Azaria Alon -Lover of Zion and The Land of Israel

Standard
Azaria Alon z”l – Lover of the Land of Israel
**
Whenever we travel throughout our beautiful country or enjoy our streams and our clean well-kept trails it is thanks to the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel and their development of Israeli nature reserves.
**
Azaria Alon, who died this morning, was one of Israeli nature’s greatest lovers and guardians.As a Bar Mitzvah gift I received an encyclopedia titled “HaChai V’HaTzomach Shel Eretz Yisrael” (The animals and greenery of Israel), edited by Alon. I loved turning the pages and afterwards going on a hike in those very same places.
**
The Nation of Israel owes much gratitude to this very special lover of our beautiful country. He was a Humble and good Jew.and Zionist
May his memory be blessed.

יהי זכרו ברוך —
18 hours ago · Like · 1
  • Stephen Darori In 1972 , 76 and again 1980 the South African Railways proposed taking over the Administration and Development of Israeli Railways ( at the expense of the SA Railways entirely).The negotiations were led by my late father Morrie Drus. In 1980 he came on Aliyah with the entire Drus family but remained the Right Hand Man of the then Director General of the South African Railways , Dr Johannes Marais ,a great Christian Zionist. Between 1980 and 1982 he worked closely with Azaria Alon and produced a 10 years development plan for the Israeli Railways that included railway lines from Rosh Hanikra ( the tunnel by the way and line to Beirut was built by the South African Engineering Corps within the British Army during the Second World War… my father led this Unit) .The Plan included Railway lines from Katsrin on the Golan, Metulla and Rosh Hankra through the Shomron to Ashdod , Ashkelon, Sderot, Netivot , Dimona, Yerocham , Beer Sheva to Eilat with an additional Narrow Gauge commercial line from Eilat to Tel Aviv and the Jewels of the Development Plan a Fast Net to Jerusalem and a MonoRail System in the Mercaz ( the water table is to close to the surface for an underground) . 47 Israeli Railway workers ,all members of the Histadrut objected and the high level contract was never signed. The Cost to Zion of the 47 in today’s money is estimated at $63 billion dollars and counting. The Fast Net to Jerusalem has already cost Zion about $9.4 billion and is slated to open in early 2016. ……………………My father walked the length and breath of Zion with Azaria Alon and his Society for the Protection of Nature clutching their Nature Biblehttp://www.amazon.com/…/038514…/ref=la_B001JOIT6I_1_2… …..Azaria Alon’s contribution to Zion’s landscape is his legacy. A very Great Man. May his his Memory be Blessed.Wonderful………………… … For the last 6 months I have been transitioning back to a position in Zion ( the White Silicon City would be nice) but I have been repeatedly tagged with ” too much experience ” or “too many degrees”… it is very frustrating especially as remuneration isn’t an issue ( unless it is insulting or/and a disincentive). If you have any contacts or know of companies looking for a mutlifaceted skilled person, please contact me Tel 0524182849 ( stephendarori@gmail.com)http://www.linkedin.com/…/stephendarori… the 6th September 1986 , Drus ( pronounced Darus) was Hebrewaized to Drori. The “a” in English was added for branding purposes. Darus is the gerund of “Le Dareis ” to be trodden on . we couldn’t live with that.Dror is the Biblical word for Sparrow. Achad Ha’am wrote … “cage a sparrow ad it will die” ( think about it .. it is true) . Eliezer ben Yehuda included the word Drori in his 1930’s New Hebrew dictionary with a meaning of “freedom, liberty”

    www.amazon.com

    Describes the flora and fauna of Israel and adjacent areas. Geographically Israel…See more
  • Larry Williams It’s sad to loose someone like that who is so in touch with nature !
  • Lisa Kamins bauruch dayan emet
  • Stephen Darori

DOES CROSSING THE GREEN LINE AFFECT BOWEL MOVEMENT?

Standard

 Print Friendly and PDF

The “Green Line” is the pre-1967 border of the State of Israel, and “crossing it” means going into the ancient Jewish regions of Judea and Samaria, AKA the West Bank.

And apparently is does make one’s bowel movement more odorous, this according to the Sept. 30, 2013 PNN ( Palestine News Network) Headline : Israel Uses Settler Feces as Bio-Warfare.

Here is a quote from the article:

The Israeli army has developed a large vehicle for spraying sewage waste and feces at Palestinian protestors and homes, reportedly, in the towns of Abu Dis, Aizariah, Bil’in and Nabi Saleh.

Spraying sewage waste has become so common a weapon used by the Israeli Army that the combination of sewage water, feces, and human urine has been named “skunk”.  B’Tselem reports that ‘skunk’ and the vehicle used to disperse it, have been added to Israel’s armory for crowd control.

Here’s a short youtube about the skunk mixture.

Let’s analyze this together. [Try to keep a straight face]

  1. Premise: The Palestine News Network reports only facts.
  2. Premise: The PNN made the scientific determination that the skunk mixture contains excrement of “settlers” (as per the story headline: Israel Uses Settler Feces as Bio-Warfare).
  3. Premise: The editorial board has no access to the Skunk laboratory, rather they identified the settler BM odor solely based on its distinct smell.
  4. Conclusion: Ladies and gentlemen, there you have it: Crossing the Green Line into the Jewish villages of Judea and Samaria absolutely and positively affects the odor of one’s bowel movement.
The Skunk lifts its tail

I am shocked that the US State Department has not yet come out with a notice to US Citizens travelling in these areas.

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.

The Truth About Palestine and The Palestinians

Video

Published on Jan 17, 2014
Palestine – To was or not to was? That is the question, which 2 Palestinian chicks tried to answer in an attempt to debunk, pwn and otherwise refute claims made in another video titled “Israel Palestinian Conflict: The Truth About the West Bank” – from the crafty hands of Danny Ayalon who seems to be enjoying making videos ever since he left the Israeli parliament. Well, now the poor girls got a Joniversity response.

A few links to feast on:
My facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Joniversity
Genocidal Race Traitor: http://genocidalracetraitor.blogspot….
A video where I deal with Biblical Archeology: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrMNGj…
Danny Ayalon’s original video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGYxLW…
The response video by the two Arab chicks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBYkBq…
The Bill Maher bit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmizyH…

Stuff I talked about:
Anti-Semitic Nazi propaganda vs Arab anti-Israel propaganda: http://www.antisemitism.org.il/eng/Ar…

The view of the West Bank as Disputed Territory rather than Occupied Territory: http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp470.htm

Palestine laid waste with little population: http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~peters/d…

Demographics of Palestine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demograp…

League of Nations Mandate for Palestine: http://cojs.org/cojswiki/League_of_Na….

Palestinian nationalism (nice article where Benny Morris reviews Rashid Khalidi’s book): http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&…

The two chicks based some of their stuff on works by Ilan Pappe. Here’s Benny Morris shredding him one passage at a time http://www.newrepublic.com/article/bo…

My personal views:
For me personally the legal case for the West Bank as disputed territories seams sketchy, and I have a hunch that most Israelis are on the same page as I am on this. Also, I for one, do not think that the fact that the Palestinian national identity was manufactured not long ago (mainly for political reasons, but yes, also in response to a more organic sense of identity that has developed over time) means that they have more or less rights than the ancient Jewish national identity. The way I see it, trying to solve the Israeli-Arab conflict by benchmarking it against a historical justice/injustice scale simply seams extremely counter-productive – it is a fight both sides can potentially win at the face value argument level. Although Palestinians have the “advantage” of appearing as the weak party, which automatically makes a certain type of people unite in defense of the poor suffering brown native noble savage (just as they did for Israel when it was the weak party), after all weak = victim, and victim = just. Didn’t you know? And yes, it helps when that poor suffering brown native noble savage has petro-dollar money pushing its propaganda.
Be good.
Jonny.

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.

The legal case for Judea and Samaria by by Nadav Shragai ( Reblogged and please Share It)

Standard
Samaria

Samaria (Photo credit: ArkanGL)

Location of district XY (see filename) in Israel

Location of district XY (see filename) in Israel (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

5th century AD: Byzantine provinces of Palaest...

5th century AD: Byzantine provinces of Palaestina I (Philistia, Judea and Samaria) and Palaestina II (Galilee and Perea) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

English: "Beit Horon. The place where the...

English: “Beit Horon. The place where the story of Judas Maccabeus has happened / Judea and Samaria, The story of evry Jewish man” (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Map showing the West Bank and Gaza Strip in re...

Map showing the West Bank and Gaza Strip in relation to central Israel (situation of 2007) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Israel: Judea and Samaria District according t...

Israel: Judea and Samaria District according to official Israeli regulations. Unlike other administrative districts of Israel, this district is not entirely territorial – it includes only the Israeli settlements in the West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem which was annexed to Israeli Jerusalem district). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

English: Israel location Judea and Samaria.

English: Israel location Judea and Samaria. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Judea

Judea (Photo credit: teterocamonde)

Send to a Friend | Print |  

For years, the world has regarded Judea and Samaria as Palestinian territory illegally occupied by Israel • But now a group of hundreds of jurists from Israel and abroad is fighting back in the battle for the historical and legal truth.

Nadav Shragai

An Israeli community in Judea and Samaria

|

Photo credit: Lior Mizrahi

If international legitimacy for the settlement enterprise were a horse, one could say that it’s been long out of the barn. Those roaming the halls of power worldwide — from the White House in the era of Barack Obama and John Kerry to the United Nations — have for years regarded the territories of Judea and Samaria as Palestinian territory that is currently under occupation.

The hostile attitude toward the settlement enterprise is a natural, direct derivative of this premise. If we were to make a gross generalization, the world has adopted the Palestinian narrative as it relates to the legal status of the territories. Even those who negotiate on behalf of the State of Israel, men and women who officially adhere to the party line that Judea and Samaria, the cradle of Jewish civilization and peoplehood, is not occupied territory, have long ceased to make this statement publicly, just as they haven’t even bothered to make use of a long list of legal and historical arguments that support this position.

While it may seem that this train has long left the station, we were surprised to suddenly learn that for months now a counterattack has been waged over “the historical, legal truth.” This is a campaign that is being waged by hundreds of jurists from Israel and abroad who aren’t making do with the usual “rights of our forefathers” or “Zionism” rejoinders which are now devoid of currency in the international arena and the High Court of Justice.

Last summer, right-wing organizations and settlers managed to bring together a number of highly regarded legal minds — including those who are not traditionally aligned with right-wing politics. These individuals set out on a mission to change the terminology and the legal discourse that the left, including groups like Peace Now, has assumed control of for quite some time.

The battle over the narrative

The so-called “new” jurists are really just dusting off old arguments that were first made and eventually accepted in the initial years following the Six-Day War. This new line of discourse categorically rejects the premise of “occupied territories.” The State of Israel did indeed conquer Judea and Samaria in 1967 as the result of a war of self-defense, but from a legal standpoint these territories are not occupied since the foreign power that held these territories between 1948 and 1967 — Jordan — did so illegally.

These jurists note that with the exception of Britain and Pakistan, the international community refused to recognize the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank. Therefore, the legal status of these territories is in dispute. From the standpoint of international law, there is an enormous difference between occupied territories and disputed territories.

Those who bolster this argument — and some jurists do indeed do this — with what is referred to as “the historic right of the Jewish people to sovereignty over the Land of Israel” add another legal statement in support of their case: “Demanding the right to this sovereignty, which supersedes any counter-demand by the Palestinians.”

