As Blue and White leader reportedly acquiesces to annexing West Bank to form unity government, American Jewish signatories warn move would dramatically weaken pro-Israel advocacy
By Eric Cortellessa, TOI 6 April 2020, 10:41 pm
Benny Gantz (L) and Gabi Ashkenazi at a Blue and White campaign event in Kfar Saba on February 12, 2020. (Gili Yaari/ Flash90)
WASHINGTON — Nearly 140 US Jewish leaders unveiled an open letter Monday to Blue and White party leader Benny Gantz and his deputy, MK Gabi Ashkenazi, urging them to “remain steadfast” in their opposition to West Bank annexation under a unity government.
The missive warns against allowing the coronavirus pandemic to enable Israel to annex West Bank settlements, at a time when the country needs to unify in the face of a public health emergency.
“In the midst of this unprecedented health and financial crisis for Israel, we respectfully urge you not to use the need for unity in the face of emergency to create a different crisis for Israel by moving forward on unilateral annexation,” the American Jewish leaders write.
The letter was orchestrated by the Israel Policy Forum, a New York-based nonprofit that advocates for a two-state solution.
It was signed by a number of prominent Jewish philanthropists, such as Charles Bronfman and Donald Sussman, and religious leaders, Rabbi Rick Jacobs, who heads the Union for Reform Judiasm, and David Saperstein, former head of the Religious Action Center and US ambassador for International Religious Freedom in the Obama administration.
Congressman Steve Israel (Katrina Hajagos)
Other signatories include former Florida Congressman Steve Israel and current head of the National Council of Jewish Women Sheila Katz, among others.
Describing themselves as “proudly Zionist, unquestionably pro-Israel,” the Jewish leaders said that Jerusalem unilaterally annexing the West Bank would estrange American Jews.
“Should annexation be advanced, the majority of American Jews who oppose such a policy will feel more alienated from Israel as a result,” the letter said. “Just as we expect that our own government focus on the crisis at hand without using the fear and uncertainty felt by Americans to push through harmful and unrelated policies, we ask that the leaders of the Jewish state to which we are all so committed do the same.”
The public plea comes as Gantz has reportedly indicated in negotiations that he is willing to compromise on West Bank annexation to form a unity government with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party, which has demanded support for the move.
Netanyahu views West Bank annexation as a legacy-making move and has been adamant about seeing the election promise through before he would have over the prime ministership to Gantz in fall 2021, under a tentative deal.
Gantz, on the other hand, has long opposed unilateral annexation but recognizes that the right-wing bloc currently has a majority that is pushing strenuously for it.
A composite image of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (L) and Benny Gantz at polling stations in Jerusalem and Rosh Haayin, respectively, during the Knesset Elections on March 2, 2020. (Marc Israel Sellem/POOL, AP Photo/Sebastian Scheiner)
Reports Monday indicated that the agreement taking shape provided for Israel to annex up to 30 percent of the West Bank — all the settlements, and the Jordan Valley — by early summer.
On the matter of annexation, the sides decided that the government will act with the full agreement of the US and in talks with the international community, while preserving strategic interests and peace deals, according to Hebrew media reports.
Under the reported deal, Netanyahu will consult with Gantz on the matter, but apparently will not require his agreement. A vote on annexation would be held within months and not delayed until the coronavirus outbreak has passed. Blue and White will not have a veto to block the vote, but will have a free hand in deciding how to vote.
But even without the backing of Blue and White, there would likely be sufficient support among right-wing MKs in the opposition’s Yisrael Beytenu to approve annexation.
The American Jewish leaders said that pushing forward with annexation now would be “particularly damaging” — not only because it would hurt the chances of an eventual peace deal with the Palestinians, but also because it would seem like Jerusalem was taking advantage of a global pandemic.
In turn, they warn, that would weaken pro-Israel advocacy in the United States: “It will be viewed as political opportunism by proponents of annexation during the worst possible moment and will make it more challenging for American Jewish leaders as they seek to maintain strong support for Israel and pro-Israel policies at this time.”
Forgot, “hypocritically!” For a glaring recent example: “WESTERN SAHARA: MOROCCO REJECTS U.N. APOLOGY FOR ‘OCCUPATION’ COMMENT”
BY CONOR GAFFEY ON 3/30/16 AT 7:53 AM EDT
“Morocco has rejected an explanation offered by United Nations chief Ban Ki-moon for controversial comments he about the disputed Western Sahara region.
