The Temple Mount is in Our Hands!

Tonight, on the Hebrew calendar, begins the 28th day of the month of Iyar, which is the 46th Anniversary of the reunification of our eternal capital city, Jerusalem, Yom Yerushalayim-Jerusalem Day. Therefore I wanted to discuss its status under International Law. Specifically, in regard to the Temple Mount, whose recapture inspired Lt. Gen. Mordechai 'Motta' Gur to cry out, "Har HaBayit BeYadaynu!" ("The Temple Mount is in Our Hands!")

Israel annexed East Jerusalem 33 years ago. But then the status of Israel's claims to the Temple Mount seemed on the surface to be in doubt, even after Jerusalem's reconquest, for in 1967, less than a month after it's capture, the keys to the Temple Mount were handed over to the Waqf. This was, however, a transfer of administrative control exclusively, but not of sovereignty.  The transfer was conducted by the defense minister, not by a head of state, to an Arab organization, not with a government.  Further, this took place prior to the Oslo Accords, and outside of them, yet no legally binding change to this administrative transfer has since occurred. The Clinton Parameters, the suggested split of Har HaBayit and the Western Wall, in the closing days of the Clinton Administration, were never accepted in a finalized peace deal.

East Jerusalem and the Temple Mount were not legally acquired by Jordan during and due to their offensive attack in the War of Independence. Jordan never exercised sovereignty over the region, under International Law, merely military occupation. Nor was Israel's offer of Judea and Samaria to avoid conflict prior to the War of Independence accepted by the Arabs, and thus no revision of the Mandate for Palestine took place. 

What of the 1994 Israel-Jordan peace agreement that gave Jordan "preference" concerning the status of Muslim holy places in the Old City in any future peace agreements with the Palestinians?  That means, they should have a voice in negotiations of the final status of Islamic holy places before the Palestinian Authority, but no legal claim against Israel's sovereignty was reestablished.  And it does not mean it has rights to Jewish holy sites. After all, in 1988 Jordan relinquished any pseudo claims, by transferring it to the pseudo authority known as the PLO.  Implicitly, when Jordan abandoned Judea and Samaria, to a non state ethnicity within the State of Israel, since a legal act of Cession can't take place without a recognized State involved, they effectively gave Judea and Samaria, assuming they had any legitimate claim at all, to Israel under International Law.  It was only six years after the fact of their Cession of the West Bank that Jordan signed with Israel a right for "preference", which in that historical context clearly cannot mean an interpretation tantamount to a legal claim to the land. Merely a State sponsor for the Stateless Palestinian Arabs in Israel. This is a logical interpretation, as Jordan has the largest percentage population of Palestinian Arabs in the Middle East, and it would suit their political interest at home for the government of Jordan to be viewed as a champion of the rights of cousins of the majority of Jordan's population. So that clause from the Israel-Jordan peace agreement is a conditional one depending on what transpires during negotiations between Israel and the PLO.  But this would assume that Jordan has a legal say in the matter, and they do not as they never legally acquired the land in the War of Independence. Thus you would have to make two separate illogical assumptions about Jordanian rights to Judea and Samaria to even consider this question.  But sometimes it's important to address misconceptions in the media, and so I addressed this matter. 

Thus our political dilemma now has a religious question, not a legal one between states, and we need to know the extent, if any, of the legal authority of the Moslem Waqf on the Temple Mount.

First of all, whenever there is a question of the rights of an organization, when in conflict with a government under International Law, the weight of the law sides with a State.

Religiously speaking, the Temple Mount has been reserved for this time in history according to the Bible.  Before Islam was formed, it was already known and accepted that the location of the Temple Mount was reserved for the Third Temple.  So the Jordanian Preference would only apply to other locations, not the Temple Mount, and in the case of the Temple Mount, arguably to the buildings there, but not to the land that those buildings are on, whose Jewish history predates Islamic history and whose prophets are revered by the very text of the Islamic Faith itself.

Implicitly, it could be argued, that according to the Israel-Jordan plan, the buildings of the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa Mosque are not to be demolished by any Israeli government, but that does not necessarily preclude their physical removal from the Temple Mount and being relocated elsewhere. As this is a religious question, we should note that the eventual removal of the foreign buildings from the Temple Mount has been the running assumption from the days of the Prophets. The Waqf's authority was not engraved in stone in 1967 and is not guaranteed.  Neither is it an arm of the government of Jordan.  The Oslo Accords depended on this very fact to enable bilateral negotiations over the final status of Jerusalem, otherwise Jordanians would have sat in at every peace discussion, taken photos at every news conference. But no, the Jordanians were not invited, despite the clause of "Preference" in the 1994 Israel-Jordan peace agreement.

