window for this type of U.N. initiative is small. U.S. officials are unlikely to act during the contentious Iran negotiations, which are set to end in late June, Goldenberg said. But the administration will not want to wait until the 2016 presidential race kicks into high gear, as any Democratic nominee would likely advise the White House against upsetting the party’s influential pro-Israel supporters.

“Don’t expect anything to move until the summer,” said Goldenberg.

European and Arab governments, including France and the Palestinians, will likely want to move more quickly at the United Nations.

The Palestinians had been pressing the U.N. Security Council for months last year to adopt a resolution demanding that Israel end its occupation of Palestinian lands within three years. The United States threatened to veto the Palestinian initiative. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power called it “unbalanced” because it failed to take into consideration Israel’s security concerns. But in the end, the Palestinians were unable to muster the nine votes needed for passage in the 15-nation Security Council, sparing the United States the need to veto.

But France, which is seeking a broader diplomatic role in the Middle East, had also been pushing for a separate resolution, which calls for the resumption of political talks between Israelis and Palestinians in order to conclude a comprehensive peace settlement. In December, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry warned Paris and other European governments that the United States would block the resolution if it were put to a vote before the Israeli election.

But one European diplomat said that there was “a broad understanding” at the time “that this was something that could be revisited post-election.” So far, U.S. talks with European allies have taken place in Washington and other capitals. There have been no substantive talks in New York among Security Council members.

France, however, recently renewed its appeal to the United States to consider taking up the issue before the council, according to diplomats familiar with the matter.

The United States, according to the diplomats, gave no firm commitment. But the administration indicated that it was willing to consider action in the council once a coalition government is put into place.

“I think they probably just want to see how it pans out,” said one U.N.-based diplomat. “But certainly the message we got back in December was that they might be able to show more flexibility after the election.”

Security Council diplomats say there remain significant differences between the U.S. approach and that of France. “There are discrepancies between the U.S. and European positions but I think they will bridge them soon,” said an Arab diplomat. “The key elements are the same: a framework for a peaceful solution that leads to the establishment of a Palestinian state … plus guarantees for Israel’s long-term security.” The United States is unlikely to hit Israel or the Palestinians with punitive measures if they fail to comply.

During a recent meeting of U.S. and European officials in Washington, a senior State Department official said the United States was considering a draft resolution at the Security Council but that no decision had been made.

Of course, two other options lie before the Obama administration with regard to the Israel-Palestine issue: continuing to reflexively back Israel at the United Nations, and simply enduring the widespread criticism of the international community, or raising the pressure on Jerusalem by abstaining from a U.N. resolution condemning Israeli settlements.

In 2011, the United States vetoed a resolution demanding that Israel’s settlement activity cease immediately — even though it was in line with U.S. policy. The measure was sponsored by nearly two-thirds of the U.N.’s membership and received a 14-1 vote on the Security Council.

“If there was a settlement resolution, would the U.S. abstain? I could see that as a possibility,” said Goldenberg.

In the wake of Israel’s election, U.N. and Israeli officials exchanged sharp words after U.N. spokesman Farhan Haq called on the new Israeli government to halt “illegal settlement-building in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”

In response to the statement, Ron Prosor, Israel’s ambassador to the U.N., snapped back: “If the U.N. is so concerned about the future of the Palestinian people, it should be asking … why Hamas uses the Palestinian people as human shields.”

CNN has lots of eggs on its face!

by Breitbart

All day long yesterday, CNN was relentlessly beating the drum and practically celebrating the forgone conclusion that sitting Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu was about to lose the elections. Every move Netanyahu made over the past few weeks that outraged Obama and his media allies was framed by CNN today as a blunder - from the speech he made before Congress to sounding the alarm today about Israeli Leftists busing Arabs to the polls.

CNN was quite obviously setting up a Narrative to explain and gloat over what polls said was almost certain to be a Netanyahu defeat.

A funny thing happened at 4 pm ET when the exit polls from Israel came in. Netanyahu was tied or slightly ahead. An hour later news reports suggested Netanyahu had already cobbled together enough allies from other parties to form a governing coalition. This means he will remain Prime Minister. This is why he took to Twitter to declare victory.

By 6pm, the biggest story in the world, and one of the biggest electoral upsets in recent memory, was no longer the biggest story on CNN. Despite all the domestic and international ramifications of Netanyahu’s almost certain victory, despite all the backfilling CNN had done all day to “explain” Netanyahu’s defeat, Netanyahu’s upset did not lead CNN’s 6 pm hour with Wolf Blitzer. Netanyahu giving his victory speech did not lead the 7 pm hour with Erin Burnett.

At 6 pm and 7pm, CNN decided that the story of the night was … a single Air Force veteran trying to join ISIS.

At around 7:10 pm, Burnett finally decided it was time to talk about the Israeli elections, and when she did she read a chyron that read, “Is Netanyahu About to Lose?” Not “Too Close to Call.” Not “Bibi Upset Victory?” Nope. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, CNN stuck to its “about to lose” narrative.-

Things got much worse.

An obviously rattled Burnett came back from commercial and then went on to prove she knows absolutely nothing about how the Israeli government works. For some ignorant reason she is under the impression that a tie or something close to it means Netanyahu is weakened and will - this is a direct quote - “have to share a significant amount of power with Isaac Herzog.”

Apparently you can become a primetime CNN anchor without knowing anything about Israel’s coalition government system.

Does anyone have any more questions about why Fox News is now the most trusted name in news?

CNN isn’t alone. But CNN was the news outlet that had gone further out on a limb than any other in gambling big on a Netanyahu loss.

As far as the rest of our unbiased, objective media, let me put it this way: All the planned and hotly anticipated “Did Bibi’s Speech to Congress Backfire?” narratives and thought pieces will not be replaced with “Did Obama’s Meddling In the Israeli Elections Backfire?” narratives and thought pieces.

The media likely lost this one, which can only mean one thing: the world will be a better and safer place.

Now read:

read Commentary’s Jonathan Tobin:

Within moments of the announcement of the exit polls, some of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s critics were claiming his likely win in today’s Knesset election was the result of a crude, racist appeal to voters. 

The justification for this charge was a speech made by Netanyahu and released only on social media because of restrictions on campaign appeals in the media, telling the country that left-wing groups funded by foreign money were busing Arab voters to the polls in order to elect a left-wing government led by his Zionist Union rival Isaac Herzog. Netanyahu’s opponents interpreted this as an appeal to racism. The statement was unfortunate because it made it seem as if the prime minister viewed Arab voters as somehow illegitimate. But the voters likely saw it in a different light. The prospect of a left-wing government that depended on the Joint Arab List was always unlikely. But a critical mass of voters viewed the prospect with alarm not because they’re racists but because a government that relied on the votes of anti-Zionists that favor Israel’s dissolution was something they considered a danger to the future of their country…Though Western journalists mocked Netanyahu’s comments about wanting to prevent a “Hamasistan” in the West Bank, the voters in Israel largely agreed. That doesn’t make them racist or extreme. It means they are, like most Americans, realists. They may not like Netanyahu but today’s results demonstrates that there is little support for a government that would make the sort of concessions to the Palestinians that President Obama would like. They rightly believe that even if Israel did make more concessions it would only lead to more violence, not peace. Israel’s foreign critics and friends need to understand that in the end, it was those convictions have, for all intents and purposes, re-elected Netanyahu.

Netanyahu's big win shocks Liberal Media and Pollsters

Embarrassed at failing to predict Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s election victory, Israeli pollsters said on Wednesday they were blindsided by reticent rightist voters and may have unwittingly prodded waverers to back the incumbent.

Netanyahu’s Likud won 30 of parliament’s 120 seats in Tuesday’s ballot, against 24 for the center-left Zionist Union - upsetting opinion surveys that as recently as Friday gave the challenger a four-seat lead.

Exit polls also proved unreliable. Israel’s top three television stations, airing first returns as voting booths closed, found the parties close or tied. Had that been borne out, either could have potentially headed the next government.

Instead, during overnight counting, Likud’s tally went from 27 seats to 30 and the Zionist Union’s from 27 to 24.

Grilled on the discrepancy, Channel 2 TV’s veteran pollster Mina Tzemach said many Likud voters declined to take part in replicating their vote in the dummy ballot boxes set up by survey-taking companies outside voting stations.

Even though exit polls are anonymous, she suggested such reticence might have cultural roots for Israelis originally from countries with different political regimes in which they worry about sharing their private voting choices.

