The road to Iran… follow the blind goat
How do you explain the rationale behind attacking Iran to a man who believes Hurricane Katrina was caused by a lack of torah study?
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently sent his national security adviser, Yaakov Amidror, to convince Rabbi Ovadia Yosef of the need to attack Iran. Amidror described the Iranian nuclear program to the rabbi, and explained the danger inherent in its completion.
One wonders whether, in the course of the explanation, which was supposed to be based on a rational argument, Amidror took into account Rabbi Yosef’s outlook on disasters. For example, do Amidror and the man who dispatched him, Israel’s prime minister, accept the basic core of Yosef’s explanations for the disaster that struck the people of New Orleans in 2005 when Hurricane Katrina ravaged the city? “All this is from too little Torah study,” opined the great sage. “There are a lot of blacks there. Are blacks going to learn Torah? Yallah, let there be a tsunami there. Let them drown.”
Some 12 years ago Ovadia Yosef called Netanyahu a “blind nanny goat” (“They’re putting a blind nanny goat as their leader,” March 2000). Does the “blind goat” that has since returned to power here really believe that Rabbi Yosef is a strategic thinker − someone to whom classified information that has been kept from the citizenry for reasons of security and deterrence should be revealed? Is Rabbi Yosef likely to illuminate darkened corners in Israel’s strategic thinking?
Is the man who claimed that doctors who support abortion are “ignorant beasts ... soul-killers” liable to contribute meaningfully to the psychological warfare going on between Israel and Iran?
Aside from Amidror, other defense establishment officials are known to have met with the Shas party’s spiritual leader. The officials, some of them completely secular, swallowed their dignity and despite having been called “idiots” by Yosef in the past (“They [secular people] left the Torah and became idiots”), did not hesitate to go to his home and consult with the tactician who believes that “secular teachers are not teachers, they’re donkeys.”
Basically, the idiots were trying to get the Shas leader to soften the position of party chairman Eli Yishai, who opposes an attack. Here’s hoping that none of the idiots who tried to influence Yishai were gay to boot. For the interior minister, a member of the “forum of nine” − i.e., one of the nine people who will decide whether we live or die − believes that “gays and lesbians are sick people ... I wish them a full recovery” (2006).
In any event, even if some of the officials are gay secular folk (sick idiots, in other words), or even doctors (beasts), teachers (donkeys) or, heaven forbid, former soccer players (“all their brains are in their legs”) − it was better to send them to meet with Rabbi Yosef than to send women.
For this great strategic mind of our generation believes that “walking between two women is like walking between two donkeys or two camels.” And, of course, despite his contradictory statements (donkeys are secular teachers, so how can they also be women?), better to discuss nuclear matters with sicko-idiot-beastlike-donkeys than with plain old camels.
A day after that strategic meeting with Amidror, Rabbi Yosef fulfilled his mission and used his weekly lesson to indoctrinate the minds of his believers: “You know what situation we’re in, there are evil people, Iran, about to destroy us. ... We must pray before [the Almighty] with all our heart.”
He then went on to talk about parents who choose to send their children to secular schools, just like those institutions in which the “blind nanny goat” studied in Jerusalem and Massachusetts. Anyone who sends his children there, he declared, should be aware that he is corrupting them, burying them, plus he cannot lead prayers in services in a synagogue.
A recent Gallup survey conducted among 51,927 people from 57 different countries found that the world’s population is becoming less religious and more atheistic. Israel, it turns out, did not take part in the survey.