Monday, February 17, 2020

De Haan’s Letter Predicting His Own Murder By Saul Jay Singer and Candidly Speaking: Our age of miracles may hold lost opportunities and Why was the Torah given in a desolate and inhospitable locale? and Elections will Determine Whether Israel Seizes or Squanders a Historic Opportunity By Benjamin Netanyahu

Can't see images? Click here...

Yehuda Lave, Spiritual Advisor and Counselor

Yehuda Lave is an author, journalist, psychologist, rabbi, spiritual teacher and coach, with degrees in business, psychology and Jewish Law. He works  with people from all walks of life and helps them in their search for greater happiness, meaning, business advice on saving money,  and spiritual engagement

At the last minute I have added a piece written by BIBI himself that came out last night. Important to read. It is short and to the point.

Love Yehuda Lave

Why was the Torah given in a desolate and inhospitable locale?

According to the Talmud God gave the Torah in the desert because He wanted to teach us a fundamental truth about the nature of the study of the Torah.

"If a person humbles himself like the wilderness, which everybody treads upon, then the Torah is given to him as a gift."

On Shavuot, the Torah reading for the festival also begins with a reference to Bamidbar, the wilderness of Sinai.

And indeed the Hebrew word Sinai is related (sound-wise) to the Hebrew word for "hatred" (sin'ah).

It alludes to heightened disdain of the people of Israel for the subterfuges of materialism.
The Sinai desert was not only owner-less but also barren; there was no water and no vegetation to provide food or clothing.

According to the Midrash, God gave the Torah in the desert because He wanted to teach us a fundamental truth about it.
If G-d had given the Torah in a settled area, that would have implied that it was tied somehow specifically to the people of that place.

He therefore gave the Torah in the owner-less desert, making it clear that it does not belong to anybody in particular; anybody that so chooses can make the Torah their own.

The entire episode of Shavuot takes place in the barren Sinai Peninsula. Bamidbar 21:18 states "umimidbar matanah," which the Talmud in Nedarim 55 explains as "The gift of the Torah came out of the wilderness.

Why was the Torah given in a desert, a desolate and inhospitable locale where it is impossible to plant or bring forth fruit? And why is Shavuot is identified with the mitzvah of Bikkurim (bringing the first blossoming ripe fruits to the Temple)?

How do these two, seemingly contrary, concepts of barrenness and fruitfulness merge into the festival of the Giving of the Torah?

Perhaps the connection of Bamidbar and Shavuot is obvious. A world without Torah is a midbar, a barren wasteland. A world with Torah becomes Bikkurim, a blossoming and fruitful paradise.

A world without the moral law of the Torah quickly wastes away into spiritual desolation. A world with Torah can become a Garden of Eden.

On that first Shavuot 3,327 years ago at Mt. Sinai, God proclaimed that we can transform a wilderness into paradise, a midbar into Bikkurim, a barren wasteland into a fruitful garden.

G-d reached out to us and announced that we are able to come up to Him (Shemot 24).

Shavuot is not only the day of the Giving of the Torah but also a day to recreate the world. Before the Giving of the Torah, the world was a wilderness (tohu vavohu – void and empty). But through the Torah, the world had the potential of become a Garden of Eden again.

The concluding verse of the first chapter of Bereishit is "Vayehi erev vayehi boker yom hashishi – It was on the sixth day that heaven and earth were completed." The Talmud in Shabbat 88 makes note of the "hei hayediah" (the letter hei which is the definite article) of the word hashishi. The Talmud explains that this refers not only to the sixth day of Creation but also to the sixth day of Sivan, the day God gave the Torah.

G-d made all of Creation conditional on the acceptance of the Torah by Israel on the sixth day of Sivan. Only then would heaven and earth find fulfillment. If Israel had not accepted the Torah, the world would have returned to void and emptiness.

Only by our willingness to say na'aseh v'nishma, to completely subject ourselves to God's authority, can we transform the world from a barren desert into an orchard, bringing forth Bikkurim.

That is why the mitzvah of Bikkurim is tied to Shavuot, when God gave us the Torah. If we don't accept the Torah, we are lost in the midbar of immorality and corruption.

It is interesting to note the in Hebrew the root דבר

"DAVAR" is the same one for the following words:

Desert - miDBAR - מדבר
Speak - meDABER - מדבר
Word / Thing - DAVAR - דבר
Commandment - DIBER - דבר
Ten commandments - ASERET HADIBROT -

עשרת הדברות

It implies that when a person is in a desert (miDBAR) - remote from obstruction of "noises" of the daily life, he can then be exposed to the real WORD (DAVAR), absorb and internalize it.

De Haan's Letter Predicting His Own Murder By Saul Jay Singer

Jacob Israel De Haan (1881-1924) was a prolific Dutch Jewish literary writer and journalist who was assassinated by the Haganah for his anti-Zionist political activities and his support for the Arab cause, thus becoming the first victim of contemporary Zionist political violence and a martyr among certain vehemently anti-Israel sections of the ultra-Orthodox community, particularly the Neturei Karta and the Edah HaChareidis.

De Haan, born in the Netherlands to a poor cantor and shochet, attended cheder and was raised as an Orthodox Jew, but he denounced his faith shortly after leaving home to pursue opportunities in the wider secular world. He studied and taught law (1903-09), during which time he also published works in socialist and other publications.


As the result of writing explicit and scandalous erotic works, he was dismissed from his teaching job and exiled from social-democratic political circles. He married a non-Jewish doctor, Johanna van Maarseveen (1907), but they separated in 1919 (they never officially divorced) after he became more religiously committed and she refused his request that she convert.

De Haan's interests in Judaism, Eretz Yisrael, and Zionism began when he became an activist on behalf of the Jews of czarist Russia. Armed with a letter of recommendation from Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands, he traveled to Russia and successfully negotiated leniency for many Jews. Upon his return, he published his shocking findings in In Russian Prisons (1913) and founded a committee to urge nations, particularly France and Great Britain, which were Russian allies, to exert pressure on Russia to improve the fate of its prisoners. (Amnesty International, in fact, credits his activities as the precursor of its own.)

De Haan wrote extensively about Eretz Yisrael and Zionism and, in 1919, he made aliyah, writing to Weizmann in his passport application that he was "anxious to work at rebuilding land, people, and language." Thousands of Dutch Jews, thrilled by his rededication to living a Torah life, swarmed the Amsterdam train station and saw him off with a passionate rendition of Hatikvah. He settled in Jerusalem, where he taught at the new law school and wrote articles for several important Dutch newspapers.

He initially aligned himself with religious Zionism and the Mizrachi movement, and his fanatical Zionism was such that at the annual Chanukah reception of Annie Edith Landau – an Orthodox Jewess who, as the "grand dame" of Eretz Yisrael society, was broadly respected by Jews, Arabs, and the British – he reportedly announced aloud to a notable Arab sheikh that "the land was given to us, and you should take your wives and your children, load up your camels, and go away."

However, after meeting Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld, the leader of the charedi community and a staunch theological opponent of Zionism from its very inception, he philosophically embraced the rav's anti-Zionism and went on to become the official political spokesman of the charedim in Jerusalem.

De Haan sought an agreement with several Arab leaders pursuant to which the Jews would relinquish all rights under the Balfour Declaration to a Jewish homeland in exchange for the Arabs allowing unrestricted Jewish immigration into Eretz Yisrael. In one particular instance, when the Zionist leadership sent an important delegation to Amman to meet with King Hussein to argue the merits of Jewish sovereignty, De Haan got there first, convinced the king that "real Jews" supported the establishment of an official Palestinian state, and persuaded Hussein to issue a statement denouncing "the Zionist movement as unjust towards Muslims, Christians, and Orthodox Jews."

The Arab cause became his obsession. Through his publications and propaganda, he became well-known overseas for his anti-Zionism and pro-Arab sympathies, which constituted a particularly serious threat to Zionist goals and dreams, coming as they did from a "respected Jewish leader" who lived and worked in Eretz Yisrael. His very name came to represent the challenge to the idea that the Zionist movement was the sole representative of the Jews in Eretz Yisrael.

Not surprisingly, the Zionist authorities, both in Eretz Yisrael and worldwide, considered him a traitor, referring to him derisively as "the Jewish Lawrence of Arabia." (T.E. Lawrence sought to ethnically cleanse Eretz Yisrael of all Jews because he feared they would interfere with the Arab nationalist movement.)

While there certainly were anti-Zionist elements in the Yishuv, the issue had always been the subject of an internal dispute until De Haan undertook to "publicly air Jewish dirty laundry" through his systematic dissemination to the non-Jewish world of the rift in the Jewish approach to Zionism.

Of particular concern to the Zionists was that his treacherous betrayal was finding critical resonance in London, where crucial decisions about the future of Eretz Yisrael were being made. Nor did his predilection for sticking a finger into the eyes of the Zionists at every opportunity earn him any friends; as but one example, after becoming somewhat proficient in Arabic, he demanded that the Zionists address him only in that language.

De Haan was assassinated on June 30, 1924 when, upon his exit from the synagogue at the Shaare Zedek Hospital on Jaffa Road where he regularly prayed, he was shot three times by Avraham Tehomi, a senior Haganah officer in Jerusalem, and died minutes later. Many charedi writers and others believe that the order to murder him was issued directly by Ben Gurion and Weizmann, though there is no evidence to support that allegation.

There are a great number of other conjectures, none of which has ever been proven. Although the British authorities offered a reward for information leading to the arrest of the killer, Tehomi was never apprehended.

Some six decades later, Tehomi, who had been living in Hong Kong, admitted to two Israeli reporters that he had committed the murder and claimed that he received his instructions from Yitzchak Ben-Zvi, later Israel's second president, an allegation that has not been confirmed. Although the identity of precisely who ordered the murder remains unknown and controversial, it is virtually universally accepted that senior Zionist leadership knew about the planned attempt and did not object.

In this incredible and historic May 25, 1923 correspondence written a year before he was killed, De Haan writes to Colonel Frederick Hermann Kisch about setting the time for a meeting and, in fact, predicts his own murder:

I have to thank you for your kind letter, which I brought in the meeting of the Ashkenazic Counsel and showed to Rabbi Horovics. R. Chaim Sonnenfeld asks to be answered, but he will send the leaders of the Community in his place. Rabbi Horovics asked me to let you know his intention was immediately to when you your [sic] visit. But he wanted to consult the other people before. We should be glad to see you next Monday at 4:00 p.m.: the Rabbi Horovics for Agudath Israel, the Rabbi Bernstein and Yungreis and my own poor self (if not killed before!) for the Ashkenazim. [emphasis added]

Due to Rav Sonnenfeld's tutelage, De Haan's greatest grievance against the Zionist movement arguably was its subordination of non-Zionist Orthodox Judaism to Zionism. When the charedi establishment in Eretz Yisrael was denied representation in the Jewish Agency – they were, after all, fervent enemies of all that the Jewish Agency sought to accomplish and, indeed, all that Zionism stood for – it founded a Jerusalem branch of Agudath Israel to represent their interests, and Rav Sonnenfeld chose De Haan to organize and represent the charedi position. Elected political secretary of the Orthodox Community Council, De Haan wasted no time in propagandizing about the "tyranny" of the official Zionist movement, even going so far as to spy on it for the British secret service.

The issue referred to by De Haan in our letter was the struggle around a proposed Communities Ordinance. Charedi Jews who sought to opt out of this community, which was organized and controlled by the Zionists, had no recourse to appeal its general hegemony or, in particular, to protest the formal recognition of the Zionist Organization, the official agency authorized to speak to Jewish interests in Eretz Yisrael.

With limited options, De Haan drafted a petition, signed on behalf of the Council of the Ashkenazic Jewish Community by Rav Moshe Leib Bernstein, chairman of the Council, and Rav Baruch Reuven Halevi Jungreis, honorary secretary, protesting that the equitable reestablishment of the country was obstructed by the refusal of the Jewish Agency to include a duly authorized representative of the one million Orthodox Agudah Jews. As a result, the petition continued, the Mandate Authority was being misled into believing that the only way forward was the one presented by the Zionists.

The petition proved only somewhat successful; the Mandates Commission retained the Jewish Agency as the representative of the Yishuv, but it permitted the charedim to "opt out" of the general Jewish community and to conduct their own independent communal lives in accordance with their consciences.

