Sunday, December 2, 2012

Building E1 - Ending Palestine's hope for Jerusalem

NYTimes   Jerusalem, which both Israel and the Palestinians see as their capital, is anything but united, with fierce fights over its development posing perhaps the greatest threat to the prospects of peace. And beyond the cornerstone, nothing has been erected since in this contentious 4.6-square-mile area, known as E1, where there are many more goats than people.

But Israel’s announcement on Friday that it was moving ahead with zoning and planning preparations for the area could change all that, and many fear that it could close the window on the chance for a two-state solution to the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

Construction in E1, in West Bank territory that Israel captured in the 1967 war, would connect the large Jewish settlement of Maale Adumim to Jerusalem, dividing the West Bank in two. The Palestinian cities of Ramallah and Bethlehem would be cut off from the capital, making the contiguous Palestinian state endorsed by the United Nations last week virtually impossible.

Although Israeli officials did not call the move retaliation for the United Nations vote, most people here assumed the timing was not coincidental. 

Along with zoning and planning for E1, Israel on Thursday approved 3,000 new housing units in unspecified parts of East Jerusalem and the West Bank. [...]

These include more than 1,200 units in Ramot and Pisgat Zeev — decades-old upscale Jewish neighborhoods of 40,000-plus residents that straddle Beit Hanina in the northern reaches of the municipality. Late last month, final approval of 2,610 units in an undeveloped southern stretch known as Givat Hamatos was postponed under international pressure because it was scheduled while Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was in the region trying to negotiate an end to Israel’s bloody conflict with the Gaza Strip. 

“Maybe the Palestinians got something on paper and morally, but he got something on the ground,” Mr. al-Qaq said. “Netanyahu is trying to enforce something on the ground and gain the hearts and minds of the Israeli public. It’s a strong message to the Palestinian leadership that Netanyahu is not without cards in his hand.”

The development of E1, a project that the United States has blocked several times since 1994, has long been seen as a diplomatic third rail, and several experts said Saturday that they expected that Israel may once again back down from building there. But several other controversial housing projects within Jerusalem have sped forward in recent months, raising the ire of the Palestinian leadership, left-leaning Israelis and the international community, most of whom see the settlements as a violation of international law.

36 comments:

  1. I remember during the Oslo talks, R' Ovadia Yosef, a former Rishon LeZion, claiming that opposing the accord would violate the oath of rebelling against the nations! This view was subsidised by Shimon Peres offering Shas money for their yeshivot.

    ReplyDelete
  2. R' Ovadia Yosef shlit"a is not a politician. His Torah psak and opinion isn't for sale.

    ReplyDelete
  3. db
    The underlying premise of your statement contradicts the Torah itself, which does say that gifts/ bribes can pervert the words of the righteous.
    Using a title or epithet for a rabbi , such as Sar hatorah, Maran, Posek HaDor etc does not give them immunity from error or mendacity.
    At least not according to the Torah of Moses.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ROY's psak regarding land for peace and his dovish views predate the creation of SHAS.

    ReplyDelete
  5. ROY has changed his views from being hawkish, dovish etc. After the bloodshed caused by Oslo he said this is not the "peace" we have hoped for.
    Anycase, the point is whether anybody claims today that building eretz Yisrael is a violation of those oaths (which the Arizal gave only a 1000 year lifespan).

    ReplyDelete
  6. ROY , through his spokesman itzi k tzudri blamed oslo on deri.
    The quote from from rav chaim vital ( not the arizal ) is a complete misreading. Look at vayoel moshe חלק ע.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I love this repeated invocation of "We are not to rebel against the nations". Why never the one right after that, "the nations aren't to mistreat us too much"? Why does that never come up?

    ReplyDelete
  8. sorry, was R' Haim Vital,
    however, here are sources which argue against the validity of the oaths
    http://hirhurim.blogspot.co.uk/2005/10/kuntres-she-lo-yaalu-ke-homah-iv.html
    including the view that these applied only to the babylonian exile.
    BTW, since R' Akiva and at some stage the rest of chazal backed Bar Kochba, then it proves they paid no heed to any such oaths.

    ReplyDelete
  9. interesting , this morning rumours (starting with left wing haaretz) were flying that UK and France will withdraw ambassadors and pass sanctions, by this afternoon these false rumours are gone.

    B'H we have divine protection in the the land of Israel. Even the satmar Rebbe was unable to fathom this point, and instead he chose St Maria.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Within the month the Satmar Rebbe will be visiting the holyland, breathing Israeli air, eating Israeli food and riding on Israeli roadways. Wonder which of the holy keverim he will opt to visit?

