Jerusalem Post reports thousand of mostly religious demonstrators attended a rally in Jerusalem. Shalom Dov Wolpe, a prominent religious author and political activist and a Chabad-Lubavitch Rabbi, threatens civil war if any settlements are evacuated:
There will be a civil war and the creation of a new, autonomous entity, the Authority of Judea and Samaria, should the government evacuate even the smallest West Bank settlement, Rabbi Shalom Dov Wolpe warned at a Jerusalem rally on Thursday night.
“If you [Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu] want a civil war, there will be one,” said Wolpe, whose Eretz Yisrael Shelanu movement organized the event..
If this is not the nail in the coffin of the 1 state solution then what is?
I can’t wait for Witty and www to spin this. So now ww have civil war with both a 1 state or 2 state solution, but it’s all the fault of the Palestinians.
I see that my comment was censored again.
The mondoweiss censors should go work for the Seattle bus company.
they pretend this is religious. The god that chose them gave very strange orders.
Video of rally for non-stop building of Israeli settlements–including American Rabbi spouting, “There’s only one country in the world where Jews are not allowed to build homes–the land of Israel!” Such logical speachifying starts after a short sequence of old, stringy-bearded men making strange unpleasant noises with their wet distorted mouths, one accompanied by harsh noise blown though a long pipe: link to israelnationalnews.com
Photos below the video include one of Shalom Dov Wolpe
yeah, that speech.
Must be intriguing to be so totally unaware your whole life is satire.
But don’t you think, merry rosie, that gods have to give strange orders – they would be no better than us if they thought like us and their ideas were ordinary?
A rally of less than two thousand people (that did not involve participation from the mainstream settlers) is hardly a nail in the coffin of anything. Any significant withdrawal from the West Bank will lead to a major “altercation” between the settlers and the government. But in actuality the settlers do not like shedding Jewish blood and they don’t mind shedding nonJewish blood and thus they tend to demonstrate their chagrin with anti settler acts by the government by attacking the Palestinians.
By the way, Annie, this was not a New Year’s rally, nor was it a Christmas rally, but it was a Thursday night rally. If you read the JPost article carefully you will notice that the ram’s horn (shofar) was sounded just like it is blown on the Jewish New Year’s which occurs in September as a rule.
thank WJ, i wasn’t completely clear what the implications of this statement meant knowing it wasn’t new years eve:
iow, this wasn’t a ‘new years service’ in itself? the set of shofar blasts is a tradition from a new years service that takes place in september?
i will change the text of the post. thnx
A rally of less than two thousand people (that did not involve participation from the mainstream settlers) is hardly a nail in the coffin of anything.
it only took one of them to put the nail in rabin’s coffin tho, didn’t it?
In my proposal, the settlements can remain under Palestinian sovereignty.
The logic behind the statement is that these are the messianic times, that contrary to Torah, it is possible to *force* the messiah to appear.
It contrasts very starkly with the chabad rabbis that I know that claim that the way to invoke the messiah is by good deeds, mitzvot, that comprise a thick fabric of goodness on the planet, a healed planet.
The rabbi is to my mind misinterpreting Torah (as do many, how vain I am to say so), to assume that the covenant applies to only the “known” Jews, and not to the majority of halachically legal Jews that are not known to others, or even to themselves. (10 of the twelve tribes disappeared, and still represent potentially 5/6 of racially world Jewry, matrilineal descent.)
He also ignores the component of the covenant that is a contract. “IF” you keep my commandments…..
He also ignores the component of Torah which requires that Jews adopt the laws of the land in which they are hosted.
Most of the chabad rabbis that I’ve queried on these and other questions, do conclude that God promised the land of Canaan to the descendents of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and through the lineage of Jacob for all time, with no statute of limitations, and with a permanent ability to atone for all sins that would otherwise keep Jews from the promised land, so that the promise is never permanently severed.
There is also substantiation within Torah to preclude the taking of land by force, as the form of the promise fulfilled. Specifically, that Abraham purchased the land of Mechpelah, rather than expropriated it, though Rachel’s tomb was taken by force.
Often in Jewish history, there has been religious conflict between ideological zealots and more introspective and ethical approaches.
The theme that “the land is ours” is definitely widely held in some chabad circles and other new religious factions, especially among those adherents that reject skepticism as even a means to dive into Torah.
The phenomena of these end run (and end times) pronouncements is partially a function of the absence of single rabbinic authority, even factionally, to provide a respected reality check on zeal.
There is no way to legally enforce Torah as third party contract. Where is the document, signed by multiple parties, with witness?
There is a recurring fantasy of repetition of Joshua, that modern Jews are somehow commanded to repeat that era. The metaphors that appear in Torah and prayer, warrior images, King, etc. are metaphors for a past time, not the present. The true meaning of the terms to conquer are metaphorical and refer to inner determination to achieve righteous consciousness.
But, not everyone gets that in Judaic metaphor, in similar Islamic metaphor, in similar Hindu metaphor, elsewhere.
It is alarming. Its a larger movement than this single incident, and therefore requires theological argument.
As claiming that Torah says x proves the point is irrelevant in terms of secular law and world, the political arguments do not reach those that derive what they know only from Torah.
(By Torah, I don’t mean only the written five books, but the whole body of rabbinic interpretation and application in changing times.)
If you want the dialog of religious/political positions to change, it requires encouraging those that have any credentials to speak to that world, to present an alternative view.
Otherwise, you are likely to get attracted to the idea that “better there not be any Jews”, as somehow a progressive view.
That’s clearly nto going to happen. The settlers won’t even recgonize such a state.
Clearly, the chabad rabbis are in the minority or have no influence in Israel.
By that definition, Zionism violates that very belief. In fact, if Israel would not exist today if that law had been observed.
