Full Transcript: Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Speech to Israel’s Knesset

Standard

The following is the full transcript of remarks made by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to Israel’s Knesset on January 20th, 2014.

“Shalom.

“And thank you for inviting me to visit this remarkable country, and especially for this opportunity to address the Knesset.

“It is truly a great honour.

“And if I may, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my wife Laureen and the entire Canadian delegation, let me begin by thanking the government and people of Israel for the warmth of your hospitality.

“You have made us feel extremely welcome.

“We have felt immediately at home.

“Ladies and gentlemen, Canada and Israel are the greatest of friends, and the most natural of allies.

“And, with your indulgence, I would like to offer a reflection upon what makes the relationship between Canada and Israel special and important because the relationship between us is very strong.

“The friendship between us is rooted in history, nourished by shared values, and it is intentionally reinforced at the highest levels of commerce and government as an outward expression of strongly held inner convictions.

“There has, for example, been a free trade agreement in place between Canada and Israel for many years an agreement that has already proved its worth.

“The elimination of tariffs on industrial products, and some foodstuffs, has led to a doubling in the value of trade between our countries.

“But this only scratches the surface of the economic potential of this relationship and I look forward to soon deepening and broadening our mutual trade and investment goals.

“As well, our military establishments share information and technology.

“This has also been to our mutual benefit.

“For example, during Canada’s mission to Afghanistan, our use of Israeli-built reconnaissance equipment saved the lives of Canadian soldiers.

“All such connections are important, and build strong bridges between us.

“However, to truly understand the special relationship between Israel and Canada, one must look beyond trade and institutions to the personal ties of friendship and kinship.

“Jews have been present in Canada for more than 250 years.

“In generation after generation, by hard work and perseverance, Jewish immigrants, often starting with nothing, have prospered greatly.

“Today, there are nearly 350,000 Canadians who share with you their heritage and their faith.

“They are proud Canadians.

“But having met literally thousands of members of this community, I can tell you this:

“They are also immensely proud of what the people of Israel have accomplished here of your courage in war, of your generosity in peace, and of the bloom that the desert has yielded, under your stewardship.

“Laureen and I share that pride, the pride and the understanding that what has been achieved here has occurred in the shadow of the horrors of the Holocaust;

“the understanding that it is right to support Israel because, after generations of persecution, the Jewish people deserve their own homeland and deserve to live safely and peacefully in that homeland.

“Let me repeat that: Canada supports Israel because it is right to do so.

“This is a very Canadian trait, to do something for no reason other than it is right even when no immediate reward for, or threat to, ourselves is evident.

“On many occasions, Canadians have even gone so far as to bleed and die to defend the freedom of others in far-off lands.

“To be clear, we have also periodically made terrible mistakes as in the refusal of our government in the 1930s to ease the plight of Jewish refugees but, as a country, at the turning points of history, Canada has consistently chosen, often to our great cost, to stand with others who oppose injustice, and to confront the dark forces of the world.

“It is, thus, a Canadian tradition to stand for what is principled and just, regardless of whether it is convenient or popular.

“But, I would argue, support today for the Jewish state of Israel is more than a moral imperative it is also of strategic importance, also a matter of our own, long-term interests.

“Ladies and gentlemen, I said a moment ago, that the special friendship between Canada and Israel is rooted in shared values.

“Indeed, Israel is the only country in the Middle East, which has long anchored itself in the ideals of freedom, democracy and the rule of law.

“These are not mere notions.

“They are the things that, over time and against all odds, have proven to be the only ground in which human rights, political stability, and economic prosperity, may flourish.

“These values are not proprietary; they do not belong to one nation or one people.

“Nor are they a finite resource; on the contrary, the wider they are spread, the stronger they grow.

“Likewise, when they are threatened anywhere, they are threatened everywhere.

“And what threatens them, or more precisely, what today threatens the societies that embrace such values and the progress they nurture?

“Those who scorn modernity, who loathe the liberty of others, and who hold the differences of peoples and cultures in contempt. Those who, often begin by hating the Jews, but, history shows us, end up hating anyone who is not them. Those forces, which have threatened the state of Israel every single day of its existence, and which, today, as 9/11 graphically showed us, threaten us all.

“And so, either we stand up for our values and our interests, here, in Israel, stand up for the existence of a free, democratic and distinctively Jewish state or the retreat of our values and our interests in the world will begin.

“Ladies and gentlemen, just as we refuse to retreat from our values, so we must also uphold the duty to advance them.

“And our commitment as Canadians to what is right, fair and just is a universal one.

“It applies no less to the Palestinian people, than it does to the people of Israel.

“Just as we unequivocally support Israel’s right of self-defence, so too Canada has long-supported a just and secure future for the Palestinian people.

“And, I believe, we share with Israel a sincere hope that the Palestinian people and their leaders… will choose a viable, democratic, Palestinian state, committed to living peacefully alongside the Jewish state of Israel.

“As you, Prime Minister [Netanyahu], have said, when Palestinians make peace with Israel, Israel will not be the last country to welcome a Palestinian state as a new member of the United Nations — it will be the first.

“Sadly, we have yet to reach that point.

“But, when that day comes, and come it must, I can tell you that Israel may be the first to welcome a sovereign Palestinian state, but Canada will be right behind you.

“Ladies and gentlemen, support – even firm support – doesn’t mean that allies and friends will agree on all issues all of the time.

“No state is beyond legitimate questioning or criticism.

“But our support does mean at least three things.

“First, Canada finds it deplorable that some in the international community still question the legitimacy of the existence of the state of Israel.

“Our view on Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state is absolute and non-negotiable.

“Second, Canada believes that Israel should be able to exercise its full rights as a UN member-state and to enjoy the full measure of its sovereignty.

“For this reason, Canada has spoken on numerous occasions in support of Israel’s engagement and equal treatment in multilateral fora.

“And, in this regard, I should mention that we welcome Israel’s induction this month into the western, democratic group of states at the United Nations.

“Third, we refuse to single out Israel for criticism on the international stage.

“Now I understand, in the world of diplomacy, with one, solitary, Jewish state and scores of others, it is all too easy “to go along to get along” and single out Israel.

“But such “going along to get along,” is not a “balanced” approach, nor a “sophisticated” one; it is, quite simply, weak and wrong.

“Unfortunately, ladies and gentlemen, we live in a world where that kind of moral relativism runs rampant.

“And in the garden of such moral relativism, the seeds of much more sinister notions can be easily planted.

“And so we have witnessed, in recent years, the mutation of the old disease of anti-Semitism and the emergence of a new strain.

“We all know about the old anti-Semitism.

“It was crude and ignorant, and it led to the horrors of the death camps.

“Of course, in many dark corners, it is still with us.

“But, in much of the western world, the old hatred has been translated into more sophisticated language for use in polite society.

“People who would never say they hate and blame the Jews for their own failings or the problems of the world, instead declare their hatred of Israel and blame the only Jewish state for the problems of the Middle East.

“As once Jewish businesses were boycotted, some civil-society leaders today call for a boycott of Israel.

“On some campuses, intellectualized arguments against Israeli policies thinly mask the underlying realities, such as the shunning of Israeli academics and the harassment of Jewish students.

“Most disgracefully of all, some openly call Israel an apartheid state.

“Think about that.

“Think about the twisted logic and outright malice behind that: a state, based on freedom, democracy and the rule of law, that was founded so Jews can flourish, as Jews, and seek shelter from the shadow of the worst racist experiment in history, that is condemned, and that condemnation is masked in the language of anti-racism.

“It is nothing short of sickening.

“But this is the face of the new anti-Semitism.

“It targets the Jewish people by targeting Israel and attempts to make  the old bigotry acceptable for a new generation.

“Of course, criticism of Israeli government policy is not in and of itself necessarily anti-semitic.

“But what else can we call criticism that selectively condemns only the Jewish state and effectively denies its right to defend itself while systematically ignoring – or excusing – the violence and oppression all around it?

“What else can we call it when, Israel is routinely targeted at the United Nations, and when Israel remains the only country to be the subject of a permanent agenda item at the regular sessions of its human rights council?

“Ladies and gentlemen, any assessment – any judgment – of Israel’s actions must start with this understanding:

“In the sixty-five years that modern Israel has been a nation, Israelis have endured attacks and slanders beyond counting and have never known a day of true peace.

“And we understand that Israelis live with this, impossible calculus:

“If you act to defend yourselves, you will suffer widespread condemnation, over and over again.

“But, should you fail to act, you alone will suffer the consequence of your inaction, and that consequence will be final, your destruction.

“The truth, that Canada understands, is that many of the hostile forces Israel faces, are faced by all western nations.

“And Israel faces them for many of the same reasons we face them.

“You just happen to be a lot closer to them.

“Of course, no nation is perfect.

“But neither Israel’s existence nor its policies are responsible for the instability in the Middle East today.

“One must look beyond Israel’s borders to find the causes of the relentless oppression, poverty and violence in much of the region, of the heartbreaking suffering of syrian refugees, of sectarian violence and the fears of religious minorities, especially christians, and of the current domestic turmoil in so many states.

“So what are we to do?

“Most importantly, we must deal with the world as we find it.

“The threats in this region are real, deeply rooted, and deadly and the forces of progress, often anaemically weak.

“For too many nations, it is still easier to scapegoat Israel than to emulate your success.

“It is easier to foster resentment and hatred of Israel’s democracy than it is to provide the same rights and freedoms to their own people.

“I believe that a Palestinian state will come, and one thing that will make it come is when the regimes that bankroll terrorism realise that the path to peace is accommodation, not violence.

“Which brings me to the government of iran.

“Late last year, the world announced a new approach to diplomacy with the government in tehran.

“Canada has long held the view that every diplomatic measure should be taken to ensure that regime never obtains a nuclear weapon.

“We therefore appreciate the earnest efforts of the five permanent members of the security council and germany.

“Canada will evaluate the success of this approach not on the merits of its words, but on the implementation and verification of its promised actions.

“We truly hope that it is possible to walk the iranian government back from taking the irreversible step of manufacturing nuclear weapons.

“But, for now, Canada’s own sanctions will remain fully in place.

“And should our hopes not be realized, should the present agreement prove ephemeral Canada will be a strong voice for renewed sanctions.

“Ladies and gentlemen, let me conclude with this thought.

“Je crois que l’histoire d’israël est UN très bel exemple pour le monde entier.

“I believe the story of Israel is a great example to the world.

“It is a story, essentially, of a people whose response to suffering has been to move beyond resentment and build a most extraordinary society a vibrant democracy a freedom-loving country… with an independent and rights-affirming judiciary, an innovative, world-leading “start-up” nation.

“You have taken the collective memory of death and persecution to build an optimistic, forward-looking land one that so values life, you will sometimes release a thousand criminals and terrorists, to save one of your own.

“In the democratic family of nations, Israel represents values which our government takes as articles of faith, and principles to drive our national life.

“And therefore, through fire and water, Canada will stand with you.

“My friends, you have been generous with your time and attention.

“Once more, LKaureen and I and our entire delegation thank you for your generous hospitality, and look forward to continuing our visit to your country.

“Merci beaucoup.

“Thank you for having us, and may peace be upon Israel.”

23 COMMENTS

  • I’m sure he has to realize that the very ones who are guilty of the libels against Israel – and by extension – the Jewish people are those that he says should get a ‘state’ – the faux people, the ‘palestinians.’ But while the whole world is watching – and especially from Ramallah – he had no choice but to say that he supports a pal state.

  • His sincerity is real; and sadly very different than what is being expressed by US leaders – including President Obama.

  • Nice to know that Israel still has one friend in North America.

  • Prime Minister Harper’s speech proves there is a distinction between a statesman and a politician.

  • The speech has been made. To those who welcome the words, and don’t publicly stand with Israel, I have one question: What else are you waiting for?

    Who Canada is friends with is a reflection of Canada. The same can be said for each person, and each country on the face of the earth.

    May Peace be multiplied to Yisrael.

  • I am in the United States and sadly, we don’t have the leadership with Obama or Kerry that have the same knowledge of history, or the honor or the heart to do for Israel what Canada and Harper are offering. From millions of Americans we apologize for the treatment of Israel and sadly the Syrians and Iraqis that deserve more.

  • Where would humanity be if some brave people did not take risks to make this world a better, safer place? Thank you, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, for your courage to speak out on behalf of Israel. Thank you for Canada’s partnership with Israel. What a better world this would be if more leaders followed in your footsteps.

    • Alan Nathan Cahn

      Bravo to a Prime Minister Harper for having the fortitude to stand on the principles of democracy that Canadians and Americans have laid their lives for.
      What does that say for our leadership .
      Israel is the light unto all nations.
      Am Yisrael a Chai,

  • Fritz Kohlhaas

    Harper is setting an example for others to follow!

  • I am an octogenarian from Hungary live in this beautiful country 56 years and very very proud to notice that our prime-minister was invited to the Knesset…Mazel-tov

  • Rhonda Blender

    Mr. Harper, I ran home as fast as I could so I could get online and read your remarks. Hopefully, I can find a copy of your speech being delivered. Thank you, thank you for your comments. You are a person of integrity because you have a “True North” moral code. I hope you enjoy your time in Israel and have a safe journey home. Besides Israel, I’ve only ever visited one other country and that was Banff, Canada. I’m glad I can say I visited Canada.

  • Despite much maligning from other prominent leaders, Israel remains a beacon of light in a world that often does not welcome any light whatsoever. Prime Minister Stephen Harper stands mighty tall in keeping the lights of freedom. of liberty and of democracy burning in his elegant address to the Israeli Knesset.
    If only more leaders of the stature of Mr. Harper would stand equally tall by blessing the continued existence of the State of Israel and giving thanks for all that Israel has contributed these many years.

  • ahad haamoratsim

    Israeli, Harper may be a friend, he may deserve our gratitude for his support, but there is no god except G-d, and only G-d deserves to be called G-d and to have our total gratitude.

    G-d gave us — and continually gives us — life and all of creation.

    That being said, thank you, Mr. Harper, for the courage to speak the truth when it is unpopular.

  • If only Obama and other leaders would emulate this clear thinker. Harper is a leader who cares more about truth than votes. He is not lost in moral confusion and political correctness. He does not pander to terrorists. He fears not their conquest, their anti-Semitism and their terror. G-d bless Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada.

  • You may not be able to publish this (it’s from TimesofIsrael article comment), but I read the
    prior quote and left it in my last post which is attributed to the comment by “hskl2″ (whoever that is), I believe here is the source:

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-to-kerry-palestinians-continuing-incitement-against-israel/

    “There has NEVER EVER in the history of mankind been a Palestinian people; never an economy, a sovereign nation, unique language, economy etc. NOTHING. Google it. The Palestinian people was was politically invented by Egyptian Yasser Arafat (Born in Cairo) to destroy the sovereign Jewish state. The “Palestinians” are Arabs, most of whom are from surrounding areas who moved here because jobs were booming after the Jewish people started returning EN MASSE in addition to their hoemland.

    Our name is Jew, where does that come from? JUDEA (Latin for “Judah”) Where is the territory of Judah/Judea? Its the “west bank” Our 4000 yr history to this land originates in Judea/west bank.

    Its our homeland. There are equal rights for others here; its a country of all its citizens, Jew, Christian, Muslim, but a nationalism for one people, the Jewish people, and that is ZIONism.

    This is our ONLY homeland. Arabs & Muslims control 56 countries, a land mass 1000x bigger than the Jews, yet this comparative speck of land they are jealous about.

    Arab Palestinians rejected their own state in ’36, ’39,’48, ’00, ’07. The issue is not an one piece of land, its ANY Jewish sovereignty. They cannot accept this, because they are institutionalized to be close minded, violent, hateful bigots.”

    ———————

    This comment was so well written I couldn’t say it better. BTW, when will anyone mention the nearly 1 million Jews from Arab nations (Yemen, Egypt, Syria, Morocco)who left those countries? Why is there never any mention of compensation for them or their ‘descendants’ or THEIR right of return? The truth needs to be told.

  • Harper, you are my god.
    I wish leaders of the world will learn from you, and have the courage to stand up for the right causes, stand up against terrorism, and not against a country that fights it day and night.
    You stand for what you believe in, even when the rest of the the western politicians choose to support the other side, and that is beyond admirable.

    Peace.

    • Dear G-d: Just say, “Thank you Mr. Harper.” Don’t make him into a god.

      • Sonia Willats

        Yes, I remember a comment from Menachem Begin : “The Jews bow only to G-d.”

        Stephen Harper is a hero of moral courage, and he and his nation will be blessed for their stand in the face of a world full of convenient ‘political correctness’ and moral relativism, which acknowledges neither justice nor the ONLY TRUE G-d. I am pretty sure his stand takes account of the fact that Judaism, and true Christianity (not the type that hates and murders Jews) were at a time sects of one faith.

  • Victoria Gibson

    Beautifully, honestly said! Thank you. I hope the U.S. wakes up soon!

    • I am impressed with the Canadian President. He understands history and the history of Jewish people and the Erez Israel as the home of all Jews.

The Commandment to Settle the Land of Israel Rabbinical Assessment and in Maps

Standard

1 – The Commandment to Settle the Land of Israel
The commandment, or Mitzvah, to settle the Land of Israel is obligatory upon both the individual Jew and the Jewish nation as a whole. The Mitzvah requires that the nation conquer and settle all of the Land of Israel and that each individual Jew dwell in the Land. Regarding the nation’s responsibility to take control of Israel and settle it, Rabbi Moshe ben Nahman, the Ramban, writes (in his commentary on Maimonides’ Sefer HaMitzvoth): “We are commanded to inherit the land that the almighty God gave to our forefathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and not to leave it in the hands of other nations or in desolation, as it says, ‘Inherit the land and live in it, since it is to you that I am giving the land to occupy…'” (Numbers 33:53).

If we examine the Ramban’s words carefully we will discover that there are two parts to the Mitzvah of settling the Land. The first part involves the Jewish people ruling exclusively over the Land of Israel, or Eretz Yisrael, thus leaving no room for foreign governing in the Land. Even when this is accomplished, however, the Mitzvah is still not considered complete. The second part of the Mitzvah requires the settling of every part of the Land, including the most desolate areas. The Mitzvah obligates us not only to dwell in developed cities or towns, but to make the wasteland bloom as well. Only when the Land is under Jewish rule and every part of it is settled, cultivated and flourishing, will the Mitzvah have been completely fulfilled.

The Ramban emphasizes that this Mitzvah is applicable not only to the period of time during which the Jews made their exodus from Egypt and subsequently conquered Israel, but for all generations. In all generations we are obligated to rule over the Land and to settle it. Unfortunately, for much of our long history we have been incapable of fulfilling this Mitzvah, for we, the Jewish People, have been confined to exile in both body and soul. Yet in recent times, through the goodness of God, the end of the exile has begun to reveal itself – our situation has changed and we are now once again able to fulfill this Mitzvah 1 .

2 – The Individual’s Part in the Complete Mitzvah

There are many levels involved in the individual’s part of the mitzvah of settling Eretz Yisrael. Those who dwell in Israel are partners in this mitzvah, for their presence strengthens the Jewish control of the Land. Those who live in areas that are more desolate, such as the desert, or in Judea and Samaria, fulfill the mitzvah on even a higher level. Their presence in these parts of the Land contributes doubly to the mitzvah, for they are not only strengthening the rule over the areas in which other nations are attempting to wrest away from the Jews, but they are also helping to ensure that all of the Land is cultivated and settled. Those who live in other places in Israel that are more isolated from Jewish presence and are surrounded by enemies, are fulfilling the mitzvah to an even greater extent. The wise sages have said that Eretz Yisrael is only acquired through pain and suffering; the greater the suffering, the greater the reward.

The mitzvah to settle the Land of Israel is unique in that, unlike most other mitzvot, its fulfillment doesn’t involve the performance of any specific act, such as laying tfillin, giving tzeddakah or praying. Each Jew who lives in Israel is performing the mitzvah of settling the Land just by his dwelling in it. It follows, that for those who merit to reside in the towns of Judea and Samaria, mundane daily acts, such as breathing, eating and sleeping become mitzvot in themselves.

For those who live outside of Israel but financially support its settlement, their partnership is limited as they are not fulfilling the mitzvah with their physical presence. And those who do live in Israel and also help to support its settlement towns are partners in the settling of the Land’s holy places, which of course raises the level of greatness for this mitzvah.

3 – The State of Israel
On the fifth of Iyar 5708 Israel was officially declared a state and Am Yisrael was once again able to return to its homeland and perform the mitzvah of settling it. After two thousand years of living in the diaspora, Jewish rule over Israel was finally back in effect, thus fulfilling the nation’s obligation to conquer and control the Land. Even if the majority of the inhabitants residing in Israel were Jewish, as long as the Land was under foreign rule, the complete mitzvah obligating both the individual and the nation to settle it could not be fulfilled. Only upon the establishment of Israel as a Jewish owned and governed state, did Am Yisrael merit the opportunity to begin the process of performing the complete mitzvah of settling the Land.

Jewish rule over the Land is such a basic concept that the rabbis and sages decreed that one should tear one’s clothes and say “Your holy cities are desolate” upon seeing a destroyed city in Judea. As long as the city is in the hands of another nation, it is considered destroyed and desolate, even if the majority of its population is Jewish. The same applies to the opposite. If the city is inhabited mostly by non-Jews but Jewish rule has been established, it is a redeemed city and it is no longer necessary to tear one’s clothing and mourn over it. (See Beit Yosef Orech Chaim 561, Mishne Brura 561,b).

Rav Kook also emphasized that on the day of Israel’s Independence the mitzvah of settling the Land once again became possible and we could begin to fulfill it.. On one occasion during an Independence Day celebration at Yeshivat Mercaz Harav one of the great Rabbis of the Yeshiva stressed that the importance of the establishment of the State of Israel was attributed to the fact that now there is more Torah learning and it is easier to perform many of the mitzvot. Rav Kook did not agree with that idea and he addressed the matter saying that the importance of the establishment of the State of Israel is the mere fact that Am Yisrael is again enabled to fulfill the mitzvah of settling the Land. That in itself, he stated, is a great reason to celebrate. Eretz Yisrael under Jewish leadership has its own intrinsic value and is not a means to an end. Once the complete mitzvah of conquering, controlling and settling the Land is performed, it is inevitable that other mitzvot will be more easily and readily fulfilled and the redemption will be closer at hand as a result. 2 

Am Yisrael was not able to perform this mitzvah of conquering and settling the Land in previous generations because it did not have an army or weapons while it was in the Diaspora with which to fight for Israel. However, the establishment of an army in Israel before it officially became a state enabled the nation to take control of the Land. Therefore, in addition to saving Jewish lives from enemies, the presence of an army is essential for performing this mitzvah. This will be the situation until the time of better days arrives as it is stated in the verse in Isaiah (chap.2,2-4) “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills’ and all the nations shall flow unto it. And many peoples shall go and say, come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the G-d of Yaakov; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall come forth Torah, and the word of the Lord from Yerushalayim. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall decide among many people; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, and neither shall they learn war any more.”

4 – Conquering the Land and Pikuach Nefesh

The Torah is given to man in order for him to live by it, not die by it. Therefore, if one is in a situation where he must do a forbidden act or die, the Torah usually permits one to transgress mitzvot. Transgressions such as idol worship, murder or illicit relations are the exception to this rule. One is permitted to break Shabbat or feed a sick person non-kosher food if it is necessary to heal him for the sake of pikuach nefesh (transgressing a mitzvah in order to save one’s life). Pikuach nefesh, however, does not apply to the waging of war in order to conquer the Land of Israel. Even though it is inevitable that people will die during a war, the Torah commands us to take control of the Land through battle and not to rely on miracles (Minchat chinuch 425, Mispat Kohen page 327). And so it seems that in order to perform the mitzvah of conquering and settling the Land, one must be altruistic and self sacrificing just as was demanded of Am Yisrael in the times of Joshua, King David, during the building of the Second Temple, and the period of the Chasmonim rule.

We should however categorize these concepts. The rule that one should live by the Torah and its mitzvot and not die by them also applies to the Jewish nation as a whole. At times, the good of the nation, as opposed to individual soldiers, need to be taken into consideration. For example, if there is a high risk that Am Yisrael will lose the war and its inheritance, then the welfare of the nation is at stake and the army should not go to war. It is clear that the Torah is an instrument of life and does not command the nation to commit suicidal acts. However if chance of success is great then there is an obligation to wage war in order to conquer the Land and settle it, even if that involves loss of Jewish lives.

It is of necessity to point out that if a nation does not fight for the sake of its own country or land, then it is leaving itself vulnerable and exposed to its neighbors and enemies, which is a greater danger. If a nation doesn’t succeed in recruiting its sons to sacrifice their lives in battle for the sake of defending the borders of their country, it will eventually be conquered, subsequently endangering its citizens to greater perils. Thus, the mitzvah to fight for Eretz Yisrael actually involves the saving of lives as well as fulfilling the mitzvah of settling the Land.

