Jewish legal rights to Judea and Samaria
By Ted Belman
I attended a lecture two years ago by Jacques Gauthier, a Canadian Lawyer who just received his PhD after twenty years of research on the legal status of Jerusalem and the writing of a dissertation of some 1300 pages with 3000 footnotes. He had to present his thesis to a panel of two leading international lawyers and one world famous Jewish historian. The reason for so many footnotes was to enable him to defend his thesis from intense attack by one of the lawyers who happened to be Jewish anti-Zionist and who had represented the PA on numerous occasions. Gauthier is not Jewish.
Here’s what he said in point form,
1. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 started the whole process but it didn’t create international legal rights.
2. The San Remo decision made on 25 April 1920, incorporated the Balfour Declaration of 1917[2] and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. It was the basic decision upon which the Mandate for Palestine was constructed. While the decision made at San Remo created the Palestine Mandate de-facto, the mandate document signed by Great Britain as the Mandatory and the League of Nations made it de-jure. It thus became a binding treaty in international law.
-
The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
He pointed out that the Arabs weren’t even mentioned but that civil and religious rights only were accorded other inhabitants. This thereby excludes political rights.
[Palestine straddled the Jordan River and thus was on the east bank and the west bank.]
3. Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations provides for the creation of mandates.
-
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
The legal significance here is that “the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation”. The Mandatory Power was the trustee of that trust.
4 The Palestine Mandate of the League of Nations, included the following significant recital,
-
“Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;
This had never happened before in history. Palestine was to be held for the Jewish people wherever they lived. No such recognition had ever been according to anyone else, anywhere, ever.
ART. 2. The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.
Thus the operative clause specifically referred to the preamble, reiterated that there were no political rights for other inhabitants.
ART. 5. The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.
ART. 6. The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.
5. The United Nations took over from the failed League of Nations in 1945 and its Charter included
Article: 80 .. nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.
Thus the Palestine Mandate continued under the United Nations without change.
6. In 1947, the General Assembly of the UN passed Res 181 which became known as the Partition Plan pursuant to which both Jews and Arabs could announce their state.
First it must be noted that the Charter of the UN specifically gave no power to the General Assembly because that would infringe on the sovereign power of individual members. So the GA could recommend only. Secondly, this recommendation was in violation of the terms of the Mandate. See Art 5 above.
This resolution also provided for a Special Regime for Jerusalem which had the following defined boundaries,
-
A. SPECIAL REGIME The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations. The Trusteeship Council shall be designated to discharge the responsibilities of the Administering Authority on behalf of the United Nations.
B. BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY The City of Jerusalem shall include the present municipality of Jerusalem plus the surrounding villages and towns, the most eastern of which shall be Abu Dis; the most southern, Bethlehem; the most western, ‘Ein Karim (including also the built-up area of Motsa); and the most northern Shu’fat, as indicated on the attached sketch-map (annex B).
But this regime was to be limited in time. It was not to be an “international city” for all time as we have been lead to believe.
-
The Statute elaborated by the Trusteeship Council the aforementioned principles shall come into force not later than 1 October 1948. It shall remain in force in the first instance for a period of ten years, unless the Trusteeship Council finds it necessary to undertake a re-examination of these provisions at an earlier date. After the expiration of this period the whole scheme shall be subject to examination by the Trusteeship Council in the light of experience acquired with its functioning. The residents the City shall be then free to express by means of a referendum their wishes as to possible modifications of regime of the City.
This provision for a referendum was of critical importance to the acceptance of Res 181 by Ben Gurion. He knew that the Jews were in a majority within these boundaries and would be in 10 years when the referendum was to be held. Thus he was confidant that Jerusalem would return to Jewish hands.
Keep in mind that the disposition of this area was to be determined not by Israel but by the residents of Jerusalem so defined. Currently the Jews have a 2:1 majority there.
Needless to say that after the Armistice Agreement of ‘49 the Jordanians who were in control of Jerusalem violated every provision of this resolution calling for among other things respect for holy places. The referendum never took place.
After the ‘67 war in which Israel regained the land to the Jordan including Jerusalem, Res 242 of the Security Council was passed authorizing Israel to remain in possession of all the land until they had “secure and recognized boundaries”. It did not require Israel to withdraw from all of the territories and it was silent on Jerusalem.
Also it “Affirms further the necessity for achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem”. There was no reference to Res 194 nor was there a distinction made between Jewish and Arab refugees.
I would like to stress one more thing.
By virtue of this preamble
-
“Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;
in the Mandate, the United Nations, the League’s successor, has recognized the Jewish historical rights to reconstitute their national home in Palestine. That’s Zionism. “Zion” is Jerusalem.
Thus the UN has recognized Jerusalem as the home of the Jewish people.
His lecture did not cover the following salient events which need recalling.
Prior to the signing of the Mandate, However, in 1921, the British took off the “East Bank” from Jewish Palestine, enlarged the territory eastward up to the borders of Mesopotamia (Iraq), and gave the whole thing to Abdullah. Unfortunately, the final signing of the Mandate happened only in July, 1922, and the British included in it a provision to prevent Jews from settling anywhere east of the Jordan River (Article 25). This provision was supposed to be temporary, but it lasted to this day.
The east bank represented 77% of Palestine so the Jews only got 23%. In addition the British also gave the southern Golan which was promised to the Jews, to the Syrian Mandate.
In doing so Britain, the Mandatory Power violated Articles 5 and 27 of the Mandate.
ART. 5. “The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.”
ART. 27: The Mandatory had no right to amend the Mandate terms without the full consent of the League of Nations or its Mandates Commission.
What follows next are comments by Eli Hertz in his pamphlet “The Legal Aspects of Jewish Rights”. It is titled, This Land is My Land and can be purchased from Israpundit for $20.00. Simply write to tedbel@rogers.com for instructions.
Jerusalem in “Mandate” Time
Two distinct issues exist: the issue of Jerusalem and the issue of the Holy Places.
Cambridge Professor Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, Judge ad hoc of the International Court of Justice and a renowned editor of one of the ‘bibles’ of international law, International Law Reports has said:
-
“Not only are the two problems separate; they are also quite distinct in nature from one another. So far as the Holy Places are concerned, the question is for the most part one of assuring respect for the existing interests of the three religions and of providing the necessary guarantees of freedom of access, worship, and religious administration [E.H., as14 mandated in Article 13 and 14 of the “Mandate for Palestine”] …
As far as the City of Jerusalem itself is concerned, the question is one of establishing an effective administration of the City which can protect the rights of the various elements of its permanent population— Christian, Arab and Jewish—and ensure the governmental stability and physical security which are essential requirements for the city of the Holy Places.”27
The notion of internationalizing Jerusalem was never part of the “Mandate”. Nothing was said in the Mandate about the internationalization of Jerusalem. Indeed Jerusalem as such is not mentioned—though the Holy Places are. And this in itself is a fact of relevance now. For it shows that in 1922 there was no inclination to identify the question of the Holy Places with that of the internationalization of Jerusalem.”28
Jerusalem the spiritual, political, and historical capital of the Jewish people has served, and still serves, as the political capital of only one nation—the one belonging to the Jewish people.
Jerusalem, a city in Palestine, was and is an undisputed part of the Jewish National Home.
Jewish Rights to Palestine Were Internationally Guaranteed
In the first Report of the High Commissioner on the Administration of Palestine (1920-1925) presented to the British Secretary of State for the Colonies, published in April 1925, the most senior official of the Mandate, the High Commissioner for Palestine, underscored how international guarantees for the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine were achieved:
-
“The [Balfour] Declaration was endorsed at the time by several of the Allied Governments; it was reaffirmed by the Conference of the Principal Allied Powers at San Remo in 1920; it was subsequently endorsed by unanimous resolutions of both Houses of the Congress of the United States; it was embodied in the Mandate for Palestine approved by the League of Nations in 1922; it was declared, in a formal statement of policy issued by the Colonial Secretary in the same year, ‘not to be susceptible of change.’ ”29
United States Government and the “Mandate” Policy
Despite not being a member of the League, the U.S. Government
claimed on November 20, 1920 that the participation of the United States in WWI entitled it to be consulted as to the terms of the Mandate. The British Government agreed, and the outcome was an agreement calling to safeguard the American interests in Palestine. It concluded with a convention between the United Kingdom and the United States of America, signed on December 3, 1924.
It is imperative to note that the convention incorporated the complete text of the “Mandate for Palestine,” including the preamble!30 President Wilson was the first American president to support modern Zionism and Britain’s efforts for the creation of a National Home for Jews in Palestine (the text of the Balfour Declaration had been submitted to President Wilson and had been approved by him before its publication).
President Wilson expressed his deep belief in the eventuality of the creation of a Jewish State:
-
“I am persuaded,” said President Wilson on March 3rd, 1919, “that the Allied nations, with the fullest concurrence of our own Government and people, are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundation of a Jewish Commonwealth.”31
On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the “Mandate for Palestine,” confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine—anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea:
-
“Favoring the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which should prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected.”32
The “Mandate for Palestine” is Valid to This Day
The Mandate survived the demise of the League of Nations. Article 80 of the UN Charter implicitly recognizes the “Mandate for Palestine” of the League of Nations.
This Mandate granted Jews the irrevocable right to settle anywhere in Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, a right unaltered in international law and valid to this day.
Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank), Gaza and the whole of Jerusalem are legal.
**************************
I will leave it to another article to set out why the passing of Res 181 or Res 242 or the signing of the Oslo Accords did not diminish or derogate from the rights of the Jews to the land,
I would also like to point out that Howard Grief did independent research for his book “The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law” in which he came to similar conclusions.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Israpundit » Blog Archive » Jewish legal rights to Judea and Samaria -- Topsy.com
Pingback: uberVU - social comments
Pingback: Israpundit » Blog Archive » Jewish legal rights to Judea and Samaria « Internet Cafe Solution
Legal rights are beside the point. In 1948, the Jews were granted the legal right to their homeland of Israel, but that legal right was almost negated by Arab armies. Israel exists not because of legal rights but because of military might, and should therefore concentrate on increasing that military might so as to increase the chances of national survival.
The Middle East conflict is not about lawyering. Jews must lose the compulsion to litigate and embrace the concept of my Italian friends that one good punch to the nads is worth more than one hundred thousand subpoenas.
Ayn Reagan: what you describe is exactly what differentiates societies living under the rule of law and those living under the rule of the jungle.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Israpundit » Blog Archive » Jewish legal rights to Judea and Samaria -- Topsy.com
Pingback: Israpundit » Blog Archive » Jewish legal rights to Judea and Samaria
Lets see: Rule of law presumes A acceptance by a majority of those making and living under those law.
B- It presumes general acceptance of same laws, C- It presumes administration and enforcement of those laws. D it presumes penalties for disobedience and breaking of those laws. D- it also presumes equality in adjudicating and enforcing of same laws.
You know that almost none of the above is true and that there is not now or ever been equal administration enforcement and adjudication of any laws consistently, and fairly, anywhere.
On an International level of the 5-6 million Nazis and their helpers of other nationalities only a hand full were prosecuted and in other countries zero prosecutions and no convictions which says to one and all that there is no retributive Justice for the worst of our societies maleficence. The Jungle in comparison looks pretty good.
the wealthy and the powerful are never judged the same as a pauper and the powerful never as the weak. Tax codes in almost all countries favor the rich and powerful.
If the rich could hire the poor to die for them the poor would make a nice living
Lets face it except for some rare exceptions the rich and powerful literally get away with murder. And they always have.. Adherence to your concepts of legalisms and the sacrosanct rule of law is a suckers gambit. Unless you happen to be one of the really rich and powerful.
Yamit…I hope you find a better place where you can live and prosper with no laws. Please, let me know when you find it.
I don’t believe Ayn is talking about being lawless. I believe and I agree that recognition comes from strength. I had posted sometime ago the IDF should be increased while taking control over it’s borders and as well as Jerusalem and likewise in Samaria and Judea.
Forget what obama the community organizing acorn wants, it’s all about Israel being in control and must maintain that control through determination and strength.
By the way who is willing to take it away from Israel? Israel in no banana republic.
Salomon, the Rule of Law is excellent as a means of defining how people ought to behave. But within the legal entity we have what are known as “outlaws,” and these are people who respond only to another entity known as “law enforcement.” Note the word “enforcement.”
In other words although most people abide by (fair) laws, there is a sizable minority that don’t, and it appears to be growing organically. Only tough (and honest) people have the ability to effectively enforce the law; you know, the “rough men” mentioned in that quote everyone knows, who protect us in our beds every night.
Without these “rough men” the best the law can do to protect us all, is make heavier law books, so that we can more effectively smack the outlaws over the head with them as a means of self-defence.
Then there’s Yamit’s comments, which are well worth noting.
What I describe does not apply to societies, but rather to the international reality that relationships between countries are inherently based upon power rather than reason. Litigating within a society is the civilized way to resolve disputes, but there is no international equivalent – only farcical facsimiles. Conflicts between nations have always been resolved based upon which participant is more powerful. It is therefore folly to predicate one’s existence upon reason rather than force, because in this world the forceful crush the reasonable.
In 1948, had the Israelis defended their new state by orating the most eloquent and wisest of rationales, they would all have been killed. They won their independence and have maintained their wonderful country not because their position has been just, but because they have been armed and their will has been indomitable.
Let us hope that Israelis never forget that they are no more virtuous than the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto…who also possessed an indisputable right to exist. The difference, of course, is that the Israelis have at their disposal the means with which to vanquish those who would murder them.
And that, dear salomon, is the reason that Israeli Jews are not extinct.
As Clint Eastwood said in Unforgiven, “Deserve’s got nothing to do with it.”
I am still in favor of strength.
Israel has a well trained and intelligent IDF and a super ADF along with some sophisticated arsenal including and not limited to nuclear.
What nation or government body including the wishy washy UN would undertake or consider undertaking the removal of it’s citizens from any part of Israel.
I am an old Barry Goldwater conservative and he stressed Teddy Roosevelt’s slogan, “speak softly carry a big stick”.
The best defense is a strong offense.
It’s time for this Jewish Nation to tell her adversaries “Fuck You”. (I apologize for using the f word but you get the point).
Salomon don’t misread me, I am not against Law for what then is Judaism but The Law. I argue against those laws which discriminate and or are not enacted and enforced without prejudices and biases. A law selectivly applied is a most serious sin in Judaism. Jews historically and Israel till now have suffered by restrictive and prejudicial laws enacted against Jews and more recently Israel before and after the creation of the State. Those laws or at least some have been used throughout history as a weapon against Jews.
Given a choice between Jewish Law and your pseudo post Roman/Greek legal concepts of western democracies; I choose Jewish Law at least for Jews and especially for Jews in a sovereign Jewish country. A few principles and examples to amplify my point.
Torah pragmatically affirms that only actions matter. A person who does not steal is a better neighbor than someone who does, even if the former is rich and not tempted and the latter desperately poor and usually does not steal. The latter’s struggle for righteousness should be encouraged, but his neighbors still see him as a thief.
Abstaining from evil is a duty; observing a duty is no cause for commendation. Policemen do not thank pedestrians for crossing on a green light. Commanders praise soldiers and pass out medals, implicitly recognizing that participating in meaningless wars is not a duty. Failure of duty deserves no gratitude. Records in the Book are negative: what evil has one committed? How many times one shrinks from sin is irrelevant.
Is the approach prejudicial to the poor, who are supposedly more tempted? Perhaps. But the propensity to sin is universal: the rich are tempted as often as the poor. Truly evil acts are few—murder, maiming, stealing, lying in court—are so basic that no one is justified in committing them.
Hedonistic societies, unwilling to suffer and see suffering, interpret the gospel pronouncements against punishment literally. Judaism balances justice and forgiveness, trial and mediation in civil matters.
Punishment should not be relegated to an afterlife. Human beings are not absolutely good or evil, but the eternal judgment is absolute. People should punish non-absolute temporal evil. Weak people shy from biblical participatory justice where witnesses start the execution, but such participation creates community, neighbors responsible for eradicating crime. Voting is another way of building a participatory society, of involving the neighbors in communal affairs.
Torah has no idea of divine forgiveness through sacrifice, prayer, or confession. People have free will; G-d cannot settle their disputes. Only the offended can forgive the transgressor. G-d forgives idolatry, the only sin against him. Forgiveness comes from repentance and restitution; forgiveness is social concept, and its theological ramifications are secondary. Criminal punishments are intended to vindicate and compensate victims. If the criminal repents, vindication is unnecessary, and the criminal compensates the victim without violence. Murder makes compensation impossible, and vindication requires the murderer’s death. Forgiveness for murder comes only through both repentance and death. Suicide in that case might be viewed as self-imposed execution, preferable to living with non-expiated guilt.
In Judaism, repentance is an action, or more precisely a counter-action, a correction of the wrong done, not a sense of guilt. A repentant person must restore the damage and thereafter keep the commandments as a respectable, law-abiding member of the community.
Torah’s legal doctrine of vindication has advantages over modern doctrines of compensation. Rabbis traditionally interpret “an eye for an eye” as fair compensation, likely because Jewish courts in the Diaspora could not prescribe corporal punishment. Transgressors had to compensate victims for damages, which can be unpredictable, since that requires value judgments. A rich man could knock out a pauper’s eye for minor compensation. Torah offers absolute justice: a scratch on a poor man’s jalopy for a scratch on rich man’s limousine; a rich man’s eye is as valuable to him as a pauper’s is to him.
Biblical regulations contemplate enslavement for unpaid debts. Bad debts result more from malice or negligence than from unavoidable circumstance. When a debtor’s personal income is predictable, a creditor would likely prefer seeing the debtor through his troubles to enslaving him. Bad debt is no different from larceny. Few object to jailing thieves at hard labor; why not enslavement? The biblical concept is not lifetime slavery but indentured servitude for no more than seven years. Call it the debtor’s obligation to work off a debt at the creditor’s discretion.
Torah’s judicial processes are common sense and avoid formal laws to cover an immense variety of situations. Judges in many places are authorized to act with great discretion, proceeding from subjective yet optimal common sense considerations, a latitude that effectively abrogates formal law. Why not convert to the biblical system of minimal regulations interpreted by honest and reasonable elected judges? Modern evidentiary procedures are not different—two or three witnesses and exhibits.
The Torah requires witnesses to carry out the court’s sentence of punishment. Far fewer people would testify falsely or from hearsay if they had to execute the person they accused. Ancients killed easily; farmers slaughtered often. Modern people shrink from carrying out an execution, but men should be resolute enough to carry out justice on criminals, not to push the task off on the despised executioners.
Torah protects property rights, though listing a wife among other assets is a bit odd for a unisex society: “Do not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his donkey, or ox.” Since another commandment prohibits stealing, this one unusually prohibits attitude, not action. Violation is impossible to assert and causes no punishment. “Do not covet” is at the heart of community relations: envy destroys mutual trust and bonds of neighborhood. Conforming to liberal ideals, seven of the Ten Commandments formulate only negative rules: prohibitions, not procedures, telling people how they may not act but not telling them how they should. The commandment of Sabbath observance is actually negative: do not work.
The positive commandment, love G-d, is the basis of acceptance of the other commandments. It establishes the nation. Another positive commandment, respect parents, establishes the closest social group. The third positive commandment, love neighbors, establishes the community. Creation is arbitrary and calls for positive commandments, axioms. Note the weakening of bonds: love G-d, respect parents, do not harm neighbors.
Biblical morality is congruent with the values of a responsible individualist and treats society only in the context of dealing with criminals and enemies. Individual people are free and independent in other respects. Made in the image of G-d, they are the ultimate end of biblical ethics.
Judaism is not about personal happiness, or else marijuana-induced euphoria would be superior to religion. Judaism is not about strengthening a group, or else teachings of self-abdication would be more expedient. Judaic teaching balances interests: enjoy yourself, respect your family, do no harm to neighbors, and do not prey on others. The world created is the holiest place, and Judaism is the manual for it.
International law: Might makes Right
1. The US and EU took Kosovo away from Serbia.
2. China took Tibet from the Tibetans.
3. Russia took South Ossetia from the Georgians.
This list obviously goes on and on (look what white christian America did to the native Americans: genocide, expulsion, confinement in reservations).
My point is: international “law” is complete bullshit. It’s used by the strong countries to “justify” their aggression against weaker peoples.
The Jew-hating goyim declared that 1949 temporary armistice lines, agreed to by Israel and Jordan, had become inviolable international borders in 1967 between Israel and “Palestine” (a still non-existent entity).
Why? Because they could. Because they hate Jews. And you will find that, by an amazing coincidence, everyone, liberal and conservative, who hates Jews, and wants to see a smaller more vulnerable Israel will insist that Israel must obey the “rule of law” and retreat to 1949 borders.
So am I saying that everyone who demands 1949 borders is a Jew-hater, either a goy who hates Jews or a Jew- in-name-only who hates Jews? What do you think? Am I that obscure?
Uncle you have my vote.
I get this strange feeling you and Moses were buddies at one time.
What will it take to restore these commandments?
See what the hell happens when humans stray off course.
There goes Sam telling it like it is.
Refer to #13.
I may be prescient after posting my comment #14 I just read this:
(IsraelNN.com) The Torah is considered to be the Light of the world, but Justice Minister Yaakov Ne’eman’s call Monday night for a gradual return to Jewish Law in the country set off panic among secular media and Knesset Members. Some of them called it a “backward step” into a “world of darkness.”
Jewish Law has been recognized in legislation as the basis for Israeli judicial decisions and often is quoted by the High Court, including its secular judges, but most mainstream media and several Labor and Kadima MK pounced on Justice Minister Ne’eman’s remarks. MK Ofer Pines-Paz (Labor) alleged that “a previously concealed agenda has been revealed that presents the attitude of a dark world.”
Kadima MK Nachman Shai warned, “Ne’eman must promise that Israel will remain with its laws that place it on the same level as advanced countries in the world and not with religious law that wilt turn the country backwards.”
Excuse me, why would it turn the country backwards??
Isn’t religious law the basis of all laws?
The secular-progressive movement is alive and well.
Uncle, you are no friend of the secular-progressive group.
1. Love G-d 2. Respect parents 3. Love neighbors.
Secular-progressives believe:
1. you don’t need G-d
2. the government and not your parents should determine what is good for you
3. neighbors and you are subjects to the state and don’t need one another
Time to return to religious law.
I only wish I knew the meaning of the word “prescient”.
I am assuming that it has something to do with enormously high self-esteem.
Or is it that new feminine hygiene spray that also kills termites?
Whatever it is, I am sure that it is just swell!
“prescient” means that I knew in advance that you would say:
“I am assuming that it has something to do with enormously high self-esteem.
Or is it that new feminine hygiene spray that also kills termites?
Whatever it is, I am sure that it is just swell!”
Livni: Torah is troubling
Livni, others lambasted Justice Minister Neeman for expressing hope that some day Israeli legal system would come closer to the Torah. According to Livni, such intent must be troubling for every citizen of Israel.
Solomn, If you were as wise as your namesake, you would be a Macher, but you ain’t. We live in a jungle and to survive, one must be a lion. So butt out and go daydream about how much you love Obama.
That is impressive.
Let’s go to Vegas.
Yamit – this is a perfect definition (in my opinion) of what Judaism is (or should be) all about… Bear this in mind when you respond to my “other” rant.
We all have and need an all powerful G-d who answers our prayers in periods of great need.
Example, thousands of Allied troops have returned from both Iraq and Afghanistan- Many hundred of I.D.F. vets returned from Lebanon and on many occasions they returned with severed legs, arms and/or both.
If religiously inclined, they would pray for the regeneration of their lost limbs. And in every example, with no exception their prayers would fall on deaf ears. not even one little miracle. here we have an unambigious test of the Almighty’s omnicient power.
Might as well pray to your pet Cat for deliverence.
I thought the essence of Judaism was to foreclose on the Gentiles.
My understanding is that Judaism provides a set of moral guidelines that provide the conduit for rising above basic human instincts.
Unlike most other religions, it is less faith-based than value-based.
The Jewish God is unswayed by assertions of devotion.
He demands to see His will reflected in the actions of His People.
The attraction of Judaism is the “put up or shut up” component.
The priority is behavior, not rhetoric…which is almost unique among religions.
In many faiths, the way to heaven consists of lavishing praise and paeans of devotion upon the deity.
You can’t sweet talk our Lord.
He is a bottom line guy, as Noah’s contemporaries learned the hard way.
If religiously inclined, they would pray for the strength to cope with their challenges and thank the Lord for sparing their lives.
Israel: “Jewish and democratic” versus a Torah state
Judaism either comes from G-d or it doesn’t.
If Judaism comes from G-d, then we are obligated to establish a Torah State in Israel (however imperfect that may be, since after all, we are humans and not divine (which G-d, our Creator, of course understands).
If, on the other hand, Judaism is man-made superstitious bullshit, then who needs Israel? Israelis can just move to Obamerica and let the muslims have Israel.
Surely it can’t be that simple. But I think it is (and I’m pretty clever, if I say so myself).
(And having said that, can someone please explain to me why I am still living in America with the English-speaking goyim, instead of in Israel with the Hebrew-speaking goyim?)
Fistel:
No Torah state Shmuel, there is little patience amongst Israelis, Jewish or otherwise to be ruled by heeby Ayotollahs. We have enough problems with Rabbis in Shule, do we need them in the Knesset? Feh, that would be a sacrilege!
The Torah tells us: in the image of G-d He created him” (Genesis 1:27). Man being created in the“image of G-d” means that G-d created beings who have the ability to make decisions, and those decisions will create consequences that will make this being a co-partner in the development of the world. This has many ramifications as far as “why bad things happen to good people”
A world where a human being can create himself into a Moses, also carries the possibility of a person creating himself into a Hitler.
Sometimes G-d does make a miracle, but it is always in a way that is not obvious, that enables us to retain free choice.
After the Exodus from Egypt when the Red Sea split, it was obvious to everyone that God had performed a miracle. Yet the Torah tells us “that a strong east wind blew all night” (Exodus 14:21). Why was there a strong wind blowing? Because G-d had to leave open at least the possibility for someone to say, “No, there was no miracle. It was a fluke of nature and the wind split the sea.”
In the first Gulf War, 39 Scud Missiles rained down on Israel and only one person was killed (from a heart attack). What would it take for that to happen? Guaranteed you would have told me it would take a miracle, but it happened and many still have doubt.
Unfortunately, the way a lot of Jews relate to punishment has been very heavily influenced by Christianity, which is that G-d is always ready to get me with “fire and brimstone.” No offense, but the Jewish idea is much different. G-d is our merciful Father. He’s an infinite being that has no needs. Punishment cannot mean that He’s “getting something.” And this is the key to understanding the Jewish concept of chastisement.
In Exodus 33:13, Moses asks God, “Make Your ways known to me.” The commentators explain that there are “50 Gates of Wisdom,” and Moses had reached the 49th Gate. This means that only one aspect of existence was still unknown to him. And which was that? The issue of “why bad things happen to good people.” So what was God’s answer? “I’m sorry, but this is the one thing that no human can ever comprehend.” (see Exodus 33:20)
A poem I read once sums up the essence of Judaism I think:
I asked for strength and
God gave me difficulties to make me strong.
I asked for wisdom and
God gave me problems to solve.
I asked for prosperity and
God gave me brawn and brain to work.
I asked for courage and
God gave me dangers to overcome.
I asked for love and
God gave me troubled people to help…
My prayers were answered.
What might those problems be Tootsie?
The only sacrilege I can see on this site is your continued presence. To extend this thought your existence in this world is a sacrilege if not to G-d (he’s merciful) then to me (I’m not so merciful).
Remember Din Rodef!
Ayn you hit the nail on the head and you got it right.
Years ago while in school the nuns taught us the importance of practicing our faith and not be impressed with all the so called lavishing displays by some Catholics and so called Catholic countries. Our Catholic behavior and how we treat others is what G-d/God will judge us on not by our lavishing parades.
Uncle, that’s what it’s all about.
Live by the Torah and you can’t go wrong.
It is that simple and you are pretty clever, I enjoy your comments and mostly agree with your opinions.
Every Jew in Galut will offer up reason (excuses): Yehuda HaLevi said “if a Jew really wanted to make aliyah he would, even walk all the way”. Many have done just that, walked all the way.
Uncle if you expect Sam to do just that you had better call on your old friend Moses to clear a path for him.
Better still, knowing G-d/God and Moses are up to date, I am sure an airline ticket would show up along with travel expense.
They prefer to keep a low profile on little miracles.
Moses, Muhammad, and the 49th gate:
Jews believe that Moses was as perfect a human being as possible, given that only G-d is perfect, while all humans, His Creations, must of necessity be flawed (perfect human beings would not be human anymore; they would be angels lacking free will.)
Christians say that jesus was the perfect man-god.
Jews taught Judaism to muhammad. Muhammad then turned on the Jews. He said that the kaaba in mecca is more important than the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Nonetheless, when he decided to ascend to heaven to meet allah, his earthly point of departure was the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. That is because of the Jewish belief that Jacob’s ladder ascending to heaven was based on the Temple Mount.
As muhammad ascended through the seven heavens on his way up to see allah, he passed jesus and Moses on the way (proving that they were less important than he).
After muhammad’s death, his muslim followers conquered the entire christian Middle East. Formal islamic theology was then formulated by a combination of arab muslims and christian Middle Eastern Semites who converted to islam.
In order to aid christian conversion, muhammad was elevated in muslim theology. As opposed to Moses, who was as perfect a human being as possible, the muslims claimed that muhammad was “a totally perfect human being” whose every action while on earth served as an example of proper behavior for his followers for all time to come (including beheading Jews and having sex with nine year old girls, as long as you marry them first).
So when you meet a believing muslim, remember that he despises you as a Jew for altering the Torah and for thinking Moses is better than muhammad, and that he despises you as a christian for altering the gospels, for lying about jesus’ death and divinity, and for thinking that jesus is better than muhammad.
(Muslims: can’t live with them, and the liberals won’t let you live without them.)
It’s without fail, G-d keeps calling Samuel and he listens.
Pingback: Arab Claims, Arab Lies, Arab BS: Israel Has a Better Title to the Territories Including the Whole of Jerusalem… — Winds Of Jihad By SheikYerMami