-
We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men – George Orwell
Let me begin with an apology.
My broken promise
I know that last week I promised to elucidate the mechanisms of the humanitarian alternative to the two-state solution (TSS) and to respond to an array of reservations from readers regarding the proposal.
However, I find I cannot convey all that was promised adequately in a single column. I request your patience and forgiveness for once again delaying some of the discussion till next week.
True, in the past few days, many events, perhaps far more newsworthy, have burst into the headlines – Iran, Egypt, Libya, US Mideast policy – on all of which I have much to say. However, the Palestinian issue lies at the core of the national debate, permeating almost every walk of life in the country. It impinges, directly and indirectly, on a myriad of other crucial matters. Indeed, the lack of a sustainable TSS alternative has resulted in billions being spent on temporary stop-gap measures – some hitherto reasonably successful, some disastrous failures – such as the construction of the separation barrier, the development of the Iron Dome system (intended principally to intercept short-range Palestinian projectiles launched from TSS-earmarked territories), and the devastating disengagement from Gaza.
(An aside: Given the huge cost-differential between the incoming and intercepting missiles, in the final analysis, the Iron Dome system only has long-term strategic logic if it is used to provide short-term protection to the civilian population while the IDF takes the territory from which the incoming projectiles are fired. It would be helpful if one has a plan of what to do with the territory once it is taken, other than eventually returning it to the folks doing the firing, i.e. if one has a TSS-alternative.) So until a coherent, comprehensive TSS-alternative is formulated, it will be impossible to achieve a strategy for the rational long-term use of national resources.
The effective promotion of such an alternative demands meticulous, tightly argued presentation. As I mentioned last week – this cannot be achieved with catchy sound bites, but only by exhaustive, clearly articulated intellectual endeavor. So despite the fact that its topicality may be eclipsed by other issues, I feel it is imperative to engage in a systematic and detailed discussion, not only of the logic and the internal mechanism of the proposal, but of the commonly raised reservations to it, even if that takes a little more time than originally envisioned.
So my apologies.
The chain of logic
In previous columns in this series I traced the links in the chain of logic that lead inexorably to the conclusion that the TSS is incompatible with the long-term survival of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people; and set out the elements of an alternative humanitarian – rather than political – policy paradigm for the noncoercive resolution of the conflict.
The major stages in the sequence of reasoning can be summarized as follows:
-
1. If Israel is to continue to exist as the permanent democratic nation-state of the Jewish people,
(a) It cannot make the territorial concessions in Judea/Samaria necessary for a viable Palestinian state without critically compromising its minimum security requirements and rendering itself geographically untenable; and
(b) It cannot incorporate the Palestinian Arabs resident in these areas into its society as enfranchised citizens, without rendering itself demographically untenable.
2. Israel must therefore maintain control over the territory while inducing the relocation and rehabilitation of the Palestinian Arab population elsewhere. The only noncoercive way to achieve this is with positive inducements – chiefly generous economic incentives.
3. However, there is strong international support for the establishment of a Palestinian state in Judea/Samaria. What fuels this support is the perceived legitimacy of the Palestinian narrative, according to which the Palestinian Arabs are a distinct people, comprising a cohesive national entity that strives to exercise national sovereignty in a defined homeland. As long as the perceived validity of this narrative persists, the international pressure for Palestinian statehood will persist.
4. Clearly then, if the intellectual fuel that drives international pressure for a Palestinian state is the perceived validity of the Palestine narrative, forestalling this pressure requires the deconstruction of this narrative. Such deconstruction should – and can – be based principally on the deeds, declarations and documents of the Palestinians.
5. This narrative-deconstruction must be attained by an assertive public diplomacy offensive, adequately funded and appropriately energized. Without achievement of this objective, there will be no conceptual space in the discourse to advance Zionist-compliant alternatives to the TSS.
6. Deconstruction of the Palestinian narrative will obviate the need to deal with the Palestinian Arabs as a cohesive national entity, and instead facilitate addressing them as an amalgam of fate-stricken individuals who, for decades, have been disastrously misled into their current unenviable position by cruel, cunning and corrupt cliques.
7. Approaching the Palestinians Arabs on the individual, rather than on the collective, level makes way for policy paradigms that call for (a) The depoliticization of context of the predicament, and the nature of its resolution; and (b) The “atomization” (individualization) of the implementation of that resolution.
8. This enables the formulation of crucial elements of actionable policy that do not require reaching agreement with any Arab collective or political entity –something increasingly implausible in the post-“Arab Spring” climate – but rather the accumulated acquiescence of individuals seeking to enhance their well-being.
Humanitarian instead of political
Depoliticizing the context of the Palestinian Arabs’ predicament will not, in itself, dissipate that predicament, or render the need to do so any less pressing. But what it will do is provide a totally new dimension along which to pursue policies to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian impasse, and new methodologies by which to do so.
Thus, rather than strive for an unattainable political solution, energies should be channeled along humanitarian lines, which as I pointed out last week, leads inexorably to a policy prescription based on the eminently liberal (as opposed to “illiberal” rather than “conservative”) principles of: 1. Eliminating ethnic discrimination toward the Palestinian Arabs as (a) refugees and as (b) residents in the Arab world 2. Providing individual Palestinian Arabs the freedom of choice to determine their future and that of their families.
These principles translate into a comprehensive tripartite proposal, whose constituent components should be seen as a mutually interactive, integrative whole: 1. Dissolution or radical restructuring of UNRWA (the United Nations Relief and Works Agency) to bring the treatment of Palestinian refugees into line with universal international norms.
2. Resolute insistence on the cessation of ethnic discrimination against Palestinian Arabs in the Arab world and of the prohibition on their acquiring citizenship of countries in which they have resided for decades.
3. Generous relocation loans provided directly to individual Palestinian Arab breadwinners/family heads, resident in Judea/Samaria (and subsequently, in Gaza) to allow them to build better futures for themselves, and their dependents, in third-party countries of their choice.
Crucial stumbling block
In pursuing a genuine resolution of the “Palestinian problem,” the issue of abolishing/restructuring UNRWA is crucial. To achieve any sustainable arrangement it is imperative to avoid tunnel vision by focusing attention almost exclusively on the Palestinian Arab population in Judea/Samaria, while ignoring the huge “overhang” of the Palestinian “diaspora,” who greatly outnumber their kinfolk living in these territories.
Without a conceptual blueprint for the fate of this “diaspora,” any agreement with the “domestic” Palestinians will be futile. On the one hand, if it disregards their fate, such an agreement will be politically untenable; on the other, if it provides for their large-scale resettlement within a putative micro-mini Palestinian state, it will render that state physically untenable.
Although a detailed account of the grossly obstructive role UNRWA plays in thwarting any possible progress toward a constructive end of the conflict is beyond the scope of this piece, it is being increasingly recognized by many, across a wide spectrum of political affiliations, both in Israel and abroad. Much has been written regarding this highly anomalous organization and how it perpetuates a culture of Palestinian dependency and the unrealistic narrative of “return.”
Although the topic warrants an entire column on its own, I will limit myself to a brutally condensed tour d’horizon of why the removal/restructuring of UNRWA is essential in any prospective resolution of the Palestinian problem.
All the refugees on the face of the globe are under the auspices of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) – except for the Palestinians. For them a unique, separate institution exists – UNRWA. These two organizations have different definitions of who is a refugee and different mandates for how to deal with them. Unlike the UNHCR, UNRWA’s definition of refugees includes not only permanent inhabitants who fled the country during the 1948 War of Independence but also temporary migrant workers who were resident in Mandatory Palestine for less than two years – as well as all descendants.
While UNHCR’s mandate allows it to find permanent solutions for refugees in countries other than their country of origin, the UNRWA mandate allows only for providing their humanitarian needs.
The operational significance of UNRWA’s definition-cum-mandate is that the organization can only attend to the humanitarian needs of an ever-growing population, dependent on that assistance, making it an entity that perpetuates the very problem it was established to solve.
5,000,000 or 50,000?
The far-reaching significance of this can be condensed into the remarkable fact that if the universally accepted UNHCR criteria for refugees were applied to the Palestinian case, the number of “refugees” would shrink from about 5,000,000 to under 50,000 – even less by some estimates. These figures starkly illustrate that both the scale and the durability of the Palestinian refugee problem is fueled by the wildly anomalous nature of its definition and treatment.
It should not come as a surprise then that there is growing consensus that without abolishing UNRWA and folding its operations into UNHCR, no way out of the Israeli-Palestinian impasse is possible.
This was aptly expressed by Scott Lasensky of the US Institute of Peace and recipient of Tel Aviv University’s Yitzhak Rabin-Shimon Peres Peace Award, who stated: “The delivery of international assistance through UNRWA is untenable and does nothing to contribute to an eventual settlement…”
This view was endorsed by Prof. Nitza Nachmias of the Jewish-Arab Center, University of Haifa, who declared, “UNRWA has to be phased out, and only bold actions will yield the necessary results,” urging that although “this is a complex process [it] should not be delayed or avoided.”
Impact on the narrative
Bringing the Palestine refugee problem into line with accepted international practice by folding UNRWA into the UNHCR (or restructuring it to operate along similar principles) will also reduce the problem to its true dimensions.
