“Pharisees on the Potomac” is the headline from a July 18 attack by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd on what she considers to be the moral hypocrisy — “the ancient political art of Tartuffery,” as she calls it — of Republican Party leaders on Capitol Hill.
Let’s stay away from politics. Let’s even stay away from Maureen Dowd, being it’s likely that her column’s headline was written by the editors of the Times’ op-ed page rather than by the columnist herself. Headlines of newspaper and magazine articles are generally an editorial prerogative.
Let’s stick to the word “Pharisee” in its common English sense of a hypocrite who preaches morality to others without practicing it himself. Is this a usage Jews should be up in arms about? Should we be bombarding The New York Times, and others who resort to it, with our protests?
There certainly would seem to be good reasons for doing so. After all, the Pharisees were not just another ancient sect of Jews, like the Sadducees, Essenes and Zealots, who lived toward the end of the Second Temple period; they were the founders of rabbinic tradition and the direct spiritual and intellectual ancestors of the rabbis of the Mishnah and the Talmud who came after them — that is, of normative halachic Judaism as we know it. To perpetuate the English language’s equation of them with self-righteous hypocrites is to perpetuate the belief that Judaism is a self-righteous and hypocritical religion.
The original source of this belief is, of course, Jesus’ remarks about the Pharisees in the New Testament — remarks that owe no small part of their venom to the fact that Jesus was a maverick Pharisee himself who shared many of the Pharisees’ assumptions and values. We rebel most strongly against our own predecessors, and when Jesus is quoted as saying things like, “Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of extortion and wickedness… you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God,” he is venting his anger and disappointment on those to whom he is religiously closest. A loyal Jew in his fashion, it never would have occurred to him that such statements would form the basis of rabid anti-Jewish sentiments in a new religion he had no intention of founding.
Yet this is what they did, and for 2,000 years, the word “pharisee” has been so synonymous in the Western world with “sanctimonious” and “two-faced” that even The New York Times, despite its many Jewish staffers and readers, did not think twice before using it that way.
Should we make an issue of it?
Those who would counsel us not to do so have available two lines of argument. One is that even if we don’t like it, the pejorative meaning of “pharisee” is part of the English language and should be respected. The second is that as long as Jews don’t remind the world of their connection to it, “pharisee” is no longer a word greatly associated with them. Coming from Hebrew parush, meaning “separated” or “set aside” — an apparent allusion to the fact that the original Pharisees were a small minority who kept to themselves and lived by their own rules — the word was discarded by rabbinic Judaism once it triumphed in the Jewish world. Since then, the early rabbis of the Second Temple, Mishnaic and Talmudic periods have long been known to Jews not as p’rushim but as h.azal, an acronym for h.akhameynu zikhronam livrakha, “our sages of blessed memory.” Since we Jews ourselves, it can be argued, no longer identify with the word “pharisee,” why should we care what others make of it?
Neither of these arguments is very convincing. Many words that were once respectable in English no longer are so, because they constitute explicit or implicit ethnic or religious slurs, and I don’t see why “pharisee” in the sense of “hypocrite” is any different. As for the claim that if only we Jews don’t make a fuss about it, no one will realize who the Pharisees were, this strikes me as spineless and demeaning. The Pharisees were us, and regardless of where in the religious spectrum a contemporary Jew stands, there is no denying that it is only because of the Pharisees that Judaism exists today at all.
I’m not suggesting that “Pharisee” in the sense of “hypocrite” be stricken from the dictionaries. Dictionaries should be descriptive, not proscriptive. But I do think that Jews, as readers of newspapers, magazines, books and electronic media, should make it known that they find the use of “Pharisee” to mean “hypocrite” objectionable and would like to see it eliminated. This has nothing to do with asking Christians to change their views. From a Jewish point of view, most of the early Christian church fathers were crassly antisemitic, but if “church father” became a synonym for “antisemite” in English, Christians certainly would have a right to protest. So do Jews when it comes to the Pharisees.
Questions for Philologos can be sent to philologos@forward.com.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Why a Rabbi Should Not Marry Outside the Faith
Tapping Into Growing Lure of Hidden Jewish Heritage
Montreal's First Jewish Mayor Michael Applebaum Hit With Corruption Charges
Getting In Face of Ultra-Orthodox on Need for Real World Education
Barbra Streisand Is Butt of Anti-Semitic Joke
You've successfully signed up!
