A provocative headline? It's more than that. It's the truth.
Truth does not change. Truth is truth. If something was true 50 years ago, 40 years ago, 30 years ago, it is still true today.
And the truth is that only 30 years ago, there was very little confusion on this issue of Palestine.
You might remember the late Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir making the bold political statement: "There is no such thing as a Palestinian people."
The statement has been a source of ridicule and derision by Arab propagandists ever since. They love to talk about Golda Meir's "racism." They love to suggest she was in historical denial. They love to say her statement is patently false – an intentional lie, a strategic deception.
What they don't like to talk about, however, are the very similar statements made by Yasser Arafat and his inner circle of political leadership years after Meir had told the truth – that there is no distinct Palestinian cultural or national identity.
So, despite the fact that conventional wisdom has now proclaimed that there is such a thing as the Palestinian people, I'm going to raise those uncomfortable quotations made by Arafat and his henchmen when their public-relations guard was down.
Way back on March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:
The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.
For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.
That's pretty clear, isn't it? It's even more specific than Golda Meir's statement. It reaffirms what I have written on this subject. And it is hardly the only such statement of its kind. Arafat himself made a very definitive and unequivocal statement along these lines as late as 1993. It demonstrates conclusively that the Palestinian nationhood argument is the real strategic deception – one geared to set up the destruction of Israel.
In fact, on the same day Arafat signed the Declaration of Principles on the White House lawn in 1993, he explained his actions on Jordan TV. Here's what he said: "Since we cannot defeat Israel in war, we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish a sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel."
No matter how many people convince themselves that the aspirations for Palestinian statehood are genuine and the key to peace in the Middle East, they are still deceiving themselves.
I've said it before and I will say it again, in the history of the world, Palestine has never existed as a nation. The region known as Palestine was ruled alternately by Rome, by Islamic and Christian crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire and, briefly, by the British after World War I. The British agreed to restore at least part of the land to the Jewish people as their ancestral homeland. It was never ruled by Arabs as a separate nation.
Why now has it become such a critical priority?
The answer is because of a massive deception campaign and relentless terrorism over 40 years.
Golda Meir was right. Her statement is validated by the truth of history and by the candid, but not widely circulated, pronouncements of Arafat and his lieutenants.
Israel and the West must not surrender to terrorism by granting the killers just what they want – a public relations triumph and a strategic victory. It's not too late to say no to terrorism. It's not too late to say no to another Arab terror state. It's not too late to tell the truth about Palestine.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Where are our roots?
By Moshe Dann
Bowing to pressure from Prime Minister Netanyahu, US State Department and the international community, Nir Barkat, Mayor of Jerusalem, has cut back on plans to remove 88 illegal Arab buildings from a rich archeological park in the Kidron Valley adjacent to the City of David, the ancient city of Jerusalem.
According to plans announced Tuesday, Barkat proposed relocating only about 20 families in the disputed area, while giving legal status retroactively to the rest. The entire area would be renovated and restored as a garden and world-class tourist site, with an Arab residential neighborhood, shops and restaurants, including sports and healthcare centers. Arabs claim that these plans threaten their property and their way of life.
The city claims it will improve the quality of life; Arabs are opposed, saying it is "Judaizing" the area.
The city contends that Arabs have built on public land in an archeological area and they are enforcing "the rule of law;" Arabs decry the lack of building permits.
There are an estimated 10,000-20,000 illegal Arab buildings in Jerusalem alone.
Arabs claim they own the land, but are unable to provide any proof. Assisted by a number of Israeli NGOs, like Peace Now, Ir Amim and Bimkom - recipients of funds from the New Israel Fund, European governments and the EU - they have protested archeological work in the area, insisting that the entire area is "Palestinian."
City Attorney, Yossi Havillo, and State Prosecutor Moshe Lador oppose the destruction of Arab homes; they insist that a nearby Jewish-owned home built without permits be demolished.
According to aerial photographs, the area was uninhabited until the early 1990s, when archeological excavations in the City of David began to attract millions of tourists, and artifacts could be found scattered throughout the area. Under Mayor Barkat's predecessors, Ehud Olmert and Uri Lupolianski, Arabs built extensively throughout the area.
Bedrock of Zionist ethos
The King's Garden, or al-Bustan (The Garden in Arabic), a reference to Biblical times when it was a source of spices used in perfumes and incense, is located just below the City of David, where the Kidron and Hinnom Valleys meet. Water flowed to this area from the Gihon Spring, the ancient city's sole water source, mentioned in Kings I, 1:39, where King Solomon was anointed.
The prophet Isaiah called this "…the waters of Shiloah that flow softly" (VIII,6), which were channeled into a pool, then into the King's Garden, and from there down the Kidron Valley into the Judean Desert.
During King Hezekiah's reign (727-698 B.C.E.), a tunnel was cut from the Gihon Spring, through the mountain, beneath the city, to bring water into the city. (II Kings XX, 20).
The King's Garden is mentioned as the escape route for King Zedekiah (Jeremiah XXXIX,4); in Nehemiah (II,14); in Song of Songs (IV, 15); in Ecclesiastes (II,5) and many other Biblical and Talmudic sources.
The modern Arab village of Silwan (an Arabized version of the Hebrew, Shiloah) is located in and around what was the ancient Jewish cemetery of Mt of Olives, on the eastern side of the Kidron Valley, opposite the City of David.
Across from the Gihon Spring is the tomb of Rabbi Ovadiah Ben Avraham, from the Italian city of Bartinoro, known as "The Bartenura," who died in Jerusalem in about 1500. He traveled extensively in the Land of Israel, wrote letters about Jewish communities in Bethlehem, Hebron, and Gaza, wrote a famous commentary on the Mishna, and was the spiritual and communal leader of Jews in Jerusalem, many of whom had escaped the expulsion from Spain in 1492.
A few hundred meters north in the Kidron Valley, at the foot of the Mount of Olives cemetery, are monumental tombs from the Second Temple Period. This is called the Valley of Jehoshaphat (God has judged) where, according to Joel IV,2,12, Jewish and Christian tradition, the nations of the world will be judged.
Arab riots and international condemnations of Israel, led by the US administration, over the designation of Jewish heritage sites, archeological excavations and environmental restoration bring basic question into sharp focus: Where are our roots?
The struggle over who can build in the King's Garden is not only about physical location, and civil rights, but the protection of archeological sites, the meaning of sovereignty and Jewish historical claims to the Land of Israel. That is, after all, the bedrock of Zionist ethos and purpose, and our collective consciousness.
The author, a licensed tour guide and former assistant professor of History, is a writer and journalist
Bowing to pressure from Prime Minister Netanyahu, US State Department and the international community, Nir Barkat, Mayor of Jerusalem, has cut back on plans to remove 88 illegal Arab buildings from a rich archeological park in the Kidron Valley adjacent to the City of David, the ancient city of Jerusalem.
According to plans announced Tuesday, Barkat proposed relocating only about 20 families in the disputed area, while giving legal status retroactively to the rest. The entire area would be renovated and restored as a garden and world-class tourist site, with an Arab residential neighborhood, shops and restaurants, including sports and healthcare centers. Arabs claim that these plans threaten their property and their way of life.
The city claims it will improve the quality of life; Arabs are opposed, saying it is "Judaizing" the area.
The city contends that Arabs have built on public land in an archeological area and they are enforcing "the rule of law;" Arabs decry the lack of building permits.
There are an estimated 10,000-20,000 illegal Arab buildings in Jerusalem alone.
Arabs claim they own the land, but are unable to provide any proof. Assisted by a number of Israeli NGOs, like Peace Now, Ir Amim and Bimkom - recipients of funds from the New Israel Fund, European governments and the EU - they have protested archeological work in the area, insisting that the entire area is "Palestinian."
City Attorney, Yossi Havillo, and State Prosecutor Moshe Lador oppose the destruction of Arab homes; they insist that a nearby Jewish-owned home built without permits be demolished.
According to aerial photographs, the area was uninhabited until the early 1990s, when archeological excavations in the City of David began to attract millions of tourists, and artifacts could be found scattered throughout the area. Under Mayor Barkat's predecessors, Ehud Olmert and Uri Lupolianski, Arabs built extensively throughout the area.
Bedrock of Zionist ethos
The King's Garden, or al-Bustan (The Garden in Arabic), a reference to Biblical times when it was a source of spices used in perfumes and incense, is located just below the City of David, where the Kidron and Hinnom Valleys meet. Water flowed to this area from the Gihon Spring, the ancient city's sole water source, mentioned in Kings I, 1:39, where King Solomon was anointed.
The prophet Isaiah called this "…the waters of Shiloah that flow softly" (VIII,6), which were channeled into a pool, then into the King's Garden, and from there down the Kidron Valley into the Judean Desert.
During King Hezekiah's reign (727-698 B.C.E.), a tunnel was cut from the Gihon Spring, through the mountain, beneath the city, to bring water into the city. (II Kings XX, 20).
The King's Garden is mentioned as the escape route for King Zedekiah (Jeremiah XXXIX,4); in Nehemiah (II,14); in Song of Songs (IV, 15); in Ecclesiastes (II,5) and many other Biblical and Talmudic sources.
The modern Arab village of Silwan (an Arabized version of the Hebrew, Shiloah) is located in and around what was the ancient Jewish cemetery of Mt of Olives, on the eastern side of the Kidron Valley, opposite the City of David.
Across from the Gihon Spring is the tomb of Rabbi Ovadiah Ben Avraham, from the Italian city of Bartinoro, known as "The Bartenura," who died in Jerusalem in about 1500. He traveled extensively in the Land of Israel, wrote letters about Jewish communities in Bethlehem, Hebron, and Gaza, wrote a famous commentary on the Mishna, and was the spiritual and communal leader of Jews in Jerusalem, many of whom had escaped the expulsion from Spain in 1492.
A few hundred meters north in the Kidron Valley, at the foot of the Mount of Olives cemetery, are monumental tombs from the Second Temple Period. This is called the Valley of Jehoshaphat (God has judged) where, according to Joel IV,2,12, Jewish and Christian tradition, the nations of the world will be judged.
Arab riots and international condemnations of Israel, led by the US administration, over the designation of Jewish heritage sites, archeological excavations and environmental restoration bring basic question into sharp focus: Where are our roots?
The struggle over who can build in the King's Garden is not only about physical location, and civil rights, but the protection of archeological sites, the meaning of sovereignty and Jewish historical claims to the Land of Israel. That is, after all, the bedrock of Zionist ethos and purpose, and our collective consciousness.
The author, a licensed tour guide and former assistant professor of History, is a writer and journalist
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Outposts and the law
How does denying right of Jews to build reinforce the rule of law?
by Moshe Dann
Conventional wisdom says that "Israel promised (the US) to destroy all 'unauthorized outposts,' and, therefore, must fulfill its obligations." If the government is looking for an excuse, this is a poor one.
The "promise" is based on a letter in April, 2004 from Dov Weissglass, Chief of the Prime Minister's Bureau to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. Although submitted "on behalf of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon," the letter was not signed by Sharon, nor was it affirmed by the cabinet. It was, simply, "diplomatic correspondence."
Moreover, the letter contains conditions. "The Israeli government believes that further steps by it, even if consistent with the Roadmap, cannot be taken absent the emergence of a Palestinian partner committed to peace, democratic reform, and the fight against terror."
Using this letter to justify destruction of Jewish "unauthorized outposts" raises serious questions:
Does Weissglass' letter obligate Israel to carry out its provisions now while ignoring its conditions? Does this letter obligate future governments? Was the letter approved by the full cabinet (since it mentions only the PM)? Why didn't Prime Minister Sharon sign it? Other than Weissglass' letter is there any other binding agreement to destroy Jewish "unauthorized outposts"?
