The Divine Monarch

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 17.15 “thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the L-RD thy G-D shall choose; ….”

B’rashith 17.5-6 “Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for the father of a multitude of nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.

B’rashith 17.15-16 “And G-D said unto Abraham: ‘As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be. And I will bless her, and moreover I will give thee a son of her; yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall be of her.’

Shmoth 19.6 “and ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.’ ”

We see from these sources in the Torah that the Will of HaShem is a monarchy; a holy nation! Not a nation like all other nations as the people clamored for, before Navi Shemuel. 1 Samuel 8.18-20:

18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king whom ye shall have chosen you; and the L-RD will not answer you in that day.’ 19 But the people refused to hearken unto the voice of Samuel; and they said: ‘Nay; but there shall be a king over us; 20 that we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.’

****

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 17.15 “thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the L-RD thy G-D shall choose; ….”

1 Chronicles 28.4 “Howbeit the L-RD, the G-D of Israel, chose me out of all the house of my father to be king over Israel for ever; for He hath chosen Judah to be prince, and in the house of Judah, the house of my father, and among the sons of my father He took pleasure in me to make me king over all Israel; ….”

2 Chronicles 6.6 “But I have chosen Jerusalem so that My Name will be there, and I have chosen David to be over My people Israel.’ ”

Tehillim 78.70 “He chose David also His servant, And took him from the sheepfolds;….”

1 Samuel 16.1 “And the L-RD said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have provided Me a king among his sons.”

The mitzvah is to appoint a king for HaShemwhom the L-RD thy G-D shall choose; ….” HaShem chose David as King over all Israel, even as King David confirmed in 1 Chronicles 28.4.

As the Tanak pointedly states, the people chose Saul as King rather than allowing the prophet and high priest as agents for HaShem to choose a king (presumably through the Urim and Thumim)!

From 1 Samuel 16.1 (“… for I have provided Me a king among his sons.”) we see that the Tanak makes clear [that] the king chosen by G-D serves HaShem; as Tehillim 78.70 points out: “He chose David also His servant,…” and as 1 Samuel 13.14 points out, David was found by HaShem to be a “man after the heart of G-D:

1 Samuel 13.14 “But now thy kingdom shall not continue; the L-RD hath sought him a man after His own heart, and the L-RD hath appointed him to be prince over His people, because thou hast not kept that which the L-RD commanded thee.’ “

R. Yossi and R. Yehuda, the Rambam (R. Moshe ben Maimon, 12th century, Egypt) and Sefer HaChinukh (author unknown, 13th century, Spain) and all those commentators who are of the opinion that there is a mitzvah to appoint a king, imply in their opinion both the fact that the Torah involves itself in the regulation of human affairs and that it chose to endorse monarchy as the proper form of government.

So if (since) HaShem chose David as King then there is no need to select, choose or appoint a king from outside King David and Shlomo’s lineage. In fact, it was improper for the Hasmoneans to rule over the people for they were of the priestly caste!

****

To quote from one article on the discussion of “Appointing a King” –

“In Sanhedrin (20b) which states that the phrase “Ki yad al keis Kah” (“Hand upon the throne of the Lord,” Shemot 17:16) refers to the king: “Ve-ein kisei ela melekh she-ne’emar Vayeshev Shelomo al kisei Hashem le-melekh” – “‘Throne’ refers to the king, as it is written, ‘Shelomo sat on the throne of the Lord as king’ (I Divrei Ha-yamim 29:23).” (See also Ramban ad loc., who adopts this position.) The upshot of this statement, further emphasized by the gemara’s subsequent statement that “Be-tchila malakh Shlomo al ha-elyonim she’ne’emar vayeshev Shlomo al kisei Hashem le-melekh” (“At first Shelomo ruled over the the upper spheres”), is that the king is not solely a human figure serving the needs of his countrymen, but rather he is also a sacral figure, representing Divine interests in the human world. Just as the Kohen Gadol (High Priest) is the Divine representative in the religious sphere, serving as a “shelucha de-rachmana” (emissary of God) no less than a “shelucha didan” (emissary of man), so too is the melekh an ambassador of God in the political sphere. The Heavenly Throne (kisei Hashem) serves as a symbol of Divine involvement in the human world and, therefore, the description of the king as sitting upon this throne serves to establish his rule as a manifestation and executor of Divine Will in our world. In this context, mention should already be made of the fact that the king, as the kohen, is anointed with shemen ha-mishcha (the anointing oil).

If we accept this line of reasoning, the Torah’s interest in a royal head of state is not due to his practical utility to human society, but rather is due to the fact that a royal figure is a better representative of God on Earth. By adopting such a position, we are able to understand the need for a king, despite the drawbacks which Abarbanel pointed out. To offset those, the Torah added a whole list of regulations and mitzvot designed to distance the monarch from “gavhut ha-lev” (arrogance), involvement with earthly affairs and the temptations of power (i.e. women, money and horses) and to instill in him and his subjects the sense of a Divine mission (the need to constantly have a Torah scroll at his side).”

SOURCE: YESHIVAT HAR ETZION

ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)

**************************************************************

JEWISH POLITICAL THEORY – HILKHOT MELAKHIM

SHIUR #1: The Commandment to Appoint a King

by Rav Mosheh Lichtenstein

Copyright (c) 1997 Yeshivat Har Etzion. All rights reserved.

****

While the above article does not touch upon the subject of the unifying mission of the King, it is important to note that I Divrei Ha-yamim (1 Chronicles) 29:23 concludes with the phrase “… and all Israel obeyed him.”

“David came and increased their number to 24.”

24 mishmarot (lit. “guards”; Ta’an. 4:2), which served in a regular weekly rotation. The mishmarot were further broken up into a varying number of battei avot (“houses” or “families”). Each division and subdivision was presided over by a head, called rosh mishmar and rosh bet av respectively (Tosef., Hor. 2: 10); there is also mention made of a bet av (Tam. 1:1; Mid. 1:8; cf. Yoma 1:5). The levites were similarly divided into 24 mishmarot, which replaced each other every week (I Chron. 25:8ff, et al.; Jos., Ant., 7:363ff.; Ta’an. 4:2). These were in turn subdivided into seven battei avot, and presided over by “heads.” Finally, there was an analogous division of the Israelites themselves into 24 mishmarot, each of which had to take its turn in coming to Jerusalem for a week. They served to represent the whole body of the people while the daily (communal) offerings were sacrificed, for “how can a man’s offering be offered while he does not stand by it?” (Ta’an. 4:2, et al.).

That part of the mishmar of priests, Levites, or Israelites actually engaged in the performance of its duty was called a ma’amad or ammud (“station”) and was headed by a rosh ma’amad (Tam. 5:6). When the time for the service of a mishmar came round, all the priests and Levites belonging to it would go to Jerusalem. Not all the Israelites of that mishmar, however, proceeded to Jerusalem. A portion of them certainly did (Ta’an. 4:2; cf. Tosef., Ta’an. 4:3) but those who could not do so assembled in their own towns and read the story of creation, etc. Only those in Jerusalem who actually “stood by” while the sacrifice was being offered could, strictly speaking, be called a ma’amad, or ammud (see Sof. 17:5; but see Lieberman , Tosefta ki-Feshutah 5, 1962, 1104, who shows that according to a different opinion the ma’amadot were of Israelites alone).

23 “And Solomon sat on the throne of the L-RD as king instead of David his father, and he prospered, and all Israel obeyed him.” 24 And all the leaders and the mighty men and also all King David’s sons placed their hand under King Solomon.

Hoshea 3.5 “afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek [desire] the L-RD their G-D, and David their king; and shall come trembling unto the L-RD and to His goodness in the end of days.”

Yekezkel 37.22 “and I will make them one nation in the land, upon the mountains of Israel, and one king shall be king to them all; and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all;”

Thus, in a Divinely chosen monarchy, the king sit as an emissary of the Merciful One on the throne of the L-RD uniting the people, to worship as one by an oath; even as Avraham’s servant swore by the “Covenant of Circumcision” B’rashith (Genesis) 24:3!

Aboriginal (Indigenous) Title & a Trusteeship Agreement

The Supreme Court of Canada has decided that, where a “First Nation” maintains demographic and cultural connections with the land, aboriginal title (including self-government rights) can survive both sovereignty changes and the influx of a new majority population, resulting from foreign conquest.Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 SCR 1010 (Case Number 23799).

This jurisprudence is an important decision because it is only Jews who are indigenous to “Palestine” (Eretz Yisrael) that have maintained an “indigenous demographic and cultural connection” to the Land of Eretz Yisrael, have survived foreign (Arab) conquest/colonialism and were guaranteed POLITICAL rights to self-government within Mandate for Palestine “Treaty Territories” pursuant to the San Remo Resolution!

(The Arabs acquired independence, as contemplated by the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement via the Kingdom of the Hejaz, were guaranteed political rights at the San Remo Conference via the Mandates for Syria, Lebanon, and Mesopotamia (Iraq) and are indigenous to Arabia!)

The Canadian Treaty Land Entitlements Agreements process, and the Jurisprudence decided in behalf of Indigenous First Peoples provides a useful model that could be negotiated as part of a comprehensive Arab-Israeli settlement under a ‘post-OsloTrusteeship Agreement as contemplated by Chapter XII (Articles 75 through 85) of the UN Charter, to “set aside” Land Reserves for “close Jewish and Arab settlement” in historical “Eretz Yisrael” (Palestine) both East and West of the Jordan River.

The Commandment to Appoint a King

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 17.15 “thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the L-RD thy G-D shall choose; ….”

B’rashith 17.5-6 “Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for the father of a multitude of nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.

B’rashith 17.15-16 “And G-D said unto Abraham: ‘As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be. And I will bless her, and moreover I will give thee a son of her; yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall be of her.’

Shmoth 19.6 “and ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.’ ”

We see from these sources in the Torah that the Will of HaShem is a monarchy; a holy nation! Not a nation like all other nations as the people clamored for, before Navi Shemuel. 1 Samuel 8.18-20:

18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king whom ye shall have chosen you; and the L-RD will not answer you in that day.’ 19 But the people refused to hearken unto the voice of Samuel; and they said: ‘Nay; but there shall be a king over us; 20 that we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.’

****

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 17.15 “thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the L-RD thy G-D shall choose; ….”

1 Chronicles 28.4 “Howbeit the L-RD, the G-D of Israel, chose me out of all the house of my father to be king over Israel for ever; for He hath chosen Judah to be prince, and in the house of Judah, the house of my father, and among the sons of my father He took pleasure in me to make me king over all Israel; ….”

2 Chronicles 6.6 “But I have chosen Jerusalem so that My Name will be there, and I have chosen David to be over My people Israel.’ ”

Tehillim 78.70 “He chose David also His servant, And took him from the sheepfolds;….”

1 Samuel 16.1 “And the L-RD said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have provided Me a king among his sons.”

The mitzvah is to appoint a king for HaShemwhom the L-RD thy G-D shall choose; ….” HaShem chose David as King over all Israel, even as King David confirmed in 1 Chronicles 28.4.

As the Tanak pointedly states, the people chose Saul as King rather than allowing the prophet and high priest as agents for HaShem to choose a king (presumably through the Urim and Thumim)!

From 1 Samuel 16.1 (“… for I have provided Me a king among his sons.”) we see that the Tanak makes clear [that] the king chosen by G-D serves HaShem; as Tehillim 78.70 points out: “He chose David also His servant,…” and as 1 Samuel 13.14 points out, David was found by HaShem to be a “man after the heart of G-D:

1 Samuel 13.14 “But now thy kingdom shall not continue; the L-RD hath sought him a man after His own heart, and the L-RD hath appointed him to be prince over His people, because thou hast not kept that which the L-RD commanded thee.’ “

R. Yossi and R. Yehuda, the Rambam (R. Moshe ben Maimon, 12th century, Egypt) and Sefer HaChinukh (author unknown, 13th century, Spain) and all those commentators who are of the opinion that there is a mitzvah to appoint a king, imply in their opinion both the fact that the Torah involves itself in the regulation of human affairs and that it chose to endorse monarchy as the proper form of government.

So if (since) HaShem chose David as King then there is no need to select, choose or appoint a king from outside King David and Shlomo’s lineage. In fact, it was improper for the Hasmoneans to rule over the people for they were of the priestly caste!

****

To quote from one article on the discussion of “Appointing a King” –

“In Sanhedrin (20b) which states that the phrase “Ki yad al keis Kah” (“Hand upon the throne of the Lord,” Shemot 17:16) refers to the king: “Ve-ein kisei ela melekh she-ne’emar Vayeshev Shelomo al kisei Hashem le-melekh” – “‘Throne’ refers to the king, as it is written, ‘Shelomo sat on the throne of the Lord as king’ (I Divrei Ha-yamim 29:23).” (See also Ramban ad loc., who adopts this position.) The upshot of this statement, further emphasized by the gemara’s subsequent statement that “Be-tchila malakh Shlomo al ha-elyonim she’ne’emar vayeshev Shlomo al kisei Hashem le-melekh” (“At first Shelomo ruled over the the upper spheres”), is that the king is not solely a human figure serving the needs of his countrymen, but rather he is also a sacral figure, representing Divine interests in the human world. Just as the Kohen Gadol (High Priest) is the Divine representative in the religious sphere, serving as a “shelucha de-rachmana” (emissary of God) no less than a “shelucha didan” (emissary of man), so too is the melekh an ambassador of God in the political sphere. The Heavenly Throne (kisei Hashem) serves as a symbol of Divine involvement in the human world and, therefore, the description of the king as sitting upon this throne serves to establish his rule as a manifestation and executor of Divine Will in our world. In this context, mention should already be made of the fact that the king, as the kohen, is anointed with shemen ha-mishcha (the anointing oil).