Jurists like Professor Talia Einhorn or Professor Eliav Shochetman, who are two of the more active legal experts in the group, note that this right was recognized by the international community from the time of the British Mandate for Palestine. This legal document granted national rights solely to the Jewish people, which were in turn reaffirmed in Article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

“As such, when the U.N. secretary-general states that ‘the settlements are illegal and are an obstacle to peace,’ or when [Palestinian Authority President] Mahmoud Abbas demands that Israel ‘dismantle the settlements built on Palestinian land since 1967, since their very establishment is illegal,’ and when even the U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, refers to the settlements as ‘illegitimate’ — all of them are basing their statements on errant legal assumptions from a factual standpoint,” said Dr. Hagai Winitzki of Sha’arei Mishpat College.

A legal case

The renaissance that the “new jurists” are trying to infuse into the discourse to make an Israeli case for Judea and Samaria has for years been proudly trumpeted by the Foreign Ministry on its web site. It has even been articulated into a codified doctrine by the former president of the Supreme Court, Meir Shamgar. This case rested on a number of international resolutions and historical facts that were almost wiped clean from the public record but in recent years have been resurrected by a number of organizations.

Two of these groups, which began work just recently, are drawing the most attention. First, there’s the Regavim Institute’s Center for Zionism, Justice, and Society. For years, Regavim has provided assistance in court cases which hear petitions brought on by left-wing groups against settlements in Judea and Samaria. It even shocked the judicial system when it brought its own petition against “Palestinian outposts” in an attempt to defend Jewish settlement in these areas.

The other organization is the Legal Forum for the Land of Israel, which was originally founded as a group dedicated to pursuing legal means to defeat the disengagement plan.

The inaugural convention held by the Center for Zionism took place a few weeks ago at the Mishkenot Sha’ananim event hall in Jerusalem. The occasion also featured the unveiling of an impressive new book that delves into property laws and international law in Judea and Samaria. The book is 560 pages long, and it includes a number of articles by renowned legal scholars like Prof. Haim Sandberg and Prof. Einhorn.

One of the most noteworthy articles that appeared in the book was written by Col. (res.) Daniel Reisner, an expert in international law and the former head of the international law department in the Military Advocate General’s Corps. Today, Reisner is a partner in the Herzog Fox Neeman law firm.

Reisner’s position is interesting not just because of his professional background, but also because he is a jurist who is not aligned with the political right and who recognizes that the Palestinians also have claims to Judea and Samaria.

In his article, Reisner expresses understanding for Israel’s formal position “because since the territories of Judea and Samaria were never a legitimate part of any Arab state, including the Kingdom of Jordan, it is impossible to determine that Israel is an occupier in Judea and Samaria in the accepted legal definition. What’s more is that the Jewish people have a historic, legal, and physical link to Judea and Samaria.”

Reisner is a senior jurist who took part in all of the major diplomatic negotiations since the Oslo Accords. Today he serves as an advisor to Israel’s peace negotiators. He believes that the position taken by most experts who are well-versed in international law against Israel’s claims does not stem from the weakness of Israel’s legal arguments, but rather is the result of the fact that most of the countries of the world have adopted the Palestinian narrative which holds that the territories of Judea and Samaria belong to the Palestinian people.

“Even if it seems that the battle is lost, that doesn’t mean it’s a reason to give up on a real, genuine legal argument,” he said. “Israel didn’t conquer these territories from any state because Jordanian control of the West Bank was illegal. If Israeli control over Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem in 1967 was illegal because of the illegality of taking over a territory by force, then the Jordanian occupation of that same complex in 1948 suffers from exactly the same problem.”

“Conversely, if one claims that the Jordanian occupation of 1948 was legitimate because before that the territory wasn’t under the sovereignty of another state, then that just strengthens a similar Israeli argument,” he said.

From Jerusalem to Al-Khader

Reisner recommends that we do not take the simplistic approach of treating Judea and Samaria as a single, solitary entity.

“There is no uniform law that applies equally to Ramallah — where there was never a Jewish presence — and Hebron — where a constant Jewish presence spanning hundreds of years was cut short by a horrific massacre,” he said. “There is no uniform law that applies equally to Al-Khader, which was and remains an exclusively Arab village, and the settlements of nearby Gush Etzion, which like Rachel’s Tomb was in sole Jewish control before the War of Independence. And of course there is no uniform law that applies equally to the Old City of Jerusalem, the historic site of two Jewish temples, and the neighborhood of Abu Dis nearby.”

In addition, Reisner finds legal backing for distinguishing between territories and specific sites in Judea and Samaria. Such language can be found in U.N. Security Council Resolution 242. The wording of the resolution calls for “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories conquered” in the Six-Day War. It doesn’t call for withdrawal from “the” territories.

“This shows that there really isn’t an insistence on all of the territories that were captured during the war,” Reisner said. “In any event, despite what the world thinks about us, it is impossible to peg us as foreign occupiers that are without any rights to these regions, and whoever ignores this part of the story is simply deviating from the truth.”

Is this argument, as factually correct as it may be, even relevant now, with the world and even the State of Israel talking in a different language? Isn’t it too late?

Reisner: “The conflict has a political dimension and a legal one. Nonetheless, the solution to the conflict won’t necessarily be found in either of these two dimensions, but in my opinion it will rather be based on something totally different — a fair compromise that will create a stable reality over time. The odds of one party to the conflict managing to convince the other to accept competing legal and political positions are nil.”

Still, Reisner is convinced that “Israel needs to make its case cogently from a legal, political, and historic standpoint simply because it has its own truth that is backed up by facts.”

“Will the solution be based on this truth? Is this truth relevant to the results of the negotiations? I’m not entirely certain.”

If there is a legal case to be made, why don’t the state’s negotiators use it in the talks?

“Because inside the negotiating room it’s almost irrelevant. International law has a relatively marginal role to play in Israeli-Palestinian agreements. The bottom line is the one that both sides need to live with. Legal arguments help you. They give you an internal anchor, but in negotiations it is almost never a winning argument. In any event, a legal claim is never weakened or nullified because it is up to people to either make the claim or not make the claim. If you have a truth and you believe in it, speak up!”

Do the political opinions of jurists who are participating in the negotiations or the opinions of prosecutors have an effect on their legal positions?

Reisner: “I don’t know.”

Stop apologizing

Alan Baker, an attorney and a member of the Levy Committee which was formed in 2012 to investigate the legal status of the outposts and the settlements and which came to the conclusion that Judea and Samaria are not occupied territories, echoes much of what Reisner has to say.

Baker, a former legal advisor in the Foreign Ministry who also served as ambassador to Canada, heads a newly formed group of experts in international law which has already written to Kerry and EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton in protest of their “mistaken and misleading” positions.

Two weeks ago, Baker was in Paris, where he met with dozens of other senior jurists from across Europe who share similar views. The group includes Yaakov Neeman, the former Israeli justice minister; Baroness Ruth Deech, a member of the British House of Lords and a professor of law at Oxford; and Meir Rosenne, the former Israeli ambassador to France and the U.S.

“The Israeli government for years has refrained from waging a hasbara campaign based on advancing our rights,” Baker said. “Instead, it has waged a hasbara campaign based on apologies. The right thing to do was to operate out of a sense of advancing our rights, the rights of the Jewish people as an indigenous nation in its land. The Jews are the oldest nation here, but the State of Israel rarely mentioned this. It has rarely mentioned the fact that these are territories where we have had rights from time immemorial. It has rarely mentioned international documents like the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Declaration, the U.N. Charter, and the British Mandate as approved by the League of Nations, all of which are very relevant as they relate to our rights here.”

“Most importantly, it has refrained from emphasizing that what we are dealing with is not occupation,” he said.

You’re “talking history.” Who even takes that into account these days?

Baker: “If we refer to it, others will refer to it. It’s a process that takes time.”

Even the State Attorney’s Office is completely disconnected from this approach whenever it argues the state’s position to the High Court of Justice.

Baker: “There’s a problem with the State Attorney’s Office. There is a group of people there that have a very one-dimensional approach when it comes to the status of the territories and settlers.”

But they are supposed to be the mouthpiece of the state.

Baker: “Not exactly. The mouthpiece of the state is the Foreign Ministry and the Prime Minister’s Office. Those people implement the law. That’s their job. They’re not charged with waging hasbara campaigns or making policy. We agreed with the Palestinians that the fate of the territories will be determined in negotiations between us, so in the context of a permanent status deal with the Palestinians, we will have to compromise. But on the way to the compromise, for it to be better for us and for us to know that we did all we could, there is something called ‘rights,’ and we need to speak up about it.”

“It is inconceivable that the entire world will repeat the mantra about Judea and Samaria being occupied territory when from a factual standpoint there is no legal basis for this,” he said. “When Kerry claims, even before the negotiations ended, that we have no rights in territories over which negotiations are being held and where settlements are illegitimate, he is in essence adopting the Palestinian position and harming the negotiations. If the negotiations are intended to determine the fate of the settlements, then by all means. Even if you are the secretary of state, don’t prejudice the negotiations by stating beforehand that they are illegitimate.”

Bezalel Smotritz, a senior figure at Regavim, said that while his organization adopted the “offense-is-the-best-defense” approach in its arguments before the High Court of Justice, he and his friends realized that they were busy “putting out fires.”

“The settlement enterprise in Judea and Samaria exists today within the bounds of an untenable legal situation which is the byproduct of the judicial delegitimization that has been waged for years by the left against Judea and Samaria and the settlements there,” he said. “These bounds toe the line between ‘illegitimate’ and ‘war crime.’ One should add that the law that is applied today to the settlement enterprise is outdated and unsuitable for normalized living in Judea and Samaria. We are talking about the remnants of Ottoman law, British Mandatory law, Jordanian law, and Israeli defense edicts. All of this requires that we change the ongoing dialogue.”

“If we seriously want to deal with the justice system as it relates to the settlements, there is no alternative but to equip ourselves with a legal bulldozer and break through,” he said. “We need to establish an entirely different legal foundation which will enable the settlement enterprise to breathe and combat the legal delegitimization, and to convince the public that settlements are legitimate.”

“The new book that our center published, which is already making waves throughout the halls of power, is just the tip of the iceberg,” he said. “There will be more books, conferences, academic courses, scholarships, and more. One can say, ‘It’s too late,’ and throw up his hands in despair and go home, like [what we’ve done] in the Negev. I’m not ready to give up, not on the Negev and not on Judea and Samaria. For years, a certain legal school has been in charge, and many academics and jurists were afraid to speak up. Now they are not alone.”

The Stranger Beside John Kerry: Palestinian Rejectionism

Standard
October battles

October battles (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

en: Israel after the Arab-Israeli War in 1948-...

en: Israel after the Arab-Israeli War in 1948-1949 pl: Konsekwencje Pierwszej wojny izraelsko-arabskiej 1948-1949. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

English: The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Ami...

English: The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husayni meeting with future Egyptian president Abdel Nasser. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Zionist mortar team outside Zafzaf

Zionist mortar team outside Zafzaf (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Stranger Beside John Kerry: Palestinian Rejectionism

It is now official: settlements in the West Bank are the obstacle to peace between Israel and the Palestinians. So sayeth the Obama Administration.

