Today (28 of Iyar), as you know is Jerusalem Day (44). The day, that after much blood and battle, we managed to reclaim and reunite the City of Jerusalem after 19 years of Jordanian rule during which Jews were expelled from Arab-occupied Jerusalem, and Jewish religious sites were desecrated and destroyed.
It has been 44 years since we liberated the occupied half of Jerusalem and turned Jerusalem into a city with freedom of worship for all.
Happy Jerusalem Day.
The Jewish people have lost possession of the the Temple Mount three times since King David purchased the site 30 centuries ago. Only once, was the site given away voluntarily, when Moshe Dayan gave it away 44 years ago. Moshe Dayan will go down in history not as a hero, but as the man who gave away the Temple Mount, providing Barack Obama and the Muslims the opportunity to make Jerusalem an Issue:
……….”It’s true,” Eldad said, “that the original sin was when the Jewish People, immediately after the Six Day War in 1967, ceded its hold on the Temple Mount in an unholy alliance between the Chief Rabbinate and Moshe Dayan – each side for its own reasons – but now the danger is that the Arab sovereignty on the Temple Mount will spill over to the Western Wall plaza, and from there to other places.”
Then-Defense Minister Dayan, just days after Israel’s liberation of the Old City, informed the Muslims running the Temple Mount that they could continue to run the mosques there – and later went further by preventing Jewish prayer all over the Mount.
“It was evident that if we did not prevent Jews from praying in what was now a mosque compound,” Dayan later wrote, “matters would get out of hand and lead to a religious clash… As an added precaution, I told the chief of staff to order the chief army chaplain to remove the branch office he had established in the building which adjoins the mosque compound.”Source Israel National News
|The poor, innocent goat|
In 1967, shortly after the Six Day War, Moshe Dayan ordered the Israeli flag removed from Temple Mount, and handed over administrative control, effectively he gave over the keys, of Temple Mount, to the Waqf.
The poor, innocent goat
Last year, in 2010, before Pesach, Yehuda Glick, of The Temple Institute, went to the Old City of Jerusalem with a goat in tow. He says his purpose was completely educational, as he was planning a demonstration of the korban pesach ceremony. As he was near the Temple Mount, the police got nervous, suspecting him of nefarious intentions that might possibly lead to a riot by the Arabs on Temple Mount, arrested Glick and the goat, and confiscated the goat transferring it to officials form the Ministry of Agriculture.
Glick decided to sue the police, the City of Jerusalem, and the Ministry of Agriculture, for $25,000 for wrongful arrest, as he had no such plans of inciting riots.
if that is not funny enough, the report on the case is even funnier.
The court asked the police representative about Glick’s activities and why they were concerned he might do something provocative. They then asked the rep about the goat. They asked if they had gotten a court order to confiscate the goat, or a restraining order against the goat from being in the area, to which the police rep admitted they had not.
The court then asked if they tried to prevent the goat from going up to the Temple Mount complex, to which the rep replied that the goat had not come alone.
The court then asked why they bothered arresting Glick once they had removed the goat. The response to this was that they arrested Glick with the goat for the purpose of investigating the act he planned to commit.
According to Mynet, the court criticized the police for their behavior in the Old City, and for their preventing Glick’s activities on har Habayit. The court asked the police representative why they prevent Glick’s legitimate activities just because they think it could be interpreted as provocative. the police response was that their goal is simply to prevent riots and bloodshed.
The court closed off ordering the police to submit detailed information regarding similar slaughtering ceremonies that have happened in recent years in the vicinity of Har HaBayit.
The modern day liberator of Jerusalem
I don’t know how many Jews are slaughtering anything nowadays in the vicinity of Har Habayit, so they probably won’t have much data to bring to the courts to show that slaughtering the goat would have necessarily led to Arab violence. And they probably have more data on Arabs slaughtering in the vicinity, and it not leading to violence and bloodshed. This might work in Glick’s favor.
This sounds like it could have been a case perfect for court tv. It does not get any funnier than this.
And to close on a more serious note, will a goat bring about the liberation of Har HaBayit?
In 1974 an outrageous Yom Kippur War rumor.Thirty-six years later,in 2010, the rumor was confirmed.Kissinger was always a heartbreak for me learning about growing up. Such a smart guy… too bad he was a self hater. Sometimes I like things he says on T.V., but the elder Kissinger is obviously not the Kissinger of 1974 the year I was born. I’m sure he was more complicated then any of us understand, but there is no doubt in my mind that his Judaism did not come till after he was out of power. I had always hoped that as time went on that good stuff would be revealed about him and Nixon… and there is some things that shed a positive light on him, but his view of his own people is not one of those things.
Recently declassified White House transcripts (featured in an editorial in the Israeli daily Haaretz) show former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger blaming Israel for the problems in the region, accusing Israel of being “deliberately provocative” and attempting “to create maximum commotion in the Middle East. In the newly released documents Kissinger refers to the Golan Heights as “Syrian territory” and the Syrians as “my friends.” He confides to an Algerian diplomat that “a (new Arab-Israeli) war wouldn’t be so bad for us. … We could show (Israel) we are tough.” Us? This strongly suggests Kissinger identified with the Arab side in the Arab-Israel conflict.
While these documents do not cover the period of the 1973 war (they cover the end of the Nixon administration and eighteen months of the subsequent Ford administration), they bear out Shmuel Katz’s devastating assessment of Kissinger’s role during the war as crucial in turning Israel’s military victory into a bitter strategic defeat. Just a year after the Yom Kippur War, in his 1974 pamphlet, “The Crisis of Israel and the West” Katz described Kissinger’s actions and their repercussions.
When Israel had recovered from her initial, nearly disastrous setback, the resourcefulness, and courage and qualitative superiority of her solders so succeeded that – in view of all the responsible military analysts – she was on the brink of achieving the greatest victory in her history. … [T]he Israel army had created an excellent bargaining position for whatever negotiations might ensue after the Cease Fire had been formalized in a resolution by the UN Security Council. It held firmly a wide salient deep into Egyptian territory proper with the road to Cairo open. The Egyptian Third Army, one of the two Egyptian forces that had crossed over the east bank of the Suez Canal, was encircled and its supplies completely cut off. …
But in two further decisive steps the U.S. Secretary of State dictated the conversion of Israel’s advantageous position into a posture of defeat. He insisted on the unconditional lifting of the siege of the Third Army. Brief Israeli resistance (by the Minister of Defense in a telephone conversation) was brusquely rejected….By February 1974 Israel had by diplomatic negotiation lost the Yom Kippur War, and the aggressor had been awarded the beginnings of a retrospective victory in the Six Day War. The Egyptians moreover made no secret of their confidence that this was only the first step to Israel’s being forced out of all of Sinai. The Egyptian President in particular repeatedly gave expression to this confidence, indicating without inhibition that this is what he had been promised by the U.S. Secretary of State whom he trusted absolutely in view of what he had already done for the Arab cause.
Twenty seven years later, in 2001, in a column “In Politics: No Friendships, Only Interests” Shmuel Katz returned to the theme of Kissinger’s 1973 game plan, this time with Kissinger’s own memoirs as evidence. Kissinger was determined, Katz wrote “on a diplomacy that would result in Egypt’s moving over from the Soviet orbit to the American. The price, as became evident, was to be a sacrifice of Israel….That is why the Egyptians to this day celebrate what they claim was a military victory over Israel. That is why, in Israel, the Yom Kippur War is remembered and felt as a bitter defeat. The harm done to Israel was and remains incalculable, not least in that sense of having been defeated.”
Moreover, Kissinger accomplished his goals through deception. As Katz details in “The Man with A Plan” (Oct. 23, 2003), with Israel facing a “dangerous shortage of materiel” Kissinger held up the arms shipments to Israel, claiming falsely it was Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger’s doing. Kissinger then used Israel’s predicament to pressure American Jewish leaders to abandon their efforts on behalf of Soviet Jewry in return for his support in expediting the delivery of the sorely needed materiel – arms and supplies which he was responsible for holding up in the first place.
Kissinger also hinted to Defense Minister Moshe Dayan of a Soviet atomic threat if Israel didn’t comply with his demands. Katz says this was a bald-faced lie. The Soviets had made no such threat. Katz writes: “Dayan later realized that he had been hoodwinked, and indeed, on examination of Kissinger’s blow-by-blow negotiations with the Russians, there is not a smidgen of a hint of an atomic threat by the Russians. In a public lecture in May 1974, Dayan declared:
‘The Americans denied us the fruits of victory. It was an ultimatum. Had the US not pressed us, the Third Army and Suez City would have had to surrender. We would have captured 30,000 to 40,000 soldiers and Sadat would have had to admit it to his people. We might have held them only for a day and let them walk out without their arms, but it would have changed the whole Egyptian attitude about whether they won the war or not.’”
It is painful to think that someone who fled Nazi persecution as a young boy in 1938 should do so much damage to the Jewish State. Yet, a closer look shows that Kissinger has, at best, a tenuous connection with his Judaism. Rabbi Norman Lamm, former chancellor of Yeshiva University, spotted this early. In his article “Kissinger and the Jews” (Dec. 20, 1975), a devastating critique, he writes, “Dr. Kissinger is an illustration of how high an assimilated Jew can rise in the United States, and how low he can fall in the esteem of his fellow Jews.”
Lamm referred to a recent visit by Henry Kissinger and his parents to Furth, their hometown in Bavaria which they escaped before the war. They had only kind words for their native city, “but nary a word about the Holocaust, not a word about the Nazis who drove them out of that city!” On top of this, Lamm reveals that Kissinger didn’t want to visit Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Memorial, during his first trip to Israel, and had to be “persuaded.” He “accepted only when he was told that every other foreign minister visiting Israel had done so.”
This hasn’t stopped Kissinger from portraying himself as one with the Jewish community, accepting awards from the Anti-Defamation League and bestowing awards on behalf of Jewish organizations like the United Jewish Appeal.
Kissinger’s guilt runs deep. Whether or not he feels it is another matter. Zionist writer William Mehlman offers a remarkable footnote involving Kissinger and Katz sometime after the Yom Kippur War. Kissinger got wind of a rumor – unfounded – that Shmuel had taken out a contract on his life (a fantasy Kissinger apparently believed based on the allegations about his role in delaying the resupply of munitions to Israel during the war).
“Shmuel, informed of what had transpired and anxious to put the rumor to rest, arranged a face-to-face meeting with Kissinger at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York. ‘From the moment I entered his suite until I left three minutes later,’ Katz related to a small circle of friends in Tel Aviv, ‘he did not stop shouting at me. He never gave me a chance to refute the rumor. In fact I never got a chance to say a word. Finally, I just turned around and walked out.’”
Mehlman writes, “Whatever debt Henry Kissinger may or may not have felt he owed his conscience, he must surely have learned by now that it wasn’t Shmuel Katz who had come to collect.”
Kissinger is 87. It doesn’t look as if he will make amends in this world. Perhaps in the next.
This entry was posted on Friday, July 30th, 2010 at 1:37 am and is filed under Shmuel Katz.
the truth is the Republican party has had some Conservative Jews in there that have to make amends with G-d.
“A pre-emptive attack is a huge advantage,” IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. David Elazar said. “It will save a lot of lives. If we get into a war where the first stage is to block – and I am sure that we can do this – then after the attack, there will be a serious war.” He added that he would be able to destroy the entire Syrian air force at noon of that day, and get rid of their missiles within 30 hours.
Elazar gave then-prime minister Golda Meir, defense minister Moshe Dayan, and head of intelligence Maj.-Gen. Eli Zaira four hours to talk to the US and make a decision.
Dayan, however, spoke out against Elazar’s plan. “We can not allow ourselves to attack pre-emptively this time. If Egypt attacks, we can attack Syria. According to what I know, there can’t be a pre-emptive strike. Not even five minutes before. Impossible.”
Elazar also said that the IDF should call in some of its reserve soldiers. “If they attack in 10 hours, we are as ready as possible with regular soldiers, but we did not call up any reserves at all. The IDF’s power is 25 percent regular and 75% reserves. Therefore, we need to increase our power immediately. We need at least 24 hours to call up reserves – those that are called up now, can be put into action tomorrow.”
Feminists often point out Golda as an example of a successful woman who ran a government. She was a good woman, but a lousy military leader. The pant suit brigade seem to have a hard time realizing that she was a liberal who could not garner the logic of suicide bombers and the behavior of the Arabs. In her mind they would eventually give in to peace because they loved their children too. Golda and Dayan like other liberals and progressives might of meant well, but they were very wrong. She simply could not imagine why the Arabs would do what they do.