I made similar arguments based on my sense of the history behind the Christian New Testament in my blog a week or so ago. See http://www.theliberalspirit.com/?p=1206
Just for your information, regular (as opposed to guest) op-ed columnists at The New York Times are the exception to the general rule -- they each write their own headlines.
Why the Prez Bush’s crusade was “good for the Jews”, and Pharisee is bad.
Early Christian church fathers weren't Anti-Semitic. They were Anti-Judaist in the same way that their contemporaries Rabbis were Anti-Christian. It’s OK, that Rabbis didn’t become a synonym of Anti-Christian :) May be The Good Samaritan is Anti-Semitic too? Lets rename all the hospitals in US.
In this sense, Haskala movement was Anti-Semitic too. What I read about scandals into the Rabbinic establishments today, they are a Pharisees-hypocrites.
We are going to become pathetic. If Anti-Semitism is everywhere, it is nowhere. And most important: What the “Jewish point of view” is?
"After all, the Pharisees were not just another ancient sect of Jews, like the Sadducees, Essenes and Zealots, who lived toward the end of the Second Temple period; they were the founders of rabbinic tradition and the direct spiritual and intellectual ancestors of the rabbis of the Mishnah and the Talmud who came after them — that is, of normative halachic Judaism as we know it."
Actually, they were "just another sect"- and not the "founders" or the "direct ancestors" of the rabbinic movement. See the extremely important article by Shaye J.D. Cohen "The significance of Yavneh : Pharisees, rabbis and the end of Jewish sectarianism" Hebrew Union College Annual 55 (1984) 27-53.
"After all, the Pharisees were not just another ancient sect of Jews, like the Sadducees, Essenes and Zealots, who lived toward the end of the Second Temple period; they were the founders of rabbinic tradition and the direct spiritual and intellectual ancestors of the rabbis of the Mishnah and the Talmud who came after them — that is, of normative halachic Judaism as we know it."
Actually, they were "just another sect"- and not the "founders" or the "direct ancestors" of the rabbinic movement. See the extremely important article by Shaye J.D. Cohen "The significance of Yavneh : Pharisees, rabbis and the end of Jewish sectarianism" Hebrew Union College Annual 55 (1984) 27-53.
Of course Jews have a "right to protest". But do we have an obligation to do so on this issue? I say no. Don't we have about the same proportion of "Pharisees" on the Jordan as the Federal Government has on the Potomac. Let's address our own hypocracies before raising a ruckus about a benign usage.
The word "Jew" is itself used perjoratively. Is someone who uses it ignorant and anti-Semitic?
Indeed, the word "Pharisee" continues to appear in popular culture as a pejorative. However, we no longer use phrases such as “he gypped me” or “Indian giver” nor “Welsh on a debt”. We've learned that even though "sticks and stones can break my bones" these words/names can indeed hurt.
I wrote about Maureen's poor choice of words and another, similar, interesting use of "Pharisee" on my blog on July 28.
http://www.davka.org/2009/07/28/what-do-you-put-in-your-coffee/
`//rite On! Mark Hurvitz http://www.davka.org
What should the goy do about Bill Maher going "if you are seeing Jesus in your dog's ass", with a picture of a dog's ass with Jesus's head as the 'anus' juxtaposed?
Goy's point is well taken. While the Christians must put up with Jesus in a dog's ass, the sensitive souls here worry about whether "Pharisee" makes the Jews look bad. I have never heard a contemporary rabbi referred to as a Pharisee, at least not by reason of his occupation. But it's another adventure for the Linguistic Sanitation Department (LSD), never a dull moment ...
Sorry, boychiks! "Anti-semitism" doesn't cut it any more in this age of political correctness. If anyone really wants to stick it to Maureen, they will have to get really creative and say that when Maureen wrote about "Pharisees" she was really referring, in secretly coded language, to African-Americans. This would immediately bring down the wrath of the Establishment upon her, resulting in either her immediate dismissal or a visit to the White House for beer and knishes with the President, himself a Pharisee, oops, excuse me, an African American.
