Jordan is Palestine. Palestine is Jordan. Really???

What About

“Greater Israel (Hebrew: ארץ ישראל השלמה; Eretz Yisrael Hashlema) is an expression, with several different Biblical and political meanings over time. It is often used, in an irredentist fashion, to refer to the historic or desired borders of Israel.

[….]

The Bible contains three geographical definitions of the Land of Israel. The first, found in Genesis 15:18–21, seems to define the land that was given to all of the children of Abraham, including Ishmael, Zimran, Jokshan, Midian, etc. It describes a large territory, “from the brook of Egypt to the Euphrates“, comprising all of modern-day Israel, the Palestinian Territories, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq, as well as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E, Oman, Yemen, most of Turkey, and all the land east of the Nile river.”

SOURCE: Wikipedia

If Jordan is 70% of Palestine (viz, “the Promised Land“) then what of “Greater Israel?”

Doesn’t this “Jordan is Palestine” slogan conceed the notion that Greater Israel only comprises what was allocated by the Mandate system of the League of Nations? And that 70% (of what became Jordan) is Treaty Lands; or “postponed Jewish territory” under Article 25 of the Mandate For Palestine

As David Ben Gurion said, “we have another map”.

Ex-Prime Minister of Israel BenGurion impressed the following idea on the students: “The map [of Israel – Y. I.] is not the map of our country. We have another map which you students and youngsters in Jewish schools must translate into reality. The Israeli nation must expand its territory from the Euphrates to the Nile.”

 

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

On Temple Mount, Jews Respond to Arab Incitement by Praising God

Breaking Israel News

Rosh Chodesh Shevat

Unless Hashem builds the house, its builders labor in vain on it; unless Hashem watches over the city, the watchman keeps vigil in vain.” Psalms 127:1 (The Israel Bible™)

In what may very well be a historic turning point in the struggle for equality of religions on the Temple Mount, 42 Jews responded to an aggressive attempt by the Jerusalem Waqf (Islamic Religious Trust) to prevent them from touring the site, by singing praises of God. The Israeli police escort immediately responded by expelling the group of Jewish tourists from the Temple Mount, detaining them and threatening to revoke their rights to visit the site in the future.

The group, which included members of the “Returning to the Mount” movement, ascended the Temple Mount on Wednesday on the occasion that it was Rosh Chodesh (The New Moon) for the new Hebrew month of Shevat. The monthly New Moon is a considered a minor holiday in Judaism, and many Jews choose to signify the day by visiting the Temple Mount, the Jewish people’s holiest site.

In an agreement signed between Israel and Jordan after the 1967 Six-Day War, in which Israel liberated the Temple Mount along with the rest of the Old City, the status quo was upheld allowing the Muslim Waqf to administer the site while recognizing the right of Jews to visit the holy site with unimpeded access.

As per Israel’s Declaration of Independence, Israeli law mandates freedom of religion and universal prayer at holy sites, but Israeli police have chosen to abide by restrictions that prohibit Jews from praying in the Temple Mount so as to avoid a violent Muslim backlash. Tensions at the site, however, have only been growing since US President Trump officially recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

“Yesterday was very unusual and it is clear that the situation at the Temple Mount is boiling over,” Asaf Fried, spokesman for the United Temple Movements explained to Breaking Israel News. “Since Trump’s announcement, the Palestinians are afraid that they are losing their grip on Jerusalem and they are responding with anger and violence.”

Fried explained that ever since a Palestinian terror attack on the Temple Mount last July in which two Israeli security personnel were killed, the Israeli police has limited the Jerusalem Waqf to providing one Muslim escort for every visiting Jewish group. The Muslim escorts watch and make sure Jews do not pray at the site.

In recent weeks, however, the Waqf has actually assigned more than one of its members to each Jewish group visiting the site.  The “Returning to the Mount” movement yesterday, had five Waqf guards assigned to them at the outset.

Rabbi Yisrael Ariel, a highly respected Rabbi who founded the Temple Institute in 1987 with the long-term goal of building the Third Jewish Temple, is a member of the movement who visited the Temple Mount on Wednesday.