This on its own will go a long way to undermining the foundations of the Palestinian narrative, much of which draws on images of destitute millions, still brandishing keys of houses that no longer exist.
However, contending with the detrimental UNRWA anomaly cannot be seen in isolation from the other measures.
Folding UNRWA into the framework of the UNHCR – or an UNHCR-like framework – would of course have significant ramifications for large Palestinian populations resident in the Arab countries, who would no longer receive the anomalous handouts paid to them by it.
This leads to the second element of the proposal: the grave ethnic discrimination against the Palestinian Arabs resident in the Arab world, where they suffer severe restrictions on their freedom of movement, employment opportunities, and property ownership. But most significantly, they are denied citizenship of the countries in which they have lived for decades.
The acquisition of citizenship of the countries of their long-standing residency is something overwhelming desired by the Palestinians – as numerous opinion surveys indicate. Accordingly, with the abolition of UNRWA and the accompanying reduction in the population eligible for refugee aid, a diplomatic drive must be mounted to pressure Arab governments to end their ethnic discrimination against the Palestinians, to desist from perpetuating their stateless status and allow them to acquire the citizenship of countries in which they have long resided.
To make this more palatable, the funds currently provided to UNRWA could be temporarily directed to the coffers of the governments of the countries in which the “refugees” live, to help finance their absorption as citizens – provided, of course, that the barriers to such citizenship are removed.
‘Hot potato’ delayed
Once the principle of Palestinian Arabs receiving permanent citizenship in third-party countries has been established as acceptable – even notionally, rather than in practice – we can turn to the third–most controversial element in the proposal: directly funding Palestinian Arab breadwinners, in the Palestinian-administered territories, to allow them to build better futures for themselves and their dependents, in third-party countries of their choice.
But elaboration of that – and the answers I so rashly promised last week to provide this week – will have to wait until next week.
www.martinsherman.net
dweller Said:
no one mentioned transfer for sheer ethnicity. The sought, seeks and executes to kill, swindle, libel, expel,banish,disallow, deny etc, etc etc. Jews. In case you haven’t noticed: killing Jews, teaching their children jew hatred, maintaining JEW FREE areas where they have control over any former areas of palestine mandate(gaza, jordan, west bank), blood libeling,inciting genocide, etc(need I go on?) There is no evidence to impy that his would not continue. Hence transfer. Whereas, the jews expelled from arab countries were living their lives without harm to others.
dweller Said:
ongoing dead Jews not enough for you?
dweller Said:
not really, still not sure as to your advice to jews. HOwever, when you remove the OTOH from your following conclusion, i think your advice is clear.
dweller Said:
Basically your solution is for jews just to keep going on, dodging the bullets,living with genocidal incitement within the jewish homeland, etc etc etc. All the verbiage led to this place and was predicated on reaching this final conclusion, or should I say solution. Jews are expelled by arabs,arabs/muslims are slaughtering swindling and inciting genocide, but it is immoral to transfer the collective who thrives on slaughtering and hating jews. Why am I not surprised that all the rational argument, amateur psychology, expert knowledge of Jews(and now blacks) have simply led to this conclusion(which of course you will deny) “by their fruits you shall know them” Finally, after much obfuscation we get to the bottom line. You say Jews wont buy transfer because it is immoral but apparently they will keep buying dead jews….”o ye of little faith” I hope they will wake up
@ yamit82:
Irrelevant; reality is what it is.
Fortunately (or, I guess, from your p-o-v, un-fortunately), my ‘Jewishness’ isn’t dependent, in any way or to any degree, on what you do or don’t ‘consider’ — for much of anything. Nor is my capacity to see clearly dependent on external opinion.
Compensation for the fact that you harbor enormous hatred for your own family members.
— The greater the animus, the greater the ‘contribution.’
In any case though, what does ‘contribution’ (to anybody) have to do with strength?
— You obviously have no clue as to what I’m saying.
Yes, I see that; just as I thought.
As I said earlier, true strength comes from a place that is alien to you.
“The mitzri”? — I assume that whatever you think of Jesus, you don’t regard him as having been ‘Egyptian,’ so that was probably a typo intended to read “Jesus the nitzri” (the “n” & “m” being right beside each other on the keyboard).
If so, then my answer to your question is: No, true strength doesn’t come from haNitzri
— it does, however, come from the same place where he drew it from. [“Of myself, I can do nothing; the Father within me, He doeth the works.”]
Not that you need to ‘believe in’ him to find it.
People who make that claim (or that KIND of claim) are mistaken. But then, they’ve been mistaken about so many other things in this matter, the discovery of one more shouldn’t be such a trauma.
Yeah, well, that was MY line.
Anyway the evidence that you aren’t a strong man is ample & evident.
If you truly were strong, for example, smoking would have no grip on you
— and if you became strong, KICKING nicotine wouldn’t require chemicals, patches, hypnosis, special foods, or ANY of that other crap either; NOR would it require ‘will-power.’
A power tripper, OTOH, is not necessarily a powerful person
— a power tripper is somebody who hungers for power over his fellow man.
But precisely because of that hunger, he is not to be trusted with power.
You are indeed a power tripper.
Of course (metaphorically).
But that’s all right; I never let anybody TAKE me prisoner (metaphorically, of course).
@ yamit82:
God disagrees with you
— but don’t let a little thing like that trouble you.
“Self-proclaimed” Jews? — and YOU aren’t a “self-proclaimed” Jew? (Fancy that!)
— Who knew?
Most of them DON’T ‘choose.’ They are presently incapable of choice, but you can’t see that. Like I said, no compassion.
Yet courage could have no strength but for compassion.
— As you have yet to learn.
What ‘case’ would that be? — You’ve yet to make a case over this matter, and frankly I doubt you can.
‘Judgment’ has nothing to do with it.
If what you GET from what I said is ‘judgment,’ then you’ve entirely missed what I’ve said. Apparently it went right past you.
No judgment; I just say what I see. If you experience judgment, that’s coming from your OWN consciousness.
It’s NOT ‘judgment’ — but simple discernment — that’s operating in my observation that you are not a strong man (let alone, a strong ‘Jew’).
I’ll have to finish this in another post — the bot is afoot of late, and I’m dodging its snare.
@ dweller:
Hypothetical: dweller has a cause (himself :P. He makes a speech in front of the UN, using as many boring new age boilerplate euphemisms as he can remember or conjure and as obtusely verbose as he believes he can get awayway with. 5 people show up to hear him and no press.
and fall asleep.
Bernard has a cause and he angrily gives a speech in front of the UN threatening violence (non descriptive)against the enemies of the Jews in America and wherever those enemies can be confronted. He uses mostly angry terms and words signifying violence towards the enemies of Israel and the Jews which have clear meanings and leave no room for doubt or misunderstanding by anyone.
He announces his speech ahead of time to the press and media. hundreds and maybe Thousands of people show up and all of the national and international press and media show up. Page #1 NYT! Angry message delivered and disseminated. Angry presentation generated, great interest using a combination of anger and threatened violence.
Whose method works? Which method works best?
If I punched you out to an inch of your life or just calmly & logically attempted to verbally express my disdain of you, which method do you think would have the greatest effect in expressing my feelings towards you and your subsequent understanding of what I was trying to convey?
Every human emotion and condition is proper in it’s proper time and context. I will match any angry user of an AK-47 against any martial arts expert or a practitioner of Zen.
I am totally calm and zen-like efficient when I kill.
“A time to kill, and a time to heal”
“A time to love, and a time to hate”
“He hath made every thing beautiful in its time; also He hath set the world in their heart, yet so that man cannot find out the work that God hath done from the beginning even to the end.”
Key is “Time”: Can’t attribute any condition or emotion to it’s improper time and context.
@ Bernard Ross:
I’m sorry, but you really don’t know what you’re talking about, Bernard. Black anger was the worst thing that ever happened to the Civil Rights Movement — AND black America.
Anger took the Movement by the throat and twisted it into something cheap & putrid, and utterly grotesque.
There is a straight line progression from Stokely Carmichael
to H. Rapp Brown,
to Al Sharpton & Eric Holder.
And it goes in one direction only
— straight down.
If anger had merely “woken up” black people, that would’ve been one thing — but that anger ultimately led them off on a path of dependency & despair
— courtesy of the Democratic Party
which destroyed the Black family and shackled the survivors to the DNC Plantation.
Furthermore, that anger scared the living piss out of the country — and ended up generating a backlash against the only GOOD part of the Movement
— by (among other things) getting Dr King killed.
That didn’t have to happen.
Don’t mistake me:
I’m NOT by any means suggesting that there is some kind of ‘parallel’ to be drawn between the history of the Civil Rights Mvt’s decline & the trajectory of Zionism in re its dealings with the Palis. That’s not my point, so don’t even think of going there.
What I truly AM saying is that if you’ve actually bought the line that ‘black anger was good for Black America,’ then I’ve got a nice bridge in SF to sell you for cheap (and it’s solid gold! — don’t miss out!).
Horse pucky. That’s strictly your boated ego seeking to justify itself.
Has it never occurred to you that there might be others besides yourself who are exploiting your anger?