Again, this would have
Was Jerusalem not taken by force? What about Jerischo?
But this ontradicts the requirement to adhere to the laws of the land.
Witty waffle.
A civil war, with Israeli against Israeli , OUTSIDE of Israel, will be a unique event in the post 1945 world.
The issue which will inevitably arise is, what is and what is not legally sovereign to Israel and who amongst the Regional Powers has a right to intervene under Chapter XI of the UN Charter and how under Chapter VII.
There has never been ANY territory legally annexed to Israeli sovereignty. NOTHING outside of Israel’s declared borders of May 14th 1948 is Israeli. Israel’s failure to recognize it’s OWN boundaries in the vain hope of achieving a Greater Israel, has put Israel OUTSIDE OF the law, OUTSIDE of it’s legitimate sovereignty.
The Torah, it’s interpretations, et al, are completely irrelevant except to point out that folk who believe it somehow entitles Israel to anything beyond the Declared boundaries of the Jewish Homeland State of Israel, are quite insane.
Superb summation Talknic.
Talknic, actually I think this was one of RW’s better posts. With a rather coherent argument till he arrives at the conclusion. How does this fantasy attack on progressives result from his former arguments?
Otherwise, you are likely to get attracted to the idea that “better there not be any Jews”, as somehow a progressive view.
Strictly Talknic, I do not like your incipit either? Freud’s wish-fulfillment comes to mind. But then you may in fact be reacting to his last paragraph. It sometimes helps to analyze one’s reaction. What exactly caused your anger?
I think in the back of his mind there is a definition of Jews as some kind of emergency association. There is a danger that the actions of these people may lead to danger of all. How realistic is this?
I think the most important statements concerning the settlers and/or Russian Israelis come from Shmuel. They were by far the best concerning the issue. You cannot support settlers over decades and then turn around and make them into scapegoats. That’s ethically dubious. I have seen arguments like: If you think we have no right to be here, what is the exact difference to your rights inside Israel? The problem with this argument is it runs counter to / prevents a just solution.
LeaNder
Spades are what waffle is to Witty’s inevitably fallible conclusions.
‘anger’ ? concise, terse, cutting
Put simply, Israel obliged itself to the UN Charter and International law, in which the Torah and religious beliefs play no part.
The civil war will also involve attacks on Palestinians (as it already does), so that when the UNSC finally commands Israel to remove all settlers (and demolish all settlements and the wall), there will be (likely) lots of (various) blood spilled. Israelis have no self control and know no (superior) law. The settlers do not even acknowledge the law of Israel as superior.
(Oi.)
“The logic behind the statement is that these are the messianic times, that contrary to Torah, it is possible to *force* the messiah to appear.”
How can I formulate or articulate a response that would not warrant an intervention from the moderators of this blog?
I can’t..and I won’t be bothered.
Byebye, fool!!
Isn’t this the same argument that has been used to isnist that Iran’s leaders cannot be reasoned with?
Mitzvot don’t come into it. It’s about politics, not Torah. Half a million Jews are living on someones else’s land and have to leave if the Palestinians are to get their state. Otherwise it’s rights for all in the binational state.
The settlers’ rabbis are bigoted, small minded and parochial and it is the tragedy of the settlers that they are led by such people who do not have the skills required to secure for their people the deal they need.
YESHA is failing because the key assumption upon which it was built, that the Palestinians would slink away into history, was false.
And we are not in the “end times” either. It’s all a joke. Maybe YESHA was build specifically for the end times . Guess what? The sun will come up tomorrow and the day after.
Witty, why did you leave out Christian metaphor here: “But, not everyone gets that in Judaic metaphor, in similar Islamic metaphor, in similar Hindu metaphor, elsewhere.” Elsewhere? You mean like overwhelmingly in the very land you were born, raised in, and have lived in your entire life? Also, re: “The phenomena of these end run (and end times) pronouncements is partially a function of the absence of single rabbinic authority, even factionally, to provide a respected reality check on zeal.” I think the same can be said of the absence of single Christian authority–even more so, perhaps.
“In my proposal….”
Call the police! This is attempted murder by hysteria! Yup, Witty, I’m sure your proposal is being considered by all parties as we speak, and will be ratified before New Years.
I think this is well understood as a very real threat in Israel. To wit, Shimon Peres made the point before the British Parliament in November 2008 that Israel would have difficulty removing the settlements in the West Bank without provoking a civil war. See:
link to haaretz.com
If the state of Israel sees the matter in this light, and clearly there is strong evidence that it does, then we can be absolutely certain that it will not remove the settlements, no matter what.
i was amazed when i was in israel to find out how many israelis don’t realize the west bank is not already within the boundaries of israel. they have a perception they are being asked to ‘give up’ land for a palestinian state. the musician at this event ariel zilber, check out the lyrics to this song. these people are serious, and they are fanatics.
Doesn’t that perception partner right along with a view of Israel as having no fixed borders other than (maybe) biblical borders?
The Rabbi has no idea of what is in his can of worms.
An Israeli civil war OUTSIDE of Israel ? link to wp.me
Is there a precedent in history?
Thanks, talknic: “Under the UN Charter, which Israel voluntarily agreed to, the UN/UNSC and Regional Powers have a RIGHT to intervene when UN Member States act outside of their acknowledged sovereign territories. An Israeli civil war in “territories occupied” would be OUTSIDE of Israel’s sovereignty.”
This is really scary! How can you win against Rabbis? They can stop the sun in it’s tracks to gain strategic advantage, and no army led by Rabbis will ever get caught in a Dunkirk-type situation, no sir, the water will just spread its legs and they will march on to the other side!
Yes sir, that Rabbi-led Jewish Settler Army will be invincible.