* * * * *

Born in Lauenburg Germany, Yosef Gershon Horovitz (1874-1931) – the rabbi mentioned in our letter – was the son of a prominent Orthodox rabbi and a scholar in early Islamic history, early Arabic poetry, and Islamic and Koranic studies. He studied and taught at the University of Berlin; traveled on commission to find Arabic manuscripts through Eretz Yisrael, Turkey, Egypt, and Syria; and taught Arabic at the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College in India (1907-14) before creating the Department of Oriental Studies at the newly founded Hebrew University and serving as its first director (in absentia).

He also held the Chair of Semitic Philology with a Concentration in Targum and Talmudic Literature at the newly established Frankfurt University (1915-31), a position he retained until his death.

Horovitz's philosophical gestalt centered on his attempt to reconcile Jewish and Arab interests to Eretz Yisrael under the banner of joint scholarship. Often articulating his concerns about the Zionists' disregard of Arab interests, he compared Zionist practices in Eretz Yisrael to rank European imperialism, and believed that there could be no resolution of the Arab-Jewish problem without acknowledging Arab aspirations for independence. In this regard, he was a brother-in-arms with De Haan and Rav Sonnenfeld.

In a poignant statement in this December 18, 1929 letter regarding building conditions on Har Hatzofim (Mt. Scopus), Kisch describes his desire to live there and alludes to the beautiful view across the Jordan to Moab.

Born to a British-Jewish family in India, Kisch (1888-1943) – to whom our letter was addressed – had an eventful military career and was awarded both the British Distinguished Service Order for gallantry in action and the French Croix de Guerre with Palm. After service with the Royal Engineers in World War I (he later also served with the Military Intelligence Corps in World War II, during which he was killed after stepping on a landmine), he accepted Weizmann's invitation to become a member of the Zionist Executive in Jerusalem, where he became head of its Political Department (1923).

He played an important role in advising the Jews of Eretz Yisrael on self-defense techniques, and he successfully furthered the development of the Yishuv into a blossoming national entity.

He also served as Zionist Commission chairman of the Jerusalem Executive (1923-31), in which capacity his principal task was to act as an intermediary between the Mandatory Government and the Jews of Eretz Yisrael. His British military background facilitated his ability to encourage a positive relationship with both the Mandate Authority and Arab leaders, and one of his greatest achievements was convincing the British to transfer complete control over Jewish health and education in Eretz Yisrael to the Yishuv.

* * * * *

De Haan was buried on the Mount of Olives, and his funeral was attended by hundreds of charedim, Zionists, and British representatives. The police were barely able to control the furious charedim, who went to central Jerusalem after the funeral to confront the Zionists. During the shiva, representatives of the Arab Executive and the Muslim-Christian Association paid condolence visits to a despondent Rav Sonnenfeld; there were many Arab tributes to De Haan, including one from Musa Kazim Pasha al-Husayni, the mayor of Jerusalem; and Agudath Israel received condolences from the "Palestine government." In New York, ultra-Orthodox Jews circulated Yiddish leaflets condemning the "Torahless Zionists, who use violence to enslave the pious."

Although Israeli historiography views him as little more than an ineffectual maverick of little consequence, De Haan remains an iconic character in charedi circles and continues to be revered by anti-Zionist Jews worldwide.

text of the letter prediciting his murder

I have to thank you for your kind letter, which I brought in the meeting of the Ashkenazic Counsel and showed to Rabbi Horovics. R. Chaim Sonnenfeld asks to be answered, but he will send the leaders of the Community in his place. Rabbi Horovics asked me to let you know his intention was immediately to when you your [sic] visit. But he wanted to consult the other people before. We should be glad to see you next Monday at 4:00 p.m.: the Rabbi Horovics for Agudath Israel, the Rabbi Bernstein and Yungreis and my own poor self (if not killed before!) for the Ashkenazim. [emphasis added]

Candidly Speaking : Our age of miracles may hold lost opportunities

For the first time since Oslo, there is political consensus in Israel on how to relate to the Palestinian conflict.By ISI LEIBLER  

Three months ago, who could have dreamed that we would be in such an extraordinarily good position? US President Donald Trump's administration had already established itself as the most pro-Israel American administration in history and publicly assumed the role of a genuine ally.For the first time, a US administration has rebutted the false Palestinian narrative and exposed their duplicity at the international level, including the rabidly anti-Israel United Nations. It terminated aid that was being channeled as stipends to terrorists and their families and repudiated the nauseous theme of moral equivocation between murderers and their victims. Trump's policies on Iran, Jerusalem, the Golan and the settlements are a stark reversal of the Obama administration's policies

Only last month, amid the internal political turmoil as Israel approaches its third election this year, more than 40 world leaders, including royalty, heads of state, and heads of government, participated in a Holocaust commemoration in Jerusalem. They included Russian President Vladimir Putin, who personally inaugurated a memorial commemorating the citizens and defenders of Leningrad during the Nazi siege of the city. The same week, representatives of Arab states attended the memorial in Auschwitz. And just this last week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was expanding diplomatic relations with African and Latin American countries, including Arab and Muslim states.However, the highpoint is surely the release of the momentous Trump Mideast peace plan, the ramifications of which must not be underestimated. For the first time since the disastrous Oslo Accords, there is an outline of a solution based on reality, supported by the two dominant and centrist parties and the majority of Israelis.The basic tenets of the plan include:• Recognition of the legitimate historic rights of Israel to Judea and Samaria.
• Assurance that Israel will have defensible borders (and cessation of referencing the pre-1967 armistice lines as the basis for future borders).
• A united Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
• Extension of Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan Valley and all settlements over the Green Line.
• A demilitarized Palestinian state comprising around 70% of Judea and Samaria, with part of eastern Jerusalem as its capital, linked by tunnel or highway to Gaza. This is subject to Palestinian acceptance of coexistence, renunciation of violence and recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Hamas would be obliged to disarm and also recognize Israel.
• Provision of $50 billion of international aid to build up infrastructure, the economy and welfare of the new Palestinian state.
• Territorial adjustments, taking demographic changes into consideration, to be finalized by a joint US-Israel team.
• A four-year negotiating period during which the Palestinians must comply with the preconditions for statehood.
The plan is probably close to what the late prime minister Yitzhak Rabin contemplated when he approved negotiations with the PLO before the Oslo process was hijacked by the far Left.NETANYAHU UNDOUBTEDLY deserves the credit for this momentous change. History will record his outstanding success as a statesman, having withstood pressure from president Barack Obama's administration, which sought to force Israel to make unacceptable concessions. Instead, together with the Trump administration, Netanyahu has managed to achieve what no one thought was possible: a complete reset of the international community's viewpoint on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
It is not just the presentation of the plan itself but the fact that the United Kingdom, Europe and many moderate Sunni Arab states, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, are signaling that they are not opposed.Latest articles from Jpost  TOP ARTICLES1/5READ MOREThree Israelis contract coronavirusFor the first time since Oslo, there is political consensus in Israel on how to relate to the Palestinian conflict. That is of major significance. Perhaps the forthcoming election results will not tempt the Blue and White Party to cynically retract its endorsement of the plan in order to curry favor with the Joint List and Meretz.It was no surprise that the Palestinians and their global allies were infuriated. Until now, they have rejected every proposal with impunity and then submitted demands for additional concessions, with the full support of the international community. The more concessions Israel agreed to in a desperate effort to achieve an accommodation, the more intransigent and demanding the Palestinians became.History is evidence of the sad reality that there is little likelihood that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas would agree to this or any other proposal that concedes Jewish sovereignty or recognition of Israel as a Jewish state – just as he refused to consider the (unauthorized) offer from then-prime minister Ehud Olmert in which Israel would withdraw to the 1967 boundaries, recognize the division of Jerusalem and even accept a symbolic number of refugees.The plan may not achieve peace but it does at least neutralize the distorted and false Arab narrative while it legitimizes Israeli settlement blocs and affirms a united Jerusalem as Israel's capital.For the first time, the Palestinian leadership is being held accountable, while the plan's substantial aid package simultaneously provides a genuine opportunity for the Palestinians to reinvent themselves as a leading economic player in the region. We can only hope that a new leadership, prepared to embrace this great opportunity, will emerge.Abbas had intended to bring the plan to a vote at the UN Security Council but he was forced to withdraw the motion for a vote when he realized, to his great humiliation, that for the first time, he could not muster a majority to support his intransigence.While most Israelis are delighted with the plan, two groups oppose it. One group includes the far-left and Arab parties, which argue that peace can only be achieved through direct negotiations with the Palestinians. Israel has tried this on multiple occasions but has been consistently rebuffed.The other opposition comes from the far-right parties, which reject the plan because it allows for a Palestinian state. This displays their complete lack of understanding. The very nature of the state proposed by the plan would not be essentially different from the autonomy that exists today.DESPITE THESE dramatic developments, our dysfunctional political system and the personal political ambitions of our leaders, which seem to take priority over the national interest, could lead to a disaster and the foregoing of a unique opportunity for Israel.
Those demanding immediate annexation without coordination with the US are jeopardizing the entire plan. It is only if such steps are coordinated with the US that Israel will enjoy international recognition and legitimacy. The mere fact that the plan provides for such steps is already a sea change in policy and has reset the starting point for any future negotiation. Whether it is implemented now or in several months is immaterial.Netanyahu himself almost undermined the Trump initiative by announcing his intent to immediately annex the settlements. He had to withdraw his statements and US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman warned, "The application of Israeli law to the territory which the [US peace] plan provides to be part of Israel is subject to the completion [of] a mapping process by a joint Israeli-American committee. Any unilateral action in advance of the completion of the committee process endangers the plan and American recognition."Olmert's attempt to undermine the US peace plan by holding a joint press conference with Abbas in New York coinciding with the UN Security Council debate on the plan is unconscionable. This is a renegade act providing grist to the enemies of Israel.All of this is taking place during the run-up to the third election, which all indicators predict will lead to a third impasse.In an op-ed after the second election, I pleaded for Netanyahu to step down and enable the Likud to present a new leader or to form a unity government with Benny Gantz's Blue and White Party. However, having followed Gantz's recent statements and interviews, one comes to the sad conclusion that Gantz simply lacks the leadership requirements to finalize this deal.We should remind Netanyahu and Gantz that with Trump soon facing his own election, there may be only a small window of opportunity to transform this plan into reality. If the forthcoming election results in further deadlock and ongoing domestic political chaos, Trump as well as his Evangelical Christian base are likely to become exasperated. If this happens and the plan is scrapped, it will be a self-inflicted disaster that will outrage most Israelis.The Trump plan can only succeed if there is consensus in Israel endorsing its implementation. After the last election, Netanyahu undertook to stand down after six months. If the upcoming election is again inconclusive and Netanyahu makes a similar offer, six months would give him sufficient time to oversee the parameters of the peace plan and recognition of sovereignty for the settlement blocs – which still must be delineated with the Americans.That would require temporary suspension of the feud between the two major parties. Gantz could demonstrate his leadership by moving in this direction even without the full support of Blue and White co-chairman Yair Lapid. The historic significance of this plan overrides any political and personal considerations, and those vetoing progress will be condemned in history as having betrayed the nation.The writer's website can be viewed at He may be contacted at

Elections will Determine Whether Israel Seizes or Squanders a Historic Opportunity By Benjamin Netanyahu

The "deal of the century" presented by my friend, U.S. President Donald Trump, offers the State of Israel a historic opportunity that won't return: to protect and defend our country, determine our borders, and ensure our future. We must do all we can to capitalize on this opportunity and not squander it.

Ever since the plan was revealed two weeks ago, many things have been said and written in the media to distort it. Here are the facts to counter the false claims:

Claim one: Trump's peace plan won't lead to the application of Israeli law in the Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and the Jordan Valley.

Fact: It will do just that! For the first time since the establishment of the state, the deal of the century will grant American recognition of our sovereignty over these regions of our homeland. This is the realization of the Zionist vision.

As U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman explained, the application of Israeli law in these territories requires the completion of the mapping process by the joint American-Israeli committee because we must map out the 800-kilometer (498-mile) line, which will encompass the area where Israeli sovereignty will be applied. We will finish this process as quickly as possible.

I reject the claim that President Trump won't keep his word. He promised to exit the dangerous nuclear deal with Iran and followed through. He promised to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and followed through. He promised to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and followed through. He promised to recognize our sovereignty on the Golan Heights and followed through.

On the matter of sovereignty in our homeland, he will follow through. Together with President Trump, I will apply Israeli law in all our communities in Judea and Samaria, the Jordan Valley, the northern Dead Sea and additional large swathes.

Claim two: Trump's peace plan creates a Palestinian state that supports terror.

Fact: The plan does the exact opposite. It imposes strict and rigid conditions on the Palestinians in exchange for a future deal. Among other things, the plan requires Palestinian society to fundamentally change and become a democratic entity.

Israel and the United States will determine whether the Palestinians are fulfilling these conditions, of which there are many. To enter negotiations, the Palestinians must do the following:

  • Immediately cease all "salary" payments to terrorists and their families.
  • Halt all efforts to join international organizations without Israel's approval.
  • Pull their lawsuits against Israel at the International Criminal Court at The Hague.

All these are preconditions the Palestinians must meet just to enter diplomatic talks. To conclude such negotiations, they must fulfill each of the following conditions:

  • Recognize the State of Israel as a Jewish state.
  • Recognize a united Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
  • Agree to Israeli security control over the entire territory west of the Jordan River—on land, at sea, and in the air.
  • Cease any and all incitement against Israel, including in school textbooks and curricula, and in all Palestinian Authority institutions.
  • Completely demilitarize Gaza and the entire Palestinian population.
  • Completely cede the "right of return."
  • Disarm Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist organizations.
  • Hold free elections, safeguard freedom of the press, protect human rights, protect freedom of religion and grant equal rights to religious minorities.

And again, Israel and the United States will be the ones to determine whether the Palestinians have indeed met these conditions, before finalizing an accord even becomes possible.  Moreover, if after the signing of such an accord the Palestinians fail to meet their security conditions, Israel will be able to reverse the processes outlined by the accord.

Claim three: This peace plan isn't different from past initiatives.

Fact: Not true! This is the friendliest plan towards Israel ever proposed. It is a historic turn of events for the future of our people. For the first time, Trump's plan is doing the exact opposite of previous diplomatic proposals.

Instead of demanding concrete "gestures" from Israel (such as the release of terrorists and construction freezes in our communities) just to begin talks, without demanding anything of the Palestinians—this plan is a complete reversal. Irrespective of Palestinian acceptance or rejection, we are getting American recognition over parts of our homeland, while the Palestinians must make considerable concessions just to enter talks!

Earlier diplomatic plans were predicated on the warped view that Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria and the Jordan Valley are all "occupied" lands that need to be negotiated. For the first time, an American administration is proposing a plan that recognizes the historical bond and our national rights in the Land of Israel, our biblical and ancestral homeland.

The plan even calls for the establishment of an international mechanism to resolve the issue of Jewish refugees who were forced to flee Arab and Muslim countries. It calls on Arab countries to terminate anti-Israel initiatives in the United Nations and other international bodies.

Claim four: The deal of the century won't truly impact Israeli citizens.

Fact: This plan will dramatically affect every single citizen in Israel. The safety of Israelis everywhere, especially in the main cities such as Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Petach Tikvah, Netanya, Rishon Letzion and others, depends on us maintaining security control in Judea and Samaria and the Jordan Valley.

The deal of the century ensures this. It will eliminate the prospect of missile attacks on Israeli cities and Ben-Gurion International Airport from the hills of Judea and Samaria. The U.S. plan deals with more than just applying Israeli law in our homeland. It is a historic moment of defining our identities and ensuring the future of our homeland. This is our heritage, the essence of our culture, the deep biblical link between our people and the Land of Israel.

The choice we make in the coming weeks will define our nation forever. After 11 years of working against previous American administrations' policy of withdrawals and uprooting, after three years of working closely with President Trump and his team, we finally have the opportunity to bolster our security, determine our borders and ensure our future.

Claim five: The upcoming elections won't affect the deal of the century.

Fact: These elections will determine whether Israel seizes or squanders a historic opportunity. I will implement the deal of the century. Our political adversaries will implement the "miss of the century." For the sake of realizing the historic opportunity, for the sake of the Land of Israel, we must not miss this moment.

See you tomorrow bli neder

Love Yehuda Lave

Rabbi Yehuda Lave

PO Box 7335, Rehavia Jerusalem 9107202


You received this email because you signed up on our website or made purchase from us.