Asked to respond, senior officials in the Prime Minister's Office avoided direct specific answers. "This government is committed to the rule of law, and abiding by the law is paramount to maintaining a civil society." They refused to elaborate.
This begs the questions and shifts the argument to Israeli law and, vaguely, "rule of law."
What, in fact, is Israeli law? If Arabs are entitled to acquire property rights by settlement, why can't Jews? Why do Israeli authorities refuse to give permission to develop new neighborhoods, hilltops and outposts? If the application of law discriminates against Jews, what's the meaning of "rule of law"?
What about the real issues?
The Supreme Court has demanded that "unauthorized outposts" built by Jews be destroyed immediately, but has given over 100,000 illegal Arab homes a pass. And what about the vast "unrecognized" illegal Bedouin villages throughout the Galilee and Negev?
"Rule of law" means impartiality above all; it also must make reasonable common sense. Jewish homes in "unauthorized outposts" built on unoccupied, unclaimed land are examples of Zionist enterprise and idealism.
They offer inexpensive places to live. Most received tacit approval from government ministries, including the prime and defense ministers, which provided infrastructure and utilities. They tried to fulfill the necessary requirements. They are citizens and members of Israeli society. How does destroying them demonstrate the "rule of law" instead of offering legal recognition?
If providing legal status to Jewish homes in "unauthorized outposts" provides more taxes and fees and serves the interests of the State, why not allow it? How is denying the right of Jews to build assert the "rule of law?"
If the Israeli government is afraid of American opposition, then what does that say about "rule of law?" And, if the "rule of law" is important, why should it be sacrificed on the altar of American opposition?
Focusing on outposts and Jewish building in new neighborhoods of Jerusalem diverts attention from the real issues: the threat of a nuclear Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan's disintegration, the rise of Hamas and Hezbollah - to name only a few. Where Jews can or can't live in their homeland hardly seems to be of such importance, unless, of course, the question is if they should have one at all.
But then, there are other, more ancient and sacred promises to keep.
by Moshe Dann
Conventional wisdom says that "Israel promised (the US) to destroy all 'unauthorized outposts,' and, therefore, must fulfill its obligations." If the government is looking for an excuse, this is a poor one.
The "promise" is based on a letter in April, 2004 from Dov Weissglass, Chief of the Prime Minister's Bureau to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. Although submitted "on behalf of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon," the letter was not signed by Sharon, nor was it affirmed by the cabinet. It was, simply, "diplomatic correspondence."
Moreover, the letter contains conditions. "The Israeli government believes that further steps by it, even if consistent with the Roadmap, cannot be taken absent the emergence of a Palestinian partner committed to peace, democratic reform, and the fight against terror."
Using this letter to justify destruction of Jewish "unauthorized outposts" raises serious questions:
Does Weissglass' letter obligate Israel to carry out its provisions now while ignoring its conditions? Does this letter obligate future governments? Was the letter approved by the full cabinet (since it mentions only the PM)? Why didn't Prime Minister Sharon sign it? Other than Weissglass' letter is there any other binding agreement to destroy Jewish "unauthorized outposts"?
Asked to respond, senior officials in the Prime Minister's Office avoided direct specific answers. "This government is committed to the rule of law, and abiding by the law is paramount to maintaining a civil society." They refused to elaborate.
This begs the questions and shifts the argument to Israeli law and, vaguely, "rule of law."
What, in fact, is Israeli law? If Arabs are entitled to acquire property rights by settlement, why can't Jews? Why do Israeli authorities refuse to give permission to develop new neighborhoods, hilltops and outposts? If the application of law discriminates against Jews, what's the meaning of "rule of law"?
What about the real issues?
The Supreme Court has demanded that "unauthorized outposts" built by Jews be destroyed immediately, but has given over 100,000 illegal Arab homes a pass. And what about the vast "unrecognized" illegal Bedouin villages throughout the Galilee and Negev?
"Rule of law" means impartiality above all; it also must make reasonable common sense. Jewish homes in "unauthorized outposts" built on unoccupied, unclaimed land are examples of Zionist enterprise and idealism.
They offer inexpensive places to live. Most received tacit approval from government ministries, including the prime and defense ministers, which provided infrastructure and utilities. They tried to fulfill the necessary requirements. They are citizens and members of Israeli society. How does destroying them demonstrate the "rule of law" instead of offering legal recognition?
If providing legal status to Jewish homes in "unauthorized outposts" provides more taxes and fees and serves the interests of the State, why not allow it? How is denying the right of Jews to build assert the "rule of law?"
If the Israeli government is afraid of American opposition, then what does that say about "rule of law?" And, if the "rule of law" is important, why should it be sacrificed on the altar of American opposition?
Focusing on outposts and Jewish building in new neighborhoods of Jerusalem diverts attention from the real issues: the threat of a nuclear Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan's disintegration, the rise of Hamas and Hezbollah - to name only a few. Where Jews can or can't live in their homeland hardly seems to be of such importance, unless, of course, the question is if they should have one at all.
But then, there are other, more ancient and sacred promises to keep.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Jewish, Not Arab, Roots in Judea and Samaria
US Pres. Obama’s demand that Israel not settle Jews in the Biblical areas of Judea and Samaria ignores thoroughly-documented Jewish roots in the Land of Israel, and in Judea/Samaria in particular.
Yoram Ettinger, a former liaison for Congressional affairs in Israel's Washington embassy, lists in the latest of his periodic position papers some of the evidence showing that Judea and Samaria has Jewish, not Arab, roots.
Area Always Known as "Judea and Samaria"
Ettinger negates Obama's claim – enunciated during his June 4, 2009 speech at Cairo University – that "the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in" the Holocaust. For one thing, Ettinger notes, many world-renowned travelers, historians and archeologists of earlier centuries refer to "Judea and Samaria," while the term "West Bank" was coined only 60 years ago. Jordan gave the region this name when it occupied it after Israel’s War of Independence. No nation on earth other than Britain and Pakistan recognized Jordan’s claim to Judea and Samaria.
Among the travelers, historians and archeologists who referred to Judea and Samaria are H. B. Tristram (The Land of Israel, 1865); Mark Twain (Innocents Abroad, 1867); R.A. MacAlister and Masterman ("Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly"); A.P. Stanley (Sinai and Palestine, 1887); E. Robinson and E. Smith (Biblical Researches in Palestine, 1841); C.W. Van de Velde (Peise durch Syrien und Paletsinea, 1861); and Felix Bovet (Voyage en Taire Sainte, 1864). Even the Encyclopedia Britannica, as well as official British and Ottoman records until 1950, used the term Judea and Samaria, and not the West Bank.
Land Was Named "Palestine" in Order to Erase Jewish Presence
Ettinger goes even further back, and says that the name "Palestine" was given to the Holy Land for the sole purpose of erasing the previous name of the country – Judea – from human memory. The Romans, whose plan this was, similarly sought to extinguish Jewish presence in Jerusalem by renaming it Aelia Capitolina.
Arabs Came in the Last 150 Years
When speaking of “Palestinian national rights,” it must be similarly kept in mind, Ettinger notes, that most Arabs residing today in Israel – anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean - have their origin in a massive 19th-20th century migration from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and other Moslem countries.
Town Names Betray Their True History
Finally, Ettinger says that almost all Arab localities in Judea and Samaria have retained Biblical Jewish names, thus reaffirming their Jewish roots. Examples include the following: Anata is Biblical (and contemporary) Anatot, the dwelling of the Prophet Jeremiah. Batir is Biblical (and contemporary) Beitar, the headquarters of Bar Kochba, the leader of the Great Rebellion against the Roman Empire, which was suppressed in 135CE. Beit-Hur is the biblical (and contemporary) Beit Horon, site of Judah the Maccabee's victory over the Assyrians. Beitin is biblical (and contemporary) Beit El, a site of the Holy Ark and Prophet Samuel's court. Bethlehem is mentioned 44 times in the Bible and is the birth place of King David. Beit Jalla is biblical (and contemporary) Gilo, in southern Jerusalem, where Sennacherib set his camp, while besieging Jerusalem. El-Jib is biblical (and contemporary) Gibeon, Joshua's battleground known for his command to stop the sun and moon (Joshua 10:12). Jaba' is the biblical (and contemporary) Geva, site of King Saul’s son Jonathan’s victory over the Philistines. Jenin is the biblical (and contemporary) Ein Ganim, a Levite town within the tribe of Issachar. Mukhmas is biblical (and contemporary) Mikhmash, residence of Jonathan the Maccabee and site of King Saul's fortress. Seilun is biblical (and contemporary) Shilo, a site of Joshua's tabernacle and the Holy Ark and Samuel's youth. Tequa is biblical (and contemporary) Tekoa, hometown of the Prophet Amos.
Arabs Never Wanted Palestinian State
In another of his posts, Ettinger has negated the US government position that a Palestinian state is the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict and that its formation would resolve the situation. He cites proofs from recent history showing that Arab antipathy to Israel not only predates Palestinian concerns, but often sidesteps such interests.
Israel's war for its independence in 1948-9, for instance, was conducted by the Arab countries at the expense of Palestinian aspirations. Though Egypt conquered Gaza, and Jordan took Judea and Samaria, and Syria claimed the Golan, in none of these areas was a Palestinian government allowed.
When Egypt conquered the Gaza Strip, it proceeded to prohibit Palestinian national activities and expel Palestinian leadership. Not only did Jordan not grant Palestinian independence to Judea and Samaria, it actually annexed these areas to its own country. When Syria occupied and annexed the Hama area in the Golan Heights, the Arab League outlawed a provisional Palestinian government there.
In short, it can be concluded that Arab "rights" to a state in Judea and Samaria are historically weak and were long ignored by other Arab countries.
Yoram Ettinger, a former liaison for Congressional affairs in Israel's Washington embassy, lists in the latest of his periodic position papers some of the evidence showing that Judea and Samaria has Jewish, not Arab, roots.
Area Always Known as "Judea and Samaria"
Ettinger negates Obama's claim – enunciated during his June 4, 2009 speech at Cairo University – that "the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in" the Holocaust. For one thing, Ettinger notes, many world-renowned travelers, historians and archeologists of earlier centuries refer to "Judea and Samaria," while the term "West Bank" was coined only 60 years ago. Jordan gave the region this name when it occupied it after Israel’s War of Independence. No nation on earth other than Britain and Pakistan recognized Jordan’s claim to Judea and Samaria.
Among the travelers, historians and archeologists who referred to Judea and Samaria are H. B. Tristram (The Land of Israel, 1865); Mark Twain (Innocents Abroad, 1867); R.A. MacAlister and Masterman ("Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly"); A.P. Stanley (Sinai and Palestine, 1887); E. Robinson and E. Smith (Biblical Researches in Palestine, 1841); C.W. Van de Velde (Peise durch Syrien und Paletsinea, 1861); and Felix Bovet (Voyage en Taire Sainte, 1864). Even the Encyclopedia Britannica, as well as official British and Ottoman records until 1950, used the term Judea and Samaria, and not the West Bank.
Land Was Named "Palestine" in Order to Erase Jewish Presence
Ettinger goes even further back, and says that the name "Palestine" was given to the Holy Land for the sole purpose of erasing the previous name of the country – Judea – from human memory. The Romans, whose plan this was, similarly sought to extinguish Jewish presence in Jerusalem by renaming it Aelia Capitolina.
Arabs Came in the Last 150 Years
When speaking of “Palestinian national rights,” it must be similarly kept in mind, Ettinger notes, that most Arabs residing today in Israel – anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean - have their origin in a massive 19th-20th century migration from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and other Moslem countries.
Town Names Betray Their True History
Finally, Ettinger says that almost all Arab localities in Judea and Samaria have retained Biblical Jewish names, thus reaffirming their Jewish roots. Examples include the following: Anata is Biblical (and contemporary) Anatot, the dwelling of the Prophet Jeremiah. Batir is Biblical (and contemporary) Beitar, the headquarters of Bar Kochba, the leader of the Great Rebellion against the Roman Empire, which was suppressed in 135CE. Beit-Hur is the biblical (and contemporary) Beit Horon, site of Judah the Maccabee's victory over the Assyrians. Beitin is biblical (and contemporary) Beit El, a site of the Holy Ark and Prophet Samuel's court. Bethlehem is mentioned 44 times in the Bible and is the birth place of King David. Beit Jalla is biblical (and contemporary) Gilo, in southern Jerusalem, where Sennacherib set his camp, while besieging Jerusalem. El-Jib is biblical (and contemporary) Gibeon, Joshua's battleground known for his command to stop the sun and moon (Joshua 10:12). Jaba' is the biblical (and contemporary) Geva, site of King Saul’s son Jonathan’s victory over the Philistines. Jenin is the biblical (and contemporary) Ein Ganim, a Levite town within the tribe of Issachar. Mukhmas is biblical (and contemporary) Mikhmash, residence of Jonathan the Maccabee and site of King Saul's fortress. Seilun is biblical (and contemporary) Shilo, a site of Joshua's tabernacle and the Holy Ark and Samuel's youth. Tequa is biblical (and contemporary) Tekoa, hometown of the Prophet Amos.
Arabs Never Wanted Palestinian State
In another of his posts, Ettinger has negated the US government position that a Palestinian state is the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict and that its formation would resolve the situation. He cites proofs from recent history showing that Arab antipathy to Israel not only predates Palestinian concerns, but often sidesteps such interests.
Israel's war for its independence in 1948-9, for instance, was conducted by the Arab countries at the expense of Palestinian aspirations. Though Egypt conquered Gaza, and Jordan took Judea and Samaria, and Syria claimed the Golan, in none of these areas was a Palestinian government allowed.
When Egypt conquered the Gaza Strip, it proceeded to prohibit Palestinian national activities and expel Palestinian leadership. Not only did Jordan not grant Palestinian independence to Judea and Samaria, it actually annexed these areas to its own country. When Syria occupied and annexed the Hama area in the Golan Heights, the Arab League outlawed a provisional Palestinian government there.
In short, it can be concluded that Arab "rights" to a state in Judea and Samaria are historically weak and were long ignored by other Arab countries.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
We Dare Not Be Silent
For the past 12 years, I have dedicated myself to raising awareness and support for the Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria. While most of the world refers to these places as settlements, I learned early on that the term “settlements” was a pejorative one. It was a term used purposely by the settlement movement’s detractors to create an impression that these are temporary sites, easy to dismantle and uproot. In this way, they were able to de-legitimize the historical, Biblical right of the Jewish people to live in Judea and Samaria. After all, the places so ready recognizable to us because of their Biblical associations, Hebron, Shiloh, Elon Moreh, Tekoa, Jerusalem, are the very places that are being called “illegal settlements” by so many all over the world.
Most Christians look at the issues taking place in the Middle East from a Biblical perspective; we tend to see the issues in black and white terms. If God said it, then it must be so. He said ALL the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people; therefore, we take it literally that it should belong to the Jewish people. No questions. Unfortunately, however, there are some Christians who don’t understand the connection between the Biblical truths and current Middle East events. And, perhaps even more painfully, so many Jews, including the majority of the American Jewish leadership, do not support the communities in Judea and Samaria. They have a different perspective about how the Bible is applied to the events taking place in modern day Israel. In fact, that is one of the reasons that we have found such a warm welcome to CFOIC Heartland from the Jews living there.
Of course, the situation in the Middle East is not a simple one and the issues are complex and varied. However, as Christians who firmly support Israel’s right to ALL the land of Israel, we have an opportunity, indeed an obligation, to stand strong on behalf of Judea and Samaria. Our voice is needed now more than ever before.
In the past few years, I have seen a growing trend among Christians to still their voice of support and weaken their stand on behalf of Biblical Israel because they have gotten involved with their local Jewish Federation which, in turn, will not support the communities. Now is not the time to be silent. We have an obligation to stand for what we believe in, and not cave in to the pressures or beliefs of those around us. In talking about this issue with a friend recently, she made a statement that spoke volumes. Referring to her own disagreement with the local Jewish community, she said, “I am here to support Israel, and the American Jewish community is not Israel. If they don’t support the communities of Judea and Samaria, then it is even more important that we should.” Of course, she remains well connected to her local Jewish community and supports their work for Israel. But they have agreed to disagree and she continues to support the communities, even when they don’t.
The lesson here is a valuable one indeed. It is so important for us to speak up and let our voice be heard. We can do it in a respectful manner, but more importantly, we can let our actions speak louder than words. As we follow our hearts and our convictions, we will lead by example and who knows how that will change the future?
Some years back one of our supporters became friendly with a Jew from her area who was very active with the local Jewish community. They had lively discussions about the “settlement” issue on a regular basis. They agreed to disagree and maintained a very friendly relationship. In the course of time, one of our community representatives was in town for a CFOIC event, and she invited her friend to come and hear him speak about the settlement issue. For the first time, this Jewish man was given the opportunity to meet a Jew from the communities and to hear a different perspective on the issue. What he heard shook him profoundly. He completely changed the way he felt about the settlement issue and even joined Sondra Baras for a full-day tour in Judea and Samaria, an experience he truly treasured. And this turnabout could only have happened because a Christian was not afraid to speak up, kindly, gently and respectfully, but resolutely all the same.
There are churches and ministries which are more concerned with being accepted in their communities than in standing for the truth, and they stay away from so-called controversial issues. For that reason, they refuse to get involved with the settlement issue. We have been inundated with the “politically correct” or PC concept. In essence, however, PC is all about making everyone happy. Being PC means not choosing a side, not taking a stand. It is about walking the middle ground just because it is in the middle and trying to appease both sides regardless of what each side stands for. I believe God spoke to this issue when he sent the warning to the Laodiceans in Revelation 3:15-16: "I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth."
We need to take a stand. We need to decide whether we are hot or cold. As Christians, we have a responsibility to speak out. If we do not raise our voices in support of the communities of Judea and Samaria, then who will? If we are so worried that our local Jewish community will disagree or that a local church will find us too political with regard to our stand for Judea and Samaria that we compromise our beliefs and back down just to please them, who will challenge them? Perhaps, God has put us in these positions and relationships to cause them to re-think long held policies that are in need of re-visiting.
As we speak out on behalf of the people of Judea and Samaria in our local communities, churches, and circles of influence, we can help dispel the misinformation that abounds regarding the temporary nature of a “settlement” and the “fanatics” who live there. We can stand up for what we believe in and maintain a strong voice of support on their behalf. With the current pressure that is being exerted on Israel to abandon the 300,000 people who have made their homes in the Biblical Heartland, we have to stand up and let our voice be heard. We must not let our fear of man or our desire to make friends stop us from shouting from the rooftops what we know to be true. We must continually speak to our pastors, our political representatives, our government leaders, at all levels, regarding Israel’s right to live in the land that God promised and gave to them. We cannot afford to fall silent or let ourselves be muzzled to please others.
“For if you keep silent at this time, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish. And who knows whether you have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” (Esther 4:14)
Most Christians look at the issues taking place in the Middle East from a Biblical perspective; we tend to see the issues in black and white terms. If God said it, then it must be so. He said ALL the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people; therefore, we take it literally that it should belong to the Jewish people. No questions. Unfortunately, however, there are some Christians who don’t understand the connection between the Biblical truths and current Middle East events. And, perhaps even more painfully, so many Jews, including the majority of the American Jewish leadership, do not support the communities in Judea and Samaria. They have a different perspective about how the Bible is applied to the events taking place in modern day Israel. In fact, that is one of the reasons that we have found such a warm welcome to CFOIC Heartland from the Jews living there.
Of course, the situation in the Middle East is not a simple one and the issues are complex and varied. However, as Christians who firmly support Israel’s right to ALL the land of Israel, we have an opportunity, indeed an obligation, to stand strong on behalf of Judea and Samaria. Our voice is needed now more than ever before.
In the past few years, I have seen a growing trend among Christians to still their voice of support and weaken their stand on behalf of Biblical Israel because they have gotten involved with their local Jewish Federation which, in turn, will not support the communities. Now is not the time to be silent. We have an obligation to stand for what we believe in, and not cave in to the pressures or beliefs of those around us. In talking about this issue with a friend recently, she made a statement that spoke volumes. Referring to her own disagreement with the local Jewish community, she said, “I am here to support Israel, and the American Jewish community is not Israel. If they don’t support the communities of Judea and Samaria, then it is even more important that we should.” Of course, she remains well connected to her local Jewish community and supports their work for Israel. But they have agreed to disagree and she continues to support the communities, even when they don’t.
The lesson here is a valuable one indeed. It is so important for us to speak up and let our voice be heard. We can do it in a respectful manner, but more importantly, we can let our actions speak louder than words. As we follow our hearts and our convictions, we will lead by example and who knows how that will change the future?
Some years back one of our supporters became friendly with a Jew from her area who was very active with the local Jewish community. They had lively discussions about the “settlement” issue on a regular basis. They agreed to disagree and maintained a very friendly relationship. In the course of time, one of our community representatives was in town for a CFOIC event, and she invited her friend to come and hear him speak about the settlement issue. For the first time, this Jewish man was given the opportunity to meet a Jew from the communities and to hear a different perspective on the issue. What he heard shook him profoundly. He completely changed the way he felt about the settlement issue and even joined Sondra Baras for a full-day tour in Judea and Samaria, an experience he truly treasured. And this turnabout could only have happened because a Christian was not afraid to speak up, kindly, gently and respectfully, but resolutely all the same.
There are churches and ministries which are more concerned with being accepted in their communities than in standing for the truth, and they stay away from so-called controversial issues. For that reason, they refuse to get involved with the settlement issue. We have been inundated with the “politically correct” or PC concept. In essence, however, PC is all about making everyone happy. Being PC means not choosing a side, not taking a stand. It is about walking the middle ground just because it is in the middle and trying to appease both sides regardless of what each side stands for. I believe God spoke to this issue when he sent the warning to the Laodiceans in Revelation 3:15-16: "I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth."
We need to take a stand. We need to decide whether we are hot or cold. As Christians, we have a responsibility to speak out. If we do not raise our voices in support of the communities of Judea and Samaria, then who will? If we are so worried that our local Jewish community will disagree or that a local church will find us too political with regard to our stand for Judea and Samaria that we compromise our beliefs and back down just to please them, who will challenge them? Perhaps, God has put us in these positions and relationships to cause them to re-think long held policies that are in need of re-visiting.
As we speak out on behalf of the people of Judea and Samaria in our local communities, churches, and circles of influence, we can help dispel the misinformation that abounds regarding the temporary nature of a “settlement” and the “fanatics” who live there. We can stand up for what we believe in and maintain a strong voice of support on their behalf. With the current pressure that is being exerted on Israel to abandon the 300,000 people who have made their homes in the Biblical Heartland, we have to stand up and let our voice be heard. We must not let our fear of man or our desire to make friends stop us from shouting from the rooftops what we know to be true. We must continually speak to our pastors, our political representatives, our government leaders, at all levels, regarding Israel’s right to live in the land that God promised and gave to them. We cannot afford to fall silent or let ourselves be muzzled to please others.
“For if you keep silent at this time, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish. And who knows whether you have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” (Esther 4:14)
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Good Zionists, bad Zionists
One of the unwritten laws of war is that the winning side is allowed to do as it pleases after the cessation of hostilities. This law is even more relevant when the victor turns out to be the side that didn’t initiate the war, or didn’t want the war to occur in the first place.
Thus we find Israel, after its victory in a war that it initially tried to avoid in 1948, utilizing its victory to expand its territory. For several years after this war, new communities started to appear on the map, such as Ashdod in 1956, Karmiel in 1964, Dimona in 1955 and Arad in 1962 (to name just a few).
Then, nearly 20 years later and faced with the prospect of an Arab onslaught, Israel was forced to fight another war in 1967, which, like the war in 1948, resulted in a decisive victory for Israel. Then, once again, as it had done after its 1948 victory, Israel utilized this victory to embark on a campaign of expanding its territory. New communities started to dot the map, such as Kiryat Arba in 1972, Kedumim in 1975, Karnei Shomron in 1977 and Efrat in 1983 (to name just a few).
However, this is where the similarities stop. For some reason, the communities that were founded after 1948 have always been considered legitimate by the Israeli public, while the communities that were established after 1967 never quite managed to gain the same degree of legitimacy in the eyes of some sections of the Israeli public and are in fact considered illegitimate by some here in Israel.
Arabs make no distinctions
The argument that the latter communities were established in the midst of, or near, large Arab population centers, or on “Arab lands”, doesn’t hold much sway, especially since the same can be said of many “legitimate” communities established after 1948 and even of some communities started before 1948. If this is the case, then what is the reason for this different treatment of post-1967 communities to those of their pre-1967 counterparts?
It seems that the only logical answer is that the earlier communities were founded by the “Good Zionists” (Ben Gurion and friends), while many of the latter post-1967 communities were founded by a different type of Zionist, namely the type that believes settling Eretz Yisrael is a mitzvah and draws the inspiration and motivation for such ideals straight from Judaism. This is the only plausible answer as to why this second group of Zionists and the communities they have built have become stigmatized and deemed illegitimate by so many here in Israel.
Unfortunately, what many here in Israel that deem such post-1967 communities as illegitimate fail, or perhaps refuse, to understand is that in the eyes of the Arabs, all of the communities (pre-1948, post-1948, post-1967) are illegitimate. They don’t make such trivial distinctions. Only we, the silly Jews, make such distinctions.
Thus we find Israel, after its victory in a war that it initially tried to avoid in 1948, utilizing its victory to expand its territory. For several years after this war, new communities started to appear on the map, such as Ashdod in 1956, Karmiel in 1964, Dimona in 1955 and Arad in 1962 (to name just a few).
Then, nearly 20 years later and faced with the prospect of an Arab onslaught, Israel was forced to fight another war in 1967, which, like the war in 1948, resulted in a decisive victory for Israel. Then, once again, as it had done after its 1948 victory, Israel utilized this victory to embark on a campaign of expanding its territory. New communities started to dot the map, such as Kiryat Arba in 1972, Kedumim in 1975, Karnei Shomron in 1977 and Efrat in 1983 (to name just a few).
However, this is where the similarities stop. For some reason, the communities that were founded after 1948 have always been considered legitimate by the Israeli public, while the communities that were established after 1967 never quite managed to gain the same degree of legitimacy in the eyes of some sections of the Israeli public and are in fact considered illegitimate by some here in Israel.
Arabs make no distinctions
The argument that the latter communities were established in the midst of, or near, large Arab population centers, or on “Arab lands”, doesn’t hold much sway, especially since the same can be said of many “legitimate” communities established after 1948 and even of some communities started before 1948. If this is the case, then what is the reason for this different treatment of post-1967 communities to those of their pre-1967 counterparts?
It seems that the only logical answer is that the earlier communities were founded by the “Good Zionists” (Ben Gurion and friends), while many of the latter post-1967 communities were founded by a different type of Zionist, namely the type that believes settling Eretz Yisrael is a mitzvah and draws the inspiration and motivation for such ideals straight from Judaism. This is the only plausible answer as to why this second group of Zionists and the communities they have built have become stigmatized and deemed illegitimate by so many here in Israel.
Unfortunately, what many here in Israel that deem such post-1967 communities as illegitimate fail, or perhaps refuse, to understand is that in the eyes of the Arabs, all of the communities (pre-1948, post-1948, post-1967) are illegitimate. They don’t make such trivial distinctions. Only we, the silly Jews, make such distinctions.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Judenrein Palestine
by Moshe Arens
What makes the removal of the outposts in Judea and Samaria seem like a mission impossible for Israel's defense minister? Most will agree that they were put up illegally, and like all illegal structures in a country in which the rule of law is supposed to prevail, they should never have been put up in the first place, and they should be removed. But behind the government's intention to remove them lurks a ghost. It is the ghost of the uprooting of the settlers in Gush Katif. The Gush Katif settlers were there for many years and their settlements were perfectly legal - no one will contest that. And yet they were forcibly removed from their homes by orders of the Israeli government.
The removal of the settlers from their homes in Gaza was part of a policy, or if you like an ideology, that cannot be called by any other name but Judenrein Palestine. In other words, certain parts of western Palestine, or using the generally accepted terminology in Israel, certain parts of the Land of Israel, need to be cleared of all Jews. This is the declared policy of the Olmert government, and it presumably is part of Tzipi Livni's negotiating position in her talks with her Palestinian counterparts.
Can you blame many Israelis, including many who do not countenance the erection of illegal outposts, for feeling less than enthusiastic about the removal of the outposts, when their removal is seen as no more than a prelude to the forcible removal of the settlements in Judea and Samaria that were established legally, just as were the settlements in Gush Katif?
The concept of removing all Jews from a certain region is surely repugnant to any person not prepared to deny somebody's rights on the grounds of his ethnic or religious origin. It brings back the worst memories of the tragedy that befell the Jewish people in World War II. When it is applied to a part of the Land of Israel it is also contrary to the very foundations of Zionism, a movement based on the right of Jews to settle and live in their land, a right that has received international recognition.
And yet, not only the Olmert government's ministers, but many Israeli citizens who insist they are confirmed Zionists, and of course those who claim no such affiliation, all of liberal views, subscribe to this concept. Presumably this is because they consider this view to be part and parcel of making peace with the Palestinians. What kind of a peace can this be when nobody Jewish will be allowed to live within the borders of Israel's neighboring state?
The settlement policy condoned by successive Israeli governments and promoted by the settlers' movement over the years created a patchwork of Jewish settlements dispersed throughout Judea and Samaria, and not concentrated in settlement blocs. As a matter of fact, Gush Katif and Gush Etzion were the only large settlement blocs beyond the Green Line, and the former exists no more. The architect of this settlement strategy was none other than Ariel Sharon, who for years urged the settlers to occupy each "hilltop."
And it was he who, as prime minister, so graciously received Talia Sasson in his office when she presented him her report proving that many of the outposts he had encouraged and authorized were illegal, something he must have been well aware of. Both of them must have been smiling to themselves at this meeting.
It is generally agreed that Israel should not incorporate all of Judea and Samaria, with its large Arab population, within its borders. But does it necessarily follow that all areas not incorporated within Israel's borders need to be cleared of all Jews? The Palestinian negotiators currently engaged in the phantom negotiations with Israel's foreign minister are in any case not capable of making and carrying out any commitments.
But when and if serious Palestinian negotiators appear, it will have to be made clear to them that the continued presence of Jews on territory over which they will have sovereignty in the future, and the assurance of their safety, must be part of a durable peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. An agreement that does not include such a provision will not be an agreement worthy of being called a peace agreement.
What makes the removal of the outposts in Judea and Samaria seem like a mission impossible for Israel's defense minister? Most will agree that they were put up illegally, and like all illegal structures in a country in which the rule of law is supposed to prevail, they should never have been put up in the first place, and they should be removed. But behind the government's intention to remove them lurks a ghost. It is the ghost of the uprooting of the settlers in Gush Katif. The Gush Katif settlers were there for many years and their settlements were perfectly legal - no one will contest that. And yet they were forcibly removed from their homes by orders of the Israeli government.
The removal of the settlers from their homes in Gaza was part of a policy, or if you like an ideology, that cannot be called by any other name but Judenrein Palestine. In other words, certain parts of western Palestine, or using the generally accepted terminology in Israel, certain parts of the Land of Israel, need to be cleared of all Jews. This is the declared policy of the Olmert government, and it presumably is part of Tzipi Livni's negotiating position in her talks with her Palestinian counterparts.
Can you blame many Israelis, including many who do not countenance the erection of illegal outposts, for feeling less than enthusiastic about the removal of the outposts, when their removal is seen as no more than a prelude to the forcible removal of the settlements in Judea and Samaria that were established legally, just as were the settlements in Gush Katif?
The concept of removing all Jews from a certain region is surely repugnant to any person not prepared to deny somebody's rights on the grounds of his ethnic or religious origin. It brings back the worst memories of the tragedy that befell the Jewish people in World War II. When it is applied to a part of the Land of Israel it is also contrary to the very foundations of Zionism, a movement based on the right of Jews to settle and live in their land, a right that has received international recognition.
And yet, not only the Olmert government's ministers, but many Israeli citizens who insist they are confirmed Zionists, and of course those who claim no such affiliation, all of liberal views, subscribe to this concept. Presumably this is because they consider this view to be part and parcel of making peace with the Palestinians. What kind of a peace can this be when nobody Jewish will be allowed to live within the borders of Israel's neighboring state?
The settlement policy condoned by successive Israeli governments and promoted by the settlers' movement over the years created a patchwork of Jewish settlements dispersed throughout Judea and Samaria, and not concentrated in settlement blocs. As a matter of fact, Gush Katif and Gush Etzion were the only large settlement blocs beyond the Green Line, and the former exists no more. The architect of this settlement strategy was none other than Ariel Sharon, who for years urged the settlers to occupy each "hilltop."
And it was he who, as prime minister, so graciously received Talia Sasson in his office when she presented him her report proving that many of the outposts he had encouraged and authorized were illegal, something he must have been well aware of. Both of them must have been smiling to themselves at this meeting.
It is generally agreed that Israel should not incorporate all of Judea and Samaria, with its large Arab population, within its borders. But does it necessarily follow that all areas not incorporated within Israel's borders need to be cleared of all Jews? The Palestinian negotiators currently engaged in the phantom negotiations with Israel's foreign minister are in any case not capable of making and carrying out any commitments.
But when and if serious Palestinian negotiators appear, it will have to be made clear to them that the continued presence of Jews on territory over which they will have sovereignty in the future, and the assurance of their safety, must be part of a durable peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. An agreement that does not include such a provision will not be an agreement worthy of being called a peace agreement.
Monday, March 03, 2008
We told you so
Disengagement warnings fully materialized; only solution is to return to Gaza
by Elyakim Haetzni
We told you that if you eliminate the Jewish settlements in Gaza, rockets will land in Ashkelon. We told you that the Philadelphi Route and Gush Katif are an essential obstacle between Sinai and the Strip, because only from there we can protect the Negev, yet you counted on the Egyptians and on European observers.
We told you that the Egyptians will not be serving an Israeli interest and that the Europeans will only take care of themselves, but you called us radical and fanatic.
Yet there we go, once the Jews were kicked out, the Egyptians cooperated in turning the Philadelphi Route into an arms highway for terrorists and the European observers simply ran away.
We told you there is no substitute for Jewish presence and that “moderate” Palestinians, “peace seeking” Arab states, and foreign forces will not prevent infiltrations from the Strip to the Sinai and from there to the Negev. We told you that the Jewish settlers living in Gush Katif were in fact protecting Eilat and Be’er Sheva, yet you laughed, uprooted, and expelled.
We told you that the few Qassams fired at Sderot and the mortar shells fired at Jewish settlements constitute a tolerable situation as long as the IDF fights the enemy from within the Gaza Strip’s settlement areas and the settlers handle their suffering with restraint because they went their voluntarily. Yet you presented a self-righteous question: Why don’t you have mercy on your children? Let’s see you answer that question with regards to the tens of thousands of children in Sderot, Ashkelon, and the entire western Negev.