Any demand or decree from the Waqf, then, would have no legal bearing or limitation upon the State of Israel, should it decide to change the status of the Temple Mount at any time. The choice is Israel's alone to make. 

Thus after all these years since Motta Gur's famous declaration, nothing has changed.  "Har HaBayit BeYadaynu!" ("The Temple Mount is in Our Hands!")  We have G-d to thank for that. Perhaps it's time for our government to acknowledge this?

Would that our political policies reflected our religious responsibilities so that freedom of religion is at long last fully restored to the Jewish People, by rebuilding our Holy Temple in its place, that very holy place as was chosen by Heaven itself.  May it soon be so, by the grace of G-d.

No Witch Hunts Against the Chareidim

Violations of the current Draft Deferment system has many citizens upset. There are many newly elected MKs in the Knesset with an agenda of change on this issue.  So I thought I'd offer some advice as to how we should approach this issue. It is good policy for fake scholars to not be allowed to abuse the system, but never at the expense of true Torah scholars.  Better a few bad apples sit, than one treasure be forced to do what is not best for him to do or for society that he do. It is not in the best interest for Israeli society to lose true Torah scholars.  Throwing out baby with the bath water is not the way to fix this. There is a difference between a holy Torah scholar and a draft dodger.  Finding the difference is a matter of policy crafting, but the only way to get to the optimum policy, is to start with some respect for the institution of the Yeshiva.

Now that Israel's population has grown significantly since the last major war, the urgency for everyone becoming a soldier is not the same.  Halachically speaking, if there are enough soldiers in the army already, there is no need to pull people out of yeshiva, even for a mandatory war, and therefore the reaction of the chareidi parties and the constituency that voted for them becomes understandable.

If I tried to tell you how to run your business, you would say, "Let me run my own business." So how can we say to Roshey Yeshiva, who are not just rabbis, but the greatest of rabbis, "Let me run your school." and then criticize them when they say, "Let me run my yeshiva."

Further, a civilized nation does not have to have one hundred percent of its population in the military.  The United States of America, for example, has less than two percent.  It is not unpatriotic to not be in the military. It is actually a sign of the victory of democracy over the forces that previously threatened to destroy it.

There are some who make no distinction between the idlers and the valued scholars. We are not talking about parasites, but of holy people carrying the burden for us. Just as active soldiers carry a security burden for the rest of us, so too yeshiva scholars carry a spiritual burden for us. The problem is there are some who don't do as they should. This has zero to do with those who do carry the burden for us.  There is a way to establish tests of those using the exemptions.  But the decision making process has to be in the hands of their Rabbis, not those who hate rabbis.  Does this make sense to you? Deal with the bad apples only, not with any that their Roshey Yeshiva say are exemplary and should be excused from alternate service.

A rav loves his talmidim like his children. Why should roshey yeshiva be frustrated with how their children are allowed to live their lives, when there is not a pressing military need in Israel for more soldiers in training.

A societal perception is not a military need, and thus why encourage bitul Torah when not everyone is cut out to be a soldier? Our most holy texts laud the spiritual value and protection to the nation that comes through Torah study. We can do nothing less than be humble before the Will of Heaven, and show extra care when bringing forth legislation on this crucial matter. Why fight with the Rabbis when we need their input the most to see that the right filters are set in place that will make everyone happy.

The Advantage of Full Annexation Over Partial

If the Bayit Yehudi / Jewish Home Party's platform is adopted by the Knesset, great care must be taken with hasbara PRIOR to implementation.  While it is politically less complex within Israel to do a partial annexation, it may create as many problems as it solves with the international community. Alienate political friends, distant political allies. Unless the hasbara is perfect.  Some annexation is better than none, as it increases security. But the partial annexation has its risks.

Two goals must come from any action in a dispute.  That is, one's methodology of handling the dispute must lead to the following results:

1. An actual step towards conflict resolution, not a step backwards.
2. An easy sound bite hasbara, thus ensuring the appearance of being honest and faithful towards the peace process itself, and thereby protecting the conflict resolution from any future claims of unfairness by either party. For it is not merely injustice but the appearance of injustice that can create discontent.

To me, a partial annexation is difficult to explain internationally. Why go for half measures when you can end this now, with a complete annexation in the context of a complete and peaceful solution.  Further, how can one climb the mountain of confusion should Israel unilaterally annex territory prior to a final peace solution? I do not have that answer, but it must be answered before implementing.

If you say, we do not want to rule over the Palestinians, someone could answer you, then why take their land? If you explain it is our land, then they could ask why are you giving it away? Either you are being foolishly selfless or you're admitting it is not your land.

Do you want to say that the land is G-d given to the Jewish people?  Then why not also say that there will never be peace if the goal is that the L-rd's Will should be denied. If policy does not recognize that it was ordained for the Jewish people to rule the entire land, then such a policy could never be successful even in a thousand years.

Of the two options of full or partial annexation, which is the easier argument for Israel to make...?

Partial Annexation:
Abbas is a potential peace partner who done us wrong, so we are acting tit-for-tat unilaterally and taking some land from the disputed territory that we say we have every right to. Now please do not dig your heels in deeper and become more determined for a Palestinian state "before Israel claims it all to themselves", as we are reserving the right to claim it all to ourselves in the future if the Palestinians do some act of terror so bad that it really, really, really gets us angry.  At that time we will decide if we should perform an act of absorption or expulsion to the Palestinians whom you still believe to be the victims in all this.

OR

Full Annexation:
The question is not whether Israel has a right to the territories. There has never been a Palestinian country to claim the land with equal strength of status as the right of the Jewish people to their historic homeland. The question is, barring further incremental peacemaking gestures, with no realistic expectation of conflict resolution, does any realistic path to peace, that does not require expelling large populations of any ethnicity, exist?  Abbas is not a potential peace partner, and the alternatives to him are worse. Therefore we have no choice if we are to ensure improvement of Israeli security and Palestinian living conditions but to replace the terrorist leadership and begin the naturalization of the Palestinian people to allow them to join their brethren behind the Green Line in full and equal rights and with the same hope of economic opportunity as Israeli citizens. The road to bureaucratically filtering out terrorists from the populace may be long, but the benefits outweigh the difficulties, the light at the end of the tunnel is brighter than the dark hatred the terrorists have tried to sow among both peoples. The goal of a united State of Israel is one of Peace, for all peoples West of the River Jordan, and the further delay of that day, can only serve the forces of hatred and terror.

So what is a sound bite hasbara that we can use if Israel implements full annexation?  This way is best for everyone.  Everyone Wins.  May it soon be so, by the grace of G-d.

Peace Not Possible with Palestinian Authority, but Conflict Resolution Is Possible After PA is Gone

A word prior to the elections two weeks from today in Israel...

You can't expect a peace where everyone sits under his tree when one party is dedicated to jihad. You have to root out the terrorists and then what is left is people.  Just people. And no average person should be subjected to the rule of despots, dictators and or terrorists. It is clear that there is no better government in the Middle East for civil liberties than Israel. Combine that with the idea that a naturalized Palestinian Arab does not have to lose his home, and you have the best possible option for the Palestinian people.  The annexation of all the disputed territories.  Best possible remaining option, we should say, as the theory of a Two State solution has clearly and utterly failed.

Did the USA and UK ask Iraq post Saddam Hussein to give up land for a new Kurdistan? No. Neither should any nation ask Israel to give up its land for a Palestine.  Stop abandoning the Palestinian right to live in a free country, for the free right to form a terrorist state.  One is sensible and kind. One is foolhardy and evil.

Now that the Palestinians have begun unilateral moves hoping to establish sovereignty, it's important to change the way we treat the Palestinian Authority. You are either for Israel or for a Palestinian State. You cannot seriously support both any longer, the illegitimacy of that fallacy is clear.  Its one or the other.  I don't care even if you are a voter in the State of Israel.  You are voting against the Zionist project if you are trying to support a Palestinian State West of the Jordan River.

Stop opposing Zionism, stop supporting a Palestinian State. Start supporting an end to the conflict that will allow the IDF to run security for all peoples West of the River Jordan.

There are those who support the annexation of "Area C" in response to PA's UN bid. If you wish to annex the Jewish settlements to increase the security of the people living there, by all means.  Better to annex something than nothing at all.  Yet if you wish to annex as a reaction to the PA UN move, that path is not necessary, when a fuller mode of conflict resolution is available.  Plus, if in the context of an Oslo term such an annexation is done, it still implies that other areas West of the River Jordan are to remain up for sale to the anti Zionist Palestinian Authority. That is unacceptable.  As long as Israel holds on to the Oslo Accords, and its terminology, peace will be far away.  The Oslo Accords are idolatry, and its terminology the dust of idols.

When the first intifada began, and Israel decided to ignore the abuse of the Oslo Accords, the Oslo Accords were no longer a marriage document, but a bill of enslavement to a millstone of terror, commonly known as the Palestinian Authority.  The reactions not just of terrorists, but many of those who wished to be kind to the cruel with the blood of the innocent.  Two decades of sacrifices for a peace that the PA itself does not want. All these have removed the moral right of anyone to continue to call the Oslo Accords, a peace agreement. 

From the first Intifada, by International Law it can be argued that the Oslo Accords became defunct. Yet government after government after government have told us, we have to strive for a peace that is not peace.  Avoid admission of the truth of the desolation caused by the Oslo Accords, lest that lead to true peace.

Do those who supported the Oslo Accords in the 1990's now weep, "I did not give away the bride, Israel, to be abused forever by her husband, the PA. Why does she not flee from his side?"

We have to annul this relationship with the PA, shatter the idol of the Oslo Accords once and for all, and then return to our first national husband, the G-d of Israel.

Let the next government of Israel announce: "Though the Oslo Accords were well intended, they were violated a thousand ways and made illegitimate and unholy.  We do not accept the legitimacy of continued support of the Palestinian Authority and we oppose any effort to legalize that failed entity. We will continue to seek to live in peace with our Palestinian neighbors.  But if it is to be done, West of the River Jordan, it can only be done beneath the democratic flag of Israel."  May it soon be so, by the grace of G-d.

Temple Mount Authority

Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat called for the Knesset to allow for Jews the right to pray on the Temple Mount. Yet there are many Rabbinic authorities that hold a position against allowing anyone to pray on the Temple Mount until the rebuilding of the Temple. The Temple Mount is not Mecca nor Medina, it is the Jewish Holy of Holies. Whether or not Jews are encouraged to worship on the Mount is not as important as whether authority will be restored to the rightful guardians of that Mount, the Rabbis of Israel. 

Of course, Jews have that "right", it's just that the government is preventing them from exercising that right.  Yet it is not without significant Rabbinic support that Jewish prayer is withheld from taking place.  But this  is an internal religious matter for the Rabbis of Israel to decide, not the Israeli government nor any other government, nor the practitioners of any other faith. The Knesset should have the Chief Rabbinate set up an authority of the leading rabbis of the generation to regulate all activity on this most holy of Jewish sacred places.

Whereas the Wakf does not have that right, yet the Israeli government has allowed it to act as if it has a right for the past 45 years. It has encouraged violence and destruction of sacred Jewish artifacts that bespeak of any historic roots of the Chosen People to their own land. This is actually a violation of the Koran itself.  If the policy of a religious institution is in the main political, that means that the Wakf has become a political entity and no longer remains a religious one. To continue the status quo muddies the political waters that the current government in Israel is attempting to project, that of a United Jerusalem under Israeli rule. If you don't have the Temple Mount, then you don't have Jerusalem.

This would end discrimination against the Jews, even though it may not change the status quo much, as egalitarianism runs deep in the Jewish faith. The result would be a fair system where everyone would share similar rules, such as current access to the Western Wall, the same rules for the "stranger and the native" would be established. But the legitimacy of allowing the Wakf to continue it's failed guardianship has ended long ago.

Israel's Biblical Rights to Judea and Samaria and International Recognition

Was there International Recognition of Israel's rights to the land of Israel prior to the Late Modern (secular) period of Political Thought?  If so, that would mean that for some 3900 years, everyone did not question Israel's Rights to its homeland as they do today, and only in the past 150 years, give or take, a new belief sprung up that the will of current leading nations, arrogantly called "world powers", trumps everything in International Law.  To keep this essay more universally acceptable, I will limit it's scope to the span of History within Tanach (Scripture) itself, as the Holy Words of the Tanach are accepted as a matter of faith by half the World's population today. I will only mention more recent history at the essay's conclusion.

In the Book of Ezra, chapter 4, which occurred some 2500 years ago, The leading political power of the World at the time was the Persian-Median Empire. Emperor Artaxerxes converses with the leaders of the adversaries of the Jews in the Holy Land.  Both the leaders of the Arabic lands and the main political leader of the World in that age each refer to the land of Israel as territory that stretched out to the River, the Euphrates.  This border first became fact at the hands of King David under whose leadership Jerusalem also first became capital of the Land of Israel.  This occurred some 500 years before the events in the Book of Ezra.  It is interesting to note that this whole conversation between the leader of the political world and the leaders of the Arabian lands took place after Israel had been exiled, their Temple destroyed, the seat of their government in Jerusalem removed. Yet under the concept of International Recognition, the Land of Israel remained in possession of the Jewish people even at a time with scattered and limited settlement and NO political leadership entity in the Holy Land until the time of Emperor Koresh (Cyrus, the Great) when it was decreed that the Jews had a right to rebuild their Bais HaMikdash, Holy Temple. Even exile of most of the nation and destruction of their political system itself was not recognized as a legally legitimate reason to abate Jewish rights to the Land of Israel.  Perhaps this comes in part from the fact that the Tanach clearly spells out Israel's return to the land in numerous places, including specific references to a return to Jerusalem, as in Tzefanyah (Zephaniah) chapter 3, verses 14- 20, to Samarian Mount Ephraim and also to Zion, as in Yermiyah (Jeremiah) chapter 31 and specifically in reference to return from Babylon in Yeshayah (Isaiah) chapters 13 & 14, and Persia's future aid in Yeshayah chapter 44, all these prophecies occurring prior to the rule of Koresh.

The Persian-Median recognition of Jewish rights to Har Habayis (the Temple Mount) is also interesting to consider, despite it's early history. Yehoshua (Joshua) did not conquer the Temple Mount, it was King David who bought it.  Though in the Books of Yehoshua (15:63) and Shoftim (Judges, chapter 1, verse 8) It says that Yerushalayim (Jerusalem) was conquered. But in Shmuel (Samuel) 2, chapter 5 it is revealed that the Jebusite on the Temple Mount were unable to be driven out until the time of King David, so how was it considered "conquered" (for further on this see the commentaries of Rashi and Redak on Yehoshua 15:63)?  Until David moved his capital from Chevron (Hebron) to Yerushalayim, Jerusalem had divided neighborhoods perhaps somewhat reminiscent of the Old City of Jerusalem today. The sections were: 1) the tribe of Yehuda (Judah), 2) the tribe of Binyamin (Benjamin), 3) the Jebusites. (as per the commentary Metzudos David on Yehoshua 15:63). Despite the hundreds of years between Yehoshua and David, the Persian-Median Empire recognized only Jewish ownership to all of Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount.

Going further back in history, those borders were first mentioned to Avraham (Abraham) some 4000 years ago as the Divine Will of the Creator (Genesis 15 & repeated to Moshe Rabbeinu (Moses) in Shemos (Exodus 23) and again in Devarim (Deuteronomy 11).  And the fact that it took over 400 years from the time these words were recorded by Moshe until David fulfilled that Heavenly Decree, was also not viewed by normative world political leadership as a legitimate reason to assume any lessening of Jewish Rights to the Holy Land.

But what of the alternate borders mentioned in Bamidbar (Numbers) 34? These, as seen in the context of the books of the Early Prophets, referred to the conquests of Yehoshua, while the promise to Avraham (Genesis 15, Exodus 23 and Deuteronomy 11) referred to the conquests of King David and the territory of King Shlomo (Solomon) which went all the way East to the Great River. Indeed, if one would actually read chapter 34 of Numbers they would see that it referred to when the Israelites "enter the land" (verse 2) and later in that chapter, Yehoshua is mentioned as the main leader who will help the people conquer the land.  Conquering all the way to the Euphrates was a matter of destiny for the Jewish people, but not an urgent command incumbent upon the generation of Yehoshua.  From the Persian-Median perspective, however, it seems that this too was not an impediment upon viewing Israel's rights to include all the land which they had acquired under King David.

The will of world political powers is commonly referred to in International Law as Customary Law, but is not on the level of Fundamental Laws (Jus Cogens) or even treaties between nations. When a treaty between world powers occurs, that is greater than customary law. That is what happened in the Book of Ezra, and that is what happened again in a limited fashion at the San Remo Supreme Council in 1920.  What is very clear, is that all of Judea and Samaria and of course all of Jerusalem is not open to debate. It is Israel's entirely.  Only unclear policy by Western nations can cloud the minds of those trying to bring peace to the Middle East.  But they cannot change the profoundly deep historical reality of International Recognition of Jewish Rights to the Land of Israel from ancient times and until today.

My Lecture at Young Israel of West Rogers Park

This past Sunday I spoke at the Young Israel of West Rogers Park in Chicago.  The topic was "Israel and Iran: Cause for Concern, Reasons to Hope". Here are some key points that were raised:

• We must be sensitive enough to be careful to not say things like "it's 1939 all over again" and other talk of impending doom in the presence of Holocaust Survivors in order to fulfill the commandment of Love your neighbor/fellow. Unless they are actively seeking the news on Iran, we should consider whether they have been traumatized enough before exercising our freedom of speech.

• I currently view Syria as a greater immediate military threat (to Israel) than Iran, not because it is stronger, but more desperate. This, even though Iran is clearly the greater threat to the West overall.  The previous leader of the relatively "peaceful" Jordan who eventually made peace with Israel, killed thousands of his own people in his time. When the previous King of Jordan (Hussein) was dying of cancer, he dreamt wistfully of dying a martyr's death for peace as Rabin did. How much more so is the butcher of Damascus willing to go down in a blaze of glory. (Further, as we saw with Iraq in 1991, when in trouble, Arabic tyrants like to attack Israel. This is exactly what some of the leadership in Iran have promised to do if they are attacked by countries other than Israel.) And if Israel defends itself, would Iran use that as an excuse to "defend" Syria?
  
• Egypt is likely on the way to becoming a renewed threat to Israel. (Must be Egyptian gratitude at USA foreign aid, generated from taxpayer dollars, and in appreciation for the Israeli gift of oil fields in the Sinai, for peace. See? Land for Peace works... to support terror, that is.)

• Some Rabbis including Shas party spiritual mentor Rav Ovadia Yosef believe that there is still hope for a resolution without full scale war.

Take Back Gaza!

International Law and common sense call for Israel to replace the caretaker government in Gaza with one that is not murderous.  I would argue for an Israeli governor to replace Hamas, rather than trying to find a Palestinian alternative to Hamas.  Certainly Fatah is not an option for reliability against terror nor stability against another coup. But one thing is clear, now that a major population center like Beersheva is under continual attack, the Knesset's moral obligation to act is clear.

The story of Sderot is hard to believe.  A border town attacked with thousands and thousands of rockets, and insufficiently defended by its own government.  But Beersheba is no mere border town, and with the expanded range of rocket attacks, to be able to hit that historic population center of the South of Israel, the next expansion of Gaza's rockets' range would place Tel Aviv and Ben Gurion Airport in range, G-d forbid.

Regional concerns of how enemies may try to use the retaking of Gaza against Israel at the U.N. are mute arguments.  If your major cities are being attacked, diplomatic score keeping must take a back seat.  Concerns of escalating matters to a war level is illogical.  There already is war, the only question is how to stop it.  In addition, the war pattern is Islamic Jihad Vs  innocent civilians, with reprisals by the IDF against the terrorists. It's time to consider allowing combatants to battle each other and leave the weary citizens of the South alone.

Stop mere tit-for-tat strikes that make bad press, and limited security enhancements.  Retake Gaza entirely and then as with the Golan, take pause before you consider giving it back to anyone.

May it be the Will of G-d that such reasoning appear more sensible to the memshalah/government than the current status quo.

Tell the Quartet: The Oslo Accords are Over

The Quartet of nations have given Israel and the Palestinian Authority two months from the time that they renew talks (which began two weeks ago) to report on agreed borders. Rather than continue with wistful dreams of everybody sharing the land as two separate countries, Israel needs to face the reality that the Palestinian Authority is a failed enterprise in governorship whose allegiance to terror trumps any indicated leanings toward democratization.  Israel must re-accept responsibility of it's legal possession of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, and begin to form new policy from there.

According to the Knesset's website, the Oslo Accords:

"main concern was on Israeli withdrawal from the territories of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, in order to allow the establishment of a Palestinian Authority for self-government for an interim period until permanent arrangements would be established."

Well Israel has certainly tried that.

In six weeks from today, does anyone believe that Israel will be in a position to demarcate permanent borders with the Hamas loving Palestinian Authority? There are too many daggers up their sleeves to expect that any time soon.  In the exact opposite extreme of what the Oslo architects expected and intended, the more that the Palestinian Authority is given, the more bloodthirsty and terror loving it becomes.

If Israel's government arrogantly agrees to borders with the Palestinian Authority despite the known impending terror that such an act would strengthen, then they would be abandoning their responsibility to the well being of their own people.

If Israel's government cruelly abandons helpless Arab refugees to a fledgling terrorist government, they should not feel morally superior that they benefited the Palestinian People, even if that is what that people and the U.N seem to be asking for.  It is not mercy to feed the urge of someone addicted to poison. Nor is there moral justification if someone told you to administer the poison.  Neither is it peace to give territory with the intention that at least we can use full scale war against them if they keep attacking us.

Israel must know that under International Law, Israel is NOT required to heed the whims of the Quartet that would lead to such travesties of justice and certain violence. 

Israel's current policy of attempting to honor the ghostlike remnants of the Oslo Accords is the very cause of the U.N. continuing to badger Israel over settlements.  You are guilty in their eyes only because you listened to them, which means you admitted that they were right.

Israel must respectfully and patiently reeducate the Quartet as to the true intention of International Law, and clarify misunderstandings that have arisen over U.N. Resolution 242 since the implementation of the Oslo Accords.

Respectfully and patiently reeducate, without raising a voice in anger.  Though perhaps tough words are justified for a people waiting almost 2000 years to be treated fairly, it is best to not seem like extremists.  Nor to flatter the wicked, Heaven forbid.  Rather be respectful and patient as per the way of diplomacy as first taught by King Solomon in first verse of the fifteenth chapter of the book of Proverbs: "A gentle answer removes wrath, but an infuriating word raises anger."

Remind the Quartet of the goal and the means to the establishment of true and lasting peace.  May it soon be so, by the grace of God. 

No Hope for a Negotiated Settlement with Fatah

I was aggravated when somebody suggested that Hamas showed an act of moderation when they demanded that 1027 criminals be released before granting Gilad Schalit his inalienable rights of life and liberty. Hamas abused the system openly.  But Fatah is, in a sense, even worse.  At least you know where you stand with Hamas. Fatah is in a constant game of subterfuge when they speak and only admit the truth when they believe the press is not listening.

Abbas tipped his hand as a terrorist in diplomatic clothing, as brilliantly pointed out by the Prime Minister.   In his recent speech at the U.N., Bibi said,
   "President Abbas just stood here, and he said that the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the settlements. Well, that's odd. Our conflict has been raging for -- was raging for nearly half a century before there was a single Israeli settlement in the West Bank. So if what President Abbas is saying was true, then the -- I guess that the settlements he's talking about are Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jaffa, Be'er Sheva.  Maybe that's what he meant the other day when he said that Israel has been occupying Palestinian land for 63 years. He didn't say from 1967; he said from 1948. I hope somebody will bother to ask him this question because it illustrates a simple truth: The core of the conflict is not the settlements.  The settlements are a result of the conflict."

Former President Bill Clinton said that there has been no one more ready to speak peace than Abbas among the Palestinian Arabs. Which illustrates my point that if this foot dragging, obfuscating Abbas who flees from sincerity in negotiations is the very best of the leaders of the Palestinian Arabs, then there is no hope for a negotiated settlement with the Palestinian Arab people.  Unilateral Israeli actions are the only option that remain.  I have advocated that the next action should be naturalizing the non terrorists among the Palestinian Arabs, while bringing the terrorists to justice.

PM Netanyahu's only error was to say that there will not be peace if  he cannot sit down and negotiate with Abbas.  That is not true.  There actually cannot be peace so as long as Israel continues to believe that negotiations with terrorists can lead to peace.

The main role that Abbas now serves is to be the one who slanders his Israeli benefactors before the world stage. How does that advance peace?  How does that increase security? 

Israel has legitimate claims to all of the land that the Palestinians reside on and those claims would have to be forsaken by Israel for the Palestinians to gain a legal claim to the land.  Without facing that truth, there can be no justice.  Remember that for a case of questionable rights, the PLO has claimed an absolute right of blood vengeance against those who disagree with them. 

The onus has been on the Palestinian Authority to prove it can live among civilized nations. Not merely corruptly run an economy, nor insincerely manipulate the world press.  Perhaps that is enough for some of their less than righteous third world friends at the U.N., but that is not what civilized nations do.  God has allowed history itself to ask of the leaders of the Palestinian Arabs of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, could they, in the course of 18 years of negotiations, stop killing people for even one year? ...They have failed that test.

Because peace depends on truth and justice, Abbas will never find it.  And President Clinton said that Abbas is the best that the Palestinian Authority has to offer.  So that even if you were to hold elections today, there is no reasonable expectation that there will be anything but a worsening of the possibility for a negotiated settlement.  This is why PM Netanyahu seeks international pressure on Abbas to be flexible.  What other hope is there?  But this is not the cure to the disease, this is that very thing which sustains the malady. 

Every day that Israel tries to negotiate rather than dismantle the terrorist infrastructures, they are putting their own citizens in jeopardy; on a daily basis.  For what?  And if Abbas is the best and the best is not sincere about a negotiated settlement, then what does that mean?!

Unfortunately this brings us to one conclusion...

So long as the Palestinian Authority exists.  Peace will not.

Legislation to Avoid Future Long Term Captives

How ironic that the radicalization of the Egyptian government led to an act of chesed/kindness as negotiators, that aided in the safe return of Gilad Schalit, albeit for sinister intent. Egypt, without the moderate Mubarak, desires to strengthen Hamas over Fatah, and they got their way with the release of key Hamas operatives from Israeli jail cells. Another victory for radicals was also scored when Hamas won a PR victory at America's expense.  They placed an onus on the Obama Administration to explain the delayed release of the physically ill Jonathan Pollard or appear more cruel than Hamas was to Schalit.  Hamas perhaps hope to seem more reasonable and diplomatic than the USA, even though the USA is the pinnacle of Western Civilization, and Hamas is merely a terrorist organization. It may deflate the wind in Hamas' sails if Pollard were to be released soon, so if for no other reason, perhaps it's time to expedite Pollard's release to improve America's foreign standing.

* * * * *

Before Gilad's release, I began to write an appeal to members of the Israeli government to not transfer the 1027 terrorists to Hamas for Gilad Schalit's safe release, but I reconsidered and did not publish it. As the Talmud says,  In the same way that it is a Mitzvah to say something that will be listened to, it is also a Mitzvah not to say something that will not be listened to. (Yevamos 65b) The time was not right for a reminder of how bad it is to refuel Hamas. But as the great relief of Gilad being home sinks in, the great danger the government risked will sink in as well.  When emotions no longer rule policy, lawmakers will face the need to do something to avoid this from ever happening again. At that point, I could present my philosophic position of national security before nobility without seeming callous to the plight of Gilad Schalit, nor to the emotional sensibilities of those who prayed for him, and I was one of them.

Repeat after me, "it is wrong to release unrepentant murders out onto the streets for any reason."  You want to get someone from the clutches of a group of terrorists? King David attacked kidnappers (I Samuel 30), he did not negotiate with them. Have a SWAT team ready to go behind enemy lines, if necessary. Then declare a shoot on sight order against all terrorists in the targeted zone/neighborhood while also offering freedom from death and even amnesty of any form of prosecution of those suspects who protect the hostage. This will allow a reasonable chance that the hostage would survive such a paramilitary operation.

But how to avoid needing such emergency measures?

I suggest two simultaneous pieces of legislation. Instituting a death penalty for terror attacks, and passing a law forbidding future prisoner exchanges involving terrorists could be the preventative measures that Israel needs. 

If the Knesset only passes a death penalty against future acts of terrorism, it would not change the fact that Israel has over 5000 Palestinians in her jails, prodding Palestinians to attempt another kidnapping, God forbid. 

If the Knesset only passes a prohibition on prisoner exchanges, in the face of the disproportionate nature of the current capitulation to terror (albeit for the noblest of reasons), Palestinians could assume that such a law prohibiting exchanges could be repealed in the face of a new peak in national emotions. 

Only by passing both measures at the same time, could a mere change of law help prevent future kidnappings of Israelis.  For then it would be clear that a new day had dawned in the State of Israel. May it soon be so, by the grace of God.

Gilad Schalit is FREE!

Baruch HaShem/Thank God, that Gilad is back home at last, and it is sure a relief to have him safe again. For the sake of the national psyche, it is good to zone out from all the politics of the matter and enjoy the formerly endangered lost soldier's redemptive return home to safety.

 

This festival of Sukkos/Sukkot/Tabernacles is called "yom simchasaynu / day of our joy", so let us allow it to be so and let's consider the implications of this trade with Hamas on another day. Today would have been his 1941st day in armed captivity, but HaShem/God had other plans.