Who are the heroes? Mordechai and Esther
What did they do ? Haman had a decree to have the Jews annihilated.
They did accept decree...they decided to do everything in their power to stop it!
Mordechai and Esther have left us a strong message, it is up to each of us to
live and act as proud Jews and not to take crap from anyone!
The Torah is our driving force and we know we are righteous and strong.
When our enemies threaten us, we must strike the first blow and if necessary...kill them.
Perhaps Israel should regain control of the Temple Mount this Purim?
Or perhaps Millions should March on the PM's residence and protest his leftists leanings
and force Israel's leadership to lead based on....Torah.
May it be so
Happy Purim!!
B*H*
Avi
February 25, 2010
February 22, 2010
By their fruits ye shall know them
February 19, 2010
by Lori Lowenthal Marcus
Several news stories recently covered what was cast as a diplomatic faux pas by Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon. The implication was that Ayalon should apologize for not meeting with visiting members of congress for what, it was suggested, was an act of hostility towards their host, J Street, an organization whose pro-Israel bona fides he has questioned.
While traveling in Israel, Congressman William Delahunt (D-Mass.), on behalf of himself and four other congressional members, harshly criticized the Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, Danny Ayalon, who declined to meet with them if they were accompanied by the trip organizers. Delahunt was angered by the Israeli official’s apparent suggestion that the delegation “would even consider traveling to the region with groups” that “[Ayalon] inaccurately described as anti-Israel.”
But it appears that the ones who should apologize are those hosts - the pro-Palestinian group J Street and the overtly anti-Israel Churches for Middle East Peace. They need to apologize to the Israeli government, to all Israelis and to the members of their congressional mission. They need to do that for inviting members of the US congress to sit down and chat with an Arab official who only days before publicly praised an Arab Palestinian terrorist for trying to murder an Israeli, and who congratulated the parents of the attempted murderer on their son becoming a martyr.
They should also be embarrassed by their hysterical response - no doubt instigated and manipulated by J Street - to the fact that they “had” to meet with Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor instead of Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon. The Prime Minister outranks the Foreign Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister outranks the Deputy Foreign Minister. Does it really make sense to complain about meeting with a higher ranking official?
Many people realize that J Street is not, as it claims to be, pro-Israel. But the other group which co-sponsored the trip and with which J Street has a well-established and at times inter-connecting relationship, Churches for Middle East Peace, does not describe itself as pro-Israel -- and with good reason.
Yet CMEP does tout itself, as J Street does also, as “pro-peace.” So guess what CMEP considers evidence of being “pro-peace”? In the 2009 CMEP conference document, all 10 points of their “2009 PRO-PEACE HILL HIGHLIGHTS” have to do with support and aid to the Arab Palestinians. The only mention of a “pro-peace” US government action having to do with Israelis is the “well-coordinated attack” by congressional leaders on Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and his policies.
Stop the settlements, stop Jews from building in parts of Jerusalem, eliminate all checkpoints, open the borders to Gaza, stop destroying the Gazan tunnels systems, say J Street and CMEP, and then the Israelis and all the Middle East terrorists will skip down the yellow brick road to peace.
But there is still another reason J Street should apologize to Israelis, to true lovers of Israel, and to their guest congressional delegation members. The trip itinerary, apparently arranged by J Street, included a visit on Tueday, February 16, with Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.
Two days earlier it was revealed that Fayyad visited the parents of Faiz Faraj. Faraj was killed after charging a group of Israelis in Hebron and stabbing one of them.
During his “condolence” visit Fayyad “denounced in extremely harsh terms the actions of the ‘occupation forces,’” which he claimed were part of the “ongoing campaign to suppress the non-violent protests of residents,” according to the official Palestinian newspaper (translation by Palestinian Media Watch).
It is time to recognize that J Street travels in a parallel universe in which they see nothing wrong in having a diplomacy meeting with an Arab official who just described stabbing an Israeli to be an act of non-violence, and to honoring that “non-violent” stabbers’ parents for their wonderful son. In that universe, apparently, it makes sense for J Street to call itself pro-Israel. And in that universe, J Street’s buddy organization which shares the same alternate universe vocabulary - Churches for Middle East Peace - calls itself that with a straight face.
Lori Lowenthal Marcus is the co-founder and president of the Zionist organization Z STREET.
by Lori Lowenthal Marcus
Several news stories recently covered what was cast as a diplomatic faux pas by Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon. The implication was that Ayalon should apologize for not meeting with visiting members of congress for what, it was suggested, was an act of hostility towards their host, J Street, an organization whose pro-Israel bona fides he has questioned.
While traveling in Israel, Congressman William Delahunt (D-Mass.), on behalf of himself and four other congressional members, harshly criticized the Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, Danny Ayalon, who declined to meet with them if they were accompanied by the trip organizers. Delahunt was angered by the Israeli official’s apparent suggestion that the delegation “would even consider traveling to the region with groups” that “[Ayalon] inaccurately described as anti-Israel.”
But it appears that the ones who should apologize are those hosts - the pro-Palestinian group J Street and the overtly anti-Israel Churches for Middle East Peace. They need to apologize to the Israeli government, to all Israelis and to the members of their congressional mission. They need to do that for inviting members of the US congress to sit down and chat with an Arab official who only days before publicly praised an Arab Palestinian terrorist for trying to murder an Israeli, and who congratulated the parents of the attempted murderer on their son becoming a martyr.
They should also be embarrassed by their hysterical response - no doubt instigated and manipulated by J Street - to the fact that they “had” to meet with Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor instead of Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon. The Prime Minister outranks the Foreign Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister outranks the Deputy Foreign Minister. Does it really make sense to complain about meeting with a higher ranking official?
Many people realize that J Street is not, as it claims to be, pro-Israel. But the other group which co-sponsored the trip and with which J Street has a well-established and at times inter-connecting relationship, Churches for Middle East Peace, does not describe itself as pro-Israel -- and with good reason.
Yet CMEP does tout itself, as J Street does also, as “pro-peace.” So guess what CMEP considers evidence of being “pro-peace”? In the 2009 CMEP conference document, all 10 points of their “2009 PRO-PEACE HILL HIGHLIGHTS” have to do with support and aid to the Arab Palestinians. The only mention of a “pro-peace” US government action having to do with Israelis is the “well-coordinated attack” by congressional leaders on Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and his policies.
Stop the settlements, stop Jews from building in parts of Jerusalem, eliminate all checkpoints, open the borders to Gaza, stop destroying the Gazan tunnels systems, say J Street and CMEP, and then the Israelis and all the Middle East terrorists will skip down the yellow brick road to peace.
But there is still another reason J Street should apologize to Israelis, to true lovers of Israel, and to their guest congressional delegation members. The trip itinerary, apparently arranged by J Street, included a visit on Tueday, February 16, with Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.
Two days earlier it was revealed that Fayyad visited the parents of Faiz Faraj. Faraj was killed after charging a group of Israelis in Hebron and stabbing one of them.
During his “condolence” visit Fayyad “denounced in extremely harsh terms the actions of the ‘occupation forces,’” which he claimed were part of the “ongoing campaign to suppress the non-violent protests of residents,” according to the official Palestinian newspaper (translation by Palestinian Media Watch).
It is time to recognize that J Street travels in a parallel universe in which they see nothing wrong in having a diplomacy meeting with an Arab official who just described stabbing an Israeli to be an act of non-violence, and to honoring that “non-violent” stabbers’ parents for their wonderful son. In that universe, apparently, it makes sense for J Street to call itself pro-Israel. And in that universe, J Street’s buddy organization which shares the same alternate universe vocabulary - Churches for Middle East Peace - calls itself that with a straight face.
Lori Lowenthal Marcus is the co-founder and president of the Zionist organization Z STREET.
February 19, 2010
Since when did a reasonable claim become an argument in international relations?
Since when did a reasonable claim become an argument in international relations?
Did France heed German rights to Alsace and Lorraine? Did Britain consider
Northern Ireland’s right to self-determination? Did Russia accept the Chechen
people’s sovereignty over the land they settled? Did the Arabs concede to a
few Jews who fled the Holocaust a small parcel of marshy land and desert to
establish a mini-state? Rights and claims are irrelevant; power matters.
Even if Israel now descends to the depths of moral idealism and concedes the
Palestinians' rights, the Arabs would abandon the agreement once they become
strong, and reject Israel's right to exist. Even in the moral idealists' plane,
Palestinians already have a state of their own, Jordan. The Balfour Declaration
legally gave Transjordan to Israel in return for Jewish support in WWI. Then
again the Jewish state was halved in 1947 to make room for the Palestinians,
whom even Jordan refused to accept. What possible right could the Palestinians
have to Judea?