We told you that the soldiers are not protecting the wall, but rather, the city which the wall protects. Yet you were still dissatisfied that the soldiers were “sent to guard the settlers.” Does the war in the south cost less? And those who wish to “save the cost” of soldiers sent to seemingly guard the Judea and Samaria communities, do they still fail to understand that these soldiers in fact guard central Israel?
Trapped in a minefield
We told you that there are no Arabs who would accept the “deal” offered by the Left: Take the 1967 lines but let us keep the 1948. It is for good reason that the Palestinians refer to Sderot as a “settlement” and refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Yet you chose to make peace with yourselves and hoped that the tiger will be satisfied with the settlement chunks you’ll throw its way.
We told you that only settlement activity deters the Arabs because these communities create new roots in the land where the Arabs wish to uproot Jewish existence from. We told you that settlement activity and security will always be intertwined, just like the way it was in the days before the State’s establishment.
Today, the government is helpless: Should we be “drawn” into Gaza again? Should we enter, sustain casualties, and leave? And who will come in our place? There is no other way here: A defeated enemy must lose territory, and in the wars with the Palestinians this means new settlements. Up until now, all the sages of the peace camp have not yet found a better means for deterrence, punishment, and prevention of war.
In Gaza, the “land for peace” doctrine led Israel to a minefield where any advancement means death and we can only be saved by walking back, in the older tracks. The Jews used to control 12% of the Strip’s territory. Today, more than ever, this territory is vital for our national security, and the IDF must occupy and hold on to them.
We hope that we will find the righteous people who despite the wounds of the past would be willing to return Jewish life to the Gaza region and get us out of the minefield.
by Elyakim Haetzni
We told you that if you eliminate the Jewish settlements in Gaza, rockets will land in Ashkelon. We told you that the Philadelphi Route and Gush Katif are an essential obstacle between Sinai and the Strip, because only from there we can protect the Negev, yet you counted on the Egyptians and on European observers.
We told you that the Egyptians will not be serving an Israeli interest and that the Europeans will only take care of themselves, but you called us radical and fanatic.
Yet there we go, once the Jews were kicked out, the Egyptians cooperated in turning the Philadelphi Route into an arms highway for terrorists and the European observers simply ran away.
We told you there is no substitute for Jewish presence and that “moderate” Palestinians, “peace seeking” Arab states, and foreign forces will not prevent infiltrations from the Strip to the Sinai and from there to the Negev. We told you that the Jewish settlers living in Gush Katif were in fact protecting Eilat and Be’er Sheva, yet you laughed, uprooted, and expelled.
We told you that the few Qassams fired at Sderot and the mortar shells fired at Jewish settlements constitute a tolerable situation as long as the IDF fights the enemy from within the Gaza Strip’s settlement areas and the settlers handle their suffering with restraint because they went their voluntarily. Yet you presented a self-righteous question: Why don’t you have mercy on your children? Let’s see you answer that question with regards to the tens of thousands of children in Sderot, Ashkelon, and the entire western Negev.
We told you that the soldiers are not protecting the wall, but rather, the city which the wall protects. Yet you were still dissatisfied that the soldiers were “sent to guard the settlers.” Does the war in the south cost less? And those who wish to “save the cost” of soldiers sent to seemingly guard the Judea and Samaria communities, do they still fail to understand that these soldiers in fact guard central Israel?
Trapped in a minefield
We told you that there are no Arabs who would accept the “deal” offered by the Left: Take the 1967 lines but let us keep the 1948. It is for good reason that the Palestinians refer to Sderot as a “settlement” and refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Yet you chose to make peace with yourselves and hoped that the tiger will be satisfied with the settlement chunks you’ll throw its way.
We told you that only settlement activity deters the Arabs because these communities create new roots in the land where the Arabs wish to uproot Jewish existence from. We told you that settlement activity and security will always be intertwined, just like the way it was in the days before the State’s establishment.
Today, the government is helpless: Should we be “drawn” into Gaza again? Should we enter, sustain casualties, and leave? And who will come in our place? There is no other way here: A defeated enemy must lose territory, and in the wars with the Palestinians this means new settlements. Up until now, all the sages of the peace camp have not yet found a better means for deterrence, punishment, and prevention of war.
In Gaza, the “land for peace” doctrine led Israel to a minefield where any advancement means death and we can only be saved by walking back, in the older tracks. The Jews used to control 12% of the Strip’s territory. Today, more than ever, this territory is vital for our national security, and the IDF must occupy and hold on to them.
We hope that we will find the righteous people who despite the wounds of the past would be willing to return Jewish life to the Gaza region and get us out of the minefield.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
There is no political solution!
Unless by solution you mean the end of a Jewish state. I guess we can call it the "Final Solution, Part II".
We are being fooled by all this "peace" BS - it's an attempt to hoodwink us, to pull the wool over our eyes, by repeating over & over that magic word, "Peace" - but it's proponants always fail to connect this magic state of affairs to reality. Our own leaders, Olmert at the top, have their own political self-interest as their highest priority, not the interests of the country. Our supposed ally, Mr. Bush & his stooge, Ms Rice, have their own political interests as their highest priority. Our security is obviously not their priority.
And what is the Arab priority? Who really believes it's peace? Let's not be naive. Their goal has not changed since the 1920's - what they seek is a reversal of history since 1948. The Arab states, the Palestinian leadership, & the leaders of the Israeli Arab minority share the same goal - a Middle-East without Israel as a Jewish state.
Islamic radicals like Hamas use terrorism while "moderates" use both terrorism & politics. Unfortunately, they have willing dupes within Israeli society. Against all evidence, these peace-loonies support every possible concession in the name of an unobtainable mirage.
Even Olmert & his stooges are afraid to reveal the concessions they have been forced to make - they rely on vague slogans, excuses about "disturbing" the negotiating process by revealing details, & constant "spin" about Abbas as a "partner for peace". When the details come out, slowly but surely, they will plead pressure from America - a pressure they did nothing to counter.
We are getting screwed & when Ms Rice talks about "painful sacrifices" what she means is that we are the sacrifice. We are being sacrificed to her own failure in the Middle-East.
We are being fooled by all this "peace" BS - it's an attempt to hoodwink us, to pull the wool over our eyes, by repeating over & over that magic word, "Peace" - but it's proponants always fail to connect this magic state of affairs to reality. Our own leaders, Olmert at the top, have their own political self-interest as their highest priority, not the interests of the country. Our supposed ally, Mr. Bush & his stooge, Ms Rice, have their own political interests as their highest priority. Our security is obviously not their priority.
And what is the Arab priority? Who really believes it's peace? Let's not be naive. Their goal has not changed since the 1920's - what they seek is a reversal of history since 1948. The Arab states, the Palestinian leadership, & the leaders of the Israeli Arab minority share the same goal - a Middle-East without Israel as a Jewish state.
Islamic radicals like Hamas use terrorism while "moderates" use both terrorism & politics. Unfortunately, they have willing dupes within Israeli society. Against all evidence, these peace-loonies support every possible concession in the name of an unobtainable mirage.
Even Olmert & his stooges are afraid to reveal the concessions they have been forced to make - they rely on vague slogans, excuses about "disturbing" the negotiating process by revealing details, & constant "spin" about Abbas as a "partner for peace". When the details come out, slowly but surely, they will plead pressure from America - a pressure they did nothing to counter.
We are getting screwed & when Ms Rice talks about "painful sacrifices" what she means is that we are the sacrifice. We are being sacrificed to her own failure in the Middle-East.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
The Gaza Yo-Yo
by Moshe Feiglin
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -- Albert Einstein
Defense Minister Ehud Barak has made it clear: a major military incursion into Gaza is just around the corner.
Strangely enough, I find myself strongly opposed to entering Gaza. The world is upside down. It used to be that the Left would oppose military action while the Right would demand it. But not any more. The Left needs military action to fuel its peace processes. "Victory will create momentum for the Convergence," remember? The Right, on the other hand, is beginning to free itself of the automatic reflex that always demands to "let them have it." It is beginning to understand that military action will not necessarily defend Israel. Sometimes, it can serve the opposite purpose; government hegemony, for example.
Not long ago, a massive brainwashing campaign took place in Israel. The nation was dragged into an operation known by the Orwellian code name "Disengagement." In reality, it was the destruction of an entire settlement region, the razing of hundreds of homes and the scattering of their residents in every direction. It cost 27 billion dollars (10 years of US aid), brought terrible suffering upon ten thousand people, tore the nation apart, eliminated the final remnants of Israel's democratic culture and encouraged the enemy to attack.
We paid the price of all the above to achieve one thing: disengagement, so that "our soldiers will not have to endanger themselves in the alleys of Gaza." The truth, though, was eventually told by television personality Yair Lapid. The real reason for the Disengagement was simply to defeat the Left's political opponent.
"We had to teach the settlers a lesson," he explained.
Disengaging from Gaza was simply the excuse. So now, after we have paid the terrible price, the Defense Minister proclaims that our sons will return to Gaza. For what? To retreat once again? How can we play this cruel yo-yo game with the lives of our soldiers?
It is important to understand that when Barak announces that a military incursion into Gaza is near, he is admitting in no uncertain terms that all the concepts touted to justify the Disengagement have failed. There is no other way to understand it. If you send troops to fight once again according to precisely the same failed concept, you are simply playing with human life. After all, it is clear that even after the most successful military action, a new set of left-wing journalists and protesters will see to it that the IDF retreats from Gaza in no time. And then the Kassams will explode here once again.
Those who do not recognize their mistakes should not play with the lives of our sons. It is time to admit that the concept of land for peace and security has failed. Since this concept was adopted and applied in the Oslo Accords, we have a lot less peace and a lot less security. Many more Israeli citizens were killed in terror attacks since 1995 than in all the years of Israel's existence until the Accords were signed.
In truth, I would oppose the Oslo agreements even if they did bring peace and security. But the point being discussed in this article is whether or not the policies that engendered these agreements have achieved the goals that their proponents set for themselves. Clearly, the answer is negative. The Oslo concept, the Disengagement concept, and the concept of land for peace have completely failed.
Going into Gaza for yet another round endangers our soldiers' lives for no reason. We must understand that true security will come as a result of Jewish settlement and Arab emigration. If we return to Gaza, we must do so with the intent purpose of declaring Israeli sovereignty there, encouraging the Arabs to emigrate from there (they want to leave anyway), and rebuilding the destroyed communities of Gush Katif and the entire Land of Israel.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -- Albert Einstein
Defense Minister Ehud Barak has made it clear: a major military incursion into Gaza is just around the corner.
Strangely enough, I find myself strongly opposed to entering Gaza. The world is upside down. It used to be that the Left would oppose military action while the Right would demand it. But not any more. The Left needs military action to fuel its peace processes. "Victory will create momentum for the Convergence," remember? The Right, on the other hand, is beginning to free itself of the automatic reflex that always demands to "let them have it." It is beginning to understand that military action will not necessarily defend Israel. Sometimes, it can serve the opposite purpose; government hegemony, for example.
Not long ago, a massive brainwashing campaign took place in Israel. The nation was dragged into an operation known by the Orwellian code name "Disengagement." In reality, it was the destruction of an entire settlement region, the razing of hundreds of homes and the scattering of their residents in every direction. It cost 27 billion dollars (10 years of US aid), brought terrible suffering upon ten thousand people, tore the nation apart, eliminated the final remnants of Israel's democratic culture and encouraged the enemy to attack.
We paid the price of all the above to achieve one thing: disengagement, so that "our soldiers will not have to endanger themselves in the alleys of Gaza." The truth, though, was eventually told by television personality Yair Lapid. The real reason for the Disengagement was simply to defeat the Left's political opponent.
"We had to teach the settlers a lesson," he explained.
Disengaging from Gaza was simply the excuse. So now, after we have paid the terrible price, the Defense Minister proclaims that our sons will return to Gaza. For what? To retreat once again? How can we play this cruel yo-yo game with the lives of our soldiers?