“In certain voting stations, voting stations in places where there are a lot of new immigrants, pro-Likud ballot boxes, the percent of those who voted (in the exit polls) was especially low,” Tzemach told Israel’s Army Radio.

Fellow survey-taker Camil Fuchs agreed, saying final counts from voting stations he had monitored showed that a significant number of Likud supporters had not participated in exit polls.

If they did participate, they may also not have been honest about the way they voted and as exit polls close earlier than the real polls, a last-minute surge in Likud votes, in response to a call from Netanyahu, may have been missed, he said.

“Some people don’t say (in exit polls) what they really voted, and the exit polls close about two hours before the voting booths,” Fuchs told Israel Radio.

Israeli election forecasts have been wrong before - in 1981, when the Likud narrowly won; in 1992 about the return to left-wing Labor party rule; and in 1996, when Netanyahu toppled Labor incumbent Shimon Peres for his first term in office.

Recent reliance on Internet-based studies has thrown another spanner in the works, according to Avi Degani, an Israeli pollster who says he conducted telephone surveys exclusively. Since last month, he has been the only one consistently predicting a victory for Netanyahu.

Degani said Web-based “panels,” made up of tens of thousands of pre-selected respondents, rarely reflect Israeli society accurately as they favor the tech-savvy, educated and urbane.

“The Internet does not represent the State of Israel or the people of Israel. (It is) biased strongly toward Tel Aviv,” Degani told reporters in a conference call arranged by the Israel Project advocacy group, referring to Israel’s second largest city and financial capital.

“People who are in the periphery ... and have a stronger tendency to vote Likud are, I think, very poorly represented.”

In separate remarks to Reuters, Degani said Israeli pollsters were always bedevilled by some 30 percent of citizens whose votes are unknowable - either because they waver until the last minute or end up backing fringe parties that do not muster enough support to enter parliament and are nixed from the tally.

“We are talking about 20 parliament seats that could go either way. It is almost impossible to tackle statistically.”

Still, Degani said he anticipated Netanyahu’s win by finding that at least half of wavering voters would choose Likud, adding that some of those respondents viewed themselves as rallying against Zionist Union’s strong showing in opinion polls.

“It is a highly emotional matter in Israel, and the Likud had the added advantage of being the last party, with the possible exception of (liberal) Meretz, of having a defined ideology. The rest are just about personalities,” Degani said.

Gedoili Yisroel Voting .... Satmar Anti-voting Campaign Collapses ... "Falshe SHIT'eh"

Satmar Animals cursing Rav Shteinman, Viznitzer Rebbe, Gerrer Rebbe and the Belzer Rebbe, because they all voted!

Here see Gedoilim Voting, ignoring the Roumanian savages!

Rav Shteinman on way to vote

Rav Kanievsky Voting

Rav Dov Landau Rosh Yeshiva Slobodka

Rav Yitzchok Scheiner Rosh yeshiva Kaminetz

Rav Nissim Karlitz Rosh Kollel Chazon Ish

Rav Azriel Auerbach 

Netanyahu Stays ......

Officials close to President Reuven Rivlin told Channel 1 late Tuesday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will form the next coalition if Kulanu head Moshe Kahlon offers his endorsement of the incumbent.


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared victory after a tight national election appeared to give him the upper hand in forming the country's next coalition government.

 In a statement released on Twitter, Netanyahu says that "against all odds" his Likud party and the nationalist camp secured a "great victory." Initial exit polls showed Netanyahu's Likud Party deadlocked with the center-left Zionist Union (Labor). But the results indicated that Netanyahu will have an easier time cobbling together a majority coalition 

Meisels Seminary: Joint Bais Din allows Meisels to keep molesting students ... No problem!

Meisels 

Of course they don't say it out right, just read the psak, and you will conclude as I did that the headline is correct, and not misleading ......

But I have to give credit where credit is due .... the Bais Din did acknowledge that abuse took place, but they decided to  protect the enablers!

If you need further clarification and pshat in the psak ....

read the great commentary from FRUMFOLLIES, he has a great take on this outrageous conclusion!