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

Ever eluding the view of the Obama Administration, and its lately irritable and harassed Secretary of State, however, is a noisy little distraction that has made the Middle East the battle ground that it is for the last 90 years or so: Arab rejectionism of Israel.

This rejection has a long, and ferocious pedigree. These sentiments, indeed, long predated the first Arab-Israeli War of 1948. In 1937, when the British Peel Commissionrecommended that Palestine be partitioned into a state where the Jews would get some 15-20% of Palestine and the Arabs would get the rest, Haj Amin al Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem, violently rejected the proposal out of hand, and without discussion. Like Hamas leaders today, he would not agree to the creation of any Jewish sovereign entity, no matter how microscopically small. Not only that, but all of Holy Palestine must be Arab and Muslim, and that was that.

What to do about the 400,000 Jews then living in Palestine in 1937? They would have to go, the Mufti said. Like Arafat later on, he was quite explicit and graphic about the means by which they would “have to go” before Arab audiences, but before Westerners he was always more evasive and equivocal. Benny Morris, in his most recent history of the 1948 War, cites some of his testimony before the Peel Commission in 1937:

Question: “Does his eminence think that this country can assimilate and digest the 400,000 Jews now in the country?”

Al Husseini: “No.”

Question: “Some of them would have to be removed by a process kindly or painful as the case may be?”

Al Husseini: “We must leave all this to the future.”

To which the commissioners responded: “We are not questioning the Mufti’s intentions…but we cannot forget what recently happened, despite treaty provisions and explicit assurances, to the Assyrian [Christian] minority in Iraq; nor can we forget that the hatred of the Arab politician for the [Jewish] National Home has never been concealed and that it has now permeated the Arab population as a whole.”

The process by which the Mufti, a staunch, dear friend and ally of Hitler, would remove the Jews, would not be “kindly” to say the least. To call the Mufti and other like-minded extremists of the time proponents of ethnic cleansing, would thus hardly be a slander. Their words and their actions convict them without question or ambiguity.

On March 10, 1948, the Mufti promised the Jaffa daily Al Sarih that the Arabs would not only reject the UN partition but “would continue fighting until the Zionists were annihilated and the whole of Palestine became a purely Arab state” and later added that the Arabs should “murder the Jews. Murder them all.”  He had been saying the same thing repeatedly for more than two decades, and his were not idle words.

***

Following the 1949 armistice agreements that ended the First Arab-Israeli War, and Israel’s admission to the UN, the Israelis, consistent with their obligations in gaining UN membership and Resolution 194, offered to resettle some 100,000 or so Palestinian  refugees in Israel at theLausanne Conference; the Arabs rejected the offer without discussion. The Arabs, as with all previous discussions, refused direct dealings with the Israelis, and demanded acceptance of the refugees’ repatriation in full as a precondition to further talks. The Israelis insisted on discussions of the refugee problem in the context of a full regional peace; the Arabs refused, and the discussions broke down.

The state of Israel in its post-armistice configuration resulted from the war and the Israelis had made clear that they were not going to negate the results of the war in which they had just sacrificed 1% of their population and return to the vulnerable partition lines of 1947 which a) the Arabs had rejected anyway, and b) while the Arabs continued a state of hostilities and a policy of non-recognition.

The full return of the refugees to Israel in 1949 with the surrounding states still in the midst of a state of hostilities would have put some 750,000 (or more) Palestinians along with some 160,000 remaining Palestinians alongside some 650,000 Jews, thus making the Jews a (41%) minority in their own state. This would seem to have blunted the Jewish people’s right to self-determination, and negated the entire reason for the creation of the Jewish state in the first place.

The Arabs, in effect, were demanding that prior to any negotiations, the Israelis must take into their state over three quarter of a million refugees, created by the war of aggression waged by them, thus making the Jews a 41% minority in their own state. Then they would negotiate, and without any assurance that even this would impel them to make peace with Israel. The Israelis, in effect, would thus flood their war-ravaged state with hostile Arab refugees in order to obtain a seat at the table with the Arabs, and then hope for the best in the negotiations to follow. Really incredible.

Jewish self-determination did not need to come at the price of the Palestinians’ exodus. The Palestinians, who also had a right to self determination that the Jews never denied, certainly would have had it if they and the surrounding Arab states had accepted the partition. Rejecting the partition and opting for war had consequences.

After the Arabs opted for war, the refugee problem caused by the war was probably never realistically going to be settled inside Israel except on a limited basis. The notion that the Israelis would have negated the results of the war of annihilation waged on them and rendered themselves a minority by those who had just attempted their annihilation was always absurd. Most of all, since when do the losers of a war dictate terms to the victors?

UN General Assembly Resolution 194 of December 11, 1948 is today regarded by the Palestinians and other Arab nations as the international legal authority upon which to implement the Palestinian “right of return.” Here is the relevant paragraph:

“Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible”

The resolution is in the form of a recommendation and is hortatory. This, in fact, was one of the reasons that the Arabs rejected the resolution. The other reason was that the UN General Assembly rejected the late Count Folke Bernadotte’s original draft of the resolution:

“the right of the Arab refugees to return to their homes in Jewish-controlled territory at the earliest possible date… and their repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation, and payment of adequate compensation for the property of those choosing not to return…”

The resolution in its final form makes no mention of a “right of return” or of “Arab” refugees. It merely recommends that all refugees “wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date.”

The Conciliation Commission for Palestine established by the UN was charged with the task to “take steps to assist the Governments and authorities concerned to achieve a final settlement of all questions outstanding between them,” meaning resolving the refugee issue (which was but one paragraph in Resolution 194) within the larger task of the establishing of a full regional peace among the former belligerents. It does not anywhere state that Israel is in any way obligated to allow an unlimited repatriation of Palestinian refugees independently of all the other provisions and recommendations, while the Arabs/Palestinians continue a state of hostilities and defy the provisions calling for them to live “at peace with [their] neighbors” i.e., Israel, and it most certainly never envisaged those refugees not repatriated to remain unsettled and stateless in their host countries.