Why should Israel compromise with the Palestinians instead of driving them to
Jordan and compensating them for the assets they leave? A Palestinian state in
Gaza would continue low-level warfare with Israel; thus, the compromise is not
viable tactically. Other Arabs despise the Palestinians and don’t care about
them. Arabs will fight Israel when they feel strong whether we settle the
Palestinian issue or not; thus, no strategic viability. Regardless of the
Palestinian state, Israel would have to maintain military readiness against Arab
armies; thus, no economic viability. Nor is there any moral reason to
compromise: Palestinians already have a state in Jordan, and are not entitled to
two states.
Holding onto the Jewish lands is not a matter of Israeli supremacy. A
county-sized country can’t talk of supremacy. It’s a matter of honor
(Judea), survival (minimal depth of defense), and plain common sense (why give
away something for no reason?)
Mexico acquiesced to the loss of a third of its territory to the US not because
Mexico was powerless against its neighbor. Palestine is powerless against
Israel, yet successfully bugs us with suicide bombers. Powerless Chechnya
confronted Russia, and Northern Ireland confronted Britain. Determined groups,
however small, can win. The Russian socialist revolutionaries, Ataturk, and
Nasser are a few examples.
Mexico accepted the territorial loss for two reasons: the US never offered to
return the land, and the US is culturally and economically attractive to
Mexicans. To lose to a superior is no shame. Israel provokes the Palestinians
with promises of giving them the land. Israel’s penchant for accepting
commands from Washington positions her as Uncle Sam’s poor nephew, not worth
the Arabs' respect. A weak giant is the most provocative posture. Arabs learned
to exploit Israel’s moral and democratic weak points.
Did France heed German rights to Alsace and Lorraine? Did Britain consider
Northern Ireland’s right to self-determination? Did Russia accept the Chechen
people’s sovereignty over the land they settled? Did the Arabs concede to a
few Jews who fled the Holocaust a small parcel of marshy land and desert to
establish a mini-state? Rights and claims are irrelevant; power matters.
Even if Israel now descends to the depths of moral idealism and concedes the
Palestinians' rights, the Arabs would abandon the agreement once they become
strong, and reject Israel's right to exist. Even in the moral idealists' plane,
Palestinians already have a state of their own, Jordan. The Balfour Declaration
legally gave Transjordan to Israel in return for Jewish support in WWI. Then
again the Jewish state was halved in 1947 to make room for the Palestinians,
whom even Jordan refused to accept. What possible right could the Palestinians
have to Judea?
Why should Israel compromise with the Palestinians instead of driving them to
Jordan and compensating them for the assets they leave? A Palestinian state in
Gaza would continue low-level warfare with Israel; thus, the compromise is not
viable tactically. Other Arabs despise the Palestinians and don’t care about
them. Arabs will fight Israel when they feel strong whether we settle the
Palestinian issue or not; thus, no strategic viability. Regardless of the
Palestinian state, Israel would have to maintain military readiness against Arab
armies; thus, no economic viability. Nor is there any moral reason to
compromise: Palestinians already have a state in Jordan, and are not entitled to
two states.
Holding onto the Jewish lands is not a matter of Israeli supremacy. A
county-sized country can’t talk of supremacy. It’s a matter of honor
(Judea), survival (minimal depth of defense), and plain common sense (why give
away something for no reason?)
Mexico acquiesced to the loss of a third of its territory to the US not because
Mexico was powerless against its neighbor. Palestine is powerless against
Israel, yet successfully bugs us with suicide bombers. Powerless Chechnya
confronted Russia, and Northern Ireland confronted Britain. Determined groups,
however small, can win. The Russian socialist revolutionaries, Ataturk, and
Nasser are a few examples.
Mexico accepted the territorial loss for two reasons: the US never offered to
return the land, and the US is culturally and economically attractive to
Mexicans. To lose to a superior is no shame. Israel provokes the Palestinians
with promises of giving them the land. Israel’s penchant for accepting
commands from Washington positions her as Uncle Sam’s poor nephew, not worth
the Arabs' respect. A weak giant is the most provocative posture. Arabs learned
to exploit Israel’s moral and democratic weak points.
Living the Love - Wrath Of Truth
I like going to the “Politics and Activism” forum of Israel National News. But recently I took a long hiatus from my online activities due to family circumstances. When I returned today and scanned the recent post parade, I found old users with old beefs and new users with old questions. So it trickles down to one question in sum: Where is the love? The love for our Land, that is.
This is my question to Jews from diaspora.
We can all yell and scream our opinions all day long and show off our knowledge or igornace to each other. Or we can do something. And there is only one real and ultimate thing to do- COME TO ISRAEL AND ACT HERE! Build homes, raise families, spend your money here, apply your efforts here, employ your expertize and experience here – afterall, brain and HaShem are our only “natural resources”. Settle the land, plant the orchards, – live the mitzvah. Those of you who are not here, don’t kid yourselves that you can do more good from hutz l’aretz. No way.
You know or ought to know that gathering here is not only morally responsible for a Jew, especially one who proclaims love for the Land; its part of the prophesy of redemption. When you get here you can do more but even in living here you defy the Kenyan Amalek and his construction freeze, and you help shift demographics in our favor in the face of the slightly higher population growth by Palis, etc. So whether you are a “rationalist” or a faithful Jew, you cannot avoid the fact that you need to return home and that is how you begin show the love and to live it.
LIVING IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL IS THE ONLY MITZVAH YOU CAN DO WITH YOUR ENTIRE BODY AND AT ALL TIMES (unlike prescripted prayer regiment or other mitzvot which are subject to time and life cycles).
Or you can stay in your armchair and scream, – but I will not hear you…….
This is my question to Jews from diaspora.
We can all yell and scream our opinions all day long and show off our knowledge or igornace to each other. Or we can do something. And there is only one real and ultimate thing to do- COME TO ISRAEL AND ACT HERE! Build homes, raise families, spend your money here, apply your efforts here, employ your expertize and experience here – afterall, brain and HaShem are our only “natural resources”. Settle the land, plant the orchards, – live the mitzvah. Those of you who are not here, don’t kid yourselves that you can do more good from hutz l’aretz. No way.
You know or ought to know that gathering here is not only morally responsible for a Jew, especially one who proclaims love for the Land; its part of the prophesy of redemption. When you get here you can do more but even in living here you defy the Kenyan Amalek and his construction freeze, and you help shift demographics in our favor in the face of the slightly higher population growth by Palis, etc. So whether you are a “rationalist” or a faithful Jew, you cannot avoid the fact that you need to return home and that is how you begin show the love and to live it.
LIVING IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL IS THE ONLY MITZVAH YOU CAN DO WITH YOUR ENTIRE BODY AND AT ALL TIMES (unlike prescripted prayer regiment or other mitzvot which are subject to time and life cycles).
Or you can stay in your armchair and scream, – but I will not hear you…….
February 12, 2010
For Bigots, Israel Can Do No Right - Alan Dershowitz
As most objective observers throughout the world marvel at Israel's efficiency and generosity in leading the medical aid efforts in Haiti, some bigots insist on using these efforts as an occasion to continue their attack on the Jewish state. Both the neo-Nazi hard right and the neo-Stalinist hard left cannot help but to demonize Israel, regardless of what Israel does.
Richard Silverstein posted a piece to his blog titled "The Zionization of Disaster Relief." It accuses Israel of "exploiting the suffering of poor, defenseless Haitians on behalf of Israeli Triumphalism." It complains that Israel is rendering medical aid to Haiti only to deflect attention from its crimes against the Palestinians.
The hard left, even in Israel, complains that Israel should not be sending medical assistance to such a faraway place. Instead it should be sending it to nearby Gaza.
Even the New York Times, in an otherwise thoughtful analysis of the controversiality of the aid among some Israelis, failed to note the difference between Israel sending its limited resources to faraway Haiti and to nearby Gaza. Haiti is not at war with Israel. Haiti has not pledged itself to Israel's destruction. Haiti has not fired 8,000 rockets at Israeli civilians. Gaza, on the other hand, has a popularly elected government that has done and continues to do all of the above. Moreover, there is no comparison between the tens of thousands of Haitians who have died from a natural disaster, and the people of Gaza who suffer far less from what is, essentially, a self-inflicted wound.
Nor do the perennial enemies of Israel emphasize the comparison between tiny and resource-poor Israel, on the one hand, and the enormous and resource-rich Arab and Muslim nations, on the other hand. While Israel digs deeply into its treasury and manpower to send medical assistance a quarter of the way around the world, Arab and Muslim nations are generally missing in action when it comes to relief efforts. This is true not only in Haiti, which is a Catholic nation, but it was equally true when tsunamis and other natural disasters have devastated Muslim nations.
