That was 36 years ago. He changed. Read some of his speeches:

http://www.adl.org/Anti_semitism/conference/as_conf_fischer.asp

http://www.germany-info.org/relaunch/politics/new/pol_fischer_ME_2002_7.htm

http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/www/en/ausgabe_archiv?archiv_id=7193

http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/www/en/ausgabe_archiv?archiv_id=6954

You may not agree with his policies, but if after reading these you still think he is not a friend of Israel then it is probably impossible for anyone meet your standards.

This is the same Joschka Fischer who attended a PLO solidarity rally in Algiers 1969. Please don’t have any illussions that there are any friends of Israel in any of the Green parties.

The editors would be the last to claim it was a literal translation, for all sorts of reasons obvious to the chacham she’aynav b’rosho.

It is telling that he ignored my reference to the Gemara (Talmud), which is replete with references to Esav at later points in history. “‘And the hands are the hands of Esav’ — this is the kingdom that destroyed our House, and burned our Hall [the Temple], and exiled us from our land” (Gittin 57b). “The ‘voice of Yaakov’ cried out from what the ‘hands of Esav’ did to him in Beitar” (Jer. Taanis 4:5).

Dai. Enough. What Mrs. Katz said was a simple matter that we all know to be part of Jewish tradition, and hardly one to continue harping upon.

I refer you to the Saperstein edition of Rashi published by ArtScroll where this Rashi is translated as follows:

“Though is a known fact that Esav hated Ya´akov, his mercy was aroused at that moment, and he kissed him with all of his heart.”

In the notes, the editor makes it clear that the subject of R’ Shimon’s observation is Ya’akov’s brother, not the nation (Edom) descended from him. Moreover, if this was meant to be a lesson about nations and not an observation about people, the text would speak of Yisroel and Edom, not Esav and Yaakov.

(I went from memory earlier when I said Saperstein had halach translated as “tradition.” They have it as “fact” Not law, but fact. And as I said, the editors make it clear that Rav Shimon’s intention is to say that though it’s a known fact that Esav the person hated Yaakov the person, “his mercy was aroused at that moment, and he kissed him with all of his heart.”)

The Green party in the United States has no such leader.

Ralph Nader first articles were published in a now defunct anti-Semitic publication.

The first time Green Party ran a candidate for president of US in all 50 states, he got nearly 3 million votes. Until recently its affiliate (Die Grünen) was part of Germany’s ruling coalition. They hold 33 seats in EU parliament and 166 in national legislatures of Europe. If that’s not mainstream, what is?

And no matter how you try to worm your way out of it, you were trying to defend the indefensible.

As such, any time one sees “halacha” it is not merely a story passed down, but a rule. Maasei Avos Siman L’Banim applies. The Shulchan Aruch doesn’t discuss it since it is not something we can control or change. But the Gemara, on the other hand, certainly does.

What sort of “known law” would it be, if it only meant that one long-dead individual hated another? Toby Katz didn’t mangle anything at all, she merely knows how to read Rashi and Medrash

You are mistranslating, and allowing your view of the world to cloud your understanding of the words as they appear on the page. The ArtScroll Saperstein Chumash translates it as I have it, not as a “known halacha” but as a “known tradition,” meaning (as the notes there explain) that though we know from our tradition that Esav (the individual) hated Jacob “his compassion was moved at that moment and he kissed him wholeheartedly.”

The idea that Shimon Bar Yochai means for this to be a lesson about Jews and Gentiles doesn’t fit the context. You can tell easily that the the subject of R’ Shimon’s observation is Ya’akov’s brother, not the nation (Edom) descended from him. (see Rashi on Gen. 34: 4) Moreover, if this was meant to be a lesson about nations and not an observation about people, the text would speak of Yisroel and Edom, not Esav and Yaakov. Anyway it’s hard to understand what kind of law this might be: The SA doesn’t discuss it, for instance.

When needing to defend the indefensible, he changes the subject to something irrelevant. In order to defend repugnunt position of mainstream lefties, he dredges up obscure website and a convicted felon.

The Green party aren’t mainstream leftires, anymore than David Duke is a mainstream rightie. So I wasn’t changing the subject, Mr. Cool, but putting Toby’s comment in context.

This isn’t to say that there isn’t true right-wing anti-Semitism, but I leave it to Dov to find an example.

It is also a Rashi — much of Rashi’s commentary is derived (brilliantly collected, and concisely expressed) from Gemara and Medrash. And it seems impossible that DB could mention that this is from Rebbe Shimon Ben Yochai, and forget the very next words: Halacha Hee B’Yadua — it is a known law — that Esav hates Yaakov.

What sort of “known law” would it be, if it only meant that one long-dead individual hated another? Toby Katz didn’t mangle anything at all, she merely knows how to read Rashi and Medrash.

This just in: Earth round.

Maybe Toby one day you’re realize that the far left doesn’t have a monopoly on hating Israel and Jews. Stormfront and David Duke for example are no ones idea of lefties.

It was a Rashi in last week’s parsha

It’s not a “Rashi”. It’s a quote from Shimon Bar Yochai that Rashi cites, and you’ve managed to mangle it. The quote doesn’t say that Esav the nation hates Jacob the nation. It says Esav the individual hated Jacob the individual which is obvious from the context.