Into the Fray: Stupidity – on steroids

By MARTIN SHERMAN, JPOST

The latest – and loopiest – ‘peace’ formula advanced by the former head of the security services is… submission in slow motion.

    Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me
    – A proverb of disputed origin
    Stupid is as stupid does
    – From the movie, Forest Gump

There is something about the discourse on the Palestinian issue that seems to induce the total evaporation of the mental faculties of otherwise ostensibly intelligent human beings.

Perplexing questions

How else can we explain the occurrence of so many perplexing – and vexing – phenomena? For example: Why is it that the feasibility of Palestinian statehood has been repeatedly disproven, but somehow never discredited – and certainly never discarded? How can it be that the land-for-peace formula has been undermined neither by the accumulation of past failures nor the accumulating evidence of its future implausibility? What makes any professed Zionist advocate a policy whose prospects for success are so slim and whose chances of ruinous failure so great?

Why do so many, who purportedly endorse rationality in human behavior, embrace such irrationality in their political credos?

But even more disturbing questions as to the conduct and motives of adherents/advocates of Palestinian statehood and the landfor- peace formula arise from their determined denial of the failure of their dogmatic doctrine and the devastation that endeavors to implement it have wrought.

Cavalier and contradictory claims

Prior to the Oslo process, the land-for-peace/ two-staters explained sagaciously that Palestinian terror attacks were the acts of extremists, driven by frustration at the lack of a peace-process. However, once the peace process was implemented, and Palestinian terror attacks not only continued but increased dramatic ally, they explained that these were acts of the extremists trying to impede the peace process – whose previous absence was invoked as the cause of their “frustration” that allegedly precipitated the pre-process terror.

So, according to the “enlightened” two-staters, terror is produced both by the lack of – and the existence of – the peace process. Go figure!

One of the main arguments put forward previously by two-staters was economic. Without peace, they warned, there could be no economic prosperity.

But then the violence of the 2000 intifada erupted, and the negotiations with the Palestinians ground to a halt. Yet lo and behold, with nary a peace process on the horizon, Israel’s economy strengthened, then surged, then soared – and another loony-left legend bit the dust. But get this! Now Israel’s economic success is being blamed for Israel’s apathy toward peace – or rather the lack thereof.

Thus in a September 2010 article entitled “Why Israel Doesn’t Care About Peace” Time magazine wrote: “The truth is, Israelis are no longer preoccupied with the matter [peace]. They’re otherwise engaged; they’re making money.”

So whereas previously peace was presented as necessary for attaining economic prosperity, now economic prosperity is being blamed for not attaining – or at least, not pursuing – peace. Confusing, isn’t it? They just can’t seem to stick to the story line.

More contradictory claims

Of course the whole raison d’etre – both moral and substantive – for initiating the Oslowian peace process on the basis of landfor- peace was the claim that was there was a credible peace partner (i.e. “someone to talk to”) with whom a sustainable agreement could be struck. Thus, according to the twostaters, territorial withdrawal could be achieved by a negotiated bilateral agreement.

However, when it soon became clear that this was not the case, rather than jettison the idea of territorial withdrawal, they jettisoned the idea that it should be negotiated. So the notion of unilateral withdrawal was born – which culminated in the disastrous “disengagement” from Gaza.

When confronted with the debacle into which the Gaza abandonment rapidly deteriorated, two-staters refused to admit error. Instead they now tried to excuse/explain the failure by complaining that the withdrawal had not been the product of a negotiation process – the acknowledged impossibility of which was presented as the need for unilateral measures in the first place. You couldn’t make this stuff up!

But wait, there’s more. Having apparently despaired once again of resurrecting the negotiations anytime soon, two-staters have rediscovered unilateralism, which now seems back in favor with them–big time, on the pages of The New York Times no less.

Thus, in a recent op-ed – endorsed this week by Tom Friedman (itself a reason for caution and concern) – a trio of prominent two-staters announced: “We recognize that a comprehensive peace agreement is unattainable right now… It now seems highly unlikely that the two sides will return to negotiations – but that does not mean the status quo must be frozen in place.” They then issued a call for – wait for it – “constructive unilateralism.”

Plumbing new depths of absurdity

You’ve got to hand it to The New York Times. When it comes to publishing delusional drivel on the Israeli-Palestinian issue the “newspaper of record” is difficult to match. But even by the Times’ standards, the April 23 opinion piece, “Peace Without Partners” by Ami Ayalon, Orni Petruschka and Gilead Sher plumbed new depths of absurdity – leaving one to puzzle over whether the only journalistic criterion for publication in the paper’s opinion section is denigration of Israeli settlements or support for Israeli withdrawal.

Indeed, the very oxymoronic nature of the title, “Peace without Partners,” testifies to the nonsensical nature of its content, which not only resurrects the failed formula of unilateral retreat but suggests a new one – of “unilateral peace” whatever that might mean.

For Israelis, the article should be a matter of grave concern, especially in view of the prominent positions held by some of the authors. Ayalon served as commander of Israel’s navy and Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency), while Sher was chief of staff to prime minister Ehud Barak.

It is thus difficult to know what is more disturbing: Whether people who held such senior positions of responsibility actually believe in the viability of their preposterous proposals, or whether they don’t, but found it appropriate to publish them anyway.

The kernel of their “ingenious” initiative is the notion of preemptive surrender by means of staged, slow-motion submission to maximalist (at least in the interim) Palestinian demands.

Get this: “Israel should first declare that it is willing to return to negotiations anytime… that it has no claims of sovereignty on areas east of the existing security barrier. It should then end all settlement construction east of the security barrier and in Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem.”

Leaving aside for the moment the question of with whom such negotiations should be conducted, an unelected president whose term expired more than three years ago, or his likely Judeophobic Islamist successor, the question is: What would be left to negotiate once Israel has rescinded any demands to virtually the entire area of Judea and Samaria –apart from unconditional evacuation of the IDF and the unconditional removal of all the settlements – including the large settlement blocs?

‘Disputed’ territories become ‘occupied’

In a single stroke, Israel would have conceded that it no longer considers these “disputed” territories but indeed “occupied.” The significance of this distinction should not be underestimated.

For by voluntarily voiding its claims to any affinity with the land, Israel will have deemed itself indelibly an “occupier” and all settlements “illegal,” since it would have no power to legalize their existence. Now, while this is an outcome that might not be overly disagreeable to the authors, it does create some considerable difficulty for their next proposal.

While ostensibly acknowledging that some lesson might be learned from the disengagement experience, they sally forth with a suggestion that reveals just how flat their learning curve really is. To read is to be amazed.

“Under our proposal, the Israeli Army would remain in the West Bank until the conflict was officially resolved with a final-status agreement. And Israel would not physically force its citizens to leave until an agreement was reached.”

But why should the Palestinians offer any quid pro quo to negotiate the withdrawal of the IDF when Israel has apriori acceded sovereignty to them and ceased all construction of the settlements, condemning them to inevitable decay and eventual disintegration? Indeed, what would be the justification for any further IDF deployment in the sovereign territory of others – especially as that deployment itself is likely to be cited as the major grievance precipitating the belligerency between the sides.

A giant ‘South Lebanon’

Thus, unless one ascribes copious quantities of altruism to the Palestinians – hitherto a trait largely conspicuous by its absence – this is an irresistibly tempting invitation for them to draw out the resolution of the conflict endlessly. After all, in the situation created, time would be unequivocally on their side – with zero incentive to make any concession.

In effect, Judea and Samaria would be transformed into a giant “South Lebanon” with the added burden of a resident Israeli civilian population.

With prolonged Israeli military presence indefensible internationally, and prolonged Israeli civilian presence untenable physically, what possible reason would there be for the Palestinians to negotiate? In such circumstances, the most compelling policy choice for them would be to do nothing and wait for time to take its course, for inexorable international pressure on the IDF to withdraw from their sovereign territory and for the strangled settlements to be depopulated and fall apart.

True, the authors do suggest that some preparatory measures should be undertaken. Thus they propose that Israel “should create a plan to help 100,000 settlers who live east of the barrier to relocate within Israel’s recognized borders.”

Conveniently – but predictably – the authors offer no information not only as to how this multi-billion-dollar plan – involving about 10 times more people than in the disengagement – is to be financed; nor as to where this envisioned relocation is to be implemented, the impact it will inevitably have on the cost of housing (and thus on “social justice”), on the labor market, the environment, among a host of other factors that would be significantly, and even dramatically influenced by relocating even this small percentage of the “settlers who live east of the barrier” to areas west of it.

Palestinian attitudes

The Ayalon et al. piece is riddled with additional defects, non-sequiturs and fallacies – which constraints of time and space compel me to refrain from responding to. Perhaps the best way to convey just how detached from reality this harebrained scheme is, is to confront its proposals and prognoses with the positions of senior Palestinian Authority officials (i.e. from the allegedly “moderate” Fatah rather than the overtly radical Hamas).

For example, the article claims that “Palestinian statehood would undermine the Palestinians’ argument for implementing a right of return for Palestinian refugees, since the refugees would have a state of their own to return to.” Really? Compare this with the position articulated by Abdullah Abdullah, Palestinian ambassador to Lebanon during last year’s debate on the Palestinians’ unilateral bid for statehood – which Ayalon et al. warmly endorse.

In a September 2010 interview with the Lebanese Daily Star, Abdullah asserted that statehood “will never affect the right of return for Palestinian refugees” and that even refugees in the Palestinian territories “will not be considered citizens.”

He went on to declare: “When we have a state accepted as a member of the United Nations, this is not the end of the conflict. This is not a solution to the conflict. This is only a new framework that will change the rules of the game.”

Abdullah was not the only senior Palestinian official to express this view. Take for example Saeb Erekat. While still functioning as the head of the Palestinian Steering Committee, he wrote in the Guardian (December 10, 2010): “Today, Palestinian refugees constitute more than 7 million people worldwide – 70 percent of the entire Palestinian population. Disregarding their legitimate legal rights enshrined in international law… to return to their homeland, would certainly make any peace deal signed with Israel completely untenable.”

So if you were a betting man, who would you put your money on for having a firmer grasp of Palestinian perspectives: senior Palestinian officials or Ayalon et al.?

Palestinian attitudes (continued)

Many Palestinians may well enthusiastically embrace the call made by “Peace Without Partners” (Did they really call it that?). One of them might well be Abbas Zaki, a member of Fatah’s central committee, who in a May 7, 2009 interview on ANB TV let the cat out of the bag, when he declared: “With the two-state solution, in my opinion, Israel will collapse, because if they get out of Jerusalem, what will become of all the talk about the Promised Land and the Chosen People? What will become of all the sacrifices they made – just to be told to leave? They consider Jerusalem to have a spiritual status. The Jews consider Judea and Samaria to be their historic dream. If the Jews leave those places, the Zionist idea will begin to collapse. It will regress of its own accord. Then we will move forward.”

Of course he is right. And everyone – deep in their gut – knows it. Even the two-staters.

The only ray of light?

Perhaps the only ray of light in the whole preposterous proposition of unilateral peace is that it does in fact specify measures that should be implemented – only in reverse! Instead of withdrawing claims of sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, Israel should impose it.

Instead of giving financial inducements to Jews to leave Judea and Samaria, they should give Palestinians them to do so, as I have argued on previous occasions. Well, at least we have established the principle that financing population movements is acceptable – and that could be a big step forward. Now all we have to do now is decide which population and in which direction.

www.martinsherman.net

May 25, 2012 | 67 Comments »

Leave a Reply

50 Comments / 67 Comments

  1. @ yamit82:

    “But then the Sanhedrin (along with most of the Judean rabbinate) ALSO opposed the conversion of the Bar Kokhba War of Jewish Liberation into a War for Moshiakh.”

    “There is almost no 100% agreement among Jews on anything…

    Oh, you noticed that, did you? (I think I’m in shock; quick, get me my smelling salts!)

    “… but what’s your source excluding your Christian sources which amount to total BS. I want Jewish source material”

    Dimont, for one. Also Joseph Klausner, as I recall — as well as Martin Goodman.

    (So you really didn’t know that about the Sanhedrin?)

    If you’re truly interested, you shouldn’t have much trouble unearthing others too. There’s nothing esoteric about it.

    The War of National Liberation had virtually unanimous support from all quarters of the populace, and the victories that ensued were truly remarkable. The declaration of Bar-Kokhba’s ‘messiahship,’ however, changed everything.

    Not merely did the Sanhedrin take a dim view of the claims about B-K — but the only rabbinnical leaders who supported the declaration were Gershom & Aha (beside Akiba himself).

    “When Rabbi Akiva would see Bar Koziba, he would exclaim, “Zeh haMelekh haMoshiakh! [‘This is the King Messiah!’]”

    Whereupon Rabbi Yokhanan ben Torta said to him, ‘Akiva, the grass will be growing from your cheekbones and ben-Dovid will still not have come’ !…” [Yerushalmi , Ta`anit 4:5, 68d]

    — Jewish enough to suit you?

  2. @ dweller:

    But then the Sanhedrin (along with most of the Judean rabbinate) ALSO opposed the conversion of the Bar Kokhba War of Jewish Liberation into a War for Moshiakh.

    There is almost no 100% agreement among Jews on anything but what’s your source excluding your Christian sources which amount to total BS. I want Jewish source material

    I seriously doubt that the Third Temple will incorporate a renewal of animal sacrifices.

    Sacrifice is the central element of Temple worship and is a commandment. Ask J guy and all your fellow Christians if it ain’t so. Of-course there will be sacrifices. Couldn’t be otherwise and the Prophets predicted there will be. Christians will abandon their J guy and come up to sacrifice as well. Difference is this time there will be a real blood offering with sacrificial blood sprinkled on a real alter. Everything according to the book no man made up BS stories and BS saviors. Demand for sheep will be so great that we might have to import them from NZ. LOL

    But if you think the rebuilding of the Temple will reinstitute theocracy in Israel, you’re nutty as last Xmas’ uneaten fruitcake.

    It would necessitate rule under halacha, probably gradually but it will by it’s very existence and nature limit the democratic and secular nature of the country and probable all of world Jewry. Every Jew will pay the half shekel for the temple and it will be a site of mass Jewish pilgrimage.

    — I DON’T oppose rebuilding of the Temple (nor have I ever suggested that I DID oppose its rebuilding).

    You oppose it because it will destroy the foundation of what you claim to believe. (sin, blood sacrifice, only j guy etc etc.)

    I predict we will see a real Temple movement with in the next 10-20 years. It’s time has come.

  3. @ yamit82:

    “No, not tradition — there is a view that it is against Jewish Law to step on the mount by Jews.”

    “It amounts to the same thing. In fact, arguably the one derived from the other — the ‘view’ in support of the tradition (or, even, vice versa)…”

    “Tradition and Halacha are not the same.”

    “Didn’t say were identical. Only that in this instance, they amount to the same thing. They do.”

    “Here again you misunderstand Judaism.”

    Spare me your condescension; you grow tiresome with that old, old gambit.

    “This Halacha was made with certain understandings that may have had merit at one time but no longer.”

    What has prolonged it is TRADITION. I speculated [above] as to its origins:

    “…established perhaps to protect the Jewish People from disasters like the messianic, Bar-Kokhba War (whose defeat had ended Jewish sovereignty in 135).”

    In ANY event, however, Jewish sovereignty has been reinstated for several decades now, so of course those prior “understandings” no longer have merit.

    “[I]f I disagree with one or some rabbinical halachot in favor of others I still remain within the framework of what is acceptable in Judaism.”

    This is sheer, self-serving pap-&-crap.

    Judaism is not hierophantic

    — it has no extensive magisterium & no central bureau that determines what a Jew absolutely MAY (and may NOT) believe

    no “Holy Office of the Inquisition” — and (ahem) no “Tribunal” of same, either. . . .

    Sorry, nudnik; I know you’d be PERFECT for the job — but face it: if you’ve simply GOT to have the gig

    — you’ll just have to sign on to some other religion. . . .

    Ah, the ironies of life.

  4. @ yamit82:

    “The Temple was always a political as well as religious institution.”

    Of course it was.

    Because it wasn’t until substantially after its destruction that Israel ceased to be a theocracy.

    But if you think the rebuilding of the Temple will reinstitute theocracy in Israel, you’re nutty as last Xmas’ uneaten fruitcake.

    “In the NT writings we see J character and the apostles often coming into direct conflict with this high council [Sanhedrin].”

    Not all the Sanhedrin. Nicodemus & Joseph of Arimathea were both councl members.

    But then the Sanhedrin (along with most of the Judean rabbinate) ALSO opposed the conversion of the Bar Kokhba War of Jewish Liberation into a War for Moshiakh.

    “When sacrifices resume we will become again Lamb eaters instead of beef eaters.”

    I seriously doubt that the Third Temple will incorporate a renewal of animal sacrifices.

    “I can understand your opposition to the Temple in any form.”

    It’s apparent that you ‘understand’ nothing about me

    — I DON’T oppose rebuilding of the Temple (nor have I ever suggested that I DID oppose its rebuilding).

  5. @ dweller:

    Didn’t say they were identical.

    Only that in this instance, they amount to the same thing. They do. (And even you challenge the ‘finding.’)

    Here again you misunderstand Judaism. This Halacha was made with certain understandings that may have had merit at one time but no longer. We know were the Holy of Holies should be and Jews will never tread on that area of the mount. In Judaism if I disagree with one or some rabbinical halachot in favor of others I still remain within the framework of what is acceptable in Judaism. There is a disagreement on this issue but it has nothing to do with tradition. It has to do with individual purification and the possibility of desecration of that part of the Temple considered most holy in Judaism. Here some rabbinacal authorities have enlarged the wall in seeking to prevent desecration of Jews as

    Jews and defilement of the Holy portion of the site. Bagels and lox is a tradition

  6. @ dweller

    The Temple was always a political as well as religious institution. The SANHEDRIN Was seated within the Temple complex. It had both religious and political powers, and rendered final decisions in virtually all religious and civil matters.

    Of course it would not be presented to the people as a strictly political institution it couldn’t and that would be rejected if it is framed in a narrow political sense which I never meant nor intended. The priesthood will be reestablished and sacrifices re-instituted, (resulting in A death blow to Christianity and eventually Islam.) In the NT writings we see J character and the apostles often coming into direct conflict with this high council — Matthew 26:59; Mark 15:1; Luke 22:66; Acts 4:15; 5:21, 27, 34, 41; 6:15; 22:30; 23:1f; 24:20.

    The Temple is not just another “Jeshurun Synagogue,” perhaps prettier, that can be located just as easily in New York, the Temple’s tie to the geopolitical and historical point called the Temple Mount symbolizes the uniqueness of our outlook on the world.

    The Temple (literally, “The House’) is the House that is chosen upon the Mount that is for the people who are chosen. The central and sanctified heart of a nation cannot be a glorified synagogue as many religious people picture it, nor can it be a political “House” of Lords or Representatives as some secularists would have it. The territorial necessity involved with it is related to its basic role: expressing the world-view that makes our people unique, that gives us the possibility of a meaning for existence of man in general, in this infinite world. This shall not change, not if Mars is conquered, nor if electrons explode: without this tie, man is dust in the wind.

    Our land is not only a Homeland in the sense that Poland is a for the Poles or Korea is for the Koreans, but rather it is the Land in which we can “Go up to appear and bow down.” The Temple Mount is not sufficient without a good, spacious land around it, but neither is such a land sufficient without the Temple Mount. We are not like the nations of the world, they belong to a land; transfer them to another land and they will belong to it. Nor is this land like the lands of other nations, take away one nation, they will belong to another. Here a third factor comes into play, supreme and decisive, which does not permit the above occurrences. Jerusalem and the Temple Mount transform our tie to the land into a weltanschauung.

    We are not a religious community that keeps its G-d to itself and posits places for other religions. We are liberal enough to allow other religions their belief, but not so overly liberal that we credit them with the label “truth.” We do not concede the possibility of a different Gate to heaven … therefore Our Temple’s gateways to Heaven are open to all. http://www.saveisrael.com/eldad/saveisraeleldad.htm

    The origin of the Sanhedrin can be found in the Council of the seventy elders founded by Moshe Rabbenu (Moses): “Gather to Me 70 men of the elders of Israel… and bring them to the Tent of Meeting, so that they should stand there with you” (Numbers 11:16). This was the first Sanhedrin. Counting Moses himself, it consisted of 71 members. Further, G-d commanded Moshe Rabbenu to lay hands on Yehoshua [Joshua] son of Nun. It is from this point that the Sanhedrin is considered as beginning. As individuals within the Sanhedrin passed away, or otherwise became unfit for service, new members underwent Semicha ordination. These ordinations continued, in an unbroken line: from Moshe Rabbenu to Yehoshua, to the elders, to the prophets (including Ezra, Nehemiah), to the Knesset HaGedolah or Great Assembly, to the sages of the Sanhedrin. It was not until several hundred years after the destruction of the Second Temple that this line was broken, and the Sanhedrin dissolved.

    References to the Sanhedrin can be found in the council created by Yehoshafat: “Moreover in Jerusalem, Yehoshaphat appointed Levites and priests, and of the heads of the fathers’ houses of Israel, for the judgment of the L-rd, and for controversies. They returned to Jerusalem.” (2 Chronicles 19:8) According to the Talmud (Meod Katon, 26a), King Saul was president of the Sanhedrin in his reign, and his son Jonathan was vice-president.

    When sacrifices resume we will become again Lamb eaters instead of beef eaters. 😛 The Church (all denominations) will go bananas so I can understand your opposition to the Temple in any form.

  7. @ yamit82:

    “Not tradition — there is a view that it is against Jewish Law to step on the mount by Jews.”

    “It amounts to the same thing. In fact, arguably the one derived from the other — the ‘view’ in support of the tradition (or, even, vice versa).”

    “Tradition and Halacha are not the same.”

    Didn’t say they were identical.

    Only that in this instance, they amount to the same thing. They do. (And even you challenge the ‘finding.’)

    “Stick with Jesus. with Judaism you are out of your league.”

    Stick with what the words actually say — not with what straw men you can create out of them (to shoot down with silly cheap shots).

    “The actual, material reason that Jews do not tread the Temple Mount is that the govt of Israel has prohibited Jews from going there…”

    “Jews have been allowed to go up to the mount for many years”

    “No longer.”

    “You should get your information from either an updated source or a more reliable one like ME!”

    The point was that the rules have been changing with some frequency; so your claim — about Jews being permitted to tread the Mount for many years — simply wasn’t, and isn’t, so.

    “You’ll never get the requisite support you’d need, Yamit, for what you contemplate. It would be seen as ‘using’ religion as a tool. Islamists could get away with it; not Jews. And the reason is that it would be JEWS specifically who’d most forcefully (and consistently) resist & reject it.”

    “Wrong again: Majority of Israeli Jews in favor!!”

    No, YOU’RE wrong again.

    Go back & re-read the posting sequence. (This time, read for meaning. . . .)

    I didn’t say most Jews didn’t favor the rebuilding of the Temple.

    I said most Jews reject your formulation of the Temple as a political instrumentality. (“The Temple is a political institution… The Temple will stake the land for the Jews… etc…”)

    And I venture to say that this is as true of the observant of as it is of the secular.

  8. It amounts to the same thing. In fact, arguably the one derived from the other — the “view” in support of the tradition (or, even, vice versa).

    Tradition and Halacha are not the same. Stick with Jesus with Judaism you are out of your league.

    No longer.

    You should get your information from either an updated source or a more reliable one like ME!

    Visiting Temple Mount? Don’t Move
    Report of new police instructions for non-Muslims: Don’t close your eyes, rock back and forth or read a note.

    By Gil Ronen
    5/22/2012,

    Police have reportedly issued new draconian instructions for non-Muslims who ascend to the Temple Mount, Judaism’s holiest site, which has been under Muslim occupation for centuries. According to a report in the daily newspaper Ma’ariv, non-Muslims are now not even permitted to close their eyes while on the Mount, or do anything that could be interpreted as praying.

    While Jews have not been allowed to pray on the Mount since the Muslim riots of the year 2000, and their entry has been restricted to specific hours and days, the new instructions take the restrictions to an even greater extreme.

    A delegation of 30 public figures and rabbis headed by Rav Dov Lior and MK Uri Ariel arrived at the Temple Mount last week and encountered the new restrictions. When they reached the entrance area at the Mughrabim Gate, a police officer showed up and presented the instructions.

    “The officer said that closing eyes and rocking the body back and forth constitute prayer, and therefore anyone who does any of these things will be immediately removed from the Mount,” MK Ariel recounted. Taking a note out of one’s pocket was also listed as a no-no.

    According to the report, the Jerusalem District Police responded to the story by saying only, “This was a statement by an officer who explained to the visitors to the Temple Mount about the characteristics of prayer that are forbidden during the visit there.”

    You’ll never get the requisite support you’d need, Yamit, for what you contemplate. It would be seen as “using” religion as a tool.

    Islamists could get away with it; not Jews.

    And the reason is that it would be JEWS specifically who’d most forcefully (and consistently) resist & reject it.

    Wrong again: Majority of Israeli Jews in favor!!

    Dr. Mordechai Keidar stated, “The struggle for Jerusalem is not territorial, it is theological. … Do we give in to the Muslim claim that Judaism is no longer relevant?”

    While religious Jews have yearned for the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple literally for two millennia, some skeptical left-wing commentators have mocked the notion that this will ever take place. One anti-religion blogger recently claimed that, “most Israelis have no interest in a ‘Third Temple’ and would resent the way such a thing would symbolize the power of an already overbearing religious establishment.” He then mocked the idea as something that only exists “on the outer fringes in the Israel of the real world” while any Christian expectation of a future Temple is mere “Christian fundamentalist fantasy.” Yet, according to a recent poll conducted for Ynet News and the Gesher organization, over two-thirds of the Israeli public desires to see the Jewish Temple rebuilt, including almost half of the non-religious. According to Ynet News, 64 percent of those questioned responded favorably to the idea of rebuilding the Temple, while 36 percent were not in favor of such a project:

    An analysis of the answers showed that not only the ultra-Orthodox and the religious look forward to the rebuilding of the Temple (100 percent and 97 percent respectively), but also the traditional public (91 percent) and many seculars – 47 percent.

    In a theocracy (more accurately, an ecclesiocracy) it would be.

    Israel ISN’T one — and isn’t going to become one.

    Don’t need to be theocracy although it’s much better suited for Jews than what passes for democracy (Greek) I would not be opposed to Jewish constitutional monarchy constitution being Torah and Halacha. Bad kings can be ruled in violation of the law and removed or deposed by insurrection if it came to that. No more Likud/ Labor BS or Republican democrat BS. Jewish country Jewish Law Jewish institutions is what is mandated not copying the Pagan West. 🙂

    In Israel there are over 1 million balei Tshuvah (repenters) who have returned to Judaism and I don’t mean reform variety. In 10-15 years observant Jews will be in the majority. Bye Bye missionaries. No leader who is not a Torah Jew will ever lead Israel 10-15 years and there will be a revolution in our society and internal structure and order.

  9. @ yamit82:

    “It is true to say that there exists a TRADITION — among some Jews — that they must not tread on the Mount. . . . for the time being.”

    “No, not tradition — there is a view that it is against Jewish Law to step on the mount by Jews.”

    It amounts to the same thing. In fact, arguably the one derived from the other — the “view” in support of the tradition (or, even, vice versa).

    “The Temple is a political institution… etc…”

    In a theocracy (more accurately, an ecclesiocracy) it would be.

    Israel ISN’T one — and isn’t going to become one.

    “The Temple will stake the land for the Jews.”

    You’ll never get the requisite support you’d need, Yamit, for what you contemplate. It would be seen as “using” religion as a tool.

    Islamists could get away with it; not Jews.

    And the reason is that it would be JEWS specifically who’d most forcefully (and consistently) resist & reject it.

    “The actual, material reason that Jews do not tread the Temple Mount is that the govt of Israel has prohibited Jews from going there…”

    “Where do you get your… information from??”

    Aaron Klein, for one.

    “Jews have been allowed to go up to the mount for many years”

    No longer.

  10. @ dweller:

    Actually, while the Brits were burning the White House, our trusty Chocolate Soldier here was shtupping Dolly Madison (for the 14th time that day) in the West Wing

    It’s been awhile but if my memory is correct I shtupped her 16 times that day.

