INTO THE FRAY: (a) The imperative to annex; (b) The irrelevance of innocence

Arutz Sheva – Israel National News

Are those against sovereignty entrapped in an Oslowian time-warp? And has the legal establishment destroyed its credibility again?


Dr. Martin Sherman , 22/05/20 12:00


Dr. Martin Sherman

Dr. Martin Sherman

Preamble: The somewhat misleading headline

This week (May 17-23) provided a particularly rich array of fresh newsworthy topics on which to focus: The opening of PM Netanyahu’s unashamedly choreographed trial, the disruptive cyber-attack on the southern Iranian port, Shahid Rajaee, widely attributed to Israel; the formation of the outsized and grotesquely hybridized government that the Israeli electorate imposed upon itself, to name but a few.

However, as compelling as these and other matters might be, I had decided instead to set them aside and focus instead on two issues, with which I have dealt in some detail in the past. I did so because I believe they entail, perhaps, the farthest-reaching potential impact on the country in the long-run—the one in terms of its security, and the other, in terms of the resilience of its domestic fabric.

The former is the continuing burst of fragments of shrapnel still flying around the Israel-related political arena in the wake of the uproar that exploded with Daniel Pipe’s May 7th New York Times opinion piece opposing Israeli annexation of any territory in Judea-Samaria.

The latter was the profoundly perturbing conviction in the 2015 Duma arson case, which at least from a layman’s perspective, appears to fly in the face of all eye-witness accounts and the undeniable existence of reasonable doubt. Sadly however, once I began writing, I realized that I cannot do justice to both in a single Op-Ed—even a rather lengthy one. Accordingly, I will restrict this week’s discussion to the former and—subject to breaking news—leave for next week the analysis of the latter case, in which Israel’s legal establishment has once again shown that there is nothing so destructive to its own credibility than itself.

But as I did not want to totally disregard the Duma episode, Ileft the headline in its original “double-barreled” twofer form—hence the reference to “somewhat misleading”.

(a) The imperative to annex—immediately.

American Jews have an obligation to speak out against imposing a solution on the Palestinians as a matter not only of intellectual consistency, but also because to do so protects Israel’s long-term interests as well. A unilateral West Bank land grab would imperil Israel – Alan P. Solow, Former Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, in A unilateral West Bank land grab would imperil Israel, The Times of Israel, May 19, 2020.

Israel needs to stop the threats of annexation and stop settlement activity because it will choke off any hope of peace – Democratic Party’s presumptive 2020 candidate for US President, former Vice President, Senator Joe Biden, Biden says he opposes Israel annexing territory, The Hill, May19, 2020.

And what does annexation actually achieve? It is a symbolic move, a gesture…a self-indulgence that buoys the anti-Zionist cause and renders a resolution of the conflict more distant.”— Daniel Pipes, President of the Middle East Forum, and initiator of the Israel Victory Project, in “I believe in compromise… ”, The Times of Israel, May 12, 2020, (Telephonic interview). Also see here

I have no qualms in broaching this subject again, despite having just completed writing an extensive analysis of it barely a week ago. For, as the foregoing excerpts indicate, it has continued to simmer and bubble well after the publication of the original “offending” article, even making headlines late this week.

Entrapped in an Oslowian time-warp?

Thus, Alan Solow (see above) produced an article, written as if he was entrapped in an anachronistic Oslowian time-warp, where optimistic naivete still dominates the discourse and Palestinian-Arabs were still mistakenly viewed as prospective peace partners rather than implacable enemies.

As if oblivious to three decades of post-Oslowian Judeocidal rejectionism by the Palestinian-Arabs—despite gut-wrenching Israeli concessions—he pontificates: “No solution should be imposed on anyone or by anyone in the Israeli-Palestinian arena. [T]his sentiment has stood for decades as the one universally accepted principle undergirding the quest for a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – that it must be reached through bilateral negotiations between the parties.”

Of course, while he may well be right that, overall, this was for decades, “the one universally accepted principle undergirding the quest for a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”, it was also one that proved universally false—one, whose attempted application brought only trauma and tragedy; death and destruction, not just to thousands of Israeli Jews, but to countless more Palestinian-Arabs.

