text:
July 21, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.
Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.
Book Excerpt: 'The Israel Lobby'
Posted on Oct 8, 2007
(Page 2)
The lobby's political power is important not because it affects what presidential candidates say during a campaign, but because it has a significant influence on American foreign policy, especially in the Middle East. America's actions in that volatile region have enormous consequences for people all around the world, especially the people who live there. Just consider how the Bush administration's misbegotten war in Iraq has affected the long suffering people of that shattered country: tens of thousands dead, hundreds of thousands forced to flee their homes, and a vicious sectarian war taking place with no end in sight. The war has also been a strategic disaster for the United States and has alarmed and endangered U.S. allies both inside and outside the region. One could hardly imagine a more vivid or tragic demonstration of the impact the United States can have—for good or ill—when it unleashes the power at its disposal.
The United States has been involved in the Middle East since the early days of the Republic, with much of the activity centered on educational programs or missionary work. For some, a biblically inspired fascination with the Holy Land and the role of Judaism in its history led to support for the idea of restoring the Jewish people to a homeland there, a view that was embraced by certain religious leaders and, in a general way, by a few U.S. politicians. But it is a mistake to see this history of modest and for the most part private engagement as the taproot of America's role in the region since World War II, and especially its extraordinary relationship with Israel today.
Between the routing of the Barbary pirates two hundred years ago and World War II, the United States played no significant security role anywhere in the region and U.S. leaders did not aspire to one. Woodrow Wilson did endorse the 1917 Balfour Declaration (which expressed Britain's support for the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine), but Wilson did virtually nothing to advance this goal. Indeed, the most significant U.S. involvement during this period—a fact-finding mission dispatched to the region in 1919 by the Paris Peace Conference under the leadership of Americans Henry Churchill King and Charles Crane—concluded that the local population opposed continued Zionist inroads and recommended against the establishment of an independent Jewish homeland. Yet as the historian Margaret Macmillan notes, "Nobody paid the slightest attention." The possibility of a U.S. mandate over portions of the Middle East was briefly considered but never pursued, and Britain and France ended up dividing the relevant portions of the Ottoman Empire between themselves.
The United States has played an important and steadily increasing role in Middle East security issues since World War II, driven initially by oil, then by anti-communism and, over time, by its growing relationship with Israel. America's first significant involvement in the security politics of the region was a nascent partnership with Saudi Arabia in the mid-1940s (intended by both parties as a check on British ambitions in the region), and its first formal alliance commitments were Turkey's inclusion in NATO in 1952 and the anti-Soviet Baghdad Pact in 1954. After backing Israel's founding in 1948, U.S. leaders tried to strike a balanced position between Israel and the Arabs and carefully avoided making any formal commitment to the Jewish state for fear of jeopardizing more important strategic interests. This situation changed gradually over the ensuing decades, in response to events like the Six-Day War, Soviet arms sales to various Arab states, and the growing influence of pro-Israel groups in the United States. Given this dramatic transformation in America's role in the region, it makes little sense to try to explain current U.S. policy—and especially the lavish support that is now given to Israel—by referring to the religious beliefs of a bygone era or the radically different forms of past American engagement. There was nothing inevitable or predetermined about the current special relationship between the United States and Israel.
Since the Six-Day War of 1967, a salient feature—and arguably the central focus—of America's Middle East policy has been its relationship with Israel. For the past four decades, in fact, the United States has provided Israel with a level of material and diplomatic support that dwarfs what it provides to other countries. That aid is largely unconditional: no matter what Israel does, the level of support remains for the most part unchanged. In particular, the United States consistently favors Israel over the Palestinians and rarely puts pressure on the Jewish state to stop building settlements and roads in the West Bank. Although Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush openly favored the creation of a viable Palestinian state, neither was willing to use American leverage to make that outcome a reality.
Many policies pursued on Israel's behalf now jeopardize U.S. national security. The combination of unstinting U.S. support for Israel and Israel's prolonged occupation of Palestinian territory has fueled anti-Americanism throughout the Arab and Islamic world, thereby increasing the threat from international terrorism and making it harder for Washington to deal with other problems, such as shutting down Iran's nuclear program. Because the United States is now so unpopular within the broader region, Arab leaders who might otherwise share U.S. goals are reluctant to help us openly, a predicament that cripples U.S. efforts to deal with a host of regional challenges. This situation, which has no equal in American history, is due primarily to the activities of the Israel lobby. While other special interest groups—including ethnic lobbies representing Cuban Americans, Irish Americans, Armenian Americans, and Indian Americans—have managed to skew U.S. foreign policy in directions that they favored, no ethnic lobby has diverted that policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest. The Israel lobby has successfully convinced many Americans that American and Israeli interests are essentially identical. In fact, they are not. Although this book focuses primarily on the lobby's influence on U.S. foreign policy and its negative effect on American interests, the lobby's impact has been unintentionally harmful to Israel as well. Take Israel's settlements, which even a writer as sympathetic to Israel as Leon Wieseltier recently called a "moral and strategic blunder of historic proportions."
Israel's situation would be better today if the United States had long ago used its financial and diplomatic leverage to convince Israel to stop building settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, and instead helped Israel create a viable Palestinian state on those lands. Washington did not do so, however, largely because it would have been politically costly for any president to attempt it. As noted above, Israel would have been much better off if the United States had told it that its military strategy for fighting the 2006 Lebanon war was doomed to fail, rather than reflexively endorsing and facilitating it. By making it difficult to impossible for the U.S. government to criticize Israel's conduct and press it to change some of its counterproductive policies, the lobby may even be jeopardizing the long-term prospects of the Jewish state.
Banner, End of Story, Desktop
Banner, End of Story, Mobile
New and Improved Comments
If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.
Join the conversation
Load Comments
By ???????, September 23, 2009 at 2:14 am Link to this comment
Israelis have the land for peace debate in Israel, but such is the power of the Israeli lobby and media that we cannot have that same debate amongst our own politicians.
By BBN, August 29, 2009 at 8:12 pm Link to this comment
Thanks a lot
By ???, January 12, 2009 at 10:34 am Link to this comment
good job
By al-kaon, May 21, 2008 at 10:00 am Link to this comment
good work
By drdcha, May 19, 2008 at 6:32 pm Link to this comment
so bad
By roro44, February 7, 2008 at 4:32 am Link to this comment
Thanks a lot
By 1drees, November 27, 2007 at 3:18 am Link to this comment
I am a people lover BUT it seems that lately people who call themselves "JEWS" or "ZIONISTS" have not at all been doing themselves any favors at all, in fact they keep making one embarrasing mistake after the other. they describe themsleves as the "chosen people" which would mean a "near perfection" BUT their actions and words always go contrary to that its like nonstop bunglings.
BTW a correction here the US politicians are not BRIBED they are harrassed and threatenned and told that one word against Israel and you are gone and in the next election too you will loose, look up the youtube for AIPAC claims and details.
wish people would WISEN up or wake up and get real!
By Trixie, October 15, 2007 at 11:20 am Link to this comment
RE:#107066 by Howard on 10/14 at 3:14 pm
Maybe you didn't hear about the reception given by Israelis to the influx of Ethiopian (black) Jews some time back. Get the whole picture, or keep mum.
By Mossada, October 15, 2007 at 2:56 am Link to this comment
#107066 by Howard on 10/14 at 3:14 pm
You just refuse to use the word Palestinians.
So all the Bulldozing and Murder and Rape never happened? We got it all wrong? Israel is a modern democracy where Palestinians have equal rights? The IDF are there to protect the lives of Palestinians?
So 700,000 Palestinians were not evicted from their homes? And anyone has the right to return to their homes?
So these terrorists just spontaneously decided to start killing themselves and anyone near enough… there is no Cause/Effect motivation…because they are "Evil Doers"? Maybe it's because they are scum animals?
What does it feel like to be proud of a society built on the Rape and Murder and destruction of another? What kind of human being does one become where murder is just conveniently ignored?......I don't expect you to feel anything except of course the Holocaust. As we all know, that event mitigates all other "lesser" concerns of humanity.
What ever bullshit Israel spins out to CNN is just erroded by endless reports of human rights violations against Palestinians. And those clipped tales of woes of bombs going off in Tel Aviv are so unbalanced that no one with half a brain could possibley think the EFFECT happens without a CAUSE.
By Trixie, October 14, 2007 at 10:08 am Link to this comment
RE: #106859 by Mossada on 10/13 at 3:32 pm
Add Sen. Joseph Lieberman to your list of prospective emigrants. Who needs an Israeli lobby when you've got someone in the US Senate representing Israel rather than his own constituents?
I hope everyone watched the C-SPAN coverage of the book-signing event for THE ISRAEL LOBBY. The authors are remarkably fair-minded and rational and their detractors anything but.
By Trixie, October 13, 2007 at 6:55 pm Link to this comment
I don't know where you got your information, but when the Israelis supposedly pulled out of Gaza, all the major networks provided on-site coverage of homes and infrastructure there being demolished as they withdrew (temporarily). The excuse given by Israel was that communities they had built were not appropriate to the Palestinians' way of life and that they could reconstruct everything more in keeping with their needs. Bullshit. With what? The rubble left behind? This modus operandi simply reflects that of the biblical Hebrews who, time and time again in scripture, don't leave one stone standing on another after they raid a city, kill all the men and women "who have lain with man" and then confiscate the animals and abduct the young virgins for their own use. The "God" who allegedly ordered all that is the same one still worshipped, and the disregard for non-Jewish human life among "obsevant" Jews is still rooted in Mosaic Law. If you want to understand today's problem, go back to the Bible.
By Mossada, October 13, 2007 at 4:32 pm Link to this comment
Israel is a Racist Society.
The only thing holding Israel together is hate of anyone non-Jewish. Otherwise Israelis would be busy bitching about each other.
Ohhhh, here comes the Holocaust song….Duck!!!
Palestinians should leave the holy land and let the Israelis build a giant wall all around their precious country. Then the world can leave Israelis to enjoy their "Purity". (Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle etc. can move there too since they love it so much.)
Then the rest of the world can turn their back on Israel for all eternity and let them rot in their own holiness.
By Trixie, October 13, 2007 at 10:20 am Link to this comment
#106794 by jim70 on 10/13 at 8:13 am
Zionism was established as a movement by Theodor Hertzl in the late nineteenth century, but it had its origins earlier as a result of continuing persecution of Jews, even after the French Revolution, when the influence of secularism and reason seemed to promise a reprieve. Herzl himself had opposed it until that hope withered on the vine.
So those "Christians" who disallowed Jews the right to live unmolested—or to live, period—have to bear responsibility ultimately for the impetus that created the State of Israel in 1948. It is understandable, especially after the Holocaust, that Jews should have wanted and the world granted them a place of their own in which to live without the constant threat of harm, and the emotional fallout from WWII provided a climate in which that became possible.
Unfortunately, the duplicity of the British, who had a mandate in Palestine following WWII, contributed to the mess that obtains to this day. Handled differently, the situation there might have resulted in an entirely different and more peaceful and just outcome.
What rubs me the wrong way is that many of the most trenchant elements of Israeli society today who are hell bent on hanging onto as well as expanding illegal settlements are not Jews seeking refuge from persecution, but American Jews who have left comfortable homes and incomes in the United States to further a religious, not a humanitarian or even a political, agenda. What further galls me is that the Christian Right in this country, eager to speed up the Biblical prophecy on which IT relies for its messianic expectations, has joined the ultra-Fundamentalists in Israel in supporting their encroachment on Palestinian land and is urging the West Bank settlers to stay put, no matter what. Both of these factions exert tremendous pressure in the "Israel Lobby."
I am not about to die, nor send my children to die, for the preservation of anybody's imagined rights based on factually unsubstantiated religious grounds. If all these warring factions—Jewish, Christian and Islamic—abided by the best their ethical and moral traditions offer as a guide to human behavior (basically identical in all three belief systems), everybody would be able to get along very nicely and bring about the peace to which so many give (lukewarm) lip service. At the very least, Jews with their history of being the world's whipping boy, should, of all people, have the decency to treat the Palestinians in the occupied areas like human beings!! If they did that, the random attacks against the occupiers, born no doubt from the extremes of desperation and frustration among a brutalized population, would cease. Oppression will always make enemies, no matter where: Iraq, Israel—even (are you listening George?)—America.
By Trixie, October 12, 2007 at 11:23 pm Link to this comment
The basic "right" on which Israelis claim title to the "Holy Land" is that God gave it to them in perpetuity. No one ever stops to consider that it was hardly a generous gift—certainly not "spacious" as the Bible alleges, nor flowing with milk and honey. The awful truth that it isn't adequate to accommodate even its current population begs the question of how all the Jews of the world will even find standing room there should the much quoted prophecy of their ultimate return en masse be fulfilled!
Ah, but the Talmudists have the answer. Jerusalem is going to expand to cover all of Israel, which, in turn, is going to expand to cover the entire earth. Ask any Chassidic rabbi. Of course, the Chassidim also believe that all Jews must rise from the dead in Israel, regardless of where they died, so it is held by the sages that those buried elsewhere will roll through burrows underground (prepared for that purpose) so they can exit their graves in the flesh at the proper place. Why they don't just wait till Israel expands to cover the whole world is something of a mystery. That sounds like a lot less trouble.
Anybody who supports the suppression or annhilation of the Palestinians on behalf of Zionist illusions or contemplates bombing Iran because Israel considers it a potential threat should do a bit of research into religious Jews' concept of what will happen when Moshiach (the messiah—but not Jesus) comes and the final judgment is carried out. Let's just say the prospects for eternity advanced by Christians and Jews are mutually exclusive.
I am vehemently against persecution of anyone, and I'm aware that any revelation of an unpleasant truth about any specific group is grist for the mill of hate mongers. But that does not preclude the need for a more thorough understanding of the ultra-Fundamentalist mentality that's a driving force behind the illegal Israeli settlements and the resistance to any peace agreement that is truly fair to the Palestinians.
Truth to tell, as long as anybody considers a square foot of Mother Earth to be "sacred," there's not much chance of rational discourse that might lead to peace. She's either sacred entirely or not at all, and we humans are certainly not treating her with respect, much less reverence.
By Neoconned, October 12, 2007 at 12:00 pm Link to this comment
1) TOM LANTOS (Neocon of the Democrats) behind infuriating the Turks.
2) A sudden killing of Turkish soldiers at the border with Iraq. (Mossad death Squad)
This is too much of a coincidence. AIPAC and Mossad are doing a number on US foreign policy.
I suspect Israel's Machivellian hand behind this.
By gfhf, October 12, 2007 at 6:58 am Link to this comment
By ender, October 11, 2007 at 12:54 pm Link to this comment
Ok Jim…that would probably work.
By ender, October 11, 2007 at 10:51 am Link to this comment
Sorry Jim70, but unless can prove you are Jewish through your mothers bloodline going back at least 8 generations by a synagogue, no synagogue in Israel will recongnize you as a Jew, and you will not be allowed citizenship.
A brief history of Isreali policy:
Israel" never ever recognized the existence of the indigenous owners of Palestine: the Palestinian people.Golda Meir once said "What Palestinians?"
So LilMamzer, are you an Israli Citizen or an American Traitor? Either way you should get your happy arse on a plane to the kibbutz.
BTW, my first wife was Jewish. I am only opposed to Christian or Jewish Zionist AMERICANS THAT PLACE THE INTEREST OF ISRAEL ABOVE THAT OF THE US.
By bobadi, October 11, 2007 at 9:28 am Link to this comment
What interesting posts, thanks to all.
By CHAMISA, October 11, 2007 at 8:23 am Link to this comment
How refreshing not to be monitored or muzzled by a
By ray burchard, October 11, 2007 at 7:29 am Link to this comment
Is the Israeli, American connection really that much a mystery. With Americas inception being predicated on banning together Englands down trodden. Therefore the consequential interaction between conjoined organism factions, Englands tax oppression and the new colonies self determination creates a modality of creative liberalism as a nations innate direction. Then comes along Hitlers cruelty toward its Jewish population and the Americans open their peace loving hearts and arms, surprise an allegiance to liberalisms progressive equal rights thinking.
Then as Americas adopted, the Jews propagated and with the aid of nepotism, grew their hierarchy dominance in the fields of entertainment/news, and academias medical, judicial and financial direction, well if one was to dominate, not by an overwhelming majority but with a decisive edge, like (9 to 8.9999… ) then the advantage of leverage is yours and you have effectively cloned yourself. Therefore Americas growing love and there by allegiance to a mercantile mentality as a collective commerce mindset. Where everything is than a pathetic analogy equated to money, a little house with a picket fence, two cars in every garage and a chicken in every pot. America's greed where everything can be solved with more money.
Now we Americans may not all go to the same synagogue, but we worship at the same alter, the cash register.
In a universe with its predilection in duality, if The devil is in the details, then logically God must be in the whole. Therefore, this means the same matrix configuration that governs the individual components also governs the composite whole.
Which indicates that the matrix configuration found in physical cloning (biological) is the same matrix found in metaphysical (psychological) cloning. The body in conjunction with the head equals the animated whole of man, and therefore God is in the process.
