bs"d
Dear Rabbi Zwiebel, amv"sh
Ruth Matar sent out this very funny scenario for the President's home, the Crawford Ranch in Texas. (or would be funny if it wasn't so realistic as described below),
As Public Affairs liaison for Agudath Yisroel of America please show the letter below to the President of the United States with these minor modifications.
I would change the sentence "Giving Manhattan back to the Indians was not discussed" to "Giving Manhattan back to the Indians" is for "final stage" negotiations." I would add the following.
With respect to the issue of Manhattan, one "understands the importance of Manhattan psychologically, emotionally and practically," and that everybody recognized that this would be one of the most difficult issues to resolve. But we must show that we are willing to move in the direction of peace with our neighbors and are committed to the Two State solution, a sovereign Hispanic state called the Republica del Norte living side by side in peace and democracy with what's leftover of the United (rather Divided) States of America.
AMERICA'S 'PALESTINIANS'
Letter from Ruth Matar (Women in Green) Jerusalem
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Letter from Ruth Matar (Women in Green) Jerusalem
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Dear Friends,
I received the following very timely letter from David Heimbold. I had actually been planning for some time to write something on that order as my weekly Internet article. I think David Heimbold's article, in addition to being funny, goes to the heart of the so called "Palestinian problem". The following is David Heimbold's letter in its entirety.
Bush to give his Crawford Ranch back to Mexico
Pinch me, I think I'm dreaming!
President George Bush is planning to give his Crawford Ranch back to Mexico, according to an unnamed Middle East source. This jester of understanding and good will is meant to signal to the Israeli/Palestinian team of negotiators, that George Bush means business.
The relinquishment of the Crawford Ranch to Mexico will take place at the end of President Bush's term in office. The offer is conditional. Here are the details, according to Abdul Farcical:
As you know the Crawford Ranch is on occupied territory. The borders of Texas were settled in 1849 after the United States stole the territory from Mexico.
President Bush has realized that he is living in luxury while Mexicans live in poverty just across the Mexican Border.
Therefore, President Bush has insisted that Israel start the negotiations for the twenty third Arab State, and the second Palestinian state, from the Israel borders of 1949.
According to Abdul, President Bush said that it is only fair for him to give up his Ranch to show the Israelis the path to an everlasting Peace in the Middle East
"We must all give up the occupied territories", said President Bush. "I am also encouraging Condi Rice to give up her residence and we will use our National Guard to clear an area around Condi's resident and remove ten thousand settlers immediately surrounding Condi Rice's dwelling."
"Moreover," continued the President, "We will empty the D.C. jails of armed thugs and give them Condi's, and all the other homes and businesses, and remove the 10,000 settlers to trailer parks."
"All of this will be an example of "hard choices" that have to be made to appease the down trodden Arab masses."
The President said that he had a midnight revelation. "I might stumble on some words, the President said, "but I am good at math". What he then described went something like this: "There is a 100 years difference between the settling of the American/Mexican border and the Israeli border. If you divide this by 2, that gives you two 50 year periods of time. You know, from studying Israeli literature, that the 50Th year is the year of Jubilee when everyone must forgive debts and give back land. Since there are two 50 year periods of time between these border treaties, "I thought that it would be only right if Condi and I ( 1+1=2 ) gave up our land."
Also, the President pointed to the arguments of the La Raza and Reconquista Movements in Mexico. They call themselves the "Mexican Palestinians".
The hand-over of Crawford will be the first step in returning Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California back to Mexico.
One other project is in the works: Since there is lots of oil in Alaska, the President plans on leasing Alaska back to the Russians since their Oil Production capabilities are not hindered by the Greens.
Giving Manhattan back to the Indians was not discussed.
For further information on this subject, use your imagination. If the Iranian military stopped refining uranium in 2003, the civilian nuclear program continues to the present, and both are controlled by the same government, anything is possible in Washington, D.C.
Most notable is the fact that President Bush is making treaties with foreign governments without the consent of the Senate. How is this done? By simply calling these treaties, "agreements" or "understandings" or "initiatives".
The Annapolis love fest was just another deception and obfuscation by the President with two heads...one good at math; the other lost in Foggy Bottom.
* * *
David Heimbold brings to our attention a matter which is not commonly discussed. He points out that President Bush's Crawford Ranch is considered by a not insignificant part of Mexicans as "occupied territory". In fact, there are Hispanic radical political movements in Mexico, such as La Raza and Reconquista, who call themselves the "Mexican Palestinians". His article makes us realize that the problem the United States has with the Mexicans is very similar to the problem Israel has with the Palestinians.
Heimbold's letter inspired us to search for relevant articles on the Internet. We found the following most interesting article written by Joseph Farah and published by World Net Daily in 2001.
THIS IS A MUST READ!
America's 'Palestinians'
By: Joseph Farah
By: Joseph Farah
President Bush says he wants to see a Palestinian state carved out of Israel.
He may be surprised some day soon when that statement and his recent actions in support of it come back to bite him.
Why?
Activists who see themselves as "America's Palestinians" are gearing up a movement to carve out of the southwestern United States – a region (called Aztlan) including all of Bush's home state of Texas – a sovereign Hispanic state called the Republica del Norte.
The leaders of this movement are meeting continuously with extremists from the Islamic world, and you can read for yourself how they have been inspired by the Palestinian cause, and even adopted the most vicious forms of anti-Semitism in the process, by reading their own words on their own website.
"There are great similarities between the political and economic condition of the Palestinians in occupied Palestine and that of La Raza in the southwest United States," explains an editorial from earlier this year in La Voz de Aztlan in Los Angeles, the city seen as the future capital of the new Hispanic state.
Los Angeles, you see, is the southwestern U.S. version of Jerusalem.
Ridiculous? It didn't go unnoticed among the Aztlan activists when Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn told Mexico's President Vincente Fox last week, referring to Los Angeles: "Our city is a Mexican city."
The editorial goes on to draw analogies between the Arab uprising in Israel and gang violence in Los Angeles. It's the same thing, the activists claim. This is not crime and punishment, according to the La Raza (literally, "The Race") activists, this is the birth of an independence movement by young Hispanics.
"The similarities are many," says the editorial. "The primary one, of course, is the fact that both La Raza and the Palestinians have been displaced by invaders that have utilized military means to conquer and occupy our territories. The takeover of our respective lands by foreign elements occurred 100 years apart. For La Raza, it happened in 1848 when Mexico lost the southwest at the end of the Mexican-American war and the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidlago. For the Palestinians, it occurred in 1948 when the Zionist Jewish People's Council gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum and signed the 'Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel' on the day in which the British Mandate over Palestine expired."
Are you getting the picture?
This idiotic movement takes on special meaning, however, after Sept. 11.
There is a growing body of evidence to suggest terrorists have used America's unpatrolled, unguarded borders with Mexico and Canada to infiltrate our country and to bring in arms and munitions. It's about time the American people learned there is an organized fifth column of U.S. activists who would be only too glad to assist Islamic terrorists in their jihad against the Yankee imperialists. This is an alliance long in the making.
But please keep in mind what I am telling you today. This is not a column about illegal aliens. This is not a column about problems with the border. This is not a column about how our culture is being changed by mass migration. This is a story about a movement to create a new state within the borders of the continental United States.
And the logic and rationale for this movement is the same logic and rationale (if you can call it that) being employed to make the case for a Palestinian state. Americans need to understand this argument can and will be used against them – soon.
Fidel Castro has, not surprisingly, lent his support to this independence movement. California politicians pay lip service to it and kowtow to its demands. It may seem irrelevant. It may seem innocuous. It may seem like little more than an annoyance. But today – after Sept. 11 – it represents a national security threat.
Meanwhile, President Bush ignores this budding "intifada" in his own back yard and chooses, instead, to tell the Israelis they must carve up their own tiny state to make a homeland for dangerous radicals who want only to destroy them.
And remember, these independence movements are never really about the creation of autonomous states. Instead, they are diversionary movements designed, ultimately, to destroy existing states – in the Middle East, Israel and in the West, the United States of America.
He may be surprised some day soon when that statement and his recent actions in support of it come back to bite him.
Why?
Activists who see themselves as "America's Palestinians" are gearing up a movement to carve out of the southwestern United States – a region (called Aztlan) including all of Bush's home state of Texas – a sovereign Hispanic state called the Republica del Norte.
The leaders of this movement are meeting continuously with extremists from the Islamic world, and you can read for yourself how they have been inspired by the Palestinian cause, and even adopted the most vicious forms of anti-Semitism in the process, by reading their own words on their own website.
"There are great similarities between the political and economic condition of the Palestinians in occupied Palestine and that of La Raza in the southwest United States," explains an editorial from earlier this year in La Voz de Aztlan in Los Angeles, the city seen as the future capital of the new Hispanic state.
Los Angeles, you see, is the southwestern U.S. version of Jerusalem.
Ridiculous? It didn't go unnoticed among the Aztlan activists when Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn told Mexico's President Vincente Fox last week, referring to Los Angeles: "Our city is a Mexican city."
The editorial goes on to draw analogies between the Arab uprising in Israel and gang violence in Los Angeles. It's the same thing, the activists claim. This is not crime and punishment, according to the La Raza (literally, "The Race") activists, this is the birth of an independence movement by young Hispanics.
"The similarities are many," says the editorial. "The primary one, of course, is the fact that both La Raza and the Palestinians have been displaced by invaders that have utilized military means to conquer and occupy our territories. The takeover of our respective lands by foreign elements occurred 100 years apart. For La Raza, it happened in 1848 when Mexico lost the southwest at the end of the Mexican-American war and the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidlago. For the Palestinians, it occurred in 1948 when the Zionist Jewish People's Council gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum and signed the 'Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel' on the day in which the British Mandate over Palestine expired."
Are you getting the picture?
This idiotic movement takes on special meaning, however, after Sept. 11.
There is a growing body of evidence to suggest terrorists have used America's unpatrolled, unguarded borders with Mexico and Canada to infiltrate our country and to bring in arms and munitions. It's about time the American people learned there is an organized fifth column of U.S. activists who would be only too glad to assist Islamic terrorists in their jihad against the Yankee imperialists. This is an alliance long in the making.
But please keep in mind what I am telling you today. This is not a column about illegal aliens. This is not a column about problems with the border. This is not a column about how our culture is being changed by mass migration. This is a story about a movement to create a new state within the borders of the continental United States.
And the logic and rationale for this movement is the same logic and rationale (if you can call it that) being employed to make the case for a Palestinian state. Americans need to understand this argument can and will be used against them – soon.
Fidel Castro has, not surprisingly, lent his support to this independence movement. California politicians pay lip service to it and kowtow to its demands. It may seem irrelevant. It may seem innocuous. It may seem like little more than an annoyance. But today – after Sept. 11 – it represents a national security threat.
Meanwhile, President Bush ignores this budding "intifada" in his own back yard and chooses, instead, to tell the Israelis they must carve up their own tiny state to make a homeland for dangerous radicals who want only to destroy them.
And remember, these independence movements are never really about the creation of autonomous states. Instead, they are diversionary movements designed, ultimately, to destroy existing states – in the Middle East, Israel and in the West, the United States of America.
* * *
There is much evidence that terrorists are using the unguarded borders with Mexico and Canada to infiltrate America and bring in arms and munitions. Joseph Farah's analysis is that 'America's Palestinians' plan to create a new state within the borders of the continental United States. By the same token, the Arabs mean to establish a Palestinian state carved out of Jewish land.
Unfortunately, America's president, George W. Bush does not see the similarity between the conflicts. He persists in assisting the Arab terrorists in their goal to decimate and eliminate the Jewish State by depriving the Jews of their G-d-given Biblical Heritage, Judea and Samaria. The Jewish people have their bible as proof that the Holy Land is their eternal inheritance given them by the Master of the Universe.
President Bush!
Is your title to the Crawford Ranch as valid as the title of the Jewish people to the Holy Land?
In case of doubt, take time out to refresh your knowledge of the Judeo-Christian bible in which you, as well, profess to believe!
With Blessings and Love for Israel,
Ruth Matar
Unfortunately, America's president, George W. Bush does not see the similarity between the conflicts. He persists in assisting the Arab terrorists in their goal to decimate and eliminate the Jewish State by depriving the Jews of their G-d-given Biblical Heritage, Judea and Samaria. The Jewish people have their bible as proof that the Holy Land is their eternal inheritance given them by the Master of the Universe.
President Bush!
Is your title to the Crawford Ranch as valid as the title of the Jewish people to the Holy Land?
In case of doubt, take time out to refresh your knowledge of the Judeo-Christian bible in which you, as well, profess to believe!
With Blessings and Love for Israel,
Ruth Matar
Chaim David wrote the following comment in response to my first comment. This is my response back to him and to Avi Shafran:
Robin Ticker, consider this. Moshiach did not come yet. We are still in golus.
You claim that if the current state of Israel gives control of land back to the Palestinians the Jewish people lose it. This is simply wrong. We have been and will always be the rightful owners of Eretz Yisrael, regardless of the claim any Crusader, Turk or Briton. The State could never surrender that claim to anybody.
But until Moshiach comes and HaShem returns us in glory to our land, that claim will not be exercised. So long as the Jewish people remain in golus—where we are now—we will not be able to take over the land and use it fully with all our latent rights to it. The State of Israel cannot annul our exile by paper claims that the Jews have now returned to the land.
So the legal rights of who owns the land today according to the worthless laws of the goyim—whether it be the state or the Palestinians—are meaningless in Shamayim.
Do not worry. My inheritance, your inheritance, all our land of Israel, are protected and sure. Daven to HaShem and ask for redemption. Come and live here and commit the place you live to the place you value most—your land.
My unabridged to Chaim Dovid and to Rabbi Shafran:
There is a prevalent attitude that unless one lives in Israel, one should have no real say regarding who is chosen to represent Israel. Perhaps they are afraid that if religious Jews from the Diaspora want their voices heard and represented, then the voice of all the leftist secular Jews will also want to be heard and represented. My feeling is that the Torah is what gives us a right to the Land of Israel or rather stewardship. G-d owns the Land. By not claiming the Land as ours in order to keep the Commandments, we then don't deserve the land. In fact, the Land kicks us out. We will still eternally remain the rightful owners so long as we keep the Mitzvoth. That is the precondition. Yet, if we by choice give away our material, our candle, that can create the light, there is darkness. How can we keep the Mitzvoth Teluyot Baaretz when you give away the Land. Can one keep tefillin if they cut off their hand? At the Agudah Convention, Rabbi Malkiel Kotler and other Gedoilim BaTorah speak about Am Yisroel being One Neshama. One Guf. There is Areivus. So if the majority of Jews, chareidim and secular Jews, don't value Eretz Yisroel or the Mitzvoth of the Land, than collectively, we are all lacking. Does one have to make Aliya? That is the ideal. But as I myself painfully, G-d is in control, and actually living in the Land is a real zechus not possible unfortunately for many. However, at the very least, we need to say that Eretz Yisroel is our Land and individually do whatever we can in whatever capacity to help build, settle and do Mitzvoth teluyot Baaretz, ourselves or by helping those that have the zechus to live in the Land, for only this will bring the Moshiach. Why do some Jews think that we have to wait for Moshiach who will bring us to Eretz Yisroel. Maybe the opposite is true. Moshiach is waiting for us to show Hashem that we actually desire Eretz Yisroel. After 2000 years Hashem gives us Sovereignty and we disregard it. Hashem says if we act with happenstance then He will act to us with happenstance. How can we disregard the continuous miracles from Hashem from the beginnings of the establishment of Jewish Sovereignty till the present in Sederot? Was Kingship established in E"Y immediately after entering E"Y following the Midbar. First there was Yehoshua, then Shoftim and Shmuel. The people demanded a king too early in fact. All these Neviim Rishonim chastise Am Yisroel for not ridding their Land of the idolotry and the Goyim from the Land. These Goyim became the thorns in their sides as Hashem promised. They did to the Jews what the Jews were to do to them. In todays time they have actually stolen our identity. They claim that we are the occupiers.
In 1937 in Marienbad, the Third Kenessiah of Agudas Yisroel was held. Please read below an article from the journal HaPardes (volume 11, Issue 7, October 1937), 70 years ago, reprinted in Mishpacha Issue 179, 6 Cheshvan 5768, October 17,2007 Page 26)————————————————————————————————————-
"On Sunday, 16 Elul, the great Torah leaders discussed the question of a Jewish State, and reached the greatly anticipated decision of the congress. It was a stormy assembly, attended by the Rebbes of Gur, Ghorkov, Boyan, Sadigura, and the great Torah schoilars members of the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah (Rabbinical Council). A great battle took place, over seven hours, with struggles about every minute detail of the decision.
"Rabbi Wasserman, Rabbi Kotler, Rabbi Rottenberg of Antwerp, and rabbis from Czechoslovakia and Hungary were unanimous in rejecting any proposal for a Jewish State on either side of the Jordan River even if it were established as a religious state, because such a regime would be a form of heresy in our faith in the belief in the coming of the Mashiach and especially since this little Jewish State would be built on heresy and desecration of the Name of G-d.