For those who argue that Israel is sending this aid to Haiti for its own selfish reasons, there are two answers. First the realpolitik answer: All nations have interests; and all act, at least in part, out of self interest. When the United States government is asked by Americans to justify its multibillion dollar foreign aid grants, it generally responds by arguing that these grants are serving the interests of the United States. When it comes to Israel, however, a double standard is always applied. Israel must act only out of altruistic motives, while all other countries are entitled to leaven altruism with self interest. The second answer is that Israel is doing far more in Haiti than would be required to satisfy its self interests. It is sending more aid per capita than any country in the world. It is doing it with extraordinary efficiency and real impact. Isn't it at least possible that the millennia-long Jewish tradition of tzadakah -- that is, charity based on justice -- is at least part of the explanation for Israel's generosity?
The fact that so many Israelis are advocating medical and other assistance to Gaza certainly supports this latter theory. Has any other country in the history of the world ever provided medical and other assistance to a people with whom it is at war -- to people who continue to support rocket attacks and other forms of terrorism against its own civilians? Again, a double standard. The reality is that Israel will be extremely generous to the people of Gaza if and when they stop supporting attacks on Israeli civilians, stop making martyrs of their suicide murderers, and stop encouraging their children to don suicide vests. Contrast Gaza with the West Bank, which today has an improving economy, better travel conditions and among the best health care available in any Arab or Muslim country in the area. The peace dividend the Palestinian people will reap from making peace with Israel is incalculable.
So continue to criticize Israel when it fails to live up to generally applicable international standards, but praise it when it exceeds those standards in rendering aid that has saved and will continue to save many lives. Israel will continue to send disaster relief regardless of how the world reacts to it because Israelis understand how it feels to be subject to disasters. But fairness requires that Israel not be condemned for its humanitarian efforts, and that its rendering of aid to Haiti not be used as yet another occasion for applying a double standard to its actions.
Richard Silverstein posted a piece to his blog titled "The Zionization of Disaster Relief." It accuses Israel of "exploiting the suffering of poor, defenseless Haitians on behalf of Israeli Triumphalism." It complains that Israel is rendering medical aid to Haiti only to deflect attention from its crimes against the Palestinians.
The hard left, even in Israel, complains that Israel should not be sending medical assistance to such a faraway place. Instead it should be sending it to nearby Gaza.
Even the New York Times, in an otherwise thoughtful analysis of the controversiality of the aid among some Israelis, failed to note the difference between Israel sending its limited resources to faraway Haiti and to nearby Gaza. Haiti is not at war with Israel. Haiti has not pledged itself to Israel's destruction. Haiti has not fired 8,000 rockets at Israeli civilians. Gaza, on the other hand, has a popularly elected government that has done and continues to do all of the above. Moreover, there is no comparison between the tens of thousands of Haitians who have died from a natural disaster, and the people of Gaza who suffer far less from what is, essentially, a self-inflicted wound.
Nor do the perennial enemies of Israel emphasize the comparison between tiny and resource-poor Israel, on the one hand, and the enormous and resource-rich Arab and Muslim nations, on the other hand. While Israel digs deeply into its treasury and manpower to send medical assistance a quarter of the way around the world, Arab and Muslim nations are generally missing in action when it comes to relief efforts. This is true not only in Haiti, which is a Catholic nation, but it was equally true when tsunamis and other natural disasters have devastated Muslim nations.
For those who argue that Israel is sending this aid to Haiti for its own selfish reasons, there are two answers. First the realpolitik answer: All nations have interests; and all act, at least in part, out of self interest. When the United States government is asked by Americans to justify its multibillion dollar foreign aid grants, it generally responds by arguing that these grants are serving the interests of the United States. When it comes to Israel, however, a double standard is always applied. Israel must act only out of altruistic motives, while all other countries are entitled to leaven altruism with self interest. The second answer is that Israel is doing far more in Haiti than would be required to satisfy its self interests. It is sending more aid per capita than any country in the world. It is doing it with extraordinary efficiency and real impact. Isn't it at least possible that the millennia-long Jewish tradition of tzadakah -- that is, charity based on justice -- is at least part of the explanation for Israel's generosity?
The fact that so many Israelis are advocating medical and other assistance to Gaza certainly supports this latter theory. Has any other country in the history of the world ever provided medical and other assistance to a people with whom it is at war -- to people who continue to support rocket attacks and other forms of terrorism against its own civilians? Again, a double standard. The reality is that Israel will be extremely generous to the people of Gaza if and when they stop supporting attacks on Israeli civilians, stop making martyrs of their suicide murderers, and stop encouraging their children to don suicide vests. Contrast Gaza with the West Bank, which today has an improving economy, better travel conditions and among the best health care available in any Arab or Muslim country in the area. The peace dividend the Palestinian people will reap from making peace with Israel is incalculable.
So continue to criticize Israel when it fails to live up to generally applicable international standards, but praise it when it exceeds those standards in rendering aid that has saved and will continue to save many lives. Israel will continue to send disaster relief regardless of how the world reacts to it because Israelis understand how it feels to be subject to disasters. But fairness requires that Israel not be condemned for its humanitarian efforts, and that its rendering of aid to Haiti not be used as yet another occasion for applying a double standard to its actions.
The Last Man Standing - Geert Wilders Speech 10/12/2009
'In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe ?'
Here is the speech of Geert Wilders, Chairman, Party for Freedom, the Netherlands , at the Four Seasons, New York , introducing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad Conference in Jerusalem .
Dear friends,
Thank you very much for inviting me.
I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe . This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe .
First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe . Then, I will say a few things about Islam. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem .
The Europe you know is changing.
You have probably seen the landmarks. But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration.
All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighbourhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It's the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corners. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighbourhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe . These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe , street by street, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, city by city.
There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe . With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.
Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam , Marseille and Malmo in Sweden . In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighbourhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities.
In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims.
Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear 'whore, whore'. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin.
In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin . The history of th e Holocaust can no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity.
In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighbourhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels , because he was drinking during the Ramadan.
Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel . I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.
A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe . San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.
Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Centre reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France . One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favour of a worldwide caliphate. Muslims demand what they call 'respect'. And this is how we give them respect. We have Muslim official state holidays.
The Christian-Democratic attorney general is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey .
Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behaviour, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. I call the perpetrators 'settlers'. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies; they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.
Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighbourhoods, their cities, their countries. Moreover, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.
The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behaviour is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a paedophile, and had several marriages - at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad.
Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means 'submission'. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.
Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam 'the most retrograde force in the world', and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel . First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defence.
This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia . Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.
The war against Israel is not a war against Israel . It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel , Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.
Many in Europe argue in favour of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West. It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behaviour, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel , they can get everything. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a 'right-wing extremists' or 'racists'. In my country, the Netherlands , 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat. Yet there is a greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome , Athens and Jerusalem .
Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe , American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe 's children in the same state, in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so. We have to take the necessary action now to stop this Islamic stupidity from destroying the free world, that we know.
Here is the speech of Geert Wilders, Chairman, Party for Freedom, the Netherlands , at the Four Seasons, New York , introducing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad Conference in Jerusalem .
Dear friends,
Thank you very much for inviting me.
I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe . This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe .
First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe . Then, I will say a few things about Islam. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem .
The Europe you know is changing.
You have probably seen the landmarks. But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration.
All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighbourhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It's the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corners. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighbourhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe . These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe , street by street, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, city by city.
There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe . With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.
Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam , Marseille and Malmo in Sweden . In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighbourhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities.
In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims.
Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear 'whore, whore'. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin.
In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin . The history of th e Holocaust can no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity.
In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighbourhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels , because he was drinking during the Ramadan.
Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel . I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.
A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe . San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.
Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Centre reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France . One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favour of a worldwide caliphate. Muslims demand what they call 'respect'. And this is how we give them respect. We have Muslim official state holidays.
The Christian-Democratic attorney general is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey .
Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behaviour, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. I call the perpetrators 'settlers'. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies; they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.
Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighbourhoods, their cities, their countries. Moreover, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.
The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behaviour is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a paedophile, and had several marriages - at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad.
Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means 'submission'. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.
Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam 'the most retrograde force in the world', and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel . First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defence.
This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia . Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.
The war against Israel is not a war against Israel . It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel , Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.
Many in Europe argue in favour of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West. It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behaviour, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel , they can get everything. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a 'right-wing extremists' or 'racists'. In my country, the Netherlands , 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat. Yet there is a greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome , Athens and Jerusalem .
Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe , American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe 's children in the same state, in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so. We have to take the necessary action now to stop this Islamic stupidity from destroying the free world, that we know.
(This speech was sent to me by Professor Paul Eidelberg who asks Are there any politicians in Israel (population 7.2 million) or in America (population 300 million) comparable to Geert Wilders? If not, why not? )
February 11, 2010
Israeli / Washington DC Freeze - Related??
Did Hashem simply return in kind with the largest shutdown(freeze) due to winter weather in the history of Washington DC?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm..
I think So!!!!