Tarshisha asks if te good samaritan is anti semetic as well. The answer is yes. The is that a Pharisee is walking along the road and ignores someone one in need. The person who helps the person by the side of the road is a Samaritan. The Samaritan was not recognized by the Jews (or any one else) as Jewish, although the Samaritan engeged in some Jewish practices.
Samaritans were people brought into Samaria (the Northern Kingdom) after it was conquered by Assyria. The Jews there were relocated by the Assyrians and subsquentlt lost (the lost 10 tribes) The Samaritans adopted some Jewish practices but also retained their idolatorous practices.
By structuring the story as the NT does, it makes Jews into hypocrites and the Samaritans virutous.
Very important point that Yeshu'a was himself a Pharisee, and not only that but his emissary Sha'ul (Paul) was not only a Pharisee but number one disciple of Gamaliel and very likely a paid-up member of the Sanhedrin.
Goy states:
> What should the goy do about Bill Maher going > "if you are seeing Jesus in your dog's ass", > with a picture of a dog's ass with Jesus's head > as the 'anus' juxtaposed?
Aside from the context of one (Dowd) being serious and the other (Maher) a rather distasteful attempt at humor, I stand with anyone who states that Maher's statement is inappropriate.
`//rite On! ,\\ark Hurvitz
The NYT is so-often ignorant and anti-Israel/anti-Semitic in its reporting, that to focus on this small item seems silly. (There are other even worse American papers, such as the LA Times, and others, like the SF Chronicle and the Chicago Trib. Then there are world-class outrageous international propagandists, like the BBC, Guardian, Economist, Reuters, CNN (special mention to Christiane Amanpour), NBC, CBC, and a bunch of others. Its not worth mentioning the anti-Semitic arab media.)
There are many real examples of NYT bias, chronicled by Honestreporting.com and CAMERA.org., and Campus-watch.org. It hosted Rashid Khalidi and Tony Judt.
Honestreporting.com did an entire year-long analysis:
The New York Times: A Year-Long Analysis ( http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/The_New_York_Times_A_Year-Long_Analysis.asp )
The NYT routinely uses language in its "reporting" which reflects sympathy for "palestinian" terrorists, and animus towards Israel. Muslim murderers are "terrorists" when they attack Americans, and "militants when they attack Israelis.
Another example:
New York Times Attacks Israel on its Op-Ed Page [incl. Rashid Khalidi] - Campus Watch ( http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/6573 )
And another:
http://thecaseforisrael.com/pdf/Tony%20Judt.pdf
Another:
CAMERA: New York Times Anti-Israel Bias in Editorials As Bad As Ever ( http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=35&x_article=955 )
More:
CAMERA: More Anti-Israel Propaganda in New York Times Op-Eds ( http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=35&x_article=1491 )
On CAMERA Column: Karen Armstrong's Unscholarly Prejudices ( http://www.sullivan-county.com/x/armstrong3.htm )
the 'trump' cards, such as "antisemitism" and "were not allowed" to be this or that, no longer work on any observer. the fact is that mosheic-talmudic 'laws' [really rabid rabbis' wishes and other delusions] commanded small number of the cultists to become merchants and controlers of money markets.
for only thus cld mad rabbis prosetelyze and obtain new converts in afro-asia-europe. In other words, the cult wld have evanesced 2-3 millennia ago had it not been for the fact that one does not get rich working; only thru money mangement/dishonesty one can impress people no matter how assinine a cult cld be.
misuse of money on interpersonal and int'l level is the root cause for all ills that befall us on the two levels of our being. proper use [whatever it may turn out to be]wld have obviated madoff, afpak, koreas, vietnam, palestine, iraq, somalia and many other conflicts.
in short, one thousand $ left in the budget, after we wld obtain right to be informed; have been medically treated, high schooled, etcetc., we wldn't have gone to far away places killing/maiming people.
and cultists such as koresh's, jones', mosheic, mohammedan, christian, talmudic, judaistic stop at nothing in order to maintain or spread their respective cults. their allegince is first of all to their respective priestly class; commonly called by mad priests "defence of god" or his commands.tnx
Reminds me of Woody Allen in Manhattan where he hears "Jew" every time someone slurs the question "Did you" The term "Pharisee" is part of the Christian cultural legacy. And I doubt our Christian friends will excise the term from the NT anytime soon. Then again, when was the last time a Member of the Tribe called himself a Pharisee in the past millennium? Let's stop obsessing about the unimportant things.
