Sunday, March 22, 2015

Is this the End of the Two-State Solution?

ב' לחודש הראשון תשע"ה

In order to bring the Jewish Home Party [JHP] into the newly forming, Israeli Government, Prime Minister Re-Elect Binyamin Netanyahu has capitulated to JHP Chair Naftali Bennett's demand to renounce the so-called Two-State Solution, and thus any future "Palestinian" state.

But, now it appears that Netanyahu's stance against the establishment of yet another, Arab terrorist state is not so clear after all.

None of this matters, though. What people refuse to see is that Bennett himself would like to lead us down the road to a defacto, "Palestinian" state, whether he knows it or not.

His so-called "plan" may include annexing parts of Yehudah and Shomron (Judea and Samaria). But, it also includes granting autonomy to many of the Arabs currently residing there, and granting Israeli citizenship to others.

How can a "religious" Jew suggest such a thing?
הלכות עבודה זרה וחוקות הגויים י
ד [ג] אין מוכרין להם בתים ושדות, בארץ ישראל; ובסוריה, מוכרין להם בתים, אבל לא שדות. ומשכירין להם בתים בארץ ישראל, ובלבד שלא יעשם שכונה--ואין שכונה, פחותה משלושה. ואין משכירין להם שדות; ובסוריה, משכירין להם שדות. ומפני מה החמירו בשדה: מפני שיש בה שתיים--מפקיעה מן המעשרות, ונותן להם חניה בקרקע.
Mishneh Torah, Laws of Avodah Zarah, Ch. 104 [3] One does not sell them houses or fields in the Land of Israel; but in Suriyah, one [may] sell them houses, but not fields. And one rents them houses in the Land of Israel, provided that it would not create a neighborhood--a neighborhood being not less than three [units]. And one does not rent them fields; but in Suriyah, on rents them fields. And why were they strict about fields? Because of two [reasons]--profiting from the tithes [from which they are exempt], and it allows them to remain on the land.
From the next halakhah, we learn that these "houses" do not refer to residences, rather to storage facilities only.

And, before anyone gets up in arms about the term "avodah zarah," and how this does not include Muslims, I will say that this is a common misconception. The Ramba"m's use of the term "avodah zarah" here refers to the category of non-Jews, not having accepted upon themselves the Seven Noahide Commandments. In other words, this term does not exclude Muslims (See Ramba"m Sh"uT 248, Tur, Hoshen Mishpat 249, with Beth Yosef, and [uncensored] Ba"Ch])

Of course, the major point of this negative commandment of "Lo Techonem" (Deut. 7:2) is to prevent non-Jews from gaining any foothold on our Land, whatsoever.

Bennett's Plan vs. Arafat's Plan
Disturbingly similar...
However, many have suggested that Bennett's "plan" is simply progress in this direction, and that we can currently expect to achieve, due to the current time in which we live, and current attitudes of Jews, who cannot quite get their heads around the fact that halakhah (Torah Law) does not always usually match their preconceived, Western-exilic notions. But the ultimate goal of such "progress" never seems to get mentioned.

Peace? Peace with people who want the Land of Israel to themselves, Land which was Divinely promised to the Jewish? Peace with a people who wants to annihilate us?

Annexation of Yehudah and Shomron, without any thought given to even the theoretical possibility of the migration of Arabs currently residing in these areas, has been tried already, over and over and over again. No one would dare mention even the theoretical migration of Arabs from one area to another, because that would be racist, right?

And no one wants to be accused of being a racist, certainly not even the Prime Minister, like when he warned about Arabs being bused to polling booths.

The Jewish Home Party, its previous incarnation as the National Religious Party, and the Techiya Party, have all refused to acknowledge both parts of the misswah (Torah commandment) of inheriting the Land...
במדבר לג
נב וְהוֹרַשְׁתֶּם אֶת-כָּל-יֹשְׁבֵי הָאָרֶץ, מִפְּנֵיכֶם, וְאִבַּדְתֶּם, אֵת כָּל-מַשְׂכִּיֹּתָם; וְאֵת כָּל-צַלְמֵי מַסֵּכֹתָם תְּאַבֵּדוּ, וְאֵת כָּל-בָּמוֹתָם תַּשְׁמִידוּ. נג וְהוֹרַשְׁתֶּם אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, וִישַׁבְתֶּם-בָּהּ: כִּי לָכֶם נָתַתִּי אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, לָרֶשֶׁת אֹתָהּ. נד וְהִתְנַחַלְתֶּם אֶת-הָאָרֶץ בְּגוֹרָל לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתֵיכֶם, לָרַב תַּרְבּוּ אֶת-נַחֲלָתוֹ וְלַמְעַט תַּמְעִיט אֶת-נַחֲלָתוֹ--אֶל אֲשֶׁר-יֵצֵא לוֹ שָׁמָּה הַגּוֹרָל, לוֹ יִהְיֶה: לְמַטּוֹת אֲבֹתֵיכֶם, תִּתְנֶחָלוּ. נה וְאִם-לֹא תוֹרִישׁוּ אֶת-יֹשְׁבֵי הָאָרֶץ, מִפְּנֵיכֶם--וְהָיָה אֲשֶׁר תּוֹתִירוּ מֵהֶם, לְשִׂכִּים בְּעֵינֵיכֶם וְלִצְנִינִם בְּצִדֵּיכֶם; וְצָרְרוּ אֶתְכֶם--עַל-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם יֹשְׁבִים בָּהּ. נו וְהָיָה, כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּמִּיתִי לַעֲשׂוֹת לָהֶם--אֶעֱשֶׂה לָכֶם.
Numbers 33
52 then you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their figured stones, and destroy all their molten images, and demolish all their high places. 53 And you shall drive out the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein; for to you have I given the land to possess it. 54 And you shall inherit the land by lot according to your families--to the more you shall give the more inheritance, and to the fewer you shall give the less inheritance; wheresoever the lot falla to any man, that shall be his; according to the tribes of your fathers shall you inherit. 55 But if you will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then those that you let remain of them shall be as thorns in your eyes, and as pricks in your sides, and they shall harass you in the land wherein you dwell. 56 And it shall come to pass, that as I thought to do unto them, so will I do unto you.
Who can honestly say that the Arabs have not been "...as thorns in your eyes, and as pricks in your sides?"

One Jewish Home Party supporter even reminded me that it that it took hundreds of years, since Yehoshu'a Bin-Nun's initial conquest of Eretz Yisra'el (Land of Israel) until it was mostly free of the Canaanites (See the Books of Joshua and Judges).

My response was a simple one. Not only was he right, but that this source was the only logical one I have ever heard supporting Bennett's "plan."

However, I also had to ask him if over this 200 + year span, the Tribes of Israel settling in their Divinely Promised Homeland ever deter from their Torah principles, and thus their ultimate goal of a Canaanite-free homeland? Did they ever hide the truth of their ultimate goal of a Canaanite-free homeland?

Even if it were permissible to accept gerei toshav at this time, which the Israeli Chief Rabbinate apparently believes is the case, how many Arabs in Yehudah and the Shomron would actually qualify? For that matter, how many Arabs in Be'er Sheva, Yaffo, Nazareth, Akko, and Haifa would actually qualify?

Has Bennett ever once talked about his plan being just "progress," as a step in the direction of Jewish, Torah-observant, Homeland? What about a Jewish plus gerei toshav Homeland?

Not to my recollection.

PM Bibi Netanyahu
Let us also not forget that it was "right-wing" Prime Minister Netanyahu who gave "autonomy" to Jericho and Azza (Gaza), and not "left-wing" Rabin, Peres, nor Baraq.

The "Palestinian" Authority is up in arms over yesterday's elections, and Netanyahu's statements denouncing a future, Arab state within Israel's borders, which he already appears to have flipped-flopped on.

But, if the Arab are smart, then they are actually laughing behind the scenes, laughing because of the increase in number of Arab MK's, Netanyahu and Bennett's "plans," or their ever increasing birthrate, and voter turnout.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is simply acting the politician that he is.

But, Naftali Bennett is "religious," which I had always though meant Torah-observant, as in all of the Torah, and not just regarding what we put into our mouths and do or not do on Shabbath.

So, what's Bennett's excuse?

5 comments:

dr said...

Good article. A few points about Bibi and Bennett I'd like to add: there really isn't any question of where Bibi stands (or stood) practically speaking vis-a-vis Palestinian statehood. He was always against, still is, but is also (and for a while has been) too cowardly to say it openly. His doublespeak about "theoretically" being in favor of a Palestinian state under "ideal" circumstances but saying that now it's not relevant is just his way of telling the world what they want to hear while winking to Israelis that he doesn't really mean it, because he knows those circumstances will never be.

As far as Bennett goes, he's woefully naive when it comes to the Arab population - at least the Israeli Arab population, but probably just as much so with the PA Arabs. His "99% are loyal" comment is a good example. That being said, the critiques of his plan coming from the right are mostly unfair. The idea that it somehow pushes forward Arafat's plan is mistaken; the map shown is a map after Oslo 2. It's not Arafat's plan, it's the reality that already exists. The Arabs in those territories, A and B, already have autonomy. Bennett's plan does nothing to change the status there; all it does is annex area C and take it off the table, making a Palestinian state all but impossible to create. True, it includes giving citizenship or residency to tens of thousands of Arabs AND would make Israeli's borders a confusing mess; those are both legit criticisms.

Mighty Garnel Ironheart said...

First of all, Bennett can propose whatever he wants. Like the two Ehuds he knows he can offer anything and the Arabs will reject it.
Annexation at the present time would be a disaster. It would mean giving citizenship to the Arabs in Yesh which would put them at, what, 35-40% of the total population. What do you think the next Knesset will look like in that case?
In fact, the current status quo is the best for both sides - the Arabs have limited autonomy and some control over their lives without becoming citizens of Israel, the Israelis control much of Yesh that isn't infested and everyone quietly gets along. The bugbear in the details is that no one can admit this is a good setup because it means all the peace process diplomats losing their jobs.

Esser Agaroth said...

MGI,

I think you missed the point.

Annexation would, of course, be a disaster,...with the Arabs still there.

Why do they have to be there?

Proposing something knowing that it will be rejected is not even ok, as a strategy.

My point is that Bennett refuses to say why this is acceptable al pi Torah.

He could simply say that יד הגוים תקיפה, and that there's nothing we can do. I disagree, of course. But, he doesn't even say this.

I take issue with anyone with a kippah on his head, who refuses to see that Torah touches every aspect of our lives, including how to run a Jewish gov't, a Jewish army, and interact with non-Jews.

It's all there. But, people do what they want.

This blog exists in part, due to my frustrations with this issue.

The only peace process stems from halakha.

Batya Medad said...

Shavua Tov

This post has been included in the latest Shabbat HaGadol, Tzav: Jewish Blog Carnival Combo, Havel Havelim and Kosher Cooking Carnival. Please visit, read the other blog posts, enjoy and share, thanks.
reJoin our Jewish blogging communities.

Esser Agaroth said...

Thanks, Batya.

You Might Also Like...