My Address at the Hall of the Nascent Sanhedrin

I was asked to address tomorrow night’s conference at the Hall of the Sanhedrin at Ohel Yitzchak in the Old City of Jerusalem on Torah as Governance, Authority, and the base for establishment of Sovereignty. As I cannot attend the event this time, I at least wanted to make this posting to the blog in an effort at being unselfish with any gift that HaShem-G-d blessed me with.  If any innovation was said here, it was HaShem who gave it to me. This is the text of the speech:

B'Ezras HaShem Yisborach, by the grace of G-d, may He be blessed.  In Memory of Howard Chaim ben Leah (Grief).

I am grateful for the invitation to speak to you today in the Hall of Nascent Sanhedrin.  It is an honor to be asked to speak in a place of Torah, before people of wisdom. I have been asked to address two matters in the span of ten minutes, my feelings about Howard Grief, and my perspective about the Har HaBayit, Temple Mount in International Law.

I was saddened at the news of International Law expert Howard Grief's passing. But more than sadness, I am concerned. Concerned that today's scholars will not be able to speak as strong and freely as Howard Grief did. He was polite, but never catered to political correctness over absolute truthful analysis of International Law about a region in which a clear declaration of the truth is just as important as its understanding.  We must learn from Howard to not allow distractions nor an air of political correctness in legal discourse of International Law and Israel to keep us from speaking the simple truth.

Howard brought to our attention the San Remo conference of 1920 and its profound effect on Israeli sovereignty to all of the Land West of the River Jordan.  In my effort to emulate him, I will need to use the rest of this time to discuss International Law.  But unlike Howard Grief, I did not spend 25 years writing a book before publishing my thoughts.  Instead I have posted them publicly on my blog, Jerusalem Defender, for the past several years, so that some aspect of peer review would occur.  I want to point out that what I am speaking of Torah scholars already know, the only innovation here is to emphasize its significance in International Law.

In Sefer Ezra, the book of Ezra, we find the world leading political power, the Persian-Median Empire’s recognition of Jewish rights to Eretz Yisrael, the land of Israel, including Yehuda veShomron, Judea and Samaria, and Har Habayis, the Temple Mount in particular.

In the Book of Ezra, chapter 4, which occurred some 2500 years ago, when the Jews were also returning to the Holy Land from an exile, the leading political power of the World at the time was the Persian-Median Empire. The Emperor Artachshast(a), in Aramaic – Artaxerxes, in English, converses with the leaders of the adversaries of the Jews in the Holy Land.  Both the jealous leaders of the Arabic areas of the Trans-Euphrates region of the Persian-Median Empire and the main political leader of the World in that age itself each refer to the land of Israel as territory that stretched out to the River, the Euphrates.  A Jewish Right of Return and legal authority of the Land of Israel was recognized by the International Community of that day.

The Persian-Median recognition of Jewish rights to Har Habayis (the Temple Mount) is also interesting to consider, despite the inconsistency in its history of applied sovereignty due to the Babylonian exile. 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.

Thus there exists a profoundly deep historical reality of International Recognition of Jewish Rights to the Land of Israel from ancient times and until today.

Israel annexed East Jerusalem 33 years ago. But even then the status of Israel's claims to the Temple Mount seemed on the surface to be in doubt, despite 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. 
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.  The buildings currently on the Temple Mount do not change the fact that Jewish history predates Islamic history and the Jewish prophets are revered by the very text of the Islamic Faith itself.

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, B’Ezras HaShem Yisborach.

The flyer for the event at the Hall of the Nascent Sanhedrin.

Chareidim Draft Proposal

Assaulting one's way of life is not consensus building. The attempt to force chareidim to give up Torah learning and join the army is misguided and needs to be rethought. By encouraging an increase in voluntary chareidi enlistment perhaps a compromise solution can be found.

Take societal pressures out of the mix, there is no pressing need for chareidim to join the ranks of the IDF. To eliminate discontent in society, one must do so in a manner that leaves as little collateral damage as possible. Appeasing this group of society by displeasing that group of society is politicking for votes, not pursuing a path toward true societal improvement.  Bottom line, the current drive to force the Chareidim into the IDF is going to leave some group hurt if it is implemented.

The question is not being put in the correct light.  There is no question that even the greatest of Rabbis in history have worked while they studied, and there is no question that in an emergency a Torah scholar is supposed to interrupt his studies and help those in need. The question is this: Does the IDF currently need the chareidim to be drafted in order for the security of the State of Israel to be provided? The answer is no. Will a draft of the chareidim be a minor interruption to their societal norms, as well as their religious convictions? The answer is also no. It would be a disastrous upheaval according to many of the greatest of our Rabbis.

Therefore being "fair" to the majority via the destruction of a minority is what is being proposed. If those who support the chareidi draft proposal get their way, will Israel be stronger morally and ethically for it? I suggest no.

If rather than trying to force this down the chareidim's throats, a suggestion would be made to their Rabbis, that in order to make a significant percentage of disgruntled citizens feel more respect for their Torah scholars, if the Chareidi leaders would please come up with some internal solution to the batlanim (idlers) who abuse their privileges as chareidim to do nothing while other (the real) chareidim learn intensely, and non-chareidim serve in the army.

Deescalate this situation from confrontation and blackmail to negotiation and consensus building.

The new leaders in the Knesset were put there to be diplomats, not enforcers, leaders of all Israelis, not just for a single constituency.  Perhaps they should act that way?

May it soon be so, by the grace of G-d.

Speaking Opp Needs Funding

By the grace of G-d, I've been offered to speak at a conference in Jerusalem in a few weeks, but could use a sponsor to grant coverage for travel and lodging expenses, as I currently reside in New York and do not have full time employment at this time.

One of the topics I plan to speak on is the status of Har HaBayit, the Temple Mount in International Law. I wrote about that briefly on this blog a month ago.

This would be a great way to support what we do here. All we do is with the help of Heaven. Now here's a way you can help too. Please pass the word along to someone who you think may be able to help.

Please contact me if you have any leads, Author@JerusalemDefender.com Thanks.

Defacto Statehood in International Law

I was saddened at the news of International Law expert Howard Grief's passing. But more than sadness, I am worried. Worried that today's scholars will not be able to speak as strong and freely as Howard Grief did. He was polite, but never catered to political correctness over absolute truthful analysis of International Law about a region in which a clear declaration of the truth is just as important as it's understanding.  I say this not because there are not also brilliant minds in this generation, but because distractions, an air of political correctness in legal discourse of International Law and Israel, in a place where only the simple truth will do.

The sages of the Talmud relate in the first chapter of Ethics of the Fathers, that civilization is founded upon truth, justice and peace. Thus without an adherence to truthful application of justice (International Law) there cannot be peace. Therefore for scholars to fail to emulate the Howard Grief style, would be to risk failure in pursuit of finding a true path to peace. While I may lack Howard's superior politeness and scholarship, I will attempt to address this as truthfully as I can.

Recently I have heard some scholarship attempting to support the current Knesset's policies by saying do not question that a Two State Solution can work, when there exists a defacto Palestinian state already.  In my opinion, this is a statement of political leanings, not a declaration of legal standards. Defacto means "an actual practice, but not necessarily one ordained by law." Further, such recognition is generally provisional. In this case, on condition of a final peace deal between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Also keep in mind the concept that a state must function as a state and also be recognized as one to be granted full rights under International Law.

To all supporters of the erroneous thought that Arabic Palestine is truly a defacto state, please consider the following:

1. Palestine is not (yet) a state that can even make a treaty.
2. Is Palestine a quasi State?  Logically speaking, if Palestine existed before the Oslo Accords which of course it did not, then for some strange reason it agreed to not become a State (again?) when it signed the Oslo Accords until after the Final Status discussions were concluded and signed as a treaty.  Never happened, never will.
3. The United Nations specifically granted limited recognition only, not full recognition. For what reason?  That they are already a state?  That they should be considered a state? Some of the countries that supported the PA only on condition that their limited recognition would not interfere with the treaty between them and Israel, other states that were trying to legalize the Palestinian Authority. But their intentions and current practices do not overrule Oslo, from their own reasoning, which essentially renders the UN resolution legally null and void, as customary law cannot overrule a treaty between member states and certainly between a member state and an ethnicity within it's borders. (Jordan has no legally binding joint claim over Judea and Samaria (the West Bank.) Thus even the quasi recognition by the UN, did not change that status.
4. The Palestinian Authority lacks the full functionality of an independent state, rather functions more like a sub-state within a nation, as a state or county in the United States does.  Interstate border issues, such as an environmental hazard that is bothering a neighboring state may soon find itself to the needs and dictates of the federal government, and as far as defacto status goes, Israel does not share authority with the PA,  it is the superior authority in anything that Israel deems is or is not in its interest.  It took an Israeli court order to change the location of security fence in Samaria, for example, not any force, command or pleading from the Palestinian Authority. 
5. If the anyone wishes to reinterpret reality that the UN has more power than it does, then remember that in International Law, a declaration by the United Nations of defacto recognition cannot overrule a treaty between states, if it is a state, as the PLO agreed to become a non-state-state until Israel agrees otherwise. (The self contradiction and circular reasoning at the UN matches the hypocritical and bipolar diplomacy of the Palestinian Authority.)
6. The Oslo Accords are have already expired, according to scholars like me, and only remain as a defacto practice by the majority of the United Nations to pretend that it is not over.  This, however, cannot overrule Israel's Fundamental rights (Jus Cogens) of self preservation by preventing the formation of a terrorist state within its border. So there is not a legal reason to continue to recognize the Palestinian Authority at all, just a current practice to really, really, really wish really hard that it would become a real state after all.  My legal advice: Wake up, people!

If not for the idea of a One State Solution with the IDF in charge of things, there would be no logical expectation of peace in the near future.  Therefore today's legal scholars must ignore their own political views and work towards finding the optimum One State Solution that works best for long term peace so that International Law may be upheld and peace be obtained.

May it soon be so, by the grace of G-d.

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.