“The five Waqf guards set the volume of their radios high in order to bother us,” Rabbi Ariel told Breaking Israel News. “Five more guards showed up and they began shouting, some yelling ‘Allahu Akhbar’ (Allah is greater).

“More Arabs showed up and joined in,” he continued. “To our great shame, the police did nothing, so we responded by singing out ‘Adonai hoo ha’elohim’ (our master is God). Some of our group shouted out the Shema (the Jewish declaration of God’s kingship) as well as the set of Psalms that are traditionally said on the New Moon.”

Rabbi Ariel has a strong personal connection to the Temple Mount, as he was one of many IDF troops who helped unify Jerusalem in 1967. When the IDF arrived at the site, he was assigned to guard the Temple Mount while the other soldiers continued onward towards other sections of Jerusalem.

Rabbi Ariel remains just as determined to keep the Temple Mount in Jewish hands.

“If we do not remain strong in the face of these provocations, we will be like sheep among wolves and our fate will be sealed,” Rabbi Ariel said.

The Returning to the Mount movement blamed the police for focusing on the Jewish visitors instead of dealing with the aggressive Arab rioters.

“We condemn the treatment of Jews by police on the Temple Mount,” the group said in a statement.

“Not only do the Jews go up [to the Mount] under supervision and restrictions as though they lived in an apartheid regime, they also get arrested when they try to defend themselves against provocations of the terrorists of the Wakf – the Jordanian representatives who think that they rule the Temple Mount.”

“It is about time to determine who is the sovereign on the Temple Mount – the State of Israel or the enemy state of Jordan,’ the group added.

IDF Border Patrol soldiers removing Jews from Temple Mount (Photo courtesy Michael Miller)

Fried believes the Muslim aggression against Jewish visitors on the site was planned in advance by the Waqf, referring to other provocations by the Waqf including attempts to initiate building projects on the Temple Mount that could very well destroy invaluable Jewish artifacts.

Coincidentally, the Israeli High Court has heard closing arguments in a case against the Israeli police launched by United Temple Mount Movements, a coalition advocating for Jewish rights at the site. The High Court will decide if the police are violating the rights of Jews by prohibiting Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount.

Posted in Conflict Resolution, End Times - Eschatology, History, Israel, Jerusalem, Mid East Policy, Right of Return, Temple Mount, Zionism | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

‘Even the Left realizes sovereignty is only a matter of time’

Arutz Sheva

 

‘Fair-minded rightists and leftists agree there is no reason to delay application of Israeli sovereignty to Judea and Samaria.’

Arutz Sheva Staff, 18/01/18 21:20

 

Maaleh Adumim 2016

Maaleh Adumim 2016

Yonatan Sindel/Flash90

About a hundred and fifty people gathered Wednesday at the Gula Club in Petah Tikvah for a discussion on various matters touching on the vision of applying Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria.

MK Bezalel Smotrich, economist Dr. Eran Bar Tal and Yesha Council chief Hananel Durani all spoke at the conference, which was organized by the Sovereignty Movement, founded by Women in Green. Arutz Sheva Journalist Yoni Kempinski was the moderator for the conference and Adam Tzahi provided musical entertainment.

In light of the policy discussion around the issue of the vision of sovereignty, which has been gaining momentum as the policy outlined by the Right, the conference attracted a significant amount of attention, to the extent that a group led by Peace Now even came, in a failed attempt to create a disturbance during the event.

Yehudit Katsover and Nadia Matar, heads of the Sovereignty Movement, opened the event, telling a bit of each of the two women’s personal history and about the vision that they are promoting, the vision that was born after the uprooting of Gush Katif and the understanding that comprehensive action was called for, that would thwart the possibility of any additional expulsion.

The two women mentioned the importance of sovereignty as creating a stable security situation against terror, significant economic advantages, maintaining environmental quality and even right for citizens and minorities. Likewise, the matter of international law was discussed in a nutshell, and the proof that is based on international documents stating that Judea and Samaria were intended as a basis for the Jewish people’s national homeland.

Following the opening address, newly-minted Yesha Council chief Hananel Durani took the floor, with the question of how to turn the vision in a practical reality, adding that such a change is not only possible, but essential.

Durani explained the legal situation in Judea and Samaria today, a situation where Israeli law does not automatically apply in the area, but is subject to the decision of the governing power in the area, meaning the General of the Command, and sometimes his decisions are delayed for years. “Except for the obligations such as traffic laws, taxation, military service and so forth, no law applies to us without the General’s signature. We abide by these laws, but we do not have the rights that we deserve as citizens”.

He also mentioned the draconian regulations that led to the demolition of homes, such as the Amona and Nativ Ha’avot cases, decisions that would not have been made in a sovereign State of Israel. There, instead of destruction, the legal response would be monetary compensation to the landowner, if there were such a person.

Durani also spoke about the change in consciousness that has taken place in recent years, from the situation where the discussion about sovereignty was considered delusional and pointless “until Nadia and Yehudit became active on this subject and gradually brought it into the public discourse” and the situation where the discourse about sovereignty has become the Right’s key point of discourse. “The Left has lost its way and has become radicalized with the collapse of the Oslo Accords, so that today, the plans that are on the table are the Right’s plans, and the leading one among those plans is the plan for sovereignty. The recent meeting of the Likud Central Committee was an important, foundational event towards the application of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria”.

In answer to interviewer Yoni Kempinski’s question, Durani emphasized the difference between the term “annexation”, which carries the implication of taking something that does not belong to you, and the term “application of sovereignty”, which is the correct expression regarding the conduct of a people in its promised Land.

Kempinski also asked Durani to speak of how international relations will be affected by the process of applying sovereignty, and in his opinion Israeli resolve is the answer to how the world will fall in line. This is what happened, he reminds us, when sovereignty was applied in Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, as well as the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear plant.

Durani also spoke of his discussions with leftists and journalists who identify with the left, who, he says, are aware of the Right’s practical victory, which no longer allows any possibility of dividing the country. He says that because of this situation, sovereignty is the practical, Zionist, correct and appropriate completion for these times, and this action will we brought about by the people and seep upwards to the leadership. “From what I know of the Prime Minister, when there is deep and serious pressure from below and the waves of enthusiasm intensify, it will become a tsunami and ultimately he will be with us”.

The next speaker at the conference was economist Dr. Eran Bar Tal, the economic editor of Yisrael Hayom, who focused on the costs and benefits of applying sovereignty. He began by mentioning that the State of Israel is the proprietor of the land and that she is responsible for it. Therefore, the only thing that remains is “the legal matter of application of sovereignty, which is already ours in practice”.

Bar Tal rejected the repeated claim that sovereignty in Judea and Samaria would lead to economic collapse. He stated that the application of sovereignty would improve Israel’s economic balance – not the contrary. “Additional residents do not represent a burden, but an asset”, he said, explaining why this is correct and how it will be possible to generate economic growth by providing work to the Arabs of Judea and Samaria, who are desperate for work, instead of employing foreign workers who are imported from distant places, to work in construction and agriculture.

Bar Tal also related to the value of lands east of the Green Line in the area of the center of the country and the abnormal situation in which, for fifty years, Israel has not made these essential lands available for its use. “These lands are in areas of high demand where people will go to live, regardless of any ideology. This is the center of the country, there are lands and there is the infrastructure to expand communities and establish new communities. All that is needed is a courageous decision”.

“Both fair-minded leftists and fair-minded rightists should agree that it is necessary to take responsibility. There is no reason to wait and no ethical justification to wait longer”, said Bar Tal, who views things with a historical point of view because ultimately, as it was in previous revolutions in history, things will happen as the result of circumstances and “economic considerations will prevail. Clearly, this is what must be done. We cannot starve the Arabs; we cannot not employ them and bring Chinese and Romanians to work in agriculture and construction instead. Economic logic will prevail”.

Bar Tal also noted the dramatic change in public discourse and admitted that in the beginning, when he first met with Katsover and Matar a few years ago, to him and others on the Right that he spoke with at that time, these things seemed unfeasible and almost delusional. In contrast, now, not only to him, but also to people on the Left, it seems like “something that is going to happen”.

