israel-tribal-map
Dear Sir,
as remarkable as the Rabbi’s challenge (below) is, there are quite some more points which speak against the “Road Map”:
1) It promises the Palestinians a state of theirs by 2005 – that is, Pres. Bush gives away what is not his! Who or what entitles him to deal with the land (of Israel) as if it were his property; or as if it were an owner-less commodity? True, Arabs, Druze, Samaritans, etc own plots besides Jews, but private property does not constitute a state.
2) True, the UNO in its decision of Nov.29, 1947, intended to divide the land west of the Jordan River, and form a Jewish state besides a Palestinian state. But the Arabs and other Muslim states rejected this plan. Seven of them sent their armies against the people of Israel to chase them into the Mediterranean; and the Trans-Jordanians occupied what became known as the West Bank. In this, the Arabs were mainly motivated by the Islamic concept of the “Dar-es-Salaam” (=the Residence of Peace identified with the rule of Islamic states). They did not achieve their goal, the State of Israel came into existence, and got recognized officially by the majority of the UNO. Yet the Arab states supported by other Muslim states continued to pursue their goal of retrieving the land. This lead to the wars of 1967 and of 1973, and the Palestinian people were more and more made into the spearhead of the Arabs/Muslims’ aspirations to bring the Land of Israel again into the realm of the Dar-es-Salaam.
3) America, with the rest of the so-called Free World, may say that the Bible with its concept of the “Land of Israel” is, as a matter of religion, one thing; and international politics is another matter not to be entangled with the former. But with this concept they support directly or indirectly the Arabs’ claim of the Dar-es-Salaam as well as the latter’s Jihad and terrorism. The victim thereof will not only be the State of Israel but eventually and inevitably so the Free World itself. That is, the Free World is faced with the choice either to continue its dreams of appeasement with all the dire consequences thereof; or to wake up and face reality.
4) May it be mentioned here that the present concept of the Dar-es-Salaam although worked up from the Koran is not supported by the latter. That is, not two Prophetic dictum’s, namely the Hebrew Bible and the Koran contradicting one the other; rather, willful interpretations thereof are meant to support selfish claims. The Koran declares itself in line with the “Book” (Tanakh, Hebrew Bible), even describes the latter as a book for men possessed of minds. Denying or disregarding it is thus equal to mindlessness.
Dr. Asher Eder
Jewish Co-Chairman, Islam-Israel Fellowship
A division of the Root&Branch Assoc. Ltd, Yerushalayim/Israel
