Where is the sense in left wing Israeli Politics?

I just don’t get it. Even the ultra left humanitarian tree huggers of J-Street saw what happened in Gaza, and were shocked with the plan for a massive Rosh Hashana action that would have devastated all Jewry. Settlers? These were Kibbutzim in line.

We have the physics master telling us God doesn’t exist (do we believe him because he is disabled and we tend to subconsciously ascribe more genius to him as a result out of Rachmonus) Where is his cure for cancer, he could have turned to that, it might have been more useful than models that don’t seem to stand more than ten years before a better model emerges.

We have a President in his last stage, whose entire path seems to be that he “won’t repeat Bush’s mistakes”. In  pursuing this one-minded agenda he has deluded himself that he actually has friends in the Arab world and that they don’t ultimately treat him as a denier. He has failed to apply proportionality. Why doesn’t he take a prisoner from Guantanamo Bay (that he was desperate to close down) and behead him on TV. Now, that’s proportionality. A head for a head. Even the Bible doesn’t say that, so he can’t be accused of being partial. I see that civilians are killed in his bombings. Isn’t his army perfect?

He knows full well that the aged Shimon Peres, our picture/news seeking missile, that Mahmoud Abbas hasn’t got the strength or the political belief to make peace ever. Abbas just wants to go to his grave as a “great leader” like Arafat, ימ’’ש and not be shot in the head by Hamastan.

Yerusholyaim is not for sale, in the words of Mordechai Ben David, except where Arabs sell their land to the Jews and even then we are “settlers”. It’s a pejorative. Settling the City of David is a pejorative?

We buy it legally and live therein. Is there something particularly historically Arab about Silwan. Any honest historian knows the Palestinians are at best nothing to do with a long history, but an existentialism (no different to Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria et al) that were “created” ex nihilo by the Turks and British. Is that some sort of Klipa that we have to honour?

No, there is only one answer, and that is a strong, unforgiving, determined, and lasting Israel. No compromise on anything. If you give an inch, they take a mile. There is no Rambam that says that the COMMENCEMENT of the ingathering of the exiles can’t preclude Moshiach.

בונים בחול ואחר כך מקדישים

Our politicians are a disgrace. No sooner than the rockets have stopped temporarily, and we are surrounded by the biggest threats since the establishment of the State and they pretend like political marionettes that they have a “peace” partner in Abu Mazen, the infamous holocaust belittler. They have no morals. Even Yair Lapid has more morals than they, and Tzippi Livni seems to have finally come to her senses.

The only way forward is the no nonsense and unambiguous approach of Naftali Bennett. Don’t like him? He’s more moderate than the Iranians, and the Qataris and all the riffraff that Obama and his side kick and delicately coiffured Kerry pretend they have respect for.

The word diplomacy needs to be rested. It has no place in the current climate. The only thing that will change the status quo is the realisation of those who want to eradicate us, that we are not budging. We are expanding on all fronts, and their time for farnarkling through multiple processes where they could have built a viable demilitarised state is running out. They must make the move. The UN is just a prostitute.

On Yom Hashoah we say “Never Again”. I wouldn’t trust those words with the left-wing in Israeli politics. The Meretz types, the opportunists and the seat piners and liners. This is no joke.

Let me say it in plain English.

They do NOT accept a Jewish State. End of Story. No Jewish State, means we have NOBODY to talk to. If you put deodorant on a stinging wound, it will still stink to high hell, and will likely also hurt. No deodorants, no more, pardon my language, it’s all bull dust. Close the doors and open them when someone normal is standing at the gate. Two State Solution? They don’t recognise one state!

If Hezbollah have a notion of starting with us, then we must not dillydally. We must ignore the world, and destroy them for their aggression in a very aggressive quick and no-nonsense all out attack. THIS is “Never Again”, not the lovely poetry and fancy speeches on Yom Hashoa.

Wake up Yidden! Stop falling for all the diplo-crap. We might be going into temporary dwellings over Succos, but those observing most of the Mitzvos of the Torah deserve quiet and solid dwellings for the rest of the year.


Calling on the leftist intelligentsia: why only Moshiach will result in peace

I have long known about this rule of Islam and it never ceases to amaze me that “the west” remains deluded into thinking it will ever change

this is an excellent analysis and should be not only compulsory reading for all Jews, it should be compulsory reading for anyone.

I also reproduce it below from the Jerusalem Post in case the link moves.

The World From Here: Will Abbas defy Islam for peace with Israel?

by Dan Diker and Harold Rhode

“Can Israeli concessions influence the Palestinians to sign an historic peace deal that ends the Arab-Israeli conflict once and for all?”
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas at a PLO meeting in Ramallah, October 2, 2013. Photo: REUTERS/Mohamad Torokman Israel’s release of convicted Palestinian terrorists and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s reported agreement in principle to concessions in the Jordan Valley beg an important question: Can Israeli concessions influence the Palestinians to sign an historic peace deal that ends the Arab-Israeli conflict once and for all?

The experience of former prime ministers Barak and Olmert with their Palestinian counterparts may be helpful in understanding that even the most far-reaching Israeli concessions have failed to end the conflict for an historically under-appreciated reason: Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas would be required to defy Islam’s view of territorial sovereignty to arrive at a compromise with Israel. In short, once Islam conquers territory, it remains Muslim forever.

Two recent historical examples illustrate the problem. Following the collapse of the ill-fated Camp David Accords in 2000, former prime minister Ehud Barak summed up his experience negotiating with former PA chairman Yasser Arafat and the PA leadership in a “tell all” interview with Israeli historian Benny Morris. Barak said, “What they [Arafat and his colleagues] want is a Palestinian state in all of Palestine….Arafat does not recognize the existence of a Jewish people or nation, only a Jewish religion.”

According to the Barak interview, “Arafat denied that any Jewish temple has ever stood on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and this is a microcosm of his denial of the Jews’ historical connection and claim to the Land of Israel/ Palestine, which from his point of view has been Muslim since it was conquered by Islam in 637 CE. Hence, in December 2000, Arafat refused to accept even the vague formulation proposed by former US President Bill Clinton positing Israeli sovereignty over the earth beneath the Temple Mount’s surface area.” Dennis Ross also noted in his book, A Missing Peace, that Arafat even refused to concede the ancient Jewish Western Wall to Israel.

Abbas is also “claimed” by Islam’s view of territory. As Arafat’s loyal deputy at the time, and as Arafat’s successor, Abbas similarly denied the existence of Israel’s ancient temple as recently as July 2012, telling an Israeli Arab daily, “Anyone who wants to forget the [Islamic] past [i.e., the Israelis] cannot come and claim that the [Jewish] temple is situated beneath the Haram [the Muslim shrines].”

Abbas’s dedication to Islam’s uncompromising sovereignty over Muslim territory also explains his rejection of Olmert’s equally far-reaching peace offer in 2008. Olmert would later recall in a 2009 interview Abbas’s zerosum stance on Jerusalem, saying, “I would never agree to an exclusive Muslim sovereignty over areas that are religiously important to Jews and Christians.”

Barak and Olmert’s recollections provide context to Abbas’s approach to the current negotiations with Israel. The prime ministers’ post mortems also illustrate a tenet of Islam that has been frequently overlooked by western mediators and negotiators, but which claims fealty in the Muslim world regardless of personal levels of religious observance.

Islamic jurisprudence dictates that once Muslim lands have been conquered by non-Muslims, it is prohibited for Muslims to let non-Muslims rule those lands. Muslims must ultimately reconquer them.

Professor Bernard Lewis, the preeminent western scholar of Islam and the Near East, remarks in his most recent book, Notes on a Century, regarding the view of Islam on territorial rule, “that Muslims should rule over non-Muslims is right and normal. That non-Muslims should rule over Muslims is an offense against the laws of God and nature and this is true whether in Kashmir, Palestine, Lebanon, or Cyprus.”

Lewis recalled his own visit to a local Islamic Center in Cordoba whose members are still seeking to reconvert Spanish Christians to Islam and reconquer Spain that Islam lost over 500 years ago.

If after 521 years Islam still rejects Spain as Christian, It is unsurprising that 65 years of reestablished Jewish sovereignty in Israel collide with Abbas’s refusal to accept Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. In Abbas’s view, Israel, like Spain, Lebanon, Cyprus and the other lands of the Middle East, remain Islam’s inheritance forever. If he were to concede territory to Israel, he would subject himself to the Middle Eastern concept of “eib” or humiliation and shame whereby others blame him for shaming the Palestinians, the Arab world and Islam as a whole by what is called “compromise” in the West.

Arafat claimed that he would be assassinated for signing a final peace deal with Israel. This is just as true for Abbas. As Egyptian commentator Ali Salim observed recently, “PA President Mahmoud Abbas undoubtedly knows that the minute he signs a peace deal with Israel, the Palestinian terrorist organizations will assassinate him.” Ironically perhaps, Saudi Arabia and Egypt had reportedly pushed Arafat to sign a deal with Israel in 2000. How is it possible that Arab Muslim leaders would seemingly compromise on this immutable Islamic principle that Muslim territory cannot be conceded to non-Muslims? Had he agreed to a peace deal with Israel, only Arafat personally would have been humiliated, which would not have mattered to the Saudis or the Egyptians. That is why they only pressured Arafat privately, not publicly. Otherwise Egypt and Saudi Arabia would have been shamed as well.

Peace process observers may remember a humiliated Hosni Mubarak calling Arafat “a dog” when Arafat balked at signing the Gaza Jericho agreement with Israel in Cairo in 1994.

In sum, Islam cannot permit non-Muslims to rule territories permanently that are or were once Muslim. Nevertheless, Muslims can make temporary agreements when they are weak, modeled after the agreement made by their prophet Muhammad made after his military loss at Hudaybiya in 629. Later, when Muhammad was stronger, he abrogated this agreement and defeated his enemies.

Hudaybiya therefore has ramifications, not only for Spain and Israel, as explained above, but also for other countries such as India and northwestern China which had been ruled by Muslims for centuries. Hudaybiya is equally relevant to Abbas. Like the Muslim prophet, he may agree to an interim accord due to his current weakness. But as former prime minister Barak noted in 2002, the Palestinians will always look for excuses to refrain from signing an end-of-conflict agreement.

As Israel Radio reported on December 31, 2013, Abbas now insists “all Palestinian prisoners must be released to reach an agreement.” He simply cannot agree to a permanent peace treaty that ends the conflict and all Palestinian claims and recognizes Jewish sovereignty over any part of what was British Mandatory Palestine.

Dan Diker is a Research Fellow at the International Institute for Counter Terrorism, IDC Herzelia, and a Foreign Policy Fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Dr. Harold Rhode is an Islamic affairs expert.

%d bloggers like this: