"you Have No Claim To The Holy Land"
Posted 21 February 2012 - 03:51 PM
A Jew is one who remains faithful to the laws of the Jewish religion, that is, the Holy Torah and its commandments. The Jewish people became a people before they had their own land, and continued to exist as a people also after they went Into exile, because our very peoplehood is based exclusively on the Torah.
The Holy Land was given to the Jewish people on the condition that they observe the Torah and its commandments. When they failed to do this, their sovereignty over the land was taken from them, and they went into exile. From that time, we are prohibited by the Torah with a very grave prohibition to establish a Jewish independent sovereignty in the Holy Land or anywhere throughout the world. Rather, we are obligated to be loyal to the nations under whose protection we dwell. This situation has existed for close to 2000 years when the Jewish people were dispersed throughout all corners of the world. During this time, the Jews always remained faithful to the country in which they lived.
The Jewish people are grateful to all those merciful nations which have allowed them to observe Torah and the commandments undisturbed. From ancient times, the relations between the Jewish and Islamic peoples have always been those of peace and brotherhood, and friendship always reigned between them. The proof of this is the fact that for centuries, in all the Arab lands, hundreds of thousands of Jews lived in honor and amidst mutual esteem. Jews throughout all generations yearned to grace the sacred soil of the Holy Land and to live there. However, their sole purpose was to fulfill the commandments dependent upon the land and to absorb Its holiness. Never, G-d forbid, did they have any nationalist or sovereign intent whatsoever which, as mentioned above, is forbidden to us. Indeed, also here in the Holy Land, our fathers lived in neighborly harmony with the Palestinian residents of the land, helping one another, to mutual benefit.
Until about two hundred years ago, the vast majority of Jews observed the Torah and the commandments in entirety. Jewry's leaders were Torah scholars, who directed the people according to the Torah. They were loyal citizens in the host nations where they dwelled and to the local laws. They prayed for the welfare of their respective governments. To our sorrow, at that time a small number of Jews slowly left their observance of Torah and commandments. Together with this, they began to deride the spiritual leadership of their people. This assimilation was the basis upon which, one hundred years ago, the ideology of Zionism was born. Its founders were assimilated Jews who had abandoned the Torah.
Immediately at the founding of the Zionist movement, masses of Jews under the leadership of their Rabbis, launched a heavy battle against Zionism. Their attack was directed not only at the non-religious Zionist idea, but rather, primarily at its opposition to the Torah-ordained path that Jewry must follow while in exile. As such, the Zionists incited the nations of the world, demanding political sovereignty over the Holy Land while remaining oblivious to the resentment this would arouse In the Palestinian Arabs, the land's veteran inhabitants. As stated, the leaders of Orthodox Jewry vehemently opposed the movement with all force.
The Zionists refused to heed the voice of the Rabbis and Torah authority. They persisted in their ways until they succeeded in influencing the British government to issue the Balfour Declaration concerning the "establishment of a national home for the Jews in the land of Israel." To our great sorrow, from that point on began the deterioration of the good relations between the Jews and the Arab inhabitants of the land. This occurred because the Arab people understood that the Zionists wished to seize rulership from them. In addition, the Arab people had suspicions as if the Jewish people wished to seize control of the Temple Mount and other similar sites. Matters worsened as a result.
The Jewish leadership of that time saw it as proper to clarify before the Arab leaders that the Torah-true Jews had no desire whatsoever for sovereignty, and that our desire was to continue to live in peace with the Arabs, as we had always done. The leader of the G-d-fearing Jewish community at that time, Rabbi Yoseph Chaim Zonnenfeld. of blessed memory, organized a delegation in July of 24' which visited King Hussein and his sons Faisal the King of Iraq and the Amir Abdullah In order to lucidly present to them the position of the G-d-fearing Jewish community. The Jewish delegation clarified unequivocally that Torah Jewry is totally opposed to the Zionist sovereignty over the Holy Land. It Is worth noting that the delegation was received with great honor. They were even assured that all Arab lands were completely open to Jews, however, on the condition that the Jews do not demand political rights. This condition also applied to the Holy Land. One of the members of the Jewish delegation, Professor Yisroel Yaakov De Haan, paid with his life for his participation.