Avi
Warning: Imminent Murder on Temple Mount: By Moshe
20 Shvat 5770
Feb. 4, '10
Re: Warning of Imminent Murder on Temple Mount
Feb. 4, '10
Inspector General David Cohen - Israel Police Chief Commissioner
Jerusalem
Jerusalem
Re: Warning of Imminent Murder on Temple Mount
A. Background
Exercising its exclusive judgment, the Israel Police under your command prohibits Jews who ascend to the site of their holy Temple from praying there. Every religious looking Jew who ascends the Temple Mount is accompanied by a Moslem wakf attendant and an Israeli policeman, who together, scrutinize his/her lips. A Jew who is suspected of praying is detained or immediately arrested. First and foremost, this anti-Semitic conduct humiliates the Israel Police.
Personally, I have the "privilege" of exposure to this Israeli humiliation on my monthly visits to the Temple Mount. I have no illusions that this letter will bring about any change. The Israel Police has long ago forgotten the nation that created it and sent it on its mission.
Nonetheless, I am obliged to inform you of an event that I experienced yesterday on my ascent to the Mount. It signals the fact that murder of Jews on the Temple Mount is simply a matter of time.
Perhaps, after you have stripped the Jews of all their human rights in the place most holy to the Nation of Israel, you will at least function as a professional force (like the UN) and carry out a fraction of your original role. In other words, at the very least, maybe you will protect the right of the Jews - to live.
B. The Event
Yesterday, I stood opposite the site of the Temple with my back to the El Aqsa mosque. A group of Jews was at my side, listening to my explanations on the Temple Mount. As I was speaking, I noticed an Arab woman, covered from head to toe in robes and scarves, walking towards me in a threatening manner. There was no room for mistake, and all the people in the group noticed this woman. Usually, when a person is walking, he will choose a path that will not force him to collide with another person. But this woman confidently strode straight towards me. I was apprehensive that she would quickly take the few additional steps towards me and through her scarves and robes, draw out a knife and stab me.
As you know, Jews are permitted to enter the Temple Mount from the Mugrabim Gate only. Only Jews must undergo an extensive search to ensure that they are not carrying a prayer book or book of Psalms in their belongings, G-d forbid. The Arabs, on the other hand, may enter the Temple Mount from any of its gates without any sort of security check. This being the case, there is no problem for a potential Arab murderer to enter the Mount with his or her weapon.
I was apprehensive, but unwisely relied on the Israeli policeman who was watching our every move and was standing just a few steps away from our group. Everyone else in the group identified the approaching danger. It seemed clear that the policeman, who was ostensibly guarding us, would also identify the danger and would certainly attempt to defend us.
I forgot, though, that in reality, the role of the police on the Temple Mount has been limited to one issue: Ensuring that Jews do not pray there. They are not there to protect Israeli citizens from Arab weapons and murderers. The policeman who accompanies each Jew is concerned only with his lips - making sure that they are not moving in prayer.
As a Jew, I understand that I am the dangerous factor on the Temple Mount and in order not to encounter your wrath, I acted in accordance with your recommendations. In other words, I relied on the policeman.
The Arab woman came right up to me, pushed me and disappeared into the mosque. As opposed to everyone else in our group, the policeman did not notice what had happened.
C. Conclusions
1. Clearly, if the Arab woman pushed me (through her robes and scarves) with her bare hands, she could have done the same with a knife or other weapon.
2. Under the circumstances today on the Temple Mount, the police cannot create a security belt between the Jewish visitors and the Arabs. The police see the wakf as the real sovereign on the Mount and essentially carry out its orders.
3. The self confidence and motivation displayed by the Arab woman testify to the dangerous situation on the Mount. This reality will encourage and imminently bring about attempts to murder Jews.
D. A personal notification
In light of the above, I hereby notify you that I no longer rely on the Israel Police to protect my life on the Temple Mount. I did not mention the name of the particular policeman in this case and I do not intend to provide you with the names of the people in my group because I do not believe that the police can change the situation. At the very most, you will take the easy route, punish the policeman in question and ignore the background that caused his lack of response. As long as you view the Jews as the danger and as long as they are the focal point of the police surveillance on the Temple Mount, any action that you take in this particular case will be strictly superficial.
However, you must know that if an Arab once again approaches me in a suspicious or threatening manner, I will do my utmost to protect my life and I will also recommend to all the Jews ascending the Mount to do the same.
Moshe Feiglin
Karnei Shomron
Exercising its exclusive judgment, the Israel Police under your command prohibits Jews who ascend to the site of their holy Temple from praying there. Every religious looking Jew who ascends the Temple Mount is accompanied by a Moslem wakf attendant and an Israeli policeman, who together, scrutinize his/her lips. A Jew who is suspected of praying is detained or immediately arrested. First and foremost, this anti-Semitic conduct humiliates the Israel Police.
Personally, I have the "privilege" of exposure to this Israeli humiliation on my monthly visits to the Temple Mount. I have no illusions that this letter will bring about any change. The Israel Police has long ago forgotten the nation that created it and sent it on its mission.
Nonetheless, I am obliged to inform you of an event that I experienced yesterday on my ascent to the Mount. It signals the fact that murder of Jews on the Temple Mount is simply a matter of time.
Perhaps, after you have stripped the Jews of all their human rights in the place most holy to the Nation of Israel, you will at least function as a professional force (like the UN) and carry out a fraction of your original role. In other words, at the very least, maybe you will protect the right of the Jews - to live.
B. The Event
Yesterday, I stood opposite the site of the Temple with my back to the El Aqsa mosque. A group of Jews was at my side, listening to my explanations on the Temple Mount. As I was speaking, I noticed an Arab woman, covered from head to toe in robes and scarves, walking towards me in a threatening manner. There was no room for mistake, and all the people in the group noticed this woman. Usually, when a person is walking, he will choose a path that will not force him to collide with another person. But this woman confidently strode straight towards me. I was apprehensive that she would quickly take the few additional steps towards me and through her scarves and robes, draw out a knife and stab me.
As you know, Jews are permitted to enter the Temple Mount from the Mugrabim Gate only. Only Jews must undergo an extensive search to ensure that they are not carrying a prayer book or book of Psalms in their belongings, G-d forbid. The Arabs, on the other hand, may enter the Temple Mount from any of its gates without any sort of security check. This being the case, there is no problem for a potential Arab murderer to enter the Mount with his or her weapon.
I was apprehensive, but unwisely relied on the Israeli policeman who was watching our every move and was standing just a few steps away from our group. Everyone else in the group identified the approaching danger. It seemed clear that the policeman, who was ostensibly guarding us, would also identify the danger and would certainly attempt to defend us.
I forgot, though, that in reality, the role of the police on the Temple Mount has been limited to one issue: Ensuring that Jews do not pray there. They are not there to protect Israeli citizens from Arab weapons and murderers. The policeman who accompanies each Jew is concerned only with his lips - making sure that they are not moving in prayer.
As a Jew, I understand that I am the dangerous factor on the Temple Mount and in order not to encounter your wrath, I acted in accordance with your recommendations. In other words, I relied on the policeman.
The Arab woman came right up to me, pushed me and disappeared into the mosque. As opposed to everyone else in our group, the policeman did not notice what had happened.
C. Conclusions
1. Clearly, if the Arab woman pushed me (through her robes and scarves) with her bare hands, she could have done the same with a knife or other weapon.
2. Under the circumstances today on the Temple Mount, the police cannot create a security belt between the Jewish visitors and the Arabs. The police see the wakf as the real sovereign on the Mount and essentially carry out its orders.
3. The self confidence and motivation displayed by the Arab woman testify to the dangerous situation on the Mount. This reality will encourage and imminently bring about attempts to murder Jews.
D. A personal notification
In light of the above, I hereby notify you that I no longer rely on the Israel Police to protect my life on the Temple Mount. I did not mention the name of the particular policeman in this case and I do not intend to provide you with the names of the people in my group because I do not believe that the police can change the situation. At the very most, you will take the easy route, punish the policeman in question and ignore the background that caused his lack of response. As long as you view the Jews as the danger and as long as they are the focal point of the police surveillance on the Temple Mount, any action that you take in this particular case will be strictly superficial.
However, you must know that if an Arab once again approaches me in a suspicious or threatening manner, I will do my utmost to protect my life and I will also recommend to all the Jews ascending the Mount to do the same.
Moshe Feiglin
Karnei Shomron
Divine Sovereignty or no Sovereignty
"And six years you shall sow your land and you will gather its produce. And the seventh let it rest and lie fallow. Six days you shall do your work and on the seventh day you shall rest." (From this week's Torah portion, Mishpatim, Exodus 23: 10-12)
The Land of Israel was given to us so that we could establish a 'kingdom of priests and a holy nation' that would crown the Creator over His world. That is the purpose of the Land of Israel, of Jerusalem and of the royal palace, the Temple on the Temple Mount. Those who renounce their connection to the Temple and to the Mount renounce the foundation on which the entire Jewish home is built. Without the Mount, there is no home. Without the Temple Mount, we are losing the Land of Israel. Without the destiny for which the Nation of Israel exists and for which we received the Land, there is no meaning, reason or validity for Jewish sovereignty. And as we see with our very own eyes, the State of Israel continues its free fall.