Psak translation from Frumfollies:

The eve before Wednesday, 5 Adar, 5775 (March 10, 2015)

The Expanded Beis Din With These Rabbis

• Rabbi Gedalia Dov Schwartz
• Rabbi Shmuel Feurst
• Rabbi Yisroel Zev Hacohen Cohen- These three [above] are from Chicago, USA henceforth [referred to as] the Chicago Beis Din [aka CBD]
• Rabbi Menachem Mendel Hacohen Shafran
• Rabbi Chaim Zev ben R. Avrohom Aharon Halevi Malinowitz
• Rabbi Tzvi Gartner- These three [above] are from Eretz Yisroel [Israel] henceforth [referred to as] the Eretz Yisroel Beis Din [aka IBD]
• Rabbi Eliyahu Brudney from Brooklyn, New York

We sat as an expanded beis din (rabbinical court) to judge the issue of the seminaries: Pninim, Chedvas Beis Yaakov, Binas Beis Yaakov, and Keser Chaya – henceforth referred to as “the seminaries”. This psak din (ruling) is the continuation of the partial psak din that was rendered on Monday, 9 Kislev 5775 (December 1, 2014), and these [two rulings] should be understood as a unit.

In this part of the psak din, we address the question of the responsibility of the administrators in what occurred:

• Did they know anything at the time of the events or should they have known?
• Included in this is the issue of the general atmosphere in the seminaries; was there an atmosphere of frivolity that invited abuse? Did they contribute knowingly or unknowingly to the creation of such an atmosphere? Or/and did they fail in creating a proper atmosphere?
• Similarly, when incidents became known regarding the previous year, did the administrators act properly in the relevant spheres?

Our deliberations led to the following Psak Din (Ruling)

A. Keser Chaya Seminary [Mrs. Shulamis Soloff]: No complaint of unacceptable or prohibited action against the offender/abuser [Elimelech Meisels] was received with regard to this seminary. While there were complaints of inappropriate, improper, and abnormal behavior (the type described in the Reasons of the psak din of Rav M.M. HaKohen Shafran, from here on to be referred to as briefly as “Reasons”), the administrators dealt with those incidents immediately, with efficiency and expertise. We decisively say: there was not and is not any reason in the world to raise questions regarding this wonderful; seminary or its administration. This decision should repair any mistaken impression that could confuse others created in the past.

B. Pninim Seminary [Rabbi Boruch Dovid Simon]: Adjudicating this case is superfluous. This is because the administrator at the time of these acts was the offender/abuser himself [Elimelech Meisels]. The current administration was promoted from among the staff as a result of the offender/abuser’s resigning/firing.

As such, one cannot complain about the current administration because of the acts of the previous administration – run by the offender/abuser – and they bear no responsibility, even administratively, for his [Meisel’s] actions.

It should also be noted what was written in note 7 of the partial psak din: “The beis dinwas deeply impressed from the staff of the seminaries, their dedication and concern, their outlook and fear of God, and their being fit to educate bnos yisroel (Jewish daughters) in Torah and fear of heaven and to establish faithful homes in Israel.” These words that were said generally are certainly applicable to the [current] administration of Pninim Seminary.

C. Chedvas Beis Yaakov Seminary [Rabbi Meir Kahane]: Here, we also received no complaints about unacceptable or forbidden behavior by the offender/abuser, only inappropriate, and abnormal behavior, (the type of behavior described in the “Reasons” document.) But, unlike the situation in Keser Chaya, a complaint and claim was placed against them as if the administrator’s response was too conciliatory and inadequate, and perhaps even worse (for details, see the “Reasons” document.)

Also, an email was shown to us that was sent from the administrator about the incident. The email was sent to a group of former students, after the incident blew up and became publicized. It was claimed that this email was at worst an attempt to hide or obscure things (cover-up in English), and at best, insensitive to the situation of the victims.

And so, after careful examination and after pitting the administrator against the witness who testified about the abnormal behavior of the attacker and the inappropriate response of the administrator, we reached the following decision: We heard the explanation of the administrator. Although it would appear that his response cannot be characterized as wise or insightful, but from there to placing a stain and suspicion on a dedicated administrator whose reputation precedes him—who could suggest such a thing?! We will leave it at that.

Regarding the email: the administrator explained his pure intentions – giving strength and encouragement, in what was meant to be a closed forum, to former students who were bewildered and confused about the magnitude of the incident and the public reaction to it. According to him, the initiative for this came from students who asked him for words of encouragement on the topic.

Again, one can debate the judgment of the administrator and his timing. Similarly, he should have known there are no secrets; things said—and certainly written—in a closed forum with many participants are susceptible to being leaked. But in the end, there was no attempt here to hide or obfuscate the facts or be insensitive to the victims.

As such, and taking into account the fact that the administrator expressed before us his true regret for the words that he penned, which might not have been proper, and taking into account his great suffering and the publicizing of him in a bad light recently, we establish that he has already had his just deserts, and there is no further reason to doubt or question—God forbid!—his good name and fitness for educating the young women to Torah and knowledge.

D. Binas Beis Yaakov Seminary [Mrs. Hindy Ullman]: here the issue is more complex, and we will go in order.

1. Did the administration know in real time what was going on under their auspices: The beis din is convinced that until the day the story became known towards the end of last year, the seminary’s administration knew nothing about the offender/abuser’s actions. All the “proofs” submitted before the beis din suggesting they knew this or the other detail, can only be considered speculative and imagination. They do not conform with the reality on the ground, or with the personality of the administration.

2. The administration’s response when the incident became known: The chain of events is detailed extensively in the “Reasons” document. It is clear that once it became known, the administration acted quickly, with determination, and with great efficiency to investigate what occurred. This led to the removal of the offender/abuser from the physical environment (by immediately sending him abroad) and from continuing in the field of education – for these actions the administration is worthy of great praise. {see footnote 1}

3. Regarding the behavior of the administration toward the parents of the victim, and to witness “5”: see the “Reasons” document, and the matter is clear.

4. Regarding the question of the general atmosphere in this seminary, if it was an atmosphere of frivolity, inviting such incidents: the answer is a decisive no. See “Reasons” for more on this at length.

5. Regarding the question of whether the administration should have known sooner what was going on under their auspices: here we are perplexed, and we will go into more detail in order to explain.

As stated in the partial psak din and in the “Reasons,” the offender/abuser himself is not a part of these proceedings. Further, many of those who were meant to know what was going on in the seminary at the time have refused to testify before the beis din. Despite that, the picture that has emerged thus far (based mainly on the written admission of the offender/abuser and supported by a number of testimonies) is as such:

We are talking about incidents that occurred during the schools years of 5770-5774 [Fall ’09- Summer ‘14]. Incidents before that period are not known. The incidents happened in the first years of Pninim, and from 5772 (the year Binas Beis Yaakov opened) and on, specifically in Binas. {see footnote 2} We are talking about a handful of incidents each year. {See footnote 3}

After going through the material before us, it is difficult to shake the feeling that there were red flags and troubling signs, and the administration should have known and sensed what was going on under its own nose. {See Footnote 4} Indeed, it is difficult to establish that with certainty, and even if you say it is true, how can we know and decide if it was at the level of negligence or near negligence, or less than that – but to leave it at nothing is impossible.

On the other hand, one must take into account the great suffering by the administration in recent months with the publication putting them in a bad light, along with their praiseworthy response once the matter became known, as described in section 2.

Therefore it seems that we must make do with the continuation of the arrangements that were agreed upon by the administration in Kislev of this year. According to [these arrangements], some of the positions and responsibility will be transferred temporarily to another party. As well, supervision and guidance by Mrs. Birnbaum will be increased. These arrangements will be in effect until the start of the school year of 5777 [Fall 2016].

E. In part 2, paragraph 1 of the partial psak din it is written: first, and foremost, the beis din Eretz Yisroel dealt with the removal of the offender/abuser and his family from all administrative positions in the seminaries, and brought about their being removed from the amuta [Israeli not-for-profit corporation], and the transferring of responsibility to other people. The situation today is that the amuta and all the institutions under its umbrella are being transferred to the faithful hands of a group of Haredi activists who arebnei torah, who will be completely subservient to the instructions of the expanded beis din, and above them the great rabbis and teachers, the elders of the roshei yeshivos of the USA.

Practically, the issues have been drawn out and have yet to come to a resolution. The beis din is convinced that the situation will be resolved in the best way possible, and is giving it more time, until July 1, 2015. The beis din will continue to follow developments and if necessary will sit again on this issue.