Torah Jewry protests at every opportunity against the Zionist rule over the Holy Land, and the Zionist rebellion against the neighboring nations. Torah Jewry has condemned the Zionist oppression of the Palestinians, the land's veteran inhabitants who have been driven from their homes and properties. The Zionists' barbaric and violent deeds are absolutely antithetical to the essence of the Jewish people.
Torah Jewry has never ever recognized the Zionist state. Since the Zionists succeeding in establishing their state, Torah Jewry has continuously announced to the world that the Zionists do not represent the Jewish people, and that the name "Israel" that they use is a forgery. For as has been stated above, it is forbidden to us from the Torah to rebel against the nations, and all sovereignty by us is prohibited. Rather, we await the days when all the world will recognize the sovereignty of the Creator, and the words of the prophet Isaiah will yet be fulfilled: "And they will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. No nation will lift its sword against any other, nor will they learn warfare anymore."
Anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews have refrained to this day from taking any funds from the Zionist regime, whether for their educational institutions, synagogues or other benefits. Obviously, they do not participate in the Zionist elections, whether for the "Knesset" or for the municipality. We do not serve in their army, and we even avoid speaking in the Hebrew language that the Zionists Invented. (incidentally, this is not the holy and true Hebrew language in which the Bible is written.) All this is done because Torah Jewry does not recognize the Zionist regime, which Is against the Torah and against humanity.
Lately, the question has once again arisen concerning the Temple Mount and sovereignty over it. Thus, we wish to state unequivocally:
a) In our time, it is a severe Torah prohibition for any Jew to set foot on any part of the Temple Mount area.
b) The Jewish people have no claim whatsoever to sovereignty over this holy site, which is under Islamic authority, nor over any other holy site. Rabbi Zonenfeld was once asked, "is it true, that the Rabbi prefers an non-Jewish government over all of the Holy Land"? Rabbi Zonenfeld replied, "if King Hussein would rule over Palestine, the holiness of the Holy Land would not be diminished to even to an Iota degree". We yearningly await G-d's great day, when He will return His Divine Presence to Zion, restoring the holy city to its former holiness and glory as in days of old, to be a light to the peoples and the nations.
The Zionists have no right of any sovereignty over even one inch of the Holy Land. They do not represent the Jewish people in any way whatsoever. They have no right to speak in the name of the Jewish people. Therefore, their words, declarations and actions are not in any way representative of the Jewish people. This is because the Zionists' seizing of power over the Holy Land is antithetical to Jewish law, and also because the Zionists do not behave like Jews at all rather, they desecrate the sanctity of the land.
We once again clarify that it is our desire to live in peace with our Arab and Palestinian neighbors, as we did before the Zionist revolution, and as Jews all over the world till today live, accepting the yoke of rulership of their host nation, with complete loyalty. Our sole desire is to serve our G-d and to fulfill His commandments with a perfect heart and to delight in the radiance of the sanctity of the Land.
Posted 21 February 2012 - 04:01 PM
What title-deeds do the Jews of today actually have to the land of 'Israel'? The idea that a people can possess some kind of ethnic ancestral right to a territory supposedly vacated by their forebears some millenia previously, implying a right in perpetuity, can have no legal basis. Or otherwise Americans of European ancestry, to name just one group of people, will have to pack their bags.
According to Dr Alfred Lilienthal in his book The Zionist Connection, "The Jewish population of Palestine [what is now Israel and the occupied territories, the West Bank and Gaza] at the time of the Balfour Declaration in 1917 was a mere 7 percent of the 700,000 inhabitants. The rest were Muslim and Christian Arabs. At the time of the (US-dominated UN) partition vote in 1947 there were only 650,000 Jews in Palestine while there were 1.3 million indigenous Palestinian Arabs, either Christian or Muslim. Under the partition plan, 56% of Palestine was given for a Zionist state to people who constituted 33% of the population and owned about 6% of the land. These UN figures have never been in dispute."
But there is a further issue, which also (yet again!) demonstrates the fundamentally questionable foundations of Zionism.
Jews are actually not even the modern descendents of the Israel of the Biblical Old Testament:
According to both the early-20th-century popular historian H.G.Wells and the Hungarian-Jewish intellectual and author Arthur Koestler, amongst numerous others, the people known today as Jews are primarily the descendents of a Turkish tribe known as the Khazars. The Khazars have no historical connection to Palestine. They converted to Judaism between 620 and 740AD, and have no genetic connection to biblical Israel, and hence to the narratives of the Bible and the "Holy Land". Koestler actually devoted an entire book called The Thirteenth Tribe (1976) [ZIP file, 471 KB] to the fact that the Jews of eastern European origin, who are known as the Ashkenazi Jews and who make up about 95% of the Jewish population of today, are of Khazar origin. In other words — virtually all of the Jews of the modern world have no Hebrew ancestry, and no ancient connection with Palestine.
Does it matter? Does world peace matter? Do the human rights of a violently oppressed people matter? Does anything but sport and television sitcoms matter?
Arthur Koestler was by no means the first to draw attention to this particular issue. He quotes from 20th-century works on the subject by, amongst others, Professors A.N.Poliak of Tel Aviv University, D.M. Dunlop of Columbia University in New York, and J.B. Bury of Cambridge University. The courageous Jewish anti-Zionist commentator Dr Alfred Lilienthal raised the issue 50 years ago and has continued to do so for decades. In fact, the famous H.G.Wells in the early 1920s in his popular Outline of History described the Jews as "a Turkish people" and stated that "[to the] Jewish Khazars ... are to be ascribed the great settlements of Jews in Poland and Russia" (Chap. XXXII:8) and "The main part of Jewry never was in Judea, and never came out of Judea" (XXIX:1).
Lord Moyne, the British secretary of state in Cairo, declared on June 9, 1942, in the House of Lords that the Jews were not the descendants of the ancient Hebrews and that they had no "legitimate claim" on the Holy Land. A proponent of curtailing immigration into Palestine, he was accused of being "an implacable enemy of Hebrew independence." (Isaac Zaar, Rescue and Liberation: America's Part in the Birth of Israel, New York: Bloch, 1954, p. 115).
On November 6, 1944, Lord Moyne was assassinated in Cairo by two members of the Stern Gang led by Yitzak Shamir, latter to become premier of Israel. (This assassination was not unique in the history of Zionism. In September 1948 Count Folke Bernadotte, appointed by the UN as mediator between the Zionist settlers in Palestine and the native Palestinians, was murdered on orders from the same Yitzhak Shamir. Count Bernadotte was the head of the Swedish Red Cross and had risked his life to save thousands of Jews from German concentration camps. This set a precedent and encouragement for the Zionist use of assassination as a convenient political instrument, which the US and European governments have in effect condoned since then.)
Much old documentary evidence exists on the subject of the Khazars dating from the ninth and tenth centuries and earlier — from Arab, Byzantine, Hebrew, Russian and other sources. The conversion of the Khazars to Judaism is described in the so-called 'Khazar Correspondence' dating from the tenth century between Hasdai Ibn Shaprut, the Jewish chief minister of the Caliph of Cordoba in Spain, and Joseph, the king of the Khazars. In this the king traces the ancestry of his people not to Shem, father of the Semites, but to Japheth, Noah's third son. The Book of Genesis (10:2,3) itself also describes Ashkenaz as a descendent of Japheth, rather than Shem. In other words, the Jews are not a Semitic people, but their contempt for the Arab world and their bitter and violent war of dispossession against the Palestinian Arabs could be termed anti-Semitic.
The Khazars were formerly well known as a powerful people who, at their peak, 'controlled or exacted tribute from some 30 different nations and tribes' (Koestler), and were the supreme masters of the southern half of eastern Europe for more than a century. The Caspian Sea is still known today in Arabic as Bahr-ul-Khazar, 'the Khazar Sea'. These people controlled trade on the Dnieper, the Don and Volga Rivers between the Swedish Vikings, known as the Rus (the founders of Russia) in the north, and Byzantium-Constantinople (capital of the Eastern Roman Empire), Persia and Arabia in the south. The extent of trade along these rivers is indicated by the very large number of Arab coins, approximately 50,000 found, strangely enough, in Sweden and dating from Viking times.
After their conversion to 'Judaism', a religion based primarily on the teachings of the Pharisees and the Talmud, the Khazars adopted circumcision and became known as the 'Jewish Khazars' and then later simply as 'Jews'. Before the conversion, the 'Jewish' population of the entire region was sparse; afterwards, understandably, it suddenly became large. Writing in the 10th century, the Muslim chronicler Muqaddasi says 'In Khazaria, sheep, honey and Jews exist in large quantities' (Koestler p. 43).
After being defeated by the Rus around 965 AD, the power of the Khazars waned, and a gradual migration commenced westwards and northwestwards into Eastern Europe — the Ukraine, Hungary, Poland and Lithuania. Koestler shows that Yiddish (the former Jewish lingua franca of eastern Europe which is classed as a German dialect) developed not in Germany but in Poland as an amalgam of German, Hebrew and Slavonic (Russian and Polish) — the strong German basis of the language being the result of the German social and cultural prominence in the main cities of Poland in medieval times (Koestler Chapt. VII:3). Hebrew itself was only used for liturgical and rabbinic-scholastic purposes, not for everyday communication. No archaeological or other evidence exists of the use in biblical times of the six-pointed 'star of David', the emblem of the Ashkenazi Jews and the Israeli state, and the yarmulke, the skullcap worn by Jewish males, likewise has no biblical foundation. So neither the use of Hebrew nor the star of David nor the wearing of the yarmulke indicate any historical connection with the territory. Koestler says: "The historical evidence ... indicates that the bulk of Eastern Jewry — and hence of world Jewry — is of Khazar-Turkish, rather than Semitic, origin" (p. 175).
This of course poses various interesting questions on many issues, including that of the violent and manipulative Jewish takeover of Palestine during the last century. The reason these questions are not asked is that the story of the Khazar conversion is generally so little known. The academic, church and media establishments generally have shown no interest in correcting such an awkward and fundamental misperception, the source of so much suffering and spilt blood. They consider the issue to be unimportant or potentially dangerous in spite of the shocking human-rights outrages that the mainly Khazar-descended 'Israelis' and their Khazar-descended international Zionist supporters have perpetrated against the native people in Palestine over the last century.
Is there any doubt about the issue?
The British journalist Douglas Reed, former chief Central European correspondent of the Times, in 1950 wrote "The Eastern European Zionists are not Semites (though the Arabs are), have no semitic blood, and their remote forefathers never trod Palestinian earth."
Mr Benjamin Freedman, a Jewish industrialist born in New York, wrote in the Economic Council Letter published there of October 15 1947: "These Eastern European Jews have neither a racial nor a historic connection with Palestine. Their ancestors were not inhabitants of the Promised Land. They are the direct descendants of the people of the Khazar Kingdom. The Khazars were a non-semitic, Turko-Mongolian tribe."
Mr Freedman was challenged, unwisely, by a Zionist objector. He invited his challenger to go with him to the Jewish Room of the New York Public Library. There they could together examine the Jewish Encyclopaedia volume I pp. 1-12, and the published works of Graetz, Dubnow, Friedlander, Raisin and many other noted Jewish historians, which, as well as other non-Jewish authorities, "establish the fact beyond all possible doubt." (Somewhere South of Suez, 1950, pp. 349-350.)
If the Khazar account is untrue, we can be sure that a swift and comprehensive rebuttal would have followed Koestler's book and Lilienthal's long-standing allegations, let alone those of H.G.Wells. Can anyone name the book or books in which such a rebuttal appeared?
To confuse the Jews of today with the Hebrews of the Bible is like believing that the Cherokee 'Indians' not only follow the Hindu religion but will eventually return in triumph to the valley of the sacred Ganges.
Posted 21 February 2012 - 04:06 PM
“Albert Einstein — ‘I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish State. Apart from practical considerations, my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish State,with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power, no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain’...
“Professor Erich Fromm, a noted Jewish writer and thinker, [stated]...’In general international law, the principle holds true that no citizen loses his property or his rights of citizenship; and the citizenship right is de facto a right to which the Arabs in Israel have much more legitimacy than the Jews. Just because the Arabs fled? Since when is that punishable by confiscation of property, and by being barred from returning to the land on which a people’s forefathers have lived for generations? Thus, the claim of the Jews to the land of Israel cannot be a realistic claim. If all nations would suddenly claim territory in which their forefathers had lived two thousand years ago, this world would be a madhouse...I believe that, politically speaking, there is only one solution for Israel, namely, the unilateral acknowledgement of the obligation of the State towards the Arabs — not to use it as a bargaining point, but to acknowledge the complete moral obligation of the Israeli State to its former inhabitants of Palestine’...
“Nathan Chofshi — ‘Only an internal revolution can have the power to heal our people of their murderous sickness of causeless hatred...It is bound to bring complete ruin upon us. Only then will the old and young in our land realize how great was our responsibility to those miserable Arab refugees in whose towns we have settled Jews who were brought here from afar; whose homes we have inherited, whose fields we now sow and harvest; the fruits of whose gardens, orchards and vineyards we gather; and in whose cities that we robbed we put up houses of education, charity, and prayer, while we babble and rave about being the “People of the Book” and the “light of the nations”’...
“In an article published in the Washington Post of 3 October 1978, Rabbi Hirsch (of Jerusalem) is reported to have declared: ‘The 12th principle of our faith, I believe, is that the Messiah will gather the Jewish exiled who are dispersed throughout the nations of the world. Zionism is diametrically opposed to Judaism. Zionism wishes to define the Jewish people as a nationalistic entity. The Zionists say, in effect, ‘Look here, God. We do not like exile. Take us back, and if you don’t, we’ll just roll up our sleeves and take ourselves back.’ ‘The Rabbi continues: ‘This, of course, is heresy. The Jewish people are charged by Divine oath not to force themselves back to the Holy Land against the wishes of those residing there.’” Sami Hadawi, “Bitter Harvest.”
“A Jewish Home in Palestine built up on bayonets and oppression [is] not worth having, even though it succeed, whereas the very attempt to build it up peacefully, cooperatively, with understanding, education, and good will, [is] worth a great deal even though the attempt should fail.” Rabbi Judah L. Magnes, first president of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, quoted in “Like All The Nations?”, ed. Brinner & Rischin.
Mahatma Gandhi - But my sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?
Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home.
Posted 21 February 2012 - 04:12 PM
So what claim do muslims have to the holy lands?
The land was unfairly taken from Muslim leadership in the 1940s. It was under their custodianship for centuries.
Posted 21 February 2012 - 05:22 PM
Was Spain unfairly taken from Muslim leadership?
Posted 22 February 2012 - 06:48 AM
Posted 22 February 2012 - 04:23 PM
Muslims unfairly took the land off the previous owners.
In the era before Jesus, the Israelites unfairly took the land from the Caananites, who are ancestors of present day Arabs residing in Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan.
There needs to be recognition from the global community that the land has historical claims to not only Jews (when I say Jews I mean descendants of the people of the 12 Jewish tribes, not descendants of the Khazars who are present day Israeli Ashkenazi Jews), but to the Arab peoples, as they have resided there before the advent of Islam and Christianity.
Was Spain unfairly taken from Muslim leadership?
In that historical time, did any Muslim foolishly claim that Spain was a safe haven for Muslims to escape persecution? Was there any forced migration of Muslim peoples into Spain? Was there any forced expulsion of the Spanish people out of their colonies, to make way for Muslims from other parts of the world? Were there any forms of violent subjugation and economic strangulation, committed by Muslims, on the Spanish?
To compare the two is disingenuous and misleading on your part.
I'll agree but also play devils advocate here. I am personally against the occupation and have several issues with Zionism but two arguments for it. Number one is that after the Holocaust there was a huge rise in antisemitism throughout Europe and 6 million Jews couldn't just immigrate to other nations so I've always wondered the solution to someone opposing Israel In theory would offer the Diaspora. number two is technically according to the Torah, they do have a claim to the land itself if they've returned to observing the Torah or God gave them back the land. This happens plenty of times in the Torah and laying claim to the land, specifically the Temple Mount, is an absolute prerequisite for sacrifices. Other than this Zionism in it's form today is not Judaism in my opinion and I havent seen a prophet coming to the Jews today to tell them to lay claim to the land or take over the inhabitants therein. Most forms of Judaism today are so watered down and unauthentic anyways.
I'd address your two points here.
1) It seems to be a common denominator in politics these days - choose the easiest way out. After WW2, it seemed convenient for the Jews to migrate to Israel, under British rule, when Europe itself was recovering from the war. It seemed convenient as it disposed the Europeans of the atrocities they committed against the Jews, and instead of taking the moral high ground, they decided to export their 'problem' to the Arabs.
The morally right solution would be for those responsible for the atrocities committed against the Jews, or Europe as a collective whole, to come up with a political solution for the Jews, within Europe.
They could have taken steps to crack down on neo-Nazism and anti-Semitic movements.
They should have rejected Zionism there and then, and appeal to the Jews for better relations.
They should have convinced the non-Jewish peoples of the needs to integrate the Jews into their societies, instead of shunning them.
They should have tried to balance the inequality in their societies to ease social tensions.
They could have come up with a political solution for the Jews, i.e. the European countries could have come up with a declaration safeguaring and protecting the rights of the Jews. In that declaration, they should have come up with a compensation for the family members who had lost their loved ones in the war. They could have assured them a place in their society by practising affirmative action for the Jews. If need be for a independent state, it should have been a piece of land in Europe. After all they should have be accountable for their mistakes, and not subject others for their own transgressions.
But they did not do this, because all this would embarass the Europeans. All this would involve too many political efforts, which the Europeans were not willing to indulge in. At the end of the day, they were not held accountable for their effects of their bloody wars, and the Arabs are paying the price.
I really believe that how Israel came to be, is a perversion of justice and just an easy way out for the Europeans.
But then again, I wonder if all of this would have mattered, considering that Zionists had plans to take back Israel from before WW1.
2) For the Jews to have any spiritual claim of the Holy Land, we Muslims believe that they would have to return back to the true teachings of their Torah, and politically rule their state in accordance to the Torah. Which would mean they would have to stop all acts of aggression they commit, which are against the Torah.
Posted 22 February 2012 - 07:48 PM
Posted 23 February 2012 - 04:54 AM
there were no "antisemetic" in the Islamic world, for centuraies the Moslems accepted every other person, especially the people of the book (Jews and christians). after beeing kicked out of spain in 1500s, not a country in the world accepted them but the Moslem's.
the point is, when the Quds/Palestine where under the control of the Moslems, it was permisible for the non-Palesinian Jews to freely visit what they think a religios/historical areas. the most agrissive (but it's not) law been launched by the Uthman Khalifa was to limit the non-Plestinian Jew visit to 1 or 3 months, as i can remember. you can compare the case now, the Moslem palestinians, the Quds dwelers can't freely visit their holy places...what a shamful false civilization. more over there are being forced to immigrate by every Satan non-humenitarin means.
Posted 23 February 2012 - 12:33 PM
I agree with you in both respects but feel obligated to point out that this type of integration was tried in Russia and has been an utter failure to date breeding more antisemitism in Russia than any other European nation.
It was because of the Communist ideology in Russia, that Jews were viewed in suspicion as Western or American collaborators. It was because of this that anti-Semitism worsened and remains to some extent in Russia.
I would imagine it would have been quite different in other European countries (particularly the Western European ones), where their politics did not foster enmity against the Jews.