When we let the Land rest during the seventh, Shmittah year, we remember that this is our Land, but that there are definitely conditions that we must meet. First and foremost, we must remember the true Master of the Land. We have received His authority to plant and to reap. But during the Shmittah year, this authority is revoked. A Jew who continues to work the Chosen Land during the Shmittah year somehow does not accept the Divine sovereignty of the Master of the World.
The Divine Sovereignty principle in space is parallel to the Divine Sovereignty principle in time. Just as we accept G-d's sovereignty over the Land by allowing it to rest during the Shmittah year, so, when we refrain from work on the Holy Shabbat, we declare that we accept Divine Sovereignty over time. It is our acknowledgement that all the work that we do during the other six days of the week is only with G-d's authority.
*
This week we met with a large group of ultra-Orthodox Jews in Beitar Ilit. Rabbi Yitzchak Brand honored us by opening the evening and amazed the audience with the following fact:
The cursed Oslo Accords - the agreement by which the Land of Israel was handed over to foreigners and on which all the plans to abandon the Land are based - were signed on the White House lawn by Israeli prime minister Yitzchak Rabin, the head of the Organization to Liberate the Land of Israel from the Jews (PLO) Arafat, may his name be blotted out, and US president Bill Clinton. The date: September 13, 1993 - 27 Elul 5753.
It was just a few days before Rosh Hashanah, the new Jewish year 5754, which was also a Shmittah year. On the very day that Israel's Chief Rabbinate - it's rabbinical leadership - signed a contract to sell the Land to a non-Jew, absolving us from fulfilling the mitzvah of Shmittah, Israel's political leadership signed a contract selling the Land of Israel to foreigners, in an attempt to absolve us from fulfilling our destiny in the Land of Israel.
If we don't accept Divine Sovereignty over the Land of Israel, we certainly cannot expect to enjoy Jewish sovereignty, either.
Shabbat Shalom,
Moshe Feiglin
Feiglin Supports "Israeli Expat Voter" Bill
February 11, 2010...
“It’s a proposal that will strengthen the right and neutralize Israel’s enemies,” says Moshe Feiglin, leader of the Manhigut Yehudit faction of the ruling Likud party in commenting on a proposed bill that would allow Israeli citizens living out of the country to vote in Israel’s national elections.
Feiglin suggests this is a good first step with the eventual aim of allowing all Jews, anywhere, to participate in Israel’s democracy. “The majority of Israelis are loyal to their identity and to the Land of Israel,” Feiglin declares, “and naturally lean toward the nationalist cause. Therefore, granting voting rights to hundreds of thousands of Israeli expatriates can neutralize the power of the Arab Knesset block and those who seek to reduce the Jewish character of the state.”
Most western countries allow their citizens living abroad the opportunity to vote in national elections either by mail or at the local embassy or consulate.
Hatred of Israel and of Jews: Why? Prof. Paul Eidelberg
Ask almost any Jew, “Why Does the World Hate Israel?” and he will say: “Because Israel is a Jewish state.” Wrong! The world hates Israel precisely because Israel is NOT a Jewish state! This is what we learn from the Sages.
Israel-bashing is God’s way of reminding Jews they are Jews. It’s His way of admonishing Jews when they have strayed from the Torah, cluing them that they need to get their house in order—in this case, making their state Jewish.
Let’s face some seldom-faced facts. Without impugning the religious sentiments of one or two Israeli prime ministers—I have especially Menachem Begin in mind—every government of Israel, despite the participation of religious parties, has been dominated by agnostics or practical atheists. No government of Israel has pursued, as its paramount objective, the goal of making Israel a Torah-oriented state (which would require interfacing Torah with science).
We live in an age of science, but nothing is less rational and less Jewish than the way Israel forms its government. With the Book of Books in mind, take a glance at Israel’s governing institutions. Does the Torah prescribe a plural executive consisting of rival political parties? “There can be but one leader for a [people] and not two” (Deut. 31:7; and see Sanhedrin 8a). Does the Torah prescribe a legislature or a judiciary whose membership is based on whim and includes non-Jews? “Select for yourselves men who are wise, understanding, and known to your tribes and I will confirm them as your leaders” (Deut. 1:13).
Institutions aside, who ever heard of a Torah-oriented government yielding Jewish land to a foreign entity, indeed, to a gang of terrorists? That’s Oslo, concocted by a government diametrically opposed to a Jewish state. And who ever heard of deporting Jews from their homes as proposed by the government of Ariel Sharon? And you call this a Jewish state?!
Do you know that the government of this so-called Jewish state has deliberately pursued a policy that allows Arab terrorists to murder an “acceptable” number of Jews? It’s called the policy of “self-restraint” [embraced by Netanyahu in 1996 and by the same Netanyahu today].
To simplify matters, let us say that this policy was initiated by the government when the Oslo War erupted on September 29, 2000. But Oslo and the Oslo war and the resulting worldwide explosion of Jew-hatred would not have occurred if Israel were a Jewish state!
Let’s stay with Oslo for a moment. The explosion of anti-Semitism would not have occurred had the government immediately eliminated Arafat’s Palestinian Authority (PA) and its terrorist network in one swift and devastating blow as it could and should have done once Oslo was violated. Do you know when Oslo was violated? How about September 14, 1993, the day after Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser shook hands on the White House lawn? Yes, and virtually every day since then!
By not abrogating Oslo and destroying the PA, Israel’s government enabled that terrorist organization to accumulate more and deadlier weapons, which obviously prolonged the war. Had the PA been utterly uprooted, there would have been no weekly video displays [abroad] of the government’s intermittent retaliations against terrorist attacks, with the inevitable “collateral damage” that has inflamed worldwide anti-Semitism. There would have been no CNN and BBC coverage of “Operation Defensive Shield” in Jenin, for the PA would not have had the opportunity to develop bomb factories in that city. There would have been no incitement of Arabs via the Palestinian media because such media would have been shut down. All these (and other) violations of the Oslo Accords would not have occurred, and a generation of Arabs children would not have been brainwashed to emulate suicide bombers if Israel were in reality a Jewish state. Therein is the unknown but underlying cause of worldwide Israel-bashing.
And this Israel-bashing is not going to stop so long as Israel is not a Jewish state. It’s not going to stop so long as Israel has prime ministers who do not think and act like Torah-oriented Jews. I’m not talking about being “religious.” The illustrious Rabbi Raphael Samson Hirsch has said that the word “religion” is the greatest obstacle to an understanding of Judaism. The great Maimonides and other Medieval Jewish philosophers did not regard Judaism as a “religion” but as an all-comprehensive truth-system, else they could not prefer Judaism over its “competitors” on rational grounds. Maimonides makes it clear in The Guide of the Perplexed that science is the only path to the knowledge of God.
A Jewish state will of course have certain aspects that may be called “religious.” But a truly Jewish state will manifest, above all, the convergence of Torah and science. When this convergence becomes a reality—when the Torah shines forth from Zion—then and then only will the world cease to hate Israel and turn with reverence toward Jerusalem.
Post Script February 10, 2010
According to the Gaon (the genius) of Vilna, “To the extent that one lacks knowledge of the properties of the natural forces [hence of natural science], he will lack one hundred-fold in the wisdom of the Torah.” (To understand even this sentence requires deep knowledge.) It has been said by one of his disciples that the Gaon mastered the “Seven Wisdoms” of science that included mathematics, astronomy, physics, chemistry, engineering, pharmacology and medicine, musicology, parapsychology, and the brain sciences. With the rebirth of Israel, we are approaching this confluence of knowledge. It is in this light that we are to understand the current storm of Jew-hatred and the frantic maledictions from Iran about wiping Israel off the map. Israel was created to relate God’s praise (Isaiah 43:21)—His infinite wisdom, power, and graciousness in every domain of existence. But lo and behold: Israel, far from being a light unto the nations has become a black hole. No wonder we’re hated by the nations. One Israeli government after another has been betraying God!