F.  As a side note on the matter: it is no secret that over the entire period of the case thebattei din (Eretz Yisroel and Chicago) acted separately. If we did act jointly, this is as a result of the efforts of three people who wish to remain anonymous, from Chicago, who have worked tirelessly for the success of the unification, and under the authority of Rabbi Avrohom Chaim Levin, Rosh Yeshiva of Telshe Yeshiva-Chicago and member of the Moetzes Gedolei Hatorah of Agudah [Council of Torah Sages of Agudath Israel of America], they should be blessed from heaven with all good. And to the Rosh Yeshiva it is said: “Days onto the days of the king may you add, etc.”[Psalms/Tehillim 61:7], and together we should merit to greet the righteous redeemer, speedily in our day, amen. (Footnote 5)

We came to sign on the eve before Wednesday, 20 Adar, 5775 (March 10, 2015) {See footnote 5}

• Rabbi Gedalia Dov Schwartz
• Rabbi Menachem Mendel Hacohen Shafran- (I published my view as part of the minority opinion, and here I join my voice to that of the majority with regards to the practical outcome.)
• Rabbi Shmuel Feurst
• Rabbi Chaim Zev ben R. Avrohom Aharon Halevi Malinowitz (My opinion, in the full sense of the word, is like that of R. Shafran, and my view is also like that of the minority, but here I sign to join with the majority as it regards halacha and the practical outcome.)
• Rabbi Yisroel Zev Hacohen Cohen
• Rabbi Tzvi Gartner
• Rabbi Eliyahu Brudney

Footnotes:

1. It should be stressed a document was presented to the beis din seemingly proving that at least one member of the beis din knew about the actions of the administration while it was happening.
2. [redacted to protect identity of victims and to comply with court order barring publicizing their identities by name or other unique information]
3. And so the rumors of tens of victims each year have no basis or foundation in reality
4. Though, in reality, she didn’t know
5. The minority view, of Rabbis Schwartz, Feurst and Cohen – on one side, and Rabbis Shafran and Malinowitz and the other side, as well as the explanations of the majority, will be publicized separately.

Satmar in Monroe Violates the Prohibition of "Hisgeirus Be'Umos" Antagonizing the Gentiles!

The Romanian Satmar Chassidim  accuse the State of Israel of antagonizing the gentiles (Hisgarois Be'Umois)!

So read the following letter, and see who the culprit is!

An open letter to the leaders of Kiryas Joel:

Thank you for sharing your recent postcards with the citizens of the Town and Village of Monroe. They are very professionally done, and they paint a pleasantly positive image of your community.

But having said that, I now find that I must be brutally honest. It boggles my mind how deceptive your advertising is, and how arrogant you seem to be regarding your status in the world-at-large; as if you are the only ones that matter, and the rest of us are irrelevant.

Let's face it, the community of Kiryas Joel is a massive financial leech on Monroe, on Orange County, and on New York State. You trade votes for favors with corrupt politicians as a means of furthering your cultural goals.

And you do all this with no regard for your neighbors, or for the degradation of the quality of life of the people around you that your behavior results in. This disgusts me.

You do not want to make nice with your neighbors; your actions (which speaking louder than words and propaganda) make that crystal clear. Any such characterization of that by your public relations efforts is a bald-faced lie.

Your ad in this newspaper portrays your pattern of growth as "smart." Let me tell you something: "smart" is the last thing it is.

Here's what "smart growth" starts with:

• It starts with not having more children than your family can support with its own income, and is not predicated on social services as a primary support mechanism.

• It starts with not overtaxing the local water and sewage systems, which ultimately pollute the environment and create shortages in needed resources.

• It starts with development that is inclusive of the people who live around you rather than exclusive.

It makes me sick to my stomach each time you are publicly criticized and your response to it is "Anti-Semitism" or "Racism."

That is so tired.
Your neighbors are neither anti-Semitic or racist. The Monroe community outside of your village is comprised of many Jews, Christians, Irish, Italians, Polish, Mexicans, Chinese, and Caribbean-born peoples. They are black, white, yellow, and all ranges of skin color, and they are all celebrated by the Town and the Village of Monroe.

What you call anti-Semitism is actually anti-you-using-our-money-to-fund-your-culture. What you are doing is amoral, and clearly against God's wishes. Read your Commandments and take them to heart.