If we accept this line of reasoning, the Torah’s interest in a royal head of state is not due to his practical utility to human society, but rather is due to the fact that a royal figure is a better representative of God on Earth. By adopting such a position, we are able to understand the need for a king, despite the drawbacks which Abarbanel pointed out. To offset those, the Torah added a whole list of regulations and mitzvot designed to distance the monarch from “gavhut ha-lev” (arrogance), involvement with earthly affairs and the temptations of power (i.e. women, money and horses) and to instill in him and his subjects the sense of a Divine mission (the need to constantly have a Torah scroll at his side).”

SOURCE: YESHIVAT HAR ETZION

ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)

**************************************************************

JEWISH POLITICAL THEORY – HILKHOT MELAKHIM

SHIUR #1: The Commandment to Appoint a King

by Rav Mosheh Lichtenstein

Copyright (c) 1997 Yeshivat Har Etzion. All rights reserved.

****

While the above article does not touch upon the subject of the unifying mission of the King, it is important to note that I Divrei Ha-yamim (1 Chronicles) 29:23 concludes with the phrase “… and all Israel obeyed him.”

“David came and increased their number to 24.”

24 mishmarot (lit. “guards”; Ta’an. 4:2), which served in a regular weekly rotation. The mishmarot were further broken up into a varying number of battei avot (“houses” or “families”). Each division and subdivision was presided over by a head, called rosh mishmar and rosh bet av respectively (Tosef., Hor. 2: 10); there is also mention made of a bet av (Tam. 1:1; Mid. 1:8; cf. Yoma 1:5). The levites were similarly divided into 24 mishmarot, which replaced each other every week (I Chron. 25:8ff, et al.; Jos., Ant., 7:363ff.; Ta’an. 4:2). These were in turn subdivided into seven battei avot, and presided over by “heads.” Finally, there was an analogous division of the Israelites themselves into 24 mishmarot, each of which had to take its turn in coming to Jerusalem for a week. They served to represent the whole body of the people while the daily (communal) offerings were sacrificed, for “how can a man’s offering be offered while he does not stand by it?” (Ta’an. 4:2, et al.).

That part of the mishmar of priests, Levites, or Israelites actually engaged in the performance of its duty was called a ma’amad or ammud (“station”) and was headed by a rosh ma’amad (Tam. 5:6). When the time for the service of a mishmar came round, all the priests and Levites belonging to it would go to Jerusalem. Not all the Israelites of that mishmar, however, proceeded to Jerusalem. A portion of them certainly did (Ta’an. 4:2; cf. Tosef., Ta’an. 4:3) but those who could not do so assembled in their own towns and read the story of creation, etc. Only those in Jerusalem who actually “stood by” while the sacrifice was being offered could, strictly speaking, be called a ma’amad, or ammud (see Sof. 17:5; but see Lieberman , Tosefta ki-Feshutah 5, 1962, 1104, who shows that according to a different opinion the ma’amadot were of Israelites alone).

23 “And Solomon sat on the throne of the L-RD as king instead of David his father, and he prospered, and all Israel obeyed him.” 24 And all the leaders and the mighty men and also all King David’s sons placed their hand under King Solomon.

Hoshea 3.5 “afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek [desire] the L-RD their G-D, and David their king; and shall come trembling unto the L-RD and to His goodness in the end of days.”

Yekezkel 37.22 “and I will make them one nation in the land, upon the mountains of Israel, and one king shall be king to them all; and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all;”

Thus, in a Divinely chosen monarchy, the king sit as an emissary of the Merciful One on the throne of the L-RD uniting the people, to worship as one by an oath; even as Avraham’s servant swore by the “Covenant of Circumcision” B’rashith (Genesis) 24:3!

Jewish Kings and Monarchs: From King David to the Messiah Live webinar

  Shalom from Israel! United with Israel is happy to invite you to an interactive webinar broadcast LIVE from Israel on Thursday, August 20, 2020. Renown speaker and scholar Rabbi Ari Enkin presents highly educational, thought provoking, inspiring classes covering topics from the Land of Israel to Bible study to contemporary Jewish and Israeli issues and more. This week, Rabbi Enkin’s topic will be:
Jewish Kings and Monarchs: From King David to the Messiah Live webinar will be broadcast on Thursday August 20 at:
10:00am EDT (Eastern USA)
3:00pm London time
5:00pm Jerusalem time
12:00am (Friday) Melbourne, Australia Space is limited so please be sure to sign into the class early. If you registered for a previous week’s class you may use the same link to attend. Otherwise, please register for the webinar below. Click Here to Register for the Zoom Webinar Rabbi Enkin will begin the class with a review of this week’s Torah portion, “Shoftim” (Deuteronomy 16:18-21:9). After a brief overview of the Torah portion and the many commandments that it contains, Rabbi Enkin will discuss the history of the monarchy in the Land of Israel and review the life of King David and Solomon. We will explore some of the lesser-known facts and details of the final king: King Messiah. Register NOW for Rabbi Ari Enkin’s LIVE Webinar Although not required, please consider making a donation support United with Israel’s ongoing program by clicking here. It would be greatly appreciated! We look forward to seeing you there! With Blessings from Israel, The United with Israel Team CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

The “Deal of the Century” & “Close Jewish Settlement”

The right to “Close Jewish Settlement” is perfectly legal under Article 6 of the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924. This is the Supreme Law of the USA and is American Public Policy since the right is an Acquired Legal Right under Treaty Law (e.g. the San Remo Resolution and the Treaty of Versailles).

Lest the American (Trump) Administration forget, political rights for Arabs were granted through the Mandates for Mesopotamia (Iraq), Syria and Lebanon via the Treaty of Versailles; while political rights within “Palestine” (Eretz Yisrael) were granted exclusively to the Jewish People!

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution labels treaties as the “Supreme Law of the Land” and instructs judges to enforce the performance of the specific obligations of the Nation’s treaties:”…all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby…”Though the 1924 Anglo-American Convention expired when the Mandate for Palestine was terminated midnight May 14/15, 1948, the principle of “Acquired Legal Rights,” as defined in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 70(1)(b), dictates that rights recognized and protected under a treaty do not expire or terminate when the legal instrument recognizing the rights is terminated. In other words, rights continue without end.

Moreover, Article 80 of the UN Charter provides:

Article 80

  1. Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.
  2. Paragraph 1 of this Article shall not be interpreted as giving grounds for delay or postponement of the negotiation and conclusion of agreements for placing mandated and other territories under the trusteeship system as provided for in Article 77.

Article 80 has been defined as the “Jewish People’s Clause”

After World War II, Benzion Netanyahu, along with Irgun activist Peter Bergson, nephew of Mandatory Palestine Chief Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, and liberal American Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, drafted an article for inclusion in the United Nations Charter that could yet save the Jewish state.
The article became known as the “Palestine clause” for the protection it afforded to the right of Jewish settlement throughout the Land of Israel west of the Jordan River. Article 80 extended the guarantees to Jews afforded by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine following World War I. The Mandate had recognized “the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine” and “the legitimacy of grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.” Jews were guaranteed “the right of close settlement” throughout Palestine.
But where was “Palestine”? According to the Mandate, it comprised the land east and west of the Jordan River, stretching from Iraq to the Mediterranean. Jewish settlement rights in Palestine were limited only in one respect: Great Britain, the Mandatory Trustee, was empowered to “postpone” or “withhold” the right of Jews to settle east — but not west — of the Jordan River.

An Open Letter: MK Smotrich

MK Smotrich:

Shalom.
You should present a Bill before the Knesset to amend the Law of Return to
“Collectively Naturalize” all Jews of the Diaspora. Please see my case for doing so in my below forwarded email to Rav Netanyahu.
Also, as to why I oppose a Palestinian state and the return of the Arabs of Palestinian extraction to Eretz Yisrael, see below wherein I posit that they were collectively naturalized and acquired national autonomy in December 1948-49!
The so called Palestinians cannot acquire “national autonomy” in Judea and Samaria because within the meaning of International Law they all-ready have Jordanian citizenship; they are classified as belligerent nationals of Jordan due to their POLITICAL STATUS vis-a-vis the Hashemites, (“Black September” and their militant opposition to Zionism and M’dinat Yisrael). See: Bishop, International Law, Cases and Materials, Second Edition, Little, Brown & Co. 1962 @pp. 338-39.
Unlawful enemy combatant, or Mercenaries status might apply to some of their populous, but whatever the case, they acquired “NATIONAL AUTONOMY” at the Jericho Conference December 1948 within the meaning of international law!
It can be easily argued that the Kingdom of Jordan was established in violation of Treaty Law ( See: <https://johnmhummasti333455225.com/2018/09/05/the-hashemite-kingdom-of-jordan/> and that Treaty Law requires the Hashemites to cede to M’dinat Yisrael the Eastern Territories of Gad, Reuven and Manasseh as per the Faisal-Weissman Agreement/Map!

In closing, When the time comes for a Plenum Vote on Palestinian Statehood in the Knesset, Vote No for Palestinian Statehood and declare Oslo null and void or dead!!! Additionally, See Article 20 Charter, Tzionist Liberation Organization.
Kol tov,
Yochanan Ezra ben Avraham
(John Mauritz Hummasti)

antisemitism, amending the the Israeli Law of Return, the Diaspora and UNGA Resolution 194(11)

B”H

Rabbi (Et. Al.) –

 

My thoughts on the rise of antisemitism, amending the the Israeli Law of Return, the Diaspora and UNGA Resolution 194(11) :

First, “Anti-Semitism has become mainstream – from the halls of Congress to the leader of the opposition in Britain,” Ya’acov Berman, Chabad Activist, NY.

In order to counter “antisemitism” and the [Palestinian] Arab’s claim for a right of return based on UNGA Resolution 194 (11); the State of Israel should amend the Law of Return and collectively naturalize (viz “PATRIATE”) all Jews of the Diaspora (e.g. Orthodox, Conservative and Reform) under the Law of Return – In this way, all Jews would be provided Israeli Consular Services and “enhanced protection services” at Synagogues and Jewish Community Centers would be ensured  and Jews would outnumber, that is, hold a demographic majority over the Arabs even if all Arabs of Palestinian extraction were absorbed by M’dinat Yisrael (the State of Israel)!
Second, UNGA Resolution 194(11) is premised on two conditions: the “return of Palestinians to Eretz Yisrael at the earliest practicable date, & on those wishing to live at peace with their neighbor” – Given the rise in antisemitism in the Arab world it does not appear that the Palestinians wish to live at peace with their Jewish neighbor.
The earliest practicable date at which the Palestinians could have “returned to Eretz Yisrael” is any time before they were “collectively naturalized” by King Abdullah I which is December 13, 1949. See my argument below for why they chose their status in international law; whether or not that decision was a good one or a bad one is not my concern. The Palestinian’s case is one against the Hashemites, not the State of Israel.

According to wikipedia – the total number of people who hold or are eligible for Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return — defined as anyone with at least one Jewish grandparent, and who does not profess any other religion — is estimated at around 23 million, of which 6.6 million were living in Israel as of 2015. Figures for these expanded categories are less precise than for the core Jewish population.

Based on these 2015 figures, there are an estimated 17 million Jews in the Diaspora who are eligible for Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return. This number may not include the number of converts to Judaism or those Anusim (descendants of Jews forced to convert to a non-Jewish religion) who might be eligible under the Law of Return.

****

King Abdullah I of Jordan collectively naturalized all Arabs of Palestinian extraction.
The subject of collective naturalization is discussed at length in Boyd v. Thayer, 143 U. S. 135, (1892) and many cases cited and illustrations given.

Collective Naturalization can occur by legislation or by treaty.

In the case of Jordan –

On December 13, 1949, King Abdullah of Jordan passed a law amending the Law of Nationality of 1928. Accordingly, Jordanian citizenship was granted to all persons who were holding Palestinian citizenship and were habitually residing in Transjordan or in the “western area that [was] administered by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan” (i.e., Jerusalem and the West Bank). (Of note is that this law excluded Jews from possessing Jordanian citizenship! But of course the Jews were ethnically cleansed from Jordan and Judea and Samaria by the Hashemites in violation of Article 15 of the Mandate for Palestine and the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924 –

Talk about APARTHEID….)

(On the matter of why the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan was established in violation of Articles 5, 15, and 25 I can make a clear argument on each point but that is not the purpose of this –  Article 15 states, “No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.” The ethnic cleansing of Jews from “Palestine” was an official act of antisemitism. No different than that of the ethnic cleansing of the rest of the Jews of the “Middle East Diaspora”…! The Anglo-American Treaty of 1924 while it replicated the Mandate for Palestine, and has expired; the right guaranteed under it to the Jewish People [see Article 80 of the UN Charter] do not expire. This is particularly true since that Treaty became the Supreme Law of the Land (USA) under our Constitutional law system, [enshrining the Mandate for Palestine and the Balfour Declaration into the official PUBLIC policy of the USA] see Howard Grief’s Book: The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law (9789657344521).)

On April 11, 1950, parliamentary elections took place in Jordan, covering both the East Bank and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Following these elections, the Jordanian House of Commons approved the amended law and parliament’s decision concerning the “unification of the two Banks.” Thus, Palestinians who were living in East Jerusalem and the West Bank became Jordanian citizens [by collective naturalization].
The recent de-naturalization of Jordanian citizens of “Palestinian Extraction” by King Hussein and by King Abdullah II has been found to violate the Jordanian Nationality Law. See HRW Report “Stateless Again” – The act of “disengagement” from Judea and Samaria by the Hashemites and declaring those Arabs of Palestinian Extraction (who have been de-naturalized) as Palestinian Citizens can not confer “Palestinian citizenship” on them as Palestine is not a state under the criteria of “Statehood” and must be viewed as a political stratagem designed to demographically destroy the State of Israel! (See Joel Gilbert’s documentary, “Farewell Israel” – Bush, Iran and the Revolt of Islam.) His attempt to cede Judea and Samaria in 1988 to the PLO is null and void as he renounced all claims to “the West Bank” and “what was not his to begin with was not within his power to cede!”
King Hussein explained his decision as one of deference to Palestinian wishes for national autonomy.
This statement flies in the face of the Jericho Conference of December 1948 led by Sheik Muhammad Ali Ja’abari, Mayor of Hebron and the April 1950 Parliamentary Elections wherein the Arabs of Palestinian Extraction exercised political independence and elected King Abdullah as their Sovereign!
Thus, the Palestinians acquired national autonomy when their duly elected representatives voted at the Jericho Conference in December 1948. Within a year all “non-Jewish Palestinians” were all “collectively naturalized” with the consent of the people through their elected Monarch, Abdullah I.
Just because the Hashemites have suspended the rights of the Arabs in the Lower House of Deputies and de-naturalized them should not place the onus on the State of Israel to accommodate them with a “right of return” under UNGA Res. 194(11) as they have exercised “self-determinism” under the Jericho Conference and the April 1950 Parliamentary Elections.
The US Dept. of State 1950 Report states the Jericho Conference determined the political status of the Arabs of “Central” Palestine “which took place as a result of a free expression of the will of the people.” Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa Volume V, Page 1096
How many times do the “Palestinians” get to decide their political status? It is evident that they chose their status (as monarchists) and are barred by the doctrine of estoppel in pais from asserting a claim of the “right of return” (to wit, a claim of Palestinian Citizenship) based on inconsistent “political” positions.
Anyways, these are my thoughts on the subject of Collective Naturalization.
Be well, blessed and a success,
Yochanan Ezra ben Avraham

Bennett’s platform revealed

Arutz Sheva Staff, 28/02/19 08:39

New Right party platform opposes giving away land, supports increased construction in Judea, Samaria, J-lem, applying sovereignty in Area C.

 

 

Bennett

Bennett

Hadas Parush 90

The New Right party is committed to applying Israeli sovereignty in Area C and opposing the release of terrorists. In the political part of its platform, which was obtained by Israel Hayom, it is written, “As long as we are in the government, we will not allow a return to this pattern of returning terrorists, which is morally flawed and destructive.”

In the document, drafted by ministers Ayelet Shaked and Naftali Bennett, the party commits to refraining from handing over territories, and instead to significantly expand construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem.

“We oppose the handing over of our land and the establishment of a Palestinian state in the heart of the Land of Israel. We stand by the value settlement in all parts of Israel, including Judea and Samaria. Jerusalem, the united, is the capital of Israel – we will work to renew the building within united Jerusalem and to realize the potential of Givat Hamatos, Har Homa, Pisgat Ze’ev, the City of David and other neighborhoods … In Samaria and Judea there is enormous potential for building, and we will work for free construction, which will enable the doubling of the Jewish population in the area. ”

The New Right intends to apply Israeli sovereignty in Area C and grant Israeli citizenship to tens of thousands of Arab residents in the area. “The residents of Judea and Samaria are not treated equally in terms of construction and property rights … We support the application of Israeli law to the territories under Israeli control.”

German Ambassador to rabbis: ‘World should know your position’

Arutz Sheva – Israel National News
Mordechai Sones, 18/02/19 21:54

Rabbinical Congress for Peace: ‘Past experience has proven without shadow of doubt any withdrawals only embolden terrorists.’

 

Rabbi's emergency conference for Land of Israel

Rabbi’s emergency conference for Land of Israel

Rabbinical Congress for Peace

A delegation of the Rabbinical Congress for Peace, led by central Tel Aviv Rabbi Joseph Gerlitzky, Shavei Shomron Rabbi Avraham Schreiber, and Chief Rabbinical Justice in Europe and Jerusalem Rabbi Yirmiya Cohen met yesterday with Germany’s ambassador to Israel, Susanne Vassum-Rainer.

The rabbis presented the Ambassador with the halachic ruling based on the universal value of the sanctity of life that it is absolutely forbidden to enter negotiations on an Israeli withdrawal from territories presently under its control. “Past experience has proven without a shadow of a doubt that any withdrawals only embolden the terrorists to increase terrorism and instability in the region,” the rabbis said. The rabbis requested that the Ambassador convey their message to the German government.

Ambassador Wasum-Rainer admitted that this was the first time that the Torah view had been called to her attention and recommended that it be brought to the attention of world public opinion too, however, she said, that her government does not take sides in the conflict. She said that she feels that the Palestinians are entitled to their own independent state as well. Rabbi Gerlitzky responded, “there are millions of Muslims in Germany, and no one thinks of granting them autonomy there.”

Rabbi Yirmiyahu HaCohen showed the ambassador original archaeological findings that prove beyond any doubt that the Jewish people have been in Israel from time immemorial and there is no room for debate on the subject.

Rabbi Schreiber talked about his close rapport that he had with Arabs of Gaza when he served as a rabbi in Gush Katif before the disengagement. “It is clear,” he said, “most of the Arab residents in Gaza were against the disengagement because they do not want to live under Palestinian rule. They enjoyed more freedom and prosperity under Israeli rule.”

The ambassador expressed great interest in what the rabbis had to say and promised to convey their message to senior officials in the German government.

Ambassador Wasum-Rainer and her staff were impressed that the rabbis are not affiliated with any party or any political body, but solely articulated the Torah view on the matter out of genuine concern for the peace and safety of the people in Israel.

Rabbi Joseph Gerlitzky

‘The people demand it, the leadership committed: Sovereignty!’

Sovereignty Movement publishes another call to Likud members to back candidates supporting Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria.

 

Arutz Sheva Staff, 05/02/19 17:00

 

"Time for Sovereignty!"

“Time for Sovereignty!”

Flash 90

On this day of the Likud primaries, the Sovereignty Movement published another call to voters to elect candidates who have declared their commitment to promote implementation of the vision of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria during the coming term of Knesset.

The Movement also published a short film in which senior Likud members and candidates in the primaries express their resolute position regarding the vision of sovereignty. This film clip is similar to others the movement has circulated widely among Likud voters and supporters of Judea and Samaria.

The Movement notes with satisfaction the key place that the vision of sovereignty occupies in a great number of campaigns in the candidates for primaries among the ruling party, the Likud. “The entire leadership of the national camp and the leadership of the Likud in particular, understand its role in leading to the historic, Zionist vision, and aren’t satisfied with just rejecting the dangerous ideas that the Left promotes. The fact that leaders of the Likud have chosen to place the vision of sovereignty at the center of their personal campaigns shows how important this vision is in the political-diplomatic discourse in Israel.”

The co-Chairwomen of the movement, Yehudit Katsover and Nadia Matar, add: “The Likud movement and the national camp have been in a leadership position for a long time and now must prove it has the power to rule and formulate a historic political plan that not only stops the Left’s ideas but also brings the national concept to fruition. The political winds in the White House and the international preoccupation with other urgent matters enable a swift transition from theory to practice. The next term of Knesset is the true test for the leadership of the national camp.”

Members of the movement mention some of the quotes used in the Likud internal election campaign dealing with the vision of sovereignty and the commitment to promote it in the coming term:

Speaker of the Knesset, MK Yuli Edelstein, in an interview with Udi Segal in “Before the News” (Channel 13): The next term will be characterized by advancing the vision of Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. Until a few years ago the vision seemed cut off from reality and today it is the consensus in the national camp. In an interview for Israel Hayom, Edelstein said:

“The 21st Knesset will be the one that begins the application of Israeli sovereignty in the areas of Judea and Samaria. I, at least, will do everything in my power so that it will happen”.

Minister Gila Gamliel adorned her campaign advertisements with reports on the unrest that her statements aroused in an interview with the Sovereignty Journal, in which she said that a Palestinian state may, at the most, arise in northern Sinai. In an interview with Arutz 7 she said: “We must strive for the application of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. There is no room for another dictatorial state in the Middle East”.

Minister Akunis said in connection with the election period: “My goal is to settle Judea and Samaria, to deepen our hold on the Land and prevent the establishment of a terror state in Judea and Samaria. I do not believe in any scheme such as a ‘state minus’ or ‘state plus’. Surrendering parts of our homeland is not in my lexicon” (Arutz 7).

Minister Yoav Galant expressed himself this way during a visit in Samaria, and made this commitment: “I will act to implement sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. The settlement enterprise is the key to holding onto sovereignty and Zionism”.

Minister Miri Regev said this in an interview: “The Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria want us to apply sovereignty in Judea and Samaria and they are right. They want us to give them the rights that they deserve” (Besheva).

Senior Likud member and former minister Gideon Sa’ar also made a point of expressing his opposition to an Arab state in the heart of the Land as well as the definition of a ‘state minus’. In his opinion, we must present to the Americans the alternative of an autonomy with an affiliation to Jordan. “I oppose the establishment of an Arab state in the heart of the Land of Israel. I believe that this would be dangerous and would not bring about peace or security, but rather the opposite; it would degrade the security and stability of the area” (Arutz Sheva).

Former mayor of Jerusalem Nir Barkat and a candidate for a place on the Likud list for Knesset, said: “I make this commitment: I will fight with all of my power for the application of sovereignty in the areas of Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria in the coming session of Knesset”.

The Sovereignty Movement expresses satisfaction with the statements of the leadership’s deep internalization of public opinion within Israeli society, which calls for an end to Oslo ideas and to put in their place the political, Zionist, appropriate, ethical and just vision, the vision to apply Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. However, the movement emphasizes that statements and declarations are not enough and the burden of proof lies with the leadership.