WHAT DOES THE TORAH HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THE "" Rare meeting between settlers, Palestinians held in Hebron"". A DISCUSSION

bill said:

This is precisely what I suggested might be the right strategy to end-run the "Oslo/CFR" process and render it irrelevant.

DS answered:

Yes, you are right, strategy -wise. But on the other hand this is something forbidden DEORAITA, to make a pact with the locals ( Canaanim, Shmenaanim, they are all the same). Because it legitimizes their hold on the LAND. Like saying: yes, we are equal. BUT WE ARE NOT! This is NOT their land.

bill: There is no such ban

DS: That is NOT true. it is spelled black on white.I can find it for you - if you give me time.


DS: All right: here we go.

1. Bereshit, 21:24. In the covenant between Avraham and Abimelech:

I quote ( Artscroll ANTHOLOGY- THE FAT ONE):

""The Sages considered it IMPROPER for ABRAHAM to enter into a TREATY WHEREBY HE LIMITED HIS DESCENDANT'S RIGHTS TO THE PROMISED LAND. IN FACT THE OATH IS CREDITED WITH HAVING PREVENTED THE ISRAELITES IN THE DAYS OF JOSHUA FROM CONQUERING JERUSALEM WHERE THE PHILISTINES HAD SETTLED.

That is exactly the point; when you make a TREATY with a resident, as opposed to ALLOWING HIM TO STAY IN ERETZ YISRAEL, you imply that HIS rights and YOUR rights are equal.

In fact, this is EXACTLY what the Sheikh said - and I don't think any of the Jewish "representatives'' objected, did they? -This was an IMPLIED acceptance of the statement.

It only ENCOURAGES the strangers - in this case, the Hevron Arabs - to hold on to the Land.

Still, compared to Amalek who tries to kill us, there is PROGRESS. But we are NOT ALLOWED to cede the Land to ANYONE.

2.ACCORDING TO RASHBAM in 22:1,

""Abraham's UNAUTHORIZED treaty with Abimelech angered God because the Land had been promised to Abraham's descendants whom God would later command. through Moses and Joshua, to show NO MERCY to the residents of the Land, CONTRARY to Abraham's treaty. In fact, THE DESCENDANTS OF ABIMELECH USED THE TREATY TO THWART ISRAEL'S CONQUEST OF THE LAND.""

THEREFORE GOD AGGRIEVED HIM WITH THE AKEIDAH OF ISAAC, THE TREATY WAS ONE OF THE CAUSES OF THE AKEIDAH.


3.There are other sources which I'd have to research, but it is clear that God is NOT happy with a treaty about Eretz Yisrael with strangers.

bill:

O.K., HERE IS WHERE WE DIFFER.

 

IN TODAY'S CONTEXT, WE DON'T OWN THE LAND. WE ARE STILL IN GALUT, AMONG OUR SECULAR BRETHREN, WHO ARE MORE EUROPEAN THAT JEWISH.

 

WE NEGOTIATE TO LIVE IN PEACE AMONG THE ARABS, WHO--ACCORDING TO THE WELL-KNOWN ZOHAR--WERE GIVEN THE RIGHT TO OCCUPY ERETZ YISRAEL UNTIL THE MESSIAH COMES, BECAUSE THEY PARTIALLY-OBSERVE THE BRIT MILAH.

ABRAHAM ACTED AS THE OWNER OF RIGHT. THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO US IN GALUT. WE ARE SUBJUGATED TO THE OPPRESSION OF THE NON-JEWISH WORLD UNTIL THE MESSIAH COMES.

DS: Excuse me: this is REALLY PURE B.S. Where on earth do you interpret the Torah as such? This is not Judaism, this is.... I don't know what. THE TORAH CLEARLY states that Eretz Yisrael BELONGS to Am Yisrael. And WE ARE AM YISRAEL, until further notice!

SO NOW, LET ME ASK OUR HONORED READERS, TZVI KATSOVER, ELIAKIM HAETZNI, BOAZ HAETZNI, AND NOAM ARNON:

IS THAT WHAT YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE: THAT THE LAND DOES NOT BELONG TO US, BECAUSE WE ARE STILL IN GOLUS?

THIS WOULD BE THE ONLY TORAH JUSTIFICATION FOR MAKING A TREATY WITH THE ARABS.

IN WHICH CASE YOU HAVE JUST DENIED ONE MAJOR TENET OF RELIGIOUS ZIONISM ( YOUR FAMOUS RAV KOOK): THAT THE LAND OF ISRAEL BELONGS TO AM YISRAEL.

THINK AGAIN ABOUT WHAT YOU HAVE JUST DONE, AND ITS IMPLICATIONS.

I AM SURE YOU MEANT WELL. BUT YOU HAVE TO USE TORAH PRECEDENT.

AND IF YOU DO BELIEVE THAT THE LAND BELONGS TO US, YOU HAVE DONE SOMETHING THAT GOD IS NOT TOO HAPPY WITH!

IF , ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU BELIEVE, LIKE THE SATMARS, THAT WE ARE STILL IN GOLUS, FINE. BUT THEN, GIVE UP RAV KOOK, AND MAYBE, CONSIDER MOVING TO AMERICA, OR BELGIUM. OR LONDON! DO NOT CLAIM HEVRON AS YOURS- OURS, WHATEVER. Why are you holding on to the Land as to dear life???

DS