It is important to understand that when Barak announces that a military incursion into Gaza is near, he is admitting in no uncertain terms that all the concepts touted to justify the Disengagement have failed. There is no other way to understand it. If you send troops to fight once again according to precisely the same failed concept, you are simply playing with human life. After all, it is clear that even after the most successful military action, a new set of left-wing journalists and protesters will see to it that the IDF retreats from Gaza in no time. And then the Kassams will explode here once again.
Those who do not recognize their mistakes should not play with the lives of our sons. It is time to admit that the concept of land for peace and security has failed. Since this concept was adopted and applied in the Oslo Accords, we have a lot less peace and a lot less security. Many more Israeli citizens were killed in terror attacks since 1995 than in all the years of Israel's existence until the Accords were signed.
In truth, I would oppose the Oslo agreements even if they did bring peace and security. But the point being discussed in this article is whether or not the policies that engendered these agreements have achieved the goals that their proponents set for themselves. Clearly, the answer is negative. The Oslo concept, the Disengagement concept, and the concept of land for peace have completely failed.
Going into Gaza for yet another round endangers our soldiers' lives for no reason. We must understand that true security will come as a result of Jewish settlement and Arab emigration. If we return to Gaza, we must do so with the intent purpose of declaring Israeli sovereignty there, encouraging the Arabs to emigrate from there (they want to leave anyway), and rebuilding the destroyed communities of Gush Katif and the entire Land of Israel.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Stumbling towards catastrophe!
By Michael Freund
Is anyone out there awake? I'm beginning to suspect that the recent end-of-summer heat wave has lulled many of us into a peaceful snooze, so much so that we have become virtually oblivious to some rather important and far-reaching developments.
By any standards, the headlines of the past few weeks should have sparked a furious public outcry, accompanied by stormy demonstrations, irate parliamentary debates and massive protests and letter-writing campaigns.
But there has been none of that, nary a peep, as the prime minister of the State of Israel secretly negotiates away much of the country and its strategic assets.
What has happened to our sense of outrage? In the wake of his meeting with Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas last week, reports surfaced that Ehud Olmert had discussed wide-ranging concessions such as dividing Jerusalem, uprooting dozens of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria and forgoing Israeli sovereignty on the Temple Mount.
The media even published what was said to be a copy of a two-page document outlining Olmert's willingness to cross the few remaining "red lines" Israel still has in what is clearly a transparent attempt to salvage his increasingly shaky political career.
With corruption investigations swirling around him and the final Winograd report on last summer's Lebanon war due out relatively soon, Olmert seems to have concluded that the only way to rescue himself from political oblivion is at the country's expense.
THINK ABOUT this for a second. We have a prime minister about as popular as acute inflammatory acne going behind the nation's back, making fateful decisions that will endanger the future of the state and agreeing to establish a Palestinian terrorist entity alongside our country's shrunken borders. And he's doing this not because it is in the nation's interest, but for his own narrow political gain.
And yet, it has been greeted by little more than a yawn. Instead, we sit back quietly, go on with our lives and do nothing as our government accelerates its head-long rush toward disaster.
Even the ongoing Palestinian rocket attacks against Israeli towns and villages seem to evoke barely more than passing public interest. On Monday, Islamic Jihad fired over half a dozen Kassams into southern Israel, mockingly describing them as "a gift for the opening of the school year." One of those "gifts" slammed into the courtyard of a day care center for toddlers in Sderot, nearly causing a disaster.
This kind of incident should have shocked us to the very core of our being, but the fact is Palestinian rocket attacks have become so common, thanks to the government's lack of response, that they hardly register on our collective conscience any more.
AND WHILE we are on the subject of remaining silent, how about the hush that has come over us as we watch the Muslim Wakf rip apart the Temple Mount and bulldoze our nation's priceless religious and cultural heritage? Israel may be sovereign on the Mount, but it is clear from our television screens who runs the show. In defiance of the law, the Wakf has been openly and brazenly digging a trench three foot deep from north to south along the Mount, in the process destroying precious artifacts that may date back to the First Temple period.
Our holiest site is being vandalized in broad daylight, while our government and police look on, refusing to step in and halt the destruction.
Were an Israeli newspaper to publish a cartoon deemed offensive to Islam, it would invariably elicit a greater outcry than that which has greeted the wanton physical devastation being carried out by Muslims on the Temple Mount.
It is as if the people of Israel have gone off to a slumber party, tucking themselves snugly into sleeping bags and wiling away the hours as though we have not a care in the world.
But the truth is that everything this nation holds dear is coming under attack. Our freedom, our future, our land and our legacy are all being pummeled and no one seems ready to stand up and do anything about it.
IF YOU aren't walking around outraged, then you must not be paying attention. So put down the sports pages, put aside those DVDs and start following the news. We must take to the streets and rouse ourselves from this slumber. Our apathy and indifference are what enable this failed government to continue to stumble toward catastrophe.
Today it is Sderot under fire. But don't be surprised when Kfar Saba, Netanya and even Tel Aviv come under attack.
The alarm clock is ringing, if only we will hear. Now, more than ever, is the time to get up and put the nightmare of terror, weakness and retreat behind us, once and for all.
Is anyone out there awake? I'm beginning to suspect that the recent end-of-summer heat wave has lulled many of us into a peaceful snooze, so much so that we have become virtually oblivious to some rather important and far-reaching developments.
By any standards, the headlines of the past few weeks should have sparked a furious public outcry, accompanied by stormy demonstrations, irate parliamentary debates and massive protests and letter-writing campaigns.
But there has been none of that, nary a peep, as the prime minister of the State of Israel secretly negotiates away much of the country and its strategic assets.
What has happened to our sense of outrage? In the wake of his meeting with Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas last week, reports surfaced that Ehud Olmert had discussed wide-ranging concessions such as dividing Jerusalem, uprooting dozens of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria and forgoing Israeli sovereignty on the Temple Mount.
The media even published what was said to be a copy of a two-page document outlining Olmert's willingness to cross the few remaining "red lines" Israel still has in what is clearly a transparent attempt to salvage his increasingly shaky political career.
With corruption investigations swirling around him and the final Winograd report on last summer's Lebanon war due out relatively soon, Olmert seems to have concluded that the only way to rescue himself from political oblivion is at the country's expense.
THINK ABOUT this for a second. We have a prime minister about as popular as acute inflammatory acne going behind the nation's back, making fateful decisions that will endanger the future of the state and agreeing to establish a Palestinian terrorist entity alongside our country's shrunken borders. And he's doing this not because it is in the nation's interest, but for his own narrow political gain.
And yet, it has been greeted by little more than a yawn. Instead, we sit back quietly, go on with our lives and do nothing as our government accelerates its head-long rush toward disaster.
Even the ongoing Palestinian rocket attacks against Israeli towns and villages seem to evoke barely more than passing public interest. On Monday, Islamic Jihad fired over half a dozen Kassams into southern Israel, mockingly describing them as "a gift for the opening of the school year." One of those "gifts" slammed into the courtyard of a day care center for toddlers in Sderot, nearly causing a disaster.
This kind of incident should have shocked us to the very core of our being, but the fact is Palestinian rocket attacks have become so common, thanks to the government's lack of response, that they hardly register on our collective conscience any more.
AND WHILE we are on the subject of remaining silent, how about the hush that has come over us as we watch the Muslim Wakf rip apart the Temple Mount and bulldoze our nation's priceless religious and cultural heritage? Israel may be sovereign on the Mount, but it is clear from our television screens who runs the show. In defiance of the law, the Wakf has been openly and brazenly digging a trench three foot deep from north to south along the Mount, in the process destroying precious artifacts that may date back to the First Temple period.
Our holiest site is being vandalized in broad daylight, while our government and police look on, refusing to step in and halt the destruction.
Were an Israeli newspaper to publish a cartoon deemed offensive to Islam, it would invariably elicit a greater outcry than that which has greeted the wanton physical devastation being carried out by Muslims on the Temple Mount.
It is as if the people of Israel have gone off to a slumber party, tucking themselves snugly into sleeping bags and wiling away the hours as though we have not a care in the world.
But the truth is that everything this nation holds dear is coming under attack. Our freedom, our future, our land and our legacy are all being pummeled and no one seems ready to stand up and do anything about it.
IF YOU aren't walking around outraged, then you must not be paying attention. So put down the sports pages, put aside those DVDs and start following the news. We must take to the streets and rouse ourselves from this slumber. Our apathy and indifference are what enable this failed government to continue to stumble toward catastrophe.
Today it is Sderot under fire. But don't be surprised when Kfar Saba, Netanya and even Tel Aviv come under attack.
The alarm clock is ringing, if only we will hear. Now, more than ever, is the time to get up and put the nightmare of terror, weakness and retreat behind us, once and for all.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Ki Tavo (When you will come)
Deuteronomy 26-29:8
This week's portion opens with the ceremony of first fruits that is performed in the Temple, once the Children of Israel enter the Land of Israel. "And when you will come to the land that the Lord your G-d has given you as a territory and you will inherit it and settle in it. And you will take from the first of the fruits of the earth which you will bring from your land which the Lord your G-d has given you..." (Deuteronomy 26:1-2). There are a number of words in these first verses that provide the focus for the entire section. The fact that the land has been given to Israel by G-d is mentioned twice in these two sentences, clearly as a means of emphasis in this chapter. Also, the word that I have translated as territory in the first verse, is actually the Hebrew word "Nahala", which includes the concept of inheritance. In other words, Nahala is not merely a piece of land, but one that has been designated as the rightful possession, in essence an inheritance from G-d, of the Jewish people. Following this introduction, the instruction is given to bring the first fruits to the Temple and recite a specific statement which begins with the acknowledgement of Jewish history, the enslavement of the people in Egypt, the exodus brought about by G-d, and the entrance into the Land of Israel, made possible by G-d who has granted the people this "land flowing with milk and honey." (Deut 26:9)
This, then, is a thanksgiving ceremony in the fullest sense of the word. It is not only a ceremony which thanks G-d for the harvest and for the richness of the fruits. It is also, and perhaps primarily, a thanksgiving for the entire process of Jewish history, for the fulfillment of the process that began with the Exodus and culminates with the bringing of the first fruits in the Land of Israel. It emphasizes the fact that the Exodus was not completed with the Revelation at Sinai, which was certainly a monumental event, when the Children of Israel became a people and when they cemented their relationship with G-d in an everlasting covenant. For it is only when they enter the land of Israel, take possession of it and farm it, that the process is truly completed, that the nation is truly free, to worship G-d and settle in their own land. (It is worth comparing this process to the antecedents of the Thanksgiving holiday in the US - a holiday that has always symbolized not only a successful harvest but a sense of entitlement to the land that became the USA.)
These verses speak powerfully to me today in many ways. Even as some Jews question the extent to which Judaism is a nationality or a religion, this verse makes it clear that one cannot be divided from the other. For our relationship with G-d is inherently connected to our relationship to Him as a people, and our worship in the Temple, which functions as the epicenter of the relationship with G-d, is inherently connected to our presence in the Land of Israel and the blessings that G-d will bestow upon us when we settle and farm that land. There is no Jewish religion without Jewish nationalism and there is no Jewish nationalism without the Jewish religion. And when nationalism and religion come together in the Land of Israel, we have a great deal to be thankful for. (A special thank you to my son David, currently serving in the Israeli Army, who, while on leave for Shabbat, shared a beautiful Biblical thought with me that became the basis of this message.)