Following a short musical break, MK Bezalel Smotrich explained his position on the practical implementation of sovereignty, with the main matter being how the state relates to the Arabs of Judea and Samaria after the application of sovereignty.

During Smotrich’s speech, a small group of leftist activists tried to interrupt his speech with calls of “apartheid”, but the audience in the hall silenced the group in short order.

Smotrich mentioned the historical perspective that in every case when Israel took responsibility, a new situation was created which was better for both sides, and it was the same in Gaza. “When we left Gaza, half of the country came under the threat of missiles and it brought about a very bad life for the Gazans as well”.

Smotrich emphasized that in his opinion, there is no distinction between Areas A, B and C in Judea and Samaria, and that sovereignty must be applied over the entire territory. When you come from an ideological point of view, the Land of Israel is the Land of Israel and we will not barter even one centimeter of it, regardless of its name on the map”. These words were answered with applause. Smotrich also rejected the autonomy plan, noting that at one time, he even demonstrated against it when the late Prime Minister Rabin spoke about it and he wondered how this plan had been adopted by the Right. “There is not, and will not ever be any national Arab entity west of the Jordan”.

On the question of “what to do about the Arabs”, Smotrich answered by mentioning the missives of Joshua Bin Nun to the residents of the Land – ‘He who wishes to accept [Jewish sovereignty] will accept it; he who wishes to leave should leave and he who wants to fight, will fight’. “Joshua Bin Nun’s strategic basis is what was said to those who lived in the Land when we came to our Land and this is not subject to negotiation. This is reality and there is a stage when it must be internalized into our consciousness – there is not, nor will there ever be another national entity here. This resolve of consciousness is done not only militarily but by building communities, by applying sovereignty, by bringing another half million residents and creating a mindset where no reasonable person would ever think that the situation is reversible”.

The situation of those who wish to accept our sovereignty, Smotrich is convinced, will be that they will have most of the values of a democratic and free country and it will be several times better than the Arabs have in all other Arab states in the region and certainly under the Palestinian Authority. Speaking about the right to vote, Smotrich clarified that he has no intention of allowing them such a vote since Israel is not obligated to allow the Arabs to accomplish through the Knesset that which they could not achieve by terror, meaning to undermine the Jewish character of Israel.

Addressing the matter of voting for Knesset, Smotrich admits that his plan is not perfect because “the situation is not perfect” and the situation is such that “the question is: what am I going to do with this imperfection. Will it be at the expense of the Jewish component, meaning giving the right to vote, thereby harming the Jewish component, or at the expense of the existential component, in order not to appear as an apartheid state I will allow the establishment of a terror state that endangers Israel, or at the expense of democracy. I am not willing to endanger the Jewish component or the existential component, which means that there is a price for a certain imperfection in the democracy, but just because there is a flaw, does not mean that the state is not democratic”, he said, mentioning the democratic precedents with flaws, including under the Israeli Supreme Court, which does not change the definition of the state as democratic.

Nevertheless, he noted that in the distant future, to the extent that they abandon their national aspirations, they will be allowed the right to vote.

Later, he mentioned the plan to encourage voluntary emigration for those who are interested in leaving and the third option, for those who wish to fight, “we do not like it but we are also not afraid to fight. A fight will mean total defeat for them. This part is moot because it will be enacted against the fringe that do not choose more logical options”.

The heads of the Sovereignty Movement, Yehudit Katsover and Nadia Matar, note the successful evening and the great interest that has been created around Sovereignty as a success of the campaign toward a political-diplomatic-Zionist discourse in Israel; the discourse has turned from the discourse of retreat to the discourse of sovereignty. The two women noted that after the end of the event, many of the participants asked to join the activities and support in various capacities, including organizing similar meetings in the future.

The two women said that they hoped there would be greater attendance from the younger generation, and they intend to direct their appeals more to the young. “The vision of sovereignty is important to everybody to whom the future of the State of Israel and the Jewish people is important. This subject crosses lines of age and we intend to direct this vision to all sectors of Israeli society. The discourse of sovereignty will continue and seep upwards from the people to the leadership and this is what will cause it to become a reality”.

Posted in Conflict Resolution, Israel, Judea and Samaria, Mid East Policy, Peace Process, Right of Return, Rule of Law, Zionism | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Forgotten Refugees

One of the biggest barriers to Arab-Israeli reconciliation is the unresolved issue of compensation for Jewish refugees who fled Arab countries in the 1940s and ’50s. A new study explores how the compensation demand arose, then fell into obscurity.

If anyone was “entitled to be compensated for losing on the bargain,” said the document, it was Israel. In fact, there would be “nothing illogical or farfetched” in a claim to Iraqi public property, which might be “raised even as a bargaining point or for mere emphasis.”

Eylon Aslan-Levy

Posted in Conflict Resolution, Egypt, History, Human Rights, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Knesset, Mid East Policy, Peace Process, Refugees, Rule of Law, Syria | Tagged | Leave a comment

Abbas lies about Mizrahi history and aliya

Thursday, January 18, 2018

Abbas lies about Mizrahi history and aliya

In response to President Trump’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Palestinan Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas made a bombshell speech  on 11 January to the PLO Central Council. Many commentators (here,   here and here ) have  condemned his outrageous comments – among other things, asserting that Israel is a colonialist project that has nothing to do with Judaism and that the Jews of Europe preferred to stay and face slaughter in the Nazi Holocaust rather than emigrate to Palestine.

Mahmoud Abbas: outrageous

This blog will focus on Abbas’s astonishing claims concerning Mizrahi Jews:

“When they occupied 78% of Palestine, they were only 650,000 Jews. What were they to do? They said: We need Jews. But the Jews refused to come. Ben-Gurion did not want to bring the Jews of the East.”

This is a re-statement of the propaganda canard that Israel needed the Mizrahi Jews to populate the land and as a source of cheap labour.

[…]

“He (Ben-Gurion)  would say: ‘I hate them. They look like Arabs. They look like Arabs, and I don’t want them. It will take three or four generations for anything to come of them. I don’t want them.’

This fabricated quote by Ben-Gurion contradicts genuine statements he made, such as : “there is no reason to think  that Jews from North Africa, Turkey, Egypt, Iran or Aden are fundamentally different from those of Lithuania, Galicia and America. They have deep inside that pioneering spirit…”

Abbas paints a false picture of reluctant ‘Arab Jews’ forced to emigrate to Israel.
“But when he (Ben-Gurion) saw how vast the [newly occupied] land was, he was forced to bring in Jews. The Arab Jews did not want to come either – not from Iraq and not from Yemen. From Yemen, in 1949, TWA airplanes… TWA was owned by… By Somalia? By whom? TWA took 50,000 Jews from Yemen to Israel.”

Why the airline TWA, of all carriers, should suddenly pop up in Abbas’s speech is quite bizarre (Alaska Airlines was responsible for airlifting the Jews of Yemen to Israel). Presumably, the reference to Somalian ownership is sarcastic. Everyone knows TWA was US-owned.

“It was called Operation Magic Carpet. That was its code name. But these 50,000 were not enough, and they turned to Iraq. In Iraq, there was a huge reservoir of Jews, a wealth of Jews. So they reached an agreement with Nuri Al-Said, Allah’s mercy upon him, and with Tawfiq Al-Suwaidi, Allah’s mercy upon him too…”

Here Abbas’s mendacious version of history promotes a conspiracy between Zionists and Arab regimes (reminiscent of Ken Livingston’s allegation that Zionists made a pact with Nazis). It  denies both countries’ records of anti-Jewish persecution, which included forced conversion to Islam in Yemen and pogroms such as the 1941 Farhud in Iraq.

 “They reached an agreement that they would strip the Jews of their nationality, and force them to leave. Thus, 150,000 Iraqi Jews were driven out and sent to Israel. They did not make do with this. They gathered the Jews from all the Arab countries – Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon – and did not leave anyone behind. They transferred them all to Israel.”

It is galling that not only did Abbas get away with such brazen lies, but that the western media covered for him, choosing to omit or whitewash his distortions.

