web analytics
December 11, 2016 / 11 Kislev, 5777

Posts Tagged ‘settlers’

The Devil is in the Details

Thursday, August 25th, 2016

I was shocked to read last week in the Jerusalem Post that Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, the Chief Rabbi of Efrat, is supporting a radical and dangerous leftwing “peace plan,” and worse, this plan is being promoted to the youths of Efrat and other settlements.

“Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, the founder and chief rabbi of Efrat, has expressed support, at the behest of his 18-year-old grandson, Eden, also a resident of Efrat, who has taken a leading role in drumming up support among teenagers and young adults (or, [in the words of the plan’s chief promoter Eliaz] Cohen, “infecting them with the sense of hope that is expressed by this proposal).”

I met and spoke with Rabbi Riskin a few times this week and he wanted to emphasize that he insists he “never accepted the plan.”

Rabbi Riskin said he was approached and was presented with a germ of an idea for a peace initiative, but was not made aware of any clear formulation of the terms of the plan itself.

Rabbi Riskin said he liked the name of the plan, “Two States, One Homeland,” and the concept as it was presented to him: a plan that would allow for peaceful coexistence, and did not require anyone, Jew or Arab, to be expelled from their homes.

Rabbi Riskin is a big believer and proponent of peace and coexistence between Jews and Arabs. He puts his money where his mouth is, and is known to personally get involved in helping Arabs who live in the villages around the town of Efrat. Without a doubt, this Rabbi is one of the reasons there so little friction between Jewish Efrat and its Arab neighbors.

He gave the plan’s advocate some stipulations of what any plan must include if he were to support it:

1) The Israeli-Jewish areas where Jews lived must clearly constitute a strong majority of Jews who would be establishing a Jewish State.

2) Not only would Jews have rights of access – and of course shared ownership – to the Temple Mount,  but would also be permitted to build a synagogue on the Temple Mount.

3) There would be a complete cessation of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel propaganda in Palestinian media and publications.

4) The Arab areas must be demilitarized.

Alas, the good Rabbi was not thinking like a good radical leftist, and didn’t consider the far more dangerous provisos that any typical leftwing “peace plan” might include.

Nothing New at All

The Jerusalem Post article’s author, Andrew Friedman, claims “the plan is a departure from the classic two-states-for-two-peoples formula,” but it’s anything but that.

It instead takes elements from some of the worst proposals, ideas that even Peres, Beilin and Sarid refused to entertain, and makes them the cornerstones of the plan.

But that’s not what makes this plan dangerous. The danger lies in the fact that this peace plan’s proponents are targeting Jewish settlement youths and older settlers who truly believe that coexistence is possible, repackaged to make the plan sound benign.

Unlimited Arab Refugees Allowed to Overrun Israel

The “Two State, One Homeland” website clearly states (emphasis added):

Immigration and naturalization Both states will have the right to define their own laws of immigration and naturalization within its boundaries. The State of Palestine would be at liberty to naturalize Palestinian refugees as it sees fit, and the state of Israel will be at liberty to naturalize the Jews of the diaspora, as it sees fit.

The Open Land vision a. The two states would be committed to a vision of one land, within which the citizens of both states have the right to travel and live in all parts of the land;

If their intentions aren’t clear enough from the text above, let me explain it, a fundamental cornerstone of the plan allows for the new Palestinian State to freely invite in millions of “Palestinian Refugees”.

Two million Jordanian Arabs, half a million Lebanese Arabs, and half a million Syrian Arabs (for starters) will be offered citizenship and entry into the new Palestinian state, where they will then be granted free access to the entire country — including the state of Israel, or what’s left of it.

Rabbi Riskin was surprised to learn this was a cornerstone of the plan, and made it clear that he in no way supports such an idea.

Efrat to Become Part of the Palestinian State

Rabbi Riskin was actually shocked to learn that his own town of Efrat would be transferred over to the Palestinian State, and any of its Jewish residents who choose to remain might be allowed to obtain Palestinian State citizenship, or otherwise will be granted “permanent residency” status.

It’s implied in the plan that the Jewish residents remaining inside the Palestinian State will be disarmed.

While he believes there can be land concessions in exchange for peace, Rabbi Riskin said he could never accept a plan that transfers sovereignty of the settlement blocs, and of Jews, away from the State of Israel.

What Demilitarized State?

While the plan calls for some “demilitarized zones” and decommissioning “armed militias and unauthorized organizations,” the Palestinian State will be anything but demilitarized.

In the Q&A section, the authors make it clear that the State of Palestine will be a completely independent sovereign entity with its own independent security force – but not to worry, the plan’s Arab co-authors say “they have no interest in tanks and planes.”

With a plan like this, they won’t need them.

By the way, all the plan’s Arab co-authors “are senior Fatah officials, all of whom served long stints in Israeli jails for murder,” according to the Jerusalem Post article.

Don’t you feel safer now about their intentions?

Conclusions

I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point.

This plan is nothing more than a regurgitation of the worst of the radical left’s most dangerous ideas.

But the authors are actually playing a different game.

They are trying to get it support from the settlers and the settlement youth, apparently through obfuscation of the dangerous ideas in the plan and playing off the naiveté and idealism of those they approach.

One peace-loving settler, who asked not to be named, told me he was approached by this group to attend one of their parlor meetings. He quickly caught on to their con.

But what about all the idealistic youths who are being targeted and don’t yet have the sophistication to ask the right questions or realize they are being hoodwinked?

One can only hope that Friedman is correct when he writes, “Predictably, the proposal has yet to make headway in the settlement community where distrust of the Palestinians is trumped only by a religious commitment to the Whole Land of Israel.”

It’s also trumped by sheer common sense, shared by about 70% of Israel’s voters who have been leaning decisively to the right over the past ten years. It’s highly doubtful they would buy this plan either – once they know what it actually says.

Stephen Leavitt

Analysis: Should Israeli Settlers Fear Trump’s Peace Negotiations? [video]

Thursday, July 21st, 2016

Donald Trump’s website mentions only two foreign countries by name: in its Positions section it deals with “Reforming The US-China Trade Relationship To Make America Great Again,” and in its Issues section, which is a series of videos with the candidate spending about a minute speaking forcefully on the issues, the one country that’s mentioned as an “issue” is, you guessed, Israel.

Should Israelis and US Jews be concerned that the Jewish State is so clearly a burning issue for Trump? Not if you believe the opening, where Trump straightens his gaze at the camera and declares, “I love Israel, I’m very pro-Israel.” He hasn’t said it about any other country in quite this total fashion.

But what to Trump is the Israel issue begins and ends with what he considered, back in March, when he shot this video, a challenge to his skills as negotiator. You can be a Trump supporter and still be perplexed by the amount of personal prestige the candidate has invested in being that one American president who finally brought peace to “Israel and the Palestinians.”

“Trump is plainly the best bet for the Jews,” Seth Lipsky wrote in the NY Post Wednesday, citing neoconservative Norman Podhoretz, who berated Hillary for the 2012 rejection by the Democratic convention of restoring both God and Jerusalem to the DNC platform.

True enough, but Trump was booed at his AIPAC appearance last December when he, too, refused to commit to moving the US embassy to Jerusalem.

“Trump’s also the candidate siding with religious Americans whose rights are in jeopardy from the proliferating series of laws and court rulings in which religious persons are being asked to bow to a liberalism hostile to religious law,” Lipsky argued.

But religious Jews are not under attack by the liberal government anywhere in America: unlike in Europe, Jewish rituals are not under attack anywhere, with the possible exception of the Bay area; why even the latest NYC policy on oral suction in circumcision is restricted to educational pamphlets, rather than court orders.

The problem with Trump regarding Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria (and, possibly, eastern Jerusalem) is the candidate’s eagerness to make a difference in the age old Israeli-Arab conflict.

Here is what Trump said on tape in March, which the campaign has chosen to keep up there as one of his key concerns:

“I would love to see a deal be made between Israel and the Palestinians. It’s probably the hardest negotiation there is. Great negotiators have tried and they failed. It’s just so deep seated, the hatred, the level of distrust.

“But I’m going to give it an awfully good shot. I want to remain as neutral as possible, because if you’re not somewhat neutral the other side is never going to do it.

“But just remember, Israel, I love you, we’re gonna’ see if we can get something done, it has to be done for both sides, it cannot continue to be the way it is. Let’s see what we can negotiate, let’s see if it can be done.”

Does the last paragraph strike you as something you might tell your child before taking him for his booster shots? It’ll hurt, for sure, but remember, Daddy loves you very much and when the doctor is done poking you Daddy will buy you an ice cream cone.