So, persisting with this fatally flawed and failed formula is Solow’s panacea-like prescription? Really??

You really couldn’t make this stuff up! Solow wrote about: “Israel using its military and political power for taking over what it wants…”
With almost breathtaking impudence (or perhaps, ignorance) Solow cautions menacingly: “Standing by while Israel uses its military and political power to declare ownership over whatever it wants is a dangerous precedent”. Indeed, it would be intriguing to know what parallel universe Solow inhabits.

You can’t make this stuff up

After all, you really couldn’t make this stuff up!

“Israel using its military and political power for taking over what it wants??

Yeah, right!

  • Like when it withdrew from all of Sinai, which it took over in a preemptive strike to foil a genocidal Egyptian onslaught?
  • Or, when it unilaterally evacuated Gaza, only to see it metamorphize into a bastion of Islamist terror, with martial prowess unimaginable prior to evacuation?
  • Or, when it “use[d]its military and political power” to ignominiously abandon South Lebanon to Hezbollah, allowing a terrorist nuisance to burgeon into a grave strategic threat to virtually every major Israeli population center?
  • Or, by allowing armed militias to deploy within mortar range of the nation’s parliament?

This from the former Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, who with almost child-like naivety asks: “…what if the Palestinians and their allies gain the upper hand and are in a position to undertake their own annexation of Israeli territory?” I kid you not! You have to read to believe!

Could it be that Solow has missed the news for the last decade or so—regarding the events in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Cairo’s Tahrir Square? If not, he would surely know that “if the Palestinians and their allies gain the upper hand”, annexation would probably not be the first thing on Israelis’ minds. For them, figuring out how to prevent their heads being severed from their shoulders might be a matter of more immediate concern.

Biden butts in

The presumptive Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President, Senator Joe Biden, has also recently offered his opposition to annexation, stating in a recent interview: “I do not support annexation”. He added: “The fact is, I will reverse Trump’s undercutting of peace,” referring the Trump Peace to Prosperity plan, which earmarks certain tracts of territory in Judea-Samaria for annexation by Israel—irrespective of Palestinian-Arab consent.

Biden, whose continued viability as a political player is due perhaps only to the appalling lethargy and impotence of the Republicans, warned: “Israel needs to stop the threats of annexation and stop settlement activity because it will choke off any hope of peace.”

It is, of course, difficult to know whether to scoff or to scowl at a statement so wildly detached from reality as this.

After all, “threats” of annexation have only been politically pertinent in the last year. Prior to that, the absence of such threats was spectacularly ineffective in breathing life into “any hope of peace”.

In Gaza, the reverse is true. Not only did Israel not annex the Strip, but it evacuated it. Not only did it not persist in “settlement activity”, but it laid waste to every remnant of Jewish presence—without that providing any artificial respiration for “any hope of peace”.

So surely the key to understanding what is “choking the hope for peace” must be sought elsewhere.

Breaking the enemies’ will …by complying with it?

Lamentably, it is difficult not to discern strands of thought reminiscent of this perspective in Pipes’s NYT article, as well as in his replies to the criticism it ignited—strands that run curiously counter to the prima facie rationale of the Israel Victory Project.

Thus, in his May 10 rejoinder, he writes: “Israel must assert itself against the Palestinians; but any moves must align with the larger campaign to compel Palestinians to give up their goal of eliminating the Jewish state.” To do this, he urges Israel to: “consider…what steps will most advance the goal of breaking the Palestinian will to eliminate Israel” But then, he incongruously suggests: “Annexing the West Bank… has the opposite result,” warning that: “It buoys the anti-Zionist cause and hinders a resolution of the conflict.”

Of course, common sense militates towards precisely the converse conclusion.

After all, annexation is something the Palestinian-Arabs oppose. So, if they and their allies can impose their will on Israel by compelling it to eschew annexation (a move widely supported in Israeli society), that hardly appears compatible with the spirit, which Pipes espouses. After all, it is not at all clear how one might break one’s antagonists’ will by complying with their will!!