You have created an enemy of your neighbors in Monroe, Woodbury and beyond, mainly because we don't wish to pay for your "smart growth" out of our own pockets and taxes. Please know that you will be fought and fought and fought until you change your tune and begin financially supporting your culture on your own.

The days of you being supported by Monroe, Orange County and New York State are done.

Sincerely,
Todd Jennings
Monroe

Rav Shteinman: Mitzvah to Vote "Gimmel"

"Oiy Ya'Yoi" Yated ordered to run ads for "All Lady Party" in Israel.... UPDATED MAR 16

Lol! 
The Zionist court in Israel ruled that Chareidie Newspapers must run at least one ad for the "All Lady Religious Party" .... even though "gedoilim" are vehemently opposed to them!
These "gedolim" would have opposed Devorah the Shofetes.. too. 
They are of course holier than the Tanach!

Ruth Kolian

Read and laugh your head off!

A Lod District Court ordered ultra-Orthodox newspapers Yated Ne'eman and Yom Le'yom on Friday to run campaign ads for the Haredi women's party B'Zechutan, after the party claimed the papers were discriminating against it by refusing to print its ads.

The decision could also result in official Shas and United Torah Judaism journals - which serve as the mouthpiece of the most prominent Haredi rabbis - also having to run campaign ads for a party that challenges them and accuses them of exclusion of women.

B'Zechutan leader Ruth Kolian petitioned the court with the help of the Center for the Advancement of the Status of Women and the Center for Women's Justice. Her lawyers, attorneys Karen Horowitz and Shai Zilberberg, explained that the printed Haredi press is the only media channel accessible to the party's potential voters.

Yated Ne'ema (File photo)

Judge Jacob Spasser issued an interim order which requires the two newspapers to run at least one of the party's campaign ads until Election Day, noting that in this case the principle of equality surpasses the property rights of the newspapers' owners.

"This is an ad which is public in nature, and mostly targets women in the Haredi sector," the judge wrote in his ruling. "There's considerable public importance in running it, an importance that might be higher in light of the prohibition on discrimination and the principle of equality in elections."

The court rejected the papers' claim that papers that already cover different parties whose views are clearly not in line with their own views, might offend their readers by running an ad for the Haredi women's party.

Prof. Ruth Halperin-Kaddari, the head of the Rackman Center for the Advancement of the Status of Women at Bar-Ilan University's Law Faculty, said following the ruling that "this is a historic legal precedent which determines that in certain circumstances, considerations of equality for women and election equality, as well as preventing discrimination against women and their preventing their exclusion, surpass property rights of commercial bodies like newspapers.

"This is the height of women's exclusion. Haredi women are not only prevented in practice from realizing the basic human right of running and being elected for Knesset, they are also denied the equal opportunity to inform their potential voters that they are running independently."

B'Zechutan leader Ruth Kolian said: "By having the Haredi newspapers refuse to allow us to reach our voters, we're excluded twice. First, we're not allowed to reach our audience of voters, and secondly, instead of using the time we have left until the elections to campaign, we have to turn to different courts in order to realize our right to be elected."
Kolian also said she hoped her party continues creating precedents in the elections as well.

UPDATED!!!!

Three days after an Israeli district court ordered chareidi newspapers to run election ads featuring women, the Supreme Court today overturned that decision, arguing that the judgment was hastily made and would have to be reexamined in depth without time constraints.

The chareidi women’s party Bezchutan petitioned to have their advertisements shown in chareidi print publications Yated Ne’eman and Yom Le’yom. A ruling Friday at the Lod District Court rejected claims that printing the images would insult the sensibilities of readers, and ordered their publication before Israelis head to the polls on March 17.

The newspapers, however, appealed that decision at the Supreme Court and the presiding judge ordered the commercials be postponed until the case can be properly mulled “without [the] time constraints” of Tuesday’s impending vote.

“The sequence of events led to a situation where the merits of the legal issue weren’t discussed in depth,” Supreme Court Justice Neal Hendel said.

“The necessary balance between conflicting interests and the principles at stake was not found [in the initial judgment,]” Hendel said.

He noted that a ruling had not been made in either of the parties’ favor, and called on both sides to hold a hearing within an acceptable time frame.