Paragraph 4 of UNGA Resolution 393 of December 2, 1950, in fact, states clearly and unequivocally (and without prejudice) that

“the reintegration of the refugees into the economic life of the Near East, either by repatriation or resettlement, is essential in preparation for the time when international assistance is no longer available, and for the realization of conditions of peace and stability in the area.”

Article 5 of the same Resolution instructed UNRWA “to establish a reintegration fund which shall be utilized for projects requested by any government in the Near East … for the permanent re-establishment of refugees and their removal from relief.”

But the Arab refugees were not reintegrated in their host countries; unlike the Jewish refugees forced to flee from Arab and Muslim countries, who were assimilated into Israel and their other places of refuge, the Arabs were left to rot in squalid refugee camps as title deeds to an Arab reconquest of Palestine, yet to occur.

In 1967, when the Israelis came into possession of the occupied territories, they offered to withdraw from them in return for a full peace. Nasser answered the Israelis in August of 1967 with his famous “three no’s”: “no recognition, no negotiations, and no peace.” So that was that. The Israelis thus found themselves in possession of the territories for an unforeseen length of time. How did they manage them?

The Israeli administration of the territories would soon see thePalestinians’ quality of life and standard of living literally skyrocket in the years to come. In June of 1967 the living conditions in the territories were deplorable: low life expectancy, malnutrition, infectious diseases, high child mortality, low education, high illiteracy, and rife unemployment (83%). Access to the Israeli economy would soon account for a 40% upswing in Palestinian employment, and the establishment of some 2000 industrial plants in the territories created even more employers as well as jobs and higher productivity.

Indeed, by the mid 1970′s the Palestinians had the fourth fastest growing economy in the world, surpassing Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, and South Korea; the GNP jumped from $165 per capita in 1968, to $1,715 in 1991, surpassing Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Syria, Tunisia, and Yemen. Life expectancy rose from 48 in 1967, to 72 years in 2000. Thanks to Israeli medical and inoculation programs, infant mortality fell from 60 per 1000 in 1967 to 15 per 1000 in 2000, and childhood diseases like polio, whooping cough, tetanus, and measles were eliminated completely.

By 1986 93% of Palestinian homes had gas and electricity around the clock compared to 20% in 1967; 85% had running water compared to 16% in 1967, and refrigerators, televisions, and cars rapidly multiplied across the once barren territories. The number of schoolchildren grew by 102% and the number of classes grew by 99%. Seven universities sprouted up where none had existed before. Illiteracy sank like a stone. Such were the evils of Israeli “oppression.”

In 1979, in the midst of all this “oppression,” the Palestinians were offered autonomy in the West Bank and Gaza that was included in the Egypt-Israeli peace agreements. Many West Bank mayors were enthusiastic about the offer. Yasir Arafat, however, not only rejected the offer, but intimidated all West Bank politicians into silence, denouncedthe peace agreement as “treason,” celebrated Anwar al Sadat’s assassination by the Muslim Brotherhood, and lavishly praised his assassins. Over the next decade, Arafat had several West Bank mayorsmurdered for “collaborating” too closely with Israel by attempting to assist them in redeveloping the Palestinian population centers.

Under the Oslo accords brokered by President Clinton, between 1993 and 2000 the Israelis withdrew from some 98% of the occupied population centers. Arafat, during this time, pocketed numerous Israeli concessions, made none, talked peace to Western audiences, and preached endless jihad on Israel to Arab ones. Arafat’s tenure (or, rather, his dictatorship) in the occupied territories during the Oslo years was adisaster for the Palestinian people. He brought to the West Bank, Gaza and Israel in the 1990′s what he had bought to Jordan in the 1960′s and to Lebanon in the 1970′s and 80′s: a pestilence of corruption, oppression, and mass murder, as well as something hitherto unknown in Israel: the first suicide bombers.

All of this was largely ignored by the UN, as well as by Western journalists, diplomats, and policy makers. They were focused on “peace.” In 2000 Israel twice offered the return of the Golan Heights to Syria in return for a full peace; it was refused. In May of 2000 Israel unilaterally withdrew from southern Lebanon. In the next several months Arafat would be offered over 97% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, East Jerusalem as a capital, breathtaking concessions on the sovereignty of the Temple Mount, and the removal of all Jewish settlements from territory ceded to the new Palestinian state (i.e., 97% of the West Bank and 100% of Gaza). Arafat rejected all offers put to him, made not a single counter-offer, and launched a terror war that would kill thousands of Israeli and Palestinian innocents.

In 2005 the Israelis unilaterally withdrew from Gaza; the result was the creation of a Hamas-ruled terror regime that has launched thousands of rockets at Israeli civilians and committed scores of brutal atrocities against their own, to the utter indifference of the UN, and left-leaning “peace” activists. In 2008 Mahmoud Abbas was offered virtually the entire West Bank in return for a full peace with Israel; he rejected it without discussion or counter-offer, just as his predecessors had been doing for the last 60 years.

***

It is hard to avoid the notion that John Kerry, for all his vaunted knowledge and experience, is as fundamentally ignorant of this rejectionist history as Obama seems to have been. Or he is willfully ignoring it. Either way, it redounds to his profound discredit.

Candidate Obama, remember, came into the presidency with some starry-eyed assumptions of his own about his ability to tame the furies of the Middle East. Confident of his powers of persuasion, he was sure he had the long awaited answer to the Israel/Palestine conflict. Eager to “restart” the peace process, he willfully ignored the intransigence of the Palestinians and the compromises and concessions made by Israelis in the past decade and, consulting his friends in the pro-Palestinian left-liberal foreign policy establishment, decided to make the freezing of settlements in the West Bank a precondition for further talks.