‘North African country has been locked in a war of words with the U.N. secretary-general since Ban described Western Sahara as under “occupation” during a visit to Algerian refugee camps for the Sahrawi people displaced from the region earlier in March
‘Morocco ordered dozens of its personnel to withdraw from the U.N. mission in Western Sahara—known as MINURSO—and has threatened to pull troops from U.N. peacekeeping operations worldwide.
‘Morocco annexed the majority of Western Sahara —which borders Morocco, Algeria and Mauritania—in 1975 after almost a century of Spanish colonial rule. The Algerian-backed Polisario Front, an organization claiming to represent the Sahrawi people, was founded in 1973 and launched a guerilla struggle against Morocco’s claim to the territory. The U.N. brokered a ceasefire between the two parties in 1991 and a referendum on Western Sahara’s future was promised, but the two sides have been deadlocked ever since and Morocco has said it will not offer Western Sahara anything more than autonomy.
‘A U.N. spokesperson said on Monday that Ban’s use of the word “occupation” was “spontaneous” and that the U.N. chief regretted the “misunderstandings and consequences that this personal expression of solicitude provoked.”
‘But in a statement released on Tuesday, Morocco’s foreign ministry said that Ban’s comments were “premeditated acts to alter the nature of the dispute” and rejected the U.N.’s explanation. “At this level of responsibility, words have meaning, political and legal consequences, and personal opinions have no place,” said the statement, reported by Reuters.
‘The statement also criticized Ban for visiting Bir Lahlou town, which forms part of the buffer zone in Western Sahara between Morocco and the Polisario Front, and for signalling acknowledgement of the flag of the group’s self-declared Arab Sahrawi Republic (SADR). The SADR is acknowledged by a number of African countries, including Nigeria and South Africa, but does not have huge support among Western powers.
‘Some 90,000 people are living in refugee camps in west Algeria, near to the border with Western Sahara, according to the U.N. Refugee Agency, although the Algerian government puts the figure at 165,000.”
https://www.newsweek.com/western-sahara-morocco-rejects-un-apology-occupation-comment-442059
Formal treaties have never done Israel any good. Nobody else abides by them but it ties Israel’s hands. That’s why all the monstrous killings beginning with the “Island of Peace” massacre and subsequent killings, incitement, and provocations by Jordan since it’s defeat in the Six Day War have all been since the stupid treaty was signed. To paraphrase and slightly alter Mao Tse Tung: “Peace flows from the barrel of a gun.” [Awful thing for a Jubu like me to say, but what can you do? In life, one must compartmentalize or live in fantasy. Nothing neatly fits into any conceptual box the human mind can devise.]
Sorry, here’s the citation for the Aruz Sheva article about res 242 and 238 whose careful wording nobody remembers.
“The UN Rejected a Return to the 1949 Armistice Lines.
The 1949 Armistice lines, are also commonly called the ‘1967 borders’, although they are not legal borders, and are actually the ‘1967 Pre Six Day War’ lines.”
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/14943
@ Edgar G.:
Yes. Hence my comment: “Not that the treaty did our people any good. I remembered this because I remembered having read somebody, I forget who, saying that this treaty was Judas Maccabeus’s big mistake because it let the Romans in the door (It occurs to me that the British took over India and Japan Korea in much the same way, initially just with treaties of “friendship”).”
I am thinking of: “Kushner: Deal Will Prevent Settlement Expansion
” https://baltimorejewishlife.com/news/news-detail.php?SECTION_ID=2&ARTICLE_ID=128307
and
“Sen. Lindsey Graham & Michael Makovsky: US-Israel mutual defense treaty needed to benefit both nations”
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/sen-lindsey-graham-michael-makovsky-us-israel-mutual-defense-treaty-needed-to-benefit-both-nations
and
Just say no to a mutual defense treaty with the US
Israel and the US are the best friends. This imposes special responsibilities on both.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/just-say-no-to-a-mutual-defense-treaty-with-the-us-610653
and
“The UN Rejected a Return to the 1949 Armistice Lines.”UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 have never branded Israel as an occupier or aggressor. “As a matter of fact, the UN rejected every draft resolution that attempted to brand Israel as aggressor and those calling on Israel to withdraw from all the territories….not from ‘the’ territories nor from ‘all’ the territories, but from some of the territories,…”
I remember watching a documentary, a million years ago, was it on the liberal local tv Public Broadcasting Station, channel 13, going into loving detail with photos of the diplomats staying up all night carefully crafting the wording of resolution 242 to reflect this. And, of course, we have San Remo and all the other legal conventions of the 20s, ratified by the UN, never reversed. But, you’d never know it, to listen to these blowhards in what we shall laughingly call “the international community” (“goyim?, “the nations?” LOL backed by, 140, was it liberal American Jewish “leaders?”) lie stupidly about “international law, especially ante- and undoubtedly, post-Trump, if not immediately, then certainly, eventually. The pendulum always swings both ways. The image that comes to mind is Edgar Allen Poe’s story, “The Pit and the Pendulum.”
