Friday, August 27, 2010

For the Future

"... for the Future" is a phrase repeated by Jeff Bridges  a number of times in one of my favorite movies, Seabiscuit.

For the future of the Jewish People we need communities like Shiloh to grow and prosper.

Developing Shiloh is the antidote for the punishment of exile. 

Living Torah lives in New York, California, London, Paris or any other חוץ לארץ chutz l'aretz, out of the Holyland location is certainly better than assimilation into non-Jewish society, but it's not the ideal Jewish Life.  It's a reflection or like a "dress rehearsal" for the life to be lived here in the Land G-d has shown us.

We Jews have our own Land; we don't have to be guests in a different one.  Remember how welcomed Jacob and his family, our forefathers, the twelve tribes were by Pharaoh in Egypt.  The result was that we became slaves to pharaoh in Egypt.

Come home!

Shabbat Shalom uMevorach
Have a peaceful and blessed Sabbath


frog said...

Well, on the one hand, I agree with you: As far as I can tell from the outside, many communities in the occupied territories are very cloded-knit, solidarity is very important, people help each other, are ready to stand in for each other.

Furthermore, they practice exactely the type of judaism I like: they combine profound learning and strict observance of Mitzwoth with a "normal" day-to-day life. They do not live in an ivory tower, but go out and work. What I especially like is that many of those communities do agricultural work, go back to cultivate the soil.

This sounds really like a dream.

And then there is the downside to it: According to your reactions to former posts, you do not seem to be very tolerant of diverging opinions, and that is something that really gets me to worry, because freedom of expression is very important to me.

And the fact that you think it is OK to withhold citizenship and voting rights of your neighbours indefinitely. This does not go in very well with my acceptance of the general declaration of human rights, even though it might not be in conflict with torah values.

So do we need more communities like shiloh: Yes, we need more communities LIKE shilo, but not in the place where shilo is.

Anonymous said...

The neighbors can go to Jordan, the real Pally state.

Anonymous said...

Come to think of it, Frog, so can you.

frog said...

You do not even need to throw me out: I do not live in Israel...

"The neighbors can go to Jordan, the real Pally state."

Well, if done forcefully, I think this would be referred to as "ethnic cleansing".

frog said...

"The neighbors can go to Jordan, the real Pally state."

I think you missed school when they were talking about the creation of Israel, the partition plan of november 1947.

The very resolution that allowed Israel to be created and recognised by the other states forsaw that an arab state should be created on the territories you occupy now.

Why? Because at that time, jews represented 1/3 of the population of cis-jordan palestine (as it was called back then) and non-jews, mainly muslims, represented 2/3 of the population.

We Jews had a wish to establish a jewish state. So the territory was split up, so that the jews had a 60% majority in one part of cis-jordan palestine (this was later called "Israel"), while non-jews had a more then 90% majority in the other part, that was going to be an independent state (why not call it palestine, since Israel did not claim this name, nor the trans-jordan part which was called "Jordania").

OK. Meanwhile, demographics changed a bit in the region. in the territory that was once cis-jordan palestine (or greater Israel, as you would like to call it), there are about 5,7 million jews (tendency going down) and 5,9 million non-jews. And this does not yet count the arab refugees who might want to return.

So if you want to claim these territories, you are really anihiliting the jewish state, because jews would be a minority in the state you propose to create.

Except, of course, if you resort to ethnic cleansing, but I hope I do not have to explain to you that this is immoral, or do I?

Batya said...

frog, many European countries limit citizenship. It's possible to live loyal, law-abiding lives and pay taxes for generations without being citizens. Check those out before condemning Israel.

frog said...

Yes. That's mainly the case for dwarf-states like San Marino, Liechtenstein, perhaps also Monaco and Luxemburg.

Those countries sometimes have clauses that you have to live there for more than 20 years before you can apply for citizenship.

However, this is not what we are talking about here: they have been there before you came.

Batya said...

frog, a surprisingly high percentage of Arabs in the Land of Israel are descended from Arabs who migrated from other Arab countries after the beginning of Zionism. The source of their clans are in Syria, Egypt, Lebanon etc, not here.

Anonymous said...

I think Frog missed school.
The San Remo 1920 international conference awarded the sovereignty over the WHOLE mandate (120000 Km2) to the Jewish People .
These clauses are still valid and binding according to international law .
Jews are allowed to settle from the Mediterranean Sea to Yarden .
Unfortunately,the Eastern bank(90000km2) was given to Abdallah as a compensation when he lost Mecca to rival wahabit Ibn Seud in 1922


frog said...

"The San Remo 1920 international conference awarded the sovereignty over the WHOLE mandate (120000 Km2) to the Jewish People ."

That's simply not true.

I went into this subject a few months ago, because someone published a map (made by the isreal ministry of foreign affairs) to commemorate the anniversary of the San Remo conference.

1) The map published by the Israeli ministry does not belong to the San Remo Resolution.

2) The San Remo Resolution (which mainly awards the mandate over those territories to Great Britain) says:

"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."

It does not say that the jewish state will be made up of "all of Palestine" (that's obvious, because Palestine there meant Cisjordan and Transjordan, which is now the state of Jordan).

Once again: a "jewish state" could not be established on all of cisjordan palestine, becaue the jews had not majority in those territories. The were a 1/3 minority. So those wanting to establish a jewish state had no interest in taking all of it.

And this is still the case now, as I said before, because now the jews are still a minority on the total cisjordanian territory (or greater Israel).

1) I think that someone who moved to this country in 1970 has no business to tell someone who moved there in the 1920s or 1930 that they have "no right to be there" or should be considered foreigners.

2) I think it was understood, in 1947, that the citizens of the two states will be made up of those living there at that moment.

Again, those who wanted to create a jewish state had no interest in putting conditions on "how long they had been there", so they didn't.

Don't forget that those (non-jewish) residents who were afraid of the jewish state and chose to leave the place were never allowed to return, till this day (even if they had been residents for generations and generations). In my view, this is also a breach of the resolution 181, or at least of it's spirit.

Batya said...

frog, honestly, my criteria for right and wrong isn't all this history stuff.

I'm a Jew first. I follow the Torah, Jewish History, the Bible etc. I believe in G-d, the G-d Who sent Abraham to settle "the Land I will show you." That's where I am, in that very Land.

Anonymous said...


"Once again: a "jewish state" could not be established on all of cisjordan palestine, becaue the jews had not majority in those territories. The were a 1/3 minority. So those wanting to establish a jewish state had no interest in taking all of it."

Wrong again
1.San Remo is very explicit about encompassing the whole mandate for Jews whereas right for" other parties were to be respected",arabs are even not mentioned by name.... !

2.Jews as a minority was not the point.
Besides, all British efforts to allow Arabs to enter illegally Israel to work on revitalized fields thanks to the zionist efforts + the British blockade of all Jewish immigration maintained that " minority status" you seem to be so fond of.This blockade allowed nazis to kill millions of our brethren !
I would say with "Jews "like you,we do not need enemies !
Batya, your blog is great and but I will refrain to comment in the future.If that frog is a Jew,she is either a satmar or a naturei karta
Shavua Tov,


frog said...

We are arriving at the same question we already discussed:

So historical considerations are not important to you. Forget Avraham Avinu, forget David Hamelech, forget the Romans, forget 1947, forget the UN.

OK. We can discuss on this basis.

If you decide to settle where you live from a purely religious perspective, independently of any political consideration, it would be fine.

This territory has an arab majority, you want to settle as a jewish minority, the same way I do in Europe: fine.

Jews did this all along the past two millenia, and many who happened to live in Jerusalem or Tzfat under the ottoman empire did not even feel the necessity of creating a jewish state. Some of them oppose it till this day.

frog said...

By the way: back in 1920, jews did not even make up 1/3 of the population of cisjordanian palestine, rather around 10%.

So a state created on all the territory there had not been jewish...