There’s no doubt that presumptive Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton is easily as worrisome when it comes to Israel. She is surrounded by anti-Israel advisors, one of whom is a radical Muslim. It is a tough call to make — which Roman emperor will bring more trouble to tiny little Judea: Hillary, who might end up just talking the talk but avoid the actual walk; or Trump, who might just, God forbid, decide to test his skills — and then what would Israel do when the Arabs agree to some of his proposals and a victorious Trump turns to Netanyahu and says, Brother, I got you a great deal, just hand over control of eastern Jerusalem and take the Jews out of the “territories.”

We welcome a civilized discussion of the concerns raised in this article.

David Israel

Local Settlers Enforce Siege after Army Deserts Post Outside Murderers’ Village

Sunday, July 3rd, 2016

Dozens of Kiryat Araba and Hebron Mountain Jewish residents who arrived on Sunday morning at the exit road of Bani Na’im village, home to the murderer of 13-year-old Hallel Ariel and many more terrorists, discovered to their chagrin that the total siege declared by the IDF on the village Friday had deteriorated to a mere dirt barricade on the road, with no soldier in sight to enforce the rule — and with the Arabs bypassing the dirt mound without difficulty.

The Jewish residents decided to take matters into their own hands and enforced the siege themselves, with protest tent and signs, and blocked the village’s access road the way it was supposed to be blocked — earnestly.

Blocking Bani Na'im exit

Blocking Bani Na’im exit

The protesters are demanding that the Israeli government live up to its own rules and enforce the closure around the murderers’ village, and evict from the village the Triara family, which to date has produced three terrorists: one who carried out a ramming attack with his car at the entrance to Kiryat Arba a few months ago, one who murdered Hallel Ariel, and one female terrorist who was killed Friday trying to stab a soldier at the Cave of the Patriarchs.

In addition, the protesters are demanding the eviction of every family connected to terrorism.

David Israel

Bogie Ya’alon’s Overnight Good Bye Gift: Administrative Removal of 4 Settlers

Thursday, May 19th, 2016

On his way out of office, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon still found the time to send a special gift to the people of Yitzhar, a Jewish community just south of Shechem: Wednesday night Shabak and Police forces raided their homes and handed four administrative removal orders, signed by OC Central Command Roni Numa and Home Front Command Deputy Chief Gen. Dadi Samchi, to four Od Yosef Hai yeshiva students, two adults and two minors, Srugim reported.

The two minors were removed for six months from Judea and Samaria, but one of them, whose parents live in Gush Etzion, was allowed to stay in the Gush. The two adults received four- and nine-month removal orders.

Like all administrative decrees in the occupied Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria, which have been under temporary martial law for almost 40 years now, the removal orders do not mention any evidence or chargers or even suspicions against the recipients, who could just as easily have been stashed away in prison on the same whim. All the orders said was that they had been issued after the commanding officers have become convinced that “it is necessary for the sake of guaranteeing state security, public peace, and maintaining the public order.” One order said it had been issued after “examination of intelligence,” which pointed to “involvement in an illegal and violent activity endangering Palestinian residents and their property.”

One of the four students completed a six-month removal order only a month ago and arrived to continue his yeshiva studies, but as is becoming the norm in these cases, the Shabak issued him a second removal order shortly thereafter. And since by law the government need not explain its reasons, provide evidence or file formal charges, they could ostensibly keep issuing those decrees — unless a new Defense Minister comes on board who is more democratically minded.

Yitzhar’s Yeshiva was occupied for one year, starting April 11, 2014, by a Border Guard company, after confrontations between local residents and the IDF, when the latter had demolished unauthorized structures in the community.

The Honenu legal aid society issued a statement following the four removal decrees, saying, “It appears that the Defense Minister has been disconnected, is losing touch with his own values, and does not comprehend how an orderly government system should operate. Yesterday he told IDF soldiers to say what’s on their minds, even if it contradicts the position of the elected government—in effect preaching a military coups d’état—and today he adds even more administrative decrees as if in Israel there’s no need for evidence, proof and trials. Who will stop this slippery slope?”

Hopefully a man named Avigdor Liebrman. Next week.

