Oddly enough, even Shimon Peres, the unrelenting Israeli champion of a “two state solution” in the Middle East, initially identified Palestinian statehood as an existential threat to Israel. In his book, Tomorrow is Now (1978), Peres had warned: “The establishment of such a state means the inflow of combat-ready Palestinian forces into Judea and Samaria (West Bank); this force, together with the local youth, will double itself in a short time. It will not be short of weapons or other military equipment, and in a short space of time, an infrastructure for waging war will be set up in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip . In time of war, the frontiers of the Palestinian state will constitute an excellent staging point for mobile forces to mount attacks on infrastructure installations vital for Israel’s existence .”
The Jews of New York City were rather late in establishing Jewish institutions such as poorhouses, homes for orphans and the aged, and hospitals. Several attempts were made in the years prior to 1850, but they failed due to the small size of the New Jewish community, which in 1836 numbered only about 2,000 and increased to about 7,000 in 1840.
I am a professor of international law. In my columns, therefore, I focus from time to time on distinctly legal aspects of Israel’s foreign relations. Nonetheless, I am always deeply attentive to examining these particular aspects within a genuinely realistic geopolitical or geostrategic context.
Last week The Jewish Press published the text of part of attorney Nathan Lewin’s compelling brief to the United States Supreme Court arguing that the State Department should be required to permit American citizens born in Jerusalem to record their place of birth on their passports as “Israel.”
Jews have long been accused of studying anti-Christian texts supposedly contained in the Talmud. Such allegations have been made for so many centuries that even some civilized and fair-minded individuals accept them at face value.