February 10, 2010
The Joke is On US
(IsraelNN.com) Senior reserve officers signed a petition Wednesday supporting Im Tirtzu's struggle against the organizations supported by the New Israel Fund that besmirched the IDF "We deplore the false claim by 16 Israeli NGOs that the IDF carried out war crimes during operation Cast Lead,” the petition's text said. In fact, it said the IDF “was making superhuman efforts to avoid hurting innocent civilians. We therefore call upon the entire public to support us and strengthen the IDF and its commanders.”The signatories include the former Head of the National Security Council, Maj. Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland; former Head of Southern Command, Maj. Gen. (res.) Doron Almog; former Head of Ground Forces Command, Maj. Gen. (res.) Yiftach Ron-Tal; former Head of the National Security Council and Deputy Chief of Staff, Maj. Gen. (res.) Uzi Dayan; former Head of Personnel Branch Maj. Gen. (res.) Elazar Stern; former Military Secretary to the Minister of Defense, Maj. Gen. (res.) Yakov Amidror, former Navy Commander, Maj. Gen. (res.) Micha Ram, former Head Artillery Officer and President of Industrialists' Federation Brig.-Gen. (res.) Oded Tira.
They added their signatures to that of Im Tirtzu's chairman and founder, Ronen Shoval, as did former UN Ambassador Dr. Dore Gold; former diplomat Yoram Etinger; former Chief of Police, Lt. Gen. (res.) Assaf Chefetz and others."
February 9, 2010
A Dialogue on the Logic of Tomorrow’s Miracles* Paul Eidelberg
Pat begins by saying, “I can’t understand you Israeli Jews! Impending doom hangs over you and you do nothing, despite a still formidable military establishment.”
“What would you have us do”? Josh responds: “bomb Iran, expel the Arabs from Judea, Samaria, and Gaza and tell the rest of the world to go to hell?”
“Why not?” says Pat” “I’d rather go out with a bang than a whimper. Instead, you engage in a demeaning charade with a villain like Abbas. You pretend he’s serious about peace, that he’s compelled to make bellicose statements for domestic Arab consumption. That’s escapism.”
“Of course you’re right Josh. Abbas is a bloody liar, and only idiots take him seriously.”
“Well Josh, you seem have an awful lot of such idiots in Israel. A psychologist would say Jews suffer from a self-victimization syndrome. Jews seem to feel morally superior by being victims rather than victors. I remember Golda Meir saying: "When peace comes we will perhaps in time be able to forgive the Arabs for killing our sons, but it will be harder for us to forgive them for having forced us to kill their sons." To me this is sickness unto death.
“True, but as you know Pat, Golda was a secular humanist, equivalent to Christianity without the Christian god. Nietzsche said this humanism is based on a slave mentality, the mentality of those who derive their moral superiority from meekness and passivity. But this mentality is not at all Jewish, even though it infects many Jews.”
Yes Josh, but many religious Jews seem to be suffering from the same malaise. Look, it was no secret before Ahmadinejad that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program with the obvious intention of annihilating you. So what does your government do but attack Hamas, Iran’s client in Gaza, and doesn’t finish the job. So you get Goldstoned. Meanwhile, many of your academics behave as if they came from Sweden. As for your rabbis, they’re more concerned about Jewish conversion than about Jewish survival.” Sorry Josh, I’m just a Christian Zionist.
“You’re right Pat about the politicians and intellectuals, but I don’t think you understand serious religious Jews—although many of them are not really serious. Let me explain with the help of our first chief rabbi, the philosopher Avraham Kook. Although he abhorred war, he recognized that wars have positive as well as negative consequences. The Napoleonic wars following the French Revolution hastened the growth of nationalism, which not only liberated Europe from the thralldom of politicized Christianity, but also made Jewish nationalism or Zionism acceptable. And remember, World War I produced the Balfour Declaration as well as the end of Turkish control of Palestine.
Wait a second, Josh, “Are you going to say the Holocaust of World War II produced the State of Israel?”
“Not quite, dear Pat, but it’s one horrible chapter in the story of Israel. The abysmal ignorance of Barack Obama aside, no one aware of Biblical prophecy and Jewish history casually links, with no further ado, the murder of six million Jews and the re-establishment of the State of Israel, the in-gathering of the Jews, which has produced a renascence of Torah studies pointing to a restoration of Hebraic civilization. Nevertheless, Rabbi Kook said in all humility that “the death of the righteous granted the Jewish people new life” by virtue of Israel’s rebirth. And remember, ‘When we have shuffled off this mortal coil’ is not the last word for religious Jews.”
“Dear Josh, is this why you appear stoical in the face of impending war in this era of nuclear as well as biological and chemical weapons?
“Stoicism is not the right word,” Pat. Since we Jews believe that God is the master of history and therefore of war, we believe that all history is a process whose ultimate end will be the perfection of the Jewish People. And contrary to your righteous fears, dear Pat, there is reason to believe that the weapons of mass destruction available to our enemies may actually hasten Israel’s and mankind’s spiritual redemption!”
“Josh, you can’t be serious! Please explain yourself.”
“Look Pat, I’m merely speculating on the basis of Jewish history and even on recent events. Consider the plagues of the Exodus. These plagues occurred in a country most advanced in science and technology. The plagues violated the laws nature, but the Pharaoh and his wise men, up to a point, thought they could control nature. Now, contrary to modern science, Torah Jews reject the idea that nature is autonomous. We hold that God is the master of nature. Hence nature, like history, must somehow serve the ultimate redemption of the Jewish People.
“But Josh, what has all this to do with the war of annihilation now threatening Israel?”
“That’s exactly the point, dear Pat! You see, the miracles that occurred during the Exodus were reported throughout much of the world. These miracles revealed that God is the God of nature. By the way, the numerical value or Gematria of the term nature is 86—same as the numerical value of Elokim, one of the names of God. But please don’t press me on this, Pat. I mention this only to suggest that Biblical Hebrew is a designed language—the only designed language—and God is not a man that does not keep his promise.”
“Anyway, according to the Talmud, dear Pat, the miracles that will take place at Israel’s final redemption will exceed those that occurred during the Exodus. I just wonder what kind of miracles would be appropriate for our time? Perhaps the miracles will demonstrate—as they did in Egypt, that nature, contrary to contemporary science, is not governed by unalterable laws, but by Almighty God?”
“Have you any idea Josh how these miracles will be manifested?”
“Well Pat, recall the Scud missile attack on Israel during the first Persian Gulf War. Only one person was killed by the 39 missiles that struck Israel. Even non-religious generals who studied the great destruction wrought by those missiles concluded that the death of only one person had to be the result of many miracles.”
“But Josh, surely these so-called miracles pale in significance to those associated with the Exodus.”
“Perhaps you’re right, Pat, but whereas few people witnessed those Scud-related miracles, Israel is now threatened by nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons of mass destruction. Notice these weapons correspond to three distinct sciences of nature. Suppose such weapons were launched against Israel. What miracles would we need to save us? I spoke of three: (1) about nature, (2) about the pagan belief Egypt could control nature, and (3) about Israel’s miraculous Exodus. Now ponder the impact on mankind if nuclear missiles aimed at Israel killed not a single a Jew but annihilated Israel’s enemies, as occurred in the parting of the Red Sea.”
“Wait a second Josh. You can speculate all you want, but shouldn’t you offer some tangible evidence to indicate at least the possibility of your Alice-in-Wonderland scenario?”
“Perhaps you’re right Pat, but no one at the time of the Exodus could have foreseen its miracles, and probably no one would have believed in their possibility. That’s why miracles are miracles.”
“Okay Josh, but give me a clue as to what may happen miraculously in the present juncture of human affairs.”
“My dear Pat, I’m not a prophet, but I’ll say this. Whatever Israel does for its salvation involves the cooperation of God. On the other hand, to say man was created in the image of God means we are partners with God. Remember, the miracle of the crossing of the Red Sea required Moses to extend his hand over the Sea.
“Now, as you know, Pat, Israel today is far advanced in nanotechnology—surpassing even the United States. You know that the Allies in World War II could not have been victorious were in not for science, in which Jews excelled. I’m thinking not only of Einstein. Jews were preeminent in the Manhattan Project, for example, Robert Oppenheimer, Otto Frisch, Felix Block, Max Borne, and by the way, the great Enrico Fermi was married to a Jewess.”
“Hold on, Josh. With due respect to the scientists you have in Israel today, they don’t compare to the giants of yesterday.”
“They don’t have to, dear Pat! All they need do is create the technology required to reverse the paths of missiles aimed at Israel and return them to their point of origin; and if you consider the rapidity with which Israel is developing nanotechnology, who knows? In Israel, only those who believe in miracles are realists. Miracles, dear Pat, may be approaching, and will rightly be seen as such by mankind. Of course, I am only speculating, constructing a scenario conceptually consistent with the miracles of the Exodus, or with what has been said of them by the Sages. Stay tuned.
*Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, February 8, 2010.
Haaretz Poll Shakes Up the Left
A poll conducted last week for Haaretz by the Dialog company provided the publication – otherwise known as the official organ of the leftist Israeli establishment - with a statistical nightmare. Despite skewing the main question in an attempt to produce results which demonstrate that Israelis think that pulling out of Jewish cities and towns in Judea and Samaria would lead to peace, the results proved otherwise, throwing Haaretz into a frenzy of censorship.
The February 2nd poll of 491 Israelis, including Israeli Arabs, asked the clumsy question: "May our continued presence in the territories lead to a bi-national state?” (A bi-national state meaning a state of all of her citizens – with at least roughly 50% Arab population - devoid of all Jewish identity.) The result, “Yes – 28%, No – 53%”, was not reported in the English-language version of Haaretz at all. In the Hebrew version of Haaretz the poll result, so counter to the mantra of the Left, was presented in tables but not discussed at all in the text.
Apparently the editors of Haaretz do not want English-speaking readers to find out that, despite extensive leftist brainwashing by the media, Israelis do not buy into the demographic demon. They understand that continued Israeli presence in Judea and Samaria will not tip the demographic scales in favor of the Arabs and will not turn Israel into a bi-national state with an Arab majority.
The effort by Haaretz to hide this result from Hebrew readers and completely erase it from the information available to English readers lays bare the agenda of its editors to frighten the Jewish people into throwing away their Divinely-given inheritance of the Land of Israel.
The main reason given by Ariel Sharon for expelling 10,000 Jews from Gaza five years ago was this same “demographic threat”. As Haaretz would like to see a repeat of this expulsion of Jews take place in Judea and Samaria, they need to keep the demographic bogeyman in the forefront of everyone’s minds.
The more that Israelis understand that there is no demographic threat, the more they will oppose the "two-state solution", which they already reflexively understand will only lead to disaster.
Manhigut Yehudit, the Jewish Leadership faction of the Likud, encourages the public to familiarize themselves with the work of Ambassador Yoram Ettinger and others who have thoroughly debunked the alleged demographic threat to the Jewish State.
Wole Soyinka's British Problem - by Tunku Varadarajan
Nigerian political activist Wole Soyinka shares his unbridled thoughts on
Islamic terrorism and why England is a "cesspit" with The Daily Beast's
Tunku Varadarajan.
Seated under the portrait of a local maharajah, Wole Soyinka-as regal of
face and mien as the potentate in the painting-leaned toward me and uttered
words so harsh that I sat bolt upright: "England is a cesspit."
We were in India at the Jaipur Literature Festival, where he, a Nobel
laureate for literature and vigorous activist for democracy in his native
land, was the guest of honor. I'd seized the opportunity to talk to Mr.
Soyinka, the world's most famous Nigerian, about the only other person who
might tussle with him for that title: Omar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the young
man who boarded a flight in Amsterdam on Christmas Day with a bomb in his
underpants.
"We should assemble all those who are pure and cannot abide other faiths,
put them all in rockets, and fire them into space."
What did the 76-year-old Mr. Soyinka-who divides his time between the U.S.
and Nigeria-make of his country's placement on a watch-list of states deemed
to be incubators of Islamist terrorism? "That was an irrational, knee-jerk
reaction by the Americans. The man did not get radicalized in Nigeria. It
happened in England, where he went to university.
"England is a cesspit. England is the breeding ground of fundamentalist
Muslims. Its social logic is to allow all religions to preach openly. But
this is illogic, because none of the other religions preach apocalyptic
violence. And yet England allows it. Remember, that country was the breeding
ground for communism, too. Karl Marx did all his work in libraries there."
Why is Britain the way it is? "This is part of the character of Great
Britain," Mr. Soyinka declares. "Colonialism bred an innate arrogance, but
when you undertake that sort of imperial adventure, that arrogance gives way
to a feeling of accommodativeness. You take pride in your openness." And so
it is, he says, that Britain lets everyone preach whatever they want: It
confirms a self-image of greatness.
Mr. Soyinka's forthrightness is enhanced by a rich, baritone voice, one with
which he'd captivated a largely Indian audience the day before in a
discussion of his Beckett-like play, The Road. He had dwelt at length on the
character of Ogun, the Yoruba god of the road, protector of travelers, and
the deity came up again in our discussion of the undie-bomber, along with
the possibility that Ogun had come to the rescue of the passengers on that
flight from Amsterdam to Detroit.
"The Muslim Abdulmutallab believed in his own, alien deity, and yet, another
deity-Ogun-protected his fellow travelers. In this case, the indigenous
deity that [Abdulmutallab] carried inside him-Ogun, the god of
wayfarers-thwarted his plan. The young man's suppressed deity came out."
Here, he chuckled wisely and added: "It's a poetic conceit, but I love it."
Our conversation turned to Nigeria, where ferocious killings had just
occurred in the central city of Jos, with Muslims slaughtering Christians,
and vice-versa. Mr. Soyinka, here, began to brood: "A virus has attacked the
world of sense and sensibility, and it has spread to Nigeria, where it has
taken on a sanguinary dimension. Roaming hordes of killers are entering
homes and dragging out people of other faiths and hacking them to death. In
my youth, you heard, side-by-side, the church bells ringing and the
beautiful, sonorous call to prayer of the muezzin. But now, it's a disease.
One doesn't really know how to handle it."
The day before, in his lecture on The Road, Mr. Soyinka earned a burst of
applause with his own, ingenious solution: "I think this is where our rocket
engineers and astronauts can come to our rescue. We should assemble all
those who are pure and cannot abide other faiths, put them all in rockets,
and fire them into space." In our own conversation, he offered-almost
apologetically-a more prosaic solution: "Education. And rigorous punishment
for those who feel, not 'I'm right, you're wrong,' but 'I'm right, you're
dead.'"
In Mr. Soyinka's view, the origins of the current phase of the world's
religious strife-including all of the bloodshed in Nigeria-lie with
Ayatollah Khomeini and his fatwa against Salman Rushdie, in 1989. "It all
began when he assumed the power of life and death over the life of a writer.
This was a watershed between doctrinaire aggression and physical aggression.
There was an escalation. The assumption of power over life and death then
passed to every single inconsequential Muslim in the world-as if someone had
given them a new stature.
"Al Qaeda is the descendent of this phenomenon. The proselytization of Islam
became vigorous after this. People went to Saudi Arabia. Madrassas were
established everywhere."
Will radical Islam take root in the United States, as it has elsewhere in
the West? Mr. Soyinka was confident that it would not. "I doubt you can have
the kind of indoctrination schools in America as you do in the U.K. Besides,
there's a large body of American Muslims in the U.S.-the Nation of
Islam-which has created a kind of mainstream Muslim institution. The Muslims
there are open Muslims, whereas in Europe they tend to go into ghetto
schools.
"The Nation of Islam provides an antidote in the United States to
fundamentalist Islam-which is why individuals from America have to go abroad
to find radical teachings."
Our conversation ended on a subject on which the stately Mr. Soyinka became
almost animated: the bizarre saga of Umaru Yar'Adua, Nigeria's president,
who has been in a Saudi hospital, apparently comatose, for nearly two
months. Nigeria's government, appalling at the best of times, has been
paralyzed by his absence and by the refusal of his inner circle to allow the
reins of power to pass from the Muslim president to the Christian vice
president.
"The president is sick," Mr. Soyinka said with a wave of his hand, "and
Nigeria is now sick. The president is getting treatment for his sickness,
and I wish him a speedy recovery. But what about Nigeria? I say that Nigeria
also needs treatment. Nigerians have reached a breaking point, and their
capacity to tolerate this theater, to put up with this gaping hole in the
government, has reached its limit. I would say the situation is explosive.
We Nigerians must reclaim our sovereignty, our civic entitlements.
"If we had had a government, we would have been able to resist the American
decision to put Nigeria on the terrorist list, along with Afghanistan and
other places. If we had a government-a head of state-he would have been able
to talk to Obama, tell him that this is unjustified, that the bombing
attempt was an aberration. But which Nigerian head of state could Obama talk
to? There is no one in charge of the giant of Africa!"
(Update: This article originally incorrectly reported that the fatwa against
Rushdie was in 1981
J Street to 'expand notion of pro-Israel' by E.B. Solomont
07/02/2010On Thursday night, J Street said nearly 2,000 people turned out in more than 20 cities for simultaneous events to kick off J Street Local, the vehicle for members to carry out educational and advocacy work in their communities.
“We made a pledge in October that we would be silent no more when it comes to Israel,” said J Street’s executive director Jeremy Ben-Ami, in a speech that was broadcast to the other events.
In nearly two years, J Street has amassed 140,000 online supporters and hopes to spur them to action, following the recent merge with Brit Tzedek V’Shalom. “Tonight we are opening a new chapter in the struggle for tzedek and shalom, justice and peace in the world,” Ben-Ami said.
He said J Street and J Street Local seek to inject new voices into foreign policy discussion, express support for Israel in accordance with Jewish values and promote a more open debate about Israel in the American Jewish community. In particular, J Street seeks to “expand what it means to be pro-Israel.”( J Post)
February 4, 2010
Bibi's Slippery Slope: By Moshe Feiglin
18 Shvat 5770
Feb. 2, '10
In its Friday edition, the Makor Rishon newspaper cited senior American sources reporting that Netanyahu has already surrendered almost everything; the Golan, almost all of Judea and Samaria, Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, even some areas inside Israel's 1967 border. In exchange, the State of Israel will be allowed to keep a few settlement blocs. And what has Netanyahu achieved for Israel in exchange for this far-reaching agreement in principle? Nothing. Certainly not peace and not even international recognition that Israel is a Jewish state.
This is not really earth-shattering news. For years, we have been warning that Netanyahu is liable to drag us down a slippery slope. In the end, Netanyahu will not get the settlement blocs. But he will have succeeded in violating the integrity of Israel's 1967 borders.
The simple and sad truth is that the only thing preventing this collapse is Arab intransigence. The Arabs, it turns out, really do not want a state. None other than British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, not exactly known for his affection for Jews, stated to the British Parliament in 1947: "To the Jews, the essential point of principle is the creation of a sovereign Jewish State. To the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine."
Nothing has changed in the 63 years that have passed since then. The main goal of the Arabs who live in the Land of Israel is to prevent us, the Jews, from having a Jewish state. They do not want their own state. If they really did want one, they could have had it many times over. They have consistently sabotaged every golden opportunity for a state offered them by Israel, with the support of the entire world.
What then, is wrong with Netanyahu's strategy? Maybe he is right when he agrees to surrender everything, leaving the Arabs to once again refuse and appear intransigent?
That may be fine in an anonymous battle of wits. But when the prime minister of Israel agrees to surrender Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel and Jerusalem, it has far reaching and serious implications. No other leader in the world would dare commit such an act. On the practical plane as well, Netanyahu is playing with fire. When Arafat, alone in exile in Tunis, felt he had no choice, he "accepted" the idea of "peace" - at least for the cameras. He got what he wanted and then, of course, surprised the world with his continued campaign of murderous violence. Likewise, Abu Mazen does not want a state, but if the Americans force it down his throat, he just may take it.
If that happens, G-d forbid, it would mean that the only territory in the world that does not have an official sovereign today - Judea and Samaria - will be internationally recognized as non-Jewish territory. The Nation of Israel will have officially surrendered the inheritance that it received from the Creator and that was recognized as such by the nations of the world.
Nationalist Attorney Elyakim Haetzni writes as follows:
"'Fate' or Divine Providence has left the Chosen Land open for the Chosen People, as there is no state in the world that has 'right of return' to Yesha according to international law. The Jordanians invaded and in 1988 they surrendered their claim; the British Mandate that preceded them no longer exists; the Turkish, in the Treaty of Lausanne, surrendered their rights and the Marmelukes are in the museum. All that is still valid, so long as there is no other sovereign, is the mandate that recognized the historical rights of the Jewish nation to re-establish its national home in the Land of Israel and instructed the British to 'encourage dense settlement on the ground, including state lands.' Thus, we are still the rightful owner, and only the rightful owner can surrender his rights.
If, however, a Palestinian state is established with Israel's consent, our land will be considered 'Palestinian'. Later, when the Palestinians breach the agreement and the IDF will once again conquer Shechem, we will always be forced to retreat, because it will be 'Palestinian land.' Nazi Germany was destroyed, but it was exchanged for 'a different Germany,' because it was still 'German Land.'
Woe to the Jewish leader whose name will go down in history as the person responsible for turning Israel's land into Palestinian land. There are Jews who would prefer to die rather than be responsible for such a historical catastrophe, equal to all the physical dangers facing us put together."
In the meantime, "fate" or Divine Providence has saved the Promised Land for the Jews. But in Gush Katif we learned that Divine Providence also expects us to take practical action. We are not on the high, Biblical level of "G-d will fight for you, and you remain silent." And as we know from our Sages, we must not rely on miracles.
Sadly, Netanyahu is not among those Jews who would "prefer to die rather than be responsible for such a historical catastrophe." If given the opportunity, he will certainly send this particular historical catastrophe our way. Clearly, he must be replaced - and the sooner the better.
And now for the good news. The past months have seen a tremendous surge in registration for the Likud. Soon, Israel's political system will emerge from its winter hibernation and that is traditionally the time for political crises - both inside and outside the Likud. We do not know exactly when the Likud members will once again be casting their votes for the new leader of their party. We do know, however, that this scenario will take place and it is very possible that it will happen sooner than we think.
Feb. 2, '10
In its Friday edition, the Makor Rishon newspaper cited senior American sources reporting that Netanyahu has already surrendered almost everything; the Golan, almost all of Judea and Samaria, Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, even some areas inside Israel's 1967 border. In exchange, the State of Israel will be allowed to keep a few settlement blocs. And what has Netanyahu achieved for Israel in exchange for this far-reaching agreement in principle? Nothing. Certainly not peace and not even international recognition that Israel is a Jewish state.
This is not really earth-shattering news. For years, we have been warning that Netanyahu is liable to drag us down a slippery slope. In the end, Netanyahu will not get the settlement blocs. But he will have succeeded in violating the integrity of Israel's 1967 borders.
The simple and sad truth is that the only thing preventing this collapse is Arab intransigence. The Arabs, it turns out, really do not want a state. None other than British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, not exactly known for his affection for Jews, stated to the British Parliament in 1947: "To the Jews, the essential point of principle is the creation of a sovereign Jewish State. To the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine."
Nothing has changed in the 63 years that have passed since then. The main goal of the Arabs who live in the Land of Israel is to prevent us, the Jews, from having a Jewish state. They do not want their own state. If they really did want one, they could have had it many times over. They have consistently sabotaged every golden opportunity for a state offered them by Israel, with the support of the entire world.
What then, is wrong with Netanyahu's strategy? Maybe he is right when he agrees to surrender everything, leaving the Arabs to once again refuse and appear intransigent?
That may be fine in an anonymous battle of wits. But when the prime minister of Israel agrees to surrender Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel and Jerusalem, it has far reaching and serious implications. No other leader in the world would dare commit such an act. On the practical plane as well, Netanyahu is playing with fire. When Arafat, alone in exile in Tunis, felt he had no choice, he "accepted" the idea of "peace" - at least for the cameras. He got what he wanted and then, of course, surprised the world with his continued campaign of murderous violence. Likewise, Abu Mazen does not want a state, but if the Americans force it down his throat, he just may take it.
If that happens, G-d forbid, it would mean that the only territory in the world that does not have an official sovereign today - Judea and Samaria - will be internationally recognized as non-Jewish territory. The Nation of Israel will have officially surrendered the inheritance that it received from the Creator and that was recognized as such by the nations of the world.
Nationalist Attorney Elyakim Haetzni writes as follows:
"'Fate' or Divine Providence has left the Chosen Land open for the Chosen People, as there is no state in the world that has 'right of return' to Yesha according to international law. The Jordanians invaded and in 1988 they surrendered their claim; the British Mandate that preceded them no longer exists; the Turkish, in the Treaty of Lausanne, surrendered their rights and the Marmelukes are in the museum. All that is still valid, so long as there is no other sovereign, is the mandate that recognized the historical rights of the Jewish nation to re-establish its national home in the Land of Israel and instructed the British to 'encourage dense settlement on the ground, including state lands.' Thus, we are still the rightful owner, and only the rightful owner can surrender his rights.
If, however, a Palestinian state is established with Israel's consent, our land will be considered 'Palestinian'. Later, when the Palestinians breach the agreement and the IDF will once again conquer Shechem, we will always be forced to retreat, because it will be 'Palestinian land.' Nazi Germany was destroyed, but it was exchanged for 'a different Germany,' because it was still 'German Land.'
Woe to the Jewish leader whose name will go down in history as the person responsible for turning Israel's land into Palestinian land. There are Jews who would prefer to die rather than be responsible for such a historical catastrophe, equal to all the physical dangers facing us put together."
In the meantime, "fate" or Divine Providence has saved the Promised Land for the Jews. But in Gush Katif we learned that Divine Providence also expects us to take practical action. We are not on the high, Biblical level of "G-d will fight for you, and you remain silent." And as we know from our Sages, we must not rely on miracles.
Sadly, Netanyahu is not among those Jews who would "prefer to die rather than be responsible for such a historical catastrophe." If given the opportunity, he will certainly send this particular historical catastrophe our way. Clearly, he must be replaced - and the sooner the better.
And now for the good news. The past months have seen a tremendous surge in registration for the Likud. Soon, Israel's political system will emerge from its winter hibernation and that is traditionally the time for political crises - both inside and outside the Likud. We do not know exactly when the Likud members will once again be casting their votes for the new leader of their party. We do know, however, that this scenario will take place and it is very possible that it will happen sooner than we think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)