Indeed, annexation (or “extension of sovereignty”, as semantic purists prefer) would, for all intents and purposes, make a tenable self-governing Palestinian-Arab entity (aka a Palestinian State) unattainable. It is difficult to conceive of any other measure that could do more than to bring home to the Palestinians that their hostile endeavor is futile.

Feigning defeat for fruits of victory

In his May 12 Times of Israel interview, Pipes proclaims: “I believe in compromise. But I also believe in convincing the Palestinians they’ve lost. I want to go for the jugular. I want to go for the kill.” This, of course, is a staggeringly self-contradictory expression of intent. After all, one can only puzzle over how one is to bring one’s adversaries to their knees by offering him a compromise acceptable them. But even assuming that such an arrangement is possible, there is another pitfall regarding the offer of compromise within the intellectual context that Pipes proposes.

After all, nothing is more liable to make feigning defeat to attain the fruits of victory as tantalizingly tempting than signaling the willingness for compromise.

After all, what is to prevent a duplicitous foe from faking surrender, accepting the rewards of the proffered compromise and then resuming hostilities, from greatly improved positions?

But, even assuming that Pipes believes that defeat will somehow bring about a yet-to-be specified compromise that the Palestinian-Arabs are willing to accept, and that Israel is willing to permit, how is this to be achieved? For despite his warning that annexation would “inflame the Palestinians”, he has in the past suggested the use of what are, arguably, far harsher, and no less internationally unacceptable measures, including a prescription to “ dismantle the PA’s security infrastructure…reduce and then shut off the water and electricity that Israel supplies.”

Clearly, if this is the stuff he is prepared to inflict on the Palestinians, it is difficult not to feel that his concern regarding international ire over annexation is strangely misplaced.

Inappropriate historical analogies

Indeed, in the past, Pipes wrote:“If [the] Germans and Japanese, no less fanatical and far more powerful, could be defeated in World War II and then turned into normal citizens, why not the Palestinians now?”

While this is factually true, these analogies are unlikely to be instructive for the Israel-Palestinian conflict, at least as far as post-victory policy design is concerned.

After all, it should be recalled that in these cases, the vanquished powers were not surrounded by, or adjacent to, countries with large populations of ethnic kin, or co-religionists, who could sustain resistance and incite unrest within their borders.

Thus, Germany was not surrounded by a swathe of Teutonic nations, nor Japan by a swathe of Nipponese nations, which could provide a constant stream of insurgents and armaments to undermine any arrangement or undercut any resolution the victorious powers wished to implement.

This, however, would definitely be the case in the Israeli/Palestinian situation, as was the case in Iraq and Afghanistan, where neighboring Islamic states constituted a virtually unending source of instability and incitement after initial victory.

Clearly, this is an element that has dramatic implications for post-victory policy—especially with regard to the prospect of relinquishing Israeli control over any territory to Palestinian rule—even after a crushing defeat has been inflicted. This is particularly true given the critical strategic importance of the territory, ear-marked for Palestinian self-rule in virtually any future configuration.

Bitter crucible of defeat?

Just over two years ago, Pipes asserted: “Palestinians will have to pass through the bitter crucible of defeat, with all its deprivation, destruction, and despair as they repudiate the filthy legacy of Amin al-Husseini and acknowledge their century-long error…there is no shortcut.”

While I might agree with that, it is difficult to conceive of what Pipes has in his mind’s eye as comprising that “[b]itter crucible of defeat–with all its deprivation, destruction, and despair”.

Indeed, reverting to his Japanese/German analogy, is he condoning future carpet bombing of Gaza or Ramallah as in Berlin and Dresden? Is he open to submitting Palestinian-Arab population centers to what the Allies subjected Japanese population centers? If not, what is the point of referring to them. If he is, does he feel that world opinion would be more open to this scope of causalities than to annexation?

Would this displease the US administration less, infuriate the Democrats and the Europeans less, alienate Arab leaders less, inflame the Palestinians less, radicalize the Israeli left less, than annexation?

Of course, one, hardly expects that Pipes would endorse such horrendous carnage, as his preferred policy prescription. But this obviously raises the inexorable question of how to inflict the “bitter crucible of defeat” and what form it might plausibly take.

Miraculous metamorphosis?

As a somber reminder—and a very rough yardstick—in the 1948 War of Independence, Israel suffered over 6,000 fatalities and 15,000 wounded— around 1% and 2.5% respectively of the then-total Jewish population— without bringing about any thoughts of unconditional surrender.

Assuming that Israelis, then, were not less sensitive to loss of human lives than are the Palestinian-Arabs today, could Israel cause a commensurate number of Palestinian-Arab casualties—between 30,000-40,000 fatalities and over 100,000 wounded, depending on which demographic estimate one accepts—without incurring international censure and sanctions? Could Israel inflict such death and devastation without precipitating massive popular clamor for international—even military—intervention, across the Arab world and in other Islamic countries such as Turkey, Pakistan and Iran?

And if not, what kind of mythical and miraculous metamorphosis does Pipes (or Solow or Biden) envisage that will somehow convert Palestinian-Arabs—many, if not most, of whom been subjected to decades of Judeophobic indoctrination and Judeocidal incitement—into docile, peace-loving versions of their former selves?

Interestingly Pipes—perhaps inadvertently—hints at an approach by which to address this thorny conundrum—via the demographic perspective.

Diagnosing demographic danger

In his Times of Israel interview, Pipes expresses justified concern over Israel having to grant citizenship to thousands of Palestinian-Arabs living in the areas slated for annexation. “This is essentially a population that does not want to be part of the Jewish state.”

In his reply to his critics, he writes (correctly, in my view): “Annexation would likely make more Palestinians eligible to become citizens of Israel. That would be a profound mistake, since its Arab citizens constitute what I believe is the ultimate enemy of Israel’s status as a Jewish state.”

Some two decades ago, Pipes wrote, with incisive insight: “Israel is apparently faced with just two stark and awful alternatives-annexing the West Bank and Gaza or handing them over to the PLO. And each of these is worse than it first appears, for annexation leads either to a demographic crisis in Israel or forceful transfer of population; and empowering the PLO means enthroning a widely hostile state hard on Israel’s borders. The first spells disaster for Israel’s internal life; the second poses a wholly new external threat. Understandably, the majority of Israelis deem both these routes unacceptable”

This was true then –and it is true today


  • One-State” type of solutions will inevitably result in the Lebanonization of Israeli society ‏and—eventually—the Islamization of the country.
  • Two-State” type of solutions will inevitably generate a mega-Gaza on the fringes Tel Aviv, overlooking Ben-Gurion Airport and abutting the Trans-Israel highway.
  • The various versions of “hybrid” solutions, involving partial annexation, will result unavoidably in a tortuously long and contorted frontier up to a 1000 km in length (possibly even more), which would be impossible to demarcate or secure, making any concept of sovereignty ‏meaningless.

Clear conclusion & call for cooperation

The conclusion then is clear.

History has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that the Palestinian-Arabs will not be swayed from their aggressive intent by any display of Israeli goodwill, generosity or concessions—however far-reaching.

If the calamitous casualties, necessary to convince the Palestinian-Arabs of final and durable defeat, are unacceptable and impracticable in the current international climate, the only “non-kinetic” policy paradigm that can effectively address Israel’s demographic and geographic imperatives, is a large-scale initiative for the incentivized emigration (evacuation-compensation) of the Palestinian-Arabs in Judea-Samaria (and eventually Gaza).

Here is not the place to discuss the political acceptability, the economic feasibility and the moral merits of the paradigm (which, however, can be shown to be distinctly more plausible than any competing alternative), but for Israel, it is essentially “Hobson’s Choice”—if it wishes to endure as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

The proposed annexation measures are an essential first step—and necessary pre-condition—in this direction.

I therefore, renew my call to Pipes for cooperation between his organization and mine, and to invest his considerable acumen and energy into helping to take the notion of “Incentivized Arab Emigration” from the realm of theoretical discussion to that of practical policy.

Before it is too late!

Martin Sherman is the founder & executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies.

Palestinian Authority rejects UAE coronavirus aid delivered via Israel

Middle East Eye

Aid was rejected because it was sent through an Israeli airport without direct consultation with Palestinian leadership
The first openly known direct flight between the UAE and Israel flew on Tuesday to deliver aid to Palestinians (AFP)

The Palestinian Authority (PA) has rejected coronavirus aid sent via an Emirati flight to Israel on Tuesday, saying that aid must be sent in coordination with the Palestinian leadership and not with Israel.

“There has been no coordination with the PA, so we cannot receive such aid,” PA Minister of Health Mai Alkaila told a news conference on Thursday. “We are a sovereign authority. Coordination must be directly with us.”

UAE delivers coronavirus aid for Palestinians in first direct flight to Israel

Read More »

The United Arab Emirates flew its first openly known flight to Israel late on Tuesday, an Etihad cargo plane from Abu Dhabi to Tel Aviv aimed to deliver humanitarian aid to Palestinians to help curb the spread of coronavirus.

Several Israeli media outlets reported that the flight took place in coordination with Israel’s foreign ministry and the UN’s World Food Programme.

UAE-Israel normalisation

Israel and the UAE do not have formal diplomatic relations, despite their de facto alliance against Iran.

Palestinians and their supporters oppose “normalisation” efforts with Israel, arguing that diplomatic pressure is an essential tool to get Israel to put an end to its occupation of Palestinian territories and violation of human rights.

Last year, Israel’s then foreign minister Israel Katz visited Abu Dhabi, where he discussed the “Iranian threat” with Emirati officials, his office said at the time. In 2018, Miri Regev, who was serving as Israel’s sports minister, also flew to the Emirati capital, notably going on a public tour of the Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque.

Israel was due to participate in the World Expo 2020 in Dubai, which was postponed because of the coronavirus outbreak.

The flight from Abu Dhabi to Tel Aviv comes as Israel plans to annex large parts of the occupied Palestinian territories in the West Bank.

The UAE has condemned the possible move as “illegal“, but cooperation appears to be growing between the two countries. Israeli media reported in April that the Emirati government offered to evacuate Israeli citizens stuck in Morocco because of the pandemic.

The spread of the coronavirus has raised fears that Palestinians may not have the resources to cope with a major outbreak in the occupied West Bank and besieged Gaza Strip, which have had close to 400 confirmed cases and two related deaths.

Jewish group slams Rashida Tlaib for calling Israel’s establishment ‘ethnic cleansing’

Arutz Sheva – Israel National News

Jewish group slams Democratic congresswoman for calling Israel’s establishment the ‘ethnic cleansing of indigenous Palestine’.


David Rosenberg , 20/05/20 11:54


Rashida Tlaib

Rashida Tlaib                                                                                                      Reuters

Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib came under fire Wednesday for her claims that Israel’s establishment constituted an act of “ethnic cleansing” of “indigenous Palestine”.

Last Friday, the Michigan Democrat tweeted a special “Nakba Day” message on the day after the 72nd anniversary of the establishment of Israel, marking what she called the “ethnic cleansing of indigenous Palestine”.

“Today, Palestinians around the world commemorate the Nakba (النكبة), Arabic for ‘catastrophe’ recognizing the ethnic cleansing of indigenous Palestine. ~530 Palestinian neighborhoods were uprooted + destroyed +750,000 Palestinians became refugees,” Tlaib tweeted.

For years, anti-Israel activists have marked May 15th – the day after the anniversary of Israel’s establishment – as a day of mourning, dubbed the “Nakba Day”.

On Wednesday, the Conference of Jewish Affairs excoriated Tlaib, calling her comments “despicable”.

“Over the weekend Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) made a despicable remark saying the existence of the State of Israel is an ‘ethnic cleansing’ of Muslim Arabs,” said Rabbi Aryeh Spero of the CJA.

“This is false, and she knows it. Since the establishment of the State of Israel 70 years ago, the Arab population in the Land of Israel has multiplied six-fold. Muslim Arabs within the Israeli territory have better access to modern amenities than in most places in the Arab world.”

