Memo to Bibi. What your speech should entail.
By Ted Belman
Memo to Bibi. What your speech should entail.
The League of Nations granted to Jews everywhere the right to settle in Judea and Samaria. The Palestine Mandate recognized our right to reconstitute our ancient homeland there. The United Nations is bound by this document.
While that is our right as Jews, we are prepared to relinquish our rights to some of the land pursuant to the Roadmap, providing it is based on Res 242 which authorized us to remain on all the land until we had secure and recognized borders. We insist on borders which are defensible and include all settlement blocks. We further insist that it is our right to keep this land without giving anything in return. Res 242 did not require an exchange of land. It is for us alone to determine what are defensible borders.
Negotiations on all matters must be carried out without undue influence and pressure by the US and the international community. It is our right to say “no” to further compromise and to end negotiations if the Arabs are not willing to compromise.
We insist that the settlements are legal according to international law.
The Roadmap included a settlement freeze “consistent with the Mitchell Report”. This report recommended a settlement freeze as a goodwill gesture by Israel in return for the Palestinians ending terror and incitement. It was predicated on a spirit of compromise expected of both sides. Israel will not make such a gesture until the Arabs comply with the spirit and the letter of this report.
Just as Israel can’t have the lives back which were ended because of Arab terror so too, can’t the Arab have back the land on which our settlements grow.
If the Arabs were willing to compromise as required by the Mitchell Report, there would be no need for a settlement freeze. Without compromise there will be no deal.
Furthermore the Mitchell Report didn’t contemplate the split between Hamas and Fatah. Until there is unity among the Arabs, the Mitchell Report is inoperative.
Res 242 is silent on Jerusalem. Jerusalem is ours.
The Arabs must recognize Israel as a Jewish state and absorb all their own refugees.
We insist that any Arab entity created be demilitarized.
Based on these parameters, we accept the two state solution. Based on the Saudi Plan, we utterly reject it.
belman:
Perhaps you ought to know Israel and America are not dealing as equals. Here the levers of power are primarilyy held by the U.S. Israel is America’s proxy and still a large recipient of aid. Obama knows that Bibi holds a slim majority and the Israeli public is not fully behind the rejectionist policy re a two state solution. Bibi hardly has the overwhelming support of North American Jewry and the pro-Israel lobby, in his hard line position. In this regard, and compared to previous years, Israel has been weakened in its dealing with America.
Next spring Israel will be attempting to upgrade its status with the E.U. and is not in a position to dictate terms to that body.
Israel is under severe economic pressure due to the decline of exports which are partially embargo related.
Saying no to Obama might seem as a correct move until you factor in the long term consequences. On balance picking a fight with the U.S. administration will adversly effect Israeli security, to a much greater extent than engaging in negotiations with the Palestinians.
Comment by h peskin — June 12, 2009 @ 4:54 am
I’m in favor of annexing Yesha on the principle Jews are the sole sovereign in the entire Land Of Israel. Sovereignty does not preclude the Arabs having the right to rule themselves. Many peoples in the world have more prerequisites than the Palestinians for statehood and they don’t have independence. Israel is not obligated to grant Arabs who seek her destruction a base to destroy it. This should be the framework, either for an agreement with the Palestinians on self rule if they negotiate with Israel or if they refuse, to impose it on them within such limits as Israel sees fit and without prejudice to Jewish rights in Eretz Israel.
Comment by NormanF — June 12, 2009 @ 5:11 am
Plenty of nations take American aid and do not let Americans dictate policy in their countries. Israel can join them if she wants to. Threats are just saber rattling to see if Israel will cave. No one really wants to find out the consequences if these threats were realized.
Israel had had plenty of opportunities to say no, each time she puts if off, things get worse. Why not pick now to say no to an evil man? Why wait? Waiting has brought nothing but the trouble we see today.
One thing that history teaches us it that everybody loves a winner. If Israel cleaned Iran’s clock, then the whole perception of Israel would change. The feared retaliation would not come from other islamic countries, because they would fear that Israel would bomb them too. (How many bombs could Lebanon, Syria and Egypt take before they cried Uncle? One? Two?)
The entire world would be grateful. With this new perception as a winner, Israel could then tell the international community to shove off and let her take care of her own affairs (in the nicest possible way, of course).
With this new world approval, maybe Israeli leadership could find the grit to deal with the muslims as they should be dealt with. Tell them to get out and stay out!!!
Seems to me that the entire Middle East solution keeps going back to Iran.
Comment by SarahSue — June 12, 2009 @ 6:18 am
Nebach, Ted. That’s what you propose? Then Netanyahu doesn’t need your speechwriting skills.
From yesterday’s Manhigut Yehudit update:
Comment by Shy Guy — June 12, 2009 @ 6:23 am
H Peskin,
The more I read your answer, the more I disagree with it. You seem to be one of the many laboring under the false assumption that Israel takes and does not give back. America does not give Israel aid because Israel wants it. America gives aid because of the benefits she receives. Israel is not a welfare state nor a group such as the muslims, putting aid down a big black hole. Instead, this aid strengthens Israel so that she can protect American interests. The biggest of these interests is oil, that great prostituter of all western nations.
Engaging the muslims is a waste of time. That is why a new reality needs to happen. They need to be shown strength to make them afraid. Nothing else will do.
America says one thing, but putting its money where its mouth is, is another story. Do you really think Congress would let the situation get out of hand? There are still a few members of Congress that know that President Obama cannot follow through with his threats without America suffering herself.
The E.U. is a pathetic body of people bent on seeking popularity by following the trends. They are afraid of their own shadow and have no spine to stand up for what is right. As soon as it is trendy to be nice to Israel, they will. Until then, no amount of caving will help.
Israel has no reason to walk around as a poor relation with hat in hand. There is plenty of demand for Israeli exports, and plenty of businesses that will suffer if more sanctions are imposed. This is not a one way street. Hurt Israel, hurt yourself.
This said, I am waiting to see what Bibi says on Sunday. Maybe he will make a liar out of me, maybe not.
Comment by SarahSue — June 12, 2009 @ 6:24 am
Ted, Have you noticed the trouble that California is in lately? It is drowning in debt, to the point that the government may have to shut down. For decades, illegal immigrants from Mexico have been allowed to receive welfare to the point that the state is going broke. The Democrats have a strangle hold on all the entitlement programs and they would rather see the entire state go down then let one immigrant go without.
The rest of America is not much better. Because we have allowed illegal aliens to claim unearned benefits, Americans that have paid taxes and Social Security will not be getting any in the near future.
We have allowed ourselves to be overrun by a bunch of people that take and with some exceptions, do not give back. I live next to a young Mexican illegal female that has let the state finance her two bastard children, pay her rent ($850.00 per month) her water ($50.00 per month), sewer ($50.00 per month), cell phone, electricity ($100 per month), gas ($40.00 per month), her clothes, her baby’s clothes, furniture, washer and dryer, health care and all other personal needs. Multiply that with by the millions living in the U.S. illegally and the picture is truly frightening.
How does this relate to Israel and a two-state solution? Israel has the same problems as America times 100. At least the Mexicans and the majority of other illegal aliens do not resort to violence. In fact, I would take a 1000 Mexicans over one muslim for this reason.
Along with not paying taxes, not serving in the armed forces, taking welfare, Israel has to deal with terrorism on a daily basis.
To make matters far worse, President Obama has set the stage so that the muslims think they need do nothing but sit back and wait for America and the world to force Israel to her knees. To add insult to injury, the arab states now think they can put a dead-line on the negotiations. What unmitigated gall!
Why, with these realities in place, should any two-state solution be put forward as a way to deal with the murderous, traitorous, aid dependant muslims? Why should we buy into the mantra that the governments of the world are pushing when they collectively do not have the brains God gave a gnat?
Do not we, as the true friends of Israel owe her a better solution? Many have been put forth…sending them to Jordan, sending them to other muslims countries to name a few. Just because they reject these solutions does not mean that we should adopt theirs.
Why is it fair or expedient to ask Israel to support her enemies in any fashion? Why does she owe them anything after all they have made her suffer?
It seems to me that true friend of Israel will realize that there is only one solution, the enemies must go. Israel should have the right to take care of her good citizens at the expense of her bad citizens.
Anything else is asking Israel to do something we would not dream of doing ourselves.
Comment by SarahSue — June 12, 2009 @ 7:32 am
I am being diplomatic. By taking my advice Bibi would not be rejecting the two-state solution. He would be placing conditions on it. The Arabs will never accept these conditions so there is no risk in putting this out there. Plus he would be articulating certain principles that need to be reiterated.
So the issue will no longer be two states or not but what kind of two states, i.e. borders Jerusalem etc. That’s the real heart of the issue.
Comment by Ted Belman — June 12, 2009 @ 8:08 am
Yes, just look what playing a losing game of chess, with international rules made up on the fly and slanted to benefit the other side, has brought us until now.
Timid and foolish Jews. We foget who brought us back here and why. Groveling in front of the world will do nothing for us. Even Pavlov’s dog would have realized that by now. Prepare to bend over again.
Comment by Shy Guy — June 12, 2009 @ 8:45 am
Prepare to bend over again.
Shy Guy, not the right attitude.
Think positive, Israel has come along way despite a number of road blocks.
Having said that, you are correct the Jews cannot forget who brought them back to the Holy Land.
That has to be the mind set.
It’s not so much the Israelis that concern me but rather the liberal American Jews who still don’t get it.
I know I beat a dead horse and being a repeater however just maybe it will sink in.
“All Jews regardles of where they reside, are tied to Israel by heritage, tradition and by G-d”
Comment by rongrand — June 12, 2009 @ 12:05 pm
That is a correct generality but there’s a different accounting to be made there.
On the issue of standing and defending Israel, it has been Israel’s own Jewish citizens and especially its elected government leaders who continue to pull us down this road to doom.
If Rabin wanted to shake hands with the merchant of death, why should US politicians object?
If Netanyahu and Sharon wanted to relinquish Hevron to Hamas control, why should US politicians object?
If Sharon wanted to destroy the homes and lives of 8000 hard working loyal Jews and establish a terrorist playland along Israel’s border, why should US politicians object?
If Netanyahu wants to destroy outpost, put the faith of Yesha communities up in the air and offer to find some sort of solution where another terrorist playground can receive some form of autonomy in the heartland of Israel and Ehud Barak, Tzippi Livni an scoundrel Shimon Peres want to retreat to almost green line borders, why should US politicians object?
Comment by Shy Guy — June 12, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
I know what you are figuring. You are depending on the Arabs to bail you out of an untenable position. Trying to change the onus from on us to them. They refuse and thus are blamed. Things have a way of backfiring. Your weakness is agreeing to under certain conditions or stipulations: Land Of Israel division. Too transparent, will be ignored and even more pressure will be brought to bear on us.
Our only position is that between the Jordan and the Med no other state except Israel will be sovereign. We should not even be prepared to discuss with anyone any other alternative other than that position. Any disposition of the Palis should be dealt with only in such a context. Face facts your position has been tried failed and only weakens us day by day both internally and externally. I agree it’s past time to change the disk, rhetoric, terms of reference of our identity and our national goals. Kissing the asses of all the world and Obama is counterproductive and only invites more and stronger pressure. Once on the road of appeasement it becomes almost impossible to stop.
Major conflicts imply major hostility on both sides and are closed to the goodwill path of incremental mutual concessions. They can only be finished in a sweeping agreement when one side is unquestionably defeated or both sides exhausted. These conditions do not exist now. Israeli concessions heavily provoke the Arabs. They have the example of Egypt which launched three wars against Israel and numerous offenses, but received 100% of its former land back. Israel’s very existence means that Palestinians get less than a 100% solution. They try to avoid the humiliation by dragging the talks. As Israel surrenders the West Bank towns to Fatah police and lifts movement restrictions, Palestinians have less reasons to negotiate. As Abbas pointed out, they lead normal lives and can afford to wait indefinitely – especially so as their leaders cannot afford any concessions.
We fought with Syria, Egypt, and Iran three thousand years ago, and will continue fighting them in the centuries to come. The American democracy along with its rulers is just a blip on the radar of our history.
Comment by yamit82 — June 12, 2009 @ 1:41 pm
Yamit, guess who is winning? It sure aint the Syrians, Egyptians or Iranians.
Just let the Hussein (Muslim) Obama and his administration know if you don’t want to run interference, then get the hell off the field your in our way.
Comment by rongrand — June 12, 2009 @ 1:49 pm
From this week’s Manhigut Yehudit update, by Moshe Feiglin:
The concluding words of Feiglin from the same update:
Shabbat Shalom.
Comment by Shy Guy — June 12, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
I get a feeling of we have been down this road many times before and it all seems to go around in circles even when some of the names change In 2 and a half years Obama will be running again for a second term and will not be able to take a too negative position with Israel if he wants Jewish support and money. A new president will in all likelihood be elected and we will start the stupid process all over again.
There are some Jewish constants like the Jes praying next year in Jerusalem instead of buying a ticket to come over. The wailing wall which I call the wall of shame; A shame for the last forty years when we failed to tear down that wall. Jerusalem is ours. The Temple Mount is ours. Jews don’t have to wail at the remains anymore. The forty years were enough to build the real thing, the Temple.
We have won. Get used to it. Israeli victories might not usher in the messianic era, but so long as Jews possess Jerusalem, we should rejoice rather than weep. We’re the happiest Jews for the last two thousand years because we securely possess our country, but blind Jewish leaders want to share it with our Arab enemies. We conquered the Temple Mount – the place, you choose it, of immeasurable sanctity or immeasurable national importance – and still wail at the remnants below.
The Israeli government bans Jews from praying at the Temple Mount lest the Arabs be offended. The government missed that we have already offended the Arabs by establishing the Jewish state in their midst and by winning every war they started. Arabs fought us over statehood and over borders; okay, let them fight us over the Temple Mount. In fact, they won’t. Muslims worldwide did not riot when the Jews took over Jerusalem. The Muslims expected the victorious Jews to assert their religious and nationalist jurisdiction over the most important place in the world, and shook their heads in disbelief when Moshe Dayan returned to them the Temple Mount.
Assimilated Israeli leaders resent posing as barbaric religious Jews before their Gentile friends. The Third Temple would embarrass the likes of all our secular and most religious leaders: it’s hard to talk peace and modernity in Washington when back in your capital a high priest in golden breastplate burns sheep in the sin offering.
Rabbinical leaders, too, don’t want the Temple. For all the superficial rites they observe, they are atheists. They pushed God from real life into a transcendent realm. Their God is concerned with driving on Sabbath rather than the Temple or the Land of Israel. The rabbis fear government, not God – and concur with the political establishment about Arab control of the Temple Mount, disengagement from Judea, and the Arab presence in Israel. The rabbis ban Jews from the Temple Mount for the fear of desecrating the Holy of Holies’ remains while the Arabs build lavatories there.
If you don’t rebuild the Temple when every possibility to do so exists, stop hypocritically mourning its earlier destruction.
Israel needs a political party with a single goal: rebuilding the Temple. The other goals can be inferred from that one. Let the Supreme Court try to ban the party or the MK ostracize it.
Forget about religion. Rebuild the Temple.
Everything else will concurrently fall into place both home and abroad and within world Jewry.
Comment by yamit82 — June 12, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
Norman
The problem with your line is that it is a half measure and in this case it clearly will not be a goer.
Perhaps it is best to start with the point that Israel owns Yesha, we have the clear historical proof if that is the correct word, ie if we have to prove anything to anybody.
So annexe may not be the right concept.
But autonomy to Arabs. that is the half measure, so why’
Why give autonomy to your enemy. Do you not see this as the weakness in your position.
The alternative is the truth. The truth is war. The facing the reality that the Arabs are at war with jews and Jewish supporters.
Comment by Felix Quigley — June 12, 2009 @ 2:22 pm
Ted
Ted
There is Bibi the PM of Israel
And there is us. We are independent.
Our position must be total opposition to the Palestine state. We have to fight on that basis and truth of history is actually on our side.
It is not the easiest approach, it is easier to go with the AIPAC sheep.
but in the end it is the best fastest and only way.
Your way may be more “cunning” but it is not telling the truth.
Now this presupposes a number of things.
The main one being that we are independent of America and that we have to stir up and encourage civil war in America and in the ranks of Jews on the defence of israel against Palestinian Fascism.
Comment by Felix Quigley — June 12, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
The most recent neurotic incident.
Comment by Shy Guy — June 12, 2009 @ 2:36 pm
Peskin
You are good at pointing out the negative and weakness and in my opinion that is a good thing to do.
This may indeed be how Bibi thinks because he is not a revolutionary leader
There is truth in this.
But consider why they are not equals. Let your mind dwell on some things which the left say that the US is an Empire.
Otherwise why would Bush, Rice!!!, the little wierd peanut farmer, the Cigar man, now Obama all lecturing netanyahu
they are even quoting from his speech before he utters it.
is that not an Empire. Not Imperialism in deed and thought!
The great crime of Yamits, Gerrys, Teds is that they supported the destruction of the Serbs.
There is a mindset to that that you lot can never escape from.
But before I get too angry I will sign off.
Peskin do you not see another way. If you were a revolutionary what way would you go.
Create civil war on the issue in America and everywhere? Why not?
Please answer Peskin, you always ignore me.
Comment by Felix Quigley — June 12, 2009 @ 2:36 pm
I think Ted and others should study Yiftach among others to get how and why we should act and reply the the Gentiles.
In ancient times, there was a bandit named Yiphtah. The son of a Jewish father by a concubine, he fled the family house and started a highly successful gang. At one point, Amonites issued an ultimatum to his paternal tribe of Gilead: give us back our land, which the Jews have occupied, and let’s live in peace—otherwise there will be war. Exactly the choice Israel faces now. Yiphtah offered several political justifications for holding onto the land, notably the expired statute of limitations. But recognizing the weakness of his arguments, he finally resorted to a foolproof argument: whatever land God gave us will remain ours. Not because we have conquered this land, but because God gave it to us. In logical terms, Yiphtah argued from authority, the ultimate authority in this case. He went to war and won it. So it is today: whether the West Bank is liberated or occupied, Jewish rights there are open to legal debate.
If God gave Judea to Jews in 1967, the argument is closed.
The story of Yiftach begins with a description of the plight of the Israelites who live east of the Jordan River. For 18 years, the Book of Judges reports, the Israelites in the land of Gilead were harassed by neighboring tribes, especially the Ammonites, who also made forays west of the Jordan to cause “great distress” to the major tribes of Israel. This prompted the people to pray to God in repentance, which resulted in the emergence of Yiftach as their deliverer.
Yiftach was his father’s son by a prostitute. His half brothers—sons by their father’s legitimate wife—were consequently unwilling to share their inheritance with a son of “another woman.” Being driven out by his siblings, Yiftach took up dwelling in Tob, east of Gilead. Here, men identified as “adventurers” joined him in opposing the Ammonites and put themselves under his command. (Judges 11:3) Later, the Ammonites attack Israel again and the “elders of Gilead” ask Yiftach to aid them. They apparently include some of his kin, and he balks at first, on the grounds that they had driven him from his home. They persist in requesting his aid however, and he eventually agrees to help, after they promise to make them their permanent leader if he prevails over the Ammonites. At the shrine at Mizpah, Yiftach makes a formal pledge before G-d to seal the agreement.
Before going to war with the Ammonites, Yiftach sends messengers demanding to know the reason for their attacks. The Ammonite king replies that the Israelites had unjustly taken certain lands from them after the Exodus from Egypt. He agrees to end the attacks if the land is ceded back to his domain. Yiftach replies that the inhabitants of the land were given their chance previously, when the Israelites asked permission to pass through peacefully on their way to Canaan. Because a previous king did not trust the Israelite’s promise, Yiftach says, G-d gave the lands in question to Israel. They cannot now be given back without a fight. At this point the Spirit of G-d comes over Yiftach. God responds by giving Yiftach a great victory, in which he conquers 20 Ammonite towns and wins the war for Israel.
Religion cements Jewish identity like nothing else. The children of the most prominent Zionist patriots assimilated, but the grandchildren of religious Jews remain Jewish.
If my above arguments do not impact maybe this one will: Pascal’s wager seems reasonable: Live as if God exists, for if he doesn’t you lose nothing.
Yiftach and why there is not one occasion in the whole of the Tanach where Jews willing gave up any part of the Land of Israel. We are commanded to go to wear rather than give up an inch. Milchemet Mitzvah - War of Obligation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oguHBnL5UYc Yiftach discussed at 17:40But I recommend all of the clips together.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-HjYbbIpDM&feature=related milchemet mitzvah and milchemet rishut
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOvR5sgy7Z8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAAg7EDW9Co&feature=related
Comment by yamit82 — June 12, 2009 @ 3:38 pm
Ted, when you wrote, “Based on these parameters, WE accept the two state solution,” who were you including in ‘we’? Since I am associated with IsraPundit through my contributions to it, I insist that you change ‘we’ to ‘I’. You were not speaking for me when you wrote this piece.
My understanding is that you think the Arabs will never live up to their agreements, and, therefore, that the two-state ’solution’ will never be implemented. However, I disagree with you on your political strategy. Your statements imply to the reader that you are interested, ultimately, in the implementation of the two-state ’solution’, while I believe in being upfront about it and stating unequivocally that there is already a two-state ’solution’ between Israel and Jordan, as another of your readers so aptly explained to you in his response to your IsraPundit piece. Afterall, concessions to the Arabs have only caused more violence, death and destruction, and, as you explained at the very top of your op-ed piece, Israel has a legal entitlement to all of her Homeland.
Buddy Macy
Comment by vegibud — June 12, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
Agreeing to the establishment of a “Palestinian” state in Jewish land should not be conditional on anything. We should not delay the inevitable anymore. The time has come to unconditionally say NO to another Palestinian state (the first being Jordan), and deal with the consequences.
We are being pushed up against the wall big time. The only way to push back is to take a firm stand and stick with it. The Arabs have been doing this for decades. All we hear from them is Occupation, Occupation, Occupation. This has become the accepted narrative and thus the jumping off point from which all else emerges.
We must change this paradigm. We cannot agree to another Arab state between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, even with conditions. Once negotiations (i.e. dictat) begin, the conditions layed out will become inconsequential. All that will remain is that the “Occupation” must end. This is what must end.
JUST SAY NO!
Comment by JonnyGee — June 12, 2009 @ 4:37 pm
Not so I wrote against the action and was the first to introduce Julia Gorin pro Serb positions here on Israpundit. I nevedr said I thought the Serbs were blameless but in an historical context I conceded they had a position historically stronger than the Muslims in Kosovo. I was against Nato attacking Serbia as I felt as did Sharon at the time that such a precedent might be used against us someday. I never took a position for or against as to who were more brutish or murderous as I figure they all have dirty hands and I am in no position to evaluate Truths or falsities of any sides claims. It’s no longer of interest to me as what’s done is done and up to the Serbs to correct any historical injustices
Felix get your facts right before accusing anyone of anything. Especially me.
Comment by yamit82 — June 12, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
Not only should we say no but quite blatantly take back from the Muslim Wakf the Keyes to the Temple Mount and throw them the hell out of there. Any Jew wishing to pray respectfully within properly defined areas with proper precautions should be allowed up. No stronger message can be given to the world than that.
Comment by yamit82 — June 12, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
At #21, I’m going to throw my hat into the ring. Unlike Yamit, I believes theat Netanyahu will not buckle to the US and will stand firm on all of the communities, all in Jerusalem and in the territories. Ultimately, there may be an uprising in the Arab sector of Samaria and Judea. That would be put. down brutally and Israel will take total control and, perhaps expel the Arabs totally.
Regardless how much bluster by Obama causes, the USA is nsot going to severely harm Israel. They need Israel as the barrier to the Muslims. Most Americans today are having a belly full of the arrogance and stupidity of Obama’s foriegn policy, economic policy, domestic policy and just about all of his policies. Should he continue on his path, the Republicans might possibly retake Congress in 2010.
Yamit, I am with you on the Temple. It is needed to cement the people of Israel together. Logistically, Would a new temple require all of the Temple Mount or would it be shared with the mosque? Destroying the mosque would be my preference; however, destroying history has always bothered me.
Comment by Ed D — June 12, 2009 @ 5:24 pm
Dome of the rock is not a Mosque only al aksa is: The dome of the Rock is the edifice that absolutely must be destroyed, It is built upon the foundation stone, the alter of Abraham and Isak, probably the Holy of Holies as well. Prohibition is against Pagan religions and Islam in Judaism is not considered Pagan, Christianity is though.
There is no reason why we should not at least open up the Temple Mount for Jews except Jewish self hate, Rabbinic fear of losing their authority and control and of course fear of Arab and Muslim reaction. All those negatives reject Halacha and therefore are a Hillul Hashem. Without the Temple Judaism is a mere shell as over 200 commandments relate to the Temple and Temple rites. No Jew can be a real Torah observant Jew living outside of the Land of Israel as half the commandments relate to the Land and dwelling in it. and No Torah observant Jew can perform all the mitzvot ling in the Land of Israel without the temple. Judaism of the Exile is vastly different than the exile Judaism practiced in the Galut and even in Israel today. It was simpler less restrictions and few walls around the Torah developed by by the rabbanim over the past 2000 years in exile. The main difference is the shift from emphasis on personal purity to National purity of the Land of Israel. Real Judaism elevates the Land to near equality with the Torah for without the Land half of the Torah at least cannot be observed. The Torah was meant to be leared and acted upon in a special place The Land of Israel. The Torah for the Jews is like our National Constitution. The oral law the actionable interpretations of the Principals outlined in the written law.
There was a good reason why G-d wanted an earthly house, a symbol not only for Jews where ea. Human could connect directly with Hakadosh Borchu. It was the seat of religious and temporal authority. The Sanhedrin our equiv to supreme court sat. Every Jew rich or poor living in or out of Israel contributed a Jewish tax to the Temple of a half silver shekel. Sacrifices were eaten and distributed to the poor and needy as well as feeding the priests etc. We would eat a lot of lamb instead of Beef. It would unite all Jews as never before and create a specific national and religious identity unlike any other in the world.
We need it today more than ever. It would set Jews apart and establish a new set of rules as to how we view the world and how the world viewed us. http://www.templeinstitute.org/ The Temple Institute
Comment by yamit82 — June 12, 2009 @ 8:08 pm