Reminds me of Woody Allen in Manhattan where he hears "Jew" every time someone slurs the question "Did you" The term "Pharisee" is part of the Christian cultural legacy. And I doubt our Christian friends will excise the term from the NT anytime soon. Then again, when was the last time a Member of the Tribe called himself a Pharisee in the past millennium? Let's stop obsessing about the unimportant things.
This time, I think Philologos has it wrong. "Pharisee" has taken on a life of its own, removed from the Jews-in-Jesus'-time saga. Second, as an earlier commenter pointed out, enough already! "If everything is antisemitic, nothing is antisemitic." And third, this is not the time to chastise the gentile world for perceived innuendo when a rabbi is caught selling human organs. We have alot more to worry about, especially the disgraceful behavior of (many of) our religious contingent.
I second Tarshisha and NachumL: You people (the sanctimonious guardians of the Jewish honor) are becoming pathetic indeed. Here's some Frank to name one.
Now, please, go to read what Joshua B. Hannania wrote: "Joshua saw the greatest danger to the community in the sickly offshoots of piety. The following he calls "enemies of general prosperity": the foolishly pious (pious at the wrong time); sly sinners; the woman who shows an overpious bearing; and the "plague of the Pharisees," the hypocrites who pretend to be saints (Soṭah iii. 4, 21b; Yer. Soṭah 21b)."
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=J&artid=551
http://bobrow.wordpress.com
To Roberto Bobrow so what? i have a plenty of Yiddish proverbs about Jewish falce piety and super-observancy, messianism and so on. this isn't a point
The Jewish community, our community, needs to focus on serious issues and not give a second thought to word games.
Looking for anti-Semitism in places where it doesn't exist is pathetic.
But that's what the deranged, right-wing blowhards in our community seem intent on doing.
The connotation of the word in question has changed over the years. The New York Times is a great newspaper.
So PLEASE get a grip.
And right-wingers, you may be loud but you are a minority in Jewish life, as the November election proved. So please crawl back into your hole.
one is not going to obtain from stingy nature the answers for better living with the old 'thinking' such as "god spoke to moshe and revealed to him some eterne verities".
such 'thinking' is mere guessing;requiring no thought. 'thinking' that jesus is savior who also laid dwn eterne verities; some of which contradicted that of moshe's, appears also delusional.
then comes another truther, mohammed! in fact, for a pious person to be truly pious needs not join an org which is structured almost exactly like an army; all a pious person needs is own basement, tree, bean stalk.
let's face the fact that the lazy/clazy priestly class is the biggest enemy of humans. and if one is subservient to a any human being [or to a priest], that person will help you become criminal;i.e., against self and others.
thus ?all christians, talmudniks, and moslems have become criminals once they left their tothood. before that ?all tots are quite human; later made delusional and criminal and not solely by priests but by other miseducators. tnx
I now think this article is a bit of misdirection. Yes the NYT is an enemy of Israel, but the Forward's story didn't focus on the important stuff by clearly anti-Israel/anti-Semitic writers and editors at the NYT. (Instead it seemed to set up a "straw-man" to divert attention from the truly outrageous propaganda which for years has been spewed by the media.) It failed to tell the bigger story, of the "mainstream media" being unprofessionally leftist, i.e. blatantly, dishonestly biased against Israel. (See my previous comments, above.)
Frank is incorrect when he calls the "mainstream" press dishonestly biased against Israel. He is also incorrect when he states that the New York Times is anti Semitic and anti Israel. He needs to spend more time in Israel and watch the news programs (in Hebrew) and read the critical articles written by Israeli Jews who have served in the IDF. He needs to read Haaretz to know that Israel is fallible and fraught with problems of its own making. Like any country. Many Jews in the American community are finally opening up to voicing their disappointment with Israel's policies. It is a "glasnost" of sorts for many of us who hope, that Israel will change course before the Israeli system self destructs much like the South African apartheid regime.