Posted in Anti-Semitism, History, Iraq, Israel, Refugees, Zionism | Tagged | Leave a comment

Parshat Va’eira – Moshe’s Speech Impediment?

In Parshat Shmoth (4.10) Moshe describes himself to Hashem as, literally “not a man of words.” The word “d’varim” is related to prophetic speech, concerning the Commandments of HaShem, not ordinary (amar) speech which explains the prophetic words of HaShem. The former, devar is precise, direct “guarded” speech; whereas the latter “amar” are the details of the “direct” speech.

Here, Moshe’s speech was limited to prophetic words and deeds.

For instance, in 6:12 we read that Moshe said to HaShem, “Behold, the children of Israel did not hearken to me. How then will Pharaoh hearken to me, seeing that I am of closed lips?” Here, Moshe describes himself to Hashem as “עֲרַל שְׂפָתָיִם”, close-to-literally “uncircumcised of lips” (Rashi: “sealed-up of lips”).

In fact, strength for the argument that debeer / devar is specifically related to the mitzvoth comes from the passuk, (6.13)

“So the Lord spoke (“devar”) to Moses and to Aaron, and He commanded them concerning the children of Israel and concerning Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, to let the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt.”

Because Moshe needed an interpreter (his brother Ahron) we can easily derive that he had a barrier to being understood. (7.1):

“The Lord said to Moses, “See! I have made you a lord over Pharaoh, and Aaron, your brother, will be your speaker (נְבִיאֶֽךָ “prophet”).”

If his speech was limited to prophetic speech, this would explain the Targum.

Indeed, the first-century C.E. Aramaic translation of the Bible known as Targum Onkelos, which preserves some of the oldest rabbinic interpretations to have come down to us, characterizes Moses’ speech as profound, rendering k’vad peh as yakir mamlal, “weighty of speech,” and k’vad lashon as amik lishan, “deep of tongue,” turning Moses’ negative self-description into a positive one.

Thus, we might read Moshe’s protest as, “I am not a man of [prophetic] words.”

In another instance, if Moshe were speaking specifically to the Children of Yisrael, the passuk would read, “Va’Yomer HaShem eel Moshe Laymor, dabayr…. B’midbar 15.37

The Midrash (Deut. Rabba 42, Tanchuma Tzav) says the difference between the two is mainly a difference of tone. It considers DABER a harsh way of speaking and AMAR as being softer. Others say that DABER is used for elaborate or detailed explanations which AMAR is more direct and to the point. Rabbi Elijah of Vilna (Aderet Eliyahu) suggests that DABER is used for commandments that are spelled out in the written Torah whereas AMAR is used for those commandments found in the oral Torah. There is a sense that DABER suggests that there is a distance between the speakers and AMAR communicates closeness and intimacy. Perhaps God feels closer to his priests then to the man on the street.

The Ten Commandments are called עשרת הדברות – [Aseret HaDibrot] – the 10 utterances, which derives from the word DABER. They are short, concise and to the point.

In finding other support for my position that daber / devar is related to prophetic speech and the mitzvoth, I offer Jeremiah 1.4, 6 and 7 (And the word [daber] of the LORD came unto me, saying;” “Then said I: ‘Ah, Lord GOD! behold, I cannot speak [daber]; for I am a child.'” “But the LORD said unto me: say not: I am a child; for to whomsoever I shall send thee thou shalt go, and whatsoever I shall command thee thou shalt speak [te’daber].” )

The Midrash relates that, when Moshe was a child in Pharoah’s court, he continued to reach for the crown and was put to a test. When he reached for the crown during the test, an Angel directed his hand to grasp a coal and he put the coal in his mouth scorching his tounge. This saved his life but resulted in his speech impediment [which Rashi relates as stuttering].

Posted in Conflict Resolution, Egypt, Exegesis, Judaism | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Pizmonim of Aleppo

This song, Pizmonim of Aleppo: Yeromem Zuri can also be found on page 231 in Shir U’shbahah Hallel Ve’zimrah, also known as “The Red Book”.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment