The Jewish Press


RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. I Heard That! What are they???

    Comment by DaleMarie Evans — January 23, 2014 @ 3:07 PM

  2. The problem with this peace negotiation is for Israel to concede something in favor of Palestinian either lands, housing settlements or prisoners. Political pressures especially from Europe or America for Israel to yield to the demands. Is this a peace negotiation? I think it’s not but a call to surrender. Peace negotiation must serve both bilateral interests. This might be the reason God has His own way to achieve this peace. It cannot be denied Israel is at war with her enemies, and God’s means to accomplish the peace negotiation is for Israel’s enemies to yield before Israel. Considering such great obstacle of peace, not any man or any political means can achieve this peace, but God only in His time soon.

    Isaiah 60:14 The sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee, The city of the LORD, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel.

    Comment by Claro Magallanes — January 23, 2014 @ 4:05 PM

  3. Well, MK Moshe Feiglin, your PM has chosen Livni as high judge so any nationalist knesset law will be shot done. You need to pray harder because Bibi is going to run for PM until the day he dies. Maybe his wife will take over after his death. Stop dreaming, the Likud has failed time and time again. Anybody who votes Likud is throwing their vote away.

    Comment by Ronny Mol — January 23, 2014 @ 4:10 PM

  4. non-israeli national response is a typical response. when ireland was threatened by Protestantism the native Irish ran towards the catholic powers that be. to every action there is a re-action. The racist and colonialist characteristics of Zionism were quite evident since its inception as an organised political movement in the late 19th century. In his attempt to sell the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine to the colonialist powers of the day, Theodor Herzl explained that such a state would constitute part of Europe's "wall of defence against Asia; [it] would serve as an outpost of civilisation against barbarism". But he was quick to add that the Zionists would take any country the European colonial powers would agree to give them. Notice that this was almost half a century before the heinous crimes of the Nazis against the European Jewry. Needless to say, the opinion of the indigenous people of whichever country the colonial powers would choose to allocate to the Zionists was of no significance to the latter. For whether it would have fallen on Palestine, Argentina or Uganda — just to mention a few countries that were considered as a home for such a state — it would have been considered a "land without a people for a people without a land."

    Comment by Matt McLaughlin — January 23, 2014 @ 5:08 PM

  5. Rain forests are cut down and cyberspace bombarded discussing this subject. The Palestinians only ever negotiate about negotiations. They want the whole caboodle, nothing less. And Israel releases prisoners from time to time to keep the pot boiling on the fire. Until this reality changes, I pity the rain forests.

    Comment by Anthony Kent — January 24, 2014 @ 1:21 PM

  6. 'the country… was of no significance' to Herzl perhaps and his cohorts, but 'next year in Jerusalem' is what Zionism is about and that is 2000 yrs old and more. The idea that Jews abandoned Israel following the destruction of the Temple is not quite true. Yes most were forced out but many remained. They were still there in the first century and the second and third and fourth century. They were there when the Muslims invaded and killed thousands of them & they were there when the Crusaders came and killed thousands of them. They were there when the Druze massacred them in Safed in 1660 and again in 1834. The 'Palestinians' were not even there during the Mandate discussions on the future of Palestine. So piss off with your lies.

    Comment by Pat McCrann — January 26, 2014 @ 10:29 AM

  7. Matt McLaughlin there is a difference between word games and historical facts. When the British during the mandate handover were discussing with Arabs and jews there was no mention of Palestinians. Indeed they did not exist till the 1960s and neither did their leadership, their national flag, their coinage or any evidence of a people or a history. The 1917 Palestine Delegation to the UK consisted of Jews. The Palestine Symphony Orchestra and the Palestine Post were Jewish and all pre-date 1948. Where were the Palestinians during the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem? Palestine was only ever a geographical area, renamed by the Romans – there is no 'p' in Arabic – and was never a people. Even Yassar Arafat admitted there was no such people as the Palestinians, but rather they are a front for islamic imperialist aims. You can believe all the lies you want, but don't peddle them to me.

    Comment by Pat McCrann — January 26, 2014 @ 4:09 PM

  8. Pat McCrann there was never a 'hand-over'. the israelis beat arabs to the vital stratigec posts in Jerusalem 5/13/48. THE BRITS LEFT DEFEATED and did not recognize israel at its birth. youre fixated on the word 'Palestine'. Think non-Jew Zionist. The title 'israel' wasn't assigned to what is now Israel until the very last minute. >>>>>>>>>>>>In 1891, Ginzberg had made his first visit to the Jewish
    > settlements in Palestine. It resulted in an important essay,
    > The Truth from Palestine. What distinguished his report from
    > the gushing accounts of other Jewish visitors was the sober
    > realism with which he noted the many problems. High among
    > them was the existence of an indigenous population. "We
    > tend to believe abroad that Palestine is nowadays almost
    > completely deserted, an uncultivated wilderness, and anyone
    > can come there and buy as much land as his heart desires.
    > But in reality this is not the case. It is difficult to find
    > anywhere in the country Arab land which lies fallow."
    > He makes short work of the argument that lesser breeds can
    > be duped about Zionist intentions and bought off with the
    > benefits of colonialism. "The Arab, like all Semites,
    > has a sharp mind and is full of cunning … [They]
    > understand very well what we want and what we do in the
    > country, but … at present they do not see any danger for
    > themselves or their future in what we are doing and
    > therefore are trying to turn to their advantage these new
    > guests … But when the day will come in which the life of
    > our people in the Land of Israel will develop to such a
    > degree that they will push aside the local population by
    > little or by much, then it will not easily give up its
    > place."
    > Checkmate.

    Comment by Matt McLaughlin — January 26, 2014 @ 4:21 PM

  9. David Ben-Gurion (1886 – 1973), Prime Minister of Israel (1948 – 1953 and 1955 – 1963)[edit]
    "Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we came here and stole their country. Why should they accept that?

    Comment by Matt McLaughlin — January 26, 2014 @ 4:24 PM

  10. Matt McLaughlin the British were and still are anti-Jewish. As I have pointed out, and you have not been able to dispute, Jews have an unbroken connection to the land of Palestine/israel. The Palestinians are largely immigrants. Your author's claims do nothing to refute the points I have made. There were Jews, Arabs, Druze, Christians and many other villages in Palestine going back many years. Who did the land belong to? Certainly there is no record of a Palestinian people prior to 1967. Arabs yes. However these Arabs came and went, showed little loyalty or connection to the land which is why they turned on their Jewish neighbours in 1948. If it was their land that they shared with jews, christians, druze, etc. they would have fought against the arab invaders. I am not saying this for your benefit, but for others reading your lies.

    Comment by Pat McCrann — January 26, 2014 @ 4:26 PM

  11. Matt McLaughlin you're just a bitch for the Arabs/Palestinians. You have not been able to deal with any of my points except for quoting individuals who further your narrative. I can quote plenty of arabs and palestinians who admit there are no such people as Palestinians, including Arafat. They have no history. The Jews were there during the Islamic conquest of Jerusalem and they were there at each Crusade and they were there during the years between then and 1948. They will remain there FOREVER. As for your pained twisting of the 'Promised Land' phrase, it doesn't quite work does it? Did the Palestinians pop out of a rock, because they have no discernible history and have left no imprint on the place whatsoever.

    Comment by Pat McCrann — January 26, 2014 @ 6:39 PM

  12. Pat McCrann Palestine b4 'Israel'. Even the airport was named 'Palestine'. Lump it then.

    Comment by Matt McLaughlin — January 27, 2014 @ 3:15 PM

  13. Matt McLaughlin you keep on ignoring the facts. There is no 'p' in the Arabic language. They didn't name it Palestine. It is a geographical area, not a nation state. No coinage, no flag, no history, no leader before Arafat, who was Egyptian. Palestine Symphny Orchestra – jewish. Palestine delegation to Britain in 1917 Jewish. Palestine Post – Jewish. It's simply a name change MORON. One day your Arab/Palestinian friends will cut your throat.

    Comment by Pat McCrann — January 27, 2014 @ 3:24 PM

  14. Pat McCrann the brits kicked us to our grave for 800 years, with Jews aiding in cutting up Ulster 1600s and financing the invasion of 1170 my dear. It was Arabs who armed us to escape the brits. Ireland is free thanks to arabs. And it was the IRA that showed Israel how to bomb london. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Zionism is a product of European history and one of the last movements in contemporary history that set out to transform man and society. Both Zionists and their opponents agree that Zionism and the State of Israxl constitute a revolution in Jewish history, a revolution that began with the emancipation and the secularization of European Jews in the 19th and 20th centuries.>Yakov M Rabkin

    Comment by Matt McLaughlin — January 27, 2014 @ 3:35 PM

  15. Moshe Feiglin is the only political leader in Israel who is seriously thinking about what we are trying to do here as a nation. The left tried to silence or ignore him and they can't. Netanyahu tried to shut him out and partially succeeded but only temporarily. Now he is in the Knesset. Meanwhile parts of his program are being adopted slowly by other politicians because they have nothing else. It's either his agenda or Ron Pundak's. He may or may not end up Prime Minister, but his ideas will get there by hook or by crook.

    Comment by Yehoshua Friedman — January 28, 2014 @ 7:07 AM

  16. From the time we left the slavery of Egypt till today, the unJews (the Erev Rav) has been doing all it can to destroy us internally. The particulars of the song and dance they present changes over time but the goal is always the same.

    Comment by Aryeh Zelasko — January 28, 2014 @ 10:22 AM

  17. R. Yehoshua ben levi said "The Holy One, Blessed be He, will at a future time cause all the righteous to inherit 310 worlds, as it is said, "That I may cause those that love Me to inherit substance, and that I may fill their treasuries." Rav Shimon ben Chalafta said, "The Holy One, Blessed be He, found no vessel that could hold the blessing for Israel save peace, as it is said "The Eternal will give strength to His people; the Eternal will bless His people with peace." Uktskin 3:13, Order Taharoth, Mishnah.

    Comment by Avigail Cassel — January 28, 2014 @ 11:35 PM

  18. Feiglin is a consummate thinker. Problem is, few here want to condider that politics worthy. He needs to involve the man on the street here, to advance good ideas. He was a founding father of right eing resurgence here..

    Comment by Knesset Constituency — February 4, 2014 @ 6:49 AM

  19. Feiglin is a consummate thinker. Problem is, few here want to condider that politics worthy. He needs to involve the man on the street here, to advance good ideas. He was a founding father of right eing resurgence here..

    Comment by Knesset Constituency — February 4, 2014 @ 6:49 AM

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Close this window.

0.198 Powered by WordPress