"Arguing against them were the Rebbes of Boyan and Sadigura. Rabbi Tzirelson, the president of the congress, Rabbi [Aharon] Lewin of Reisha [the head of the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah] and Rabbi Sorotzkin, [who said that] it is possible to agree, according to the laws of the Torah, to the establishment of a Jewish State in a portion of the Eretz Yisael without denying the belief in the coming of redeemer. There is no need to be concerned that the nonreligious would use the Jewish State to attack our religion. therefore, it is forbidden to reject entirely the matter of the Jewish State; rather we must pursue expanding its borders and ensuring that the laws of a Jewish State will be founded on religion and tradition, and we must protest that they did not consult frum Judaism and did not include its leaders in this discussion.
"Those in favor won the vote! All the decisions were accepted affirmatively."
Although the majority of the congress seemed to be in favor of the partition plan, the text of the resolution of the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah contains the statements. " The foundation of the Jewish peoples right to the Holy Land is based on the Torah and the prophets…A Jewish State not based on the principles of Torah is a denial of Jewish origin, is opposed to the identity and to the true stature of our people, and undermines the basis of existence of our people…Any relinquishment of the Holy Land given to the Jewish people by G-d has no validity" (HaPardes 11:6)
————————————————————————————————————-
My question is how come when the Moetzes Gedolei Hatorah saw that there was a possiblity to return to Eretz Yisroel, and felt they were too weak to take on the Chilonim? Why didn't they use all their influence to convince the Jews to go to Eretz Yisroel in order to make it a place based on Torah and Mitzvoth. Why did they allow the Chilonim to take over? Apparently, they did not want to join with those that were anti Torah. Had they in 1937 called all Jews to go to Eretz Yisroel, then perhaps these Jews might have survived the Holocaust. So now let's undo the mistake of not consulting with our Gedolei Batorah regarding a Torah Authority in Eretz Yisroel. It is my impression that if Rav Eliashiv and the other Rabbanim of Moetzes Gedolei Hatorah would be presented with the goal of setting up a Judean Authority based on Torah, they would welcome and support the idea with open arms. Hasn't this been our prayers for the last 2,000 years? In addition it would be advantageous to also bring unity with Rabbanim in the Religious Zionist camps and with the established Sanhedrin who clearly came out against the disengagement. Why not even join with Satmar and convince them that we are facing an enemy that is out to destroy us? Why can't we insist to keep the Mitzvah of Shemittah in E"Y. Why not believe that a Torah Authority is truly a possibility. It is only not a reality because the majority of Jews do not support it as a reality. If there can be a Palestinian Authority than for sure let there be instead a Torah Authority in Yesha. It's a catch 22. We need a majority of Jews to support a Yesha Torah Authority. We are not talking about physically moving to Yesha, though that is the ideal, but simply to support the idea, the dream. Not to label these G-d fearing Jews as extremists, or Messianic extremists. Many Jews say we will not support this idea because there is not yet a majority supporting this idea. Just the fringe. It is not politically correct. We will sound too racist, just like our enemies.
Let us remind our fellow Jew that Eretz Yisroel with a Torah based constitution with a Sanhedrin is Torah.
The moral justification of such an action (ceding from the State of Israel) needs support from the Jews. If the only objection is implementation, we are too weak etc, that is a seperate issue. If there is open support and backing for the moral legitimacy of the Jews of Yesha to cede from the State of Israel, that alone is a deterrent for the Government of Israel to execute any military operation against Yesha communities. Questions about how the Jews in Yesha should respond when the gov't asks them to relinquish their weapons should be seriously addressed since it's imminently relevant. Once weapons are relinquished it will be that much more difficult to defend oneself and that is why the government is being proactive. Shailoth regarding disobeying immoral orders such as refusing to expel fellow Jew from Judea and Samaria should be addressed. Soldiers who find themselves conscientious objectors for the IDF need another venue where their desire to truly defend Eretz Yisroel is actualized. You might argue that we are too weak to start our own Torah Authority. It's not practical. First of all, I am convinced that indeed it is very possible if there is desire by the majority of Jews. But look at the alternative. We are looking another Hitler in the face. It's either we put our trust in the Ribbono Shel Olam or we face another holocaust chas vechalila. What is the point in waiting to openly declare that E"Y is our inheritance. It may be too late later. We can say we davan and let Hashem fight out battles. I believe then that Hashem will fight our battles and we will survive. However, Chas Vechalila will just a small remnant survive? We want the entire Nation to be worthy. And for that the Nation must act on faith. They must say that we believe Hashem's promises in the Torah regarding Shemittah. We will endeavor to keep the Mitzvah. For that we need the Land. Heter Mechira is not an option and neither is actually giving the Land away. We put our faith in Hashem and He will provide.
Shavua Tov.
I'd be interested in your comments.
.