bs"d
This sounds a bit crazy but what rational explanation is there?
The Arabs call this a Holy War. In Article Six of the Hamas Charter it says "The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.
The Jews are afraid to bring up the Bible and G-d's Covenant with our forefathers. They are afraid people will consider them no different that radical Hamas. (Islam has hijacked religion and allegiance to a Higher Authority)..
--
Sincerely,
Robin Ticker
Activist emails sent to my list are L'Ilui Nishmat Yisrael ben David Aryeh ob"m (Izzy - Kaplan) and Howard Chaim Grief great activists and lovers of Eretz Yisroel, Am Yisroel and the Torah. Yehi Zichronum Baruch. May their memories serve as a blessing.
Most of these emails are posted on Shemittahrediscovered.blogspot.com
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Eidelberg <foundation612.12@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 3:09 AM
Subject: To Be or Not to Be: Or why Shimon Peres Reversed Himself
To: Paul Eidelberg <foundation612.12@gmail.com>
From: Paul Eidelberg <foundation612.12@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 3:09 AM
Subject: To Be or Not to Be: Or why Shimon Peres Reversed Himself
To: Paul Eidelberg <foundation612.12@gmail.com>
To Be or Not to Be: Or why Shimon Peres Reversed Himself
Prof. Paul Eidelberg
Last month – on September 1, 2014, to be exact – I wrote an article "Netanyahu, the Disciple of Shimon Peres." The article, which ended with unanswered questions, referred to a book authored by Shimon Peres, Tomorrow is Now (Jerusalem: Keter, 1978). The book was publicized by IMRA (Middle East News & Analysis). IMRA described the book in striking terms, which I quoted in my article, and which bears repeating, only now I shall answer my article's unanswered questions. Here are the key passages of IMRA's bon mot of Peres' book:
● Why would any rational person shift from a well-founded position to a demonstrably ill-founded and lethal position?
● What induced Peres to endorse a policy he previously rejected as perilous …?
● Why would any responsible leader urge his people down a path that he himself warned was disastrous …?
Prof. Paul Eidelberg
Last month – on September 1, 2014, to be exact – I wrote an article "Netanyahu, the Disciple of Shimon Peres." The article, which ended with unanswered questions, referred to a book authored by Shimon Peres, Tomorrow is Now (Jerusalem: Keter, 1978). The book was publicized by IMRA (Middle East News & Analysis). IMRA described the book in striking terms, which I quoted in my article, and which bears repeating, only now I shall answer my article's unanswered questions. Here are the key passages of IMRA's bon mot of Peres' book:
The following is a chillingly accurate prediction made in 1978 by none other than Shimon Peres. In it he foresaw, in precise detail, the dire perils that would result if Israel were to embark on precisely the policy he himself championed and which he continues to advocate with passion: "The establishment of such a [Palestinian] state means the inflow of combat-ready Palestinian forces (more than 25,800 men under arms) into Judea and Samaria; this force, together with the local youth, will double itself in a short time. It will not be short of weapons or other [military] equipment, and in a short space of time, an infrastructure for waging war will be set up in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. Israel will have problems in preserving day-to-day security, which may drive the country into war, or undermine the morale of its citizens. In time of war, the frontiers of the Palestinian state will constitute an excellent staging point for mobile forces to mount attacks on infrastructure installations vital for Israel's existence, to impede the freedom of action of the Israeli air-force in the skies over Israel, and to cause bloodshed among the population in areas adjacent to the frontier-line."Now for the unanswered questions alluded to earlier, which I introduced by saying that the citizens of Israel should demand an explanation for this dramatic shift in Peres' position: from total opposition to total support for Palestinian statehood. I asked:
● Why would any rational person shift from a well-founded position to a demonstrably ill-founded and lethal position?
● What induced Peres to endorse a policy he previously rejected as perilous …?
● Why would any responsible leader urge his people down a path that he himself warned was disastrous …?
I shall now try to answer these questions.
The above questions seem to involve nothing more than the Israel's national security. In fact, however, they involve not only the nation's security, but also the most fundamental question of politics, WHO SHALL RULE? This was the issue underlying the Rabin Government's policy of "land for peace," which precipitated the Israel-PLO Agreement of September 1993, as well as the Sharon Government's policy of disengagement from Gaza in August 2005 – the former, a Labor or leftwing government; the latter, a Likud and reputedly rightwing government.
What did these two governments have in common? Both were ruled by secularists. Both advocated the policy of "land for peace." What land were these governments willing to bestow on the Palestinian Authority (PA), ostensibly for the sake of peace? More precisely, what was the most distinctively Jewish land that the Labor and Likud parties were willing to turn over to the Muslim-Arab rulers of the PA? The answer is obvious: Judea and Samaria, the cradle of Jewish civilization.
Judea and Samaria is the land on which the prophets of Israel walked and taught and formed the unique national identity of the Jewish people, their historical memory and consciousness.
The above questions seem to involve nothing more than the Israel's national security. In fact, however, they involve not only the nation's security, but also the most fundamental question of politics, WHO SHALL RULE? This was the issue underlying the Rabin Government's policy of "land for peace," which precipitated the Israel-PLO Agreement of September 1993, as well as the Sharon Government's policy of disengagement from Gaza in August 2005 – the former, a Labor or leftwing government; the latter, a Likud and reputedly rightwing government.
What did these two governments have in common? Both were ruled by secularists. Both advocated the policy of "land for peace." What land were these governments willing to bestow on the Palestinian Authority (PA), ostensibly for the sake of peace? More precisely, what was the most distinctively Jewish land that the Labor and Likud parties were willing to turn over to the Muslim-Arab rulers of the PA? The answer is obvious: Judea and Samaria, the cradle of Jewish civilization.
Judea and Samaria is the land on which the prophets of Israel walked and taught and formed the unique national identity of the Jewish people, their historical memory and consciousness.
Surrendering Judea and Samaria to the disciples of Muhammad would eviscerate not only the hearts and minds of the Jewish people, but it would also undermine their physical security – and security is the paramount concern of Peres's book Tomorrow is Now, and of the policy of "land for peace" pursued by both Labor and the Likud.
We see here a dichotomy between the security of the Jewish people, which requires their retention of Judea and Samaria, and the national identity of the Jewish people, which requires their retention of this holy land.
But it was precisely retention of this land that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a reputed "nationalist" and "right-winger," renounced in his speech at Bar-Ilan University on June 14, 2009, when he endorsed the creation of a Palestinian state that would encompass Judea and Samaria!
It thus appears that Netanyahu is hoisted by his own petard. He is willing to sacrifice Judea and Samaria, his country's Jewish spiritual identity, for the sake of Israel's physical security, but would undermine both by advocating a Palestinian state!
This dilemma dissolves once we recognize that the paramount objective of the Likud and Labor parties – evidence to the contrary notwithstanding – is NOT security but POWER, more precisely, WHO SHALL RULE? Shall it be Israel's religious Jews or its non-religious Jews? This is why Judea and Samaria are so crucial.
This is the land that both the Labor-led Government of Yitzchak Rabin and the Likud-led Government of Benjamin Netanyahu are willing to surrender to the Palestinians. These Arabs are infinitely more faithful to Islam than such Jews are to Judaism – Jews who, like Esau, are willing to sacrifice their heritage for the potage of peace.
We see here a dichotomy between the security of the Jewish people, which requires their retention of Judea and Samaria, and the national identity of the Jewish people, which requires their retention of this holy land.
But it was precisely retention of this land that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a reputed "nationalist" and "right-winger," renounced in his speech at Bar-Ilan University on June 14, 2009, when he endorsed the creation of a Palestinian state that would encompass Judea and Samaria!
It thus appears that Netanyahu is hoisted by his own petard. He is willing to sacrifice Judea and Samaria, his country's Jewish spiritual identity, for the sake of Israel's physical security, but would undermine both by advocating a Palestinian state!
This dilemma dissolves once we recognize that the paramount objective of the Likud and Labor parties – evidence to the contrary notwithstanding – is NOT security but POWER, more precisely, WHO SHALL RULE? Shall it be Israel's religious Jews or its non-religious Jews? This is why Judea and Samaria are so crucial.
This is the land that both the Labor-led Government of Yitzchak Rabin and the Likud-led Government of Benjamin Netanyahu are willing to surrender to the Palestinians. These Arabs are infinitely more faithful to Islam than such Jews are to Judaism – Jews who, like Esau, are willing to sacrifice their heritage for the potage of peace.
To be or not to be: this is Israel's quintessential question.◙
Sincerely,
Robin Ticker
Activist emails sent to my list are L'Ilui Nishmat Yisrael ben David Aryeh ob"m (Izzy - Kaplan) and Howard Chaim Grief great activists and lovers of Eretz Yisroel, Am Yisroel and the Torah. Yehi Zichronum Baruch. May their memories serve as a blessing.
Most of these emails are posted on Shemittahrediscovered.blogspot.com
Personal emails to individuals will not be posted to my blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment