Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No. It is not strange at all.What I said came from what I linked and not somewhere else.Did You really honestly "quote" from them, or from sources with a clear opposing agenda?
It's more important to me than it would ever be to You, so please whenever You're ready to have an honest discourse I'll respect that.
You can choose to believe what you wish. I googled the terms and that is what came up.
I wonder if you choose your own sources with a bias in mind when you post your demonizing Palestinian stuff?
Honest discussion is a two way street.
Good day.
Good day to You too.
You want to talk about honesty and sources?
Yesterday I already wrote a response to what You said about Rabbi Elyahu, it was obvious You read it in some other place other than the original, and You didn't know to tell me his exact so we could be specific. None of Your links as far as I looked mentioned what You wrote. As I said I already wrote a response to that conversation basing on my mere guess of what might have been the specifics of the issue, but deleted it because it was too much discussion on term of Jewish law and how it applies to the practice of common law in western democracies. Believe it or not right after deleting it I found the original source, and it was interesting that, as far as see it I expressed the issue very close to what Rabbi Shmuel Elyahu said regarding the Arab communities in Judea:
"There's a concept of Ger toshav, who is someone that accepts upon himself seven Noahide Laws and the sovereignty of the People of Israel in its Land. In such a situation, it is possible to allow him, under certain conditions, to live here, and of course, he also has rights. The conditions for this are detailed in the Seven Noahide Laws, which means he should accept upon himself to live the normal life of normal person, who does not steal agricultural equipment or land and does not support the phenomenon of theft, does not commit murder for reasons family honor or other reasons, does not attack a bus on the street because it did not allow him to pass. These are normal conditions that are required from anyone who lives here as a visitor in the Jewish state. He cannot live here as sovereign and certainly not as an invader. On the other hand, whoever lives here and undermines the sovereignty or permits himself to do thigs that are forbidden by Noahide Laws should please move to another place"
http://ribonut.co.il/images/ribonut_9_en.pdf
Now what is a "Ger Toshav" and how it applies to both Rabbinic law and common law. As far as influence of Jewish law on common law the Israeli courts recognize the 13 concepts of law interpretation that are used in what the call "Hebrew law" in cases where common law has difficulty to decide, especially if a case deals with specifically issue that need comprehension of Jewish law in order to understand person's motives, or if a person rejects a hearing in Rabbinic court, and such a case is passed to civil court.
First of all as far as I understand there can be a request in special cases to prefer a decision in the "spirit of Hebrew law", second these 13 specific concepts are used as interpretation techniques not only in Israel but in many cases all throughout the western world. It exactly deals with how to interpret cases in common law, the only difference can be is when a person asks to apply Jewish law in addition to these techniques it may be taken in account. So may be requests in recognizing motives dealing with religious nature of other faiths in the civil court.
Sorry for the length, but I have to be specific.
Q. So what is Ger Tohav in Jewish law and how it applies to what is being presented as the plan for sovereignty?
Ger is what is commonly known as the resident status.
It is conditional upon the Noahide laws and recognition of sovereignty of the Jewish nation. With the reconstitution of of Israel, Rabbi Kook ZTZ"L when establishing the Chief Rabbinate recognized all members of the Arab communities as Ger Toshav because by virtue of being members of the Abrahamic faiths they have all fulfilled all the basic conditions of Noahide laws. If a citizen wants Jewish law to apply to him beyond the 7 laws that provide him full citizenship, he's called "Righteous Ger", if not he/she's defined as "Kind of the Nations of the World".
Q.What regarding political status?
In practice vast majority of those who are described as residents of Israel according to Jewish law are citizens with full rights and access to their own religious authorities and courts, again under the frame of common law.
When Rabbi Kook ZTZ"L ruled that way it was not something new or a precedent, but based on Jewish law. The Jewish philosophers always looked to understand and comprehend the part and purpose other faiths have in the greater good of the world, especially the Abrahamic religions. In spite of all the hostility towards us and seemingly small differences that evolved into big ones, we still agree on much of the same cultural concepts. This is a central concept in Jewish thought, joined Tikun 'Olam and Kidush HaShem that belongs to any person, but in our case without forcing our culture or trying to convert anyone.
With that said and not without the respect for Christianity and Islam, in all that context of similarity and contradiction, we have to recognize that both also have a great complex of hostility towards the Jewish nation and tradition.
Ezrah - translated as citizen in English, in Jewish law means anyone to whom applies Rabbinic law.
Ger Toshav - translated as resident and sometimes as guest, but in practice mean mostly citizens or those who keep other nationality but recognize Israels sovereignty and have a right to permanently live in the country, have rights and protections.
Ger - mostly businessmen and tourists who stay for short period for interests other than permanent living .
Those are the implication for the 3 categories when people discuss those terms , and these terms differ in common law, however specifically defined. I've mentioned key sources to understand the context and parallels.
What I said: According to my understanding of what Rabbi Eliyahu says, there status would seem to be that of a guest...rather than citizen.
That is exactly how page 8 of the source I linked to seems to be saying. I frankly don’t see why you are insisting it came from elsewhere. It exactly like their status would be that of a guest, tolerated as long as they behaved and not a citizen.
Perhaps that is the problem with using theology to define a modern state and govern people who can never be wholly of that state by those definitions. It actually sounds a lot like the Muslim view of the special status of the Abrahamic faiths and of dhimmis.
Regarding the link Yes, my mistake You've posted the same one, I didn't see.
Though it was strange how You couldn't give the name of the Rabbi or the actual quote.
I gave the name of the Rabbi as was given in the link. For some reason it would not allow me to cut and paste so I went further and provided the page in the article where both his name and statements were along with context.
Why are you continuing to quibble?
The dhimmi status is of a non-citizen, and not by choice. Under those rules Jews were not allowed to ride horses or camels, own weapons, build synagogues taller than mosques or houses, , could not display religious symbols in public, engrave Arabic in jewelry, sell wine, Jews didn't have the option to be citizens, ware banned from sounding the Shofar on their holiest days or go to the tomb of their patriarchs, had to pay a skull tax and if Jewish girls lost a father they'd be taken by Muslim men.
None of these are suggested, or exist in Jewish law, don't twist it.
What is being discussed are 3 options for the Arab communities in Judea to choose from:
(1) Compensation if can't live with Jews
(2) Residency conditioned on recognition of Israel sovereignty
(3) Citizenship
All should be offered choice of one of the three...otherwise it is little more than a modern version of the ancient dhimmi system. Some of the options did not sound like that at all, dont pretend otherwise.
That is a separate issue. The Palestinians had nothing to do with that.It is the Arab population who got the boot.I am not dismissing anything. But why is everytime Palestinian culture is brought up we can't discuss it without "what abouts"? We were talking about one particular region and it's future and that of its minority culture so you are demanding we talk about about preserving all cultures...in order to not be hypocritical. Right what about Basque culture and Inuit culture....and so forth. Why are you only concerned about Jewish culture?We are speaking, broadly, of how to preserve and protect identities of minority cultures in nations built around a different culture.
If you don't CARE to address how Jewish identity should be preserved in Gaza and in Judea and Samaria and in Jordan and Syria and Iran and Iraq and in Tunisia and Morocco, why should we believe that your motivation is to preserve minority cultural identities? Seems rather hypocritical of you to demand the preservation of Arab Palestinian culture while dismissing the preservation of Jewish culture in places where Jews are a minority.
I am not only concerned about Jewish culture. In fact, I'm the only one on this board who constantly brings up other cultures and other national liberation movements in an attempt to create a set of objective standards which should apply to all States.
The standard thus far in the world is that minority cultures can and do exist in States built around a different culture. There is no conflict or moral dilemma with this idea. Except when it comes to the Arab Palestinians and suddenly the rules have changed.
There is no problem having a State of India built around Hindu culture but with a minority of Muslims. There is no problem with having a State of Canada with a minority French culture. There is no problem having a British culture with an Indian population. There is no problem with having a State of Iran with a Jewish population.
So why is it a problem having a State of Israel, a State built around Jewish culture with an Arab Palestinian population?
Agree. So who is saying it is a problem?
Quiet the opposite, more Jews were displaced as a result of the conflict,
and Arabs gained most of the land and property.
That is a separate issue. The Palestinians had nothing to do with that.It is the Arab population who got the boot.I am not dismissing anything. But why is everytime Palestinian culture is brought up we can't discuss it without "what abouts"? We were talking about one particular region and it's future and that of its minority culture so you are demanding we talk about about preserving all cultures...in order to not be hypocritical. Right what about Basque culture and Inuit culture....and so forth. Why are you only concerned about Jewish culture?
I am not only concerned about Jewish culture. In fact, I'm the only one on this board who constantly brings up other cultures and other national liberation movements in an attempt to create a set of objective standards which should apply to all States.
The standard thus far in the world is that minority cultures can and do exist in States built around a different culture. There is no conflict or moral dilemma with this idea. Except when it comes to the Arab Palestinians and suddenly the rules have changed.
There is no problem having a State of India built around Hindu culture but with a minority of Muslims. There is no problem with having a State of Canada with a minority French culture. There is no problem having a British culture with an Indian population. There is no problem with having a State of Iran with a Jewish population.
So why is it a problem having a State of Israel, a State built around Jewish culture with an Arab Palestinian population?
Agree. So who is saying it is a problem?
Quiet the opposite, more Jews were displaced as a result of the conflict,
and Arabs gained most of the land and property.
(COMMENT)The so-called mandate was a foreign military occupation.
It was a hostile military occupation by any name.RE: Who are the Israelis?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
Oh for crying out loud!
(COMMENT)The so-called mandate was a foreign military occupation.
You really mangle the truth here. The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA)(which transitioned to a Civil Administration) was the way thing were done over a century ago --- and not so much different today.
Most Respectfully,
R
And Arabs helped them invade.It was a hostile military occupation by any name.RE: Who are the Israelis?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
Oh for crying out loud!
(COMMENT)The so-called mandate was a foreign military occupation.
You really mangle the truth here. The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA)(which transitioned to a Civil Administration) was the way thing were done over a century ago --- and not so much different today.
Most Respectfully,
R
The so called mandate was a foreign military occupation.RE: Who are the Israelis?
⁜→ Coyote, Shusha, et al,
Let's back up a minute here...
To properly evaluate the impact of decisions as they develop the situation through to today, you cannot look at it in isolation. And a good set and course of action to be recommended by the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) was hampered intentionally by the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) from the beginning.
(COMMENT)Agree. So who is saying it is a problem?
The State of Israel, "built around Jewish culture," has an Arab Palestinian component in its population.
The problem with having a national population with a multi-ethnic component is that the components must live in harmony with one another ("live at peace with their neighbors").
The problem develops from the belligerent viewpoint maintained by the "Arab Palestinian component:" Since 1947, the Arab Palestinian people have held (A/AC.13/PV.38 4 August 1947 Meeting - UNSCOP) that:
◈ The Jewish State which the Zionists are endeavouring to establish in Palestine is not moreover a viable State either from the political or from the economic point of view.
◈ The Arab States could not, in fact, tolerate the creation of a State composed of foreign elements from so many parts, each with its own mentality, its insatiable desires, for the fulfilment of which they deliberately use violent and destructive means such as those we have mentioned.
◈ Against a State established by violence the Arab States will be obliged to use violence; that is a legitimate right of self-defence.
Additionally, the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), on behalf and as the director of the overall Arab Palestinian interests made its position very clear to the Arab components concerned:
Summary Records of the Seventh Meeting (PRIVATE) UNSCOP said:Not only had the Arab Higher Committee decided to boycott the work of the Special Committee, but they had issued a manifesto in the local press. He read out points from the manifesto (A/AC.13/SR.7 23 June 1947) as follows:
"(1) On the day of the commencement of the Committee's work the country goes on a complete strike including offices, business houses, cafes, entertainment places, schools, transport, etc.;
(2) All groups and individuals refrain from testifying before the Committee;
(3) All Arabs refrain from contacting the, Committee in writing and by any other means;
(4) No Arab is permitted to attend the Committee's public and secret meetings and parties. These instructions also apply to Arab pressmen;
(5) Nobody is permitted to confer officially or non-officially with the Committee members;
(6) The above-mentioned points do not mean that any individual is free to react to statements or acts by the inquiry Committee with harshness or any unsuitable behavior. All they are requested is just to keep away from the Committee with great respect, harmonizing with our traditional manners and national dignity."
The "KEY" here is that from the beginning, there was no intention on the part of the AHC (representing the Arab Palestinians) to cooperate in the development of solutions and settlements. This was not an aberration in time. This very same policy was reiterated in a slightly different form in the Khartoum Resolutions; September 1, 1967, in the announcement of The Three NO's:
◈ No peace with Israel,
◈ No recognition of Israel,
◈ No negotiations,
AND, this was further reiterated in the Covenant and Charter of the Arab Palestinian between 1968 and 1988, and again in the Policy Statement of 2012.
(EPILOG)
It is not the case that the Arab Palestinians are shunned in terms of the One-State in which both components live together → no not at all. The Arab Palestinians are shunned today (as would any ethnic group would be) because of they pose an actual long-term threat (not peaceful coexistence) to the Jewish National Home.
• "Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. Thus it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase."•
.................................................................................Palestinian National Charter, July 1968
• "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors." •
.................................................................................HAMAS Covenant, 18 August 1988
"Willingness for a Palestinian state to be established within temporary borders (1967 lines) as a step toward continuing the armed struggle to destroy Israel – “from the river to the sea.”
• One of the main points of Hamas’ new political document, 1 MAY 2017 •
• "Palestinian Arab Official Admits “Killing Israelis is not Terror, it’s Legitimate” •
.................................................................................By Avi Abelow September 24, 2018
• "Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine," •
.................................................................................MEMRI TV Clip #6889 2 December 2018
Most Respectfully,
RIndeed, the root of the problem.◈ The Jewish State which the Zionists are endeavouring to establish in Palestine
Indeed, the Jewish National Home was reestablished in accordance with the intent of the Mandate. Indeed, that was an affront to the Arab-Moslem settler colonial project.
Your conspiracy theories are a hoot.
He apparently he has problems with reality;,138 Countries voted for the Partition, 9 opposed and 41 abstained
Not if you look at demographics.It is the Arab population who got the boot.I am not dismissing anything. But why is everytime Palestinian culture is brought up we can't discuss it without "what abouts"? We were talking about one particular region and it's future and that of its minority culture so you are demanding we talk about about preserving all cultures...in order to not be hypocritical. Right what about Basque culture and Inuit culture....and so forth. Why are you only concerned about Jewish culture?We are not talking about there. we are talking about a very tiny group of people who call themselves Palestinians and their identity. Why is it so important to deny them that?
We are speaking, broadly, of how to preserve and protect identities of minority cultures in nations built around a different culture.
If you don't CARE to address how Jewish identity should be preserved in Gaza and in Judea and Samaria and in Jordan and Syria and Iran and Iraq and in Tunisia and Morocco, why should we believe that your motivation is to preserve minority cultural identities? Seems rather hypocritical of you to demand the preservation of Arab Palestinian culture while dismissing the preservation of Jewish culture in places where Jews are a minority.
I am not only concerned about Jewish culture. In fact, I'm the only one on this board who constantly brings up other cultures and other national liberation movements in an attempt to create a set of objective standards which should apply to all States.
The standard thus far in the world is that minority cultures can and do exist in States built around a different culture. There is no conflict or moral dilemma with this idea. Except when it comes to the Arab Palestinians and suddenly the rules have changed.
There is no problem having a State of India built around Hindu culture but with a minority of Muslims. There is no problem with having a State of Canada with a minority French culture. There is no problem having a British culture with an Indian population. There is no problem with having a State of Iran with a Jewish population.
So why is it a problem having a State of Israel, a State built around Jewish culture with an Arab Palestinian population?
Agree. So who is saying it is a problem?
Where am I saying that Shusha?Agree. So who is saying it is a problem?
It seems that you are.
I think you are wrong. Anything less than citizenship automatically means fewer rights.No. It is not strange at all.What I said came from what I linked and not somewhere else.You can choose to believe what you wish. I googled the terms and that is what came up.
I wonder if you choose your own sources with a bias in mind when you post your demonizing Palestinian stuff?
Honest discussion is a two way street.
Good day.
Good day to You too.
You want to talk about honesty and sources?
Yesterday I already wrote a response to what You said about Rabbi Elyahu, it was obvious You read it in some other place other than the original, and You didn't know to tell me his exact so we could be specific. None of Your links as far as I looked mentioned what You wrote. As I said I already wrote a response to that conversation basing on my mere guess of what might have been the specifics of the issue, but deleted it because it was too much discussion on term of Jewish law and how it applies to the practice of common law in western democracies. Believe it or not right after deleting it I found the original source, and it was interesting that, as far as see it I expressed the issue very close to what Rabbi Shmuel Elyahu said regarding the Arab communities in Judea:
"There's a concept of Ger toshav, who is someone that accepts upon himself seven Noahide Laws and the sovereignty of the People of Israel in its Land. In such a situation, it is possible to allow him, under certain conditions, to live here, and of course, he also has rights. The conditions for this are detailed in the Seven Noahide Laws, which means he should accept upon himself to live the normal life of normal person, who does not steal agricultural equipment or land and does not support the phenomenon of theft, does not commit murder for reasons family honor or other reasons, does not attack a bus on the street because it did not allow him to pass. These are normal conditions that are required from anyone who lives here as a visitor in the Jewish state. He cannot live here as sovereign and certainly not as an invader. On the other hand, whoever lives here and undermines the sovereignty or permits himself to do thigs that are forbidden by Noahide Laws should please move to another place"
http://ribonut.co.il/images/ribonut_9_en.pdf
Now what is a "Ger Toshav" and how it applies to both Rabbinic law and common law. As far as influence of Jewish law on common law the Israeli courts recognize the 13 concepts of law interpretation that are used in what the call "Hebrew law" in cases where common law has difficulty to decide, especially if a case deals with specifically issue that need comprehension of Jewish law in order to understand person's motives, or if a person rejects a hearing in Rabbinic court, and such a case is passed to civil court.
First of all as far as I understand there can be a request in special cases to prefer a decision in the "spirit of Hebrew law", second these 13 specific concepts are used as interpretation techniques not only in Israel but in many cases all throughout the western world. It exactly deals with how to interpret cases in common law, the only difference can be is when a person asks to apply Jewish law in addition to these techniques it may be taken in account. So may be requests in recognizing motives dealing with religious nature of other faiths in the civil court.
Sorry for the length, but I have to be specific.
Q. So what is Ger Tohav in Jewish law and how it applies to what is being presented as the plan for sovereignty?
Ger is what is commonly known as the resident status.
It is conditional upon the Noahide laws and recognition of sovereignty of the Jewish nation. With the reconstitution of of Israel, Rabbi Kook ZTZ"L when establishing the Chief Rabbinate recognized all members of the Arab communities as Ger Toshav because by virtue of being members of the Abrahamic faiths they have all fulfilled all the basic conditions of Noahide laws. If a citizen wants Jewish law to apply to him beyond the 7 laws that provide him full citizenship, he's called "Righteous Ger", if not he/she's defined as "Kind of the Nations of the World".
Q.What regarding political status?
In practice vast majority of those who are described as residents of Israel according to Jewish law are citizens with full rights and access to their own religious authorities and courts, again under the frame of common law.
When Rabbi Kook ZTZ"L ruled that way it was not something new or a precedent, but based on Jewish law. The Jewish philosophers always looked to understand and comprehend the part and purpose other faiths have in the greater good of the world, especially the Abrahamic religions. In spite of all the hostility towards us and seemingly small differences that evolved into big ones, we still agree on much of the same cultural concepts. This is a central concept in Jewish thought, joined Tikun 'Olam and Kidush HaShem that belongs to any person, but in our case without forcing our culture or trying to convert anyone.
With that said and not without the respect for Christianity and Islam, in all that context of similarity and contradiction, we have to recognize that both also have a great complex of hostility towards the Jewish nation and tradition.
Ezrah - translated as citizen in English, in Jewish law means anyone to whom applies Rabbinic law.
Ger Toshav - translated as resident and sometimes as guest, but in practice mean mostly citizens or those who keep other nationality but recognize Israels sovereignty and have a right to permanently live in the country, have rights and protections.
Ger - mostly businessmen and tourists who stay for short period for interests other than permanent living .
Those are the implication for the 3 categories when people discuss those terms , and these terms differ in common law, however specifically defined. I've mentioned key sources to understand the context and parallels.
What I said: According to my understanding of what Rabbi Eliyahu says, there status would seem to be that of a guest...rather than citizen.
That is exactly how page 8 of the source I linked to seems to be saying. I frankly don’t see why you are insisting it came from elsewhere. It exactly like their status would be that of a guest, tolerated as long as they behaved and not a citizen.
Perhaps that is the problem with using theology to define a modern state and govern people who can never be wholly of that state by those definitions. It actually sounds a lot like the Muslim view of the special status of the Abrahamic faiths and of dhimmis.
Regarding the link Yes, my mistake You've posted the same one, I didn't see.
Though it was strange how You couldn't give the name of the Rabbi or the actual quote.
I gave the name of the Rabbi as was given in the link. For some reason it would not allow me to cut and paste so I went further and provided the page in the article where both his name and statements were along with context.
Why are you continuing to quibble?
The dhimmi status is of a non-citizen, and not by choice. Under those rules Jews were not allowed to ride horses or camels, own weapons, build synagogues taller than mosques or houses, , could not display religious symbols in public, engrave Arabic in jewelry, sell wine, Jews didn't have the option to be citizens, ware banned from sounding the Shofar on their holiest days or go to the tomb of their patriarchs, had to pay a skull tax and if Jewish girls lost a father they'd be taken by Muslim men.
None of these are suggested, or exist in Jewish law, don't twist it.
What is being discussed are 3 options for the Arab communities in Judea to choose from:
(1) Compensation if can't live with Jews
(2) Residency conditioned on recognition of Israel sovereignty
(3) Citizenship
All should be offered choice of one of the three...otherwise it is little more than a modern version of the ancient dhimmi system. Some of the options did not sound like that at all, dont pretend otherwise.
Because the point of the argument is not the presence of a link, but the correct representation of things being said.
And no, that's a false analogy, residency is nothing like a dhimmi status,
what we're talking here are 3 options Jews were never given under Muslim rule.
Pretense is defending the side that would never give others the same.
Originally posted by rylah
Quiet the opposite, more Jews were displaced as a result of the conflict, and Arabs gained most of the land and property.
(COMMENT)It was a hostile military occupation by any name.Oh for crying out loud!
(COMMENT)The so-called mandate was a foreign military occupation.
You really mangle the truth here. The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA)(which transitioned to a Civil Administration) was the way thing were done over a century ago --- and not so much different today.
Most Respectfully,
R
Originally posted by RoccoR
The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA)(which transitioned to a Civil Administration) was the way thing were done over a century ago.
(COMMENT)
