Pictured: "After Treatment: Letter from the British Military Governor’s Office in Baghdad to the Chief Rabbi Regarding the Allotment of Sheep for Rosh ha-Shanah, the Jewish New Year, 1918." ~ National [United States] Archives
18 November 2013
Via Certified Mail, Fax, and Electronic Mail
Dear Mr. Secretary:
As a fellow graduate of Harvard Law School, I am contacting you regarding the sacred and historic Torah scrolls, Megillot, books, manuscripts and documents belonging to the members of the Iraqi Jewish community discovered by U.S. Military troops in the flooded basement of the Baghdad Headquarters of Saddam Hussein’s Mukhabarat (Secret Police) in May 2003 (the “Iraqi Jewish Archive”, or the “Archive”).
Pursuant to the Agreement between the Coalition Provisional Authority (“CPA”) and The National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”), effective as of 20 August 2003 (the “Iraqi Jewish Archive Agreement”, or the “Agreement”), the U.S. Government, under the auspices of NARA, generously arranged for the salvaging, restoration, preservation (including digitization), and exhibition of the long-neglected and severely damaged Iraqi Jewish Archive in the United States, for which the Jewish community-at-large is most thankful.
However, although it is generally accepted that :
(1) the Iraqi Jewish Archive was illegally acquired by the Government of Iraq during a period
largely dating from the tragic events of the Iraqi Farhud of 1-2 June 1941 and the subsequent
expulsion of Iraqi Jewry over the decades which followed, up until the fall of Saddam Hussein
unraveling in March 2003; that
(2) the Government of Iraq systematically neglected and failed to properly care for and maintain the
Iraqi Jewish Archive; and that
(3) the members of the Iraqi Jewish community, both within Israel and within the larger Jewish
diaspora, have a valid legal claim to the contents of the Iraqi Jewish Archive under International
Law ~ namely the body of International Cultural Property Law prohibiting the theft, illegal
transfer, and destruction of Cultural Property ~ and the Common Law of
Restitution,
the U.S. Government continues to invoke the Iraqi Jewish Archive Agreement in defense of the return of the Archive to the Ministry of Culture of Iraq, rather than to the members of the Iraqi Jewish community, whether within Iraq, within Israel (home to the majority of Iraqi Jews today), or within the larger Jewish diaspora.
Given the fact that the Jewish community remaining within Iraq today consists of a very small number of people ~ less than 10, according to most recent world Jewish population estimates, it is highly unlikely that, if returned to Iraq, the contents of the Iraqi Jewish Archive would be physically returned to the members of the Iraqi Jewish community, or benefit of the Iraqi Jewish community in any manner. Moreover, given the modern history of the expulsion of Iraqi Jewry, as well as ongoing conflict within Iraq, it is highly unlikely that any claim for the restitution of the Iraqi Jewish Archive made by members of the Iraqi Jewish community currently living within Iraq before Iraqi courts would prevail, not to mention the fact that any such claim made before Iraqi courts by Iraqi Jews currently living within Iraq would very likely place the members of Iraq’s remaining Jewish community in danger.
Nevertheless, Section I (4) and Section VIII of the Iraqi Jewish Archive Agreement clearly provide the CPA with discretion in the determination of to whom the Iraqi Jewish Archive may be returned once the terms of the Agreement have been met, or once the Agreement has been terminated. Furthermore, there is no language within the Agreement which bars the CPA from determining that the Iraqi Jewish Archive should, indeed, be returned to the members of the Iraqi Jewish community remaining within Iraq, or members of the Iraqi Jewish community residing outside of Iraq, rather than the Iraqi Ministry of Culture.
In such case that the CPA were to determine under the Agreement that the Archive, should, indeed, be returned to the members of the Iraqi Jewish community remaining within Iraq, rather than the Iraqi Ministry of Culture, there is nothing in the Agreement which bars the members of the Jewish community remaining within Iraq from designating a third party, namely an organization outside of Iraq representing the members of the Iraqi Jewish community-at-large, to take possession of the Iraqi Jewish Archive for the benefit of the entire Iraqi Jewish community until such time that the rightful owners of its contents may be determined.
In light of the above, I humbly request that the U.S. Department of State reconsider its determination that the Iraqi Jewish Archive Agreement bars the U.S. Government from returning the Archive to its rightful owners, the Iraqi Jewish Community, in a manner which ensures the safety of the members of the Iraqi Jewish community, as well as the integrity and preservation of the sacred and historical contents of the Archive to the benefit of that community and the entire Jewish community-at-large.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Yours sincerely,
Ruth Rachel Anderson-Avraham
Harvard Law School, J.D. 2002
Former President, Harvard International Law Society
Former Member of the Board, Harvard Law School Arts Panel
Pictured: Young boys being indoctrinated to terrorism, as suicide bombers, "shahid" (literally, "witness," in Arabic), in the Palestinian Authority.
Photo: (Photographer, Date Unknown) | (Source Unknown)
The secular laws of just war ("laws of the land" which Bnei Israel are bound to respect while living in Galut, unless they are in conflict with Torah) are defined, at the core, by generally accepted international secular legal norms and customs (almost all of which are derived from principles lain out in the Torah, though this is not the explicit focus of our discussion in the present article; we carry this knowledge with us into the further discussion of the secular legal norms which are derived from the Torah, in seeking to lift up Klal Israel and Eretz Israel on this 7 Adar 5772, the Hilloula/Yartzheit of Moshe Rabbeinu, who was not permitted to enter the Land of Eretz Israel), the Hague Convention, and the Geneva Convention. They dictate the conduct of states in periods of armed conflict, and are founded upon the following principles of humanitarian law:
~ "Fighting a Well and Limited War": Wars should seek to avoid, to the greatest extent possible, unnecessary destruction, and particularly loss of life, and should be limited strictly to the resolution of the matter which sparked the war (i.e., the defense of sovereign borders);
According to this principle, those fighting a war should seek to end it as soon as possible;
~ "Non-Combatant Immunity" and "Discrimination": Individuals have different standing within the context of war, defined by that to which they have agreed. Civilians, who have not explicitly agreed to contribute to the war effort, as well as civilian property, should be protected against unnecessary destruction and hardship to the greatest extent possible. On the other hand, soldiers agree to subject themselves to the risk of harm in the completion of their duties during wartime.
In light of the above, the laws of just war seek to mitigate the iniquities, ills, and injustices of war via:
~ "Proportionality": During the course of war, combatants have an obligation to refrain from inflicting unnecessary or undue suffering upon other combatants and non-combatants;
~ "Recognition of the Rights of Soldiers and Civilians": Individuals who fall enemy into hands ~ civilians, the wounded, the sick, prisoners of war ~ have incontestable positive rights (i.e. the right to adequate medical treatment);
~ Expedition of the renewal of peace." [1]
I. THE 2006 LEBANON WAR
AND TERROR AGAINST SOLDIERS AND CIVILIANS
During the summer of 2006, the State of Israel and the State of Lebanon (a Member State of the Arab League bordering Israel to the North), and arguably the Palestinian Authority (according to how one views the participation of Hamas in this chain of events, whether officially or unofficially), were in a legitimate state of armed conflict relative to the recognition of the sovereignty of the State of Israel and respect for its borders, a conflict most often referred to as the 2006 Lebanon War in Israel or the July War in Lebanon, and as the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah (or Israel-Hezbollah/Hamas) War by those who desire to make a clear distinction between the people of Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority, and the terrorist groups Hezbollah and Hamas controlling the land in which they live (a distinction at the very core of the nature of the terrorist entity).
This conflict was sparked when, on 12 July 2006, Hezbollah, and, arguably, Hamas, which many people in Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority support as "legitimate political parties", 1) sent rockets into Israeli territory from Lebanon, killing five Israeli civilians, 2) infiltrated the Israeli border, and 3) attacked an Israeli patrol with explosive and anti-tank missiles, killing three IDF soldiers, and kidnapping two IDF soldiers from within Israeli territory. This all occurred in the aftermath of the kidnapping of another IDF soldier in the South of Israel just weeks prior, during a time of relative peace.
As the result of a negotiated "prisoner swap" in July 2008, Hezbollah returned two of the three kidnapped soldiers ~ Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, kidnapped in the North of Israel on 12 July 2006 and taken into Lebanon ~ to the State of Israel in body bags, after they had been tortured and murdered.
The third soldier, Gilad Shalit, kidnapped in the South of Israel on 25 June 2006 and taken into Gaza via underground tunnels, remained captive for five years, during which he was tortured both psychologically and physically, before being returned home to Israel as the result of a negotiated "prisoner swap" on 18 October 2011. We pray that Hashem protect and keep Gilad Shalit, and bring him back to full health and recovery, IYH, Inshallah, G-dwilling.
These kidnappings and murders by Hezbollah and Hamas, and the ceaseless launching of missiles by Hezbollah and Hamas into Israeli territory, are legitimate acts of war against a State, and Israel has every right under international law to protect its civilians and soliders from imminent danger and all harm by destroying the terrorist infrastructure used by these groups in order to conduct illegal attacks against the State of Israel and Israeli citizens, especially Israeli civilians.
This terrorist infrastructure includes the tunnels which Hezbollah and Hamas used in order to carry out the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit in a time of relative peace, and which they use in order to carry out terrorist activity against Israeli civilians, generally, in times of relative peace, as well as the launching pads from which Hezbollah and Hamas launch their missiles into civilian Israeli populations, often specifically targeting populations of young Israeli children (for example, by targeting schools, such as in Sderot), also in times of relative peace, unprovoked.
Pictured: "An Emergency Population Instructor at a School in Sderot. As the school year opens, soldiers and officers from the Home Front Command escort the children of Sderot to their schools." (Israel Defense Forces)
Photo: Israel Defense Forces (Photographer Unknown), 1 September 2008 | Wikimedia Commons
Pictured: "[Nine-year-old] boy Osher Twito copes with loss of his leg. Osher and his big brother Rami were seriously hurt when a Qassam [rocket] exploded next to them in Sderot. Doctors were forced to amputate Osher's left leg and just barely saved his right leg following eight operations. [He] is still having trouble comprehending what that means." (Edi Israel)
Photo: Edi Israel, 29 December 2008 | Wikimedia Commons
Likewise, the United States has every right under international law to protect its citizens from imminent danger and all harm posed by the threat of terrorism, and particularly terrorism specifically targeting the commitment of the United States to support the undeniable right of the State of Israel to exist as a sovereign nation, homeland of the Jewish people with a Jewish character and a Jewish majority, in the Middle East. Indeed, the response of the United States to Al Qaeda's attack on the World Trade Center and the U.S. Pentagon on 11 September 2001, one of the most destructive terror attacks in contemporary history, sought to protect not only U.S. citizens, and especially U.S. civilians, from further harm, but also the citizens, and especially the civilians, of the world-at-large.
II. THE LAWS OF JUST WAR, THE GENEVA CONVENTION
AND TERROR AGAINST CIVILIANS, GENERALLY
In times of relative peace, in times of armed conflict, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al Qaeda's ruthless campaigns of terror are not only against Israeli and American civilians, but ALSO AGAINST THEIR OWN PALESTINIAN AND LEBANESE AND SAUDI ARABIAN AND WORLD CIVILIANS in the territories and countries which are home to sponsorship for their activity financially or otherwise, whether officially via government organs of the state, or unofficially via powerful individuals living within the state concerned, such as Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan (though the list certainly does not end here, nor in the regions of the Middle East and Central Asia; origins of support for terrorist entities exist in every part of the world, including in the West...including within the United States...), in complete violation of the principles of just war.
Hamas and its supporters not only take the lives of Israeli civilians via targeted terrorist attacks in public places and spaces which are frequented by civilians, but also cause the loss of life of Palestinian people, by purposefully surrounding Hamas command targets with vulnerable civilian populations ~ mostly the elderly, women, and children ~ using the very people they claim to defend as human shields.
Hezbollah regularly persecutes Lebanese civilians who oppose its terrorist regime, and terrorizes democratic opposition within Lebanese borders, as evidenced by the assassination of Rafik Hariri.
Al Qaeda regularly persecutes civilians across the Middle East and Central Asia who oppose its international terrorist regime, as evidenced by its numerous bombings across the Middle East and Central Asia.
Hamas and Hezbollah and Al Qaeda use terror against EVERYONE, Israelis and Palestinians and Lebanese people, Middle Eastern and Central Asian people, people around the world, to their own benefit, and Palestinian, Lebanese, Middle Eastern and Central Asian people, people around the world, must stand against the death tolls and loss of life among their civilian populations resulting from terrorist violence, both in the state of armed conflict during the war on terrorism, and also in times of relative peace during the war on terrorism. HOME POPULATIONS MUST STAND AGAINST HAMAS AND HEZBOLLAH AND AL QAEDA...the groups purposefully terrorizing and using their own people as they seek to establish and maintain oppressive control over the whole, all people and civilians within their home territories and countries around the world.
The Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (the Third Geneva Convention)[2] and The Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War (the Fourth Geneva Convention)[3] are the post-WWII bodies of international law which govern how prisoners of war and civilian populations ~ especially women and children ~ are to be treated by states and their military actors in times of war. The Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions must be considered in light of the normative laws of just war, summarized at the head of this article, and the larger Geneva Convention, which also includes:
1) the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (the First Geneva Convention)[4],
2) the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea (the Second Geneva Convention)[5], and
3) the Protocols to the Fourth Geneva Convention, relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (the First Protocol to the Fourth Geneva Convention)[6] and the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (the Second Protocol to the Fourth Geneva Convention)[7].
Article 51, para. 2 of the First Protocol to the Fourth Geneva Convention specifically prohibits the infliction of violence and terror, terrorism, upon civilian populations in stating that "[t]he civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited."[8]
Although terrorist entities such as Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda do not legitimately represent "States" (a topic which merits discussion in its own right), we apply these laws to them as international actors impacting both military and civilian populations around the world by their actions.
In times of armed conflict, States must take the precautions necessary to protect their civilian populations from undue hardship, and minimize risk of loss of life among civilian populations to the greatest extent possible. Preventing undue hardship or risk of harm and suffering, and minimizing risk of loss of life, means placing command or military targets away from civilian populations in order to protect them, as is the policy of Israel and of the countries of the world who respect the laws of just war, and the bodies international law treating the protection of civilians, generally.
This means closing schools in times of armed conflict, particularly at times during which the intensity of the conflict poses grave danger to civilians, especially children, as is the policy of Israel and of most countries.
This means that combatants would not hide ammunition or people in places where civilians would be placed at high risk of harm or death, as is the policy of Israel and most countries.
This means that children would neither be recruited as any type of combatant or for any type of military service, nor taught about or trained in any type of terrorist tactics, especially tactics such as suicide bombings or anything of the sort. The recruitment of children for participation in armed conflicts as combatants and the incitement of children to violence are generally considered as immoral by humane society, and are violations of the international norms and laws protecting civilians in armed conflict and children, in any case. The indoctrination of children, or adults, for that matter, to terrorism is a most egregious crime against children and civilians, also clearly in violation of international norms and laws, in the case of both children and adults. The indoctrination of children, or adults, for that matter, to terrorist tactics such as suicide bombing even moreso, as such is intended to incite children or adults to intentionally take their own lives, given to them by G-d, in order to take the lives of others, particularly those of civilian children and adults.[9]
Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al Qaeda do not take any of these measures in order to protect any civilian populations, whether their own civilian populations or other civilian populations. In fact, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al Qaeda, do precisely the opposite.
They purposefully hide command targets, ammunition and people in civilian quarters, placing civilians at a significantly higher risk of harm or death in the case of armed conflict. They purposefully leave schools open and operating during times of armed conflict, and intentionally target Israeli school populations with rockets, placing civilians and particularly children at a significantly higher risk of harm or death. They purposefully indoctrinate children to terrorism, and intentionally encourage children even to seek death by pushing them to become "shahid", for example, and inciting them to violence against Jewish people and the State of Israel. All these things are in clear violation of the international laws of just war, the Geneva Convention, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, discussed in greater detail below.
III. TERROR AGAINST CHILDREN
Children are not to be considered as combatants or parties to war in any manner, in any case, a principle grounded in the norms generally expressed by the laws of just war and the Geneva Convention, and specifically provided for in the body of international law stating and protecting the human rights of children.
Article 38 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, requires that states "undertake to respect and to ensure respect for rules of international humanitarian law applicable to them in armed conflicts which are relevant to the child" (Article 38, para. 1), and, "in accordance with their obligations under international humanitarian law to protect the civilian population in armed conflicts[,]...take all feasible measures to ensure protection and care of children who are affected by an armed conflict" (Article 38, para. 4).[10]
Article 38, para. 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child further proscribes that states "shall refrain from recruiting any person who has not attained the age of fifteen years into their armed forces." [11] This same article further portends that "[i]n recruiting among those persons who have attained the age of fifteen years but who have not attained the age of eighteen years, States Parties shall endeavour to give priority to those who are oldest." [12]
The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict, raises the minimum age for the engagement of children in armed conflict by a State Party from 15 (as set forth in Article 38, para. 3 of the Convention) to 18. [13] Given that the engagement of children in terrorist activity, violence sponsored by terrorist organizations, may be characterized as being outside of the official authority of the "State", we look to these principles lain out in the Convention on the Rights of the Child as an expression of the humanitarian principles of the laws of just war generally defined by international law, ethics and morality, and apply them to armed and violent conflict, generally, in the case in which the actor is not a State actor.
To engage children in war or armed conflict is to abuse the child. To indoctrinate the child terrorism is to terrorize the child. People around the world, and particularly women and children, must stand up against the recruitment of child soldiers and the indoctrination of children to terrorism, practiced not only by Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al Qaeda, but also by certain rogue governments and other terrorist regimes around the world.
Al-Aqsa television, the primary Hamas-run broadcast media of the Palestinian Authority, and other television channels across the Middle East and Central Asia, regularly feature children who have been indoctrinated to the hatred of Jewish people and the State of Israel, some of whom are presented in media programs as religious teachers to other children who should be respected as authority figures, and whose ideas should be followed and emulated.[14] Media coming out of the Palestinian Authority regularly features childrens' television characters and mascots inciting young boys and girls to hatred, children dressed as "shahid" and "shahida", children dressed as suicide bombers and real child brides for the future "martyrs" waiting in line to be married...[15]
In Pakistan, it is estimated that 90 percent of all suicide bombers are between the ages of 12 and 18 years of age.[16] It is the terrorism of the very children, the very young people, that Hamas and Hezbollah and Al Qaeda, and all other groups like them, are claiming to defend.
Israel cannot take the responsibility for the crimes against humanity which Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al Qaeda are inflicting upon the very people which they are claiming to "protect".
Israel has every right to defend its sovereignty and its citizens, every right to defend its soldiers, and its civilians, from terrorist violence and torture, as prohibited by the laws of just war and the Geneva Convention, and must defend itself in an extremely difficult climate, as Palestinian and Lebanese and other civilians around the world, including women and children, are being directly used as illegal combatants and human defense shields due to the crimes against humanity being committed by Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda.
Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al Qaeda are terrorist groups ~ terrorizing Israeli and American civilians, and Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, civilians in Iran and Syria and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, wherever their terrorist violence furthers their goals of suppression of democracy and freedom ~ for their own ends, and it is time to call the international community together and say, "ENOUGH"!!!
We must encourage people of all religions across the Middle East to break their silence, imposed by oppression and fear, and stand up against Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups like them. More and more Muslim [men and] women across the Middle East are standing up, and speaking out, in hopes of a better future for their children, and a better future for all the people of the Middle East:
[ The video originally shared here at the time of publication of the present article, in which Muslim mothers speak out against terrorism, is no longer available online.
We have now included a similar video treating the same theme. ]
Support Israel, the United States, and the countries and peoples of the world in the fight against terrorism. STOP HAMAS, HEZBOLLAH, AL QAEDA and their TERRORIST CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY!!!
~ Ruth Rachel Anderson-Avraham, ISRAELrealNATION,
1 March 2012, 7 Adar 5772
[1] See generally Maiese, Michelle. "Jus in Bello." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: June 2003, available at: http://www.beyondintractability.org/bi-essay/jus-in-bello/ .
[2] International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Third Geneva Convention), 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 135, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b36c8.html [accessed 1 March 2012] .
[3] International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention), 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 287, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b36d2.html [accessed 1 March 2012] .
[4] International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (First Geneva Convention), 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 31, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b3694.html [accessed 1 March 2012] .
[5] International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea (Second Geneva Convention), 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 85, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b37927.html [accessed 1 March 2012] .
[6] International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 3, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b36b4.html [accessed 1 March 2012] .
[7] International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 609, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b37f40.html [accessed 1 March 2012] .
[8] International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 3, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b36b4.html [accessed 1 March 2012] , Article 51, para. 2 .
[9] Some Imam ~ among them, Sheik Adel Al-Kalbani, Former Imam of the Al-Haram Mosque in Mecca ~ have begun to speak out against "martyrdom operations" within the Islamic world, affirming that they constitute suicide, and are in violation of the laws of the Qur'an:
[ The video originally shared here at the time of publication of the present article, in which Sheik Adel Al-Kalbani, Former Imam of the Al-Haram Mosque in Mecca, argues that "martyrdom operations" and suicide bombings constitute suicide, in violation of Qur'anic law, is now only available online to subscribers of the Middle East Research Institute's Jihad and Terrorism Threat Monitor (JTTM). If you are a paid subscriber to this service, the above-mentioned video should be visible to you below.
Persons who are not subscribers to this service may find out more information about this video by consulting the following links:
This is an important theological development within Islamic thought which condemns suicide bombing, and provides a foundation for condemning the use of terrorist tactics, generally, by extension, within Islam.
[10] UN General Assembly, Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1577, p. 3, available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm [accessed 2 March 2012] .
[11] Idem, Article 38, para. 3.
[12] Idem.
[13] UN General Assembly, Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, 25 May 2005, available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc-conflict.htm [accessed 2 March 2012] .
[14] An example of a media broadcast presenting a child professing hatred of Jewish people and the State of Israel to the public, and particularly to other children, as a religious teacher who should be respected as authority figure, and whose ideas should be followed and emulated, follows:
[15] An example of children's media broadcast from the Palestinian Authority which uses mascots and cartoon characters in order to help indoctrinate young children to the hatred of Jewish people and the State of Israel follows:
[16] Kalsoom Lakhani, "Indoctrinating Children: The Making of Pakistan's Suicide Bombers", CTC online, 3 June 2010, citing "Zahid Hussain, an expert on the Taliban who has interviewed many children trained to become suicide bombers, [who] provided this figure to CNN journalist Anderson Cooper, which was broadcast on 'Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees,' on January 5, 2010", available at: http://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/indoctrinating-children-the-making-of-pakistan%E2%80%99s-suicide-bombers .
Dear Ms. Carla Hadad Mardini [Spokesperson, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)],
Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit (http://www.habanim.org/en/index_en.html) [original site/link no longer exists] was unlawfully kidnapped on Israeli soil by the terrorist group, Hamas, on 25 June 2006, and has been held in the most inhumane conditions for over five years.
Gilad Shalit is being held by Hamas in total isolation, as the most dangerous criminal, in clear violation of international law. He is not even being afforded the most basic human rights granted to Prisoners of War by his captors (http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JMJT).
The International Committee of the Red Cross (http://www.icrc.org/), an international humanitarian organization, however, has officially afforded Gilad Shalit the status of a Prisoner of War (POW) under the Geneva Convention and its additional Protocols (http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/genevaconventions), though the fact remains that Gilad Shalit is a soldier who was kidnapped, taken into captivity illegally, in violation of the laws of just war.
The Geneva Convention, establishing international humanitarian law, requires that Gilad Shalit's basic human rights be respected while he is held in captivity. According to the Convention and international law generally, Gilad Shalit has the right to contact his family and to be visited by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
We now come to the ICRC in show of support for their repeated past efforts to view Gilad Shalit in accordance with their rights under the Geneva Convention, now demanding that the ICRC take more decision and effective action in their attempt to realize these rights.
Hamas is clearly violating international humanitarian law in refusing ICRC visits with Gilad Shalit, and should now be brought before the International Criminal Court as War Criminals (http://www.icc-cpi.int/menus/icc).
We encourage the ICRC to fully invoke its rights under international law, and to give an ultimatum to Hamas: either you let us visit Gilad Shalit or we will bring you before the International Criminal Court. That's it.
Gilad Shalit was unlawfully abducted by Hamas, and is now being unlawfully held by Hamas in total isolation, in violation of international humanitarian law and the laws of war, and this is simply unacceptable.
"Negotiation" with terrorists and war criminals is not the solution. Bring Hamas before the International Criminal Court.
Photo: (Photographer, Date Unknown) | (Source Unknown)
I. "Sharia4Belgium" and "Islam4UK"
Brussels, Belgium is the "capital of Europe", home to the European Parliament - the seat of a pluralistic, multi-cultural European Democracy.
But the man speaking at the very beginning of the above video, Abu Fariz of "Sharia4Belgium", a Belgian resident, says, "Democracy has nothing to do with Islam. Democracy is the people deciding what laws they want to implement, and for us, the law has already been made, created by Allah..."(paraphrased translation from French to English by ISRAELrealNATION)
Fouad Belkacem of "Sharia4Belgium" and "MuslimRise" follows, "How can you obligate someone to vote...? They are speaking among themselves; they are not speaking about Muslim people. This does not concern Muslim people. We Muslims, we say that Allah and the Sharia Law is the only thing that can be obeyed, the only thing that can be followed. How can I care what Sarkozy or Obama says or does...?" (paraphrased translation from French to English by ISRAELrealNATION)
Finally, the third and last man featured in the video, unidentified, says, "The people here [in Europe] want us to leave. G-d found this country for us, and we say, 'You...you get ready to move. We are here to stay. Islam is here to stay. By the will of G-d, we are going to conquer this country, by the will of G-d are going to make of Belgium an Islamic state, and by the will of G-d, we are going to leave from Belgium to liberate the lands over there [other countries in Europe, other Western countries, the non-Muslim countries of the larger Middle East and Asia]...and we are not going to do this politely. G-d gave us the truth. He gave us Islam. And why should we ask someone to have this Islam?' " (paraphrased translation from French to English by ISRAELrealNATION)
In Britain, the followers of Anjem Choudry, a former British Solicitor and the Founder of "Islam4UK", a group which was proscribed in the United Kingdom under its anti-terrorism laws on 14 January 2010, want to turn Buckingham Palace into a mosque and to declare Sharia Law the "law of the land". They would, indeed, like to see Her Royal Highness convert to Islam.
II. "That filming has to stop, we are Muslims..."
The Muslim woman who demands not to be filmed while protesting on a public sidewalk in Britain at the end of the video shared above seems like a very wealthy, very well-educated Muslim woman - a person of privilege. You can tell by the way she is dressed, as well as by her behaviour. She looks and seems as if she is someone among the ranks of those sponsoring the activities being filmed...
Her request, and the way in which the British Bobby responded to it, is the most telling segment of this video about what is happening in Britain today - a sign of what is to come, of what is already happening, all across Europe. It is an expression of "creeping Sharia" - the desire to impose the rule of Sharia Law in Europe, in the West, in the World, over time.
"Creeping Sharia" is the most powerful weapon of radical Islam, for it moves silently, virtually invisible to the eye, as its hold takes root. The same applies to any radicalized religious expression, including radical expressions of Jewish Law (Halakha).
The reinforcement of the rule of secular law as an affirmation of universally shared cultural norms in Britain is the only way to combat the inevitable pressures of change in demography in the UK. But here, the EU and Britain have made some key mistakes, as well - the most important being the imposition of the application and enforcement of Sharia Law in secular British Courts, which breaks the traditional barrier between the public and the private, church and state, in a way which is extremely damaging for the fight against Islamic Jihad, as well as the fight against extremist ideologies, generally.[1]
The way in which the Bobby responded to the above-mentioned woman's request to turn off the camera, by requiring those filming on a public sidewalk to turn off the camera, demonstrates that British law enforcement, representative of what is happening at the level of the British Courts, is pressured to defend, in a public space, not the rule of secular British Law, but the religious and cultural norms of Sharia Law in the name of respect for diversity and freedom of religion.
What the British Bobby defended here was not British Law. Sharia law is literally "creeping" into the secular normative culture of the UK.
Just as religious Jews would request that they not be filmed within their synagogue on Shabbat, religious Muslims may request that they not be filmed within their Mosque during their time of worship...but the streets of Britain are a public space, and there is no such right to privacy, particularly in the case of an event which is intended to attract public attention, when the filming does not focus exclusively (and unreasonably so) on the activities of any one individual without their consent, whether explicit or implied...
Just as a religious Jew may submit a dispute to a Beit Din in Britain, rather than a secular British Court, so may a religious Muslim submit a legal dispute to a Muslim Sharia Court, privately.[2] But religious law in Britain should not be applied or enforced by secular courts, in any case. The preservation of the traditional separation between church and state is the frontline, the brightline, in maintaining a peaceful co-existence among peoples and beliefs in a pluralistic, multi-cultural society. The preservation of the traditional separation between church and state is the frontline, the brightline, in the fight against "creeping Sharia" as a weapon of Islamic Jihad.
Now that this line has been crossed in the EU and in Britain, however, it will be very, very difficult to correct.
III. Echoes of the "Matam", and Echoes of the "Matam" under Radical Islamic Jihad
In Islam, "Matam", the ritual beating of the chest, has traditionally been considered both as a symbol of mourning and a symbol of commitment to fight one's deemed oppressors.
This is the style of Matam that is largely being performed in the streets across Britain today, and it is from Pakistan:
As Jews, we also beat the chest, though in a different manner, in order to show sorrow or mourning for atonement, particularly when we say the Amidah and on Yom Kippur (during the "Vidui").[4] And so, there is something about the tradition of the beating of the chest in order to demonstrate sorrow or mourning which is uniquely Middle Eastern, as well. For Middle Eastern people and in Middle Eastern religious culture, the beating of the chest holds a deeply symbolic, positive, spiritual meaning, whatever one's religion.
In contemporary radical Islam, however, the longstanding tradition of "Matam" has sadly taken on another dimension, as a cry to "battle" within a terrorist ideology, as a show of commitment to radicalized notions of the concept of Jihad...
Thus, some streets of Birmingham, of Newport, of London, are not only beginning to look like a distortion of Mecca, they are beginning to live like a distortion of Mecca, and to impose this distortion not only upon those who have not chosen Islam, upon those who are not Muslim, but also upon those Muslims who seek to preserve the truth and integrity of their faith. [3]
This distortion of Mecca is not at peace, but at war, on an ideologically and spiritually immoral plane. Thus, on occasion (meaning, in some instances), the beating of the "Matam" at Marble Arch does not represent the pure meaning of the "Matam", but rather a distorted and hollow derivative of the "Matam" inciting to terrorist ideology and global radicalized Islamic Jihad:
[ The video originally shared here at the time of publication of the present article, in which radical Islamists make Matam at London's Marble Arch, is no longer available online.
We have now included a direct link to a similar video (for which embedding is disabled)
treating the same theme. ]
Note that, in some segments of the above-cited video documenting a pro-Hezbollah protest held during the 33rd Arbaeen Procession at London's Marble Arch, one can hear people making "Matam" in the background.
Aberrations of Sharia Law and Islamic ritual are being used by radical Islamists as a weapon invisible to the naked eye, and we must begin to pay attention. We must wake up to the echoes of distortions of the "Matam" in the streets, the echoes of radical Islamic Jihad, the echoes of "creeping Sharia", before it is too late...
IV. The Syrian Courts
According to Halakha (Jewish Law), under certain specific circumstances and within certain specific paradigms, the decisions of secular courts may hold legal weight in disputes between Jews, as well as in disputes between Jews and Gentiles. Such is inferred from the mention of the "Syrian courts" in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 23a):
"...[T]he Talmud ([Sanhedrin] 23a) legitimizes the 'courts of Syria', which consist of laymen who, having been accepted by the public, judge according to local law and common sense..." [5]
Thus, within Torah Judaism, under certain specific circumstances, there exists a defined - and limited - openness to secular courts and the "law of the land" (the "land" in which a Jew lives in exile, in Diaspora), particularly as the Jewish Diaspora, including those Jews who live today within the contemporary State of Israel, still remains in a state of of physical and spiritual exile. The breadth of this openness to secular courts and the "law of the land" is relative, and varies according to the determination of the the situation in which the Jewish parties find themselves (for example, Jewish parties living in a Jewish Law jurisdiction in which no Beit Din (Jewish religious court) has been established or is seated may be permitted to have their case heard before a secular court), as well as according to different interpretations and understandings of Jewish Law within the different streams of Judaism. [6]
From an Orthodox Jewish perspective, resort to secular courts by Jewish parties is more likely to be deemed permissible where "the lay court is constituted 'for the sake of heaven' and the good of the community, existing only in the absence of Torah scholars[,] or where the difference between them and the Torah scholars is not qualitatively significant." [7] Given that secular courts in the Western world are largely based upon norms extending from the Judeo-Christian tradition, the incidence in which the difference between the reasoning or decision of a Beit Din and a British (or European) secular court is not "qualitatively significant" is understandably higher than such would be for a Sharia court. [8]
Thus, in certain respects, Batei Din (Jewish religious courts) have a relationship to secular courts in the West (or secular courts founded upon Western legal thought and principles based in Judeo-Christian norms, wherever they are located in the world) which is fundamentally different in character to the relationship that Sharia courts have with secular courts in the West (or secular courts founded upon Western legal thought and principles based in Judeo-Christian norms, wherever they are located in the world). Although both Halakha and Sharia firmly establish the religious court as the court of law within Jewish and Muslim communities, respectively, Torah scholarship acknowledges that there are instances in which legal decisions handed down by laypersons applying local law in secular, Gentile courts can and should be respected.
Although there are certainly instances recorded in which Muslim parties have sought justice before Jewish judges sitting in Batei Din, the resort of Muslim parties to secular courts within religious Islamic practice has a much narrower window than it does within Jewish religious observance. The general dynamic within Sharia law, and even more so within radicalized interpretations of Sharia law, is to do away with the need for the secular court by encouraging greater resort to Sharia courts, even in cases between non-Muslim parties. [as documented in Footnote 2, below]
Although Halakha also generally dictates that Jewish parties must resort to Batei Din, Jewish religious courts, the legitimate existence of secular courts is legally acknowledged and accepted by Torah scholarship. Halakha - even in radicalized forms which also pose problems in respect of extremist, radical and terrorist ideology - normatively and customarily does not seek to completely replace secular courts with Jewish religious courts. Halakha rather seeks to ensure that Jewish religious courts may exist freely in parallel with secular courts while remaining completely separate from them, given the fact that there are instances in which a Jewish religious court might deem it appropriate for a case involving a Jewish party, or Jewish parties, to be heard before a secular court, rather than a Beit Din.
Perhaps the establishment of a similar understanding and relationship between Sharia courts and secular courts - not only within the United Kingdom, but also within the West and within the larger world, generally - would decrease the negative influence of extremist, radical and terrorist thought and ideology within Islam upon Sharia law and Western secular society. Such reform would specifically address the dynamic of "creeping Sharia" within radical expressions of Islam.
~ Ruth Rachel Anderson-Avraham, ISRAELRealNATION,
9 August 2010, 29 Av 5770
[1] See Hickley, Matthew, "Islamic Sharia Courts in Britain are now 'Legally Binding' ", The Daily Mail Online, 15 September 2008.
[2] At least eighty-five (85) Muslim Arbitration Tribunals (MAT's, British Sharia Courts) have, indeed, been legally established in Britain, bringing the substantive conflicts between Islamic Sharia Law, as it is applied today, and particularly under the influence of radical Islam, and universally accepted legal principles and norms of British Law, of Western Law, of International Law to light on British soil.
Even the exclusive jurisdiction of the application of Sharia Law to Sharia Courts in Britain would not resolve the substantive issues posed by Sharia Law, the deep clash between Sharia Law, as it is applied by Sharia Courts today, and universally accepted British, European, Western, International social, cultural and legal norms, though such might delay the impact of "creeping Sharia" on the public-at-large as radical Islamists pursue Jihad. For example, the cutting off of the hand as punishment for stealing, stoning to death as punishment for adultery are imposed under Sharia Law in the contemporary radical Islamic world - punishments which are inhumane, in clear violation of fundamental human rights, in clear violation of universally accepted international legal norms and principles.
From within the Muslim world, the call for reform of Islamic Sharia Law is being made.
Nevertheless, in Britain today, the numbers of non-Muslims that are voluntarily choosing to have their disputes resolved before Sharia Courts is increasing. This, alone, is proof of the tremendous impact of "creeping Sharia" on social and cultural norms.
[4] In Judaism, however, mourning upon the death of a loved one is expressed not by the beating of the chest, but by the tearing of the clothing - "Keriyah".
[5] See Ariel, Rav Yaacov, "Secular Courts in the State of Israel". Jewish Law. Ed. Evan Kusnitz. Ira Kasdan, Esq. Reprinted with the permission of the Zomet Institute (Alon Shvut, Gush Etzion).
http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/SecularCourts.html
[6] Idem at Section B.
Although the contemporary State of Israel exists today, it does not yet exist at the level of the full physical and spiritual restoration of Erets Israel ("The Land of Israel"), as defined within the Torah. Thus, even those Jews living within the State of Israel today are still living within a state of spiritual exile, the degree of which is less severe than those Jews still living within Diaspora today.
[7] "In the latter case, there exists the need for the acquiescence of the Torah scholars, cf. Kli Yakar, Ex. 21." Idem at Section E.
Breaking down the myth that racism is more prevelant
in the Jewish community than in any other community,
and the myth that Israel is an inherently racist state...:
Photo: National Council on Ethiopian Jewry /
Photographer Unknown
_________________________________________
Is there is any more or less racism in the Jewish community than there is in the larger world? I do not believe so, by any means, but I do believe that Jews of color face challenges that Ashkenazi Jews do not face, both within and outside of the Jewish community...
I see this dynamic manifesting itself in several ways:
Jews of color are encouraged by non-Jews not to live their Jewishness openly. One of the arguments I often see used by non-Jews against Jews of color is by painting Jews as disproportionately racist...and here, I think, is a myth that we must reexamine carefully as Jews of color...: Is racism really more prevalent among Ashkenazi Jews, and disproportionately so, than among white non-Jews, or are non-Jews painting the Jewish community as disproportionately racist in order to encourage Jews of color to abandon Judaism?
I personally believe that the latter, and not the former is the reality of the situation...
In terms of support for the state of Israel, I believe that the same dynamic comes into play...The anti-Israeli, anti-semitic PR machine is all too willing to paint Israel as a "racist state". Racism exists all over the world (in every country I have visited, at least), but should we, as Jews of color, fall into the trap of believing that racism is disproportionately prominent in Israel, than in any other place in the world? I think not...
The understanding of Jews as a "race", rather than a nation of people - Bnai Israel, the children of Israel - grows from the dynamic of race within the larger world, and particularly, in the American context, was exacerbated by the institutionalization of slavery during the trans-Atlantic slave trade and the use of Christian theology by some at that time to justify racism as an institution and to dehumanize and to oppress people of African descent, people of color, generally, and non-Christians, generally, which includes us, as Jews, as well...Christian abolitionists and activists within the Jewish community who did not support the institution of slavery actively fought against this misuse and abuse of Christian theology.
Today, I see so many Jews of color abandoning Judaism primarily because of the pressures which are placed upon them from OUTSIDE of the Jewish community, and much less as a result of the pressures placed upon them from inside of the Jewish community (and this is intimately tied to the history of Anusim and Crypto-Jews, and particularly where this history concerns Jews of color...). One of the primary arguments being set forth primarily by certain non-Jews, that is encouraging Jews of color to leave the Jewish community, is this argument that Jews are disproportionately racist, more racist than non-Jews...and such arguments are particularly encouraging young Jewish men of color not to marry within the Jewish community...
In terms of understanding assimilation within the Jewish community, an understanding of the dynamic of race and anti-semitism could also explain why the number of Ashkenazi Jewish men marrying non-Jewish women, including non-Jewish women of color, has also increased significantly...
In a sense, convincing Jewish men that simply being Jewish and wanting to marry a Jewish woman is also to be racist (as if Jewish people and women of color did not exist) or discriminatory against non-Jews (as if there are not non-Jews who are committed to marrying within their own religious communities, as well...), encourages Jewish men to leave Judaism...
It is a myth that we, as Jews of color, and particularly as Jewish women of color, must actively work to deconstruct...
This dynamic also negatively impacts Ashkenazi Jews (and the Jewish community, generally), who are being pressured and encouraged to identify with "whiteness" before Jewishness, rather than to identify themselves primarily as Jews who are part of a larger, more diverse Jewish community, in terms of the social construct of race (which is a fallacy, by any means), and the larger diaspora. I once had a very long and interesting conversation with a rabbi from the American South, where I grew up, about how this dynamic particularly impacted Jewish communities across the American South, and how, in some ways, standing up for the Civil Rights Movement, was also a true act of resistence within the Ashkenazi Jewish community, as well, to reclaim their desire to resist this pressure to identify with whiteness, rather than Jewishness...
For those among us who are Orthodox Jews, the labeling of matrilineal descent as "racist" is also without foundation...The upholding of descendance from a Jewish mother does not require that the Jewish mother possess any particular physical attributes...be of a particular "race", which is a social construct, in any case...
Finally, another way in which the dynamic of race and anti-semitism impacts Jews of color, is that Jews of color are often pressured to meet some stereotype or preconceived notion of what it is to be a person of color...for both young Jewish men and women of color, this pressure to fulfill some stereotype or preconceived notion of what it is to be a person of color, rather than to simply be themselves, also encourages them not to love themselves as Jews...
As Jews (not matter what color we are), we are commanded to stand up for justice, and we must stand up to racism and discrimination within our own community which has a negative impact both inside and outside of our own community when such rears its ugly head, but we must also be aware of the ways in which the painting of the Jewish community as disproportionately racist, is also an argument being used by non-Jews in order to encourage us to abandon Judaism, to create rifts within and divide the Jewish community...we must also choose Judaism over "blackness", over our layers of racial and ethnic identity, even as we express ourselves as Jews whose culture and tradition is tied to our experience of diaspora.
No matter our place in the diaspora, we are Jews - intimately connected to Hashem and one another.
Racism exists within every community, and we must fight against such discrimination and inequality both within and outside of our community as Jews, while, at the same time, being very aware of the way in which such arguments are being used by non-Jews in order to encourage us to abandon Judaism and to divide the community of which we are a part...
The painting the Jewish community as disproportionately racist by non-Jews can also be a form of anti-semitism, can also exist as a tool which is purposefully used against us, in order to separate and divide us, as Jews...and to delegitimize the state of Israel by painting it as a disproportionately racist state...
Judaism has no color...as Jews, we are the reflection of no color or all colors, reflections of the love of Hashem here on this earth...may we work together to realize this reflection of Hashem, despite the challenges and obstacles before us in the secular world...
The above article speaks directly to a video entitled "Feeling the Hate in Jerusalem", released on YouTube.com just after United States President Barack Obama's unprecedented Speech at Cairo University on 4 June 2009:
The video consists of a series of interviews of several young Israelis and Americans at a Jerusalem bar following the Speech, making incredibly hateful, racist statements not founded on reason, logic, or any serious reflection or consideration of what is happening in the world today. It is purposefully biased, serving an anti-semitic, anti-Israel agenda, and certainly neither represents Israel in the entirety, nor all Israelis.
Although the title is, perhaps, inaccurate (as every country has "people who hate" within its borders; a malaise from which no country is immune, as demonstrated by the recent terrorist attack on the National Holocaust Memorial Museum in the United States on 10 June 2009), the following video is much more representative of Israel:
The realities of racism and anti-semitism cannot be denied. However, fair analysis, constructive criticism, and freedom of opinion and expression, within the limitations of Halakha and the Law of the Land, are part of what it means to live in a democracy.
Nevertheless, simply because President Obama is the first President of the United States with African heritage, the historic importance of which is manifest, does not mean that one must agree with him or his views. "Give him a chance?"; he gets the same chance as any other President. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Yes, racism and, quite frankly, (self-imposed) anti-semitism also exist within the Jewish community, just as they do within all other religious and ethnic communities, but not in a manner which is decidedly statistically disproportionate to any other community.
When the
states of the Arab League and Iran
(1) left Palestinian people on the border, between 1945-1948,
(2) refused to recognize the
state of Israel, and then, (3) expelled the majority of Jews from their borders, save Persian Jews, and very small communities remaining in certain countries across the Arab League, they knew EXACTLY what they were doing...
It was the implementation of the strategy of divide and conquer Israel from within, good cop/bad cop...and if the Naturei Kartei attending a Holocaust denial conference in Iran is not evidence of this, then I do not know what is...
The problems with the Oslo accords:
~ we negotiated with terrorists;
~ we made concessions of land to the PLO/Palestinian Authority without having any concessions made by the surrounding states of the Arab League and Iran to secure the sovereignty of Israel.
Since then, anti-Israeli, anti-semitic terrorism has worsened significantly, exists on a much larger scale, and has crossed international borders...
...and just days after Mahmoud Abbas has annouced that he will not recognize the state of Israel as a state with a Jewish majority (therefore suggesting that what he desires is a one state solution which would transform Israel into a state with a non-Jewish ~ most likely Muslim and Christian ~ majority...), Peres is seriously considering ceding land and sites within the borders of the state of Israel of cultural and historical importance to the larger Christian community to the Vatican...
All the while, Ahmandinejad is convincing Orthodox Jews that they have no right to the state of Israel...
Does Peres not see what is happening??? What is coloring his vision?
I would say that one of the greatest debates of history is whether or not Cyrus the Great freed us from Babylon out of moral good will, or out of political necessity...
Another greatly debated myth of history is the pre-existence of a Palestinian state, a myth which is constantly invoked in the attempt to delegitimize the very existence of the state of Israel...
Christians have long defended Israel in this debate; there has never been a pre-existing Palestinian state. And yet, we must remember that Christians who come in peace and goodwill to the support of Israel do not have the same vision of Israel as we do at the end of the history of this world...The "restoration of Israel" upon the return of the Moshiach means something different to us than it means to them.
We must remember this because, theologically and eschatologically, at the end of time, the Christian vision of Israel is of an Israel that is a Christian state, and not a Jewish one. Our visions of Israel at the end of time are not the same...and although the peace negotiations may attempt to confine their means of reasoning to secular legal language and terms, there is no doubt that these different understandings and visions of Israel at the end of time mean that our negotiation interests, and therefore our approach to these negotiations, is NOT in perfect alignment...even though our Christian friends may come to our aid in goodwill.
Peres believes that in ceding these sites, this land, to the Vatican, he is advancing peace in the world...but what he is doing, actually, is helping to deconstruct the state of Israel as a state with a Jewish majority, the vision of Israel as a state with a Jewish majority, with an undivided Jerusalem as its capital, to which all could come in peace and visit whatever holy site they wanted, by setting a precedent for a divided Jerusalem...
Legally, this is what the cession of these sites to the Vatican does...support a divided Jerusalem.
If the Vatican truly supports Israel as a state with a Jewish majority, then they should simply accept to visit these sites in peace, to encourage all of its followers to visit these sites in peace, by visiting Israel. They would not need or desire ownership over these sites, sovereignty over the land.
I am praying that Peres' eyes will open - that he will see and understand this - and that he will request the Vatican to simply consider these sites as holy sites within the borders of the state of Israel, inviting its leaders and its followers to come and visit these sites freely, in peace.
He should then request that the Vatican work together with the Claims Conference in order to ensure that all those artifacts and artworks acquired by the Vatican during the WWII be returned to their rightful owners; this, too, would be healing for the state of Israel and the Jewish community, and would work towards the end of peace in the world.