As a general rule, forcibly transferring them for reasons of sheer ethnicity is dead WRONG.
Of course, if you should get a DIRECT COMMAND to the contrary in re the Palis (say, tomorrow morning) — straight from the Almighty Himself — then you get back to me & we’ll talk about implementing His wishes tout de suite.
— Is that a little clearer, ken ayin hara?
OTOH, I think there’s a lot that can be done (that has yet to be done) to get the Palis to behave themselves like civilized human beings right where they are.
@ Bernard Ross:
Anger won’t get the job done, Bernard.
It’s counter-productive. People won’t listen to an angry man.
(Been there, done that.)
Some folks may get off on absorbing & reflecting the anger of an angry man, but they won’t be able (or even interested) to actually understand his words
— assuming he even HAS something sensible to say.
Anger doesn’t draw attention to your CASE.
Anger draws attention to itself.
As ‘good’ as it may make you feel when expressing it, ultimately it’s a friggin’ distraction from the case you want to make.
You can be MUCH more constructive talking to Jews about their rights, etc, if you’re calm & steady & direct
— than if you’re bent out of shape with rage.
Furthermore, an angry man makes stupid mistakes — lots of them
— sometimes unrecoverable ones.
A good strategist knows that it’s better to let his adversaries get rip-roaring mad
— let them get off on feeling high & mighty, etc, while they make one FUBAR after another, after another
and he wades into the fray and turns their errors to his advantage, again & again & again. . . .
Quite so.
But if anybody can set you off, if anybody can excite you — positively OR negatively — then you are already out of your center, and responding to HIS timing, not your own.
@ Bernard Ross:
Nor, for the record, have I.
Now, are you going to answer the above question, or continue to evade it?
Even if it IS indeed immoral?
Then you better get used to them, if you’re going to continue dealing with ME.
And you can call them ‘disingenuous’ or ‘dizzygillespie’ or ‘spaghetti&meatballs,’ for all I care
— because if they’re wrong when done TO Jews, then they’re wrong when done BY Jews.
And the mere fact that the perpetrators got away with it (thus far) when they did it to Jews
— doesn’t, of itself, give ANYBODY (Jews or anybody else) a blank check to henceforth ABANDON the principle altogether.
So, here you’ll make that assumption; but not elsewhere?
So in those OTHER places, you weren’t interested in “constructive argument”?
The operative word here is “believe.” You believe that; you don’t KNOW it.
I submit that you believe it because — and only because — you WANT to believe it.
You want to believe it because there is EGO SATISFACTION to be derived from swelling up (as it were) in omnipotent judgment over somebody (or over a lot of somebodies).
But that does not, of itself, render anger a “rational response.”
And in fact, the truth is that anger — though initially an expected response — is NEVER, in its nature, ‘rational’:
— You can’t create emotion out of reason; it comes from a different place.
(Think: If you could create — or sustain — emotion out of reason, virtually no marriage would ever dissolve.)
More in another post.
@ Bernard Ross:
I told you, Bernard. I “overlooked” nothing, except what appeared to be your online errors.
It was simple courtesy
— nothing more, nothing less.
You can take it or leave it, fella; it’s no skin off my nose either way.
My conscience is squeaky clean as regards my dealings with you.
On MY part, it isn’t.
For YOURSELF, however, you’ll have to decide. “Meow” certainly sounds to me like an accusation of cattiness.
Irrelevant.
It’s flat-out wrong. Full Stop.
Jews won’t buy it, Bernard. Not only will the phrase NOT overcome that propensity — but Jews will, further, view its offering as evidence that those who make their case for them have NO case
— that is, it would ultimately be counterproductive in the worst way.
With all due respect, my opinion is that you’ve got a horse that won’t run; put it out to pasture & quit squandering your money on expensive feed.
@ yamit82:
No animal other than man is created b’tzelem elohim
— in the image & likeness of God.
Thus you cannot ‘murder’ an animal.
The reason for which (or the manner by which) you kill or abuse an animal may be thoroughly irresponsible, disgraceful, reprehensible, etc
— and may well constitute cause for severe punsihment.
But in Jewish law & ethics it is NOT ‘murder.’
GOI.
Lozowick spent 3 years in the armored corps [1975-78], mostly in the Sinai desert.
I know that (more recently) he was for several years Director of the Archives at YAD VASHEM.
No idea what he’s up to of late, but as I recall he’d been doing some blogging.
Everything in your post AFTER your question, “According to whose ethics and morality?” (which I just finished answering), amounts — in context — to sheer, irrelevant, pedantic pap.
@ yamit82:
I do read in context.
You need to
— LEARN TO READ WITH CARE.
I didn’t say the Palis were not a POLIS (city-state) — I had said the Palis were not a POLITY — of any kind.
I repeat: the Palis are not a people (as you know perfectly well).
They are a collection of the local ethnic Arabs.
They have nothing in common with any of Macchiavelli’s examples
— nor with any of the nations of the conquest.
You are seeking to fit a square peg to a round hole.
Then all you need is a direct command from El Shaddai, and you’ll be in business.
Not until.
Not unless.
@ dweller:
There is no contradiction. In the first instance I don’t consider them Jews or Jews worthy of saving. They have taken themselves out of the Jewish family and it’s obligations to each other. Sort of like self proclaimed Jews like you. I wouldn’t lift a finger or dirty a fingernail.
You/they made your bed out of choice… enjoy it.
Your standard course of apologetics, Me I’m not into that crap. We are all responsible for our own actions and we don’t have no Jesus to cover our asses. To those who don’t know any better, I can cut some slack but for those who know or should know and still remain by choice outside of a real Jewish community and framework along with fulfilling Jewish obligations like education (Jewish) and Jewish charities I say screw em
Some yes and some no.. I can play your dualism game as well.
Most yes some not but it’s not just the weakness it’s the loyalty to other Jews and Judaism.
“Pollard”. Any Jew is is against and not supportive of Pollard is undeserving of any consideration. Any Jew who Chooses America or any other country and nationality over Israel is not worth my consideration. I rest my case.
They like you are beneath my contempt.
Not for you to say, firstly because you are a Jesus tripper and I don’t consider you a Jew or one qualified to judge me. I will match my record of contribution to the Jewish people over you and a million like you.
I don’t know what you are talking about. I am a gentle pussycat to those few who are close to me and a mean unrelenting foe. Never get on my bad side, I don’t take prisoners (metaphorically)
.
Huh?
Apparently I am closer than you are willing to admit.
Yeah I know, Jesus the mitzri?
I earnestly hope you find it someday; for the moment, however, you’re not even in the ballpark.
@ dweller:
Any animal killed for any reason other than the necessity for food is murder according to Jewish law and ethics.
According to whose ethics and morality? Yours? Your Christian morality?
Read the Laws of Kings and their wars. There is a Jewish way and method of waging war and all conditions are clearly spelled out.
But if there is a question or any doubt in either how, when and why then: Judges and Sages Commanded to Interpret the Bible
Moses was commanded to appoint seventy elders to help him rule over the people (Numbers 11:16).
There also existed a hierarchy of local judges over tens, hundreds, and thousands (Exodus 18:21).
Any case too difficult at one level would be passed on upwards (Exodus 18:26).
As in any legal system over time a body of precedents and legal principles developed telling in detail how the Commandments were to be put into practice.
[Deuteronomy 17:9] AND THOU SHALT COME UNTO THE PRIESTS THE LEVITES, AND UNTO THE JUDGE THAT SHALL BE IN THOSE DAYS, AND ENQUIRE; AND THEY SHALL SHOW THEE THE SENTENCE OF JUDGMENT:
In case of doubt the Israelites were commanded to go to the authorities and Sages that would exist in their time.
[Deuteronomy 17:8] IF THERE ARISE A MATTER TOO HARD FOR THEE IN JUDGMENT, BETWEEN BLOOD AND BLOOD, BETWEEN PLEA AND PLEA, AND BETWEEN STROKE AND STROKE, BEING MATTERS OF CONTROVERSY WITHIN THY GATES: THEN SHALT THOU ARISE, AND GET THEE UP INTO THE PLACE WHICH THE LORD THY GOD SHALL CHOOSE;
In case of doubt concerning any matter of the Law and its practical implications one had to make an effort (“ARISE”) and go to the recognized authority that existed.
The Ten Tribes were Exiled for Inventing their own Religious Beliefs!
It says:
Isa. 8:20: “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”
@ dweller:
He was refering in his tract or treatise to Italian city states but then he broadened his principle to more general principles non politically specific when he said: “The Romans, in order to hold Capua, Carthage, and Numantia, dismantled them, and did not lose them. They wished to hold Greece as the Spartans held it, making it free and permitting its laws, and did not succeed. So to hold it they were compelled to dismantle many cities in the country, for in truth there is no safe way to retain them otherwise than by ruining them. And he who becomes master of a city accustomed to freedom and does not destroy it, may expect to be destroyed by it”,
This principle may be applicable to any conquered people, to paraphrase as did Shoher,… wiping them out is the surest way of keeping the lands conquered and annexed without having to worry about rebellion in the present or future
LEARN TO READ IN CONTEXT.. I don’t smoke CIGARS but a Bottle of Chevas goes well with Cabanas.
@ Bernard Ross:
Would be more humanitarian than to have to kill them and have many Jews killed because they were not repatriated with their families and brothers for most a mere 10-50 miles the distance most Americans travel to work and back.
If most Jews in Europe were offered the choice of expulsion or the Gas Chambers I don’t think many would have chosen the gas although I can imagine some diehards like dweller fighting to get the gas on a moral and ethical basis. Of-course they would not be Jewish morals or ethics?
@ dweller:I apoligize for spelling and syntax errors in last reply (which is still in moderation) I find the editing window to small to make corrections properly and timely
dweller Said:
MEOW again.
If this is not meant to be catty or a pissing contest but rather an argument then I refer you to the fallacy describing this argument. that has a latin name,. Cant remember it right now but I’ll wager you can . If you can remember the fallacy then I would say its use was disingenuous.dweller Said:
actually any transfer of the arabs by the Jews would be more humanitarian than the expelling of the Jews from arab nations, unless done unplanned in a time of war. The “disengagement” is a better example of how a transfer would progress. Therefore should say that it would be “more” moral rather than “as” moral. However, the purpose of the phrase was geared towards overcoming Jewish propensity towards false morality that limit their courses of action. EG arab transfer is always portrayed as a horrendous concept but not Jewish transfer. The Jewish transfer in gaza is never criticized by those who criticizer the prospect of arab transfer. Unlike the Jews from arab nations the pals have proven that they cannot live with jews under their sovereignty whereas the jews can live with arabs under jewish sovereignty. There is no equality between the transfers in basis nor in execution.
dweller Said:
Because it creates a double standard and double standards are holding back the Jews from Justice. The disingenuous often odouble standards in an effort to convince jews that what is allowed to be done to Jews is not allowed to be done to others. The Jews buy this argument because it is disguised in a poison pill of false morality.
dweller Said:
Hmmm, haven’t notice any application of this “universal principle” in relation to jews.
dweller Said:
I completely agree with this statement. This is my agenda with my approach regarding the separation of jewish legal settlement rights: that these rights should be pursued as distinct from Israels sovereignty rights, that it would be more succesful. Also, that the pursuit of mandamus AND Estoppel can focus jews towards KNOWING their rights and also showcase anti jewish hypocrisies in the court(as knowing hypocrisy creates the anger necessary to motivation to confront.) I have the same approach regarding transfer in that first it must be discussed as not being immoral; this will allow discussion of the logistics and timing. I have no problem with suggestions which encourage action towards these goals. I have a problem with ideas which tend to leave discourage options to Jews which have been universally acceptable when done to Jews. I find these ideas disingenuous. dweller Said:
For the sake of constructive argument I will assume you are not being catty or disingenuosus here. I belive that anger is the appropriate rational respnse to the unbelivable criminal swindling that has been done to the Jews even during the GC reign. The fact that the europeans are aiding the arabs to eradicate the Jews from their homelands desrves much more than anger. I did not know about the extent of the swindling, the double standards, the blood libels, outside of the obvious main points. I was not aware of the extent of the ONGOING crimes and the chutzpah of the criminals involved. Most Jews are unaware of these facts and are as subject to propaganda as the non jews. Incredulous shock took upon discovering the GOI has been a contributor to these swindles. Therefore, I believe that Jews must know their rights, be aware of past swindles and aware of current swindles. Hence my anger at the notions propagated that Jews should(and did) empathize with someone trying to aid those seeking the eradication of Jews. Therefore, I want Jewish anger to awake as black anger did. There is a method to my madness and to exploiting my anger. Anger should be directed towards those embarking on disingenuous attempts to hoodwink the Jews, they should be given no standing. My bad?
dweller Said:
I cannot tell from you answer whether you agree with transfer as a solution or not. Perhaps you are saying that you agree but you cannot see it working due to its lack of acceptability with the world and Jews. If you agree then you appear to say that it must be during a was. however, my view is that it will be a much more humanitarian process if done with a plan. I think it should be considered as a reasonable solution that can end positively for all. The gaza disengagement should be of departure regarding logistics and how it can be accomplished in a humanitarian manner. It has to be done in war as it is necessary to seiae buffer zones across the hostile borders in order to set up reception camps(similar to gaza) HOwever, this can be done anytime because Israel is in ongoing hostilities with 3 bordering entities. Once arriving in the camps the arabs and international agencies can finance resettlement or absorption with their currently focused terror investments. The importance is that Israel unilaterally act and put the “shoe on the other foot” regarding “solutions” We have seen that the multilateral solutions have an endless parade of reducing jewish land and increasing jewish concessions. Just try and focus your imagination towards solving the logistical problems of unilateral transfer. If jews put their mind towards this approach everything will improve. Perhaps a first phase whereby incendiary clerics, fatah murderers etc are dropped off in gaza. they can resolve their squabbles there(LOL) All Im saying is lets think out of the box, the jews have tried to coexist, its not working. I dont thin it is necessary to always wait to react to the enemies behavior. It is strategically better to act on ones own timing.
@ yamit82:
An important point, granted.
Macchiavelli might more likely have seen Black Jack Pershing’s (Moro War) approach as more suitable in dealing with the Pali problem.
@ yamit82:
Well then, let’s hear it for “curiosity”!
“Again you have been shown to be nothing but a lazy contentious prig.”
“Again”? — as in ‘another time’? — If so, when?
“Shown”? — by whom? Surely not by yourself; so whom?
“Lazy”? — because I refuse to be suckered into doing your research? (Who’s the lazy one?)
“Prig”? — coming, as it does, from a boorish demagogue, that’s a compliment. (Not so intended obviously, but a compliment all-the-same.)
— So, thank you.
The palis are simply NOT, and have never been, a polity of ANY kind — let alone, a ‘Republic.’
No way you can apply this to them
— unless, of course, you simply WANT to do so.
OTOH, the Seven Nations of the Conquest were all, for better or for worse, polities.
The signal quality of Macchiavelli is always his distilled (virtually crystalline) rationality.
‘Morality’ never enters into his picture.
But meanness never does either.
Nice try, Bubbeleh, but no cigar.
And no sale.
@ Bernard Ross:
It’s pretty straightforward, Bernard; nothing esoteric about it.
There’s great power in the little conversations that individuals hold with their friends, family & associates. The most effective change in public opinion is that which begins with small circles — which, in turn, expand to form larger ones.
(But an angry man is often hard to listen to; I’d attend to that first.)
Ideas (howsoever sound) are, of themselves, are insufficient for a campaign of action — which must allow ALSO for the circumstances wherein the ideas are to be implemented. Hence, my remarks, for example, about the prospects for international mandamus.
Can’t see doing it forcibly — except perhaps during a shooting war, such as that of ’47-’49 — where it did happen occasionally (but as then, only in specific instances, as perceived to be militarily necessary; not for reasons of ethnicity as such).
No. The enemy will eventually do that. THEN it will be time to confront him in the field. Re-read the (now-)bolded portion of the above blockquote.
Well, ONE of us certainly has been.
(And I don’t ‘take offense,’ Bernard, but while you’re re-reading comments, perhaps you might care to re-read some of your own posts. . . .)
@ Bernard Ross:
I don’t hairsplit. I say what I think. A reader can take it or leave it.
I simply answered your questions.
If you “have no problem” with it, Bernard, then it is YOU who have been hair-splitting — because I had made the same assertion quite a bit earlier in the thread. I only repeated it more recently because your words & tone had suggested that I hadn’t gotten the point across to you previously. Re-read the posting sequence above.
So if I’m not being ‘disingenuous,’ then I’m just being catty? One or the other, right?
— Couldn’t possibly be any other option, right? — Got it.
As I’ve said before, Bernard, I perceive in you a very angry person
— though I seriously doubt that that anger arrived on the same bus that brought your burgeoning awareness of Jewish history (the anger was present — in spades — long before that).
In that case, it would NOT be at all ‘moral.’
WHY important not to do so? — Do we abandon morality merely because it was ignored in the past to our detriment?
Does that not reduce the universal principle of Justice strictly to a matter of whose ox is gored?
@ yamit82:
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Depends on the circumstances.
Even in war — where enemies are clearly defined — there IS such a thing as murder.
OTOH, and contrary to what you have asserted several times elsewhere, killing of ANIMALS (for food, or for absolutely any other reason)
— and even in the cruelest, most reprehensible of ways
never constitutes ‘murder.’
Genocide on God’s command is still objectively genocide
— it’s just not unlawful in His sight.
Genocide in His Name, however, absent such a DIRECT command from Him — is far more evil than genocide that doesn’t even bother to invoke the Name
— and He will not let it pass.
PresentCompany take note.
@ yamit82:
Of course we cannot. (Du-uh!)
But it does not follow from this that the direct, explicit command to EXTERMINATE (which far exceeds the mere admonition to wrest control) “applies to any other nations in any generation.”
What’s more, when Saul (and failed to fully implement) the command to exterminate (Agag & cohort), it was a command that had been given him ANEW (by way of Samuel).
— Why did God go out of His way to render the command anew, if it constituted a standing order in perpetuity?
I wouldn’t want this to come as a shock to you, boychik, but I rarely Google at all when I’m blogging. Googling is time-consuming, and that makes it a luxury I simply can’t afford.
??? What IS this, “Twenty Questions”?
You’ll have to reword your question. I have no idea where you’re going or what you want here — except that you seem to think you’re setting me up for something. (And that’s fine, if that pulls your chain — but without a clearer picture of the point you’re trying to make, Yamit, I can’t give you my take on the verse.)
In any case, it’s more than apparent that you want to show off some commentator’s opinion that you take for self-evident truth. Where such “one-upmanship” is concerned, however, I suggest you leave pissing contests. . . . for those who are still learning to piss. Big boys have better things to do.
@ yamit82:
“If you may be so bold”?
SUDDENLY this takes ‘boldness’ on your part?
(Funny, it never required ‘boldness’ from you in the past; it was always your standard response, strictly routine, as easy & automatic as taking a leak.)
Your solicitous concern for my well-being is touching.
Don’t need Jesus to do that.
Got a direct line to the Front Office (just like Jesus).
You betcha; whatever works, absolutely.
@ yamit82:
I know: and all this time you thought he was a Baptist. . . .
Aunt Mathilde will be positively scandalised.
Apparently Jewish enough to know the Psalms — the only element of Khtuvim [“writings”] thus far compiled as of his day (except maybe Ruth).
But if you regard that as ‘evidence’ that he “yielded to torture,” you’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel for support of your claim.
As I recall, that detail appears only in Mt & Mk, and in both cases the bystanders couldn’t tell if he was invoking the name of Elyahu haNavi.
Lk & Jn have his final words as, “Father into Thy hands I commit my spirit,” and “It is finished [or ‘accomplished,’ ‘completed,’ etc],” respectively.
— Neither of those declarations would have been logical (or even consciously accessible) to somebody who had ‘failed’ in (the earthly part of) his mission.
Frankly, I seriously doubt that — IF in fact the claim (that he repeated that line from the beginning of Ps 22) is authentic — that such an exclamation had anything whatsoever to do with the physical pain inflicted by that means of execution.
For one thing, it’s clear — from (among other things) “into Thy hands I commit my spirit” — that he was not ‘wrenched’ from his body as are other men in dying. Earlier [in John 10 somewhere], he says “I lay down My life that I may take it up again.”
This guy is no “innocent victim.”
He is in full control of himself, right up until the actual moment of his death.
— Innocent, he IS. ‘Victim,’ however, he most certainly is NOT.
The precise point at which those words are attributed to him was just before he was to leave his body. His mission was “finished.”
Upon committing his spirit into the hands of haShem, he was now giving up ALL control over himself — and my suspicion is that at this point he perceived the approach of Satan, who had come to take his soul into Sheol. He may well have experienced fear at that moment — but the issue of pain would’ve been LONG past.
Remember that in the garden at Gethsemane, he had already gotten a strong inkling of what was in store after he died.
— It says he “sweat blood.” The capillaries — with single-celled walls — are very close to the skin surface near the sweat glands at the temples.
At Gethsemane, he had looked into the heart of pure evil, and the pressure of what he beheld must have been enormous. On the cross, giving up all control of himself and sensing the approach of what he had seen at Gethsemane could well have prompted that exclamation from Ps 22.
By sheer contrast, physical torture at THAT point would have been a treat.
— Certainly a distraction. (Which probably explains the appeal of pain to masochists, btw.)
I agree with your complete post
yamit82 Said:
As the muslims gain power they appear, as a collective, to increase acting “upon such premises”
yamit82 Said:
The channeling of this fanaticism conveniently jibes with the rulers need to reduce the non producing population. The arab islamic culture, as it is, is likely not able to produce adequately in any case.
yamit82 Said:
I think this is a very serious problem facing Israel and the rest of the non islamic world.
yamit82 Said:
It appears to me that they are being acted upon on a global scale and rapidly increasing. The world appears to be financing islamic global influence, manipulation and terror primarily through the Saud’s financial network. What is the purpose of this massive saudi financing of mosques, universities, etc?
yamit82 Said:
I think the non islamic world will agree, in hindsight.
@ Bernard Ross:
A- when dealing with populations inculcated with the unique Islamic ideology it is a different animal than what Machiavelli had to consider which were primarily Italian and European city states ruled by Barons and Princes. Islam is the glue which unites all Muslims no matter the nationality or ethnicity.
B- All middle East cultures view land in both secular and ecclesiastic frames of reference. This differs from European Christian views on territory, nation states and politics. Islam and Judaism integrates all three.
In the mind of Arabs and Muslims we are thieves, interlopers and Kuffar. Throughout mot of Islamic history Jews were allowed to live in Muslim lands as Jews but Islam will not tolerate Jewish or any other non Islamic sovereignty in the belief that if any territory that was once a part of dar al-islam comes under the control of dar al-harb, then that represents an attack upon Islam, and it is the obligation of all Muslims to fight in order to retrieve the lost land. This motivates the fanaticism not only in the opposition to secular Arab governments, but also the very existence of the state of Israel. Israel is an intrusion of dar al-harb upon territory that properly belongs to dar al-islam; as such, nothing short of restoring Islamic rule to the land is acceptable.
Yes, people will die – including even Muslims, children, and various noncombattants. But the reality is that Muslim ethics is an ethics of duty, not consequences. Ethical behavior is that which is in accordance with god’s rules and which obeys god’s will; unethical behavior is that which ignores or disobeys god. Terrible consequences may be unfortunate, but they cannot serve as a criterion for evaluating the behavior itself. Only when the behavior is explicitly condemned by their god must a Muslim refrain from doing it; of course, even then, clever re-interpretation can often provide extremists with a way to get what they want out of the text of the Qur’an.
The governments that control dar al-harb are technically not legitimate powers because they do not derive their authority from their god. No matter what the actual political system is in any individual case, it is regarded as fundamentally and necessarily invalid. However, that doesn’t mean that Islamic governments cannot enter into temporary peace treaties with them in order to facilitate things like commerce or even to protect dar al-islam from attack by other dar al-harb nations.
This, at least, represents the basic theological position of Islam when it comes to the relations between Islamic lands in dar al-islam and the infidels in dar al-harb. Fortunately, not all Muslims actually act upon such premises in their normal relations with non-Muslims – otherwise, the world would probably be in a much worse state than it is. At the same time, these theories and ideas themselves have never actually been repudiated and dismissed as relics of the past: they remain just as authoritative and forceful as ever, even when they aren’t being acted upon.
This is, in fact, one of the most serious problems facing Islam and its ability to coexist peacefully with other cultures and religions.
I think Machiavelli would agree with the Torah on this and eliminate his 2nd and 3rd options if applied to Islam and nations ruled by Sharia, Islamic law and Islamic theology.
yamit82 Said:
In the case of acquiring an arab muslim nation, using this formula, one would expect that the 3rd solution can work(as they have been living under princes and dictators). However, there are factors which might render only the first solution or a watered down 1st solution followed by the 3rd. Competing external and internal forces and entities(Islam,rival superpowers, etc) can cause the puppet oligarchy to wobble between competing potential conquerors(eg.Finland) In the case of Y&S I suggest a combination of the 1st followed by the second.
@ dweller:
My own curiosity got the better of me and it appears Shoher was paraphrasing concepts of Machiavelli rather than a direct quote which he did not indicate either in quotations or other specific direct references.
Again you have been shown to be nothing but a lazy contentious prig.
The Prince: CHAPTER V — CONCERNING THE WAY TO GOVERN CITIES OR PRINCIPALITIES WHICH LIVED UNDER THEIR OWN LAWS BEFORE THEY WERE ANNEXED
Whenever those states which have been acquired as stated have been accustomed to live under their own laws and in freedom, there are three courses for those who wish to hold them: the first is to ruin them..(totally destroy them), the next is to reside there in person, the third is to permit them to live under their own laws, drawing a tribute, and establishing within it an oligarchy which will keep it friendly to you. Because such a government, being created by the prince, knows that it cannot stand without his friendship and interest, and does it utmost to support him; and therefore he who would keep a city accustomed to freedom will hold it more easily by the means of its own citizens than in any other way.
There are, for example, the Spartans and the Romans. The Spartans held Athens and Thebes, establishing there an oligarchy, nevertheless they lost them. The Romans, in order to hold Capua, Carthage, and Numantia, dismantled them, and did not lose them. They wished to hold Greece as the Spartans held it, making it free and permitting its laws, and did not succeed. So to hold it they were compelled to dismantle many cities in the country, for in truth there is no safe way to retain them otherwise than by ruining them. And he who becomes master of a city accustomed to freedom and does not destroy it, may expect to be destroyed by it, for in rebellion it has always the watchword of liberty and its ancient privileges as a rallying point, which neither time nor benefits will ever cause it to forget. And whatever you may do or provide against, they never forget that name or their privileges unless they are disunited or dispersed, but at every chance they immediately rally to them, as Pisa after the hundred years she had been held in bondage by the Florentines.
But when cities or countries are accustomed to live under a prince, and his family is exterminated, they, being on the one hand accustomed to obey and on the other hand not having the old prince, cannot agree in making one from amongst themselves, and they do not know how to govern themselves. For this reason they are very slow to take up arms, and a prince can gain them to himself and secure them much more easily. But in republics there is more vitality, greater hatred, and more desire for vengeance, which will never permit them to allow the memory of their former liberty to rest; so that the safest way is to destroy them or to reside there.
dweller Said:
Is this what all the hair splitting has been about? I have no problem with this, you say potato I say potatoe?
dweller Said:
I agree with this; it is basically what I was saying when I said that the purpose was to educate Jews to their rights which they do not appear to know.. Any method that does this I am for it. dweller Said:
dont disagree with this
dweller Said:
meow
dweller Said:
Don’t hold your breath. I said the transfer of the arabs would be as moral as the trandfer of the Jews. For that statement to be true the degree of morality is irrelevant. What is important is not to bring the morality of arab transfer into question if you haven’t objected to or prevented the jewish transfer.
dweller Said:
I have no idea what this means.
dweller Said:
Nor this.
Its difficult for me to see what points you are really making as in some ways it appears we dont disagree:
you say estoppel and I say mandamus, although neither of us disagree with the pursuit of the other, You say jews need to know their rights and so do I, you say the battlefield is where rights will be won and I do not disagree,perhaps we disagree on transfer but I dont know your thoughts on the issue,
dweller Said:
does this mean you suggest that Israel should proceed directly to the battlefield, or what is the point and relevance of this statement?
Frankly. Dweller, please do not take offense, but I think you have been a bit of a nit picking kvetch in this conversation, I dont think you have been constructive in evolving any suggestions or directions, morelike picking at every comment even when you appear to agree. To quote the diplomats of our day: its not helpful.
@ yamit82:
Not a problem. A blessing.
No doubt but then, I’ve already suggested you had an olfactory problem.
May a I recommend a good Ear, Nose & Throat specialist?
Of course you don’t. Truth for you consists of nothing more or less than what you can get away with calling “truth.” I thoroughly understand.
Again, of course not. Because “most of the crap [I] write” typically comes with the attribution attached. Or if not, I can usually find it readily enough — as shown time & again.
If YOU cite something, then establishing its accuracy constitutes YOUR research, and nobody else’s. If you’re unwilling to do so, then it’s YOUR credibility that suffers; nobody else’s.
Wrong. Once challenged, the burden shifts to you.
Once you’ve established that the excerpt is indeed that of the asserted writer (here, Macchiavelli) — then, and only then (and not UNTIL then) does the burden shift back to the challenger, YoursTruly.
Irrelevant that it isn’t your quote; you cited it in support of your own assertion
— just as Shoher cited it in support of his.
If neither you NOR Shoher can establish its veracity as belonging to Macchiavelli, then your (& Shoher’s) claim stands naked & unsupported.
Empty.
@ Bernard Ross:
The only court cases which have that potential are those wherein the parties are permitted to argue the merits of their cases.
Cases which are thrown out for lack of standing will not get argued on their merits, and therefore the arguments will not get media attention
— and if the arguments thus don’t make it onto the public airwaves, then the contrast — between the merits of the case and the denial of a hearing on technical grounds — will not be made apparent either
— unless there is a sympathetic (or at least relatively neutral) media at hand. IS there one? — you know the answer to that question.
Look, Bernard, I appreciate that you view recourse to law as, among other things, an organizing device. That’s all to the good.
However, a good strategist never overlooks the terrain in which he is obliged to operate.
Jews identify them.
That’s like saying, ‘Jews value the right hand over the left’; you need BOTH.
Each is a complement to the other. Each needs the other.
The right hand washes the left, & vice versa. The left hand holds the nail, so the right hand can hammer it into its proper place.
A common misconception. I was part of the civil rights movement (until it went meshugge after 1965) — and while it’s quite true that, in a superficial sense, that movement did entail the “violation” of numerous elements of the Jim Crow codes of various states, the fact is that those statutes were themselves unconstitutional: viz., they were violations of derekh eretz, the supreme Law of the Land, the US Constitution.
Properly understood, the civil rights movement was about demanding that recalcitrant states, which had never reconciled themselves to post-Civil War Reconstruction, finally become law-abiding.
SHOW me where I’ve said (or suggested) ‘don’t bother.’
I’m saying, choose your battles. Pick the hill you want to fight on. It’s my opinion — for better or for worse — that estoppel has better prospects than international mandamus. I’m not ‘against’ ALSO pursuing mandamus — except insofar as its prospects of success may prove a squandering of good resources which might be expended to better effect elsewhere.
Nonsense, I’ve said nothing of the sort. You twist my words to create a straw man, Bernard, perhaps thus to afford yourself a foil by which to advance your agenda.
Jews need to be informed of those rights as affirmed in the documents you mention above. But “pursuing” those rights will not take place in the courts; the world will not recognize said rights in court. It is enough, however, for Jews to know that those rights exist, as acknowledged in those documents; viz., in International Law.
It is the sheer KNOWING — the unshakable certainty — that those rights DO exist in Law that will give Jews the gumption (as nothing else will) to gird up their loins when push comes to shove (as it surely will) and the opposition resorts to blood & arms. The “pursuit of the legal rights given them by san remo, LofN and UN Charter 80” will not happen in the courts.
Ultimately the pursuit of those rights will occur where it always does: on the battlefield.
Can’t help that.
But your anger doesn’t help either; strictly counterproductive, notwithstanding the sense of release it may appear to offer.
They’re not going to ‘see’ until YOU show them, Bernard — until YOU talk to them.
Not ‘disingenuously,’ Bernard. Rather, courteously.
I simply overlooked what appeared to be the fractured syntax & typo errors that occasionally creep into your posts when you’re perhaps upset. And your “quid pro quo” clause addressed a related but different point — so I cut it for purposes of the discussion, to first get to my own point without distraction. That’s not ‘disingenuousness’; that’s simple economy.
In any event, I await your answer to the question I posed: Are you saying the transfer of the Jews was ‘moral’?
This is an interesting pattern, Bernard.
You keep telling me what I think.
And then ASKING me what I think.
@ dweller:
Milchemet mitzvah is a communal mitzvah upon which the future of the Jewish People depends. When it comes to the enemies of Israel who attack and beleaguer us and desire to destroy us, we are certainly required to smite them until they are consumed. It is a mitzvah – a milchemet mitzvah.
A milchemet mitzvah, refers not just to an enemy who attacks with intent to annihilate Jews, but to every attempt to hurt or plunder as well, even just theft. Obviously, it includes a situation where non-Jews demand a portion of the Land of Israel, for there is an outright prohibition against giving part of the Land to a non-Jew.
“In a border town, even where the non-Jews are not attacking to kill Jews but just demanding hay and straw, we go forth armed to attack them, even violating the Sabbath to do so”. Rashi comments: “Lest they capture it, making the rest of the Land easier for them to capture.”
Rashi’s point is that for this reason we go forth even on the Sabbath. Yet, regarding the actual law of assisting against an attacking foe, surely, the very fact that non-Jews are demanding even just hay and straw or money and taxes is enough reason to attack them, and that is a milchemet mitzvah. Likewise, it is clearly forbidden by a grave Torah prohibition to let a non-Jew steal even the smallest part of the Land of Israel.
“Do not stand still when your (Jewish) neighbor’s life is in danger.” (Lev. 19:16)
There is no record in any Jewish scripture where the Jews voluntarily gave up an inch of the Land of Israel to an enemy.
A war regarding the mitzvah of living in and conquering Eretz Yisrael is a “milchemet mitzvah,” which no danger to life overrides. Quite the contrary, this mitzvah overrides such danger, as Ramban wrote in Sefer HaMitzvot (Ibid., Mitzvah 4):
“This is what our Sages call ‘milchemet mitzvah.’ In the Talmud (Sotah 44b) Rava said, ‘Joshua’s war of conquest was an obligatory duty according to all opinions.’
One should not make the mistake of saying that this mitzvah only applies to the seven nations we were commanded to destroy… That is not so. We were commanded to destroy those nations when they fought against us, and had they wished to make peace we could have done so under specific conditions. Yet, we cannot leave the Land in their control or in the control of any other nations in any generation.”
Then explain the meaning of this verse without the help of Google: No cheating.
Principle related to parts of milchemet mitzvah that is not existentially threatening:
“hazak, hazak, ve-nithazek” – “Let us be strong and resolute for the sake of our people and the cities of our God”
(II Samuel 10:12).
Killing enemies is not murder and genocide on G-d’s command is not genocide.
@ dweller:
Your problem…!!!
I am sure you wouldn’t pass his smell test either, you don’t pass mine.
It’s his quote and attribution not mine. I have no interest in quote checking his attributions because frankly, I don’t give a shit. It’s your hang up not mine I accept most of the crap you write and don’t hold your feet to the fire for attributions. Because for me it’s not important.
You can have fun tracking down quotes and misquotes. Your bag, your hang-up. 🙂 I ain’t gonna make your life easier by doing your research for you.
Balls in your court because you challenged veracity of his quote and attribution. Up to you to prove your smeller is as good as you say. I don’t have to prove anything, not my quote and as I said I don’t care, but you do so go for it, Make Your Day!
“Jesus is one Jew who certainly didn’t yield to torture.” 🙂
Jesus a Jew?
Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” “My god, My god, why have You forsaken Me?”