This shocked and bewildered many. Even the Palestinians had never made this a precondition for further talks, as it was always understood since the 1993 Oslo Accords that they would be dealt with in final status negotiations. The Palestinians, who were as bewildered as anyone by Obama’s demand, nonetheless adopted it as their own, for, as Abbastold Newsweek in 2011, he could hardly afford to do anything less, lest he be seen as less pro-Palestinian than the President of the United States.

Animated by his conviction that the settlements were the obstacle to peace, the President, after a year of diplomatic harassment, finally nagged Israel into a futile 10-month settlement freeze, publicly picked a fight with Netanyahu over the construction of a Jerusalem housing project in March 2010, and then subsequently re-emphasized his displeasure on the matter by receiving the Israeli Prime Minister to the White House later that month with all the warmth and civility accorded to a Prohibition-era saloon keeper dragged to a gangster’s lair, all the while not saying so much as “boo” about Abbas’ refusal to even come to the negotiating table. The President’s peace efforts were, henceforth, indefinitely stalled.

Upon becoming Secretary of State, Kerry lunged wilfully into the peace process jungle, with confident claims of a soon-to-be settlement, this much to the bewilderment of his interlocutors. Having now reaped failure from his efforts, he has found a scapegoat in Israel, who he also now blames for the collapse of the Iran deal, telling members of Congresswith regard to Israel to “ignore what they’re telling you, stop listening to the Israelis on this.” He has also warned of a third Intifada if Israel will not buckle to his “peace” demands. As Jonathan Tobin has written:

“ Having forced both parties into talks that were clearly fated to fail due to the division among Palestinians and their obvious unwillingness to accept statehood on generous terms that they’ve already rejected three times, Kerry can’t own up to the fact that his idea never had a chance and thus prefers to blame Israel for his own errors.”

And,

“As soon he was sworn in, he threw caution to the winds and embarked on a course that a wiser man would have understood was merely a repeat of the mistakes of the past. Better men and more skillful diplomats than Kerry have failed under more propitious circumstances than the current situation, in which Hamas rules Gaza and a weak and fearful Fatah holds onto the West Bank only with the help of Israel. But Kerry’s hubris is such that he appears to be genuinely shocked by the apparent failure of his initiative and is now lashing out wildly and going so far as to threaten Israel with more Palestinian violence if Prime Minister Netanyahu does not bend to his will.”

It is time for the Secretary of State to finally understand that Obama’s tenure as a peace-processor has been a failure because the obstacle to peace is not settlements in the West Bank, as he and National Security Advisor Susan Rice  still insist, but the corruption, violence, and dysfunction of the Palestinian political establishment, and their bitter,long-standing rejection of the legitimacy of Israel as home of the Jewish people. That is the stranger standing beside him, and it’s high time they met.

How American taxpayers are funding Palestinian terrorism (Reblogged)

Standard

How American taxpayers are funding Palestinian terrorism

An investigative journalist details the Palestinian Authority’s routine diversion of financial aid to pay generous salaries to murderers

BY EDWIN BLACK November 10, 2013, 4:33 pm 19
The son of Evyatar Borovsky, a 31-year old father of five who was killed in a terror attack, lays his head on his father's body during his funeral in the northern Israeli town of Kfar Hasidim. Borowsky was stabbed to death at a bus stop at the Tapuah Junction in the northern West Bank, April 30, 2013. (Photo credit: Avishag Shaar Yashuv/FLASH90)

The son of Evyatar Borovsky, a 31-year old father of five who was killed in a terror attack, lays his head on his father’s body during his funeral in the northern Israeli town of Kfar Hasidim. Borowsky was stabbed to death at a bus stop at the Tapuah Junction in the northern West Bank, April 30, 2013. (Photo credit: Avishag Shaar Yashuv/FLASH90)

Evyatar Borovsky, age 31, was devoted to helping people across Israel — people of any background. His way was psychodrama and other role-playing techniques calculated to coax victims, especially children, out of their traumatic fog. Often the children were survivors of terrorism. Evyatar, a clown, was part of a so-called therapeutic theatrical troupe. On April 30, 2013, Evyatar went to Tapuah Junction to catch a ride.

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

Salam Zaghal came from an impoverished Arab family in Shuka, a village near Tulkarm. Once, Salam tried to plant a bomb. That landed him in an Israeli prison for more than three years. When Salam was released earlier this year, he had no job and no economic prospects. His family lived on the edge. Money was scarce. As Salam became more disconsolate, his brother Abdulfattah remembered, Salam increasingly began “talking more and more about the martyrdom of the prisoners in Israeli jails.”

April 30, 2013, shortly after dawn, Zaghal jumped onto a bus for the long drive to Tapuah Junction. He carried a blue plastic bag. Two items were secreted inside the bag. Zaghal asked to be dropped about 60 meters down the way from the intersection. When he stepped off the bus, he lit a cigarette. Then Zaghal texted his brother Abdulfattah. “My dear brother, take care of dad, mom and my sister, and keep your head up.” Zaghal sent a second text to his family: “Forgive me in life, in death, and in the end of days.” Then he broke his phone so no one could call back and dissuade him.