      Delete
  10. עיין באם הבנים שמחה ג:כא. Where rav tichtal shows the oaths are valid today.
    This is the basic book of relegious zionism.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Rav tichtal knew everyfthing gil student and more...

    ReplyDelete
  12. All rav aviners questions are asked in ויואל משה with answers. RSA just leaves out the a.swers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please stop this inanity. We do not follow the three oaths today. Show me where it‘s mentioned in the Yad (no I don’t mean the Igeres Tieman -- which was written prior to the Yad -- since the Rambam did not include it’s issues l’halachah) or the Shulchan Aruch. Avnei Nezer was much greater than the Satmar rebbe, and he argued that the oaths are not pertinent today. Stop the hate of our fellow Jews.

      Delete
    2. ויאול משה is a polemic.
      The oath of יעלה בחומה means:

      1) Immigration/entry
      2) Forced/Armed
      3) The whole/majority of the nation

      All the major מפרשים explain it in this way. But the ויואל משה simply ignores them (or reads his own strained interpretation into them), and includes any large group of immigrants as violating the oath. He does this in two ways:

      1) He takes the clear phrase ביד חזקה of Rashi and expands and conflates it with other uses of the expression in order to expand the oath way beyond the understanding of the classic מפרשים
      2) He ignores the parallel גמרא in יומא which clearly differentiates בחומה from a partial piecemeal immigration. When he does cite that גמרא he cuts it off in mid-sentence- the very clause that refutes his entire case is not cited.

      And the ויואל משה is inconsistent:

      1) Consider his explanation of why the רמב"ם didn't include the oath in his משנה תורה. I won't go into the details, but the crux of his argument is that the רמב"ם understood the oaths to only include an entry the whole/majority of the nation. In other words, according to the ויואל משה, the רמב"ם does not hold like the ויואל משה.

      2) Look at סימן יח, there he implies that problem is with the immigration of the entire nation- once again contradicting himself!

      To top it all off, the Satmar Rebbe wrote על הגאולה ועל התמורה in which he declares all those Zionists who became בעלי תשובה in the wake of the Six Day War to be phonies. He also declares that the only miracle of the war was that HaSatan convinced Gedolei Yisrael that there were miracles.


      Delete
  13. Eddie.. u make a historical mistake...satmar is not from the name u mentioned.

    ReplyDelete
  14. cK, I will accept your quote from eim Habanim smeicha - he says that regarding military conquest. however the very chapter you cite says we should use all other natural, physical means at our disposal, e.g. purchasing land, as R' Kalischer ztl suggests.
    He also cites Rambam who critiques the haredi mindset of Bayit Sheni, in contrast to the Hesder mindset which should have been taken, i.e. He favour's Goren's shita rather than Satmar's.
    If we are bound to the oaths as R' Teichtal suggests, then his argument is not very logically consistent. The first Hibbat Zion movement was from the Gra's followers and the Besht's. If you buy land, and settle, and are opposed militarily, then self defence is a mitzvah. remember, The Zionist movement was along the lines of what RYST suggests, ie political campaigning, and league of nations support, buying land etc. The military part became a necessity after pogroms. There is no halachic basis for pacifism against a murderous army.
    I agree R Teichtal knew more that Student, it's obvious, he was a Gaon in his day, and was originally opposed to zionism.
    Itis nto the basic book of RZ, but they like to use it to rub it in for their Satmar cousins, because he was one of their ilk, until he found the right derech, or at least approached it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. a woman's voice , lecture, on Teichtal. I dont know if hareidim are allwoed to listen to a female talking voice online.

    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Radio/News.aspx/2821#.UL0ZLmd54ow

    ReplyDelete
  16. Halacha lamesa... when the avnie nezer had to posken regarding tge 3 oaths he held they are bar tokef
    see his grandsons book מראה הדשה י"ם תשסר. רב א י בורשטיין where be tells a story regarding polish settlement and the directions given by the AN.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most authorities do seem to hold that the oaths are still in force, however the question is whether the oaths have in fact been violated.

      Delete
  17. Rav kalisher was told not to pblish his book by rav akiva eger, because of the 3 oaths. RK responded halila to make a state , only to settle. RAE told him never the less it will get out of hand. ( see raviskis book הקץ המולה and The rebbi miesels)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "RAE told him never the less it will get out of hand."

      In other words, it was not against the oaths- so the Satmar Rebbe argues with him too.

      Delete
  18. The jews lived in peace with with the arabs the first zionist conference 1896. After balfour things got much worse. See professer anita shapiro (TAU) who has written extensive. On these matters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Ohr Sameach considered the oaths to be annulled with the League of nations and the Balfour declaration.

      Peace - as more Jews came in to Israel, and began buying land, the violence took place from the arabs. Remember also the Kuzari, and how he met his end. was that due to him being frei?
      There are plenty of Bible critics in TAU, I doubt you would rely on them for your limmudim. Also their archaeologists deny that there ever was a King David or a Yetziat Mitzroyim. But when it suits NK, they will side with PLO/Hamas and leftist atheists. Supreme irony, that one of the basic points of Satmar was the secular nature of Zionism, although they are in cahoot with the atheist -leftist-communist secularists in their anti zionism.

      Delete
    2. "The Ohr Sameach considered the oaths to be annulled with the League of nations and the Balfour declaration."

      "Annulled" is the wrong term. "Inapplicable" is better. The oaths include rebellion; once the nations gave permission, no rebellion was necessary.

      Delete
    3. "The jews lived in peace with with the arabs the first zionist conference 1896. "

      Like the riots of 1837? Why do you think the neighborhoods outside the old city were built with gates? To keep out mosquitoes?

      Delete
  19. we can debate the historical position all we like, the question is whether they apply to this E1 planning, in light of the strong opposition from EU (Edom) and Amerika.
    Or rather, those who claim the oaths were in force in 1940s, do they still hold by them today?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Recipients and PublicityDecember 4, 2012 at 1:36 PM

    This discussion misses the point, the current Israeli government, like all the Israeli governments don't care about "oaths" all they care about is politics. And it is international politics and realpolitik that is always at work at any given time.

    Oslo was a mistake that Israel was forced into. The Knesset vote was achieved with the help of the Jew-hating Arabs in the Knesset. Rabin paid for it with his life. Oslo taught the Arabs that the Jews were weak. That process was started by Menachem Begin when he gave in to Jimmy Carter with the Camp David Accords, that are now virtually null and void with the fanatical Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt. Israel will not take bull from them forever. Next time not just Gaza but Egypt too will feel the wrath of the IDF. The next war to teach them a lesson cannot be that far off. Time will tell.

    The Netanyahu government has now sent a signal that just as the Arabs can act unilaterally and skip NEGOTIATIONS by running to the UN to get even more recognition (as if the PLO does not have enough recognition from the world's Jew-hating nations, basically all of them) similarly, Israel too can act unilaterally and annex and build in whatever parts of historical Erezt Yisreol (Land of Israel = Greater Israel).

    The Arabs/Iranians should count themselves fortunate that Israel does not drop an atom bomb or two on a few Arab/Iranian cities. Why do you think they are now voting that Israel should disarm its atomic weapons and rockets/ Everyone saw what Israel accomplished and how it can deliver and neutralize in rocket technology and power. Imagine how Britain would have been if they had the Iron Dome to shoot down Nazi V-1 and V-2 rockets? But now Israel has that power and the Arabs/Iranians are panicking. Let them panic. Let them rot in hell, shem reshoim yirkav!

    The Halacha is very clear, habo leharogcha, hargeihu techila (if someone arises to kill you, kill him first)! We don't need ROY to tell us that, everyone cheder kid should know it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. RAP, I agree with the content of what you say.
    I think the entire oslo process was a disaster, but this E1 announcement could be the end of it, BS'D.
    Oslo and the following gzeirot were a form of sh'ibbud malchiyus, or servitude to the Nations. According to Rambam, days of Moshiach or the era is essentially different in this respect only, i.e. true political independence for Israel. Thus the NK view is to go back to galus, whereas RZ and Jabotinsky, is to fight. Bibi is a supposed heir to Jabotinsky, but has been in a difficult position in fighting this gezeira.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Recipients and PublicityDecember 5, 2012 at 1:35 AM

      By now, it should be obvious that the subject of the oaths not to retake EY by force and that Jews should not rebel against the goyim is gone and done for, it's passe, not nogei'ah because it's yesterday's limud for a not lamented 2,000 year old golus that is now ending/almost ended.

      There are the pre-existing oaths that HKBH ensured ensuring both kiddush ha'aretz and kibbush ha'aretz that can be found in the Tanach that over-ride the latter three oaths of submission. This all came about basically over the last century and especially after the rise and effects of Communism and Nazism on Jews in the post World War Two era -- when the barriers of Jews re-entering their homeland in EY was lifted -- after the collapse of German Nazism, British Imperialism, Russian Communism -- and how each decade since the 1940s the population and proportion of Jews in EY grows exponentially:

      In the 1940s there were about 600,000 Jews in EY.

      By the end of the 1950s there were over 1,000,000 Jews in EY.

      By the end of the 1960s there were over 2,000,000 Jews in EY.

      By the end of the 1970s there were over 3,000,000 Jews in EY.

      By the end of the 1980s there were over 4,000,000 Jews in EY.

      By the end of the 1990s there were over 5,000,000 Jews in EY.

      By 2000 there were nearly 6,000,000 Jews in EY.

      Now in 2012 there are over 6,000,000 Jews in EY, more than in any other country! First this has been son in over 2,000 years following the destruction of the Second Temple by Rome and its exile of the Jews to four corners of its far-flung empire.

      That means that of the world's approximately 13,000,000 known Jews today, over the last 60 years the majority have moved to and grown in EY, and it does not take a math genius or a prophet to see and predict that within the next 60 years basically ALL the world's Jews will be living in EY. It is only a matter of time that America's Jews will be leaving by the hundreds of thousands as anti-Semitism in America and growing opportunities in Israel will bring them on either voluntary or forced aliya -- as is staring to happen in France now.

      Oh yeah, there may be an enclave left in Kiryas Joel in Monroe, New York while the rest will be rabidly assimilated hopelessly intermarried fanatical apostates unreachable by the best that modern-day kiruv and Chabad has to offer, just as there is an enclave left in Tehran, Iran, that cannot shake off the "good life" there. Or the few Jews left in Russia that Chabad is trying to save with little noticeable effect since most are more interested in being partners with Putin (including Chabad itself) in becoming "oligarchs" and could care less about Yiddishkeit.

      Delete
    2. Agreed.
      I would make a further point.
      It is not possible to make an oath that violates the Torah. Or, such an oath has no validity. Can someone make an oath that he will not keep Shabbat?
      The exception might be a temporary injunction from a Navi, thus the 70 year galut in Babylon was pronounced by Yirmiyahu. there was no such thing for the current exile. the oaths may have reflected political expediency, eg the failure of the revolts against Rome. But, the Revolt against British/Arab rule was successful.
      The E1 project is a Mitzvah, that of settling Eretz Yisrael.

      Delete
    3. " the subject of the oaths not to retake EY by force"

      You need to clarify here. The operative language is יעלה בחומה. Now, יעלה ALWAYS means a movement from חו"ל into א"י. Thus, the words themselves indicate that once we are legitimately (i.e. we didn't force our way in) in the land, there is no violation if we defend and keep the country by force.

      The pattern I've seen is that those who take the Satmar position simply can't defend their position. They can quote ויואל משה, but they don't understand it enough to support it against those who would challenge it. They define the oaths according to their own agenda and can't back it up.


      "The hope-for return to Palestine, which has troubled Herr M. so much, has no influence on our conduct as citizens... In part, human nature accounts for it- only an enthusiast would not love the soil on which he thrives. And he who hold contradictory religious opinions reserves them for... prayer. In part, also, the precaution of our sages accounts for it- the Talmud forbids us from even to think of a return [to Palestine] by force.. Without the miracles and signs mentioned in Scripture, we must not take the smallest step in the direction of forcing a return and a restoration of our nation. The Song of Songs expresses this prohibition in a somewhat mystical and yet captivating verse..."
      Mendelssohn, Remarks Concerning Michaelis' Response to Dohm, 1783. (Cited by Mendes-Flohr & Reinharz in The Jew in the Modern World)

      "It's a beautiful project, and in case it becomes realized I would ask to be appointed... Ambassador to Berlin."
      Abraham (ben Moshe) Mendelssohn on proposals to return Jews to ארץ ישראל.

      Delete
  22. 1) satmar and nuturi karta are separate groups.
    2) prof a shapira is דתי. R berel wien and others quote her.
    3) the balfour declaration end with a clause that the arabs must agree. Rav wein says the arabs should have been dancing.
    4) RAP...you sound like the chabad rebbi זצל... he says the 3 oaths are certainly valid, only pekiach nefesh over rides.
    5) השכם והרג is a argument as to whether this applies to a צבור as well as a יחיד.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "השכם והרג is a argument as to whether this applies to a צבור as well as a יחיד."

      Why? Aren't יחידים part of the ציבור? I can understand that something applicable to the ציבור may not necessarily apply to the יחיד, but it doesn't seem to follow vice versa. Are you saying that one can argue that an individual does not have a right/obligation to defend himself if he is not the only one in danger?

      Please cite some sources.

      Delete
  23. 1) many sources to. יעלה בחומה ,יד חזקה can be found on DT nov22 011 post on six day war post in comments by megila.
    2) regarding השכם והרג there is a discussion. I foun
    d this by a link to jews against zionism site.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The link to jews against zionism site is found at wikipedia 3 oaths article.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.