Looking at the current parties and candidates running for election- A few common points come into play each election that are important to notice for people who care about the Rebbe’s plan for the land of Israel.
1. Who stands for not giving land
2. Who wants to end OSLO
3. Who stands for “Mi Hu Yehudi”?
If you look carefully, just because a candidate says he is against giving land (which is something important) he may not be against continuing Oslo (and Camp David).
It’s not enough for a candidate to simply promise to stop land giving efforts. It’s like believing in G-d but worshiping other G-ds too. Since Oslo came about, Israel has been religiously keeping to its side of the agreements.
Unfortunately for Israelis, Israel has not been so zealous in protecting Jewish interests by using Arab violations of Oslo to end this deathly agreement. This is a situation that has gone from bad to worse, yet while it may be questioned in the press, candidates rarely talk about it. This means that when they get into office, they can excuse their need to continue talks by saying: “These are agreements I did not make” and therefore must honor.
Only Answer Is To End Oslo
The only way out of this dilemma is for a candidate to espouse an end to OSLO.
The Lubavitcher Rebbe’s concern here is based on Hilchos Shabbos (laws of Shabbos) 329, where the Rebbe’s opinion is that every town and city in Israel has the din of “on the border”. So if given away, it leaves the center of the country vulnerable to being more easily conquered. As we see happening today, tiny Eretz Yisrael is only 30 miles wide, yet Israel is currently negotiating to give away Shomron / West Bank, a roughly 20 mile wide area. This leaves a thin indefensible corridor downhill from the Shomron / West Bank hills.
Mi Hu Yehudi
Making an Israeli law requiring a halachic definition of “who is a Jew”.
This has always been a concern for the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Basically Mi-Hu-Yehudi is a campaign of the Rebbe to write into law that the only definition of a Jew is that brought by Jewish law. This affects who is eligible for Israel’s rights of return. Today, the law is not-yet in place.
How to Know How a Candidate Stands
How can we know that a candidate (or party) is really interested in these things?
The truth is- You cannot. Historically, whatever a candidate says before the election means nothing (or mostly nothing). In the end, when it comes to giving land for peace and shleimus haaretz, they generally do what the last person did. The advantage of having an election is that it holds off peace negotiations for a bit. In the meantime things happen and the political situation changes and giving is not done so quickly. The truth is, politicians are worried about losing their jobs more than if Jews are put in danger. As such, it gives one a bargaining tool. If you agree not to give, not to negotiate, to oppose OSLO, so we will keep you in office. If not…
There is a saying by Bulgarians about diplomacy that I saw recently. “Promise that in a year you will teach a camel how to dance.” Why? Because in a year a lot can happen. Either the camel will learn how to dance, the other side will die, you will die, the issue will disappear or the camel will die. Giving a politician office based on Shleimus Haaretz then is a bit of a tool that promotes concern for Jewish safety by working to stop land for peace.
Research a Candidate or Party
Look at his historical record.
Google the candidates name and the word: “Peace”. See what comes up. Then try his name with the word: “OSLO”.
However he/she held in the past, is how he will hold when elected.
Nafatali Bennett for example, of Bayit Yehudi was not secretive about his gloved “not-anti-peace” approach. Two years before he was elected, his views were published. One sees he didn’t disagree with giving land, but as a tradeoff- by taking back land too. Basically an approach of “nothing lost, nothing gained”. He also was not against kangaroo court trials about giving land. He just feels it should be in military court as opposed to civil court (or vice-verso). As if this makes any real difference over fixing the outcome…
Not the Rebbe’s approach at all.
Avigdor Lieberman who is currently running with Yisrael Beitaynu became pro-peace, as reported March 3rd 2009 in the Jerusalem Post: Mr. Lieberman says he changed his mind in recent years and decided to support the creation of a Palestinian state, but that he did not try to hide his views during the recent election campaign. Lieberman surprised many of his voters when he wrote in a letter to the New York Jewish Week on Thursday that he “advocates the creation of a viable Palestinian state.” He also told The Washington Post that he would agree to the evacuation of his West Bank community of Nokdim “if there really will be a two-state solution.”
Moshe Feiglin wants to not give land, but being a part of Likud, he became a magnet to draw in Orthodox support for Likud’s policy of Land for Peace. The fact that Moshe hung in there for so long makes one wonder what he was really accomplishing besides pocketing a good paycheck and getting orthodox votes for peace.
Netanyahu talks strong, but he always folds and gives. If you look carefully at his strong words, you see he actually told the American Congress: “Yes Israel knows it has to give, but it will give responsibly…” and as he said to Congress May 24, 2011: “I want to be very clear on this point. Israel will be generous on the size of a Palestinian state but will be very firm on where we put the border with it. This is an important principle [that] shouldn’t be lost.” “Now this is not easy for me. It’s not easy because I recognize that in a genuine peace we will be required to give up parts of the ancestral Jewish homeland,” Who can forget Mr. Netanyahu gave away Hebron as Prime Minister in January 1997? Or that he ran for PM in 2003 with a platform to give more?
As Yossi Beilin, a Labor negotiator in the secret Israeli-PLO accords worked out in Norway in 1993, remarked at the time: “We welcome Netanyahu to the “OSLO CLUB!!“”
Ironically, Mr. Netanyahu lost to Mr. Sharon who himself ironically ran under the platform of stopping land for peace. Then after elected Sharon reversed himself to go on to give away Gush Katif against the wishes of a Likud referendum. Mr. Sharon’s 2003 campaign slogan? “Today Netzarim, tomorrow Tel Aviv!”
If you look, you find.
In the last election if you looked carefully, while giving land was a big issue, neither candidate spoke about ending Oslo or the violated Camp David Agreements, despite Egypt’s hostility. More recently, Israel has suffered from daily rocket attacks in the hundreds from the Palestinian areas. Yet we will most probably see no candidate promoting exit from Oslo or taking back Sinai and Gaza. Although, one is left to wonder: “How did those tunnels from Gaza get built if not with Egyptian help..?”
So just realize that “Ending Oslo” (and Camp David) are key for moving Israel to move out of a Land-for-Peace mode.
All the parties are guilty of selling out when it comes to giving land at one time or another. So one cannot rely on parties and their history. Just because a party looks religious means nothing, as Rabbi Yoel Kahn pointed out recently in an article in Jerusalem Post about UTJ (United Torah Judaism). UTJ, like the other parties is just as wishy-washy about giving land.
However, if a party no matter how left were to promise in writing and as a party platform to end Oslo once and for all as a danger to Jewish life, this would be something significant. For the Rebbe if you look; was not particular how religious a party is, as long as its platform espouses religious life and important legislation aiming to secure Jewish safety in Eretz Yisrael. Most prominently by stopping giving of land and to bring “Mi Hu Yehudi” (who is a Jew) into Israeli law. Our Rebbe does not give up on anybody! Who didn’t the Rebbe talk to about change in Israel?
This follows the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s promotion of the ruling on the Land of Israel formulated at the historic 1937 meeting of Motzes Gedolei Yisrael in Marienbad. At that meeting the points decided upon as Jewish law were:
1. If a Jewish government is established in the Land of Israel, it must be run according to Jewish Law.
2. The borders of the land of Israel were decided by G-d and therefore no-one has the right to change this.
Rebbe’s Comments On Marienbad
These are the Rebbe’s comments, on Motzoei Shabbos Mishpatim 5738 (1978):
“The explicit ruling which was issued at the Great Assembly states that it is unequivocally forbidden to surrender even the tiniest particle of land within the boundaries of the Holy Land. It is astonishing that people do not publicize and proclaim this ruling in the greatest possible way. The fact that there are those who wish to conceal the ramifications of this ruling by concocting contrived interpretations of it, will be to no avail. This ruling is like every other Jewish law, for “the word of G‑d will certainly endure.” This is none other than the resolution of the “Great Assembly” (5697-1937) which resolved that each and every compromise made regarding the Holy Land, which was given to us by the Holy One according to its boundaries, is null and void.” (See Book On Line: “When Silence Is A Sin”)
For full coverage from the magazine HaPardes click here: HaPardes Coverage of 1937 Marienbad Conference and here: Oct issue 1937 (see Sept issue first)
Attending Marienbad Conference Were:
Besides Lubavitch: The Admor of Gur – Rav Avraham Mordechai Alter, Rav Ozer Grodzinsky, The Chafetz Chaim, The Admor from Alexander – Rav Yitchok Menachem Mendel Danzinger, The Admor from Sokotzov – Rav David Borenstein, Rav of Warsaw – Rav Menachem Zemba h’yd, Rav of Baronovich – Rav Elchonan Wasserman, Rav of Kishenov- Rav Yehudah Tzerelson, Rav of Nitra – Rav Shmuel Dovid Unger, Admor of Sadigora – Rav Avraham Yaakov Friedman, Rav of Tzortchkov – Rav Nuchum Mordechai Friedman, Boyaner Rebbe – Moshe Friedman, Rav of Pressburg – Rav Akiva Sofer, Rav Dushinsky from Jerusalem, The Kletzker Rov – Rav Aharon Kotler, Rav of Lutzk – Rav Zalman Sorotzkin, Rav of Punibaz – Rav Yosef Shlomo Kahaneman, The Klausenberger Rebbe, Bobover Rebbe, Admor from Munkacs, Belzer Rebbe, Rav Eliezer Silver (Cincinatti), Rabbi Mordechai Dubin (for Lubavitch- Head of Riga Parliment), Rav of Reisha – Rabbi Aharon Levine and many more!
All the parties will be looking for the Orthodox vote, even the left.
First of all, they need the Orthodox vote, because- to get anything done in Eretz Yisrael, you need to have orthodox backing overseas in America. This is only possible to do if you have support of the religious parties in Israel. Then, Israel can go to America and visit the wealthy orthodox communities in New York, Long Island and other places to promote land-for-peace through AIPAC in Washington. In order to properly give away Israeli land, one needs your Orthodox backing!
Elections Regulated By Supreme Court
Today, the Orthodox comprise a majority in Eretz Yisrael. However, parties don’t reflect or act on this reality (Katzeleh was here in New York campaigning on this very theme). This has to do with how people are elected in Eretz Yisrael which is highly regulated by the Supreme Court. First- Who can run must be approved by the Supreme Court (called the Begatz). If someone is unfavorable or undesirable, laws are adjusted to make him ineligible. Such as was done to Meir Kahane was deemed an “undesirable” and there are laws in place today to censor his followers (who are considered (don’t laugh) “security threats”). And as was done to numerous others. Or vice-verso as was done in 2012 to Arab MK Mrs. Hanin Zoabi. Mrs. Zoabi, is an Arab MK supports Arab terror against Israel and as such was not allowed to run by Israel’s election committee. The Supreme Court overruled the election committee and allowed her to run.
After the person is elected, he is not allowed to assume power until he joins a bloc.
To be allowed in the Knesset, your democratically elected person must join a bloc with others to present a joint platform that they agree upon. For example, the National Religious Party when elected (now called “Jewish Home” or “Israel Beytaynu”) had to join a bloc with Tommy Lapids extreme Left (Shinui) party. Then together they had to present a washed out “platform” which washed out both Tommy Lapids leftish ideas and as well, the Orthodox ideals which National Religious was elected upon. (If I recall, National Religious had a much larger vote and more seats than Shinui, yet their wishy washy platform could not reflect this or bring to bear their voters ideals upon Knesset voting).
If you ask and lobby- You get!
With wishes that you vote according to Shleimus Haaretz and who supports Mi Hu Yehudi and dumping Oslo.
Blessings from New York