Thousands of books written by scholars with Phd. who studied at and are teaching at the finest colleges in the US in whole or in part understand the the New Testament is FICTION and since all that is known of Jesus is from the New Testament and its corruption of the Old Testament from the Septuagint that he also is FICTION. So assumption is parts of this article is based upon rumor and innuendo and ignorance. My current favorite on the subject is Dennis McDonald "The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, again FICTIOn, you know they made the stuff up.
Ah, it is correct that among the rogues' gallery of virulently anti-Israel/anti-Semitic "mainstream" media, I did not mention the Israeli ones. The most internationally libelous is Ha'aretz, which routinely maligns and libels Israel, and hosts some of the most hateful extreme leftist characters in Israel. The shame of it is that it is disseminated internationally, including on American college and university campuses, to unwary young people who read the leftist anti-Israel propaganda as though it was factual.
I do not question that there is a sick leftist group of Israelis who seem to live in their own make-believe world who bash Israel, and who act as a fifth column in Israel. I often marvel that Israelis put up with the quislings. The interesting thing is that the Israeli far-left has now come to realize that Obama has not only discredited their favorite anti-Israel criticisms, but that is terrible for Israel - he has gone even too far for many of them in his attacks on Israel and accepting the "narrative" of muslims who would destroy Israel.
No serious person can question that in America the likes of the LA Times, NYT, SF Chronicle, Chicago Trib., and internationally, the BBC, Guardian, Economist, Reuters, CNN (special mention to Christiane Amanpour), NBC, CBC, AP, and others are outrageously, dishonestly, biased against Israel. (All you have to do is read the "stories" - and careful well documented studies have been produced by Camera.org and Honestreporting.com.) Anyone who denies the painfully obvious is on their side. (The Forward draws them like flies.)
But these are now peripheral issues. American Jews recognize that a nuclear Iran and the destruction of American's close alliance and support of Israel by Obama's administration (and the attempt to legitimize and empower extremist Jewish anti-Semitic "progressives") pose existential threats to Jews. American Jews need to wake up, organize, and stand up for Israel now, before it is too late!
The discussion started out as an interesting dialog on whether the pejoritive use of 'Pharisee' insults living, breathing Jews of our day. Then the discussion widened to ask the equally interesting question of whether it was worth while to spend time and energy on this usage even if in an ideal world it would not exist, or whether that effort would be better applied to other issues deemed more pressing. But it has spun way out of control and has been hijacked by some to drag in their own private mishugas. One of the most outlandish is the (beloved by demagogues of all stripes) tactic of attacking the media [aka 'the Jew press', 'the bourgeois press', 'the capitalist press', 'the leftist media', etc]. When I read the lists of newspapers said to be anti-Semitic - many of which feature regular columns in support of Israel - I begin to suspect that we have moved beyond the political to the pathological. 'Frank' says: "No serious person can question that" [a list of the most highly respected newspapers in the US are not only] outrageously, dishonestly" biased but indeed, "virulently anti-Israel/anti-Semitic". It is perhaps a matter of opinion, if stretching plausabiity, that all these papers are biased and anti-Semitic, but it is denying objective reality to believe that everyone "serious" agrees with you! This is downright delusional. Reminds me of the proverb, "Az dray zogn shiker, gey shlofn!" PS--It is part of many pathologies that the patient denies it, and projects his symptoms on others, as for example when 'Frank' labels the millions of readers of Haaretz "a sick leftist group of Israelis who seem to live in their own make-believe world".
Musings on "progressivism": "Progressivism" may in some be a manifestation of a mental disorder, which involves delusions concerning reality. Because "progressivism" involves a subculture of self-validated delusional beliefs, it does not fulfill all the criteria described in the DSM-IV, for a "delusional disorder", which involves nonbizarre delusions; delusions are defined as false beliefs based on incorrect inference about external reality that persist despite the evidence to the contrary (but which are "not ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's ... subculture"). Progressives do belong to a subculture, a political cult, which share a delusional world view. When confronted with obvious contrary evidence which shakes that delusional world view, the response is defensive, denial, anger, and irrational (and blatantly false) attacks.
In the case of the anti-Israel (anti-Semitic) progressive, the pathology which drives the delusions is the deep feeling of animus towards Jews. The delusion often takes the forms of variations of "Jew as oppressor", "arab as victim", "Israel as occupier", etc.
A more bizarre sub-type of anti-Israel "progressives" is the "Jewish" anti-Israel progressive. To the extent which they define themselves as "Jews", the self-loathing animus toward Jews results in a more distressing, and therefore more animated animus, which in turn requires a matrix of more bizarre delusions and rationalizations. The most extreme of these can actually devote their careers to Israel-bashing and trying to rationalize and justify their self-loathing. Writing for the Forward is a good example.
For the rest of us (non-Jew-hating Jews) factual inquiries can be resolved with ... well ... facts. I commented that: "No serious person can question that in America the likes of the LA Times, NYT, SF Chronicle, Chicago Trib., and internationally, the BBC, Guardian, Economist, Reuters, CNN (special mention to Christiane Amanpour), NBC, CBC, AP, and others are outrageously, dishonestly, biased against Israel. (All you have to do is read the "stories" - and careful well documented studies have been produced by Camera.org and Honestreporting.com.)
If anyone has not experienced the anti-Israel bias of these "highly respected" (by progressives) publications, read and/or watch them. Anyone interested in the facts should take the time to read the studies produced by "Camera.org" ( http://www.camera.org/ ) and Honestreporting.com ( http://honestreporting.com/ ).
....
Ironically, Honestreporting.com has just, today, issued a NEW report on the NYT anti-Israel bias! ...... http://honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/The_New_York_Times_Just_the_Facts.asp
A few highlights:
"New York Times coverage often supports the Palestinian narrative without placing events in greater context.
Headlines, eyewitness accounts, and images depicted the Gaza conflict as Israeli aggression against Palestinian civilians.
Settlements are misrepresented by having images of tiny outposts accompany articles about settlements.
Issues such as Palestinian incitement are downplayed or ignored."
....
It is an excellent expose. (Perhaps you are a "progressive" who finds his/her delusions too painful to continue to bear, and wish to become a "recovering progressive") .... Read it and then decide. Escape your make-believe world. How about giving reality a chance?
Honestreporting.com has just, TODAY, issued a NEW REPORT on the NEW YORK TIMES ANTI-ISRAEL BIAS!
....
http://honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/The_New_York_Times_Just_the_Facts.asp
....
Read it - and then compare it to this pathetic piece of misdirection from the Forward.
The discussion started out as an interesting dialog on whether the pejoritive use of 'Pharisee' insults living, breathing Jews of our day. Then the discussion widened to ask the equally interesting question of whether it was worth while to spend time and energy on this usage even if in an ideal world it would not exist, or whether that effort would be better applied to other issues deemed more pressing. But it has spun way out of control and has been hijacked by some to drag in their own private mishugas. One of the most outlandish is the (beloved by demagogues of all stripes) tactic of attacking the media [aka 'the Jew press', 'the bourgeois press', 'the capitalist press', 'the leftist media', etc]. When I read the lists of newspapers said to be anti-Semitic - many of which feature regular columns in support of Israel - I begin to suspect that we have moved beyond the political to the pathological. 'Frank' says: "No serious person can question that" [a list of the most highly respected newspapers in the US are not only] outrageously, dishonestly" biased but indeed, "virulently anti-Israel/anti-Semitic". It is perhaps a matter of opinion, if stretching plausabiity, that all these papers are biased and anti-Semitic, but it is denying objective reality to believe that everyone "serious" agrees with you! This is downright delusional. Reminds me of the proverb, "Az dray zogn shiker, gey shlofn!" PS--It is part of many pathologies that the patient denies it, and projects his symptoms on others, as for example when 'Frank' labels the millions of readers of Haaretz "a sick leftist group of Israelis who seem to live in their own make-believe world".
PS to Frank: Israel is NOT an occupier??? But I am letting myself be drawn in. Ma zeh with Pharasees?
PS to Frank: Israel is NOT an occupier??? But I am letting myself be drawn in. Ma zeh with Pharasees?
No. Of course Israel is not an "occupier"! (Now there's a bit of far-left fascist propaganda.) But here is yet one more example of the virulent anti-Israel yellow "journalism" of the anti-Semites at the LA Times:
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=33&x_article=1718