By Ted Belman
Martin Sherman delivered this lecture a year ago. I was there. It is essential for any person interested in the the Arab-Israeli conflict to watch the whole thing, perhaps more than once, particularly if you are one who, for one reason or another supports the Two-State Solution. It is imperative for anyone, particularly American Jews, who support the Two State Solution, to understand that it will not bring peace but war and that the majority of Israelis who reject it, do so, for good reason.
President Obama and the mainstream media characterize Netanyahu and Bennett and their parties as extremists, when in fact they are realists only. It is the Democrats and the left who push for the TSS who are the extremists. Their solution has no moorings in reality and will bring about disaster.
I urge you all to show this video in your homes to friends, and in your churches and Synagogues to wider audiences. People must understand why Israel rejects it.
Sherman proposes a Humanitarian Solution
@ CuriousAmerican:
Your the reason I read the pundit, always good for laugh !!!!!!!!!!
I am pedantic (wordy and aim to be didactic) but not arrogant.
I try to build a case for my point of view.
I try not to give simple answers. This is not hostility.
But I have noticed that because I do not join in the occasional bloodlust (whether justified or not), I get slammed.
One time when I expressed sorrow for a Jew who was killed, I was slammed by someone here for not calling for vengeance. It was not enough to be sorry, one had to rage against the villain.
This is not arrogance. I am just pensive by nature.
I agree that the 1939 White Paper was morally despicable.
However – and this is my point – the British are notorious for duplicity. The San Remo documents have an escape clause.
That is what is called in legalese a, “loophole.”
The British – rightly or wrongly – used that loophole to justify the White Paper.
They did not have the guts to clearly and unequivocally state whose rights would take precedence (Jew or Arab).
They did that on purpose; and the manipulated the Yishuv with those provisions.
That is one view. Ted Belman, Dr. Eugene Kontorovich, and Dr. Abraham Sion hold that view. Not everyone.
As for Jordan, my understanding is that Britain told the Yishuv to agree to the separation of Transjordan or they would scotch all of San Remo before it was agreed to.
San Remo was after the separation of Jordan. So whatever one thinks of the Mandate, San Remo did not give Jordan to the Jews.
Again, whether that was right or wrong is another matter. One thing is clear, had Israel the possession of Jordan, it would only mean more Arabs.
CuriousAmerican Said:
You don’t just thump the Bible, you pound it with a club.
mrg3105 Said:
Rolling on the floor laughing,
@ mrg3105:
Deborah was/is a Conservaterian.
@ CuriousAmerican:I do not know if you are aware but you talk at us and down to us in a superior condescending manner. That is why I believe you try to instigate blow ups. It seems like a sport or hostility. This is why it is not relevant if you came up with something constructive or not!
@ CuriousAmerican
A home is where one lives.
It is either rented, leased or owned, with a land title to prove it. Its called ‘property’.
Since no part of the land may be leased (as was Hong Kong, or Suez Canal) or occupied by another Government, or ‘Power’, the logical conclusion is that “a national home for the Jewish people” must be equated to a Government or Power, i.e. a nation-state.
However, all of this is academic.
The Madatory was breached in a very fundamental way when the core condition under which the Jewish representatives accepted it, namely that “it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY”
The British breached this requirement by denying the right of freedom of movement for European Jews fleeing Nazis and by denying them the right of safe refuge, i.e. the political status of refugee.
NONE of the subsequent UN pronouncements matter. Mandate lapsed under its own provisions in the 1930s, and the only reason Jews couldn’t enforce this is because we didn’t have an armed force to do it. We have now.
There are virtually no Jewish communities left in Islamic states, and Persian Jews are hostages. It means that the Arab signatories, whoever they were, have no case in claiming anything; they breached the terms under which the Mandatory powers were transferred, certainly by 1955.
Britain and France made sure of that by claiming illegal termination of lease ‘closed their eyes’ on Israel’s reaction to the closure of the Suez Canal.
You will note that in Article 5, “no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of” – lease is equated to ceding or occupation (‘under the control of’) so any of these actions essentially act to terminate what in Suez was a lease contract.
Jordanian occupation of the territory allocated to Israel was in fact a termination of the ‘contract’, and Israel was as justified in returning this territory in 1967 as France and UK were justified to return the Suez Canal into their possession before the lease ran out. Ceding the ‘West Bank’ to another state, existing or not, would likewise breach the original Madatory agreement, so ANY two-state solution’ is in fact ILLEGAL.
Any suggestions that the ‘West Bank’ is therefore under Israeli occupation or somehow belonging to anyone else is insane.
It essentially ignores fairly basic contract law as practiced across the World. I.e, I lease out property, but when the lease contract is over, I have the right to evict tenants. If the tenants won’t leave, I can do so using force, though usually a sheriff does it. This is the same case.
Israel’s claim to property was internationally recognised (i.e. land title claim restored), with clear property borders. A third party (Arab coalition) disputed this violently, but were evicted. Some tenants (Arab economic migrants to British Mandate) partially left the property, but after the conflict with their supporters, the owner (Israel) was too exhausted to evict them completely in that instance. Instead he (Israel) returned later (1967) and evicted the [Arab squatter] Jordanian supporters, but Arab squatters now claim ‘squatter rights’!
So some are arguing that squatters should be given whatever property they are squatting on! How crazy is that? Any other country this wouldn’t even be something a property owner could take to court because it would becme a trasspass violation for police. Yet the ‘international police’ (UN) is actually encouraging the squatters to pursue their ‘rights’!!!!!
@ CuriousAmerican:
Nice try Curious. I knew what YOU meant. You have repeated it so many times here. I see you are just as smug as ever. Sometimes I abbreviate words… so?
International Law is too fickle. In the 18th century it allowed slavery. By the 19th century, it made it illegal.
But let’s go back to the San Remo document.
While I support Israel, I do not see borders delineated there, NOR do I see the word nation or state.
It says ‘national home.’
What is a national home? Does it mean an autonomous Indian reservation like the Sioux have? Or a nation state?
I support Israel, but the San Remo document is not airtight. The British always left themselves an out with loopholes. Hence the 1939 White Paper which restricted and stopped Jewish immigration.
My understanding is the British forced/coerced/blackmailed the Yishuv into accepting the division into Palestine and Transjordan or the whole Palestinian Mandate project would be scratched. The division was agreed upon before the Mandate was set up.
You might have a case with Article 5
But that was written AFTER Transjordan had already been ceded.
I believe in the end, Israel will get the Abrahamic Covenant, but not through the agency of the Mandate, or San Remo.
Too much is spent on what are, after all, weak documents.
I did not Bible thump. I quoted a Jewish verse from Tenach. Since you detect Christ in it, it should give you pause for reflection.
BTW: Why do you write xtian, instead of Christian? Can’t you spell ‘Christ?’
In any event, I was not bible thumping. Rather, I was answering a post of yours.
Ted’s regulation require that I not get into a debate with you over this. So I won’t. I merely replied to your post with a verse from Tenach.
In one sense you are right. Ultimately, the problem between Jacob and Esau will not be fully resolved until the return of Moshiach. At that point, the verse of Tenach which I cited, Zech 12:10 will kick in.
@ CuriousAmerican:
tsk tsk. Your not suppose to xtian bible thump here. you know that. You are showing your lack of respect AGAIN.
I would love nothing more than if Jesus could show up! You would be very surprised as to what he would say to you! Have you forgotton? I DO believe that Jesus existed. I DO believe that he was Jewish and STAYED Jewish. I also believe he was a man. A man who married – perhaps more than once if his first wife passed. I believe he had children. I also believe there is more and more proof to substaniate it. We don’t claim that Moses was a g-d even though he was given a mission to help deliver us. PAUL created your religion and he is a BIGOT. It will be proved beyond a reasonable doubt – since that seems to be the only way to get the monkeys off our backs.
Just remember Mr Curious American – the ONLY way to G-d is through the Jewish People. I suggest you dump yours!!
Honeybee, you are equally badly informed about Dvorah and Australian indigenous populations.
The role of the prophet/es is to restate to the people what NOT to do in specific circumstances since HaShem already explicitly said what to do and not to do earlier. None of the ‘judges’ popularly named so by Christians were in fact court judges. Each tribe at the time had its own court and sitting judges. A judge as applied here is one that judges best options out of those available on what to do in order to prevent people NOT doing something that they may live to regret.
Australian aboriginals had no system of land ownership prior to the arrival of Europeans. The land was not settled, and according to English law, derived ultimately from the Hebrew Bible, it was ownerless. Hence, it wasn’t stolen. Aboriginals always had access to, and continue to have access to hunting and gathering culture and lifestyle, which most have abandoned or semi-abandoned. Even where land title was granted to some Aboriginals under Australian law, very little use of it has been made in conventional sense.
It is worth while taking another trip in history, and look at the League of Nations granting of the Mandatory (i.e. supervision powers) for former Ottoman territories to France and Britain. Neither had the right to dispense with this territory as they wished, but the British allowed a deposed Hashemite from Syria claim Gilead, renamed Trans-Jordan, with a force of 300 Bedouin.
Interestingly Lord Curzon who orchestrated this ‘deal’ died two years later almost to the day from haemorrhage AFTER he was passed over for Prime Minister, a public humiliation of his career, or in Torah law, he died a double death.
Given Gilead was a part of Israel, and is now effectively stolen property, it will be returned no matter how nations of the World try to avert this.
Glick’s solution has a legal problem; there is no precedent for a country to be forced to grant citizenship (or effectively ‘right of return’) to a population of economic immigrants illegally residing on its territory. This is what the original populations of Arabs in the British Mandate were as can be easily seen from their family names that represent every tribal ethnicity and region in the Islamic world of the early 20th century from the Atlantic to Afghanistan. There were NO REFUGEES in the British Mandate in 1944 since no Arab fled the Germans or Nazi-inspired Arab organisations in the Islamic world. There was nothing for them to seek refugee from. As we discuss this the Australian Government is seeking a solution to returning hundreds of Iranian economic illegal immigrants to Iran. I suggest Israel takes notice of this Australian activity.
The Manadtory statements are fairly clear to me:
“…the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”
Given the establishment of the Jewish national home was intended “in Palestine”, the later would cease to exist after the establishment of Israel.
Moreover, Article 5 says “The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power.”, however the British Empire actively encouraged and aided the Jordanians in doing just that, which created the Jordan-occupied enclave on the west bank of Jordan. Given the Mandatory was therefore breached by the executors, no part of it is binding on Israel.
However, the mandates, though issued by the League of Nations, were not under the authority of the League, but the specific and detailed terms of the mandates were in accordance with the decisions taken by the Allied and Associated Powers. In other words, the creation of Jordan and subsequently its occupation of the territory under League supervision as a Mandate, were conducted under the international Right of Conquest law. However, Jordan was not the ‘conqueror’, and hence can not claim this right.
That is, nothing in international law makes the current ‘West Bank’ or the ‘Kingdom of Jordan’ legal entities.
The prophet Zechariah says differently
It will be an only Son, that is for sure.
I do not have double standards. It is clear from my posts that I have no respect nor admiration for al-Islam.
My equations were not anti-semitic. What they were were more practical than right wing.
The usual justification for Israel – I believe Ted asserts it – are the rights tendered to the Jewish people by San Remo.
Dr. Eugene Kontorovich asserts a similar argument.
If the land were empty in 1918, these rights could have been asserted easily.
Me?! I am a Westerner. So I am comfortable with San Remo’s declaration on the Mandate. I am comfortable with International Law, since International Law, for the most part, was framed by Westerners.
So I do not have a problem with San Remo.
But I am not the opponent you are facing.
You are facing the Arab.
In 1918, his people were all put under European Rule (albeit temporarily).
The Arab sees San Remo, and the Arab does NOT see International Law. He sees British, French, and Italian diplomats. With some input from Greece, Belgium, and Japan [a nation that since 1854, was trying its best to be more Europeans than the Europeans].
So what came out of San Remo in 1920, are cited by Ted Belman, and Dr. Eugene Kontorovich as International Law.
To the Arab, it looks like 5 European countries + 1 wannabe European country decided how to carve up Arab property. No Arab was consulted. No African. No Indian. No Chinese. No Muslim, Hindu.
The Arab does not see it as International but European – which for all practical purposes it was.
You say Britain promised the land to the Jews. The Arabs say Britain promised it earlier to the Arabs – which by the way, the British did. Lawrence found out about British duplicity only later, and did not convey the news to Faisel.
You say Faisel came to an arrangement with Weissman; but really, such an arrangment was conditional upon Britain’s and France’s immediate withdrawal from all the Levantic areas taken from the Turk. Britain and France did not keep their promises to the Arabs.
You see … You do not have to win me over. I have no problem with Israel. I am a Westerner.
You have to win over the Arab who sees a century of what he perceives as betrayals at the hands of Western powers. And much of those perceived betrayals were real.
You assert Jewish rights to the land – and I do not have a problem with that. I am Western enough, and Christian enough that I am cool with that.
But in your assertion of Jewish rights, from 1900 onwards, the chief weakness of the Zionist leadership is to not deal with Arab rights, or what the Arab perceives as Arab rights.
Now, I am not sticking up for an independent Palestinian state. I do not want to see a Palestine.
But what amazes me is that you seem to be surprised that the Arabs resist.
Jabotisky was NOT amazed. Jabotinsky dealt with the issue.
This is why Israel is having problems. The only way one can assert Jewish rights is to deny Arab rights.
Okay, you might not have a problem with that.
But it means that the narrative has to be amended.
The Jews were not the only people to replace a population.
Whites replaced the Indian tribes in the New World.
Saxons replaced the Celts in Britain (the Celts fled to Wales and Ireland)
Romans replaced the Greek/Phoenicians in Sicily (Totally absorbed)
Latins replace the Iberi in Spain (almost totally absorbed)
But you may be the only ones to claim the locals fled voluntarily.
The problem is not the assertion of Jewish right, but dealing with the Arab who feels, not without some justification, that he has rights in this drama that were overlooked and abused.
This is not anti-semitism, but analysis.
Ted Belman and Dr. Eugene Kontorovich and Dr. Abraham Sion will impress a Western audience.
But the Arab sees San Remo as naked European imperialism which betrayed the Arabs who were promised the land, by the British, even before the Jews were.
This is why I recommend paying the Arabs to leave Judea and Samaria. There is no other way – apart from ethnic cleansing – to get the Arab to relinquish what he perceives as his right.
@ CuriousAmerican:
lol…..not at all! But I sure would love to be a fly on the wall wherever you are to see the expression on your face!! I’ve had a sneak peak. HINT: it won’t be a ‘face’ or ‘person’ that you will see but the POWER will be unmistakable and undeniable.
CuriousAmerican Said:
My services are always for offer.
How did the 1947 Partition plan give Israel the right to deport the Arabs?
I know you want to get rid of them. I know why you want to get rid of them.
But how that results in a right to deport them under International Law is quite a claim.
Do want to elaborate on that? … how the 1947 Partition Plan gives Israel the right to deport the Arabs.
How did the 1947 Partition plan give Israel the right to deport the Arabs?
CuriousAmerican Said:
HILARY RODHAM CLINTON ??????????????????
Señora, in your book, only a woman from Texas would be qualified.
Are we to assume that you are offering your services?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W41tB1nkQtI
That is what will happen, but you will be surprised who Hashem turns out to be?
@ mrg3105:
Caroline Glicks solution seems to be the only one that may be doable – short of Hashem deciding to jump in and rid the earth of evil.
mar55 Said:
At the beginning of this plague there once more stands a Jew.
@ Salubrius:
I would like your legal input on an idea which has been brewing in my mind for a while, in my view:
The pals(PLO) have no legal claims to, or interest in, land on the west bank derived from UNSC 242.
The eastern boundary of Israel is already firmly established at the Jordan river by internationally recognized treaty with Jordan which satisfies and supersedes UNSC 242 wrt the west bank. This treaty ended the boundary conflict between Jordan and Israel in fullsatisfaction of any land issues mentioned in 242.
The PLO was not a party to 242 wrt land but only wrt refugee issues.
Jordan did not legally “transfer rights” in the west bank land as commonly asserted for the following reasons:
1-There is no legal document to that effect and only an announcement speaks of this transfer which was never consummated legally.
2- If there had been a transfer then Jordan could not have, subsequent to that transfer, negotiated over that land with Israel or establish final borders with Israel conflicting with that transfer.
3- the fact that there is no mention of such a transfer in the subsequent final treaty demonstrates that Jordan had no intention to transfer the land or they would have mentioned and protected that transfer in the subsequent treaty especially since any such transfer without the agreement of Israel would lack legal force.
the only argument for Israeli withdrawal is not based on any legal land interest derived from 242 to the pals but rather on the law prohibiting acquisition of territory by force, but there has been no territory taken from the PLO as they were not sovereign and the only other interested party, other than the “Jewish people”, in the land was Jordan who relinquished all claims and moreso established an internationally recognized boundary with Israel at the river.
IMO the use of 242 as a basis for claims of the pals or PLO to land on the west bank are a red herring, a confusion, a distraction. It is only under the principles of self determination that such a claim could be made but that is subject to acquired and derived Jewish rights continued from the mandate, and subject to the self determination of the majority of Jews in area C.
@ bernard ross:
@ yamit82:
@ mrg3105:
A BIT OF HISTORY
THE BLOOD CONNECTION
Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini — Yasser Arafat
To understand the EVIL AND DECEPTIONS of Yasser Arafat, we must look briefly at the situation in pre-Israel Palestine during the British Mandate. The moral of this story is that those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.
Sir Herbert Samuel, Palestine High Commissioner At the end of the First World War, Britain was given the mandate to administer Palestine. The British government appointed Sir Herbert Samuel, a British Jew, as Palestine High Commissioner. Sir Herbert Samuel arrived in Palestine on July 1, 1920. Unfortunately, history tells us that Sir Herbert was a weak administrator who was all too ready to compromise for what he thought was for the sake of peace. Haj Amin al-Husseini. Husseini
Perhaps because he was a Jew, and not wanting to appear partial, Sir Herbert appeased the extremist, nationalistic Arab minority led by a violent, fanatical zealot named Haj Amin al-Husseini. Husseini was from a prominent Arab Palestinian family who were fervent Anti-Zionists. The British had earlier imprisoned Husseini for instigating an Arab attack against Jews who were praying at the Western Wall.
A crisis that would have lasting consequences occurred in 1921 when the existing Arab Mufti (religious leader) died. Due to influence by anti-Zionist British officials on his staff, Sir Herbert released Husseini from prison and appointed him as the new Mufti, even elevating him to the title of Grand Mufti. He became the religious and political leader of the Arabs. Husseini was only in his mid-twenties at this time, but he already had a history of violence against Jews.
Husseini was the first proponent of militant, Arab Palestinian nationalism. He was an all or nothing terrorist who was determined to drive out or destroy the Jews or be destroyed himself, regardless of how many lives were wasted in the process. Once he was in power, he began a campaign of terror and intimidation against anyone opposed to his rule and policies. He not only killed Jews but also Arabs who did not support his campaign of violence. Husseini was not willing to negotiate or make any kind of compromise for the sake of peace.
Once again we turn to Winston Churchill who tried to reason with the Arabs with the Western understanding of “give and take” so that all parties would have at least some of their demands satisfied. Churchill noted that the Arabs refused to negotiate but came to the “peace talks” thinking they could give nothing while expecting the other side to make huge concessions with no guarantees that the concessions would lead to peace. He was baffled hat the Arabs were unwilling to offer even one percent in order to get ninety-nine percent. They had no consideration of the claims and needs of others, but only their own.
Many moderate Arabs fled Palestine out of fear of Husseini. He raised the stakes of the Arab-Jewish conflict and took control away from the more moderate Arabs who desired to live in peace with the Jews. Mainly because of him, attempts to establish peaceful relations between Arabs and Jews came to an end. He plunged the Arab world into a political and religious “jihad” against the Jewish people that set the course for the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East.
1929 Hebron victims of Arab rioting Husseini instigated bloody riots against the Jews in 1920-1921 and again in 1929. In 1929, Husseini concocted a story that the Jews praying at the Western Wall were taking over the Al-Aqsua Mosque. Sound familiar? He massacred the Jews at the Wall. This triggered a riot by Arabs in Hebron. On the Sabbath of August 24, Arabs murdered sixty-seven Jewish men, women and children in Hebron and destroyed the synagogues. This violent action brought an end to a Jewish presence in Hebron that had been there for thousands of years.
He saw Hitler’s “final solution to the Jewish problem” as the answer to his own desire to eliminate the presence of Jews in Palestine. Husseini imported Nazi influence into Palestine and used Nazi funds to finance his terrorist activities. He openly supported Hitler and Mussolini and led a revolt against the British in 1936-1939. He was forced to flee to Iraq where he cooperated with the Nazis in a failed coup attempt against the British. He then fled to Germany where, in November of 1941, he was greeted with open arms by Hitler himself.
Mufti Haj Amin al-HusseiniMufti Haj Amin al-Husseini Husseini was known as the “Arab Fuhrer.” He used his program on Radio Berlin to exhort the Arabs in the Middle East to murder the Jews in a holy war that pleased Allah. While at the same time, he prodded the Nazis to further zeal in completing their “final solution to the Jewish problem.” In one instance, he learned that Adolf Eichman intended to swap thousands of Jewish children for German POWs. His protest forced Eichman to cancel the swap, resulting in the children being sent to death camps in Poland. On another occasion, Husseini traveled to Bosnia where he recruited Bosnian Moslems for the SS. They slaughtered ninety percent of Bosnia’s Jews. The only condition Husseini set for assisting the Nazis was that, after they won the war, they would murder all the Jews in Palestine. After the war was over, Husseini fled to Cairo where he was given a heroes welcome.
During the war, Arab Nazi parties were founded throughout the Middle East. The most influential one was “Young Egypt” which was established in 1933. Young Egypt imitated the Nazi party in their ideology, slogans, processionals, and anti-Semitic actions. When the war was over, a member of Young Egypt named Gamal Abdul Nasser led the coup in 1952 that overthrew the Egyptian government. He made Egypt a safe haven for Nazi war criminals and, in 1964, he established the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO).
Rahman Abdul Rauf al-Qudwa al-Husseini … later known as Yasser ArafatEventually the leadership of the PLO was taken over by a man named Rahman Abdul Rauf al-Qudwa al-Husseini. Al-Husseini was a nephew and great admirer of Uncle Haj Amin al-Husseini. He was born in Cairo in 1929 and grew up in the Gaza strip. His mother, Hamida, was a cousin of the Grand Mufti. Due to internal Arab strife, his father Abdul Rauf al-Qudwa was forced to flee Gaza where the family took refuge in Egypt.
Al-Husseini’s cousin is Faisal al-Husseini who is the grandson of Haj Amin al-Husseini and the PLO representative in Jerusalem who has directed attacks on the Jews praying at the Western Wall. When Rahman Abdul Rauf al-Qudwa al-Husseini enrolled at the University of Cairo in 1951, he decided to conceal his true identity and registered under the name “Yasser Arafat.”
Yes, Uncle Haj, the Arab Fuhrer himself, passed his legacy of hatred of Jews to his nephew Yasser Arafat who has passed the same legacy of hatred to the next generation of young Arabs. Through the PLO, he seeks to further the Arab Nazi goal of eliminating the Jews from the Land. However, like his notorious uncle, Yasser Arafat will fail, and after he has passed from the scene, the Israeli flag will still be flying high over Jerusalem, the eternal, undivided capital of Israel.
mrg3105 Said:
How kind of the Caucasians to “steal” the land from the Australian Aborigines with such compassion.
@ yamit82:
@ mrg3105:
The first action I would take would be to install a qualified woman, like Deborah, to Judge and rule Israel and the Jewish people.
yamit82 Said:
The Wilderness was crossed with small steps 🙂
mrg3105 Said:
That would be kinda difficult without the Temple, Sanhedrin and a monarchy. You can’t have a Jewish State under a democracy. First priority is to preserve the Jewish people and that requires first and foremost depleting the Galut of Jews to Eretz Yisrael. 6-7 million Jews who turned their backs to the land were dispatced in a horrible manner or were assimilated totally into the general populace and are no longer counted. The Torah can only be observed and affected in the Land of Israel and that was designed from the beginning to be so because it goes to the purpose of what and why is a Jew. We exist for his ends served.
honeybee Said:
Includes anyone claiming to be Jewish, who identifies with the Jewish people and does not adhere and or believe in JC or any competing religious beliefs or creeds. Hereditary Judaism by happenstance of birth is not a based on Torah but is rabbinic. A Jew according to Torah is anyone who accepts the yoke of (Heaven) Torah. When the Hebrews left Egypt there were many non Hebrews who came along. At Sinai they also swore obedience to The commandments, the whole Torah and to the G-d of Israel and in swearing that oath became converts and Jews. Was King David a Jew? Did Ruth convert?? If she did how? Did Rabbi Akiva convert? If yes How? For a Jew to be under the covenant he must first accept the Yoke of Heaven. Jews by birth does not grant them a covenant status, only observance and faith do…Any convert to Judaism is as Jewish as any born into the tribe Jew, some maintain, even more favored by G-d.
I can provide other competing definitions but the above is based I believe on the original.
Yamit,
The basic problem is that Israel is NOT a Jewish state, because it is not constituted according to Jewish Law.
You will find that if Jewish law is applied, Arabs will leave on their own accord and fairly quickly.
So lets ask ourselves, why are there so very very few Arabs in Turkey, a Muslim country, or Iran, a Muslim country that sends much cash to Arabs supporting terrorism?
So you see, when I say end of story, I mean end of story.
What about Aboriginies?
If Australia was colonised by the Javanese, Chinese or Arabs, they would now be only found as stuffed exhibits in natural history musems.
Consider the Indonesian ‘encouraged’ indigenous population replacement policy in West Papua. I don’t see the UN up in arms over half-dozen tribal populations being slowly eradicated. Indonesia is also a Muslim country.
I don’t remember ever seeing a Statue of Liberty copy in Jerusalem that had the same inscription by Lazarus. The state was founded on the promise of a Jewish state. Every government is obligated to ensure this promise is delivered.
yamit82 Said:
What about half Jews ??? Does it depend on which the half the Jew is ??????
mrg3105 Said:
Tell it to the Aborigines !!!!!
CuriousAmerican Said:
Sexist !!!!!!!!!!!
CuriousAmerican Said:
You contiue to be disingenuous in spite of your hiatus here. You were “hhounded” for your double standards regarding th epals and for your repeated equation of the behavior of the enmies with that of the Jews. It might not be a bad idea to cease telling fibs. It is not the “pay them to leave” which caused animosity here but your covert anti semitic equations. perhaps you can begin on a new foot, but dont expect kid gloves when you stray.
so is it a negotiating tactic or is he preparing us for a unity gov.
If he forms a unity gov he will likely use the justification that the Iran issue requires unity. However, if he does this it will put paid to my speculation of his having under the table understandings with the GCC regarding all the issues of Iran, pals,and “full peace” with arabs. the unity gov is what would be required for him to move towards such understanding as they are further left than even the right wing of Likud.
If he forms to the right but makes important appts like he did last time with Livni then I feel he is still biding his time with small steps. Only a right wing gov that advances on the ground right wing interests can make up for his complete stalling of right wing interests in his past admins.
he has been speaking too much about unity.
mrg3105 Said:
They are what they are and they call themselves Palis. 99% of the world recognizes them de-facto and d’jure by that name and not much you we or anyone at this stage is going to alter that fact so my advice is to live with it.
As for making the UN do anything we want desire and or demand. Yeah sure, right!!! LOL 🙂 any great suggestions as to how in your opinion we are going to accomplish such a fete???
BTW, the story doesn’t end because you say it does!!!
The problem or the main problem everyone including Sherman ignores and that is the 1.5 million Arabs with Israeli citizenship and those with the status of Permanent residency.
We can not remain a Jewish no less Zionist State with 20-30% irredentist ( One who advocates the recovery of territory culturally or historically related to one’s nation but now subject to a foreign government.) These Arabs now constitute the 2nd largest party in the Knesset. Aligned with the radical left and many opportunists in the Israeli political reality they are not too distant in numbers from gaining the reins of political power and decision making In Israel. They act as a magnet to other Arabs from the West Bank and Gaza to enter israel illegally or legally through the family reunification programs Israel has allowed to date… They add roughly 100,000 additional Arabs to their numbers each year inside the green line. Without solving the problem of Israeli Arabs anything one suggests or puts forward re: the Arabs in the West Banks is doomed to failure and will probably have the opposite effect than the one intended. Right now the majority of Israels do not conceive of any mechanism for removing the Arabs neither from the West Bank and certainly not from Israel proper….. Rather than being proactive it seems to me we allow the status quo to continue with tweaks and be prepared with well thought out contingencies when the first instances of armed and mass revolt occur and they will sooner or later. Dwecision making must be removced from ther Israeli leaders and allow the Arabs to push us into dealing with them along the lines I suggest. Only a Zero sum ending and political aim has any chance of success…. All non Jews must be removed as permanent residents and citizens alike and all occupiers like the Arabs living in the West Bank….
War is the only way to rid ourselves of the Arabs but Israel must be ready and prepared toeffect their removal
@ Ted Belman: great month may ’14 first the stones then lectures presented by W. in G. DM
There are no ‘Palestinians’.
The UN should be compelled to finish the job it was told to do 1945, which is to resettle the refugees and displaced persons by 1947 when it was known that the vote to create the state of Israel was going to be made.
These populations included everyone without British Mandate residency or land ownership papers.
After 1947 creation of the state of Israel all these people became illegal residents on sovereign Israeli territory, and Israel has the absolute right under international law to deport them if the UN can’t resettle them.
There is no part of either Judea or Samaria which is ‘Arab’.
End of story.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Yes you were but not for making the suggestion but for sounding like you were telling us something new and you kept repeating it. But to be fair that is not the main reason you were hounded. You kept defending the Arabs in ways that were objectionable. I don’t want this to be an occasion to rehash everything but wanted to add my two cents.
I agree that a one state solution is best. In my opinion the Jewish People own the national rights or collective political rights to self-determination in Palestine west of the Jordan. I am still studying how best to attain that state but in determining that question it should be known that the the Jewish People was the beneficiary of those rights since 1920 and the right to settle throughout Palestine when the Palestine Mandate became effective. Instead of the Jews taking Arab land, since 1920 the Arabs by threat of violence, actual violence and fraud have been using extortion to steal Jewish rights to self-determination in Palestine. SSRN.com/abstract=2385304 In 1948 legal dominion over the territory within the Green Line vested in the Jews and in 1967 the remainder west of the Jordan vested when the Jews obtained unified control over the remainder of the territory.
@ CuriousAmerican</a
Hundreds of billions of US dollars to move a relatively small population? Nobody will ever be crazy enough to put up such money. Steady outbound shipments of about 1000 of them per week, at about $5000 per person, would reduce the burden by about 50,000 per year, which is about 1 million in 20 years, at an annual cost of only about $250 million per year, which Israel could well afford, especially considering the short and long term benefits.
If Israel were to put up some additional money to be awarded them only if they reached their destination, that would be a good inducement for nuclear family of about 4-8 to move first, then, once they had gotten settled in place, they almost certainly would want others in their extended families to join them.
In any case, this entire population transfer, with the judaization of nearly all of Eretz-Yisrael, could be accomplished in time for the first centennial of the State of Israel in 2048.
I think, in comparison, of the emigration of my own grandparents on my father's side of the family, who came here from the Russian Empire in the 1870s and 1880s. Nobody in the Russian government gave them even a kopek.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Like Dr. Sherman.
He and I, independently of each other, came up with the idea to purchase the Palestinians out.
More amazingly, we arrived at very similar numbers independent of each other. $100-200 Billion US.
The difference though is Dr. Sherman is given respect here on this board, if not agreement; while I was hounded mercilessly for making the same suggestion.
Listen to Dr. Sherman. His answer would work.
The key is to to make the arrangements with individuals. Do not expect Abbas to agree. But for ex: Offer young Arab women a chance to leave with $100,000 and a visa for some country where women are treated better.
Getting rid of the men is less effective, and the remaining men will merely double up with the women. But getting rid of women stops reproduction.
Make the offer discretely to each individual woman. $100,000 and a visa to a country which treats women better. No sharia. No burqa. No FGM.
Women would be less feared as immigrants than men.
Do so, and the Palestinian demographic will collapse. Less women means … Less kids.
@ david melech:
Actually it was delivered in May 2014. I just hadn’t gotten around to changing it.
The Humanitarian Solution
By Prof Martin Sherman
I have read at least one of Martin Sherman’s rants against annexing Shomron and Yehuda, then offering all the Arabs citizenship in the State of Israel. The first time I saw him in action was in the opening minutes of his video presentation. My instant reaction, watching his jelly-belly wiggle as he moved around with the microphone warming up his audience of mostly elderly Jews, was discomfort. Also, I am no friend at all to the ideas of middle-of-the-road liberals. Maybe I agree with some of his ideas, or maybe I don’t. But I prefer reading what such people have to say, rather than spending more than an hour covering points that I could absorb in print format in about 10 minutes. So I shut him off in mid-sentence, and reviewed his earlier post against Glick.
My ideas about Jewish and Judaizable Yesha are well-known to everyone who reads my comments, and they rarely vary. But here we go again:
1) Start with Area C, as soon as possible. Change it’s status from military to civil control, or if the government has got the balls, annex it outright.
2) Offer Israeli citizenship on a strictly-controlled and strictly-conditional basis to the Area C Arabs, who are now outnumbered about four or five to one by almost 400,000 Jews. Every Arab accepted for citizenship would be compelled to swear loyalty to the Jewish state, and a binding promise to keep the peace with their increasingly-Jewish neighbors irrespective of calls for intafadas, jihads, and the rest of the Islamic line of bullshit. Any one of them who refused such a condition would be promptly bought out with money that would be used to expel him, her and/or their children to whichever European, African, or Western Hemisphere country they could be more or less smuggled into. Or if you are concerned about making such policies sound respectable to the refined ears of Western Civilization, call it “population transfer” and “assisted emigration”. You probably could expect only about a third of the Arabs would be eligible for citizenship under such strict rules, which should suit both them and you just fine.
3) Take over Area B, using the same status gimmick that applied to Area C all the years since the Oslo fiasco: Complete Israeli military and civil control, but limited autonomy for the few hundred or so Arab villages located in Arab B. Then begin repeating the limited citizenship offers in Area B as will have been applied to Area C, and presumably with the same results.
4) Shut down on-and-off negotiations and all funding to Fatah’s “Palestine Authority”, while simultaneously negotiating local autonomy as separate municipal statelets, to the heads of the main hamulas (urban Arab extended blood-relationship clans) and/or other prominent local Arab families in the Arab-populated cities of Jenin, Tulkarm, Nablus, Kalkilya, Ramallah, Jericho, and Hevron. Don’t tell me they won’t refuse such an offer, because gang-rule is the same all across the planet, and nobody turns down a chance to take power and fuck over people whom they think can enrich them. Besides which, that’s the way Palestine was ruled throughout Islamic history, and nothing has changed now except for the mindless foolishness of the assholes who come to power in all the big and little Americas, and who imagine that democracy can be made to work in Islamic societies.
———————————————-
All of the above can be accomplished relatively easy, with no new wars, and probably without shaking up relationships very much with Big Brother, if done in careful and seamless stages. But there’s more to follow:
5) By now, most of you must realize that the Arab members of the Knesset of Israel do not consider themselves loyal Israelis and they sure as hell are not going to sing your anthem about Jewish souls praying to come in and take what they imagine are their Arab lands. Maybe they are their lands, but I don’t really give a damn about that. In any case, take a real big step, declare Israel to be the one and only Jewish state, and re-organize the government. Revamp the Knesset as the leading deliberative and law-making body of the Jewish nation of Israel. Then organize a separate deliberative and law-making body to represent just the non-Jews resident in Israel. In which case, they would all vote for their own representatives, but in separate elections. The ones who volunteer for military service in Zahal would keep their citizenship, otherwise their representatives would sit in the House of the Foreigners, or whatever you would choose to call it in Ivrit.
6) If anybody at all deserves to pray on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, it would be the Jews alone. But just to be fair to the non-Jews, do the following. First announce that Shabat and festival services would be held not just on the Temple Mount, but in the existing domed temple atop Mount Moriah, where Avraham had a little talk with HaShem and became not only the world’s first monotheist but also the world’s first Jew.
Then tell the Arabs and whomever else thinks they have any say-so in this matter, that they have a choice. Either the Jews get to use that building for our holy Jewish services as described in Tora, or the State of Israel will disassemble the building, packing all the parts with appropriate reverence, turn over all the pieces to any Islamic authority who has claim to them, and rebuild the great Temple of Melech Shlomo and Ezra in the very same spot that the legions of the Roman Emperor Titus burned down its predecessor almost 2000 years ago.
All problems either have relatively simple and straightforward solutions; or you allow them to become conditions for which you must permanently suffer the indignities thereof.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
sorry Ted this video is closer to 12 or 24 months old. I’m in the video 07 secs. wearing wide brimmed hat in front of lady in red dress. I went to 2 english speaking meetings put on by Women in Green, this and the other with the former ambassador speaking. one was at a private home the other in a group centre.
According to the Palestine Mandate of the League of Nations all the land belongs to Israel and NOT to the Arabs. This is International Law! After 67 years of our Jewish leaders fearing to ever tell the truth a gentile man is standing up to promote the truth. See http://www.israeltruthweek.org Our enemies have capitalized on our 67 years of failure to convince everyone, including many Jews, that Israel is stealing Arab land. Please review this new website and forward it to all your friends. We need to get the word out.