I don’t care about your doubts it’s your obsession not mine. Seems to me you have many obsessive characteristics and If I may be so bold to suggest, you should get professional help with your obsessiveness. Ask jesus to intercede and help you overcome your personality problems. Whatever works, right? Then voodoo is also an alternative.
dweller Said:
On the contrary, it is you who is confusing. If you read my posts on this issue, from forum to forum, it should be clear as to what my reasoning is for pursuing the legal rights of jews to settle west of the JOrdan River. I have repeatedly stated that the prime reason is to educate Jews to the continuing swindles of the usual suspects and to the manner in which the Jewish ghetto mentality allows Jews to be swindled. Court cases which are not given standing will be seen to be denyiing justice through technicalities. Court cases will attract media coverage to the legal arguments surrounding Jewish rights. I have repeatedly stated that winning is not the prime motive. The statement and/or pursuing of rights provides a legal basis for unilateral action when JUSTICE is denied through the political manipulation of LAW. Again, what is important is that Jews are shown the corrupt manipulations so that they begin to repudiate the ghetto mentality that keeps them chained to arguments that substitute corrupt manipulation of law for JUSTICE. Again, I repeat, it is not important to win: it is important to pursue for prior reason stated.
dweller Said:
I agree but dont confuse LAW with JUSTICE. Jews value justice more than law. Hence their involvement in the civil rights disobedience of law. It is my view that jews are ignorant of their rights, and how they have been swindled of their rights, and that the pursuit of Jewish rights is important to this education. When a Jew is able to see the manipulations perpetrated on their ghetto mentality they may then act unilaterally to seize justice for jews. Regarding winning, although unnecessary, I say try you say dont bother(entebbe, 67 war,etc?). If that is not what you are saying then what are you saying? Why give an opinion repeatedly with no purpose?
dweller Said:
Your argument basically keeps repeating that jews wont get anywhere by pursuing the legal rights given them by san remo, LofN and UN Charter 80. I keep repeating that it s irrelevant as the prime purpose is educating the Jews out of their ghetto mentality and to act unilaterally where justice is denied them ()by design). I cannot see what constructive purpose your arguments offer as you have not dealt with my argument regarding the unimportance of winning. What are your suggestions? I find your stance strange: are you saying the Jews have no legal rights? are you saying dont pursue them because you probably wont get anywhere?
dweller Said:
I have already agreed that it is difficult to get
them to accept this but perhaps when they become aware that the world continues to ignore and bury the 850,000 jews expelled from arab nations while there existed the much touted Geneva Cnoventions that were supposed to protect Jews against humantity crimes. When they see that the world accepts the expulsions of jews, that the world accepts the JEW FREE areas of arab west bank, gaza and JOrdan which constitute the overwhelming portions of former palestine mandate; that the world disingenously have them focusing on the “palestinians” and encouraging them to coeexist with murderers; perhaps they will then become as angry as I am and repudiate the libels and swindles of the disingenuous. dweller Said:
I note that you have disingenuously ignored the key word “as” and the balance of the sentence demanding quid pro quo; here is the quote:
Bernard Ross Said:
I answer you for the same reason that the swindle of jews and the manipulation of their ghetto mentality must be exposed to jews. Your statement seeks what Jews are always taught by their masters to seek. You shine a spotlight on the morality of a proposed exchange with the expectation that jews should refrain for moral reasons. That Justice denied jews and crimes against jews should be continued to take place and that jews should not act unilaterally for quid pro quo. Your advice is exactly what I have been counseling against. You believe that the Jews will never wake up and take a path that brings them justice, perhaps this is what you want. Did the Jew of old, before the european exile, have concepts of law and justice that encouraged his own suicide, did he accept double standards? You see jews observance of law as positive, I see it as docile acceptance. I see the pursuit of rights as a tactic in the quest to reverse the swindles, law is not my god. Law which denies Jews justice should not then be a constraint for unilaterally seizing justice. In prior posts I outlined a chronology of law and unilateral action; the main purpose of law is to form the basis in the minds of jews for unilateral action, do achieve precisely what you deem unlikely or impossible. Impossible undertakings that achieve success are a hallmark of Israel, yet legally pursuing rights is not impossible or an end. Do you see the transfer of a murderous, dangerous culture as being immoral and unjust, do you think their desire to kill jews will abate, do you think jews should continue to take risks? I do not, and my view is to convince jews otherwise, unlike you. What do you advise Jews to do?
@ yamit82:
I’m not interested in what Shoher writes here.
I am interested in his attribution of it to MACCHIAVELLI — because I rather doubt that Macchaivelli would have written such a remark. Doesn’t pass the smell test.
So I repeat the question: Do you know which of the Macchiavelli treatises Mr Shoher is alluding to, so I can have a look at it? (Or is it more likely that Shoher just attributes to Macchiavelli soemthing of his own — in hopes of piggybacking Macchiavelli’s reputation, for the greater credibility?)
How’s the ball in my court?
Shoher attributes to Macchiavelli, but offers no source for expansion or context — or even verification.
YOU cite Shoher, but (thus far) you, LIKEWISE offer no source for the Macchiavelli attribution either.
Produce the citation, or excerpt — and I’ll examine it.
Unlike some folks one could point to around here, I don’t go off half-cocked.
When I’ve seen it, if what Shoher claims about it turns out, in fact, to be what it actually says, I rather doubt that I’ll have any trouble refuting it.
Until I’ve seen it, however, I don’t have to.
I spend more than enough time dealing with your online foolishness, Yamit — and we both know it.
‘Disproving’ alleged hearsay, however, is a fool’s errand
—and you know that I’m on the clock.
Ball’s in your court, Yahnkele.
@ yamit82:
He’s right about this, Curio.
He [Yamit] is rude, puerile & gratuitously vicious about the rest of it.
But here he is right on the money.
It’s Jesus’ purported ‘divinity’ — not his messiahship (yea or nay) — that constitutes the true heart of the dispute.
Nachmanides addressed it most succinctly & squarely.
But Maimonides & others have taken note of it as well.
Possibly intended as a rhetorical flourish.
But also perhaps quite literally true of this particular King.
James was a very interesting individual, with a good mind entirely equipped for such explorations, notwithstanding his erstwhile unfamiliarity with “thinking outside the box.”
In the end, he ruled in favor of “Christiani” — but only under enormous pressure from the Dominicans, who sponsored the Barcelona “Debate.”
@ yamit82:
How is the statement ‘bullshit’? — what’s ‘bullshit’ about it?
— he wasn’t subjected to torture?
— or he was subjected to it, but DID yield to it?
— or he wasn’t a Jew?
Which is it?
How is the statement ‘bullshit’?
Do you EVER dribble before you shoot?
What has any of this discussion got to do with my statement re Jesus not yielding to torture?
— or is it just another pretext for you to vent your bile?
That’s what is known as a cheap shot.
Best you can do?
Perhaps your olfactory sense is dulled by your becoming accustomed to Shoher? — kind of like a gas station attendant gets used to the stench of petroleum, so he stops noticing it after his first week’s employment there?
There are several differences, but the most OBVIOUS difference — reserved for the larger matters — is, as I have noted, that which is characterized by the specific command’s REPETITION, directly from The Almighty, for each succeeding generation.
That’s logical, and given the level of seriousness, entirely reasonable.
Of course if a demagogue had murder on his mind in his own generation, it certainly would behoove him to naturally take an extermination command that was given to one generation as a blanket behest to all generations.
That WOULD be a pretty pretext, now wouldn’t it?
I know what I read when I read it.
“Our bible” wasn’t written for experts; it was written for the people.
retzakh, retzakh, retzakh!
— THAT isn’t ‘time constrained’ or ‘timebound’ either.
@ Ted Belman:
You’ll have to identify the specific comment to which you allude, Ted, because I’m unaware of making any “ad hominem” charges.
I certainly do employ sarcasm & ridicule on occasion, when they seem warranted; invective too even, you betcha — and I make no apology for any of that.
But strictly personal attacks — “ad hominem” attacks [ad hominem < L "against the man"] — have never been my style.
So I must ask you to point out to me WHAT specifically it is that concerns you (so at least we’ll be on the same page) — and I’ll have a look at it.
@ Bernard Ross:
“Thinks Israel should make a case” to world Jewry. (Homonym for jury; fancy that.)
You’re confusing the earlier matter of STANDING in a court of law (in re mandamus) with “making a case” in the ‘Court’ of world Jewish opinion.
The confusion may be partly MY doing, Bernard. I probably should’ve raised the latter issue earlier in the post that you are responding to.
No, I’m simply recognizing that Jews (more, perhaps, than any other people on the face of th earth) tend to look to the law for certainty in what they do & don’t do.
If they can see the lawfulness of a stance (regardless of whether that lawfulness has been established or confirmed in a given legal forum), they’ll follow you to the ends of the earth in its quest. If they lack that certainty, their support will be — at best — conflicted. That’s the reality. Don’t shoot the messenger; all I’m doing here is giving you the news, I don’t presume to create it.
Maybe to YOU they seem so to ‘encourage’ & ‘promote.’
I don’t think of them that way at all, however.
It’s not ‘doable’ if the Jews don’t accept the proposition (of forced exchange). And I submit that your expectation that they will, Bernard, is sheer wishful thinking. (Sorry, but I just won’t pretend to see what I don’t see; nor will I pretend not to see what I do see.)
So the transfer of the Jews was indeed ‘moral’?
What triggers spam filtering. I would like to know. I have been spam filtered a few times, and I am not given usually to ad homimum attacks, as a rule.
@ dweller:I have withheld your last comment because you have made ad hominen charges and they are totally unmannerliness to your arguments.
@ yamit82:
Obviously you fail to see that the first of these blockquotes is a clear contradiction to the second. (It figures.)
For a LOT of Jews, their oppression and suffering consist in precisely the residue of generations & centuries of compulsive, intra-familially transmitted responses to their condition — so their dysfunctionality renders them presently incapable of “standing” as you would have them.
The truth is, Yamit, that you have no compassion for their plight, only contempt for it.
The Jews I just described are indeed weak.
Yet you (of all people) are hardly equipped to ‘rescue’ them
— and not only because you are contemptuous of them
but also because you are NOT a “Jew of strength.”
You are a power tripper.
— which is not the same thing.
Not even close.
True strength comes from a place that is alien to you.
I earnestly hope you find it someday; for the moment, however, you’re not even in the ballpark.
@ yamit82:
Now, just how in blue blazes would the likes of YOU know whether I do or don’t know what expulsion feels like? How would you know what I feel about anything? (Your presumption is downright limitless.)
You are eternally telling us you don’t believe in such things as the direct perception of Reality. The very idea of it is “mysticism” to you. So how could you POSSIBLY know whether I do or don’t know what expulsion feels like?
— Maybe you’ve suddenly become a mind reader?
EVERYBODY’s values (even yours, Shemendrick) are utimately reflected in their take on whatever’s in front of them for consideration. So?
Astounding just how fullovit you are.
— How do they manage to pile it so high?
My “values, insights, etc,” such as they are, do not, ipso facto, become ‘Christian’ by virtue of the mere fact that I dig Jesus.
Muslims dig Jesus too; also Sikhs, Buddhists, Hindus, Bahai’s, Jains, pagans, and a truckload of atheists as well — they all hold Jesus in high regard (yes, even “when dealing with subjects relating to Jews,Judaism and Israel”).
And some of them even view Jesus as Moshiakh.
But you wouldn’t characterize them (OR their values) as ‘Christian.’
Stick to what you’re good on, Yamit. Troop movements, military expenditures, etc.; there you’re in your element.
When you step off the reservation, and venture into matters metaphysical, cosmological, etc — you’re out of your depth.
The Jesus of history (as distinct from the one of tradition) is the quintessential Jew
— That’s a nice way of saying he’s a helluva lot more of Jew than YOU will EVER be.
And I hardly need the likes of said PresentCompany to be telling me what constitutes ‘safe ground’ on “any thing Jewish.” Nor does anybody else here need that kind of crap from you.
I remind you, Yamit (as I’ve done, multiple times already):
Unlike some faiths, Judaism has no hierophant — no keeper of the keys, no Prefect of the Holy Inquisition
— no drooling shlemiel standing at the gate & passing judgment on who gets to enter & who gets cast into outer darkness. Homey don’t play that shit.
If you want that kind of job, you’re in the wrong religion. Maybe you should try the RCC.
The gig is taken for now, of course — but the Pope IS getting on in years; who knows? — with a little patience . . . . (all things come to him who waits).
@ dweller:
Jesus is one Jew who certainly didn’t yield to torture.
Bull Shit!!
Psalm 2:12
New King James Version (NKJV)
Kiss the Son,lest He be angry,
And you perish in the way,
When His wrath is kindled but a little.
Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him.
___________________________________________________________
Psalm 2:12 Jewish translation from Jewish Texts
Do homage in purity,(Bar in Aramit means purity) lest He be angry, and ye perish in the way, when suddenly His wrath is kindled. Happy are all they that take refuge in Him.
King James translated(Bar)correctly every place else in the Tanach even in verse 7 of Psalm 2 translated as Ben (son).
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The only foul shit I see around here is coming from your direction.
There are positive commandment and negative ones, time constrained and those not time constrained. You need to know the difference and understand how to read our bible. Most Christians with a brain if they were learned in our scriptures would leave skid marks out of Christianity.
__________________________________________________________
milchemet mitzvah is not time constrained or time bound. There is no disagreement amongst any Posek past or present.
dweller may choose to to be his own Posek based on his own very limited understanding of our Bible and Chazal but you are only an ignorant pygmy by comparison.
I disagree with much if not most of what Shoher writes, he tends to contradict himself all over the place, and I only use what I agree with to substantiate a point. The authorship in this case is irrelevant to me but the content and message is.
One may accept what Shoher writes or not,or what dweller says or not, but like you have said, “if you disagree prove him wrong.” Balls in your court.
I apologise for all the typo and spelling errors in my last post
dweller Said:
Get a hearing make a case?? The same one who says Israelwill ot get standing to get jews jsutice thinks that Israel should make a case berfore acting unilaterally. I say execute the facts on the ground and then leave it to the others to make cases. You know, the same ones that never brought the GC to bear on the expelling of jews from arab countries. You appear to be advising the Jews to follow law while at the same time advising them that for jews it is futile. This is reminiscent of one of the methods used to keep Jews docile on the way to the ovens. “Resistance is futile” ergo, Jews, do not resist; instead rely on law. The law must be used as a strategy to educate jews and to allow supporters of Israel arguments for their support in the face of jew killers lies.
dweller Said:
You are right at present this is the problem. They are listening to the arguments which allow them no solutions. Those that promulgate these arguments are disingenuous because they know that it leaves the Jews as a swindled, terrorized slaughtered fool. Any arguments agianst expelling the arabs which do not expose that those giving such arguments have allowed the Jews to be expelled while the much touted Genveva Conventions were in effect precisely to disallow it. Jews must wake up and must not take part in the clever arguments that always seem to leave the Jews swindled terrorized and slaughtered. Especially the Jews need to be educated that todays Europeans are continuing the same path of their ancestors and at this very moment are seeking to swindle the jewish homeland from the jews and to deliver the jews to their jew killing allies. Jews are currently brainwashed to seek approval from their own murderers and swindlers. This is a sickness that must be eliminated. The europeans have perfected the art of subjugating, killing and swindling jews for millenia and are doing it TODAY, AT THIS VERY MOMENT! It is very important for the Jews to realize the extreme evil which emantes from the euuropeans. It is the europeans who have convinced the jews that expelling the arabs is immoral but expelling the jews is ok. Those evil termites are infesting the jewish homeland in the hope that their allies will do the job that they are currently embarassed to own themselves. However, they are training themselves to comeout of the closet, with rationalization of jew killing, so that they can resume their evil bloodlusts. Yes, poetic and dramatic because jews cannot believe it is actually happening. They always want to believe in the good “intentions” of others. The others will always facilitate this jewish suicidal propensity.dweller Said:
and why is that? Your arguments seem to encourage a jewish sense of futility and acceptance of their fate. The sense of futility in kowtowing to others is grounded in fact but acceptance must be repudiated and to repudiate acceptance means to repudiate those who preach that way. The Europeans have been preaching acceptance to the Jews for centuries. When I started subscribing to this post there was hardly any talk of Jewish settlement rights worldwide, now it has begun with the jews and emerging to the chagrin of jew haters. The next argument that needs publicizing is the doable, practical, moral and with legal precedent, efficacy of population exchange. Just as there can be legal argument against the jewish right of settlement west of the jordan river (and this must be executed unilaterally)there can be no argument from those who continue to accept the expelling of Jews, with no reaction from hague,to the expelling of arabs. The jews must see the swindles and hypocrisies. I will continue with the rights of jews to Israel and legal precedents and moral arguments for completing the population exchange with those entities who were involved in war with Israel. The transfer of the arbs must be seen as moral and legal as the transfer of the jews and no less than quid pro quo should be accepted. All the swindlers arguments are are painting immoral and un-discussable that which was done under their watch to the jews. How absurd for the jews to accept these spurious arguments. Once jews cannot accept that they should have quid pro quo Iam sure the logistics for unilateral execution can be worked out(as they were in the “disengagement”). My suggestion is that a first wave of plo, pa fatah be transferred to gaza with there families as they were allowed into Israel under Oslo and with Oslo dead their is not justification for them to remain. They may be returned to Tunisia, or lebanon from where they were evacuated to Tunisia, or to the current hostile de facto pal state of gaza. Ah, to see that meeting in gaza would be interesting. Militarily Israel has been to beirut, been over the suez, been back and forth to gaza, within kilometers of damascus and cairo. Surely they can handle this if they overcome internal brainwashing.
@ CuriousAmerican:
You as usual didn’t ans my question.
Re: Son of god, if god had a son did he also have parents and siblings? Did your god also have daughters and Ugh, Mother-in-Laws?
If god had kids that opens the concept to a whole pantheon of possibilities
@ yamit82:
Proposals Presented to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919
yamit82:
http://www.ahavat-israel.com/eretz/proposal.php
@ yamit82:
http://www.ahavat-israel.com/eretz/proposal.php