Then the logical conclusion would be that by sidestepping the ameliorating effects of Time (evolutions natural selection), would then bring the maladies associated with age (evolutions manifest hate toward ethnic domination), sooner than later.
But then the genius of the whole, (totality) would be missed by the mastery of the superfluous
By Sepharad, October 10, 2007 at 3:25 pm Link to this comment
Akira, moving to Russia is a bit hasty. Remember, there are 10 million Moslems and only 6 million Jews in the U.S., and Israel has zero oil while the Arab world is awash in it, so as long as we (and the rest of the world) self-destruct on oil and other fossil fuel you may yet live to see pogroms against American Jews. Also, some of the Muslim communities in Canada have pushed for Sharia law to take the place of Canadian law in domestic matters and if that trend continues and heads south, it's only a matter of time until Jews are once again living in dhimmihood (Arabic for "second class citizen who pays more taxes and has fewer rights").
When "land for peace" was still under consideration, the Arab Israelis in several towns suggested by Israeli negotiators to become part of the Palestinian state (in exchange for land on which Jews were living in the West Bank) were quite adamant in refusing. In the Knesset, one of their representatives shouted firmly that "We're Israelis; you can't just make us Palestinians!" So it didn't happen. Arab Israelis are NOT second-class citizens, vote and have reps in the Knesset, and MAY but are not compelled to serve in the IDF, as all Jewish citizens are required to do. So many Arab Israelis do join IDF because they must believe that Israel is worth defending, even at the risk of their lives.
As for the all-powerful AIPAC, America supports Israel in general, but selectively. If it were not for the people of the Czech Republic who gave Israelis weapons when all the Arab armies (including the British-armed Jordanian forces) attacked the nascent Jewish state in '48, there would be no state of Israel. Likewise, in '67 no country, including the U.S., rushed to Israel's aid with guns or money; the world just sat there and waited to see what would happen. The U.S. also gives much money to the Palestinians, as do Euros, Russians and Moslem countries. If the Palestinian governments had spent a fraction of what they receive on infrastructure and education, instead of using it to keep Suha Arafat and other connected elites living large in Paris and other expensive playgrounds, there would already be a viable state.
Israel does not want America to go to war with Iran—and Israelis were HUGELY upset last year when Cheney tossed off that even if Iran established a nuclear weapons facility the Israelis would take it out. They have no plans to attack Iran. Also, Sharon advised Bush to NOT attack Iraq because the WMDs had long since gone to Syria. Perhaps Sharon should have gone public with his criticism, but Israel can't afford to publically criticize a major ally led by such a reactive airhead.
Look at it this way: Israel does not waste its citizen army and its revenue on quixhotic wars. It attacked a Syrian nuclear facility it obviously considered an unacceptable threat, and the message that the U.S. neocons and Cheney should have drawn from it was that Israel does not believe at this point that Iran should be attacked, or it would have done so. To attack Iran would make enemies the Americans and, in many cases, Israelis, do not already have. Israelies understand this, being rational, and our government had damned well better start being rational too.
(If Israel were really as nasty to Palestinians as so many of you seem to think they are, would they have close Islamic allies among the Turks and the Kurds?)The problem isn't Israel; it's greedy oligarchical-minded Americans (and, in the Middle East, ditto Arabs). If Israel disappeared tomorrow, the Arab world would still be floundering and looking for someone or something else on which to blame its predicament.
PS - Someone here defined "Jewish" as a religion. But it's not; it's a peoplehood. If the Arabs had as many secularists as the Jews do both in Israel and the Diaspora, they'd be a lot farther ahead of the game.
By NABNYC, October 10, 2007 at 12:54 pm Link to this comment
I have an easy solution.
First, we already have laws which make it illegal for federal employees to accept bribes or "illegal gratuities." We already have laws which prohibit certain public employees from engaging in conduct which is improper or which creates the appearance of impropriety.
The problem is that the people who write those laws (Congress) and the people charged to enforce those laws (the judges) have made sure that they are exempt. They are free to accept bribes and illegal gratuities even though it may appear that they are simply selling the power of their office to benefit themselves and in a complete betrayal of our democracy and of the working people of this country.
Let's write new laws making it illegal for any candidate, politician, or judge, to accept anything or any promise of anything of value, other than from an immediate family member. Period. No exceptions. And illegal for anyone to offer to pay or give anything of value. With prison for the offenders just so they know we're serious. Open the prison doors to let the pot-smokers free and put the corrupt politicians in prison. Sounds like our streets would be safer under my policy.
Next, there are laws in most states called "blue sky" laws which prohibit politicians from having private meetings in which certain things are discussed. Let's expand those laws to make it illegal for any politician or their staff or agents to discuss anything having to do with their office or their powers in secret. All meetings and discussions must be in public and must be taped. Other than meetings with each other (two senators, for example). In other words, no more meetings with lobbyists. Period.
The politicians claim that they need these secret meetings because they get information about certain problems from industry insiders. I believe they have secret meetings to keep the public from seeing the wheelbarrows full of cash being delivered to the politicians' offices and homes, and other corrupt reasons(Cheney meeting with his oil friends and the maps of Iraq to disucss U.S. oil policy). But even if they can come up with lame excuses, the need to end corruption and the appearance of corruption requires any such meetings be in public, be videotaped, and available to the public to watch and/or download by internet. No more secret meetings, no more taking money from lobbyists and businesses. It ends.
Third, U.S. Out of Israel. Give them one year to resolve their problems (on top of the 60 they've already had). If they can't find a way to live in peace, they will have to leave. If they want to stay despite the problems, that's OK too but they will have to work it out on their own nickel. No more money from the U.S. working people to support Israel.
Like all lobbyists, it seems that (1) the Israeli lobbyists offer bribes to politicians to vote to give my money to Israel; (2) the politicians give my money to Israel; (3) some of that money is funneled back to pay the lobbyists, and for them to use as "expenses"; and (4) the lobbyists offer more bribes to politicians to vote to give more of my money of Israel. I'm tired of having my money taken from me under the threat of imprisonment and given to support this corrupt system.
And finally, for the catastrophic claims that Israel cannot exist unless the U.S. taxpayers give them billions of dollars every year: I'd say the people of Israel should pack their bags because it is not the responsibility of U.S. working men and women to prop up their country. They've had 60 years to work things out. Either live with it or get out, but don't keep taking my money, and don't keep bribing my politicians to betray me.
By ender, October 9, 2007 at 5:04 am Link to this comment
So lilmamzer…you put the interest of Israel above that of the US. Are you and Israeli citizen, or just a traitor?
Israelis have the land for peace debate in Israel, but such is the power of the Israeli lobby and media that we cannot have that same debate amongst our own politicians.
Divorce my arse. It is past time that ALL monetary and military support for the terroist state of Israel is stopped, and that apartheid state respond to the more than 100 UN resolutions that have been passed against it.
By Jacko, October 9, 2007 at 4:22 am Link to this comment
Seems a lot of the correspondents here forget that during the 'cold war' Israel was the only pro-western country in the area. Thus strategically Israel was an extremely useful ally to the US.
By michael krug, October 9, 2007 at 2:16 am Link to this comment
The relationship between the US and Israel is complex and shouldn't be reduced to the simplistic myth that the US is a slow, lumbering, bull; that's being pulled around by the nose by a super-smart fox. Reality, as usual, is less comforting.
The relationship between the two countries is perceived by the elites of both states as being mutually beneficial, that's why it's lasted so long and has become deeper over time.
First I don't believe that Israel 'pushes the United States around' line. This is just an excuse, or get out clause, one can conviniently use when things go badly wrong for the US. Blame it on Israel! They made us do it! We are really innocents in the world! Those Jews are just so damn sophisticated!
The great bull likes people to think the clever fox is pulling it around. This isn't true. It is a myth which once again is mutually beneficial to both parties, as it obscures, diverts and hides the true nature of the relationship.
It is not only the United States that pays a high price for its relationship to Israel. Israel pays a price too, strange as it may seem to many. One could argue that Israel could have come to a compromise, an accomodation, with its Arab neighbours, could have become an integreted part of the Middle-East, if it had developed an independent foreign policy and not been so closely identified with US strategic interests in the region.
I think one can say that this relationship has had one dire consequence, it has strengthened those forces in both countries that have chosen to rely more and more on the use of military force to solve various 'problems' in the Middle-East.
Personally, I believe this tendency, isn't really in the longterm interests of the United States or Israel, and certaninly not in the interests of the Arabs who suffer most directly from US/Israeli policies and actions. But, that, is anothr story.
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide


text:
Listen to free music played by Sandra_R_
Blip.fm is internet radio made social. It's easy to search for, play, and discover free music recommended by real people. Join today to create your own free station and start listening to @Sandra_R_.
Kings Of Leon – Use Somebody| play
Kings of Leon – Sex On Fire| play
Snow Patrol – Chasing Cars| play
Evanescence – Bring Me To Life| play
Sandra_R_ Looove this song!!! <3

subset: commoncrawl


text:
|Atlas HO Code 100 Track Products
Atlas is the leading manufacturer of model railroad track, worldwide. You will find that our track is easy to use and will last on your layout for years, providing durable and reliable performace that you can count on. Featuring black ties and nickel silver rail, Code 100 is extremely popular and considered an industry standard. What's more, Atlas Code 100 track can be used by modelers at any skill level and is available in a wide variety of pieces. Precisely engineered with black injection molded plastic, Atlas Code 100 track can help you create your model railroading empire.
(Note: Radius is always measured to the center of the rails.)
Click here for a complete listing and pricing in PDF format.
|To find a dealer to order your Atlas Track Products, click here.
Home ‡ Online
Store ‡ Forum
‡ Atlas O
Atlas Trainman ‡ The Atlas Report
Copyright © Atlas Model Railroad Co., Inc. All Rights Reserved. "You're on the Right Track®...With Atlas"


text:
Bill would bar feds from banning gov't travel to Reno, Vegas
WASHINGTON - The Reno area's tourism industry shouldn't have to suffer because of the reckless spending of some federal bureaucrats-gone-wild.
That's the premise of legislation proposed Wednesday by Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Las Vegas, and Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev. The two lawmakers want to ensure that Reno and Las Vegas won't be blacklisted by the U.S. government in the wake of the recent Las Vegas spending scandal involving federal employees.
U.S. General Services Administration officials authorized $823,000 for an October 2010 conference for 300 employees in Las Vegas that included private parties, a psychic, a talent show and a $75,000 bicycle-building exercise, according to an inspector general's report published this month. GSA officials also spent $130,000 on eight planning trips to Las Vegas in advance of the conference, the report says.
The scandal led to the resignation of the agency's top official, the firing of two top aides and the punishment of several others.
Congress is investigating the spending, and there has been criticism by some lawmakers, including Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., about federal employees meeting in Las Vegas and other cities known as gambling destinations.
Berkley fears a return to a policy by the Bush administration that effectively barred federal employees from holding meetings in casino cities such as Reno and Las Vegas even when those cities offered the cheapest rates. That policy was reversed by the Obama administration at the urging of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
"Despite the fact that President Obama took swift action to punish those responsible for the outrageous abuse at the GSA, some in Washington like the junior senator from Kentucky are looking to score cheap political points by attacking Las Vegas and Nevada's tourism industry," Berkley said in a speech on the House floor Tuesday.
Her bill would bar federal officials from blacklisting Reno, Las Vegas or any other U.S. city.
Heller announced Wednesday that he will introduce companion legislation in the Senate soon. Berkley and Heller are running against each other in this year's U.S. Senate race, and this is one of the few issues on which they agree.
"Nevada offers the best hospitality and convention services in the world, and Las Vegas, Henderson, Lake Tahoe, and Reno have long been favorite destinations for millions of visitors," Heller said. "I have always taken pride in the Nevada delegation working together on Nevada issues."
Government meetings of all kinds make up about 10% of the convention business in the Reno-Tahoe area, said Ben McDonald, spokesman for the Reno-Sparks Convention and Visitors Authority.
Among the federal government meetings that the area has hosted in the past: an Interior Department meeting for about 1,000 employees in 2005, an Air Force environmental training symposium for about 1,800 people in 2008, a Centers for Disease Control event for about 150 employees in 2010, and a Bureau of Indian Affairs meeting for an unknown number of employees in 2011.
"It's a very important segment of the convention business that we do," McDonald said.
He said the area's hotels are as much as 20 percent cheaper than comparable hotels in cities such as San Francisco and Chicago.
"We understand that the government has to spend responsibly," McDonald said. "Our hope is that this (bill) will open the door to people understanding that money can be spent responsibly in our area."
Posted | Updated


text:
A SANDCASTLE competition saw teams of adults get their hands dirty to create spectacular World Cup-themed sculptures on Frinton beach.
The annual contest is organised by chartered surveyor firm Daniel Connal Partnership, organised to give their clients a fun day on the beach.
This year's contest carried a World Cup theme and the teams formed a selection of sculptures based on the tournament currently running in Brazil.
Creations included several stadiums and likenesses of the famous golden trophy.
Simon Jacklin from Daniel Connal Partnership said: "This is the fifth year we have run the event and it's great to see professionals from solicitors to contractors and surveyors get creative.
"We had a really great day and there were some very impressive sculptures at the end. Our judges had a tough job this year.
"It's something a bit different and great fun for everyone to get involved in."


text:
Lesson 3: Chapters 3:6-4:22
Boaz Becomes Ruth's Blood Redeemer
Beloved Lord God,
It was Your intention that mankind live in fellowship with You eternally, but in Adam's fall from grace that bond of eternal fellowship was broken and for the first time man was in need of a Redeemer. Thank you, merciful Father, for not abandoning us, Your children, to the ravages of sin and death. Thank you, Lord, for providing a Blood Redeemer-a man of flesh and blood uniquely related to us and yet more than a man who willing battled, suffered and overcame sin for the sake of a fallen humanity. Please send Your Holy Spirit to guide us, Lord, in our last lesson on the Book of Ruth as we study the decision of Your servant Boaz who willingly offered himself as a Blood Redeemer to Ruth in an act of mercy that had an impact on the future liberation of all men and women in the drama of sin and redemption. We pray in the name of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen.
+ + +
The blessing
followed as Boaz said it would. For Ruth received the full reward from God, so
that she was the progenitor of the blessing of the nations.
Theodoret, Bishop of Cyr (393-466), Questions on Ruth
Boaz took Ruth to
be his wife because of the merits of her faith, so that a royal nation might be
born out of so holy a marriage. For Boaz, an old man, did not take a wife for
himself but for God; not on account of his corporeal passions but on account of
the justice of the law, to revive the seed of his kinsman, not serving love so
much as religion. He was old in age but youthful in faith.
Homily 1, Incomplete work on Matthew, author unknown
In chapter 2 we have observed that Ruth and Boaz are two extraordinary people.
Question: Ruth and Boaz exemplify a number of virtues; how would you list them?
Answer: Some of the virtues they exhibit: Ruth exhibits faith in the God of Israel, obedience, courage, humility and chastity. Boaz embodies faith in God, strength of character, virtue, mercy and obedience to the Law of the covenant.
In 2:8-9 Boaz gave Ruth a series of five commands, and in 2:15-16 he gave a second series of five commands to his young men concerning Ruth. Then in 3:3-5 Naomi also gave Ruth a series of five commands.
Question: In 3:3-5 what
does Naomi tell Ruth to do before and after she goes to the threshing-floor
that night?
Answer: Naomi tells Ruth to:
Question: What is Naomi's
reason for telling Ruth not to let Boaz see her during the feast before he
sleeps for the night? Remember to "uncover" someone is to have intimate
relations with that person. See Lev Chapter 18 in which the literal Hebrew
euphemism for sexual intercourse is "to uncover the nakedness of ..." and Dt 23:1
where "he must not withdraw the skirt of his father's cloak from her" refers to
a sexual violation.
Answer: Is it possible that Naomi does not want Boaz to know which young woman is offering herself sexually to him in the night? If he recognizes Ruth or smells her perfume and identifies with her from earlier in the evening, Boaz may refuse her because he will not take advantage of the widow of a kinsman.
It appears Naomi wants Boaz to unknowingly have relations with Ruth and then feel obligated to marry her. If so, it is not a righteous deed. According to the Catholic Catechism, evil cannot be rightly perpetrated with the intention of a future good for "evil never becomes a good" (CCC 312). The drama builds as the reader wonders, "What will Ruth do; will she do everything her mother-in-law has instructed?"
Ruth 3:6-15 ~ Ruth and Boaz at
the Threshing-floor
6 So she went down to the threshing-floor and did everything her mother-in-law had told her. 7 When Boaz had finished eating and drinking, he went off happily and lay down beside the pile of barley [at the end of the heap]. Ruth then quietly went, turned back the covering at his feet and lay down. 8 [And it was] In the middle of the night, he woke up with a shock [trembled] and looked about him [and turned himself]; and there lying at his feet was a woman. 9 'Who are you?' he said; and she replied, 'I am your servant [handmaid] Ruth. Spread the skirt of your cloak over your servant [handmaid] for you have the right of redemption over me [for you are a ga'al/redeemer over me].' 10 'May Yahweh bless [baruk] you, daughter,' he said, 'for this second act of faithful love [hesed] of yours is greater than the first, since you have not run after young men, poor or rich. 11 Don't be afraid, daughter, I shall do everything you ask, since the people at the gate of my town all know that you are a woman of great worth. 12 But, though it is true that I have the right of redemption over you, you have a kinsman [ga'al] closer than myself. 13 Stay here for tonight and, in the morning, if he wishes to exercise his right over you, very well, let him redeem you. But if he does not wish to do so, then as Yahweh lives, I shall redeem you. Lie here till morning.'
[..] = literal translation (IBHE, vol. I, page 408).
Ruth 3:6 ~ So she went down to the threshing-floor and did everything her mother-in-law had told her.
Up to this point Ruth has obeyed Naomi, meaning she has bathed, perfumed herself, dressed in her best garments, avoided contact with Boaz and after he has fallen asleep, she has laid down at his feet after uncovering him.
Ruth 3:8 ~ In the middle of the night, he woke up with a shock [trembled] and looked about him [and turned himself]; and there lying at his feet was a woman.
The Hebrew word charad is a prime root meaning "to shudder" or "to tremble." As the temperature dropped and the night grew cold, Boaz probably awoke from the chill of being uncovered and turning over discovered a woman lying by him. This is another "turning point" in the story and the tension increases as the reader asks "what will Boaz do and how will Ruth react? Will Naomi's plan be successful?"
Naomi's plan is preempted by the chastity and virtue of both Boaz and Ruth.
Question: What act first
reveals Boaz's virtue when he realizes that he is uncovered and a woman is
lying next to him in a way to suggest a sexual invitation? See verse 9.
Answer: He "asks" before "acting" whereas many men would have acted first. He asks "who are you?"
Ruth 3:9 ~ 'Who are you?' he said; and she replied, 'I am your servant [handmaid] Ruth. Spread the skirt of your cloak over your servant [handmaid] for you have the right of redemption over me [for you are a ga'al/redeemer over me].'
Question: Naomi told Ruth
to say nothing but to do whatever Boaz told her to do; however, once again, how
does Ruth demonstrate both her courage and her virtue?
Answer: Ruth asks Boaz to be her Go'el Haddam by marrying her.
Naomi told Ruth to offer herself sexually to Boaz by uncovering him, but Ruth has taken the initiative by asking Boaz to "spread the skirt of your cloak over your handmaid"-to cover her in the covenant bond of marriage. It is the same symbolic language used in the Book of Ezekiel when Yahweh took Israel as His bride: ... Your time had come, the time for love. I spread my cloak over you and covered your nakedness; I gave you my oath, I made a covenant with you-declares the Lord Yahweh-and you became mine (Ez 16:8).
Question: With this
request, Ruth links what two acts of redemption that are not otherwise linked
in the Law? See Lev 24:23-27 and Dt 25:5-10.
Answer: She has linked the obligation of the Go'el Haddam to the redemption of Naomi's lands and to a levirate marriage with her.
Boaz is not directly obligated under the Law to provide a levirate marriage to Ruth since he is not Mahlon's brother; however, it could be argued that in the absence of a brother, a blood kinsman was acceptable if he was willing.
Ruth 3:10 ~ 'May Yahweh bless [baruk] you, daughter,' he said, 'for this second act of faithful love [hesed] of yours is greater than the first, since you have not run after young men, poor or rich.
This is the second time the Hebrew words "bless" (baruk) and "covenant love" (hesed) are used together (see 2:19-20).
Question: What is Boaz's
reaction to Ruth's proposal of marriage?
Answer: In verse 10 Boaz invokes Yahweh's blessing upon Ruth and commends her for the second act of hesed in seeking an heir for Naomi by asking him to be her redeemer. He is both impressed with her initiative and honored that she has asked him and has not sought out younger men, either rich or poor.
It is not lost on Boaz that Ruth in invoking the go'el custom herself as a non-Israelite is demonstrating her hesed for Naomi by sacrificing her own personal happiness for the family duty of giving Naomi an heir. Naomi sent Ruth on a romantic mission but her independent initiative in asking Boaz to be the go'el not only shows remarkable courage but places her in the position as the heroine who is the true bringer of salvation in God's divine plan for this family. It is an act that demonstrates that she is fully worthy of membership in God's covenant family Israel.
This is Boaz's second act of blessing Ruth in Yahweh's name; also see his earlier blessing in 2:12 for Ruth's compassion for Naomi and for seeking refuge in Yahweh the God of Israel.
Ruth 3:11-12 ~ Don't be afraid, daughter, I shall do everything you ask, since the people at the gate of my town all know that you are a woman of great worth. 12 But, though it is true that I have the right of redemption over you, you have a kinsman [ga'al] closer than myself.
Boaz's words of assurance to Ruth "I shall do everything you ask" seem to echo Ruth's words to Naomi in which she said "I shall do everything you tell me." It is not Naomi or Ruth or Boaz who is controlling events, however, it is God.
Boaz agrees to Ruth's proposal, and assures her that there is nothing to fear from the reaction of the people of Bethlehem, since the elders who meet at the town's gate have evaluated her and judged her to be a woman of worth. But just when everything seems to be working out for Ruth, Boaz reveals that there is a closer kinsman who has the first right of redemption over her as Mahlon's widow. As much as Boaz is willing to be Ruth's go'el, he is a righteous man and righteousness is defined as one who is obedient to the Law. Boaz will settle the question of who is to take on the responsibility as Ruth's Go'el Haddim through the proper channels and leave the outcome to God.
Ruth 3:13 ~ Stay here for tonight and, in the morning, if he wishes to exercise his right over you, very well, let him redeem you. But if he does not wish to do so, then as Yahweh lives, I shall redeem you. Lie here till morning.'
As evidence of his honorable intentions, Boaz instructs Ruth to remain under his protection the rest of the night, and he swears an oath by the Divine Name that he will be her Blood Redeemer if the other man declines his right.
Ruth 3:14-18 ~ Boaz's regard
for Ruth's reputation and Ruth returns home to Naomi
14 So she lay at his feet till morning, but got up before the hour when one man can recognize [know] another; and he thought, 'It must not be known that this woman came to the threshing-floor.' 15 He then said, 'Let me have the cloak you are wearing, hold it out!' She held it out while he put six measures of barley [six of barley] into it and then loaded it on to her; and off she went to the town. 16 When Ruth got home, her mother-in-law asked her, 'How did things go with you, daughter?' She then told her everything that the man had done for her. 17 'He gave me these six measures of barley [six of barley] and said, "You must not go home empty-handed to your mother-in-law."' 18 Naomi said, 'do nothing, daughter, until you see [know] how things have gone; I am sure he will not rest until he has settled the matter this very day.' [..] = Literal translation (IBHE, vol. I, page 706).
Question: Why did Boaz
consider it necessary that Ruth leave before anyone saw her with him? See 2:11
and 3:10.
Answer: He wanted to protect her good reputation.
From his supply of grain, Boaz personally filled Ruth cloak. She probably brought the cloak that was secured around her neck forward to hang in front of her. Then, as she held up the edges of the cloak, Boaz filled the cloak with grain which she held in front of her as she carried the bundle home to Naomi.
As at the end of chapter 2, Ruth returned to Naomi with a large quantity of grain. While the approximately four gallons in 2:17 was a large amount of grain, it was not impossible for a woman to carry or drag. This time the kind of measure is not identified-the Hebrew text reads "six of barley" (verses 15 and 17). Is it six ephah, an amount that is between 175 and 285 pounds depending on which standard for an ephah is used, or six seah that is one-third of an ephah weighing between 58 and 95 pounds depending on the standard (Hubbard, page 222)? The second seems more likely, but still it is an incredibly large amount for a woman to carry. Perhaps the very generous amount is symbolic rather than literal, the generous "seed" representing that Boaz is still capable of providing his "seed" for the future birth of children. This interpretation seems to be implied in Ruth 4:12 where in the literal Hebrew text the people bless Boaz for the "seed," meaning future children, Yahweh will give him in his marriage.
After Ruth reports the events of the evening to Naomi, Naomi is very encouraged by the turn of events and advises Ruth to do nothing until she hears from Boaz, who Naomi believes will settle the matter that very day (verse 18).
Ruth entered the
church and was made an Israelite and [she] deserved to be counted among God's
greatest servants; chosen on account of the kinship of her soul, not of her
St. Ambrose (Exposition of the Gospel of Luke, 3.30)
Ruth 4:1-4 ~ Boaz's proposal
to the other kinsman in front of witnesses
1 Boaz, meanwhile, had gone up to the gate and sat down, and the relative of whom he had spoken then came by. Boaz said to him, 'Here my friend, come and sit down'; the man came and sat down. 2 Boaz then picked out ten of the town's elders and said, 'Sit down here'; they sat down. 3 Boaz then said to the man who had the right of redemption, 'Naomi, who has come back from the Plains of Moab, is selling the piece of land that belonged to our brother, Elimelech. 4 I thought I should tell you about this and say, "Acquire it in the presence of the men who are sitting here and in the presence of the elders of my people. If you want to use your right of redemption, redeem it; if you do not, tell me so that I know, for I am the only person to redeem it besides yourself, and I myself come after you."'
As Naomi suspected, Boaz went immediately to the gate of the town of Bethlehem to settle the matter of who had the right of redemption. In Israelite towns, as in the pagan cities of their neighbors, the town gate served as an important center of the town's public life. Heavy wooden double doors were hung on large posts and when closed were secured by bars and locks (see Judg 16:3 and Neh 3:14). The gate entrance was often roofed over (2 Sam 18:24) and in front of the gate there was an open space and the wall by the gates was lined with benches where the elders sat. It was at the town gate where matters of commerce were discussed and trade transactions made, where the local judicial court of elders met to decide issues pertaining to the town or pertaining to business and legal transactions between individuals, or where the men of the town met to hear and discuss town matters (Gen 19:1; 23:10, 17-18; Dt 25:10; Rt 4:1-2, 4, 10). It was also where elders delivered verdicts either exonerating or punishing individuals in violation of the Law, and it was outside the town gate that the guilty were punished (Dt 17:5; 21:19-21; 22:23-24; Josh 20:4).
Some towns had gate systems with roofed double gates where the inner gate had twin guard-towers on either side of the gate with roofed chambers where meetings could be held to discuss economic issues and where the town elders settled judicial cases (2 Chr 26:9). The more elaborated gates systems also had stations above the roofed outer gate where sentries were posted and where trumpets could be blown to sound an emergency (2 Sam 18:24-27; Ez 33:2-3). The open field in front of the gate was often used for important gatherings for the entire town or for festivities (2 Chr 32:6; Neh 8:1, 3, 16), and the open area outside the town's gate was where some towns located their threshing-floors.
Question: Going to the
town gate, how many elders did Boaz select to serve as witnesses?
Answer: He asked ten men of the town's elders.
Question: The number ten
figures prominently what three times in the Book of Ruth?
In the symbolic significance of numbers in Scripture, ten is the number that signifies divine order. It is from this passage in Ruth (among others) that the Jewish rabbis determined ten as the divinely ordered number of a quorum (Heb. = minyan), "the least number of men above Bar Mitzva age to be present at a religious service where the holiness of God and His kingship is to be proclaimed" (The Jewish Book of Why, vol. I, page 141).
The name of the kinsman with the first right of redemption is never given. Jewish rabbis maintain that this is one of the blessings God gave Boaz for his generosity, charity and obedience to the Law in that it is his name that is remembered and not the name of the man who refused the right of redemption over Ruth (Jewish Study Bible, page 1584).
Ruth 4:3 ~ Boaz then said to the man who had the right of redemption, 'Naomi, who has come back from the Plains of Moab, is selling the piece of land that belonged to our brother, Elimelech.
For the first time we learn that Elimelech's land needs to be redeemed in order to provide for Naomi and Ruth. It is unclear from the Hebrew text if their kinsman "brother" Elimelech sold his ancestral land when he left for Moab and it needs to be redeemer from the buyer, or if the land is still in Naomi's possession and she must sell it to support herself and Ruth.
The ancestral lands could never be permanently sold (Lev 25:23). They could be temporarily sold until the time of the 50th year Jubilee when the land reverted back to the original landholder (Lev 25:13, 23-28). Any land purchased between the Jubilees was valued on the number of years until the next redemption year (Lev 25:14-17). While it is true that Naomi's lands could be restored at the time of the next Jubilee, if Naomi was dead and there was no heir to receive the land, the man currently occupying the land could receive it permanently his property.
Question: What are the rules of redemption according to the Law in Leviticus 25:23-34; 47-55; also see Jer 32:6-15.
Answer: Only a close blood relative can serve as the redeemer. He must have the means to redeem and he must be willing to redeem. A legal document seals the agreement in the presence of witnesses.
Ruth 4:4b-6 ~ 4bThe man said, 'I am willing to redeem it.' 5 Boaz then said, 'The day you acquire the field from Naomi, you also acquire Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the man who has died, to perpetuate the dead man's name in his inheritance.' 6 The man with the right of redemption then said, 'I cannot use my right of redemption without jeopardizing my own inheritance. Since I cannot use my right of redemption, exercise the right yourself.'
We again reach another of those climactic moments in the story. At first the closer kinsman expresses his desire to serve as Naomi's blood redeemer. However, Boaz has been inspired by Ruth's interpretation of the Law and the role of the Go'el Haddim in the request she made to him for marriage on the threshing-floor the night before.
Question: What does Boaz say to his kinsman that
changes the man's offer to serve as the blood redeemer?
Answer: Like Ruth, he ties the redemption of the land to a levirate marriage with Ruth. The kinsman is not willing to marry Ruth and so declines his offer.
Both Ruth and Boaz have linked the redemption of the land to marriage with Ruth. According to the Law, levirate marriage pertains only to the brother of the dead husband (Dt 25:5-10) and is not linked with redemption of ancestral lands; therefore, neither Boaz nor the other kinsman is legally bound to marry Ruth. Nevertheless, Boaz has linked the two as a kinsman's obligation, and this is accepted by the other kinsman and the town elders.
Ruth 4:6 ~ The man with the right of redemption then said, 'I cannot use my right of redemption without jeopardizing my own inheritance. Since I cannot use my right of redemption, exercise the right yourself.'
All three qualifications were necessary to fulfill the role of a blood redeemer: blood kinship, financial means, and willingness to serve.
Question: Why did Naomi's nearest kinsman refuse the right of redemption? How did his refusal leave the way clear for Boaz?
Answer: Naomi's nearest kinsman had the blood tie, and he had the necessary resources to fulfill the redemption, but he was not willing to redeem Naomi's land by marrying Ruth since, as he said, such a marriage would compromise his inheritance. Boaz, however, was willing to fulfill all three necessary requirements to be the Blood Redeemer including marriage to Naomi's daughter-in-law.
It is likely that the unnamed kinsman had daughters and it wasn't so much his right of inheritance that could be jeopardized by producing a male heir for his dead kinsman Mahlon, but that it was the inheritance of his children that was at stake. Daughters could only inherit and pass the land on to their sons if there were no other male heirs (Num 27:5-11).
The refusal of the nearer kinsman is another act of God's providence. In Ruth's case, Boaz fulfilled the role of the Blood Redeemer by meeting all the necessary qualifications and by keeping Naomi's lands within the tribe of Judah. He also wisely followed Ruth's example in linking the redemption of Naomi's land to a levirate marriage with Ruth (Num 36:5-9; Dt 25:5-10), a condition the other kinsman was not willing to fulfill (Ruth 3:11; 4:5-6).
Ruth 4:7-10 ~ Boaz declares his rights as the Go'el
7 Now, in former times, it was the custom in Israel to confirm a transaction in matters of redemption or inheritance by one of the parties taking off his sandal and giving it to the other. This was how agreements were ratified in Israel. 8 So, when the man with the right of redemption said to Boaz, 'Acquire it for yourself,' he took off his sandal. 9 Boaz then said to the elders and all the people there. 'Today you are witnesses that from Naomi I acquire everything that used to belong to Elimelech, and everything that used to belong to Mahlon and Chilion 10 and that I am also acquiring Ruth the Moabitess, Mahlon's widow, to be my wife, to perpetuate the dead man's name in his inheritance, so that the dead man's name will not be lost among his brothers and at the gate of his town. Today you are witnesses to this.
Presumably at this time the symbolic act of refusal was no longer practiced so the writer explains the action of the nearer kinsman. A sandal was used as the symbolic sign of ownership and the transfer of possession rights as in King David's claim: Moab a bowl for me to wash in, on Edom I plant my sandal. Now try shouting "victory! Over me, Philistia!' (Ps 60:8, repeated in108:9).
The only place in Scripture that mentions a similar symbolic gesture is in the shaming of a kinsman who refuses to accept the widow of his brother as a wife in Deuteronomy 25:7-10: But if the man declines to take his brother's wife, she must go to the elders at the gate and say, 'I have no brother-in-law willing to perpetuate his brother's name in Israel; he declines to exercise his duty as brother in my favor.' The elders of the town must summon the man and talk to him. If, on appearing before them, he says, "I refuse to take her," then the woman to whom he owes duty as brother must go up to him in the presence of elders, take the sandal off his foot, spit in his face, and pronounce the following words, "This is what is done to the man who refuses to restore his brother's house," and his family must henceforth be known in Israel as House of the Unshod.
However, the symbolic gesture in Ruth 4:8 is not the same as the gesture of renunciation and contempt in Deuteronomy 25. Removing one's shoe and throwing it at someone as an act of contempt is still common in the Middle East and other Moslem nations (i.e., the reporter who threw his shoe at President Bush at a news conference in Afghanistan). In Ruth 4:10 the man who refuses his rights as the redeemer gives his shoe to the other kinsman indicating the transfer of his rights from one party to another.
Acknowledging the symbolic act, Boaz then declares to the ten witnesses, the town's people and other elders, his right to act as the Go'el Haddam for Naomi and Ruth.
Ruth 4:11-12 ~ The elders and towns people give their
11 All the people at the gate said, 'We are witnesses'; and the elders said, 'May Yahweh make the woman about to enter your family like Rachel and Leah who together built up the House of Israel. Grow mighty in Ephrathah, be renowned in Bethlehem! 12 And through the children [seed] Yahweh will give you by this young woman, may your family be like the family of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah.' [..] = literal translation (IBHE, vol. I, page 708).
The town's people and the elders pronounce their approval as witnesses, and the elders offer a blessing in the name of Yahweh for Ruth. See Gen 38:1-30; 1 Chr 2:5-11.
Question: How is the elders' blessing of Ruth's
marriage prophetic: And through the children [seed] Yahweh will give you by
this young woman, may your family be like the family of Perez, whom Tamar bore
to Judah'? See Mt 1:4-5, 16.
Answer: Their blessing looks forward in salvation history to the birth of Jesus, the promised Redeemer-Messiah in Bethlehem.
Question: What is curious about the historical
allusion made in their blessing for Ruth? Why might the naming of Tamar in the
blessing be significant?
Answer: First in the blessing the elders name Leah and Rachel, the wives of Jacob/Israel. These women are considered to be the mothers of the people of Israel. Then they name Tamar, a woman who insisted on her rights as a widow to become the wife of her dead husband's kinsman (in this case her father-in-law) and then bore a son (Perez) who became the ancestor of Prince Nahshon and later Boaz.
Like Ruth, Tamar's actions in securing her rights are seen as honorable and courageous. There may be another connection to Ruth. We are told in Genesis 38:1 that the story of Tamar occurred at a time when Judah left his own people to settle among the Canaanites and even married a Canaanite woman. Since Judah was still living among the Canaanites when he selected Tamar as a wife for his son, it may be that Tamar was also a Canaanite. Tamar's foreign origins are similar to Ruth's foreign origins as a Moabitess, but Tamar became a significant player in the role of the tribe of Judah's history as it is hoped that Ruth will play a similar positive role. It is interesting that the elders name Rachel before Leah, even though Leah is the mother of Judah, the founding father of their tribe. The naming of Rachel first may be because Rachel's tomb was located near Bethlehem (Gen 35:16-20).
Ruth 4:13-17 ~Boaz and Ruth marry
13 So Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife. And when they came together [he knew her], Yahweh made her conceive and she bore a son. 14 And the woman said to Naomi, 'Blessed [baruk] by Yahweh who has not left you today without anyone to redeem you. May his name be praised in Israel! 15 The child will be a comfort to you and the prop of your old age, for he has been born to the daughter-in-law who loves you and is more to you than seven sons.' 16 And Naomi, taking the child, held him to her breast; and she it was who looked after him. 17 And the women of the neighborhood gave him a name. "A son', they said, 'has been born to Naomi, and they called him Obed. This was the father of Jesse, the father of David.
The women of Bethlehem again serve a role similar to a Greek chorus in our story, as they have served as a backdrop to the unfolding story of Naomi and Ruth since their return to Bethlehem in 1:19-21 and now in the conclusion of the story. They are the first to declare that Israel should celebrate the birth of the child that symbolizes the rebirth of Naomi's family that was lost to her in Moab.
In the final blessing, the women of Bethlehem bless (baruk) Yahweh for His goodness to Naomi (4:14), revealing God's divine providence that has been a central theme of the story from the beginning. It is interesting the role that women have played throughout this story in what was a patriarchal society.
Question: How are the women especially generous in
their praise of Ruth?
Answer: They claim that Ruth has shown her covenant love to Naomi better than seven sons!
Seven is one of the so called "perfect numbers" in Scripture, symbolizing fullness and perfection. In the allusion to "seven sons" the women are saying Naomi could not have born a son who demonstrated more devotion than Ruth.
Ruth 4:16 ~ And Naomi, taking the child, held him to her breast; and she it was who looked after him. Putting her grandson to her breast is a symbolic act of adoption. Naomi's grandson is her legal heir.
Ruth 4:17 ~ And the women of the neighborhood gave him a name. "A son', they said, 'has been born to Naomi, and they called him Obed. This was the father of Jesse, the father of David.
It is the women of the town who name the boy Obed (the Hebrew meaning of his is believed to be "servant" and may be a shortened form of Obadiah, "servant of Yahweh"). It is not unusual that the women of Bethlehem should name the child. When John the Baptist was born, the friends and relatives of his parents, Zechariah and Elizabeth, expressed their opinions about naming of the child (Lk 1:59-66). The climax of the story of Ruth is presented in the revelation that Obed is the ancestor of David (notice that David is not named as David the King as might be expected). It will be the prophet Samuel who will be told by God to anoint the young David son of Jesse of Bethlehem (1 Sam 16:1-13). The ancestral line will be further defined in the last verses of the Book of Ruth.
Question: How are Naomi, Ruth and Boaz models of hesed,
loyalty and fidelity in the family bond of God's covenant?
Question: What virtues do both Ruth and Boaz
Answer: Ruth exemplifies a number of virtues including loyalty, fidelity, humility, obedience, piety, and chastity. Boaz embodies the virtues of compassion, mercy, chastity, faith, and obedience to the Law of God.
Ruth 4:18-22 ~ The ten name genealogy
18 These are the descendants of Perez. Perez fathered Hezron, 19 Hezron fathered Ram, Ram fathered Amminadab, 20 Amminadab fathered Nahshon, Nahshon fathered Salmon, 21 Salmon fathered Boaz, Boaz fathered Obed, 22 Obed fathered Jesse, and Jesse fathered David.
The ten name genealogy may reflect that in God's divine plan these are the generations that preceded the birth of David, the future king of Israel. It is likely that other names are not included in the genealogy. Perez is one of the twin sons of Tamar and Judah son of Jacob/Israel. Compare this genealogy with the genealogy found in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38.
Question: If Moabites were forbidden entrance into
the covenant (Dt 23:3), how was Ruth admitted into Israel's covenant with
Yahweh? See Lev 11:44-45; 19:2; 20:7; Num 15:40.
Answer: Ruth was not born into the covenant and was the daughter of a people who were forbidden entrance into the covenant, but she demonstrated through righteous acts in living in obedience to God's commands that she merited through her deeds consideration beyond the restriction placed on the Moabites.
The unanswered question is was Ruth restricted from worshiping at Yahweh's Sanctuary because of her Moabite blood, or did the restriction against entrance into the community of Israel apparently not apply to a willing convert like Ruth who demonstrated her loyalty and fidelity to her mother-in-law as well as her good moral character and therefore her value to the community of Israel? The full acceptance of the people of Bethlehem to Boaz's marriage and their blessings associated with the marriage and the birth of Boaz's and Ruth's child suggests that they did see Ruth's demonstration of hesed toward her mother-in-law and her demonstration of the use of the Law by applying both the obligation of the blood redeemer and the levirate marriage to her own life as evidence that she deserved to be treated as an exception to the prohibitions against Moabites.
This is the interpretation of Jewish Bible scholars. Never is it mentioned in Scripture that David's hereditary line was impure. Ruth had what Yahweh demanded of His people-a circumcised heart that was undivided in its demonstration of hesed to both God and neighbor (Dt 10:16-20; 30:6; Jer 4:4a).
That Ruth was fully admitted into the faith community was also the interpretation of the Church Fathers, including St. Ambrose: ... the law of Moses prohibits marriage to Moabites and excludes them from the church, as it is written: "No Moabite shall enter the church of the Lord even to the third and fourth generation forever." Hence, how did she enter the church unless because she was made holy and immaculate by deeds that go beyond the law? For if the law was given for the irreverent and sinners, then surely Ruth, who exceeded the limits of the law and entered the church and was made an Israelite and deserved to a be counted among the honored figures in the Lord's genealogy, chosen for kinship of mind, not of body, is a great example for us, because she prefigures all of us who were gathered from the nations for the purpose of joining the church of the Lord. We should emulate her, therefore, who merited by her deeds this privilege of being admitted to his society, as history teaches, so that we also, by our deeds and accompanying merits, might be chosen for election to the Church of the Lord (Exposition of the Gospel of Luke, 3).
Question: Five women are mentioned in St. Matthew's
genealogy of Jesus Christ. Ruth is only one of four women who are named in the
genealogy. Who are the other women and what fifth woman is unnamed? See
Matthew 1:1-16; 2 Sam 11-12.
Answer: Ruth is the third of the four virtuous women named in Jesus' genealogy in the Gospel of Matthew: Tamar (Mt 1:3), Rahab (Mt 1:5), Ruth (Mt 1:5b) and Mary of Nazareth (Mt 1:16). Bathsheba, the mother of Solomon, is not named but is only referred to as "Uriah's wife" (Mt 1:6).
It is likely that Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bethsheba are all Gentile women. Rahab is probably the grandmother or great-grandmother of Boaz and Salmon is probably the son or possibly the grandson of Prince Nahshon, the leader of the tribe of Judah during the Exodus. Ruth's name included in Jesus' genealogy makes the Book of Ruth that much more important and points to the future righteous Gentile men and woman who will be part of the continuing story of God's plan for mankind's salvation. As St. Paul wrote: Do you think God is the God of only the Jews, and not of Gentiles too? Most certainly of Gentiles too, since there is only one God; he will justify the circumcised by their faith, and he will justify the uncircumcised through their faith (Rom 3:29-30), as He judged the Moabite woman Ruth and found her worthy of being an ancestress of His Son, Jesus Christ.
Question: How have the blessings Boaz petitioned for Ruth in Yahweh's name in 2:12 and 3:10 been fulfilled?
Answer: Boaz asked in 2:12 that God reward Ruth for her faithful covenant love of family (hesed) in staying with Naomi and leaving her own family and homeland by giving her refuge under His protective wings. The refuge Yahweh gave Ruth was marriage to Boaz. In 3:10 Boaz again petitioned Yahweh to bless Ruth for her faithful covenant love (hesed) to her adopted family. God fulfilled this blessing by increasing the family in giving Ruth a son.
Question: How did God reward Boaz for his honorable
response to the request to fulfill his duty as Naomi and Ruth's Blood
Redeemer? See Rt 4:21-22 and Mt 1:1, 4-6; 2:1.
Answer: God rewarded Boaz of Bethlehem with prosperity, with a son, and with the legacy of being remembered as the ancestor of the great King David and the ancestor of mankind's Blood Redeemer, Jesus of Nazareth.
Both the Virgin Mary and Joseph are descendants of Boaz and Ruth; see Mt 1:4-believed to be Joseph's genealogy and Lk 3:32-believed by tradition to be Mary's genealogy (Sala is another rendering of Salmon) . Jesus the Messiah was born over one thousand years after the story of Boaz and Ruth, perhaps on Boaz of Judah's ancestral lands near the town of Bethlehem. The Church of the Nativity marks the site of Jesus' birth today in the town of Bethlehem.
Boaz's willingness to redeem Naomi's daughter-in-law, Ruth, a woman born a pagan Gentile, prefigures Jesus Christ's willingness to redeem both His own people and the people of the Gentile nations of the earth.
Question: Using the Old Testament qualifications, how
did Jesus offer Himself as mankind's Blood Redeemer? See Tit 2:14; Gal 4:4-5;
Heb 2:16-17; 1 Cor 6:20; 1 Pt 1:18-19; Jn 10:15-18; 1Jn 3:16; CCC 607-9; 802,
and any other relevant Scripture passages you might wish to cite.
He offered himself for us in order to ransom us from all our faults and to purify a people to be his very own and eager to do good. Titus 2:14 (also see CCC # 607-8; 802)
Blood relationship
Dt 25:5, 7-10;
Lev 25:25;
Rt 2:1
Galatians 4:4, 5 ~ ...but when the completion of
the time came, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born a subject of the Law,
to redeem the subjects of the Law, so that we could receive adoption as sons.
Hebrews 2:16, 17 ~ For it was not the angels that he took to himself; he took to himself the line of Abraham. It was essential that he should in this way be made completely like his brothers so that he could become a compassionate and trustworthy high priest for their relationship to God, able to expiate the sins of the people.
Also see Jn 1:14; Rom 1:3; Phi 2:5-8
Necessary Resources
Lev 25:25-26;
Rt 2:1
1 Corinthians 6:20 ~ Are you not your own
property, then; you have been bought at a price. So use your body for the
glory of God.
1Peter 1:18, 19 ~ For you know that the price of your ransom from the futile way of life handed down from your ancestors was paid, not in anything perishable like silver or gold, but in precious blood as of a blameless and spotless lamb, Christ.
Also see 1 Cor 6:20
Willingness to Buy
Dt 25:7, 9;
Rt 3:11
John 10:15-18 ~ ... just as the Father knows me
and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for my sheep. And there are
other sheep I have that are not of this fold, and I must lead these too.
They too will listen to my voice, and there will be only one flock, one
shepherd. The Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take
it up again. No one takes it from me; I lay it down of my own free will, and
as I have power to lay it down, so I have power to take it up again; and this
is the command I have received from my Father.
1 John 3:16 ~ This is the proof of love that he laid down his life for us and we too ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.
Also see Mt 20:28; Heb 10:7; Tit 2:14
|Michal E. Hunt © copyright 2002, revised 2012
Both Ruth and Boaz submitted themselves to Yahweh's sovereignty over their lives. The providence of God in the Book of Ruth foreshadows the redeeming work of Jesus Christ. Through Jesus' self-sacrificial act of love on the altar of the Cross, He becomes the willing "Blood Redeemer" to all men and women of every ethnicity in every age until the end of time.
The Fathers of the Church like Isidore of Seville (c. 560-636) taught that Boaz the bridegroom and Ruth the bride prefigured John the Baptist, whose coming anticipated the union of Jesus the Bridegroom with the Church, His chaste Bride. It is in this union that God calls forth believers from among the Jews and from among the Gentile nations to form one people in Christ Jesus. The Fathers of the Church also taught that Ruth prefigured the inclusion of the Gentile nations into the Church of Jesus Christ. She willingly came out from the Gentile nation of the Moabites and, through her confession of the true God of Israel, joined the community of the Patriarchs and the saints. Her faithfulness and good deeds not only merited her entrance into the covenant community of Israel but also merited her inclusion in the genealogy of the great King David and the promised Messiah, Jesus Christ. It is in her willingness to be Boaz's bride and Boaz's willingness to become her Go'el Haddam/bridegroom that the blessing of all the nations of the earth promised to Abraham (Gen 12:3; 18:18; ; Gal 3:8) was fulfilled in the redeeming work of their descendant, Jesus of Nazareth. The marriage of Ruth and Boaz has profound symbolic significance, prefiguring the salvation of all peoples of all ethnicities in the New Covenant of Christ Jesus.
Question for group discussion:
The Hebrew word hesed is a key word found in our study. Hesed is defined as the expression of covenant love and fidelity, whether in marriage, in fulfilling family obligations or in the family bond that was the Sinai Covenant that made the children of Israel the children of God as their divine Father. However, in the New Covenant in Christ, Jesus asked for a higher level love that was willing to be expressed in self-sacrifice when He called upon His disciples to love each other as He loved them (Jn 15:12, 17). In naming this higher order of love, Christians used the Greek word the inspired writers of the New Testament used, agape, giving it a new meaning defined in terms of Christ's self-sacrifice. How is agape different from hesed? How does "agape-love" demand more? See the document "Is Hesed the same as Agape? God's Love Defined by covenant in the Old and New Testaments" in the Documents/Scripture Study section of the website.
Michal Hunt, Copyright © 2012 Agape Bible Study. Permissions All Rights Reserved.Catechism references for this study: Ruth's deeds demonstrated that she was worthy to be joined to God's covenant people:


text:
Whitleigh BModel Female Olathe, Kansas, US
Mayhem # 765638
About Me
I'm Whit, an aspiring model from Olathe reaching for the top. I've been modeling a little over a yr and it goes beyond just photo shoots. My main focus right now is branching out from this younger, commercial look. I give 110% effort and am very dedicated, and I also do my homework so please be legit! I have a very wide variety of looks and am still in the process of putting a portfolio together with the professionals from all over. Stay tuned!
Have you worked with Whitleigh B? Add Credits for Whitleigh B! >>
Loading Content