Greetings from Samaria
Sondra Baras
Director, Israel Office
This week's portion opens with the ceremony of first fruits that is performed in the Temple, once the Children of Israel enter the Land of Israel. "And when you will come to the land that the Lord your G-d has given you as a territory and you will inherit it and settle in it. And you will take from the first of the fruits of the earth which you will bring from your land which the Lord your G-d has given you..." (Deuteronomy 26:1-2). There are a number of words in these first verses that provide the focus for the entire section. The fact that the land has been given to Israel by G-d is mentioned twice in these two sentences, clearly as a means of emphasis in this chapter. Also, the word that I have translated as territory in the first verse, is actually the Hebrew word "Nahala", which includes the concept of inheritance. In other words, Nahala is not merely a piece of land, but one that has been designated as the rightful possession, in essence an inheritance from G-d, of the Jewish people. Following this introduction, the instruction is given to bring the first fruits to the Temple and recite a specific statement which begins with the acknowledgement of Jewish history, the enslavement of the people in Egypt, the exodus brought about by G-d, and the entrance into the Land of Israel, made possible by G-d who has granted the people this "land flowing with milk and honey." (Deut 26:9)
This, then, is a thanksgiving ceremony in the fullest sense of the word. It is not only a ceremony which thanks G-d for the harvest and for the richness of the fruits. It is also, and perhaps primarily, a thanksgiving for the entire process of Jewish history, for the fulfillment of the process that began with the Exodus and culminates with the bringing of the first fruits in the Land of Israel. It emphasizes the fact that the Exodus was not completed with the Revelation at Sinai, which was certainly a monumental event, when the Children of Israel became a people and when they cemented their relationship with G-d in an everlasting covenant. For it is only when they enter the land of Israel, take possession of it and farm it, that the process is truly completed, that the nation is truly free, to worship G-d and settle in their own land. (It is worth comparing this process to the antecedents of the Thanksgiving holiday in the US - a holiday that has always symbolized not only a successful harvest but a sense of entitlement to the land that became the USA.)
These verses speak powerfully to me today in many ways. Even as some Jews question the extent to which Judaism is a nationality or a religion, this verse makes it clear that one cannot be divided from the other. For our relationship with G-d is inherently connected to our relationship to Him as a people, and our worship in the Temple, which functions as the epicenter of the relationship with G-d, is inherently connected to our presence in the Land of Israel and the blessings that G-d will bestow upon us when we settle and farm that land. There is no Jewish religion without Jewish nationalism and there is no Jewish nationalism without the Jewish religion. And when nationalism and religion come together in the Land of Israel, we have a great deal to be thankful for. (A special thank you to my son David, currently serving in the Israeli Army, who, while on leave for Shabbat, shared a beautiful Biblical thought with me that became the basis of this message.)
Greetings from Samaria
Sondra Baras
Director, Israel Office
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Our World: Grounded in fantasy
Iran and its client state Syria have a strategic vision for the Middle East. They wish to take over Lebanon. They wish to destroy Israel. They wish to defeat the US in Iraq. They wish to drive the US and NATO from Afghanistan. They wish to dominate the region by driving the rest of the Arab world to its jihad-supporting knees. Then they wish to apply their vision to the rest of the world.
Today, Syria and Iran are ardently advancing their strategic vision for the world through a deliberate strategy of victory by a thousand cuts. Last week's Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip; Sunday's reopening of the Lebanese front against Israel with the Syrian-ordered rocket attacks on Kiryat Shemona; the now five-week old Syrian ordered low-intensity warfare against Lebanon's pro-Western Siniora government; last week's attack on the al-Askariya mosque in Samarra; the recent intensification of terrorism in Afghanistan and Iran's move to further destabilize the country by violently deporting 100,000 Afghan refugees back to the war-torn country - all of these are moves to advance this clear Iranian-Syrian strategy.
And all these moves have taken place against the backdrop of Syria's refashioning of its military in the image of Hizbullah on steroids and Iran's relentless, unopposed progress in its nuclear weapons program.
For their part, both the US and Israel also have a strategic vision. Unfortunately, it is grounded in fantasy.
WASHINGTON and Jerusalem wish to solve all the problems of the region and the world by establishing a Palestinian state in Gaza, Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. While Israel now faces Iranian proxies on two fronts, in their meeting at the White House today US President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will gush about their support for Palestinian statehood. Creepily echoing LSD king Timothy Leary, they will tune out this reality as they drone on about the opportunities that Gaza's transformation into a base for global jihad afford to the notion that promoting the Fatah terrorist organization's control over Judea and Samaria can make the world a better, safer, happier place.
Today Bush and Olmert will announce their full support for Fatah chief and Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas's new government. The US will intensify General Keith Dayton's training and arming of Fatah forces. Israel will give Fatah $700 million. The Europeans and the rest of the international community will give the "moderate, secular" terror group still more money and guns and love. The US will likely also demand that Olmert order the IDF to give Fatah terrorists free reign in Judea and Samaria.
Olmert and Bush claim that by backing Abbas militarily, financially and politically they will be setting up an "alternative Palestine" which will rival Hamas's jihadist Palestine. As this notion has it, envious of the good fortune of their brethren in Judea and Samaria, Gazans will overthrow Hamas and the course will be set for peace - replete with the ethnic cleansing of Judea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem of all Jewish presence.
FATAH FORCES barely raised a finger to prevent their defeat in Gaza in spite of the massive quantities of US arms they received and the military training they underwent at the hands of US General Keith Dayton. Bush, Olmert and all proponents of the notion of strengthening Fatah in Judea and Samaria refuse to answer one simple question: Why would a handover of Judea and Samaria to Abbas's Fatah produce a better outcome than Israel's 2005 handover of Gaza to Abbas's Fatah?
They refuse to answer this question because they know full well that the answer is that there is absolutely no reason to believe that the outcome can be better. They know full well that since replacing Yasser Arafat as head of the PA in 2004, Abbas refused to take any effective action against Hamas. They know that he refused to take action to prevent Hamas's rise to power in Gaza and Judea and Samaria. They know that the guns the US transferred to Fatah in Gaza were surrendered to Hamas without a fight last week. They know that the billions of dollars of international and Israeli assistance to Fatah over the past 14 years never were used to advance the cause of peace.
They know that that money was diverted into the pockets of Fatah strongmen and utilized to build terror militias in which Hamas members were invited to serve. They know that Fatah built a terror superstructure in Judea, Samaria and Gaza which enabled operational cooperation between Fatah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad terror cells.
SO WHY embrace the fantasy that things can be different now, in Judea and Samaria? Rather than provide rational arguments to defend their view that Hamas's takeover of Gaza is an opportunity for peace, proponents of peace fantasies as strategic wisdom explain vacuously that peace is the best alternative to jihad. They whine that those who point out that Israel now borders Iran in Lebanon and Gaza have nothing positive to say.
To meet the growing threat in Gaza, they argue that Europeans, or maybe Egyptians and Jordanians can be deployed at the international border with Egypt to stem the weapons and terror personnel flow into Gaza. To meet the growing threat in Lebanon, Olmert pleads for more UN troops.
Both views ignore the obvious: Gaza has been transformed into an Iranian-sponsored base for global jihad because Egypt has allowed it to be so transformed. Assisted by its Syrian-sponsored Palestinian allies, Hizbullah has rebuilt its arsenals and reasserted its control in southern Lebanon because UN forces in southern Lebanon have done nothing to prevent it from doing so.
No country on earth will volunteer to fight Hamas and its jihadist allies in Gaza. No government on earth will voluntarily deploy its forces to counter Hizbullah and Iran in south Lebanon. This is why - until they fled - European monitors at the Rafah terminal were a joke. This is why Spanish troops in UNIFIL devote their time in Lebanon to teaching villagers Spanish.
SO WHY are Bush and Olmert set to embrace Fatah and Abbas today? Why are they abjectly refusing to come to terms with the strategic reality of the Iranian-Syrian onslaught? Why are they insisting that the establishment of a Palestinian state is their strategic goal and doing everything they can to pretend that their goal has not been repeatedly proven absurd?
Well, why should they? As far as Bush is concerned, no American politician has ever paid a price for advancing the cause of peace processes that strengthen terrorists and hostile Arab states at Israel's expense. Bush's predecessor Bill Clinton had Arafat over to visit the White House more often than any other foreign leader and ignored global jihad even when its forces bombed US embassies and warships. And today Clinton receives plaudits for his efforts to bring peace to the Middle East.
By denying that the war against Israel is related to the war in Iraq; by ignoring the strategic links between all the Iranian and Syrian sponsored theaters of war, Bush views gambling with Israel's security as a win-win situation. He will be applauded as a champion of peace and if the chips go down on Israel, well, it won't be Americans being bombed.
OLMERT LOOKS to his left and sees president-elect Shimon Peres. Peres, the architect of the Oslo process which placed Israel's national security in the hands of the PLO, has been rewarded for his role in imperiling his country by his similarly morally challenged political colleagues who just bestowed him with Israel's highest office.
Olmert looks to his left and his sees incoming defense minister Ehud Barak. In 2000, then prime minister Barak withdrew Israeli forces from Lebanon, and enabled Iran's assertion of control over southern Lebanon through its Hizbullah proxy. In so doing, Barak set the conditions for last summer's war, and quite likely, for this summer's war.
By offering Arafat Gaza, 95 percent of Judea and Samaria and half of Jerusalem at Camp David, Barak showed such enormous weakness that he all but invited the Palestinian terror war which Arafat began planning the day he rejected Barak's offer.
For his failure, Barak has been rewarded by his Labor Party, which elected him its new chairman on the basis of his vast "experience," and by the media which has embraced him as a "professional" defense minister.
Olmert looks to his right and he sees how the media portrays Likud Chairman Binyamin Netanyahu and former IDF Chief of General Staff Moshe Ya'alon as alarmists for claiming that Israel cannot abide by an Iranian-proxy Hamas state on its border. He sees that Shas and Yisrael Beiteinu supported Peres's candidacy as president and have joined their fortunes to Olmert's in a bid to block elections which will bring the Right to power.
ISRAEL HAS arguably never faced a more dangerous strategic environment than it faces today. Yet it is not without good options. It can retake control over the Gaza-Sinai border. It can renew its previously successful tactic of killing Hamas terrorists. It can continue its successful campaign of keeping terrorists down in Judea and Samaria, and it can continue preparing for war in the north. All of these options can be sold to the Left.
But today both Bush and Olmert will reject these options in favor of mindless peace process prattle. They will reject reality as they uphold Abbas as a credible leader and shower him with praise, money and arms. Their political fortunes will be utmost in their minds as they do this. And they will be guaranteeing war that will claim the lives of an unknown number of Israeli civilians and soldiers.
Bush and Olmert should know that when the time for reckoning comes they will not be able to claim, along with Peres and Barak that their hands did not shed this blood. Reality has warned them of their folly. But in their low, dishonest opportunism, they have chosen to ignore reality and amuse themselves with fantasies and photo-ops.
Today, Syria and Iran are ardently advancing their strategic vision for the world through a deliberate strategy of victory by a thousand cuts. Last week's Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip; Sunday's reopening of the Lebanese front against Israel with the Syrian-ordered rocket attacks on Kiryat Shemona; the now five-week old Syrian ordered low-intensity warfare against Lebanon's pro-Western Siniora government; last week's attack on the al-Askariya mosque in Samarra; the recent intensification of terrorism in Afghanistan and Iran's move to further destabilize the country by violently deporting 100,000 Afghan refugees back to the war-torn country - all of these are moves to advance this clear Iranian-Syrian strategy.
And all these moves have taken place against the backdrop of Syria's refashioning of its military in the image of Hizbullah on steroids and Iran's relentless, unopposed progress in its nuclear weapons program.
For their part, both the US and Israel also have a strategic vision. Unfortunately, it is grounded in fantasy.
WASHINGTON and Jerusalem wish to solve all the problems of the region and the world by establishing a Palestinian state in Gaza, Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. While Israel now faces Iranian proxies on two fronts, in their meeting at the White House today US President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will gush about their support for Palestinian statehood. Creepily echoing LSD king Timothy Leary, they will tune out this reality as they drone on about the opportunities that Gaza's transformation into a base for global jihad afford to the notion that promoting the Fatah terrorist organization's control over Judea and Samaria can make the world a better, safer, happier place.
Today Bush and Olmert will announce their full support for Fatah chief and Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas's new government. The US will intensify General Keith Dayton's training and arming of Fatah forces. Israel will give Fatah $700 million. The Europeans and the rest of the international community will give the "moderate, secular" terror group still more money and guns and love. The US will likely also demand that Olmert order the IDF to give Fatah terrorists free reign in Judea and Samaria.
Olmert and Bush claim that by backing Abbas militarily, financially and politically they will be setting up an "alternative Palestine" which will rival Hamas's jihadist Palestine. As this notion has it, envious of the good fortune of their brethren in Judea and Samaria, Gazans will overthrow Hamas and the course will be set for peace - replete with the ethnic cleansing of Judea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem of all Jewish presence.
FATAH FORCES barely raised a finger to prevent their defeat in Gaza in spite of the massive quantities of US arms they received and the military training they underwent at the hands of US General Keith Dayton. Bush, Olmert and all proponents of the notion of strengthening Fatah in Judea and Samaria refuse to answer one simple question: Why would a handover of Judea and Samaria to Abbas's Fatah produce a better outcome than Israel's 2005 handover of Gaza to Abbas's Fatah?
They refuse to answer this question because they know full well that the answer is that there is absolutely no reason to believe that the outcome can be better. They know full well that since replacing Yasser Arafat as head of the PA in 2004, Abbas refused to take any effective action against Hamas. They know that he refused to take action to prevent Hamas's rise to power in Gaza and Judea and Samaria. They know that the guns the US transferred to Fatah in Gaza were surrendered to Hamas without a fight last week. They know that the billions of dollars of international and Israeli assistance to Fatah over the past 14 years never were used to advance the cause of peace.
They know that that money was diverted into the pockets of Fatah strongmen and utilized to build terror militias in which Hamas members were invited to serve. They know that Fatah built a terror superstructure in Judea, Samaria and Gaza which enabled operational cooperation between Fatah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad terror cells.
SO WHY embrace the fantasy that things can be different now, in Judea and Samaria? Rather than provide rational arguments to defend their view that Hamas's takeover of Gaza is an opportunity for peace, proponents of peace fantasies as strategic wisdom explain vacuously that peace is the best alternative to jihad. They whine that those who point out that Israel now borders Iran in Lebanon and Gaza have nothing positive to say.
To meet the growing threat in Gaza, they argue that Europeans, or maybe Egyptians and Jordanians can be deployed at the international border with Egypt to stem the weapons and terror personnel flow into Gaza. To meet the growing threat in Lebanon, Olmert pleads for more UN troops.
Both views ignore the obvious: Gaza has been transformed into an Iranian-sponsored base for global jihad because Egypt has allowed it to be so transformed. Assisted by its Syrian-sponsored Palestinian allies, Hizbullah has rebuilt its arsenals and reasserted its control in southern Lebanon because UN forces in southern Lebanon have done nothing to prevent it from doing so.
No country on earth will volunteer to fight Hamas and its jihadist allies in Gaza. No government on earth will voluntarily deploy its forces to counter Hizbullah and Iran in south Lebanon. This is why - until they fled - European monitors at the Rafah terminal were a joke. This is why Spanish troops in UNIFIL devote their time in Lebanon to teaching villagers Spanish.
SO WHY are Bush and Olmert set to embrace Fatah and Abbas today? Why are they abjectly refusing to come to terms with the strategic reality of the Iranian-Syrian onslaught? Why are they insisting that the establishment of a Palestinian state is their strategic goal and doing everything they can to pretend that their goal has not been repeatedly proven absurd?
Well, why should they? As far as Bush is concerned, no American politician has ever paid a price for advancing the cause of peace processes that strengthen terrorists and hostile Arab states at Israel's expense. Bush's predecessor Bill Clinton had Arafat over to visit the White House more often than any other foreign leader and ignored global jihad even when its forces bombed US embassies and warships. And today Clinton receives plaudits for his efforts to bring peace to the Middle East.
By denying that the war against Israel is related to the war in Iraq; by ignoring the strategic links between all the Iranian and Syrian sponsored theaters of war, Bush views gambling with Israel's security as a win-win situation. He will be applauded as a champion of peace and if the chips go down on Israel, well, it won't be Americans being bombed.
OLMERT LOOKS to his left and sees president-elect Shimon Peres. Peres, the architect of the Oslo process which placed Israel's national security in the hands of the PLO, has been rewarded for his role in imperiling his country by his similarly morally challenged political colleagues who just bestowed him with Israel's highest office.
Olmert looks to his left and his sees incoming defense minister Ehud Barak. In 2000, then prime minister Barak withdrew Israeli forces from Lebanon, and enabled Iran's assertion of control over southern Lebanon through its Hizbullah proxy. In so doing, Barak set the conditions for last summer's war, and quite likely, for this summer's war.
By offering Arafat Gaza, 95 percent of Judea and Samaria and half of Jerusalem at Camp David, Barak showed such enormous weakness that he all but invited the Palestinian terror war which Arafat began planning the day he rejected Barak's offer.
For his failure, Barak has been rewarded by his Labor Party, which elected him its new chairman on the basis of his vast "experience," and by the media which has embraced him as a "professional" defense minister.
Olmert looks to his right and he sees how the media portrays Likud Chairman Binyamin Netanyahu and former IDF Chief of General Staff Moshe Ya'alon as alarmists for claiming that Israel cannot abide by an Iranian-proxy Hamas state on its border. He sees that Shas and Yisrael Beiteinu supported Peres's candidacy as president and have joined their fortunes to Olmert's in a bid to block elections which will bring the Right to power.
ISRAEL HAS arguably never faced a more dangerous strategic environment than it faces today. Yet it is not without good options. It can retake control over the Gaza-Sinai border. It can renew its previously successful tactic of killing Hamas terrorists. It can continue its successful campaign of keeping terrorists down in Judea and Samaria, and it can continue preparing for war in the north. All of these options can be sold to the Left.
But today both Bush and Olmert will reject these options in favor of mindless peace process prattle. They will reject reality as they uphold Abbas as a credible leader and shower him with praise, money and arms. Their political fortunes will be utmost in their minds as they do this. And they will be guaranteeing war that will claim the lives of an unknown number of Israeli civilians and soldiers.
Bush and Olmert should know that when the time for reckoning comes they will not be able to claim, along with Peres and Barak that their hands did not shed this blood. Reality has warned them of their folly. But in their low, dishonest opportunism, they have chosen to ignore reality and amuse themselves with fantasies and photo-ops.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Mishpatim: "Increase and Fully Occupy the Land"
by Rabbi Dov Begon
A gradual fulfillment of destiny.
In this week's parasha, G-d promises Israel that they will conquer the Land, but that the process of conquest will be gradual:
I will not drive them out in a single year, however, lest the land become depopulated, and the wild animals become too many for you to contend with. I will drive the inhabitants out little by little, giving you a chance to increase and fully occupy the land. I will set your borders from the Red Sea to the Philistine Sea, from the desert to the river. I will give the land's inhabitants into your hand, and you will drive them before you." (Exodus 23:29-31)Indeed, Joshua Bin-Nun conquered the Land, but not all of it. He left foreign peoples in it, who caused the Jewish People countless problems during the period of the Judges. This went on until the time of King David, who conquered the entire land from the foreigners living in it. Only in the time of his son Solomon were we privileged to rest from our wars, each person sitting under his grave arbor or fig tree.
Today, our own generation is similar and parallel to that of Joshua Bin-Nun, who came up out of the desert to conquer the Land. Our generation, as well, emerged out of the desert of nations after 2,000 years of exile to conquer and settle Eretz Yisrael. And just as in Joshua's generation they did not drive out all the residents of the Land, such that "I will drive out the inhabitants little by little" was fulfilled, so, too, in our own generation a foreign people still remains in the land of our life's blood.
Just as in the days of the judges, the foreign nations made great trouble for Israel, today, as well, the Arabs are causing us great problems, threatening the State of Israel's existence. And just as in the days of the judges, leaders arose who fought Israel's wars and infused the people with a spirit of valor, such as Gideon, Yiftach, Shimshon and others, in our own day, as well, we need leaders who can strengthen the nation's spirit, and fight with might and fortitude against our enemies with their evil designs.
Just as G-d makes our conquering the Land conditional on our first increasing in number, so, too, in our own day, the call of the hour is to increase and multiply, from within and from without. From within, we must have natural population growth. It is well known that families that preserve Jewish tradition often have large families. Thank G-d, we have been privileged to see more and more people returning to their roots and to tradition. The day is not far off when the entire Jewish people will return to their roots and the result will be great internal natural growth.
We must increase from without, as well, by way of much Aliyah. There are still millions of Jews in the exile, and the State of Israel must invest enormous effort and large sums of money to encourage Aliyah, both in educating towards Aliyah and in absorbing new immigrants. By way of this internal growth and a large Aliyah, we will fill our country with Jews.
By such means, we will be privileged to be the living fulfillment of the divine promise: "I will set your borders from the Red Sea to the Philistine Sea, from the desert to the river."
28 Shevat 5767 / 16 February 07
A gradual fulfillment of destiny.
In this week's parasha, G-d promises Israel that they will conquer the Land, but that the process of conquest will be gradual:
I will not drive them out in a single year, however, lest the land become depopulated, and the wild animals become too many for you to contend with. I will drive the inhabitants out little by little, giving you a chance to increase and fully occupy the land. I will set your borders from the Red Sea to the Philistine Sea, from the desert to the river. I will give the land's inhabitants into your hand, and you will drive them before you." (Exodus 23:29-31)Indeed, Joshua Bin-Nun conquered the Land, but not all of it. He left foreign peoples in it, who caused the Jewish People countless problems during the period of the Judges. This went on until the time of King David, who conquered the entire land from the foreigners living in it. Only in the time of his son Solomon were we privileged to rest from our wars, each person sitting under his grave arbor or fig tree.
Today, our own generation is similar and parallel to that of Joshua Bin-Nun, who came up out of the desert to conquer the Land. Our generation, as well, emerged out of the desert of nations after 2,000 years of exile to conquer and settle Eretz Yisrael. And just as in Joshua's generation they did not drive out all the residents of the Land, such that "I will drive out the inhabitants little by little" was fulfilled, so, too, in our own generation a foreign people still remains in the land of our life's blood.
Just as in the days of the judges, the foreign nations made great trouble for Israel, today, as well, the Arabs are causing us great problems, threatening the State of Israel's existence. And just as in the days of the judges, leaders arose who fought Israel's wars and infused the people with a spirit of valor, such as Gideon, Yiftach, Shimshon and others, in our own day, as well, we need leaders who can strengthen the nation's spirit, and fight with might and fortitude against our enemies with their evil designs.
Just as G-d makes our conquering the Land conditional on our first increasing in number, so, too, in our own day, the call of the hour is to increase and multiply, from within and from without. From within, we must have natural population growth. It is well known that families that preserve Jewish tradition often have large families. Thank G-d, we have been privileged to see more and more people returning to their roots and to tradition. The day is not far off when the entire Jewish people will return to their roots and the result will be great internal natural growth.
We must increase from without, as well, by way of much Aliyah. There are still millions of Jews in the exile, and the State of Israel must invest enormous effort and large sums of money to encourage Aliyah, both in educating towards Aliyah and in absorbing new immigrants. By way of this internal growth and a large Aliyah, we will fill our country with Jews.
By such means, we will be privileged to be the living fulfillment of the divine promise: "I will set your borders from the Red Sea to the Philistine Sea, from the desert to the river."
28 Shevat 5767 / 16 February 07
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)