David Israel

Rabbi Soloveitchik on the Settlers of Hebron

Tuesday, January 26th, 2016

Video of the Day

You Can Take the Jew Out of the Ghetto- Taking the Ghetto Out of the Jew Is Tougher

Monday, January 25th, 2016

This op-ed is a response to a blog post by Emes v’Emuna.

There’s an apocryphal story about the Reform movement’s summer program for its high school students, which used to fly them to Israel to tour and work on a kibbutz, etc., then, on the way home, they would stop in Poland and participate in the March of the Living in Auschwitz. But in 2000, during the second intifada, many parents were concerned about their children’s safety in Israel — so they only took them to Auschwitz.

Modern Hebrew has a word — “galutiut” (ga-lu-tee-yoot) — which defies translation. It describes the essence of exile, the very depth of ghetto thinking, as in the Der Stürmer-like image of Israelis moving to Berlin, or a Neturei Karta guy holding up an anti-Zionist poster at a rally in downtown Tehran. If you’re Jewish and emotionally stable, you’ll recognize the essence of galutiut in the words and actions of so many Jews, starting with the meraglim (spies) of 1247 BCE and leading up to left-wing Jews who merrily turn in Arab land dealers to the Palestinian police to be tortured and even executed.

You’ll note that God in His mercy forgave the Israelites in the wilderness a lot of mischief, from forging a gold calf to dating those Moabite and Midianite gals at Ba’al Pe’or — sure, He treated those problems locally with LRP (Limited-Range Plague), but the only time He became so angry, He decided to give up on the whole bunch of them, let them die off in the desert and start afresh with their children, was when, from the bottom of their festering, slave’s galutiut, they spoke ill of the very idea of living in the Land of Israel because they feared the Promised Land wasn’t safe.

Galutiut uses the safety argument more often than any other. I knew personally a woman, now long dead, who in 1938 left Haifa, where she had settled a decade before, to visit all her family members who were still living in Germany to convince them to sell everything and follow her to Haifa. Without an exception, every one of them told her to calm down, Chancellor Hitler is an animal, of course, but his day will come, and meanwhile it’s still a lot safer living in Hamburg than in Palestina…

Galutiut often uses values like ‘love and pity,’ as in the case of the 2005 brute eviction of some 8,000 Jews from their homes in Gush Katif, the Gaza Strip, when there was an outcry from some on the left that the children of those stubborn settlers must be forcibly removed from their parents who are placing their welfare in jeopardy.

Galutiut uses exalted notions like ‘justice and truth’ to destroy Jewish homes on land that was legally purchased or acquired, giving instead absolute credence to Arab claims of dubious origin. The same galutiut forbids Jewish families from expanding their homes or enclosing a porch in Judea and Samaria communities, because this would harm the chances of the two-state-solution.

Galutiut uses all the above concerns, mixed and matched with examples of individual Jewish failure (Baruch Goldstein & Yigal Amir); divine decrees (I beseech you, daughters of Jerusalem, do not stir up or awaken the love until it is sought); self-righteousness (Why can’t you get along with the Arabs?).

Galutiut can be practiced just as easily in downtown Tel Aviv as in Chicago. Galutiut resides in the runaway slaves asking Moses, “Is it because there were no graves in Egypt that you have taken us away to die in the wilderness?” and in these callously woven lines, care of Rabbi Harry Maryles’ Emes Ve-Emuna blog entry The Settlers of Chevron:

“Those settlers are there for only one reason – to assure that not a single inch of Eretz Yisroel is ever turned over to the Palestinians. Especially not Chevron. So wrapped up are they in this goal that they are not beneath committing criminal acts. And in one of the more extreme cases, mass murder was committed by one of their more esteemed members, Dr. Baurch Goldstein.”

Air of superiority? Check. Presumption? Check. Unfounded accusation? Check. Guilt by association? Check. Misspelling the name of a biblical city so it reads like the name of a gas station? Also check.

The title of Rabbi Maryles’ piece, which is so dripping with galutiut you could drown your pintele Yid in it, says it all: “The Settlers of Chevron.” It’s not going to be a critique of something specific those settlers have done which offended the author’s sensibilities — it is the very concept of settlers who are in the city of the patriarchs, purchased for four hundred silver shekels (roughly 100 silver dollars) by an old Iraqi Jew looking to bury his beloved wife.

In Bereshit Rabbah 79:7, Rav Yudan bar Simon says: “There are three places the nations of the world cannot mislead the Jews by saying You’ve stolen them: the Cave of the Patriarchs, the Temple Mount, and Joseph’s Tomb.” And he brings verse citations showing how each one of these were legally bought at the full price. Have you asked yourselves, those who are familiar with the midrash, how come these three locations are the most hotly contested Jewish purchases in our time? Can it be that the other side knows better than we, how crucial they are to our very claim to the land? Isn’t it why they shoot our babies with sniper rifles in Hebron, firebomb us on Temple Mount, and burn down Joseph’s Tomb?

Writes Emes Ve-Emuna (which in this instance appears to possess neither):

“I don’t know if those settlers did or didn’t have a legal right to occupy those buildings. But in my view they endanger the welfare of their people. Their presence in or near that city is an incitement that is unnecessary and a source of anger to Palestinians. Which increases the chances of more Jews being harmed of killed.”

Or, as the meraglim put it (Num. 13:33), reporting on their experience in Kiryat Arba-Hebron: “We even saw giants there, the descendants of Anak. Next to them we felt like grasshoppers, and that’s what they thought, too!”

Rabbi Maryles doesn’t know if his fellow Jews are right or wrong, all he knows is that they’re wrong. And in almost the very language as the meraglim, he is certain their insolence will anger the Palestinian giants who view them as “grasshoppers.” If you’re not a mystic, you can surely see the parallels between those two texts; if you are a mystic you probably need help getting off the floor right about now (especially the hefty mystics).

The author now drags a great rosh yeshiva into the fray, whom he cites as having said “he would even give up the Kotel if it would bring genuine peace.” But, you know, with all due respect, we in Israel have already given up the entire Temple Mount and still there’s no fake peace, never mind genuine. Incidentally, was there peace in the land before we had a Kotel to trade for it, in say, 1929? No? 1936? 1948?

Finally, without a doubt the most galuti of galutiut elements in this mix of national and religious alienation and sheer rish’us (meanness), is this part: Pikuach Nefesh. The author justifies maligning fellow Jews, libeling them, dubbing them murderers and thieves, because he cares for their safety. Exactly like the sweet women from Tel Aviv who urged police to tear the children of Gush Katif from their mothers’ arms — for their own good.

A Jew sits in Chicago, around him the campuses are rife with live, burning anti-Semitism, 800 miles from his home a bunch of Arabs ran two passenger planes into a major city’s tallest buildings, his children are punched in the face by passing gentiles because it seems like a good idea, his country is infiltrated by anti-Semitic zealots, he can see how, across the Atlantic, hundreds of thousands of fellow Jews are preparing to flee their homes for fear of ethnic persecution — and he worries about the Pikuach Nefesh of the largest Jewish community on the planet, with the strongest army in its region and then some, with a robust economy and a vivacious, multicolored society. He worries that the Hebron settlers’ “presence in or near that city is an incitement that is unnecessary and a source of anger to Palestinians.”

There’s only one solution to this ultimate galutiut, the galutiut of an educated man who knows his Torah and yet concocts from it a poisonous potion: stay. That’s the worst divine punishment. Stay where you are, in Chicago, Illinois. Don’t come over, don’t embrace the biblical promise, don’t get excited over the gifts from God the rest of us are sharing. Just spend the next 40 years exactly where you are, next to Lake Michigan, in a wilderness of your own making.

David Israel

The Settlers of Chevron

Monday, January 25th, 2016

[Originally posted to the author’s website, Emes Ve-Emunah]

Click here for JewishPress.com’s response to this post.

The Jewish Press has been a home for my blog for some time now. I am grateful to them for publishing so many of my posts on their website. I have more posts published there than any other blogger. I am also grateful to them for having published a few of my articles in their print edition.

I truly appreciate how much they value my words, even when they don’t agree with them.  I am not sure they will feel about me after this, though. I have to express what I believe to be Emes without considering the consequences to myself.

There has always been something about their editorial position with respect to Israel that has troubled me. That policy goes beyond their written editorial. It biases the way they report the news.They have a strong bias in favor of West bank settlements. Not just those in large and long established border cities like Ma’aleh Adumim. I too support those cities. They will no doubt remain in Israel’s hands in any kind of peace agreement with Palestinians. (Not that I think it is possible at this point in time.) But Jewish Press support goes way beyond that. They support settlers in places like Chevron, a city populated by Palestinians.

Those settlers are there for only one reason – to assure that not a single inch of Eretz Yisroel is ever turned over to the Palestinians. Especially not Chevron. So wrapped up are they in this goal that they are not beneath committing criminal acts. And in one of the more extreme cases, mass murder was committed by one of their more esteemed members, Dr. Baurch Goldstein.

The settlers of Chevron are the same people that worship Baruch Goldstein as icon and martyr for the Jewish cause. How different is that from the Palestinians that worship a suicide bomber that successfully blew himself up and took some Jews along with him?!

The latest article in the Jewish Press presents a sympathetic spin about the eviction by police of settlers in Chevron that have occupied 2 buildings there. The settler claim is that Chevron is holy, it is ours, and has been ours since Matan Torah. It was the home of Avrohom, and it contains the holy burial grounds of our patriarchs and matriarchs. They therefore will do whatever it takes to keep Chevron in Jewish hands. The Jewish Press seems to agree with that. So they report the eviction of Jewish settlers there with an immoral and unjust spin.

I don’t know if those settlers did or didn’t have a legal right to occupy those buildings. But in my view they endanger the welfare of their people. Their presence in or near that city is an incitement that is unnecessary and a source of anger to Palestinians. Which increases the chances of more Jews being harmed of killed.

Please do not misunderstand. I fully understand Palestinian terrorists don’t need much to terrorize us. They have been doing that in a piecemeal fashion for months now. Most Palestinians probably feel we deserve it. So that even if there was not a single Jewish soul living in or near Chevron, not much would change. But as I have said many times, pouring gasoline onto a fire does not help. Doing Yishuv Ha’aretz  – settling the land in this way is irresponsible and has consequences. To which they seem oblivious.

This is also not to say that we don’t have a right to Chevron. Of course we do. But rights do not trump safety. When one exercises their rights under conditions that cause harm to others, one has to question the priorities. Jewish life is sacred. Exercising a right that can bring more death and destruction – is wrong.

That’s why I agree with Rav Shach on this issue. If I recall correctly, he said he would even give up the Kotel if it would bring genuine peace. I agree with him. My motivation is simple. Whatever saves Jewish life is what I favor.  Pikuach Nefesh is not something that should be taken lightly. It should not be ignored by people with agendas – even legitimate ones. Saving Jewish life has the highest of value in Judaism. V’Chai Bahem the Torah tells us about the laws dictated by the Torah. The sages interpret this to mean that one may violate any and all Halachos to save a Jewish life – except for idol worship, murder, and adultery. Certainly settling the land of Israel is not any of those three.

I therefore find an editorial position that sympathizes with the settlers of Chevron repulsive no matter who has it. It is one thing to feel that the settler view is the right one. It is another to write in sympathetic tones about actions that exacerbate the enmity of our enemy.

The Jewish Press is not alone in praising such deeds. I have read more than once about the ‘courage’ of those who risk their lives by settling in and around Chevron. In my view this ‘courage’ is pure foolishness. They risk their lives for an ideal that is over-ridden by the ideal of saving Jewish lives.

If it were up to me, I would evacuate all of Chevron’s Jews. And I would consider doing the same thing to Kiryat Arba, the Israel town right next to it. I see no value to having a town there – even though it has been there since shortly after the 6 day war of 1967.

I realize that a lot of readers that generally support my views here, will be appalled at this post. I’m sure I will be accused of Nazi-like attitudes of making parts of biblical Israel Judenrein (free of any Jews). That’s OK. I will take my lumps. But I feel very strongly about Pikuach Nefesh and I oppose any activities that endanger the lives of fellow Jews. And this doesn’t even take into account the danger Israeli soldiers face that are there to protect them.

I understand the sincerity of these people. They are committed to their ideals and are willing to risk their lives for them. That is admirable under normal circumstances. But when they risk the lives of others along with their own that idealism turns into a callous disregard for the welfare of their fellow Jew.

They may claim that activities in Chevron does not endanger the Jewish people any more than they already are. But that makes about as much sense as saying that pouring gasoline on a fire will not increase the flame. These people are wrong. And the Jewish Press would do well to recognize that instead of constantly sympathizing with them.

Harry Maryles

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/blogs/haemtza/the-settlers-of-chevron/2016/01/25/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: