(Video) One year later — the answer to "Where Are Your Jews?" - Hillel Neuer

...My question was met with dead silence. Millions of people worldwide watched the video, witnessing for themselves the hypocrisy and double standards that characterizes much of what is said and done here. Today I have come to provide the answer to my question.

UN Watch..
unwatch.org..
10 July '18..
Link: https://www.unwatch.org/one-year-later-answer-jews/




Mr. President, one year ago in this chamber I asked the Arab states a simple question: “Where are your Jews?”

My question was met with dead silence. Millions of people worldwide watched the video, witnessing for themselves the hypocrisy and double standards that characterizes much of what is said and done here.



Today I have come to provide the answer to my question. Algeria, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Yemen, Libya—your Jews fled as refugees after suffering persecution and deadly pogroms like the Farhud of Baghdad in 1941.

Fortunately, countries like Israel, the U.S., Canada, France and others opened their doors, offering citizenship and equal rights. These Jewish refugees from Arab lands—whose suffering and losses the UN has never addressed—put their hardship behind them and built great lives for their families.

When prominent American Jews call for painful compromises for peace

...At the very least, one would wonder why signatories of such letters, concerned as they are about Israel’s demographics, do not as actively promote aliyah as they do expulsion.

Eugene Kontorovich..
Times of Israel..
31 July '13..

A group of prominent American Jews released a letter last week, calling on painful compromises for peace. The sacrifices they envisioned potentially include hundreds of thousands of Jews leaving their homes and livelihoods behind, being uprooted and relocated, all for the sake of a Jewish majority in Israel. Similarly, in April 100 prominent American Jews signed a letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu also calling for the proverbial “painful sacrifices” for peace. Apparently, such painful concession letters have become a trend.

This summer, thousands of American Jews are making precisely such painful sacrifices for peace. To preserve Israeli democracy, they will uproot themselves, leave everything behind, and move. They do so voluntarily, before the situation has reached a crisis. They do not await or expect compensation from the government.

These are the Jews making aliyah from the U.S this summer. Of course, this is not the “painful sacrifice” the signatories had in mind.

The “demographic argument” for territorial concessions holds that there are too few Jews in the areas under Israeli control. If American Jews worry about this, the most direct and positive solution is increasing the number of Jews in the area. Fortunately, America has some five million Jews, even a small portion of whom would be a real help.

On the other hand, expelling Jews from their homes in the West Bank, where many have lived for generations, will be economically and emotionally devastating for Israel. Moreover, it does not change the number of Jews between the river and the sea, and thus leaves Israel open to secessionist demands on behalf of Israeli Arabs in, say, the Negev and Galil. It is now clearer than ever that the Palestinian authorities continue to claim to represent Israeli Arabs as well– witness the demand for the release of Israeli Arab murderers as a down payment on negotiations. Thus unlike aliyah, expulsions may simply be rearranging the demographic deck chairs on the Titanic.

Honig: No Jews in Judea

Sarah Honig
Another Tack
09 June '11

http://www.sarahhonig.com/?p=861

Just try to imagine what would have happened had Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu stood before some Jewish forum and exclaimed that “from now on we won’t allow the presence of one Arab in our independent Israel with Jerusalem as its capital.”

The cacophony of condemnation from abroad, we can safely assume, would instantly surge into hysterical pandemonium. Livid politicos, their press and the public opinion they mold would seethe and fume as if nothing more racist were utterable. Inside Israel, the righteous ruckus would be no less frenzied and deafening.

But we can heave a sigh of relief. Luckily these words could never conceivably cross Netanyahu’s lips. This unkind sentiment, however, isn’t unfamiliar in our neighborhood. The Palestinian Authority’s head honcho and self-styled moderate keeps serially mouthing it – though in reverse.

Addressing a recent emergency session of Arab League foreign ministers in Doha, Qatar, Mahmoud Abbas unabashedly declared that “when an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital is established, we won’t allow the presence of one Israeli in it.”

Not to put too fine a point on it, this is the Arabic version of the German-minted Judenrein – “clean of Jews.” Yet no Arab diplomat was discomfited or shocked. Abbas consistently accentuates the same sentence with only trivial verbal variations. In December 2010, for instance, he put us on notice that “I will never allow a single Israeli to live among us on Palestinian land.”

He was most specific on July 28, 2010, when, in an uber-compromising mood, he intoned: “I’m willing to agree to a third party that would supervise the [possible future Israeli-Palestinian] agreement, such as NATO forces, but I would not agree to having Jews among the NATO forces, or that there will live among us even a single Israeli on Palestinian land.”

Presumably, in the spirit of liberal pluralism, Abbas would subject all prospective peacekeepers to the toughest of scrutinies to make sure that not even a camouflaged part-Jew manages to sneak in and contaminate Palestine’s legitimately Judenrein jurisdiction. Such understandable precautions would plausibly comprise the sort of progressivism which the Western world countenances.

Clearly the international community relishes reviling ultra-tolerant Israel while it ignores and even justifies crude Arab racism. But there’s more here than glaring hypocrisy.

The fact that Abbas never neglects to emphasize that Israelis (which really means Jews) would be strictly banned from his state should signify how impossible it is to reach any workable and sincere peace. Abbas, the world’s pampered, petulant child, harbors no qualms about denying Israel any quid pro quo for what he demands of it.

Thus Abbas upbraids Netanyahu for “demanding recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. We have rejected, and will reject, this demand. We know what his intention is. He wants to undermine the Palestinian-Arab presence inside Israel and prevent the return of refugees.” In other words, rather than be accepted as rightfully a Jewish state, Israel is in fact regarded at most as a multinational temporary entity and a candidate for impending Arabization. It wouldn’t be left in peace unless it submitted meekly to said Arabization and the eradication of its Jewishness.

It’s fair and proper for Israel to contain a large Arab minority, and to be further overrun by millions of hostile Arabs, but it’s entirely out of the question for any Jews to remain living in Judea.

That such racist stipulations are fine and dandy with the dysfunctional family of nations constitutes the single most gigantic obstacle on the path of peace. There’s nothing for which Abbas may agitate – no matter how inequitable or unreasonable – that is likely to get shot down. Not unexpectedly, outright impunity and invulnerability whet his appetite and embolden him to press for ever more and more besides. The sky is the limit. Overseas onlookers are sure to indulge his every whim.

Such license for limitless Palestinian mischief renders any peace agreement unlikely. No Israeli government, no matter how conciliatory and forthcoming, can contract an accord with the PA. Peace is foiled because the Palestinians aren’t restrained. The very amenable Ehuds – Barak and Olmert – got nowhere despite having made egregiously generous offers. In the end, everything hinged on whether or not Israel would commit suicide. Even the appeasement-minded Ehuds couldn’t quite bring themselves to slit our collective throat.

There’s no getting away from the fact that whatever pipe-dreams are promoted in our midst, they entail the most complex of arrangements because this land is so tiny and the communities so intricately intertwined. No clear divisions are possible. Therefore, the indispensable prerequisites for any sort of compromise are goodwill, mutual respect and plain honesty.

The practical minutiae of hypothetical understandings – all technically cumbersome – would be impossibly difficult even were the best of intentions prevalent. As is, only terminally naïve wishful thinkers can take for granted that the cooperative spirit would descend upon us from cloud nine and color our existence a blissful pink.

Infantile credulity in vague idyllic future harmony is hardly a reliable policy guideline. In this context, past experience is far more instructive. We have already attempted to implement deals that called for coordination and teamwork. These were hardly as complex as would be mandated, say, in Jerusalem streets. Yet even these relatively straightforward arrangements ended up highlighting the palpable paucity of honorable intentions.

The Oslo concoction created an infrastructure of joint patrols. One such covered the slender strip between Arab Kalkilya and Israeli Kfar Saba. Things seemed to proceed without a hitch on September 29, 2000 – until, out of the blue, Israeli Border Police officer Supt. Yosef Tabaja, 27, was murdered by the Arab partners with whom he had just shared a midmorning snack. After they ate, bantered and had a laugh together, the Palestinian patrolmen knelt to pray. Then they rose, approached the Israelis with drawn weapons and fired, screaming, “Allahu akhbar (God is Great)!”

Tabaja was shot in the head at close range. Another Israeli, Shalom Malul, was wounded but managed to drive off. Official Israel expressed surprise because the joint patrols were regarded as a feather in the cap of peace. “Things were going so well until now,” quipped then-prime minister Barak in disbelief. The second intifada was about to erupt.

Can greater goodwill be dependably predicted for future joint patrols? Can mutual respect be rationally anticipated when the PA unremittingly repeats that no Jew may reside east of the Green Line but that everything west of the Green Line is envisioned as space to be inundated with vengeful Arabs?

By no objective criteria can this credibly augur well for coexistence – particularly given the conspicuous absence of a cacophony of condemnation abroad for Abbas’s blatant racism. No change is likely until censure for Arab hate surges globally into hysterical pandemonium; until livid foreign politicos, their press and the public opinion they mold, seethe and fume; until a frenzied and deafening righteous ruckus arises from within Palestinian society.

But we better not hold our breath.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

For G-d - or country?

Stewart Weiss
JPost
23 November 09

The phrase "dual loyalty" is generally used to refer to Western Jews who must decide whether they support Israel, or the foreign country in which they reside.

But now, this same dilemma is occurring among our IDF soldiers, who increasingly are being asked to choose between the immutability of military orders, and their sacred religious obligations.

This is by no means a new phenomenon. There has always been a tug-of-war between the requirements of war and Halacha.

Observant soldiers, particularly in combat roles, face, early on, situations that present a clash of values: Is it permissible to violate the Shabbat - by riding in a vehicle, using a walkie-talkie, or missing prayers - while in the field? What if there is no time to don tefillin, or no succa to eat in on Succot? To what extent should one risk his life to extract a slain fellow soldier so he may be properly buried?

These and other potential conflicts have been researched by leading rabbis and written up in army manuals that are made readily available for observant recruits.

But now another flashpoint has developed; one that not only affects the individual chayal, but threatens the unity of the entire military structure: Can - or should - a soldier participate in the evacuation of a Jewish settlement, resulting in Israeli land being ceded to the Palestinians; or should the soldier refuse his orders on religious grounds?

This problem has become infinitely more acute since the 2005 disengagement - when Israeli soldiers participated in the eviction of the Jewish residents of Gaza - and is coming to a head over fears that the present government, under intense American pressure, may evacuate as many as 63 more Jewish communities in the West Bank and Jordan Valley.

Already, several soldiers have been jailed for holding up signs signaling their refusal to be part of such an action, and many more have gone on record - even before their induction - as saying they will decline, if asked, to be part of such a mission.

Related: Insubordination can save Israel

THE ARGUMENTS on both sides of this Gordian knot are powerful and persuasive. On the one hand, as part of its "purity of arms" policy, Israel has always allowed for conscientious objection to actions judged to be immoral or illegal. As a people who know all too well what atrocities can happen when soldiers "just follow orders," and we respect the right of individual soldiers to refuse to participate in extreme measures which they deem ethically unconscionable.

(Read full article)
.

The Land of Israel in Exchange for Goldstone

By Moshe Feiglin

Translated from the Hebrew article on Ma'ariv's NRG website

If it were not so dangerous, it would even be amusing. There is certainly an element of poetic justice in the fact that the same people who gleefully destroyed the homes of over 8,000 Jews in Gush Katif are now being labeled as international war criminals.

In the summer of 2005, Israel's Left waged a war against the settlers. All the forces in Israel allowed to use violence were drafted for the battle. The goal of the war, as so accurately defined by Yair Lapid was "to teach them a lesson." Not peace, not security, not anything else. The State was simply drafted to wage war against the Left's internal ideological adversary.

As far as I am concerned, anybody who took part in the crime of Expulsion is a war criminal. True, there are varying degrees of crime; beginning with Sharon and Olmert, on through the Supreme Court justices and the writers, journalists and anchormen who enthusiastically encouraged the crime, the Likud ministers who voted in favor of the Expulsion, the rabbis who gave the halachic go-ahead to carry it out and down to the soldiers who obeyed their orders. Ultimately, all of them were polluted by this war crime in some measure.

My son will be enlisting in the army next month. I said to him: "If two top officers order you to guard the entrance of a room so that nobody will prevent them from raping a woman soldier inside, you must refuse to obey your orders. And by the same token, if they order you to simply be in the second military line-up or the tenth around the expulsion of a Jew from his home in the Land of Israel - it is exactly the same thing. Exactly."

That is why there is poetic justice in the fact that the Expulsion leaders are now being accused of international war crimes. He who sacrificed his brothers and his land on the altar of international acceptance now finds himself on the international defendant's bench.

It is even amusing. Imagine that tomorrow the current government falls, and businessman Ehud Barak, no longer armed with diplomatic immunity, cannot land in London. Can you imagine a greater tragedy? Bibi and Sarah will not be able to go to the opera, as they did when half the country was in bomb shelters and 130 soldiers and citizens were killed - all in the name of Olmert's attempt to boost his Convergence scheme to continue to destroy the settlements.

Did anyone really listen to Netanyahu's speech in the UN? What was the nucleus of his speech - after he dispensed with all the melodrama? Netanyahu's speech was directed at neutralizing the danger of the Goldstone report. In other words, he wanted to ward off the danger that an entire slice of political and military leaders will not be able to go shopping at Marks and Spencer. In his speech, Bibi said that - with his support - the State of Israel took unilateral action and expelled the Jews from Gush Katif. And if you don't get this Goldstone off our backs, we will not be able to continue to expel more settlers and to establish a state of terrorists in Israel's heartland.

Like it or not, that was the crux of Netanyahu's speech: The Land of Israel in exchange for Goldstone.

I once knew a very special Jew by the name of Shlomo Baum. He was Ariel Sharon's deputy in Unit 101. Before he died, he said to me, "Shimon Peres could not care less if this entire country turns into a pile of ashes - as long as he will be left standing on top of the pile." I was naïve then and I thought that the likeable old man was exaggerating. Today I know that his analysis of Peres holds true for an entire echelon of leaders who will sell this country out so that the capitals of Europe will remain open for their pleasure. Our situation today is more dangerous than ever before because until now, the citizens of this country were able to compensate - with their sweat and blood - for the foolishness of their leaders. Now, the enemy has found the way to direct the arrows straight into our weak spot - the leaders of the State of Israel.

The danger at our threshold is much broader than the question of how our threatened leaders will behave. Historically, physical destruction has always come on the heels of demonization. Gush Katif could not have been destroyed before the demonization of the settlers that preceded the actual expulsion. Even though I was just a young boy in 1967, I still remember Nasser's propaganda against Israel that preceded the Six Day War. All the pogroms and the holocausts that we suffered in the exile were preceded by poisonous propaganda that negated the Jews' very right to exist.

Our flight from our Jewish identity and our decades-long attempt to establish a state of all its citizens in Israel precludes our ability to give a Jewish answer to the claims of the Moslem and Christian world. When we adopted their moral standards, we seated ourselves on their defendant's bench.

It makes no difference how many Israeli soldiers were killed and will be killed, G-d forbid, in our attempt to wage war according to the values of the Western world. We will always be the bad guys- the robbers - in the story. When in 1967 we did not do what we did in 1948 - and left the Arabs in our land - we proved that we accept the principle that this land actually belongs to them. When we drove out the Jews who nevertheless believed in this land and made it flourish, we irreversibly proved the claim that this land is not ours.

I was there, in Gush Katif, when it happened. There was more foreign press there than there were grains of sand. The entire world watched in anticipation to see if it would really happen. The Jews drove themselves out of their land and from that point and on, we are robbers/colonialists - also in Tel Aviv and in Haifa. Furthermore, whoever fires missiles at us from Gaza is a freedom fighter. You can send them one thousand text messages before you invade - but you will still be a war criminal. The Goldstone Report would never have seen the light of day without the Expulsion.

So there is no reason to be amused. The international demonization that we are experiencing threatens more than Ehud Barak's next weekend in London. It threatens us all with physical annihilation.

Nevertheless, there is something positive that is coming out the Goldstone debacle. The State of Israel has its back to the wall and is being forced to re-think its basic assumptions. The 'normalcy' idea is officially bankrupt. The commentators and pundits are still attempting to blame the IDF or Israel's diplomatic efforts. "We should have cooperated with Goldstone," they say. But here and there, we already see individual journalists, like Ari Shavit in Ha'aretz, who at least understand that the problem is not tactical, but rather the essential negation of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.

Understandably, the solutions that they suggest are the very same "political processes" that have brought us to this crisis. Their horizons are as broad as an ant's. But as the crisis continues, wider and wider circles in Israeli society will begin to listen to the voices outside the media bubble. Policies that base their justice on Judaism will become Israel's lifeline.

.

Routine, Expulsion, and Eretz Israel

by Nadia Matar

(The B'Sheva newspaper asked me to write about "4 years to the expulsion- What are the lessons?" Here is the translation of the article written in Hebrew)

Four years after the destruction of Gush Katif and northern Samaria. What are the lessons? What must we learn from the expulsion, so that in another four years we will not have to write, Heaven forbid, of the lessons to be learned from the expulsion from Judea and Samaria?

In my humble opinion, we must, first of all, internalize the fact that we do not have the luxury of immersing ourselves in routine life. Rather, each of us must take part in the struggle. I will never forget that meeting in Neveh Dekalim, about a year before the expulsion, that was organized by the more hard-line activists of the Gush, in which a proposal was already raised to double or even triple the number of Gush inhabitants by bringing new residents into the houses, or even in tents in the yards. One woman stood up and angrily declared: "I don't agree! I refuse to ruin my lawn, and I won't agree to turn my settlement into a refugee camp! I want to continue with my everyday life!" One of the speakers turned to her and wondered: "Don't you think that it's worth it to somewhat undermine routine life for a few months, in order to preserve the routine in the long term?"

Related: Remember Gush Katif

The proposal, however, was rejected, and the leaders of the Gush preferred to continue everyday life, taken to an extreme, to the extent that supporters from the outside, with their families, who wanted to move to the Gush, live in the settlements, and be partners in the struggle, had to pass an acceptance committee, even a few weeks before the expulsion. Many were not accepted, and they had no choice but to leave the Gush. Our family, too, was not accepted in Neveh Dekalim. Apparently because we were identified with the "activist" wing. And so our family and additional Women in Green members stayed in Kfar Yam with the family of Arik and Datia Yitzhaki, who received us with open arms.

It is difficult for me to commit those memories to writing. Our brothers from Gush Katif suffer enough, and I don't intend to hurt them by raising these matters, but I feel obligated to speak about the subject, as the learning of lessons for the struggle over Judea and Samaria. I do not mean to say that we should erect tents in our yards now, but today, in light of the bitter experience undergone by our brothers from the Gush, we must understand that "routine" and "expulsion" are connected to each other. [In Hebrew, routine is "shigra" and expulsion is "gerush"-both words with similar roots].

Already now, when there is just talk of the destruction of the outposts, that everyone knows is the first stage of the destruction of the settlement enterprise as a whole, with the goal of establishing a Palestinian state instead, we must make the mental switch and internalize that each of us has the responsibility and obligation to leave our everyday lives and participate in the struggle for Eretz Israel.

Here is the place to raise an additional subject, one that is no less painful: in my humble opinion, we lost the struggle for Gush Katif and northern Samaria because we did not relate to Eretz Israel as a supreme value for which self-sacrifice is needed. If there had been some preposterous government decree that IDF soldiers must enter the homes of Jews on Yom Kippur and forcibly feed them nonkosher food, I assume and hope that a wall-to-wall consensus would take shape among our public on the need to refuse to obey this anti-Jewish and anti-moral order. The victims of the "force-feeding" would not begin a "With Love We Will Be Victorious" campaign, but rather, they, too, would vigorously resist.

And I ask: Why is what is so clear regarding Shabbat and kashrut observance is not clear regarding Eretz Israel?

This is the one million dollar question I have been asking myself for the past four years since the expulsion.

If Eretz Israel is a supreme value, like Shabbat and kashrut, then the way to struggle against the decrees of the destruction of settlements and the handing over of parts of the homeland to the enemy entails self-sacrifice. For us, we can translate this self-sacrifice into refusing orders and mass nonviolent civil disobedience. I am certain that if these two methods of struggle had been implemented in 2005, we would have saved the Gush.

And thus,in my opinion, the main lesson to be drawn from the expulsion, is that we must understand that Eretz Israel is a supreme value for which we leave our everyday lives and go forth to a real struggle, and not only to symbolic protest demonstrations. It is ironic that it is the peoples of the world who teach us of the importance and centrality of Eretz Israel. The peoples of the world don't care if we all study Torah, eat kosher, or observe Shabbat. But if five Jews climb some hill in the area of Judea and Samaria and dare to build a hut on it - the UN, the European Union, the Obama administration, and who knows who else go out of their minds and try to prevent us from doing this.

Undoubtedly, in light of the brazenness of the Obama administration and the Europeans, that are returning us to the time of the White Paper, more and more elements within the people of Israel are coming to their senses. With G-d's help, the tremendous forces inherent in our people will be realized, and this time we will succeed in defending Eretz Israel, and increase building, settlement, and development.
.