By David Isaac and Shmuel Katz z”l

Where Israel is concerned, the secular New Year is not off to an auspicious start. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently stated that “all matters” would be up for discussion in negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. It’s a dramatic break from past Israeli policy, in which Jerusalem was declared off limits. Apparently, Netanyahu has crossed that red line.

According to reports, it’s only one of several red lines Netanyahu has crossed following his meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo on the first of the year in which they discussed ways to get Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas back to the negotiating table, an outcome ardently wished by the United States.

What would Shmuel Katz say to the latest in what have been a series of collapses that have characterized Netanyahu’s leadership since he assumed power – a leadership which must be a grave disappointment to the Israeli electorate who supported him in the hopes of seeing a leader of firmer resolve.

A prolific columnist, Shmuel never minced words, taking both Likud and Labor governments to task for failing to stand up to international pressure, or make Israel’s case to the world. Likely, he would have decried Netanyahu’s government as one more in a string of administrations that pursued a policy of appeasement.

Indeed, he would have described Netanyahu’s behavior as the very epitome of appeasement. How else to describe the prime minister’s near-immediate collapse in the face of the American president’s call from a Cairo University auditorium to end all settlement construction in Judea and Samaria? Or his most recent signal that he is willing to place Jerusalem on the bloc?

In a pamphlet he co-wrote with Eliezer Livneh, titled “Will Appeasement Lead to Peace?” (available on this site), Shmuel raised the question of whether the prospects of peace would be better if Israel were to retain her borders or hand over territory to the Arabs. The pamphlet, written in the early 1970s, dealt with the possibility that the Arabs would, like Hitler at Munich, “offer a ‘political settlement’ in exchange for the territories they lost through their aggression” – an approach they eventually would adopt 20 years later.

Shmuel warned that succumbing to this stratagem would “restore the enormous strategic advantage they [the Arabs] enjoyed before the Six Day War… The restoration of these strategic advantages to the Arabs will moreover serve as a temptation for renewed aggression. To the Arab rulers it will be a clear indication that it pays to attack us, for if they fail, they can always have their losses returned to them…  There is no more certain way of ensuring renewed warfare than by making territorial concessions to the Arab rulers.”

In 2008, Netanyahu spoke at Shmuel’s funeral, recognizing Shmuel’s historic role in the Irgun’s leadership. But what Netanyahu seems incapable of recognizing are the lessons Shmuel taught when he was alive. Rather than move Israel to a position of principle and strength, Israel’s prime minister has chosen to repeat the failed appeasement policies of administrations past.

2 thoughts on “WHAT WOULD SHMUEL SAY?

  1. NO PALESTINIAN STATE – No land concessions R4.

    Imagine that the various people who settled in the United States for the past 300 years decided one day that they one to parcel the United States into an independent State just for them, would the American public go for it. The Answer is absolutely NO.

    The situation in Israel today is no different. The Arabs there are not Palestinians, there is no such Arab nation as Palestine or Palestinian people.

    Europeans countries today are consisting of numerous people from other countries. Would the Europeans people cede part of their country to set up another State in their midst. The answer is absolutely NO.

    All the Arabs in Israel and surrounding areas are from the various Arab nations, such as Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon and other Arab nations.

    Prominent PLO Arab says there are no ‘Palestinians’ and no “Palestine”

    PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein admitted in a March 31, 1977 interview with a Dutch newspaper Trouw.

    “The Palestinian people do not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism. ”

    The Qur’an 17:104 – states the land belongs to the Jewish people

    If the historic documents, comments written by eyewitnesses and declarations by the most authoritative Arab scholars are still not enough, let us quote the most important source for Muslim Arabs:
    “And thereafter we [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: ‘Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd’.”.
    YUSUFALI: And We said thereafter to the Children of Israel, “Dwell securely in the land (of promise)”: but when the second of the warnings came to pass, We gathered you together in a mingled crowd.
    PICKTHAL: And We said unto the Children of Israel after him: Dwell in the land; but when the promise of the Hereafter cometh to pass We shall bring you as a crowd gathered out of various nations.
    SHAKIR: And We said to the Israelites after him: Dwell in the land: and when the promise of the next life shall come to pass, we will bring you both together in judgment.
    – Qur’an 17:104 –
    Any sincere Muslim must recognize the Land they call “Palestine” as the Jewish Homeland, according to the book considered by Muslims to be the most sacred word and Allah’s ultimate revelation.

    Sequence of historical events, agreements and a non-broken series of treaties and resolutions, as laid out by the San Remo Resolution, the League of Nations and the United Nations, gives the Jewish People title to the city of Jerusalem and the rest of Israel totaling approximately 45,000 square miles, as mandated by the League of Nations in July of 1922. The process began at San Remo, Italy, when the four Principal Allied Powers of World War I – Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan – agreed to create a Jewish national home in what is now the Land of Israel. (You might as well break apart Syria which was mandated at the same time).

    Jay Draiman.

    20 Years of Research Reveals Jerusalem Belongs to Jews

    (IsraelNN.com) Jacques Gauthier, a non-Jewish Canadian lawyer who spent 20 years researching the legal status of Jerusalem, has concluded: “Jerusalem belongs to the Jews, by international law.”.

    Gauthier has written a doctoral dissertation on the topic of Jerusalem and its legal history, based on international treaties and resolutions of the past 90 years. The dissertation runs some 1,300 pages, with 3,000 footnotes. Gauthier had to present his thesis to a world-famous Jewish historian and two leading international lawyers – the Jewish one of whom has represented the Palestinian Authority on numerous occasions.

    Gauthier’s main point, as summarized by Israpundit editor Ted Belman, is that a non-broken series of treaties and resolutions, as laid out by the San Remo Resolution, the League of Nations and the United Nations, gives the Jewish People title to the city of Jerusalem. The process began at San Remo, Italy, when the four Principal Allied Powers of World War I – Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan – agreed to create a Jewish national home in what is now the Land of Israel.

    We must unleash the wrath of G-D against the enemies of Israel and those collaborating with the enemy.


  2. The people in high authority who sent these youngster to be hurt weren’t professionals.
    Some of the most tactical mistakes are that the soldiers should have landed from four or five cords and not one a the time.
    Each one that came down was systematically hit with batons, iron rods and the like.
    If the soldier would have come down 10 to 20 at a time things would have been different.
    Also to arm soldiers with paint ball guns to confront an overzealous maddened crowd is a folly the like of which has not been made but in comic books.
    Certainly Ehud Barak should take responsibility for this debacle, he reminds me when he left his troops and heavy armor in Lebanon before escaping on his own… If he is the one who gave the order he should be man enough to recuse himself from the position he is now leading. Thank you for your attention.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s