5 – The Greatness of the Mitzvah
The sages and rabbis declared the mitzvah of dwelling in the Land of Israel equal to all the other mitzvot combined. Although there are other mitzvot about which the same is considered true, this mitzvah of settling Eretz Yisrael supersedes them as it is the only mitzvah that demands of us to sacrifice our lives in order to conquer the land and keep it from our enemies. In addition, this mitzvah is unique in that the transgression of shvut on Shabbat is allowed in order to regain control of the Land. 3 

We can learn more about the importance of this mitzvah from the Tanna dbei Eliyahu’s descriptions of the greatness of Eretz Israel. “Once I was sitting before the great Rabbis in Yerushalayim and I asked them what was so different about King Omri that all the Kings preceding him did not have any continuation, whereas Omri’s offspring produced three more kings? They responded: ‘We didn’t hear.’ I then said to them: ‘Rabbis, Omri merited having three kings on his throne because he built a great city in the Land of Israel.'”

And so, in spite of the fact that Omri was not a righteous person, he merited to have his offspring rule because he fulfilled the mitzvah of settling the land by building a great city in Israel. Omri’s intentions were not to help Israel develop or flourish; rather he built the city for his own benefit -to strengthen his kingdom and to keep his subjects away from making the pilgrimage to Yerushalayim. Nevertheless, Omri was rewarded, despite his impure intentions.


^ 1 These concepts were examined thoroughly by Rav Tzvi Yehuda Kook tz”l. Some examples of his writings: “The Mitzvot Connected to the Country” (Lenitvot Israel publication 5739 chelek 1 page 120-122) Rav Kook first explains the greatness of the mitzvah that it is the only mitzvah that pushes aside certain prohibitions on Shabbat (i.e. shvut-to tell a non Jew to perform certain forbidden acts on Shabbat for your own benefit). It is permissible to push aside shvut in order to buy land in Israel from a non Jew on Shabbat (as explained in Gitin 8,b and Baba Kama 80,b see Tosafot there) This indeed is a great thing, as the Rabbis decreed not to blow the shofar and not to carry the lulav on Shabbat, mitzvot that are brought down directly from the Torah. But in order to buy land on Shabbat the Rabbis saw fit to permit one to transgress shvut (something which the Hasmag holds is a transgression that is rooted in the Torah) in order to buy land. Rav Kook further states to those that do not think that the mitzvah is valid today, basing their arguments on the words of Rav Chaim in Ketubot 110, that the Mahrit (Yora Deyah 28) and many of the Achronim (see Gilion Mahrsha Ketubot 110) found that one of Rav Chaims student’s made a mistake in his writings. Harishba in his book 187 writes that the mitzvah of settling the land is for all generations. He further writes that one can not separate the two parts of the mitzvah, i.e. the rule over the land and the individual dwelling in it. Just as we are obligated always to conquer the land so too are we always obligated to dwell in the land. It does not stand to reason that the Rabbis would allow us to transgress shvut if this mitzvah was not from the Torah. The concept that this mitzvah is equal to all the other mitzvot is something that is not said about a mitzvah drabbanan (these ideas were brought down after the destruction of the second Temple). The reason the Rambam did not enumerate this mitzvah with the rest of the 613 was not necessarily to lower the value of the mitzvah, rather to stress that its value is above the rest of the mitzvot. The general rule of the Rambam was not to include mitzvot that are of a basic nature in his enumeration of the 613 mitzvot as stated in mitzvah 153.
It should be further pointed out that the mitzvah is to inherit the whole of the promised land, thus the Ramban mentions the verse in Dvarim “You have dwelt long enough in the mountain: turn and take your journey to the mountain of the Emori and to all the places near it, in the plain, in the hills, and in the lowland, and in the Negev and go by he sea side, to land of the Kennanni and to Levanon, as far as the great river, the river Perat.”
^ 2 In addition to this, on Independence Day we thank Hashem for helping us defeat our enemies, and for a place of escape for Jews, and for the uplifting honor in the eyes of the world by the establishment of the Jewish state.
Therefore there are two major reasons to say Hallel on Independence day 1)That we are able to fulfill the mitzvah of settling the Land and 2) The saving of Jewish lives from our enemies. Rav Goren would emphasize the second reason, whereas Rav Tzvi Yehuda would stress that the miracle was the awakening of valor in the self sacrifice made for the defense of Israel.
^ 3 We have seen a similar idea in mila (see Ndarim 32,a), tzeddekah (Baba Batra 9,a), Tzizit (Shavuot 29,a), Tfillin (Minchaot 43,b), Shabbat (Yerushalmi Ndarim 83 halacha 9), Gimlut Hasidim (Yerushalmi Peah 81 halacha 1), and the mitzvah of Talmud Torah in many places.
However the mitzvah of settling the land has a uniqueness that allows one to transgress shvut on Shabbat even if this involves transgressing some of the Rabbinical enactments (this is explained in Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim 206,11). This does not occur in the rest of the mitzvot where we are allowed only to do shvut dshvut, i.e. a lesser transgression. This idea has been repeated by many of the Achronim that in order to clarify the greatness of the mitzvah of Eretz Yisrael.
Written by the rabbi

6 – Settling the Land: Planting Trees and Economic Development
We have already learned that the mitzvah of settling the Land of Israel does not involve only conquering it, but also requires the settling and developing of every part of it. The Ramban stresses this point that “We should not leave the Land under foreign rule or desolate, as it says: you should inherit the land and settle it.”
Planting fruit trees in the Israel fulfills one aspect of this mitzvah, which obligates Am Yisrael to cultivate every part of the Land and not to leave it desolate. There is no mitzvah to plant fruit trees outside of Israel and usually one only does so for the purpose of providing a livelihood. Those living in Eretz Yisrael, however, have the mitzvah of planting fruit trees regardless of their profession.The wise sages expanded on this concept (Vyikra Rabba 25,3), “It is said that one should go after Hashem. Is it possible for flesh and blood to go after Hashem? It is also said that one should cleave to Hashem. Is it possible for flesh and blood to cleave to Hashem? Rather one should go in his ways, and cleave to his character traits. And just as Hashem, at the beginning of creation, first planted and tended to the Garden of Eden, so too should Am Yisrael upon entering the Land, as it is written: ‘You should come to the Land and plant.'” We learn from this that one that plants a tree in Eretz Yisrael is cleaving to Hashem’s character trait.
There are two advantages to planting trees, one being a future investment. Sometimes people invest their efforts in transient matters, but the Torah guides us to invest our efforts in planting trees in order to root ourselves in the Land through permanent means. The second advantage is that with the abundance of trees the Land bears fruit that has intrinsic holiness and when Am Yisrael eats these fruits many other mitzvot are performed, such as trumah, maasorot and orlah.The Chatam Sofer writes (in his commentary on mesecht sukkah 36) that working the Land of Israel in order to harvest its holy fruit fulfills the mitzvah of settling the Land and the mitzvah commanding Am Yisrael to harvest the grains of the Land. Boaz, who was considered a great man of his generation, did not deem it bitul Torah to spend night working and harvesting the Land. Just as one who is busy learning Torah still needs to stop in order to perform the mitzvah of laying Tfillin, one should stop his Torah learning for the sake of harvesting the crops. The Chatam Sofer adds another important comment on this subject: It is possible that all the work and skills that enable us to settle the Land are in themselves mitzvot. According to this idea, one that assists in the economic development of Israel may be considered a partner in the mitzvah of settling the Land. Eretz Yisrael is holy in both its physical and spiritual attributes and those who assist in its development are partners in its holy building.

7 – The Individual’s Role in the Mitzvah

We have explained the first part of the mitzvah which obligates the Jewish nation to establish rule over the Land of Israel. The second part requires each individual Jew to dwell in the Land. It is a mitzvah for every Jew to live in Israel when the Land is under foreign rule and even when it is under Jewish rule. The Rambam wrote (hilchot Malachim 5,12) “A person should live in Eretz Yisrael forever. He should live in Israel whether it is in a city where the majority of its inhabitants are not Jewish or where the majority of its citizens are Jewish. He should not live outside of Israel, for one who leaves Eretz Yisrael for the galut is as if he is worshipping idols.” 1

The Sefrei (Dvarim see 53) recounts the story of a few rabbis who lived in the time period after the destruction of the second Temple and wished to leave Eretz Yisrael. At the time, the Romans were cruelly and viciously ruling the Land and because of the famine and great troubles many people were leaving Israel. The Sefrei narrates the story of Rabbi Yehuda ben Battera, Rabbi Mateya ben Cheresh, Rabbi Chananya ben Achi, Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Natan when they left Israel. Upon arriving at the border town of Paltiya they suddenly remembered Eretz Yisrael. They raised their eyes and began to cry and tear their clothes in mourning while reciting the verse that states: “You should inherit the Land and dwell within it and keep it.” They agreed that the mitzvah of living in Eretz Yisrael is equal to all other mitzvot and they returned to Israel.

Throughout the generations when Israel was not in Jewish hands Am Yisrael was unable to fulfill the first part of the mitzvah of the nation conquering and ruling the Land. However, any Jew that lived in Eretz Yisrael during these times did, to a certain extent, fulfill this part of the mitzvah of settling the Land. His presence in provided a continuous connection between the Jews who lived outside of Israel and their Land, and also provided a base for future growth of Jewish settlement and eventual control over the Land. If these are one’s goals while living in Israel then, just as the Vilna Gaon’s students who made aliyah with great sacrifices, one becomes a partner not just in settling the Land on an individual basis, but also in conquering it and acquiring control over it.

8 – Praises for the Land
The Rambam wrote a unique halacha (Melachim 5,10): “Great Rabbis would kiss the ground of Eretz Yisrael, and kiss its stones as well as roll in its dust as it states: because your slaves wanted its stones and begged for its dust.” At first glance one would ask how could the Rambam write about such actions and deeds in a book devoted to halacha? Which halacha that we learn from our rabbis would involve kissing the earth and hugging the stones of the Land of Israel? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to write about these actions in books of ethics rather than halacha? Indeed this is a great halacha to learn: It is not enough to live in Eretz Yisrael, one should also love the good and holy Land.

At the end of Ketubot (112,a) it is written that when Rabbi Chanina was traveling in Eretz Yisrael and would see a obstructions in his path he would remove it. Rashi explains that he would do this in the different areas of the city because of his great love for Eretz Yisrael, as he didn’t want anyone to think or speak badly about the roads or the places where the obstructions were located.
It is also told that in order to prevent complaints about Israel, Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Assi would be extremely cautious as to where they sat their students. In the cool morning hours they would sit them in the sun and in the warm afternoon hours they would sit them in the shade. Their students were comfortable and, therefore, did not think badly about the Land or its climate.
It is also Am Yisrael’s responsibility not only to love the Land, but also to praise it, to enjoy its scenery, to decorate it with flowers and trees, to keep it clean, to fix its highways, and to build comfortable and nice looking homes. As a result, the mitzvah of settling the land will be performed, as more Jews will desire to live in Israel and less will leave it for other countries.
The spies sinned when they spoke badly about Eretz Yisrael, claiming that it is (Bamidbar 13,32) “A land that eats its residents,” thereby causing the Jews who were in the desert to despise it. They also sinned by declaring that Am Yisrael did not have enough strength to conquer the Land, thus weakening the hearts of the rest of the nation.

The greatness of Eretz Yisrael is evident in the mere fact that it is a sin to speak lashon harah (speaking badly about another) about the Land. The prohibition of speaking lashon harah is basically limited to people for the prevention of causing them hardships, troubles or bad feelings. There is no concept of speaking lashon harah about physical objects such as rocks. However, lashon harah isconsidered a sin in regards to the Land of Israel, for it causes a delay in the revelation of Hashem in this world. Hashem only reveals himself by way of the holy Land of Israel. It follows that the punishment for speaking badly about Israel is unusually stringent, to the extent that even a generation that received the Torah at Mount Sinai could not escape the punishment to die in the desert and not enter the Land which they had slandered.
The generations following that of the spies are obligated to rectify the spies’ sins, to praise Eretz Yisrael and to thank Hashem for giving us the Land as a precious gift. This especially applies to our generation in which millions of Jews have merited to settle the Land and raise their families in Israel-something even previous generations of righteous people did not merit. Therefore it is doubly important to continuously repeat the words of Yehoshua and Calev (Bmidbar 14,7) “The Land is exceedingly good” and the words of Calev (Bmidbar 13,30) “Let us go up at once; for we are well able to overcome it.”

9 – Honoring One’s Parents and Dwelling in the Land
What is the law pertaining to a situation when a child wishes to make aliyah (to live in Israel) but his parent’s are against him doing so? Does the child have to abide by his parents wishes in an effort to perform the mitzvah of honoring ones father and mother, or does the mitzvah of settling the Land of Israel over ride that? First, it is necessary to clarify that there is no mitzvah of honoring one’s parents if it does goes against another mitzvah that is derived from the Torah or even one that is derived from the wise rabbis. It is forbidden to transgress a mitzvah from the Torah even if parents tell their child to do so. The child also has the mitzvah of honoring Hashem and fulfilling His Torah (Shulchan Aruch yoreh daya 240,14).

It is clear, therefore, that one is permitted to settle in the Land of Israel even if it is against one’s parents’ wishes, especially because the mitzvah of settling Eretz Yisrael is considered by the wise sages to be equal to all the mitzvot. (Mahram from Rotenberg, HaMabit, see Petchai Tshuva). This rule also applies to one who wants to live in a settlement town in Judah, Samaria or Gaza for the purpose of strengthening Jewish control over the Land. Although his parents may be worried and demand that he leaves the settlement, he is not required to do so because he is fulfilling the Torah mitzvah of settling the Land.

10 – A Disagreement Between a Couple
When a couple disagrees on where to live it is not acceptable to force one to leave his or her present place of residence because uprooting one who wishes to remain in a familiar place causes hardship. Therefore, the decision rests with the one who wants to stay put. However, if the couple live in a place where the majority of the residents are not Jewish then one has the right to force the other to move to a place where there are more Jews. This ruling is applicable to couples who either in Israel or in another country. If, however, one wants to move to Israel and the other refuses, the law favors the one who wishes to settle the Land. Regardless of whether it is a woman or the man who wishes to move to Israel, the one who wants to remain in a different country must concede. And even if the situation were such that the couple live in a city outside of Israel that has a large Jewish population and the city where they would be moving to in Israel has a small Jewish population, they should still move to Israel regardless of the number of Jews that dwell in the particular area in which they will be settling.

If, G-d forbid, the situation is irreparable where no compromise can be reached and the couple decide to divorce, the husband -if he is the one who refuses to live in Israel- needs to give up the ketubah to his wife. If the wife refuses to settle in the Land of Israel, she subsequently forfeits her ketubah (Shulchan Aruch orech chaim 75,4).
———————————
1. In my humble opinion it seems that one who lives within the borders that were established by those that left Egypt is fulfilling the mitzvah of dwelling in the Land even if there is no Jewish rule at the time. Am Yisrael sanctified those places by settling in them and was obligated to fulfill all mitzvot that are connected to the Land during the time of the first Temple. However, one that lives in Syria or Iraq, even though he resides within the borders of the Promised Land, does not fulfill the mitzvah of dwelling in the Land. If, however, his intention of living in those countries is based on assisting the establishment of Jewish sovereignty over those places, then he is fulfilling the mitzvah. This is not the place to prolong our discussion and it needs to be further examined.

Land of Israel

Cyprus belongs to Israel and was called The Island of Dan. The borders of Israel stretch from the Nile River to the Euphrates. Eastern Egypt, Sinai, Jordan, part of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, part of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and part of Turkey are within the Biblical Borders of Israel; They are “Occupied Territory”. Rabbi M.M. Schneerson of Lubavitch (Chabad) on the borders of Israel.

The Land of Israel

 Brit-Am
Replies to Queries

rose

  Questions
and Answers 

Questions on the Land of Israel
See also our Separate Article
Brit-Am Replies to Queries:
Returning to the Land of Israel

Contents:
1. What is the Brit-Am position on Ephraimites Coming to dwell in the Land of Israel at Present?
2. Is the Island of Cyprus Part of the Promised Land of Israel?
3. What Are the Boundaries of the Promised Land According to the Bible?
4. Will the Land of Israel Encompass North America?

1. What is the Brit-Am position on Ephraimites Coming to dwell in the Land of Israel at Present?

Answer:
At present Judah is preparing the Land as a Forerunner for the other Tribes.
Eventually the other Tribes will return and receive an inheritance alongside Judah.
If an Ephraimite in the present time comes to Israel it should be either as a guest of Judah or as somebody who identifies with Judah.
This is a sensitive and complicated issue and we have written quite a lot about it and answered numerous questions concerned with it.
See:
“Brit-Am Now”-277
#5. Nachmanides: The Connection Between Law and Land

Returning to the Land of Israel

2. Question: Is the Island of Cyprus Part of the Promised Land of Israel?

Shalom Yair,
Thank you for the work that you are doing towards the reunification of the two houses. We have been living in Cyprus for the last year and was surprised that you included the Island of Cyprus with the Land of Promise.
Could you please explain your reference point as we have never heard this before.
Thank you.
Frank and Shirlianne Whigham.

Answer: Cyprus is Part of the Promised Land of Israel.
Concerning the borders including Cyprus this is admittedly an extreme minority opinion but one that is probably correct. The opinion says that the western border was the western estuary of the Nile Delta in the South (opposite Alexandria, as noted by the late Rabbi M.M. Schneerson of Lubavitch) and a line northward into southeast Turkey and encompassing all the Mediterranean Ocean and islands (including Cyprus within that area.
Cyprus was mentioned frequently in our book, “Lost Israelite Identity. The Hebrew Ancestry of Celtic Races”, (1996).

WHY WE CONSIDER CYPRUS PART OF ISRAEL

a. Cyprus appears to be within the borders of the Promised Land according  to the opinion we consider correct. The Promised Land included all the area up to the Euphrates River and all along its length reaching far into the north. It also included at the least the region of Cilicia (southeast Turkey), and most probably the Isle of Cyprus. At all events all these regions and more were taken by the Israelites for considerable periods of time even though they did not succeed in permanently holding them. In the Messianic era (cf. Ezekiel ch.48) and in the times leading up to it all of these areas and more will be re-gained by

b. The Population of Cyprus suffered the same fate as the Canaanites at the time of the Israelite conquest as did a lot of neighboring areas including Anatolia and Greece. Beginning from around 1200 b.c.e. the well developed warlike states of Mycenean Greece, the powerful empire of Hittite Anatolia, the strong city states in southern Canaan, every important city in northern Syria and Cyprus were all completely destroyed. The population of Greece is conventionally considered to have declined (though the figures given here have since been contested) by 75% and the cultural unity of the Mycenean Age came to an end. Crete suffered a similar fate. There was a population decline of 75% also in northern Mesopotamia and 25% in the south. It is conceivable that the cities of Canaan (that were also once again destroyed) met their end due to a resurge of Israelite conquest. There are grounds to believe that what happened elsewhere in some of the other areas was also due to Hebrew initiative or due to Canaanites fleeing from the Israelites or at least somehow influenced by either one of these factors. Assyria was attacked by semi-Nomadic “Aramaean” tribes who may likewise have actually been Hebrews.

c. Egyptians inscriptions report that the Zekaru and Peleset  were defeated in Cyprus. The Zekaru were part of the so-called Sea-Peoples who at least in part were Israelites. We identify the Zekaru as belonging to the Tribe of Issacar. If this identification is correct we have an Israelite Tribe in Cyprus from early times.

d. Cyprus (i.e. “Caphtor” Isle of the Philistines?) in Assyrian inscriptions was later to be called “Yadnana” meaning “ISLE OF THE DANANU”, i.e. Isle of the Tribe of Dan. e.    The Egyptians counted the Dananu-Danites amongst the Peoples of the Sea. They connected the Dananu primarily with the areas north of the Orontes River1 on the north Syrian coast, with Cilicia, and with CYPRUS, and according to Ed.Meier also with Crete.

f. From the 800s b.c.e. a type of pottery called “Samarian” left its remnants all over Cyprus. Samarian pottery is the same as that known from Samaria capital of the northern kingdom of Israel. Cyprus at that  time has been described as “very largely a Phoenician island”. This means that it used a similar cultural base to that of most of the northern Israelite Tribes. More Phoenician inscriptions have been so far discovered on Cyprus than in Phoenicia itself. Phoenicia encompassed Lebanon and  the coastal part of Syria. The northern Israelites of Samaria spoke a dialect of Hebrew considered closer to that of the Phoenicians than to that of  the Judaeans of the southern kingdom. In many respects the culture of much of northern Israel was “Phoenician”. Alternately, much of what is termed “Phoenician” may actually be “Israelite”.

g. Buildings in the Cypriot capital of Kition and in the city of Enkomi are of a standard and type equaled only by that of the palace of Omri (882-871 b.c.e.) in  Israelite Samaria.

h. The physical type of a Cypriot ruler depicted in an Egyptian illustration is described similarly to that pertinent to Israelites of the period, as,
“light red beard, light coloured eye (blue or pink) skin” as “Traits characteristic of a certain type of Syro-Palestinian which one finds [illustrated] in many Theban [Egyptian] tombs”.
JEAN VERCOUTTER, “L’Egypte et le Monde Egeen Prehellenique (18em et 19em Dynasties)”, Le Caire,  1956. p.219

i.The influence of Israelites is evident in archaeological finds concerning Ancient Cypriot life style and values.

Cyprus had been known as Yadnana meaning “Isle of the Dananu” from the Israelite Tribe of Dan. An area corresponding in the descriptions to Scandinavia had also been called “Keftiu”, or “Kaptara” both meaning Cyprus. Since the Danites were connected with Cyprus of the Mediterranean they may (on that point alone) also have been on Cyprus of the Atlantic Ocean meaning in Scandinavia. Dan was exiled and  some Danites may have departed earlier than the others as explained elsewhere. Scandinavian culture at that time reveals the probable presence of a group hailing from the same Middle Eastern areas which the Danites had frequented shortly beforehand. It may be surmised that the Danites (or rather a portion of them) from the Mediterranean had migrated to Scandinavia.
Cyprus appears to be the area referred to in the Bible as the “Island of Caphtor” (Jeremah 47:7 Amos 9:7) homebase of the Philistines which we believe Israelites conquered. “Caphtor” has been interprted to mean “Top of the Pillar”. Scandinavia tradition in one version traced their ancestral gods to the Isle of “Asgard” which according to Jugen Spanuth (“Atlantis of the Noirth”, 1980, p.94) as “Island of Caphtor”.

Irish legends spoke of the Tribe of Dana (Tuatha De Danaan) who were renowned metallurgists, and scientifically adept. They arrived from the “northern isles” after some disaster, the only “northern isles” as far as Ireland is concerned are those of Scandinavia. The Tribe of Dana, said the Irish sources had originally come from the region of Mount Lebanon, it had sojourned in Greece, been enslaved, fought with the “Phillistines”, and then fled north after which it had come to Ireland.

Welsh legends also spoke of the Children of Don who paralleled the Tribe of Dana.

Irish legends in effect identify the Children of Dana with the Israelite Tribe of Dan according to the above conclusions.

In effect, they say that from Scandinavia the Danites had progressed to the British Isles. The Irish accounts exactly fit what archaeological research has revealed. The Irish records were transmitted orally for generations then written down centuries before archaeology confirmed them.

The Dana of Irish (and Welsh) Mythology belonged to the Israelite Tribe of Dan. Indications exist that the Assyrians or their auxiliaries conquered Scandinavia in about 1200 BCE and the Danites may have reached Scandinavia after that date. Scandinavian Bronze Age Civilisation ended in about 500 BCE about which time the Dana from Scandinavia came to Ireland and to parts of Britain.

Cyprus is identified with Caphtor. It was one of the places the Philistines came out of.

[Genesis 10:14] AND PATHRUSIM, AND CASLUHIM, (OUT OF WHOM CAME PHILISTIM,) AND CAPHTORIM.

Cyprus remained a base of the Philistines and the struggle against them entailed capturing the island. After that the Danites had taken it over. One version of Scandinavian legend says that their ancestors came from an island named Asgard. Another version says that they came from the  Plain of Ida and the Don River area in Scythia (Southern Russia). Both versions are correct and apply to different migrating bodies. The term Asgard however when applied to their ancestral home evidently should apply most strictly to the island.

Jurgen Spanuth, Atlantis of the North (p.211), identifies Cyrpus with Asgard:
“The name ‘I Kaphtor’ [Hebrew for Isle of Caphtor] is a literal translation of ‘holmr Asgard’; both mean island of the heavenly pillar, or literally, island of the top of the pillar, island of the heaven-bearing beam.”

See also:
Question on Cyprus being part of Israel

See also the Map of the Promised Land according to Bar-Deroma

Some Facts About Cyprus

Cyprus was occupied by Britain in 1878 during the administration of Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli.
British occupation continued until 1960. Cyprus facilitated protection of  the  sea route to India and Australia via the Suez Canal and was also important in the administration of “Palestine”.

Cyprus has a “Mediterranean” type climate, warm summers, rain in winter, moderate termperatures.
Natural resources include:
copper pyrites, asbestos, gypsum, timber, salt, marble, clay earth pigment.
In the past Cypus was important for its timber and forests still cover about 15% of the surface..
There is also an agricultural potential and a tourist industry.
At present water problems exist due to sparse rainfall, inroads of the Sea, and pollution of natural aquifers.
Control of the country is divided between the Greek (ca 80%) and Turkish (ca 20%) speaking populations who are in a state of subdued hostility towards each other. The population numbers more than 1200,000 people.

Cyprus produces citrus fruits, barley, potatoes, fishing, sheep, pigs, wine, clothing, and banking services.

3. Question: What Are the Boundaries of the Promised Land According to the Bible?
Answer: The Land of Israel stretches from the western confluences of the Nile Delta, encompasses all Sinai, part of Northern Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, parts of Iraq, southeast Turkey, the island of Cyprus, and reaches along the Euphrates River and beyond.
The Biblical Borders of the Land of Israel



4. Will the Land of Israel Encompass North America?
Re
All the Israelites Will Come Back!
by Alexander Zephyr
http://www.britam.org/Complete.html

There are sources that the future borders of the Land of Israel will reach into Western Europe and encompass the British Isles (Eretz Chemda, 20, quotes Levush Mordecai in the name of the Chatam Sofer).
This opinion is based on the understanding of the Great Sea.

Numbers 34:6 As for the western border, you shall have the Great Sea for a border; this shall be your western border. 

The Great Sea is usually understood to mean the Mediterranean to the west of Israel.
There is what appears to be a minority opinion that it means the Atlantic Ocean but even this is not certain.
Rabbi Yehudah (Gittin 8a) says “the Great Sea for a border” means the Yam HaOkeanus which refers to the Atlantic Ocean.
What was Rabbi Yehudah referring to?
There are differences of opinion.
One view say he meant the area of the Mediterranean encompassed by a line from Alexandria northwards to Turkey and encompassing island in the Sea in between such as Cyprus. This accords with some other opinions.
See:

#3. Question: What Are the Boundaries of the Promised Land According to the Bible?

http://www.britam.org/Questions/QuesLand.html#Boundaries
and above Map.
Another opinion says it means all the Mediterranean area up to the Atlantic.
Still other opinions (Chatam Sofer) suggest that it means lands of Western Europe and reaching up to the Atlantic.
Or it includes lands of Western Europe as well as Britain (an additional understanding of the Chatam Sofer).
Our understanding is that Britain  would be considered as in the Great Sea (Atlantic Ocean) and if it includes Britain
it would of necessity expand to encompass North America as well!
[Or for some reason even though it should stop at the Great Sea it may include Britain but not reach further?].

There are different ways of approaching differences of opinion such as the above.
One method is take it or leave it: One opinion is right, the others wrong.
Another approach is that they are all right but accord to different time tables.

What exactly all this means is not clear.
It is also not necessarily authoritative.
Matters concerning the Times of the Messiah are of necessity speculative.

The bottom line is the BIBLE.
Our understanding to stress as much as possible a Literal understanding of Scripture including Prophecy.
See:
#2. When and When Not is Scripture to be Taken Literally?
http://britam.org/Questions/QuesLiteral.html#When
#3. Saadia Gaon: The Literal Meaning of Scripture Must be Accepted
http://britam.org/Questions/QuesLiteral.html#Saadia
According to this,
What was prophesied as destined to take place in the Land of Israel will do so.

What do we therefore do with the Rabbinical statements concerning the future borders of Israel?
We may suggest an answer but it is built on a series of “ifs”!
If these sources are correct and mean literally what they say?
If the future land of Israel is to encompass parts of Western Europe, the British Isles, and North America?
If only a portion of the Ten Tribes return and the prophecies are fulfilled through them?
It may be that after that the sanctity of the Land of Israel will be expanded to include all Lands in which the Ten Tribes are to be found?

Anyway for the moment we all have to do what we can as well as we can.
God bless you
Yair.



See “Brit-Am Now“-3
#6. Scriptural boundaries for Israel

Brit-Am Now“-402
#3. The NORTHERN BORDERS of Biblical Israel

Brit-Am Now“-25
#5. From “Lost Israelite Identity”: ARABIA

Brit-Am Now“-742
#2. The Temple at Baal Bek: King Solomon or Only the Romans?
(a) Baal Bek in Lebanon
(b) Photos
(c) No-nonsense posting about Baal-Bek
Not so gigantic! built entirely by Romans!
(d) Painting of Baal Bek by David Roberts
(e) Built by Solomon?
(f) Immanuel Velikovsky 1895-1979)
Baal Bak is Ancient Dan? (An Interesting and valuable article)

Brit-Am Now“-744
#1. Is Israel sitting on an enormous oil reserve?
#2. Maps and Symbols
#3. Israeli Stamps:
Tribal Symbols
Brit-Am Now“-756
#5. The Biblical and Future Borders of the Land of Israel
Brit-Am Now“-799
#4. Land of Our Forefathers and Future: A Map
Brit-Am Now“-822
#2. Did Ancient Israel Reach to the Euphrates?
Brit-Am Now“-830
#3. The Cyprus Reference Again
Brit-Am Now“-832
#3. Photos from Lebanon



‘It is impossible to rightly govern the world without
God or the Bible.’
George Washington

Brit-Am is the “still small voice” that contains the truth.
[1-Kings 19:12] AND AFTER THE EARTHQUAKE A FIRE; BUT THE LORD WAS NOT IN THE FIRE: AND AFTER THE FIRE A STILL SMALL VOICE.

And His Land Will Atone for His People

Parashat Ha’azinu

 

The closing words of Ha’azinu’s song, “Vekhiper admato amo,” “And His land will atone for His people,” teach us that the land of Israel can achieve atonement for the people of Israel. This is why Chazal emphasize the importance of burial in Eretz Israel. Connecting the word “admato” mentioned in our verse with “mizbe’ah adama,” “earthen altar,” the Talmud goes as far as to say that burial in the land of Israel is equivalent to burial under the altar, the site of atonement. Due to its inherent holiness as God’s land, all of Eretz Israel is equated to the place of the altar.
The first to insist on burial in the Land of Israel was our forefather, Jacob. Jacob wished to be buried in Eretz Israel, not only for the personal spiritual benefit that he would derive, but also for a much more profound reason. The Meshekh Hokhmah argues that Jacob wished to prevent the assimilation of his offspring into Egyptian life and culture. Jacob impressed the centrality of Eretz Israel upon the national psyche of his descendants. Many Jews throughout the generations, who were unable to come to Israel during their lifetimes, echoed Jacob’s sentiments and instructed that they be buried there. They too wanted to impress upon their own families and communities that they are but temporary dwellers in a foreign land.

In Midrash Mishlei, Rabbi Levi’s version of the derashah regarding “vekhiper admato amo” reads in a slightly different manner. He says that anyone who lives in Eretz Israel, even for a single hour, and dies there, is destined to inherit the world to come. According to Rabbi Levi, burial alone does not do the trick; living in the land is essential. The Talmud relates Rabbi Elazar’s reaction to the death of Ulla, his student, outside of Eretz Israel: “You, Ulla, should die in an unclean land!” Hearing that Ulla’s coffin had arrived, Rabbi Elazar declared: “Receiving a man in his lifetime is not the same as receiving him after his death.”
Jacob was unable to return to live in Israel, but his descendants living in our present, unique times, are welcome to return. May we all merit to live long lives in the Land of Israel.

Bedpan Conversion to Judaism

Standard

Renee is a very caring lady who spends a lot of her spare time visiting and helping sick members of her Shul. Her car is also well known in the community because it’s decorated all over with lots of Hebrew decals and bumper stickers showing the Jewish charities she helps.
One day, as she is driving to one of the care homes she regularly visits, her car runs out of petrol and splutters to a stop. “Oy veh,” she says to herself, “and just when I’m late.”
Fortunately, she notices a petrol station only a few hundred yards away, so she walks to the station to get help. “Hi,” Renee says to the man behind the till, “I’ve run out of petrol and I’m hoping you can lend me your petrol can. I’ll pay you for the petrol I use and I’ll return your can as quickly as possible.”
The attendant replies, “I’m sorry, lady, but I’ve lent out my one and only can, not more than 5 minutes ago. I’m expecting it back in about half an hour, so if you want, you can wait here for it.”
But as she’s behind schedule, Renee goes back to her car to find something that she could use to fill with petrol. Then, what mazel, she notices the bedpan she always keeps handy in case of patient need. So she takes the bedpan to the petrol station, fills it and carries it back to her car.
Two Christian men are passing by and watch her pour in the petrol. One turns to the other and says, “If that car starts, I’m converting to Judaism!”

Survey: Egypt Overtaking Saudis As Most Conservative

Standard

Survey: Egypt Overtaking Saudis As Most Conservative

Survey of 7 Arab countries: Saudis think women should cover all but eyes in public, yet half for women choosing clothes.
Arab women (file)

Arab women (file)
Flash 90

A recent survey of 7 Muslim-majority Middle Eastern countries has revealed conflicting viewpoints in Saudi Arabia, a country that doesn’t let women drive and is often considered one of the most repressive nations in terms of women’s rights.

While nearly 2 out of 3 in Saudi Arabia think women should cover all but their eyes in public, nearly 50% say women should choose how they dress. The latter figure is close to the response in more liberal Lebanon with its large Christian population, and is far more permissive than Iraq, Pakistan or Egypt.

Mansoor Moaddel, lead author of the survey published by the Middle Eastern Values Study at the University of Michigan, claims to CNN that the results show Saudia Arabia has “a considerable liberal leaning.”

“Saudi has had a religious government for a long time,” stated Moaddel. “People tend to develop an opposition attitude.”

While Saudi Arabia recently allowed its first female lawyer, the nation’s religious police enforcing Sharia law have a far from stellar record on women’s rights. In March 2002, religious police stopped schoolgirls from escaping a burning school in Mecca because they were not wearing headscarves and black robes, nor were they accompanied by a man. As a result, 15 girls died and 50 were injured.

Moaddel argues that Egypt is the most conservative of the Muslim nations, as only 14% there said women should choose their dress, the lowestresults among the 7 nations.

Furthermore, 19 in 20 Egyptians said a women should be required to obey her husband, the highest result in that question.

The findings back research last November which placed Egypt the lowest in the Arab world in terms of women’s rights, with Saudi Arabia coming in third worst. A UN report last April found that 99.3% of Egyptian women and girls had been sexually harassed.

However, Moaddel assesses the Egyptian position as being sexist without relation to Islam. “The problem with Egypt is not just religion, it is an intellectual trend,” said the researcher, adding “Egyptians have become more sexist in the past decade. They have become less religious, less supportive of Sharia (Islamic law), but on the issue of gender, more conservative.”

The survey found that the generally agreed mode of dress for women in public among the 7 Muslim nations consisted of a tight white headscarf covering everything but the face.

Interviews with 2,005 people in Saudi Arabia and at least 3,000 in each of the 6 other countries made up the data for the survey.

Ariel Sharon dies at 85, eight years after stroke that felled him

Standard

Former prime minister and combat soldier will be remembered for his exploits in Israel’s wars, the decision to leave Gaza, an infamous trip to the Temple Mount at the start of the second intifada – and the massacre at Sabra and Shatila in Lebanon

 

Ariel Sharon, the controversial prime minister often blamed for lighting the touchpaper of the second intifada in 2000, and who led Israel out of the Gaza Strip in 2005, has died at the age of 85. He had spent eight years in a coma following a massive stroke in January 2006.

A dominant yet divisive figure in Israel, both as a military and political leader, Sharon died on Saturday afternoon at the Sheba Medical Center at Tel Hashomer, where he had been receiving long-term care.

His son Gilad Sharon announced: “He has gone. He went when he decided to go.”

A lifelong soldier, Sharon had turned to politics immediately after ending his service in the Israel Defense Forces at the age of 45. He had fought in the nation’s conflicts from before the inception of the state in 1948 up to and including the 1973 Yom Kippur War. He retired from the military with the rank of major general, and entered the Knesset. His political career flourished, albeit, like his military life, not without some controversy.

Sharon served as defense minister from 1981 to 1983, and prime minister from 2001 to 2006. It was while he held highest of political posts that he suffered the stroke that would leave him in a coma.

Ariel Sharon at a Knesset meeting in 2005 (Photo: Reuters)
Ariel Sharon at a Knesset meeting in 2005 (Photo: Reuters)

Ariel Sharon was born in Kfar Malal on March 1, 1928 to parents Deborah and Samuel Sheinerman, who arrived in Israel in the Third Aliyah from Russia, after the First World War.

Throughout the years, Sharon’s personal life bore much turmoil and drama. His first wife Margalit was killed in a car accident in 1962. Their son, Gur, was killed in 1967 at the age of 11 after a bullet discharged from a rifle Sharon used as decoration in his home.

One year following Margalit’s death, Sharon married her sister, Lily. The two had two sons, Omri and Gilad. Lily passed away from lung cancer in March 2000, and asked to be buried on a hill overlooking their famous Sycamore Ranch.

Related stories:

In 1942, he joined the Haganah, the pre-state militia that evolved into the IDF, and thus began a long career in the military. During the 1948 War of Independence, at the age of 20, he was a platoon commander in the Alexandroni Brigade and was seriously injured in the battle of Latrun. Upon his recovery, he became a battalion intelligence officer.

In 1951, Sharon was appointed chief intelligence officer for the Central Command, and in 1952 served in the same role in the Northern Command. He then took study leave, working for a bachelor’s degree in history and Middle Eastern studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

In 1953, he was an instrumental figure in the creation of Unit 101, whose purpose was to carry out retribution operations in response to infiltration attacks (Palestinian fedayeen) from Jordan and the Gaza Strip. Under his command, Unit 101 carried out several successful retaliation operations; however in October 1953, a retribution action in the village of Qibya in the West Bank resulted in 69 Arab casualties.

Following the “Qibya massacre”, the decision was made in January 1954 to end the unit’s independent operations, and it merged into a paratrooper battalion, under the Sharon’s command. In 1956, he was appointed commander of the Paratroopers Brigade, and fought in the Suez Crisis (Operation Kadesh) the same year.

From 1958 to 1962, Sharon studied law at the Hebrew University, and commanded the Infantry Brigade and the army’s infantry school. With the appointment of Yitzhak Rabin as the IDF chief of staff in 1964, Sharon was named Chief Staff Officer in the Northern Command, and two years later he was appointed head of training within the IDF General Staff, a role that awarded him the rank of major general.

Ariel Sharon, right, with Yitzhak Rabin (Photo: Defense Ministry)
Ariel Sharon, right, with Yitzhak Rabin (Photo: Defense Ministry)

He took part in the Six-Day War as an Armored Division commander, winning high praise. In 1970 he was appointed as head of the Southern

Command. He primarily took command of the War of Attrition, while fiercely criticizing the policies of then-IDF Chief of Staff Haim Bar-Lev and quarrelling with his General Staff colleagues. At the end of the War of Attrition and in 1971 he planned several attacks on terrorist cells in the Gaza Strip. In addition, he evacuated the Bedouins from northern Sinai, an act for which he was reprimanded by the then-chief of staff.

Sharon retired from the IDF in June 1973, and turned his attention to the Liberal party and the Knesset elections. He spent the next several months working with Menachem Begin on establishing the Likud, an amalgam of several existing rightist and liberal political parties. When the Yom Kippur War broke out in October 1973, Sharon returned to active duty as an Armored Division commander, quarreled with his superiors, and crossed the Suez Canal in what would become the war’s turning point.

New battles

Sharon became a Knesset Member in the general elections of December 1973, but resigned a year to return to the IDF. From 1975-1976, he served as defense advisor to Rabin, who was by then prime minister.

In 1980, Defense Minister Ezer Weizmann resigned, and Sharon sought to replace him. But Prime Minister Menachem Begin refused his request, and tensions arose between the two. It was only after the elections for the tenth Knesset in 1981 that Sharon was named defense minister. In this role, Sharon initiated Operation Oranim (Pines), which aimed to eliminate terrorist bases in Lebanon, and put an end to the ongoing attacks across the northern border.

The major operation, dubbed Peace for Galilee, began on June 6, 1982. Sharon was involved in all its stages, and critics charged that he had taken several steps without Prime Minister Begin’s knowledge or approval. In September 1982, after the assassination of Lebanese President Bachir Gemayel, the Lebanese Phalange forces massacred thousands of Palestinian residents of the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps of Beirut, an act that would haunt Sharon – and Israel – for years to come. The Israeli Kahan commission of inquiry found that Sharon bore personal responsibility for the massacre, and he was forced to resign as defense minister.

Despite this, Sharon continued to serve in the government as minister without portfolio, and was appointed industry and trade minister in the unity government formed after the 1984 elections, despite the opposition of HaMa’arakh (alignment) party members.

Sharon with his wife, Lily,1990 (Photo: Reuters)
Sharon with his wife, Lily,1990 (Photo: Reuters)

In February 1990 he resigned due to the government’s decision to allow elections in the Palestinian territories. After the fall of the government on March 15, Sharon was appointed minister of housing and construction under Yitzhak Shamir. In this position he accelerated large-scale settlement construction in the territories.

Ahead of the 1992 elections, Sharon ran for Likud leadership, yet came in third after Yitzhak Shamir and David Levy. Following Likud’s defeat by Labor in the 1992 elections, Shamir retired from political life. In the internal Likud elections in February 1993, Sharon chose not to run against Benjamin Netanyahu, who went on to lead the party to victory in 1996.

Sharon was initially left out of the new Netanyahu government, but was given the ministry of national infrastructure following an ultimatum presented by David Levy. He was member of the security cabinet, and towards the end of the government served as its foreign minister.

National leader

Following his overwhelming defeat in the 1999 elections, Netanyahu resigned the Likud leadership, and Sharon was elected as his successor in September 1999.

In September 2000, Sharon visited the Temple Mount, a controversial visit that received much media attention, despite warnings regarding the possible consequences of such an act. Following the visit, a wave of violence erupted among Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as among Israeli Arab citizens. This wave of violence marked the start of the Al-Aqsa Intifada.

In the 2001 elections, Sharon ran against Ehud Barak in a special election for prime minister, and won by a landslide. In January 2003 he led the Likud to a decisive win in the Knesset elections.

Sharon inherited the prime minister’s chair with the second intifada in full swing, and Israel facing numerous terrorist attacks. Under Sharon, the country took major steps against the continuous assaults, including a prolonged military attack against terrorist organizations. Military action peaked in late March 2002, with Defensive Shield, a major operation involving conscripted and reserve soldiers triggered by a massive suicide bombing at the Park Hotel in Netanya on the first night of Passover days earlier, in which 30 people were killed.

In December 18, 2003, Sharon began to promote his plan for unilateral Israeli disengagement from the Gaza Strip. The full details of the plan were presented in April 2004, when Sharon announced he intended to execute a full separation from Gaza, which would include the evacuation of all Israeli communities in the Strip, along with four settlements in northern Samaria.

Within the next few months, Sharon managed, albeit with great difficulty, to maintain the stability of his government and implement his disengagement plan: In August 2005, all Israeli settlements in Gaza were evacuated, along with the four settlements in the northern West Bank.

Ariel Sharon at his beloved Sycamore Ranch in the Negev (Photo: Yossi Rot)
Ariel Sharon at his beloved Sycamore Ranch in the Negev (Photo: Yossi Rot)

The disengagement led to a severe internal crisis within the Likud. In November 2005, after the resignation of the Labor party from Sharon’s government and the agreement on early Knesset elections, Sharon announced his departure from the Likud and – the establishment of a new party, Kadima.

It was during what would prove to be a short-lived term as head of a Kadima government that Sharon suffered from two strokes, the second of which would leave him comatose. The first, in December 2005, was a mild stroke, and he was hospitalized for just two days. But on January 4, 2006, the prime minister suffered a massive cerebral hemorrhage. Ehud Olmert, who served as Sharon’s deputy prime minister, became acting prime minister.

Sharon never regained consciousness. He is survived by his two sons, Omri and Gilad, and several grandchildren.

The Islamization of France in 2013

Standard

PA leader: Stages plan to eliminate Israel is basis of PA policy

Standard
Abbas Zaki, close associate of Mahmoud Abbas,
says a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders
is only first stage in the PA’s program
because “the inspiring idea cannot be achieved
all at once. [Rather] in stages”

In an interview on Syrian TV, senior Palestinian official Abbas Zaki said the PA will only agree to a treaty with Israel if the Palestinian state is established on the 1967 lines. However, he stressed that ’67 lines would only be the beginning. After that, the Palestinians will continue with the stages plan:

“Even the most extreme among us, Hamas, or the fighting forces, want a state within the ’67 borders. Afterward, we [will] have something to say, because the inspiring idea cannot be achieved all at once. [Rather] in stages.”
[Official Syrian Satellite TV Channel, Dec. 23, 2013]

Click to view

In an interview on Al-Jazeera TV in 2011, Zaki also mentioned this PA stages plan and referred to “the inspiring idea,” explaining that it means the end of Israel. He said that Mahmoud Abbas shares the goal of eliminating Israel in stages, but that the PA says it only wants a state along the 1967 borders because it is unacceptable politically to say you want to destroy Israel:

“You can’t say it to the world. You can say it to yourself.”

Zaki stressed that the goal is clear-cut because if Israel were to return to the 1967 lines, it certainly could not survive: “Israel will come to an end.”

This is Zaki’s full statement from 2011:

“The agreement is based on the borders of June 4 [1967]. While the agreement is on the borders of June 4, the President [Mahmoud Abbas] understands, we understand, and everyone knows that it is impossible to realize the inspiring idea, or the great goal in one stroke. If Israel withdraws from Jerusalem, if Israel uproots the settlements, 650,000 settlers, if Israel removes the (security) fence – what will be with Israel? Israel will come to an end. If I say that I want to remove it from existence, this will be great, great, [but] it is hard. This is not a [stated] policy. You can’t say it to the world. You can say it to yourself.”
[Al-Jazeera TV, Sept. 23, 2011]

Expressing his refusal to recognize Israel earlier this year during a public lecture, Abbas Zaki started to refer to Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport as “Israel’s Airport,” but then stopped himself and corrected himself:

“When Mr. Obama came to the region during his visit, as soon as he arrived at the airport of Isra… [corrects himself], I mean, the airport where the Israelis are. I don’t want… [corrects himself] this whole country is ours, and Allah willing, the airport will also return to us.”
[Official PA TV, April 8, 2013]

Click to view

Zaki sitting in place of honor one seat from M. Abbas at Fatah event in 2011.

These statements coming from Abbas Zaki are significant because he is a senior Palestinian official and a very close associate of Mahmoud Abbas. He was sent to Syria as Mahmoud Abbas’ personal representative a few months ago and has spoken at public events representing Fatah.

Another important statement reiterating that the PA is employing a stages plan to defeat Israel was expressed recently by PA Minister of Religious Affairs Mahmoud Al-Habbash in
a Friday sermon in the

presence of Mahmoud Abbas. Al-Habbash, speaking after the current round of peace talks was announced, said that the PA’s negotiations with Israel are modeled after the Hudaybiyyah agreement between Islam’s Prophet Muhammad and the tribes of Mecca. Recounting that Muhammad signed a 10-year truce, and yet two years later conquered Mecca, the minister stated: “This is the example and this is the model.”

Official PA children’s TV also teaches children to aspire to Israel’s destruction. Earlier this year the PA TV host told children:

PA TV host: “And of course we will never forget that we have land that was occupied in 1948, which will return to us one day. Remember well, children. Also [remember] to safeguard our folklore, our national games, the folklore in all its forms, our dress and our food and our games and anything that forms the Palestinian folklore – we have to safeguard it. If we don’t safeguard it, then the occupation might steal it as well, as it stole our land. Right? Do you agree with me? Bravo!”
[Official PA TV, Feb. 23, 2013]

Bringing up children to see all of Israel as “occupied” territory and as “stolen Palestinian land” that will “return” at some future time are significant components of Palestinian Authority ideology that are never expressed to Western leaders or Israelis, and are denied during peace discussions. Zaki’s description of the peace process as intended to lead to Israel’s destruction is consistent with these messages to PA children and many other internal messages the PA leadership sends to its population.

See more documentation here.
To read a detailed analysis of the PA’s continuing and ongoing deception and violations of its international commitments see PMW’s book, Deception which documents that the PA policy of saying it wants peace in English is contradicted by its internal political, social and cultural activities, its leaders’ statements and its education of youth in Arabic. Click to see reviews or to purchase Deception.

The following is an excerpt from Abbas Zaki’s recent interview:

Syrian TV host: “When they talk about [the US] imposing a solution, we know that it will be deficient.”
Member of Fatah Central Committee Abbas Zaki: “You can relax. We find ourselves united for the first time. Even the most extreme among us, Hamas, or the fighting forces, want a state within the ’67 borders. Afterward, we [will] have something to say, because the inspiring idea cannot be achieved all at once. [Rather] in stages.”
[Official Syrian Satellite TV Channel, Dec. 23, 2013]
The following is a longer excerpt of the sermon delivered by PA Minister of Religious Affairs Mahmoud Al-Habbash comparing negotiations with Israel to Muhammad’s Treaty of Hudaybiyyah:

“We hate war. We don’t want war. We don’t want bloodshed, not for ourselves, nor for others. We want peace. We say this because our culture is founded on this, and because our religion is based on this. Yes, we want peace, but not any peace. We want a peace based on justice, therefore the Palestinian leadership and the PLO have not missed any opportunity for peace…
The Palestinian leadership’s sense of responsibility towards its nation made it take political steps about 20 years ago (i.e., signing the Oslo Accords). Despite the controversy, despite much criticism and much opposition by some, it brought us to where we are today: We have a [Palestinian] Authority and the world recognizes the [Palestinian] state.
All this never would have happened through Hamas’ impulsive adventure, but only through the wisdom of the leadership, conscious action, consideration, and walking the right path, which leads to achievement, exactly like the Prophet [Muhammad] did in the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, even though some opposed it…
The hearts of the Prophet’s companions burned with anger and fury. The Prophet said: ‘I’m the Messenger of Allah and I will not disobey Him.’ This is not disobedience, it is politics. This is crisis management, situation management, conflict management…
Allah called this treaty a clear victory…
Omar ibn Al-Khattab said: ‘Messenger of Allah, is this a victory? Is this logical? Is this victory? We are giving up and going back, and not entering Mecca. Is that a victory?’ The Prophet said: ‘Yes, it is a victory.’
In less than two years, the Prophet returned and based on this treaty, he conquered Mecca. This is the example, this is the model.”
[Official Palestinian Authority TV, July 19, 2013]
Previous Bulletin Next Bulletin

 PMW Bulletins Archive

David Brotsky, creator of JIDF is a Fraud – Pockets Donations Sent to Support Israel ( Reblogged)

Standard
David BrotskyDavid Brotsky

David Brotsky the REAL creator and owner of the The Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF), backed by years of bravado to make them appear as an organization that aids Israel, is a front for solicitation of funds for it’s personal use.

 

Please Share

 

 An example of how his fraud works:

The Scam- Screenshot JIDF page 9, Dec. 2013

JIDF scam

Screenshot of Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/thejidf/posts/10152119037558142

Again, Seeking Support for Israel etc, with a link to his personal bank account.

JIDF scam 2

Again, Screenshot of scam: https://www.facebook.com/thejidf/posts/10152037895598142

Inside Israel’s White House: How Netanyahu runs the country

Standard

Decisions and planning increasingly concentrate around PM, who has enlarged role of key advisers, placed more value on inner cabinet, marginalized certain ministries

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu consults with his advisers at Blair House in Washington, May 2011.  Gil Shefer is at far left. Dore Gold is at far right. Ron Dermer sits, second from the right, with back to camera in short-sleeved shirt. Yaakov Amidror (bearded), Yitzhak Molcho (partially obscured by Netanyahu) and former cabinet secretary Zvi Hauser (black T-shirt, spectacles) are also at the table. (Photo credit: Avi Ohayon/Flash90)

Benjamin Netanyahu will complete his eighth (nonconsecutive) year as prime minister in March 2014, more than any Israeli premier except the state’s founder, David Ben-Gurion.

Get The Times of Israel’s Daily Edition by email
and never miss our top stories
   FREE SIGN UP!

And as the years go by, unsurprisingly, Netanyahu is leaving a deepening imprint on the way in which the country is governed.

Turnover is relatively high among his innermost circle of advisers and aides, who frequently last as little as two years at his side and all too often, especially in recent years, leave amid a cloud of scandal and negative press. At the same time, the role of some of those advisers has become increasingly central, as the Prime Minister’s Office seems to be filling an ever-more influential role in national policy.

“There is an international phenomenon of concentration of foreign policy power in the hands of presidents and prime ministers,” noted Chuck Freilich, a former Israeli deputy national security adviser who has writtena book about Israel’s decision-making process. And this consolidation has happened quickly in Israel, where the PMO now handles all major issues of diplomatic and security policy, including the peace talks with the Palestinians, the Iranian nuclear crisis and the most important of Israel’s diplomatic relationships, such as those with the United States, Britain, France and Germany.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, at an October 9, 2012 press conference at the Prime Minister's office in Jerusalem, announces he's calling elections. (Photo credit: Miriam Alster/FLASH90)

In the PMO under Netanyahu, that sees a great deal of close consultation with key advisers, a notably expanded role for the National Security Council, and a changing structure of the inner “security cabinet” of top ministers.

It also means less influence for the individual ministries and ministers in some areas that used to be their exclusive purview.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Finance Minister Yair Lapid and outgoing Bank of Israel Governor Stanley Fischer at a press conference in the Knesset, June 24, 2013. (Photo credit: Miriam Alster / Flash90)

When Netanyahu was finance minister under prime minister Ariel Sharon, for instance, it was he who recruited Stanley Fischer as governor of the Bank of Israel. When Karnit Flug was appointed Fischer’s successor in October, in a chaotic and protracted process, by contrast, Finance Minister Yair Lapid most emphatically did not exclusively oversee the selection.

Likewise, the question of Bedouin resettlement would in previous years have been a matter overwhelmingly for the Interior Ministry. Under Netanyahu, the Prime Minister’s Office has been centrally involved.

‘A dialogical personality’

Amid the process of consolidation, Netanyahu is said to be more open than some of his predecessors were to the views of trusted staff around him.

“Bibi has a dialogical personality,” said one confidant who asked not to be named. “He makes decisions in the course of discussion. He needs a conversation partner to make those decisions.”

Netanyahu takes a close interest in the views of those around him, confirmed another source familiar with the prime minister’s deliberative process. “He’s always asking questions, interrogating you for your opinion, and writing down what you’re saying.”

That aspect of Netanyahu’s personality is both an advantage and a crutch, the confidant added.

The advantage: Netanyahu is “flexible and thorough” when making decisions. “Every decision requires 10 discussions. He’s not hasty like some previous prime ministers.”

The disadvantage: “He can seem indecisive, fickle. No decision is final until it’s actually being implemented. Decisions often change in the course of discussion, both because his reasoning continues to develop and because those who know him well know how to focus their arguments to reach certain conclusions.”

Whether or not this personality trait is beneficial to forming national policy, there is no doubt it gives an outsize role to those who surround and engage the prime minister in those policy discussions.

As power concentrates around a premier who gives added weight to his advisers’ views, those advisers are becoming increasingly important for any understanding of how the machinery of power is managed and critical decisions are made in the State of Israel.

Enlarged role for the NSC

The shift of diplomatic and security policymaking into the hands of the prime minister is a global phenomenon. In part, this is due to inevitable changes in technology, Freilich explained.

“Foreign ministries face a real question. Why are they needed? Today, if a prime minister wants to know what the Americans are thinking, he calls up [Secretary] Kerry or [President] Obama. Foreign ministries don’t have the roles they used to have, where ambassadors on the ground were absolutely essential, especially [in light of modern] media and communications.”

The issues now handled in the PMO “don’t leave the Foreign Ministry with much of anything of consequence,” noted Freilich. “I think that’s understood by most people today. The Foreign Ministry deals with day-to-day caretaking and maintenance of relations.”

In order to effectively manage this workload in the PMO, Netanyahu has slowly constructed over several years Israel’s first policy planning staff directly answerable to the prime minister.

Founded in March 1999 by the first Netanyahu government, just three months before that coalition’s demise, the National Security Council struggled for a long time to find its place in the decision-making structures under other premiers. It received a significant boost when its responsibilities were anchored in law in July 2008, just in time for Netanyahu’s return to the Prime Minister’s Office in March 2009.

All former officials and confidants who spoke with The Times of Israel for this story emphasized the enlarged role Netanyahu has carved out for the National Security Council. Its head, the national security adviser, has his office just meters away from the prime minister in the Aquarium, the glass-fronted inner sanctum in the PMO reserved for the premier himself and his closest aides.

The NSC is now responsible for the highest-level contacts between Israel, the US, major European powers and even, more recently, Russia. It regularly communicates, officially and unofficially, publicly and secretly, with the highest levels of these governments. It even handles the high-level policy workload on broader issues of geopolitical import, such as Israel’s gas exports.

Benjamin Netanyahu speaking to Barack Obama at the Prime Minister's Residence in Jerusalem in March. (photo credit: Pete Souza/Official White House)

One recent example is telling. After the public spat between Netanyahu and Obama over the interim nuclear deal with Iran in November, the two leaders agreed in a December phone call that Israel would send a senior official to Washington to handle US-Israeli talks on the permanent agreement with Tehran. For perhaps the most critical and sensitive discussions on the issue Netanyahu himself has called his government’s number one priority, the prime minister chose to send his newly installed national security adviser, Yossi Cohen.

When he appointed Cohen’s predecessor, former IDF major-general Yaakov Amidror, to the top NSC post in 2011, Netanyahu’s public statement left little doubt as to how he viewed the position. Amidror, he said, “will lead the National Security Council as a body central to determining Israel’s national and security policies.”

Yossi Cohen, who's been appointed to chair Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's National Security Council (photo credit: courtesy)

The two national security advisers who preceded Cohen were former Mossad head of intelligence Uzi Arad, a noted expert on the Iranian nuclear question, and Amidror, who has written extensively on the security challenges posed by neighboring Arab states and Palestinian terror groups. Both are known as wide-ranging strategic thinkers.

But the choice of his newest adviser, a former Mossad number two, has raised eyebrows. Cohen is generally thought of as a keen operations man, say insiders, not a strategic and policy planning expert.

Prime minister Ehud Olmert at his last cabinet meeting, March 29, 2009. (Photo credit: Ariel Jerozolimski / Pool / Flash 90)

“Cohen’s predecessors all had extensive strategic and diplomatic experience,” said Freilich. “Ilan Mizrahi [who served for a year and a half under Ehud Olmert from 2006 to 2007] was, like Cohen, a Mossad operations man. But even he had some diplomatic experience by the time he became the national security adviser. Cohen doesn’t seem to have that background.” Even so, Freilich concluded, Cohen “is a very smart man and can learn.”

“Yossi Cohen is an operational guy,” agreed a source close to the PMO. “He’s very much about implementation. But that’s also part of the NSC’s work. It prepares briefing papers for meeting foreign officials, writes briefings, handles a lot of day-to-day diplomacy. A lot of foreign governments speak to the NSC.”

Cohen is one of a triumvirate of key national security advisers on whom Netanyahu relies on a daily basis, according to several sources familiar with the inner workings of the PMO. The other two are the prime minister’s military secretary, Maj. Gen. Eyal Zamir, and the cabinet secretary, former chief military advocate general Maj. Gen. (res.) Avichai Mandelblit.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with his former National Security Adviser Ya'akov Amidror and (background) cabinet secretary Avichai Mandelblit at the PMO in Jerusalem on November 3, 2013. (Photo credit: Miriam Alster/FLASH90)

Not all cabinet secretaries have been influential figures in recent years, with some chosen by the prime minister for their past loyalty or effective management skills.

But Mandelblit is in the room a lot with the prime minister, several sources said. “He has a quiet and low-key personality, but quiet waters run deep,” said one. “He is an expert in international law, so he’s in a lot of diplomatic meetings where you didn’t necessarily see his predecessor.”

With Mandelblit’s appointment in April, “the status of the post has possibly been enhanced.”

But the rise of the NSC has not occurred without causing friction with the other major national security advisory post, that of the military secretary.

Unlike the national security adviser, “the military secretary doesn’t have a support staff. He has one or two people working for him,” notes Freilich.

Freilich believes “there has to be a serious change in the role of the military secretary. He shouldn’t be in charge of preparing meetings. He has to be a serious strategic planner. Maybe the military secretary should become deputy head of the NSC.”

Israeli Ambassador to the US presents his credentials to President Barack Obama at the White House, December 4, 2013 (photo credit: Twitter/ Amb. Ron Dermer)

The NSC’s centrality is also highlighted by the fact that it took on most of the duties held by Netanyahu’s former adviser and new ambassador to Washington, Ron Dermer.

The US-born Dermer, who cut his teeth in political consulting as a Republican pollster in the United States in the 1990s, held a unique position at Netanyahu’s side as a political adviser, foreign policy analyst, and a key source of insight into Netanyahu’s main foreign policy target: the United States. He left the PMO in March and was appointed ambassador to Washington in July.

Tellingly, Dermer is not being replaced.

“Dermer was personally close to the prime minister. His job was to be the close adviser,” said one former official. “Now the head of the NSC is filling that role.”

“There’s no doubt Dermer had a unique role with the prime minister,” said another source familiar with the pair. “They had a relationship that predates him taking office. [Dermer advised Netanyahu from 2008, a year before he became prime minister.] Now that Dermer has moved on to Washington, different parts of his responsibilities were divided up. A lot of it went to the NSC.”

The growing centralization of policymaking around the prime minister is also highlighted by Netanyahu’s preference, like other recent premiers, for “external” advisers, individuals who are given senior policy roles but are not government employees. The two key external advisers are attorney Yitzhak Molcho and former ambassador to the UN Dore Gold.

While Justice Minister Tzipi Livni is the top political face of the peace talks with the Palestinians, Molcho is the personal representative of the prime minister. It is significant that as per Netanyahu’s instructions, the negotiators cannot meet without Molcho being present. A close personal confidante of the prime minister, who also serves as Netanyahu’s family attorney, Molcho has served as Netanyahu’s chief peace negotiator for many years, managing his contacts with Yasser Arafat during his first government in the 1990s, and again with Abbas since 2010.

Gold has a similarly long relationship with the prime minister, having served as a peace negotiator alongside Molcho in 1996-7, and then spending much of Netanyahu’s first term, from 1997 to 1999, as Israel’s ambassador to the UN. An outspoken activist — Gold has published three books in recent years about the radical ideology of the Saudi state, Iran’s nuclear drive and the future of Jerusalem — Gold has served as president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, a conservative policy think tank in Jerusalem, since his retirement from public service.

Last month, it was announced that Gold would return to Netanyahu’s side as an external adviser. While Netanyahu has emphatically placed the peace talks in the hands of Molcho, US-born Gold’s experience at the UN and other international forums, his expertise in Middle East politics (he holds a PhD on the subject from Columbia University) and his knowledge of the United States suggest he will likely fill part of the role left vacant by the departed Dermer.

Sara Netanyahu

No survey of Netanyahu’s inner circle is complete without noting the looming presence, or at least the allegations of the looming presence, of Netanyahu’s wife.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife Sarah on September 27 at the UN in New York after Netanyahu's speech to the General Assembly (photo credit: Avi Ohayun, GPO)

Sara Netanyahu, a child psychologist, has been the target of scorn and criticism from many Israeli journalists and news outlets, and indeed won a major libel suit against an Israeli paper for its critical portrayal of her, a remarkable feat given Israel’s comparatively strict legal definitions of libel.

It is not always easy to sift through the over-the-top criticism, much of it generated by her husband’s opponents, to understand her precise role at the prime minister’s side.

There is no doubt she plays a central role in the prime minister’s inner circle. Netanyahu “listens to her on almost everything,” said a former official. “Not on Iran, of course, but on almost everything.”

Nor does he consult with her on peace talks with the Palestinians, said another source.

In fact, she does not advise the prime minister on policy, most former officials and observers agree, but rather on political questions. She is his self-appointed but much-trusted political handler and occasional media adviser.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seen with his wife Sara and their son Yair, celebrates his 64th birthday, at the PMO in Jerusalem, October 20, 2013. (Photo credit: Kobi Gideon GPO/FLASH90)

“She’s very concerned with what happens to him,” said one source close to the prime minister. “She admires [Netanyahu], thinks he is practically a gift from God to the Jewish people and the State of Israel, and is very sensitive to attacks on him. She also follows the media carefully.”

Netanyahu’s outgoing chief of staff, Gil Shefer, made a point of involving Sara in all goings-on in the Prime Minister’s Office and in his political activities, sources said. Shefer’s replacement, the US-born Ari Harow, who is returning to Netanyahu’s side after having served as an adviser and chief of staff from 2007 to 2010, is also expected to make coordination with Sara Netanyahu a key function of his job.

The chief of staff role is larger than mere coordination with Israel’s First Lady, of course. But with Sara taking a keen interest in the prime minister’s domestic political position, and with the effective merger of a PM’s personal and professional lives once he or she moves into the Prime Minister’s Residence, it is not a minor part of the role, either.

What about the cabinet

Finally, Netanyahu’s decision-making process cannot be understood without examining the changing structure of his cabinet. In the last government, Netanyahu appointed a security cabinet — the committee of ministers charged by law with national security decisions — that hovered around 15 members. But he was frustrated repeatedly by leaks and indecisive debate in the large group, and decided to form an ad hoc “Group of Seven” cabinet that eventually expanded to become a Group of Nine. It was in this smaller, unofficial committee where real decisions and high-level policy discussions actually took place.

Netanyahu has applied that lesson to his current government. He restructured the security cabinet down almost to the minimum size required by law. It now comprises just eight members: Netanyahu, Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, Finance Minister Yair Lapid, Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch, Justice Minister Livni, Economy Minister Naftali Bennett and Home Front Security Minister Gilad Erdan. It is advised on an ongoing, permanent basis by two senior officials, Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein and — who else? — the prime minister’s national security adviser Yossi Cohen.

According to those familiar with its workings, the cabinet meets “very regularly” and is now the main forum where “the serious discussions are held.”

The Israeli White House

Many of these changes in the structure of national security decision-making at the highest levels of the Israeli government will likely outlive Netanyahu’s premiership. Indeed, the impulse to concentrate policy around the prime minister extends beyond security questions.

The Prime Minister's Office (photo credit: Flash90)

Netanyahu more or less openly acts as the nation’s top economic planner, taking a decisive role in appointing the new Bank of Israel governor and setting macroeconomic targets. Under him, key questions of domestic policy, including extending free public schooling down to the age of three, Bedouin resettlement plans and Arab sector economic development, have been brought under the umbrella of the PMO’s Planning Directorate headed by Udi Prawer.

Netanyahu, who speaks native English and was an early adopter of American political campaign methods into Israeli elections, has often been called Israel’s most “American” prime minister.

Whatever truth there may be in these claims of cultural affinity, there is little doubt the PMO under Netanyahu, with its advisers and policy planners and growing control over ever-expanding policy arenas, is looking more and more like Israel’s White House.

Read more: Inside Israel’s White House: How Netanyahu runs the country | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/inside-israels-white-house-how-netanyahu-runs-the-country/#ixzz2phh6IjLc
Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook

A Post on the New York Post and the Post Stark Murder Fiasco

Standard

One of my Jewish brothers was murdered over the weekend. This makes me very sad. One of my Jewish sisters is now a widow. Seven of my Jewish nieces and nephews lost their father. Few things tug more at the heartstrings than children who will grow up without a father because his life was knowingly taken by human murderers. From a personal angle, the murder of Menachem Stark is a tragedy. It hurts so much.

By all accounts, Stark was a member in good standing in his Chasidic community. He gave charity generously. He helped those in need. He was well regarded in his social circles. This is the side of the man that was known in the insular Chasidic community.

There may have been another side to this man. Stark was a high roller. He was involved in huge business deals and multi-million dollar investments. The world of the wheeling and dealing real estate mogul is a far cry from the quiet streets of Williamsburg. Many Chasidic men live with one foot in each of these two very different worlds.

kidnap4n-1-web

Photo: VINNEWS

It seems that over the weekend he succumbed to the outside world. Someone wanted him dead. Someone from the part of his life that was a mired in litigation, massive loans, a less than sterling reputation as a landlord, and a world with associates who would not feel at home in Stark’s shteible or Shabbos table chose to kill him. Stark met his Maker in the wake of unspeakable violence. To snuff out the life of a human being is the most heinous of crimes. There is no restitution. There is no forgiveness. It’s a crime that is deserving of the stiffest punishments available. In my view, murder is never justified. No matter the circumstances.

Almost all the discussion about this man and his death are about a headline in a tabloid newspaper. The Sunday New York Post ran an article that enumerated many of the allegations and rumors regarding Stark’s business dealings. The article was sordid and hardly journalism but the point of the article was that because Stark had so many potential enemies there were a lot of potential suspects in the murder investigation. It’s an immature angle to the story, but that was their angle. The front page was a photo of Stark in his Chasidic garb with the following headline: “Who Didn’t Want Him Dead?”

It’s hard to imagine a more provocative, attention grabbing, sensationalist headline. Especially because the true king of sensationalist headlines is the New York Post. They do it all the time. It’s also ironic because so many frum Jews in the more insular communities of New York have always thought of the Post as a friend of Israel and the Jews. They share the paper’s conservative bent and thus always thought the Post was something of value. Most serious people have known that the Post is trash for a long time. To them, the headline was gross, but it wasn’t a betrayal. The headline was obscene, but it was completely in character. (Just a few weeks ago, the Post editorial team ran a despicable article saying that New York City was too generous in its meager assistance of the homeless family of Dasani whose story was heartbreakingly portrayed in a superb in-depth article in the New York Times. That’s typical. Disgusting, but typical.)

In response to the terrible headline in the Post, many politicians have called for boycotts of the Post. Other spokespeople have condemned the Post. I join in those condemning the headline and I think the Post doesn’t belong in the home of a God Fearing Jew. It’s trash. We take the trash out. We don’t bring it in. Page Six is enough of a reason for the Post to be assur. Many people have politely called the Post to express their outrage. I admire them for their advocacy.

It seems to me that the headline is terrible because it makes a murder victim into an object of character assassination. It does not wonder who would commit such a heinous crime. It wonders what kind of person becomes an enemy to so many others. That’s an awful angle to take on a murder story. Although, I don’t doubt the Post has taken this approach to other murders. I just wouldn’t know because I don’t read the Post.

Some Chasidic bloggers have penned responses to the Post headline. I think they have a right to be outraged. But I do think some of the outrage is misguided and counter productive. I know that we are in pain, but we still must be responsible and accurate.

First, the headline says “Who Didn’t Want Him Dead?”. The headline was written by an editor. It was not written by any of the journalists assigned the story. Threats have been made to a journalist. I heard this from someone who knows the journalist personally. Photoshopped images of the journalist captioned “Who Wouldn’t Want Him Dead” have been produced. If you are mad about the headline, please direct your anger to the appropriate party. Do not threaten

Second, please learn English. The headline does not imply that his death was justified in any way. Nor does it give license to kill all slumlords. Please. The headline means that there are a lot of potential suspects because of his many colorful business associates and dealings. No sense in generating anger because of a misreading of the headline.

Third, he wasn’t just a philanthropist. It’s appropriate to eulogize our loved ones and community members by remembering them fondly. Even (and I am not making a moral equivalency here) mob bosses are remembered fondly at their funerals. But we cannot confuse the glowing positive memories with the harsh realities of the real world. We’ve all done things that we wouldn’t want announced at our funeral. But just because they are not cried over at our funeral does not meant that they are not true.

Fourth, let’s try to be consistent. If we hate sensationalist journalism, let’s not do it ourselves. Let’s not support the Post. Let’s try to be balanced and measured in our writing. Combating hyperbole and shoddy journalism with histrionics and wild accusations helps no one.

Fifth, let’s shelve the anti-Semitism card on this one. There is nothing different or unique about this disgraceful Post headline than any others. It has nothing to do with him being a Jew. It has nothing to do with him being a Chasid. It has everything to do with the fact that this is a really interesting story. Crying anti-Semitism when there is none is the easiest way to helping create real anti-Semitism.

Sixth, enough with the Hashem Yinkom Damav please. If the first reaction to death and murder is to take revenge, I think we have to consider whether we have a serious character issue.

So let’s join together and tell the Post how disgusted we are with this story and headline. Let’s also tell them that we don’t like their other nasty headlines either. Let’s be honest and truthful about what we do and do not know. Let’s not cry anti-Semitism.

Most of all, let’s try to compensate for any chillul Hashem that is occurring by increasing our efforts to be mekadesh Hashem. Let’s remember that the first question we will be asked when we reach the Heavenly Court is whether we dealt honestly in business. Let’s make sure that we pass that test. Let’s see if we can generate the same kind of outrage that we have about this headline for things that actually affect our communities. Headlines are harmless. Abuse and corruption are crimes with real victims.

Finally, I can only assume that the Stark family is going to be enduring a very difficult emotional and financial period. I am sure that their community will take good care of them as they always do. Perhaps some solidarity from us outsiders to their community would be a fine gesture in this difficult time. If only as a token of unity, I think it would be an appropriate thing to do. Families of murder victims deserve our help and camaraderie. Let’s give it to them.

– See more at: http://finkorswim.com/2014/01/06/a-post-on-the-new-york-post-and-the-post-stark-murder-fiasco/#sthash.Hmz2djIT.dpuf