“”The Pit and the Pendulum” is a short story written by Edgar Allan Poe and first published in 1842 in the literary annual The Gift: A Christmas and New Year’s Present for 1843. The story is about the torments endured by a prisoner of the Spanish Inquisition, though Poe skews historical facts. The narrator of the story describes his experience of being tortured. The story is especially effective at inspiring fear in the reader because of its heavy focus on the senses, such as sound, emphasizing its reality, unlike many of Poe’s stories which are aided by the supernatural. The traditional elements established in popular horror tales at the time are followed, but critical reception has been mixed. The tale has been adapted to film several times…””The Pit and the Pendulum” was included in ‘The Gift: A Christmas and New Year’s Present’ for 1843…”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pit_and_the_Pendulum
@ Sebastien Zorn:
Sebastien, this is fascinating, I was wrong in asserting the contrary- I had no idea of going back so far as the beginning of the Chashmonaim. My understanding of the difference I was having with Reader was that it had to do with the Empire, and I didn’t even consider the Republic. Perhaps I should have, like you, looked up Wiki-but I never do. And I didn’t go back past the time of Pompey’s capture of Jerusalem and looting of the Temple Funds
One thing I notice about your information- I don’t see any instance that Rome actually sent any military help to the Chashmonim during the many years after the death of the Makkovi until final freedom was gained, and the peace treaty didn’t prevent the Syrian Greeks from continuing their periodic war against the Jews for so many years.
I must say that the premier authority on the Judean State and that whole period, Solomon Zeitlin, never mentioned it in his 3 Vol. History of those times.
And the Jordan Valley, I forgot that.
I agree with Shaked and Yamina that Israel should quickly take advantage of this opportunity to restore sovereignty to the Jewish communities of Yesha without, however, conceding in principle, the right to do so in the rest, as well, even if it can’t be implemented right now. Ben Gurion said the same thing. He said that no one living or dead has, has ever had or ever will have the authority to concede even one inch of Eretz Israel, except as a temporary practical matter. In fact, if you look closely, the Project that the Egyptian KGB agent, Yassir Arafat initiated, very closely imitates, in a distorted mirror-image opposite way, the development of Zionism and the birth of modern Israel, though actual statehood was the furthest thing from his mind. It’s just about genocide, of course. That snake in the grass, Ghandi — it infuriated me when I read that a Jewish community center in Yesha was named after the SOB — voiced their unchanging aspirations best:
“Do the Muslims claim Palestine, or will they restore it to the Jews who are the original owners?”
Gandhi, the Jews & Zionism: Notes in Young India
(April 6, 1921)
“The Muslims claim Palestine as an integral part of Jazirat-ul-Arab. They are bound to retain its custody, as an injunction of the Prophet. But that does not mean that the Jews and the Christians cannot freely go to Palestine, or even reside there and own property. What non-Muslims cannot do is to acquire sovereign jurisdiction. The Jews cannot receive sovereign rights in a place which has been held for centuries by Muslim powers by right of religious conquest. The Muslim soldiers did not shed their blood in the late War for the purpose of surrendering Palestine out of Muslim control. I would like my Jewish friends to impartially consider the position of the seventy million Muslims of India. As a free nation, can they tolerate what they must regard as a treacherous disposal of their sacred possession?”
‘Sources:
GandhiServe Foundation – Mahatma Gandhi Research and Media Service ‘(reprinted with permission)”
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/notes-in-young-india-by-gandhi-april-1921
Not that the treaty did our people any good. I remembered this because I remembered having read somebody, I forget who, saying that this treaty was Judas Maccabeus’s big mistake because it let the Romans in the door (It occurs to me that the British took over India and Japan Korea in much the same way, initially just with treaties of “friendship”). “The Agreement with Rome and the Death of Judas Maccabeus
‘…Death of Judas Maccabeus by José Teófilo de Jesus
The Roman–Jewish Treaty was an agreement made between Judah Maccabee and the Roman Republic in 161 BCE according to 1 Maccabees 8:17-20 and Josephus. It was the first recorded contract between the Jewish people and the Romans.
The agreement with Rome failed to have any effect on Demetrius’ policy. On receipt of the news of Nicanor’s defeat, he dispatched a new army, again commanded by Bacchides. This time the Seleucid forces of 20,000 men were numerically so superior that most of Judah’s men left the field of battle and advised their leader to do likewise and to await a more favorable opportunity. However, Judah decided to stand his ground.
In the Battle of Elasa, Judah and those who remained faithful to him were killed. His body was taken by his brothers from the battlefield and buried in the family sepulchre at Modiin. The death of Judah Maccabee (d. 160 BCE) stirred the Jews to renewed resistance. After several additional years of war under the leadership of two of Mattathias’ other sons (Jonathan and Simon), the Jews finally achieved independence and the liberty to worship freely…” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_Maccabeus#The_Agreement_with_Rome_and_the_Death_of_Judas_Maccabeus
“Roman–Jewish Treaty
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
The Roman–Jewish Treaty was an agreement made between Judas Maccabeus and the Roman Republic according to 1 Maccabees 8:17-20 and Josephus. It took place in 161 BCE and was the first recorded contract between the Jewish people and the Romans.
Contents
1 Context
2 Content
3 Text
4 Authenticity
5 See also
6 References
Context
The treaty was signed during the Maccabean Revolt against the Greco-Syrian Seleucid kingdom. During this period, Rome’s power and influence in the Hellenistic world was growing. Rome had recently humiliated the Seleucid King Antiochus IV by ordering his troops to leave Egypt, and had previously defeated his father Antiochus III in battle. After winning a number of victories and capturing Jerusalem, Judas Maccabeus sent two emissaries, Eupolemus son of John son of Accos and Jason son of Eleazar, to establish a treaty of friendship with the Roman Senate. This proposal was accepted and a treaty was signed.
Content
In I Maccabees, the treaty is preceded by several paragraphs of introduction which praise the Romans for their great strength and their unique system of government. The clauses of the treaty require each party to aid the other if it is attacked, and to refrain from helping the enemies of the other party. The treaty also contains an assurance by the Romans that they have told the Seleucid King Demetrius I not to attack the Jews.
Text
According to I Maccabees chapter 8:
May all go well with the Romans and with the nation of the Jews at sea and on land forever, and may sword and enemy be far from them. If war comes first to Rome or to any of their allies in all their dominion, the nation of the Jews shall act as their allies wholeheartedly, as the occasion may indicate to them. To the enemy that makes war they shall not give or supply grain, arms, money, or ships, just as Rome has decided; and they shall keep their obligations without receiving any return. In the same way, if war comes first to the nation of the Jews, the Romans shall willingly act as their allies, as the occasion may indicate to them. And to their enemies there shall not be given grain, arms, money, or ships, just as Rome has decided; and they shall keep these obligations and do so without deceit. Thus on these terms the Romans make a treaty with the Jewish people. If after these terms are in effect both parties shall determine to add or delete anything, they shall do so at their discretion, and any addition or deletion that they may make shall be valid. Concerning the wrongs that King Demetrius is doing to them, we have written to him as follows:, ‘Why have you made your yoke heavy on our friends and allies the Jews? If now they appeal again for help against you, we will defend their rights and fight you on sea and on land.’
Authenticity
The first mention of friendship between the Romans and the Jews in Graeco-Roman sources is to be found in Justinus’ summary of a 44-volume work no longer extant called the Liber Historiarum Philippicarum et totius mundi origines et terrae situs by Pompeius Trogus, written during the Augustan Principate. In it, he writes: A Demetrio cum desciuissent, amicitia Romanorum petita primi omnium ex orientalibus libertatem acceperunt. [36.3.9] Justinus writes, “On revolting from Demetrius, and soliciting the friendship of the Romans, they were the first of all the eastern people that regained their liberty”. Other ancient writers corroborate that the diplomatic relations at this time were in the form of amicitia. Among these may be included Josephus (B.J. 1.38), Justinus (36.3.9), Eusebius (Ol. 155/1, p. 126 Schoene) and Jerome (Chron. p. 141, b, 1.23 ff. Helm). On the basis of these passages, Herzfeld in 1863 determined that the Jews entered into a treaty of friendship with the Romans.
Mirabilia Urbis Romae, a popular medieval guidebook to Rome for the use of Christian pilgrims, mentions that the Greek church of San Basilio should be visited solely on account of a bronze tablet that had once been affixed to its wall. The Mirabilia in chapter 24 reports: in muro S. Basilio fuit magna tabula aenea, ubi fuit scripta amicitia in loco bono et notabili, quae fuit inter Romanos et Iudaeos tempore Iudae Machabaei. Attached to the wall of [the church of] San Basilio was a large bronze tablet where there was written, in a suitable and conspicuous place, friendship between the Romans and the Jews in the time of Judas Maccabaeus.[1]
The Israeli scholar Dov Gera notes the similarity in form between the Roman-Jewish treaty and other comparable agreements, arguing that it really was signed.
See also
Hasmonean
List of treaties
References
Zollschan, Linda (2017). Rome and Judaea: International Law Relations, 162-100 BCE. London, New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 0-8147-4767-1.
I Maccabees: Chapter 8.
Josephus. Antiquities of the Jews, bk.13, ch.9 v.2
Gera, Dov. (1998). Judea in Mediterranean Politics 219-161 B.C.. Leiden: Brill.
Specific
Zollschan, Linda 2017, pp. 9–10 .
Categories: Books of the MaccabeesJews and Judaism in the Roman RepublicTreaties of the Roman Republic2nd-century BC treaties2nd century BC in the Roman Republic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman%E2%80%93Jewish_Treaty
@ Bear Klein:
No almost about it- Your pointing out his proficiencies shows just how lacking a brilliant man can be in anything not concerned with his specialty.
For me your information causes me considerable disappointment, and indeed, sadness. Although in the past I’ve known others who had the same deficiencies.
@ Edgar G.:
Edgar, you almost got it maybe not, I am not sure.
Dr. Michael L. Wise, a physicist and expert in mathematical model techniques, is the founder and director of a wide range of public and private companies in the United States and Israel.
https://besacenter.org/author/mwise/
@ mikewise1:
Are you some sort of double-goggled serious “professor” who never smiles, with absolutely no sense of the intent of the phrase or word– Congratulations !! Could you have conceived that I was seriously accepting these impossibilities, by repeating your silly comments WITH INVERTED COMMAS { Look up the meaning of inverted commas accompanied by question marks-}
There are some on this site whom I challenged, as being lacking in understanding plain texts, but never anyone like you- Again, congrats ???
I do NOT mean to offend just show incredulity– !
@ Reader:
We”ll MISS YOU…
@ Reader:
To refresh your memory,,you said 2 million– and to base your silly double-down argument on ONE single apostate Jew, whom you suddenly metamorphosed into a MUTUAL defence Treaty with Rome, is…….I have no words to describe what it REALLY is.
You always omit that I specified the TIME PERIODS. and there was NO period when an independent Judea (only independent states make mutual defence treaties) made any kind of MUTUAL defence Treaty with Rome..
Again, must I remind you that the LAST time that Judea was INDEPENDENT, ended around minus 67, when Shluamit died, and civil war ensued ..then Pompey, and Rome, so THAT SHOULD BE that.
Get over it, Acknowledge that you let your mouth run away with you a bit too much this time and I corrected you.
Basing your silly statement on a pilpul like Tiberius Alexander is merely childish
@ Edgar G.:
“Islam will have to undergo a major reformation before it can accept Israel as a Jewish State.” Such a reformation will not happen in our lifetimes or in that of our grandchildren, So relax your must must should. Stop dreaming and confront reality. Let’s proceed piecemeal. First 30%. Then after Arabs fail in the next 4 years, move on to steps 2, 3, 4… chag kasher vesameach. stay safe!
@ Reader:
I agree with you 100%
@ Reader:
Mazaltov on your (advertised) piety.
@ mikewise1:
“Must” “Must” “Should”…..you’re dreaming….
@ mikewise1:
If Israel could raise the money to fight the effects of the “pandemic”, I am sure Israel can manage to raise a sufficient amount to move the Arabs to Jordan.
All the rest is dreams, fantasies, illusions, denial, and an utter inability to face reality.
And the reality is that the whole world desires for Israel (and the Jews) to just go away somewhere and they won’t look at the price they’ll have to pay to accomplish this.
The “world community” has been trying to destroy Israel by hook or by crook after they exterminated the 6 million of European Jews and I don’t understand how anybody cannot see what is going on.
Now their “great white hope” is the Arabs, not the Germans. The “world community” is on the side of the Arabs.
@ Reader:
Correct!
Islam will have to undergo a major reformation before it can accept Israel as a Jewish State. Until then, we must confront the reality of the 1.65 M Arab population living in Y&S, If you or Sherman can raise the money to fund their emigration, God Bless you. In the interim we remind them that under International law, they do still have Jordanian citizenship. And Ted Belman is correct. One day, somehow or other, the Hashemite dictator will be gone and Jordan will be renamed Palestine in order to properly reflect their 90% plus Arab and Bedouin population. A 67% Jewish majority will retain its Jewish character as a Jewish State. By the way: it is totally irrational to allow current Members of Knesset to serve unless they recognize Israel as a Jewish state, whether they be Arab or Jew!