“As the invasion by surrounding Arab states began in 1948, the Israeli government asked its Arab population not to leave. It promised them protection and citizenship; nonetheless many left at the request of Arab attackers who said it would be easier for them to perform their attacks if their Arab brothers were absent the area. Those who left did so of their own free will and with the hope that the Jews would be ethnically cleansed.”

“The fact is that the ethnic cleansing that happened after the establishment of the State of Israel was done to the Jews living in the Arab lands in North Africa and in the Middle East. Muslim countries expelled and threatened their Jewish population. The 850,000 Jews who for over 1,000 years had lived in and contributed to these countries were expelled and ethnically cleansed.”

“The ethnic cleansing going on today in the Middle East and northern Africa is being done mostly by Arab Muslim leaders and jihadists who are systematically purging these areas of age-old Christian communities, indigenous tribes, and remnants of the few Jews remaining in these areas.”

Rabbi Spero added: “When speaking of ethnic cleansing, Rashida Tlaib should look in the mirror and see that it is her ideology that is the greatest perpetrator of ethnic cleansing in the world today.”

Last year, Tlaib was barred from entering Israel, over her vocal support for the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement.

Abbas Announces End to Oslo Accords

Abbas renounces agreements with Israel and US

PA chairman declares an end to the agreements and understandings signed with Israel and the US in response to Israel’s sovereignty plans.

Arutz Sheva – Israel National News

Elad Benari , 19/05/20 23:21


Mahmoud Abbas

Mahmoud Abbas                                                                                               Reuters

Palestinian Authority (PA) chairman Mahmoud Abbas on Tuesday declared an end to the agreements and understandings signed with Israel and the United States in response to Israel’s plans to declare sovereignty over Judea and Samaria.

“The Palestine Liberation Organization and the State of Palestine are absolved, as of today, of all the agreements and understandings with the American and Israeli governments and of all the obligations based on these understandings and agreements, including the security ones,” Abbas declared at an emergency meeting in Ramallah, according to the Wafa news agency.

“The Israeli occupation authority, as of today, has to shoulder all responsibilities and obligations in front of the international community as an occupying power over the territory of the occupied state of Palestine, with all its consequences and repercussions based on international law and international humanitarian law,” he continued.

Abbas also said, “We hold the American administration fully responsible for the oppression befalling the Palestinian people and we consider it a primary partner with the Israeli occupation government in all its aggressive and unfair decisions and measures against our people. Yet we welcome all the positions of the other American parties that rejected the policies of this administration that are hostile to our people and their legitimate rights.”

He announced that the PA will complete the signing of agreements to accede to international agreements and conventions that we have not yet joined.

“We reaffirm our commitment to the international legitimacy and the relevant Arab, Islamic and regional resolutions, which we are part of, and we reiterate our firm commitment to fighting international terrorism regardless of its shape or source,” continued Abbas.

“We reaffirm our commitment to a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict based on the two-state solution, with our readiness to accept the presence of a third party on the borders between them, on the condition that negotiations will be held to achieve that under international auspices (the International Quartet plus) and through an international peace conference based on international legitimacy.”

He called on world countries that have rejected the US “Deal of the Century “not be satisfied with rejection and condemnation but to take deterrent steps and impose serious sanctions to prevent the Israeli occupation state from implementing its schemes and its continuing denial of the rights of our people. We call on those that did not yet recognize the state of Palestine to quickly recognize it to protect peace, international legitimacy and international law, and to implement the Security Council resolutions on providing international protection to our people in their occupied state.”

“We will continue to pursue the occupation for its crimes against our people at all international authorities and courts. In this context, we affirm our confidence in the independence and integrity of the International Criminal Court,” declared Abbas.

The PA is outraged over the coalition agreement between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Benny Gantz, which stipulates that the government can apply sovereignty over Judea and Samaria this coming July.

The new Israeli government was sworn-in on Sunday. During the ceremony, Netanyahu reiterated his support for the sovereignty move.

The PA has also condemned the perceived US support for the sovereignty move. The PA “justice minister” recently threatened the US with lawsuits for supporting it.

Aliyah Fund

Hello Friends, Followers and Curious:
I’ve started an Aliyah Fund to aid my immigration to Israel.