  11. @ dweller:

    “My sanctuary, the pride of your power” Ezekiel 24:21

    It is true to say that there exists a TRADITION — among some Jews — that they must not tread on the Mount. . . . for the time being.

    No not tradition there is a view that it is against Jewish Law to step on the mount by Jews. I disagree as to many rabbis in the National camp.

    Rabbis warn Jews against going to Temple Mount Sepahardi, Ashkenazi chief rabbis, others issue statement amid increasing organized attempts of late to go up to the holy site. Sephardi Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar, along with several other senior rabbis, issued a public statement on Tuesday warning the public that visiting the Temple Mount is forbidden by Jewish law.

    The Temple: To rebuild or not to rebuild? The arguments pro are political; the arguments against are religious.

    The Temple is a political institution. It asserts the Jewish character of the state, limits the authority of secular rulers, and unifies the Jewish nation. It is not really significant for our purposes whether the Divine Presence would reveal itself to a modern high priest: it is enough that the high priest exists. Israel leans to the left because there is no visible right. The Temple, sacrifices, and hereditary priesthood will create enormous pressure for the right end of the Israeli political spectrum, fully offsetting the influence of Kadima, Peace Now, Avodah, and Histadrut. The Temple will stake the land for the Jews.

    The Temple will provide the sense of Jewish continuity, the connection with ancient roots. The Diaspora Jews will formally unite with Israelis by sending annual contributions to the Temple.

    The actual, material reason that Jews do not tread the Temple Mount is that the govt of Israel has prohibited Jews from going there

    Where do you get your incorrect information from?? Jews have been allowed to go up to the mount for many years/ There is a prohibition against Jews praying on the mount not their physical presence.

  12. dweller Said:

    @ L. Mansfield:

    “There might be an excellent case for Israel claiming sovereignty over J and S but if she does not make that claim (and she has had 40 years to make that claim) why don’t we all forget it. We cannot go back in time.”

    Why forget it? — The Jewish people is eternal.

    That gives them plenty of time. . . .

    I like that! For a second time

  13. @ BlandOatmeal:

    “Yamit. You don’t have all the facts of my service record, but nice try. You, meanwhile, seem to have been a veteran of every war since the War of 1812, for several countries.”

    Oh, but he was.

    Actually, while the Brits were burning the White House, our trusty Chocolate Soldier here was shtupping Dolly Madison (for the 14th time that day) in the West Wing

    — in fact, as she was arching her back in ecstacy one more time, she caught sight of her favorite painting hanging on the wall, staring down, as it were, on Yamit’s & Dolly’s cavortings.

    She’d been planning to have a smoke afterward, but just then, she smelled smoke

    — and that’s how the Gilbert Stuart portrait of George Washington was saved!

    (And now you know the rest of the story.)

  14. @ L. Mansfield:

    “Religious Jews are not allowed to tread on the temple mount. That is a hebrew religious dictate. Pure and simple.

    Not pure.

    Not simple.

    It is true to say that there exists a TRADITION — among some Jews — that they must not tread on the Mount. . . . for the time being.

    That tradition — established perhaps to protect the Jewish People from disasters like the messianic, Bar-Kokhba War (whose defeat had ended Jewish sovereignty in 135) — has long maintained that the Third Temple can be built only upon the advent of (if not indeed solely at the personal direction of) Moshiakh himself.

    However, whatever the source of the tradition, those who take that view do not speak for all Jews.

    The actual, material reason that Jews do not tread the Temple Mount is that the govt of Israel has prohibited Jews from going there

    — so as to avoid any confrontation with the Muslim Trust, the Waqf, which G.O.I. foolishly allows to administer the Mount.

    That’s the bottom line; all the rest is window dressing.

  15. @ L. Mansfield:

    “There might be an excellent case for Israel claiming sovereignty over J and S but if she does not make that claim (and she has had 40 years to make that claim) why don’t we all forget it. We cannot go back in time.”

    Why forget it? — The Jewish people is eternal.

    That gives them plenty of time. . . .

  16. @ yamit82:

    “I can call other Jews stupid. You can’t Christian.”

    “Go soak your head. Anybody can call anybody stupid…”

    “That’s a stupid… statement.”

    Rest my case.

    “That’s a… puerile statement…”

    What’s ‘puerile’ about it?

    (Beware of big words, little boy; they might trip you up if you’re not used to them.)

    “Nobody’s got the market cornered in the stupid department.”

    “There are several candidates I can think of who might hold the honor of cornering the stupid market.”

    If that were the case, then you couldn’t call anybody else ‘stupid.’

    That’s what it would mean to have the “stupid” market cornered.

    “They can call anyone stupid as long as they have both the anonymity and the protection of the net. Say it to my face in person and you will become a fan of Obama-care from necessity.”

    The same anonymity of the net that ‘protects’ them — also allows loudmouthed bloviators like you to make stupid threats.

    “Hmm I see we have Christians defending Christians on a Jewish site!”

    So now YOU get to define not only who is a Jew (anybody who wears payess &/or genuflects at the mention of Kahane)

    — but also who is a ‘Christian?’

    You really have altogether too much time on your hands, Yahnkele. Have you considered taking up square-dancing?

    “Bland claims he isn’t a Christian…”

    If he says he isn’t, then he isn’t.

  17. @ yamit82:
    Hi, Yamit. You don’t have all the facts of my service record, but nice try. You, meanwhile, seem to have been a veteran of every war since the War of 1812, for several countries. I seriously doubt whether you were ever in the military. At any rate, I hope you had a meaningful Memorial Day, whichever flag you flew.

  18. @ BlandOatmeal:

    “Stupidity on Steroids” aptly describes the Jewish people. Yamit is a good example of this — He can’t even answer L. Mansfield, but has to resort to ad hominem attacks. What a dimwit!

    You are very brave and militant on our dime. This from one who was kicked out of the US military well before his term of service was completed.

    Those were the days before political correctness was the bon ton fashion group think and you really had to fuck up royally to be section 8’d.

  19. @ BlandOatmeal:

    Regarding the Yamit problem:Why don’t you leave that dumbo alone. He fulfills an extremely important function on Israpundit. We all need that sh–th..d to sh#t on. It is called venting and it is very, very therapeutic.

  20. @ Wallace Brand:

    Indeed, let us move on. I not only gave a case for a one lawful Jewish State west of the Jordan, but I also provided a plan for going forward, commencing with the annexation of Judea and Samaria.

    Wallace, I too think Israel SHOULD HAVE annexed J & S long ago; but L. Mansfield is right on all counts (especially concerning Yamit). This isn’t a matter of what Israel SHOULD do; it’s a matter of what Israel WILL do; and it will NEVER annex Judea and Samaria. Mansfield said it, and it is absolutely true: If Israel hasn’t done it in the past 45 years, it won’t do it in the next 450 years. It is probably better that Israel give the land to the Arabs, and suffer the consequences for a while. That MIGHT knock some sense into them; but I do not have high hopes of this.

    The ONLY reason Israel has not already given J & S to the Arabs, by the way, is that the Arabs refused it both times it was offered to them (first by Barak, then by Olmert). You might say, “Ah, but they’re LEFTIES.” Yeah, true; but “RIGHT-WING EXTREMIST” Sharon didn’t just OFFER land to them; he physically removed the Jews from Gaza and practically FORCED the Arabs to take it.

    “Stupidity on Steroids” aptly describes the Jewish people. Yamit is a good example of this — He can’t even answer L. Mansfield, but has to resort to ad hominem attacks. What a dimwit!

  21. @ Wallace Brand:
    You must know that the “Oslo” rules of the game is that only Israel has to respect them, not the Palestinians. Of course a strong Israeli leader would/will, after the multiple “Oslo” violations committed by the Pal, annex J & S pure and simple. I hope we do not have to wait too long.

  22. @ L. Mansfield:

    ayn reagan says:
    December 24, 2009 at 4:47 am

    you are a hermaphrodite, which enables you to take literally the following advice:

    Go fuck yourself.

  23. Indeed, let us move on. I not only gave a case for a one lawful Jewish State west of the Jordan, but I also provided a plan for going forward, commencing with the annexation of Judea and Samaria. Many Israelis, including those of Arab extraction favor that, as well as many Jews in the Diaspora. I showed how that could be done without losing a Jewish population majority and therefore retaining a Western culture and a Jewish Democracy. The second step would be liberating Gaza and awarding it Home Rule Status, letting them make all decisions internal to Gaza except Israel would prevent terrorist candidates or a terrorist party from running. I think Israel was close to annexation of Judea and Samaria when Mahmoud Abbas was seeking statehood unilaterally, in direct violation of the Oslo Accords. Over time, as the Law of Return provided for more and more Jews in the populaion, Israel could annex Gaza too.

  24. @ Wallace Brand:

    There might be an excellent case for Israel claiming sovereignty over J and S but if she does not make that claim (and she has had 40 years to make that claim) why don’t we all forget it. We cannot go back in time.

    Let us move on.

  25. @ yamit82:

    Yes Yamit, you are an equal opportunity abuser. You hate EVERYONE- especially yourself. The original and consummate SELF HATING JEW. And in your particular case, the hatred is completely warranted and absolutely just and unanamously approved.
    Do I hear a second???

  26. @ Laura:

    Religious Jews are not allowed to tread on the temple mount. That is a hebrew religious dictate. Pure and simple.

  27. @ BlandOatmeal:

    I called YOU an idiot, in particular, along with calling Jews in general “stupid”. You criticized Americans for allowing a mosque to be built in the very secular city of New York, while ignoring the fact that your own people allow a mosque to sit right smack on the Temple Mount. That is TRULY an idiotic omission.

    Apples and Grapes. Americans made a conscious decision to build a Mosque. The Mosques on the Temple Mount are there and to demolish them will or could have calamitous consequences with tremendous loss of life and some (not me but some) believe it could lead to a world war. Tearing them down or leaving them is a mistaken in my view but the rationalists could be right and therefore understandable. Americans in NYC can only justify their decision on 2 things: jobs and revenue to the City of NY.

  28. @ CuriousAmerican:

    Show my quotes where I have criticized Christians personally because they are Christians? I have criticized their beliefs but not their person and I have never commented on a Christian site disparaging either Christians or Christianity. I think you have overstated and misstated your use of the term with regards to my comment. How can you call any Jew a bigot because he disparages, disagrees with and detests sectarians who negate Jewish beliefs with their own and historically have murdered more Jews than Hitler in the name of those beliefs and deity?

    I don’t understand why you should expect Jews like me to be more tolerant than intolerant Christians? Have you read the comments of some Christians on this site towards Catholics, Mormons, JW, other sects of Christianity? Everybody dumps on Muslims and on occasion there are those like CA who finds every opportunity to insidiously stick it to the Jews.

    How many disparaging names have you called me? Not very Christian of you. What happened to all that LOVE? 😛

  29. By the way, Yam,

    I’ll keep company with a stupid Jew over a smart Jew-hater any day. The Jewish people, as a whole, are really lacking in gray matter; but I don’t hold that against them. The world hates them not because of their intelligence or lack of it, but because they are God’s chosen. It is therefore “smart” to stand on the side of the Jews; because fighting against God is absolutely the dumbest thing anyone can do.

  30. @ yamit82:
    Yamit,

    I called YOU an idiot, in particular, along with calling Jews in general “stupid”. You criticized Americans for allowing a mosque to be built in the very secular city of New York, while ignoring the fact that your own people allow a mosque to sit right smack on the Temple Mount. That is TRULY an idiotic omission.

    As for Jews being stupid, I think the Devil himself has the right to call you stupid. You traded 1000 Jew-killing criminals, setting them free, for two dead bodies. The mayor of Chelm couldn’t have thought of anything so dumb.

    STUPID JEWS
    STUPID JEWS
    STUPID JEWS

  31. @ dweller:

    Go soak your head.

    Anybody can call anybody stupid.

    Nobody’s got the market cornered in the stupid department.

    That’s a stupid puerile statement. There are several candidates I can think of who might hold the honor of cornering the stupid market.

    They can call anyone stupid as long as hey have both the anonymity and the protection of the net. Say it to my face in person and you will become a fan of Obama-care from necessity.

    Hmm I see we have Christians defending Christians on a Jewish site! That’s curious (pun intended) 😉 Like birds flocking together?

    Bland claims he isn’t a Christian, so if there is any offense it’s not because of that or then maybe for him it is because he says he isn’t?

  32. There is no virtue in calling a Jew like Ehud Barak a hero when, as PM, he proved his cowardice by letting one of his soldiers die in Shechem. There is no virtue in praising Netanyahu after he betrayed every Jew who ever lived by giving a city equally holy as Jerusalem in the Wye agreement on Hebron. What can be said for Sharon after extricating Jews from Gush Katif? If more non-Jews could cut through the crap and see the truth, both positive and negative, it would be a blessing. Today we call Israel a democracy; where is the truth in that with an electoral system based on the Marxist concept of party loyalty and lack of direct representation. Voting does not a democracy make. It’s those who recognize the warts and tumors who can fix them. Anyone furthering the lies is helping to perpetuate them.

  33. @ yamit82:

    “I can call other Jews stupid. You can’t Christian.”

    Go soak your head.

    Anybody can call anybody stupid.

    Nobody’s got the market cornered in the stupid department.

  34. @ yamit82:

    I can call other Jews stupid. You can’t Christian.

    Oh! And you don’t criticize Christians?!

    And then to say “you can’t Christian.”

    How would you like it if Jew were used with you?

    What a hypocrite! The double standard is breathtaking.

    I would rise to the occasion and do it unto you; but why abase myself with your bigotry.

  35. @ BlandOatmeal:

    I can call other Jews stupid. You can’t Christian. I may be critical of our inept leaders but considering our problems they have the toughest Job in the world with the fate of every Jew ridding on their decisions. You can say a lot of negatives about our leaders past and present but each before they reached the pinnacle of political power in Israel had a record of accomplishment in the service of the state and the Jews around the world. America chooses leaders who are neither leaders or in most cases of small or no real accomplishments before taking control of the WH.

  36. The goal of the anti-Zionists and Jew-haters is to try to make things difficult or impossible for the Jews no matter their aberration or stupidity. A lot of people are simply envious or jealous. The UNRWA sad joke has had only one purpose: to undermine the right of the Jews to have their own state. We need to remember that it was a creation of the West and supported only by the West.
    The new US Senate bill on who is a real Palestinian refugee will (if it passes) be a major rectification of the wrong done to Israel by the International community who does not miss one opportunity to undermine the Jews. The Int. community behaves like the Palestinians!!! The self-hating Jews (most are on the left) are so stupid that they never realize how much they undermine themselves. No need to look outside. It is rotten from inside.
    For many decades the “Arab nation” has rejected Israel (the NO, NO, and NO). Suddenly the Arab nation claims to be in favor of a peace that everybody knows they reject and the “Great nation” hid behind the Jews with the absurd claim that the Jews are rejecting what is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE except for the left and far left.
    There CANNOT be a Palestinian entity west of the Jordan river.
    The world does not care when non-Muslim artifacts are destroyed by Muslims, when Muslim massacre hundreds of thousands of Non-Muslim; but when one “Palestinian refugee” is on hunger strike, the whole Western world is vociferously in arm. The duplicity of the West is blinding! How stupid can people be! There is no limit to their stupidity. They are jealous and fearful of the Jews. This is Jew-phobia. Not to compare to rational and justified fear of Islam 1.0.1.
    The 5+1 are playing the same absurd and stupid game with Iran.
    The only argument that the Mullahs will understand is an ULTIMATUM. Nothing more, nothing less.
    What the good people of the West do not realize is the billion of petro$ spend every year by the “Great Arab nation” for propaganda inside the US govt. and Institutions of so called “learning”. All against the Jews while they keep their own people enslaved, in ignorance and poverty thanks to Islam. Islam is Great!

  37. @ yamit82:
    Yamit, you’re an idiot.

    pls tell us if you know of any place other than NYC that is building a half billion dollar Mosque in their city centers.

    “pls” tell us if you know of any place other than Jerusalem, that allows the Muslims to maintain a Mosque on the holiest site in the world?

    STUPID JEWS!

  38. @ CuriousAmerican:

    Sounds like the Mayor of Detroit. What ever your criticisms of French Quebec, there are several High density Muslim pockets in America and pls tell us if you know of any place other than NYC that is building a half billion dollar Mosque in their city centers. It’s stupid Americans who are leading the way in the stupidity dept. There is absolutely nothing in America that can’t be bought.

  39. If you want to see real stupidity … Do you remember the French Quebecois Mayor/TV host/radio host who said Israel has NO RIGHT TO EXIST?!

    Mayor Stéphane Gendron. (His infamous statement)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhWCfZfSHw8

    Shrinking town invites Muslims to migrate and bring it back to life
    http://muslimvillage.com/2011/03/19/9429/shrinking-town-invites-muslims-to-migrate-and-bring-it-back-to-life/

    Well, he invited Muslims to move in and refurbish his town.

    Perhaps, the Israelis could sponsor some Palestinians for Canadian citizenship, and send them off to Quebec.

    Tell them maple syrup is halal.

    Mr. Belman, being Canadian, might not approve.