I will stop commenting here some time later today until Saturday night or Sunday morning because of PESACH.
@ mikewise1:
“Arab residents will have full civil and religious rights….Jihad and suicide bombings must end, and Muslim leaders and groups must stop lauding violence.”
DREAM ON!
There MIGHT be peace if all the Israeli and Judea and Samaria Arabs leave for Jordan and obtain Jordanian citizenship.
It would be better to work out how much they should be paid to do this than to de-facto create another Arab state.
@ Edgar G.:
“you may mean the 1, 600,000 Arab citizens of Israel”
That’s exactly what I meant, I didn’t remember the exact number.
I thought it was clear that after the annexation Israel will end up with BOTH the new Arab state AND with their Arab citizens INSIDE Israel proper.
The “world community” will just chop off the 70% (the same way the British chopped off the 78% of the Mandate using an ambiguous sentence in the agreement and created Transjordan) AND it will mess up the 30% where the Jews live so that the “poor Arabs” will be able to get to their brothers in Gaza “unmolested” by the Zionist entity, AND there will be an incredible increase in terror because the Arabs’ hope of destroying Israel would be revived.
IT IS MY OPINION AND I DON’T WISH TO ARGUE ABOUT THIS ANYMORE.
You keep adding EXTRA MEANING to what I (and others) write, i.e., you keep creating “straw man” arguments and then fighting against them.
I explained that I am not interested in discussing this.
A Jew does NOT stop being a Jew no matter what he converts to or how well he follows the Torah. A JEW COMMANDED THE ROMAN EGYPTIAN LEGIONS AND ACTED (not at the same time) as a procurator of Judea.
Thus, you were WRONG to state that there were NO Jewish soldiers in the Roman army.
I WILL NO LONGER READ YOUR POSTS.
GOOD BYE.
Why is it so hard to understand that:
1. there are fewer than 1.7 million arabs in Y&S.
2. when Israel declares sovereignty over all of Judea and Samaria, it should grant citizenship to the Arab residents when regional peace breaks out. Jihad and suicide bombings must end, and Muslim leaders and groups must stop lauding violence. And Arab leaders, in both Israel and the region, must recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
In the interim, Arab residents will have full civil and religious rights. They will autonomously manage their municipal affairs, and democratically elect their local leadership — but should not participate in national elections. Clearly, as long as Hamas and Fatah seek Israel’s destruction — and as long as global Islamic violence continues — one cannot expect that Israel would be suicidal and risk giving national voting rights to a population that wants to undermine its very existence.
I concur with Ayelet Shaked who said the below:
full comment at https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Ayelet-Shaked-to-Post-We-all-must-cooperate-but-not-lose-our-values-623959
@ Reader:
I’m beginning to believe that you have a deficiency of understanding plain facts-from your earlier posts I can see that you are a decent fellow, except that you HAVE to have the last word, and spout a lot of useless nonfactual mis-info-
You it was who first said that Rome and Judea had a MUTUAL defence treaty and intimated that it ended with “Judea Capta” which was 70 CE–which certainly means that with the wars that Rome PREVIOUSY was involved in, Jewish contingents would undoubtedly have been a part–and I pointed out that THIS WAS NOT SO-that from the time that Pompey captured Jerusalem Judea was a subordinate client state, and did not make “mutual defence treaties” with Rome….before that it was ruled independently by the Chashmonaim, the last free ruler of which was Shulamet the widow if Yannai, and she dies in minus 67. After that there was no recognised independent ruler, her two sons fought one another and Pompey, who was campaigning in the region, came into it. And the Chshmonim did not have a mutual defence treaty with Rome (although they could have had a “peace” understanding)
You countered with Tiberius Alexander-and I parried with pointing out that he was an
apostate Jew and his time was 80-90 years AFTER The FIRST time that Jews helped Romans, which was when Hordus rescued Julius Caesar.(AND IT WASN’T BECAUSE OF A MUTUAL DEFENCE TREATY-I should have said 120 years, not 80-90) There was NEVER a time when an independent Judea had the aforesaid treaty with Rome. Rome recognised the Chashmnaim as an independent kingdom,(although they took the title of “king”, the people, who objected to them not being of the House of David, -nor of Zadok- regarded them as but “rulers”-)
You’re wasting your valuable time disputing with me, about that “particular period, and I plainly said so- !!
@ Ted Belman:
I’ve been waiting for you to say that-you’ve mentioned it several times already in the past that you check the trash regularly to see if some post has miscarried- You have loads of patience—
@ Bear Klein:
@ Reader:
What does ” and getting to keep a couple of million Arabs inside Israel as full citizens and Knesset members” mean–To me that means taking-over 2 mill, Arabs in the annexed 30%–but I can also see that you may mean the 1, 600,000 Arab citizens of Israel- I chose to see the first interpretation-
You should be more coherent if that’s what you meant-
@ greenrobot:
I absolutely agree. I’d like a list of all 140 Jews who wrote against annexation so that I could urge everyone to pay no attention to them.
@ Edgar G.:
“I DO NOT want to partake of a discussion or dispute on it-”
Then why do you keep discussing it?
I asked everyone not to address to me the questions having to do with the 30 (or however many percent) annexation because I don’t care about it anymore, and you just keep at it.
You said that there were NO Jewish soldiers in the Roman army. I answered you that there was Tiberius Julius Alexander who was a (born) Jew and commanded the Roman Egyptian legions.
What does it have to do with Hordus or Julius Caesar?!
YOU were the one who started up about how I was wrong about the Judea-Rome treaty, etc., etc., I wasn’t expecting any responses to my post.
Please, lets stop this exchange.
I don’t care what they annex or not, whatever happens, happens.
I do not know why so many comments are going into “trash”. I will try to find the time to figure it out.
But don’t make my job more difficult by repeating your comments,
@ Edgar G.:
I never said that Israel would add 2 million Arabs to citizenship.
@ Shmuel Mohalever:
Titus NEVER did marry Berenice, although he later brought her to Rome-or she followed him there- She was many years older than he, and he had been informed that the Senate and the people of Rome were totally against the prospect-
It had nothing to do with her “Jewish Blood”- It was a matter of unsuitability for the State-
@ Reader:
Yes I know all about him, an apostate Jew- But the time you speak of was at east 80-90 years after Hordus had saved Julius Caesar when he was on the verge of being wiped out at Alexandria- !!
You should be made aware that I have studied this period from the beginning of the Chashmonian times up to at least Bar Kosiba’s War- I consider it the most formative period of the Jewish People- and I DO NOT want to partake of a discussion or dispute on it-
The best series on this period in my opinion is Solomon Zeitlin’s “The Rise And Fall Of The Jewish State”—wonderfully informative, an expert dissertation in 3 Volumes-
Why do you keep answering my pertinent posts with completely irrelevant information- ?? I have no wish to get into disputative exchanges with you/
@ Reader:
Your response is totally irrelevant- Am I a baby ? Do I need to be told that Israelis already has Arab citizens– What has that to do with your assertion that Israel would add 2 million Arabs to citizenship?? NOTHING !!
@ Reader: Fascinating. The Emperor Titus’s five sons all served int e Roan army, even though they were Jewish on their mother’s side. Titus had married a (real) Jewish princess, Berenice, the daughter of Herod Agrippa II. He destroyed the Temple and killed possibly as many as 1,000,000 Jews, and enslaved hundreds of thousands,yet he was married to a Jewess. He refused to divorce her even when the Roman Senate demanded he do so. Typical of an antisemite.
The Senate would not allow any of of Titus’s children to become Emperor because of their Jewish blood. Instead the throne went to his brother Domitian, who oppressed both Jews and the early Christians.
Anyway, let them do what they want. annex, not annex, whatever.
I think that Israel should have at least as much sovereignty as Monaco.
No one tells Monaco what to do, no one tries to adjust its borders, Monaco doesn’t whine for decades that “it has the right to exist”, nor does it ask the US for permission to do what it wants to do, and it doesn’t have to obey the US like its colony or serf, etc.
I WILL NOT COMMENT ON THIS ISSUE ANYMORE, please do not address any comments to me about it.
Thank you.
@ Edgar G.:
“Jerusalem had NO “mutual” military agreement with Rome” – I didn’t say Jerusalem, I said Judea, and it DID.
“There were NO Jewish soldiers ever in a Roman army”
I don’t know about the plain soldiers but there was a guy named Tiberius Julius Alexander who commanded the Egyptian legions (who (the legions), BTW, “declared for Vespasian” (as emperor)).
This Tiberius Julius Alexander was Philo’s (the Jewish philosopher’s from Alexandria) nephew (his father, Philo’s brother, was the head of the Jewish community of Alexandria).
Tiberius Julius Alexander also at one time served as a procurator of Judea.
@ Edgar G.:
“Israel would ever absorb 2 mi Arab mamzerim”
Doesn’t Israel ALREADY have Arab citizens?
Quite a few of them, I thought.
And Arab Knesset members devoted to the destruction of the state who are NOT going to move into the newly created Arab state together with the Israeli Arab citizens?
@ Reader:
I disagree, Jerusalem had NO “mutual” military agreement with Rome- There were NO Jewish soldiers ever in a Roman army, or helping them-until the time of Hordus , and by then Judea was a dependency of Rome-
Before Pompey invaded and captured Jerusalem, Judah and Rome were at mutual peace- Israel was ruled by the Chashmonim, who had, after many long years, won complete independence from the Syrian Greeks-
@ Reader:
I don’t know where you’re getting your inspiration from, but what gives you even the remotest idea that Israel would ever absorb 2 mi Arab mamzerim, and give them citizenship –What have you been drinking-or sniffing ???
Just a point, I understood that B&W had devolved back into The Resilience Party, so why do they keep referring to it as B&W ??
@ Reader:
Read the Trump plan you do not understand the point. I told you this last time you babbled on about this without any basic understanding of the subject matter at hand. Feel free to believe whatever you want on this subject or any other whether you know the basics or not. I really do not care but why address them to me, as I am uninterested in your views.
@ Bear Klein:
“Since within four years the Pal-Arabs are not going to”
This is not the point (even though no one really KNOWS what the Arabs will decide to do).
The point it the DE-FACTO ACCEPTANCE by Israel of the 2-state solution offered by the American administration after the 1st acceptance of it was destroyed in 1948 by the Arab aggression (albeit this acceptance is not in the same form as it was the 1st time).
My concern is that the partial (30%) annexation will be interpreted by the US and the “world community” as this de-facto acceptance by Israel of the 2-state solution with the subsequent creation by the world powers of the Arab state on the remaining 70% regardless of what the Arabs want (especially with Israel weakened by the coronavirus crisis and in debt (to the US?) that it has to pay relatively high interest on for up to 100 years).
Israel CANNOT depend on anyone’s security guarantees. To do so would be suicidal.
Judea had a MUTUAL (believe it or not) DEFENSE treaty with Rome – remember how that ended up.
They talk as though there is one unified Jewish community and they represent it. There isn’t. With some exceptions in the 20s and again in the 40s and 50s, this religious misappropriation/imperialism goes all the way back to Rabbi Isaac Meyer Wise. The community they represent has done little but give Israel a hard time for a very long time. The meaningful support Israel gets doesn’t come from them. Whatever money they raise just goes towards their pet projects in Israel, whatever is left over after bureaucratic expenses that is, payroll, lunches, travel, etc. Their puerile and supercilious attitude of entitlement coupled with no assumption of responsibility, whatsoever, is the opposite of JFK’s dictum (or whoever wrote it for him): “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”
This is something I wrote when the Trump Peace Plan came out.
The full Trump peace plan, official title “Peace to Prosperity” https://www.whitehouse.gov/peacetoprosperity/
If Israel annexes only 30%, won’t the Arabs and the US view it as if Israel ceded the remaining 70% to build the Arab state, especially if it’s written into The Deal of the Century?
Israel may end up losing 70% of Judea and Samaria to the Arabs AND getting to keep a couple of million Arabs inside Israel as full citizens and Knesset members.
Also, historically, when Israel gives in, the Arabs increase their terror activities drastically because their hope of destroying the Jewish state is renewed.
American Jews are suffering from Chaim Rumkowski syndrome.
Incurable cowardliness
Annex while the iron is hot. Trump will be out and Democratic lefties ‘in’ in January. The opportunity will pass. Democrats will reassess their position in November after the polls show the Jewish voter’s shift to the Right despite Republican losses. Pro Israel forces will only consolidate after our next election anticipating a come back. Do what’s right by the land. The Arabs will acquiesce once annexation is done, as usual. . ‘As G-d wills’ is what Arabs say. So will it on them.
Fake Jews who think that we should believe they are Zionist because they say so. Rick Jacobs is all you need to know they are anti Zionist. The Reform movement has been anti Zionist since inception over 135 years ago.
So these people call themselves “Zionists” but prefer to appease those Pal-Arabs who would destroy all of Israel. They have turned their backs on the security of all Israelis plus have abandoned 450,000 Jews living in Judea/Samaria. These are friends of Israel? They object to Israeli sovereignty for Jews living in their ancient homeland on land that was designated part of the Jewish homeland at San Remo and is part of the UN Charter Article 80.
True friends do not threaten one and another. Are these “Jews” pro Israel or just appeasers of the haters of Israel?