In August 2004 I applied for Israeli Citizenship. I am making Aliyah (Immigration) to Israel. I need funds for travel costs, and living expenses while waiting for the Ministry of Interior to approve my application. If you wish to kindly donate follow the above link “Aliyah Fund” and I thank you in advance.


The Nature of G-D

The Nature of G-D is that of Pure (Holy), Limitless Deity that is without sin, iniquity or transgression. “He is the rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a G-D of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.Devarim 32.4.
The Torah states clearly: “G-D cannot lie!” It also states “G-D is not the son of man.”
To use a “set-up argument,” to prove Jesus cannot be G-D, simply show that Jesus lied!
The lead up to the argument is to quote the Torah:
B’midbar 23.19 states “G-D is not a man, that He should lie, nor the son of man that He should repent.”
Xtians must agree that (a) “G-D is not a man, (b) that He should lie, (c) nor the son of man that (d) He should repent.” They must also agree “G-D does not change” from Limitless, Pure Deity to sinful humanity. 
Since Christianity claims Jesus is “the son of man” then by the terms of B’midbar 23.19 Jesus is not G-D. Moreover, to use circular reasoning; since Jesus falsely prophesied (that is, Jesus lied in Matthew 16.28, claiming, [contrary to Ezekiel 29.1-2,] to be the “son of man” who would restore the kingdom to Israel; as compared with Acts 1.6-7) he cannot be G-D since G-D cannot lie!
And, Malachi 3.6 states (to para-phrase) “G-D does not change” – therefore G-D, Limitless, Eternal Deity, Who is “a G-D of truth and without iniquity” could not “become sin for us” as Xtianity teaches (2 Corinthians 5:21, John 1.29, Galatians 3.13) as that contradicts Devarim 32.4.
As well, since Jesus was “hung on a tree” he became cursed; as it is written: “Cursed is everyone hung on a tree.” Devarim 21.23

Christian Brainwashing = Avodah Zarah – Idol Worship!

Rabbi Singer:
I hope to come back to Israel soon. I don’t know what I will be doing other than learning to be a Sofer and doing anti-Missionary work. Perhaps Outreach Judaism can find a place for me ??? I have all the paperwork needed to make Aliyah. I applied for Aliyah 22-08-2004 but didn’t know how to get a criminal background check done. Now that I have that completed and the funds for a new passport and airline ticket I should be able to reopen my tik with the Misrad Hapnim.
Xianity begins with brainwashing: getting a person to believe Jesus is G-D (Logos) born in the flesh (John 1.14), (e.g. the alleged virgin birth; but see the Ebionite doctrine and the Orthodox Corruption of Scriptures: The Effects of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament by Bart D Ehrman (Oxford University Press: 2003) and also Luke 2.48 “your father and I” which as Ehrman points out in the Orthodox Corruption of Scriptures was not redacted from the Xtian scriptures; and see: John 1.45 “Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph”); that is, “getting a person to believe Jesus is G-D born in the flesh” is contrary to B’midbar 23.19 and Malachi 3.6, (as well is contrary to Luke 2.48, and John 1.45) and is the first step which leads to Avodah Zarah – Idol worship!
To use a “set-up argument,” simply show that Jesus lied! The lead up to the argument is to quote the Torah. B’midbar 23.19 states “G-D is not a man, that He should lie, nor the son of man that He should repent.”
And, Malachi 3.6 states (to para-phrase) “G-D does not change” – therefore G-D, Limitless, Eternal Deity, Who is “without iniquity” could not “become sin for us” as Xtianity teaches (2 Corinthians 5:21, John 1.29) as that contradicts Devarim 32.4.
To use circular reasoning; since Jesus falsely prophesied (that is, lied in Matthew 16.28, claiming, contrary to Ezekiel 29.1-2, to be the “son of man” who would restore the kingdom to Israel; as compared with Acts 1.6-7) he cannot be G-D since G-D cannot lie!
Anyways, I hope that MK Hendel cancels the G-D (Sheylanu) TV contract for “fraud in the inducement!”
Kol tov,
Yochanan Ezra ben Avraham