At 8:15 a.m., Evyatar was standing about, looking somewhere over there, oblivious to the Arab hitchhikers congregated nearby. Zaghal approached, carrying his blue plastic bag, which contained a piece of paper — a prosecution notice from a previous run-in with Israeli security, and a kitchen knife almost eight inches long. Suddenly, Zaghal screamed, “Allahu Akbar!” and “There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger.” Zaghal plunged the metal blade directly into Evyatar’s stomach and then again deep into his chest. A moment later, the medical clown lay on the ground, his life leaking quickly onto the asphalt. Salam then grabbed Evyatar’s gun, but before he could inflict more carnage, nearby border guards shot him. The killer was not shot in the head or upper body, but in the leg. In an instant, Evyatar — the clown with the big heart — was gone, stabbed to death. As for Salam, he was rushed to an Israeli hospital with a non-life-threatening leg wound. There, Salam received Israel’s world-renowned medical attention.

Soon, Salam will go on a special Palestinian Authority salary granted to terrorists, and will become one of the best compensated individuals in the Palestinian community.

Financing the Flames, by Edwin Black

It may astound many that American taxpayers are deploying their precious dollars in Israel not just to pay for peace but to fund terrorism. Each year, American aid and financial programs fungibly fund terrorist salaries paid by the Palestinian Authority. This astonishing financial dynamic is known to most Israeli leaders and Western journalists in Israel. It has been written about at least twice in The Times of Israel. But it is still a shock to most in Congress, who are unaware that US money going to the Palestinian Authority is regularly diverted to a program that systematically rewards terrorists with generous salaries. These transactions blatantly violate American laws that prohibit any US funding from benefiting terrorists. More than that, they grandly incentivize murder and terror.

Here’s how the system works. When a Palestinian is convicted of an act of terror against the Israeli government or innocent civilians, such as a bombing or a murder, that convicted terrorist automatically receives a generous salary from the Palestinian Authority. The salary is specified by the Palestinian Law of the Prisoner and administered by the PA’s Ministry of Prisoner Affairs. A Palestinian watchdog group, the Prisoners Club, ensures the PA’s compliance with the law and pushes for payments as a prioritized expenditure. This means that even during frequent budget shortfalls and financial crisis, the PA pays the terrorists’ salaries first and foremost — before other fiscal obligations.

The Law of the Prisoner narrowly delineates just who is entitled to receive an official salary. In a recent interview, Ministry of Prisoners spokesman Amr Nasser read aloud that definition: “A detainee is each and every person who is in an Occupation prison based on his or her participation in the resistance to Occupation.” This means crimes against Israel or Israelis. Nasser was careful to explain, “It does not include common-law thieves and burglars. They are not included and are not part of the mandate of the Ministry.”

Under a sliding scale, carefully articulated in the Law of the Prisoner, the more heinous the act of terrorism and the longer the prison sentence, the higher is the salary. Detention for up to three years fetches a salary of almost $400 per month. Prisoners incarcerated between three and five years will be paid about $560 monthly — a compensation level already higher than that for many ordinary West Bank jobs. Sentences of 10 to 15 years fetch salaries of about $1,690 per month. More severe acts of terrorism, those punished with sentences between 15 and 20 years, earn almost $2,000 per month. These are the best salaries in the Palestinian territories. The Arabic word ratib, meaning “salary,” is the official term for this compensation. The law ensures the greatest financial reward for the most egregious acts of terrorism.

In the Palestinian community, the salaries are no secret — they are publicly hailed in public speeches and special TV reports. From time to time, the salaries are augmented with special additional financial incentives. For example, in 2009, a $150-per-prisoner bonus was approved to mark the religious holiday of Eid al-Adha. President Mahmoud Abbas also directed that an extra $190 “be added to the stipends given to Palestinians affiliated with PLO factions in Israeli prisons this month.” Reporting on the additional emolument, the Palestinian news service Ma’an explained, “Each PLO-affiliated prisoner [already] receives [a special allocation of] $238 per month, plus an extra $71 if they are married, and an extra $12 for each child. The stipend is paid by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) each month.”

About 6 percent of the Palestinian budget is diverted to terrorist salaries. All this money comes from so-called “donor countries” such as the United States, Great Britain, Norway, and Denmark. Palestinian officials have reacted with defiance to any foreign governmental effort to end the salaries. “Deputy Minister of Prisoners Affairs Ziyad Abu Ein declared to the satellite TV network Hona Al-Quds: ‘If the financial assistance and support to the PA are stopped, the [payment of] salaries (rawatib) and allowances (mukhassasat) to Palestinian prisoners will not be stopped, whatever the cost may be. The prisoners are our joy. We will sacrifice everything for them and continue to provide for their families.”

Even though many in Israel do not completely understand all the details and the schedule of compensation, the victims are wracked by a basic knowledge that a cruel system is at play.

Israeli security forces and others at the site of a terror attack, at a bus stop at the Tapuah Junction in the northern West Bank, in which Evyatar Borovsky was stabbed to death. April 30, 2013. (Photo credit: Flash90.)

At the funeral, Evyatar’s widow, Tzofia, bent over her husband’s body in lamentation, waving five fingers. “Five orphans he left behind! Five orphans! Five orphans!” she cried. One young son rested his head upon his father’s prayer-shawl-shrouded chest in a striking image that made the rounds in Israeli press.

Later, in a court hearing, Tzofia said of her husband’s killer, “It is really useless to put him in jail, when one takes into account that he will be released in one swap or another, and will use his time there for academic studies free of charge, and the high standard of living that the State of Israel gives the murderers of its citizens. The continued court proceedings and jailing of the murderer until the next release of murderers, which will take place sooner or later, creates a false impression of justice, when the reality is that of a circus.”

Edwin Black is the award-winning author of the international bestseller “IBM and the Holocaust.” This article is the second of two pieces —following Financing the flames from a mobile home in Florida — published by The Times of Israel drawn from his just-released book, “Financing the Flames: How Tax-Exempt and Public Money Fuel a Culture of Confrontation and Terrorism in Israel.”
Copyright 2013 Edwin Black
All Rights Reserved