Non-Jews should be forbidden from living in Israel, says Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef

The Rabbi said non-Jews who fail to live by the seven Noahide laws should be expelled to Saudi Arabia

Israel’s Sephardic Chief Rabbi has sparked controversy after saying non-Jews should not be allowed to live in Israel unless they follow a set of Jewish laws.

Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef said non-Jews who fail to live by the seven Noahide laws should be expelled to Saudi Arabia, The Times of Israel reports.

Speaking in a sermon on Saturday, the Chief Rabbi said: “If our hands were firm, if we had the power to rule, then non-Jews must not live in Israel.”



“If a gentile does not agree to take on the seven Noahide Laws, we should send him to Saudi Arabia.”

The seven Noahide Laws are a basic moral code outlined in the Talmud. They prohibit actions such as blasphemy, murder, illicit sexual relations, theft and eating live animals, according to The Times of Israel.

Rabbi Yosef added that non-Jews who do agree to abide by the laws will be allowed to remain in Israel in order to serve Jews.



“Who, otherwise be the servants? Who will be our helpers? This is why we leave them in Israel, ” he said.

Rabbi Yosef’s comments have been heavily criticised by the human rights agency Anti-Defamation League, who have called on him to retract the statements.

Jonathon Greenblatt, ADL’s CEO, and Carole Nuriel, acting Director of ADL’s Israel Office, said in a statement the comments were “shocking and unacceptable.”

“It is unconscionable that the Chief Rabbi, an official representative of the State of Israel, would express such intolerant and ignorant views about Israel’s non-Jewish population – including the millions of non-Jewish citizens.”
“As a spiritual leader, Rabbi Yosef should be using his influence to preach tolerance and compassion towards others, regardless of their faith, and not seek to exclude and demean a large segment of Israelis.”

This is not the first time Rabbi Yosef’s comments have stirred controversy. Earlier this month, the Rabbi was criticised for suggesting Israelis should kill knife-wielding terrorists without fear of the law, the Jerusalem Post reports.
"If a terrorist is advancing with a knife, it’s a mitzva [commandment] to kill him,” he said in Jerusalem’s Yazadim Synagogue.

“One shouldn’t be afraid that someone will petition the High Court of Justice or some [army] chief of staff will come and say something different,” he added.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/non-jews-should-be-forbidden-from-living-in-israel-says-chief-rabbi-yitzhak-yosef-a6957806.html

And rightful many have condemn his comments.
Again religion being at the core of prejudice
The future state of Palestine is not going to have or allow any Jews to live there.

The first people I told were Safa and Imad. Good friends, they lived near me in the Aida Refugee Camp and invited me for lunch every Friday. I knew they were religious Muslims. Imad had told me that Israeli soldiers had killed his brother during the second intifada. But the topic of religion and politics was on the table, and now seemed like a good time.

I was scared. I knew I was speaking with friends, but I had a nightmarish image that they would throw the dish of rice and chicken into the air, grab the glass of sugary tea from my hand and smash it against the wall, bellowing, “Get oooouuuuuttt!”

I took a deep breath. “I’m actually Jewish. And I’ve always felt….” Who even remembers what I said next? I finished my sentence. Safa took my glass and refilled it. Imad said that he wanted to tell me three things. First, there are many similarities between Jews and Muslims. Second, he understands the difference between a Jewish person and the Israel Defense Forces. Third, it was shameful that I hadn’t yet gone to see more of the Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem.

It’s great to be a Jew in Palestine.

---

My shared taxi was waved over at the IDF checkpoint between Bethlehem and Ramallah. The soldier yanked open the door and looked inside. There was an old man in the front seat, three old men in the middle row, and in the back row myself, a businessman and a teenage boy. The soldier asked the teenager for identification and motioned for the boy to get out of the car. He was placed on a bench between another soldier and an IDF dog. The soldier told the driver to continue on. As we drove off, leaving the boy behind, I saw a third soldier, too scrawny for his uniform, walking toward the checkpoint, holding two pieces of matzo. He dropped them, and when he bent over to pick them up, his M16 fell forward, whacking him in the face.

It’s weird to be a Jew in Palestine.

---

I was at an IDF military compound. I was there because I’d been at a demonstration. In the West Bank, demonstrations are illegal. The boys next to me were detained for throwing stones. They had plastic cords binding their hands. When they cut the ties off the boy to my left, it took two men to wriggle the knife between the plastic cord and his skin. When they finally broke it off, his wrists were bruised and bleeding. I began speaking in Arabic to the woman to my right, until a soldier shouted, “ Sheket! ” I opened my mouth and closed it again, just barely stopping myself from finishing his sentence as I’d been taught in Hebrew school: with a singsong “ b’vakasha — hey!” and then a big clap.

It’s frustrating to be a Jew in Palestine.

---

We showed our passports to the two young soldiers. Where was I from in the States? Chicago? Go Bulls! Passports back. My friends and I walked into H2 — the section of Hebron under complete control of the IDF and with the highest concentration of settlers.

First impression: Wild West. “High Noon.” I imagined a crow cawing; a vulture circling; tumbleweed blowing down Shuhada Street, bumping up against the concrete barrier that blocks off the small part of the road on which Palestinians are permitted to walk. I felt my belt, half expecting there to be a six-shooter. Nothing. But the young settler jogging with a baby stroller and wearing a rainbow yarmulke had an M16 slung over his shoulder.

I looked back at the soldiers. One of them was leaning against a wall, soaking in the sun. The other was moving in the direction of a young Palestinian boy.

Farther down the street, a couple more soldiers eyed us as we walked. One made a catcall at us. We kept walking. A few more soldiers were on the next corner, standing, alert, hands on their weapons. I looked up and saw more soldiers on the rooftops, looking down. One waved. In Hebron there are some 4,000 IDF soldiers to protect 500 Israeli settlers.

The street was lined with stores. Each storefront was welded shut. Many spray-painted with a Star of David, a menorah, or the Israeli flag. My friend pointed out that these were Palestinian shops that had been shut down by the settlers or soldiers.

I thought about the Palestinian man I’d just met, who told us how his son was blinded when a settler threw acid in his face on his way to school. Who told us how he often had to shut down his shop when settlers hurled urine-filled bottles from above onto the Palestinian market below.
Stars of David. Everywhere. On stores, on doors, on walls, on windows, on flags, on shirts.

We passed a sign explaining — in Hebrew and English — that this was an area of Hebron that had been “liberated” from the Arabs.

It feels awful to be a Jew in Palestine.

Beth Miller is a 2010 graduate of Macalester College and has been working with a human rights organization in the West Bank for the past year and a half. She will be a candidate for a Master of Arts in human rights law at the School of Oriental and African Studies this fall.

Like I said, in a future Palestinian state, Jews will not be allowed to live.
This is evident, that they want the settlements removed and not formed as a part of the Palestinian state.

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Abbas-wants-not-a-single-Israeli-in-future-Palestinian-state-321470

So they want people who stole land, destroyed their crops and burnt their children removed?   Wow, fancy that.

sassy wrote:So they want people who stole land and burnt children removed?   Wow, fancy that.

Stolen?
The land was part of the Ottoman empire, then it was the British Mandate, which within twice this time the Palestinians in 1937 and 1947 rejected having an Israel state and having one of their own. Which they then started a civil war, which was joined by Arab nations who then conquered and occupied areas of the former British mandate. At no point during this occupation did any of the Palestinian terrorist organisations resists this occupation and in fact in the 1964 charter never it states these areas as being occupied, only that of Israel. Land does not take on a view as to belonging to someone based off them only being there due to their ancestors being recent immigration themselves over the later part of the 19th century and early 20th century. As well as the Arabs themselves are colonialist conquers of the religion. The Palestinians have a right to a state of their own, of which I back based on equality, 

So now you are claiming all settlers, hundreds of thousands of people culpable to crimes they have not committed?
You are making them all guilty by association
By that same reasoning, where settlers have been murdered you would then back the removal then of all Arabs?

I certainly do not, as that is ethnic cleansing.
20% of Israel is made up of Arabs.
So its a very telling point on why and how the PLO and Hamas have no view to come to peace with Israel
As what would be so wrong where settlers have bought up land legally to then form part of the people of that new nation?
You are making some of the most prejudiced views to deny people a right to live there, which I might ad also includes Israeli Arabs living in some of the settlements

Straight out of the Hasbara textbook and utter bullshit

Well as seen my points are not addressed, accusations thrown and nothing more than a post that deflects. The reason is because what i posted is factually true.




If this is the basis for a discriminatory measure, it has little or no legal basis. The claim that their interpretation of Israeli rights in the territories mentioned is "in line with international law" raises the simple question: "which international law?" Israel's occupation of the West Bank is fully legal under the terms of UN Resolution 242 (1967), which was carefully drafted to guarantee Israel's rights to remain there until such time as there is a "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

As no secure and recognized boundaries have been established, despite numerous attempts by the government of Israel to bring them about, Israel's presence there remains entirely legal. And as only Israeli armed forces will be required to withdraw in the event that such boundaries are created, the presence of Israeli settlements there will remain legal under the terms of the original League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which stipulates that there should be close Jewish settlement in all areas. Those Mandate provisions were incorporated into UN Resolution 181, which called for the establishment of a Jewish and an Arab state.

Similarly, the statement that the EU "will not recognise any changes to pre-1967 borders" is legally invalid as well as obnoxious. No such pre-1967 borders ever existed. The armistice lines, established in 1949 on the termination of the 1948-1949 war between Israel and its several Arab enemies, are not borders. And as the 1967 war was fought by Israel as a war of defence, its alleged "occupation" (which then included the Gaza Strip) of territories previously occupied by two of the belligerent states (Egypt in Gaza, and Jordan in the West Bank) is fully legal under the international laws of armed combat, principally under Article 51 of the UN Charter.


There is also the Oslo accords signed by the PLO which

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords


The worst thing on all of this, is people wish to deny each nation coming to a lasting peace by forcing the hand of one side, thus never bringing about a lasting peace. A last peace and treaty has to be worked out by both sides.

You do make me laugh, even bloody Cameron disagrees with you, as does international law.  You are so Hasbara'd up it painful to watch


David Cameron blasts Israel's 'genuinely shocking' illegal settlements
The Prime Minister said seeing East Jerusalem first hand had confirmed his view the settlements were wrong

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-blasts-israels-genuinely-shocking-illegal-settlements-a6893301.html

FGS, when will this daily spamming stop on this subject.

FGS will you mind your own bloody business

sassy wrote:You do make me laugh, even bloody Cameron disagrees with you, as does international law.  You are so Hasbara'd up it painful to watch


David Cameron blasts Israel's 'genuinely shocking' illegal settlements
The Prime Minister said seeing East Jerusalem first hand had confirmed his view the settlements were wrong

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-blasts-israels-genuinely-shocking-illegal-settlements-a6893301.html

That does not make him right or correct.
Again showi me the international law?
Britain is a member of the UN as is the EU,m which means they have to respect resolution 242
Also resolutions are not even treaties, of which treaties are binding in international law
Israel and the PLO signed such a treaty with the Oslo accords

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords


Love to see this international law that is overrules a treaty signed by two the PLO and Israel.

Legal status

The consensus view^[98] in the international community is that the existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank including East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights is in violation of international law.^[99] The Fourth Geneva Convention includes statements such as "the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies".^[100]
At present, the view of the international community, as reflected in numerous UN resolutions, regards the building and existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights as a violation of international law.^{[101][102][103]} UN Security Council Resolution 446 refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention as the applicable international legal instrument, and calls upon Israel to desist from transferring its own population into the territories or changing their demographic makeup. The reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions has declared the settlements illegal^[104] as has the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice.

Again the UN resolutions are not binding under international law.
It even states it is a view and not based on any law
So show me the international law that states settlements are illegal

Many pro-Palestine activists and members of the international community falsely have claimed that Israel has violated the Fourth Geneva Convention. For example, a UN Human Rights Council panel has declared that Israel building Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria violates the Fourth Geneva Convention. Christine Chanet, the French judge who headed this U.N. inquiry, asserted, “To transfer its own population into an occupied territory is prohibited because it is an obstacle to the exercise of the right to self-determination.” Yet any careful examination of international law would establish that Judea and Samaria, as well as East Jerusalem, are not occupied territories and that the Geneva Convention spoke of forced transfers, such as what the Nazis did, not the voluntary transfers that Israel engages in.

Firstly, Article 49 of the Geneva Convention was drafted following the Second World War, during which time millions of people were deported, displaced and massacred. In the case of the Jews and Gypsies, outright genocide was committed. Article 49 of the Geneva Convention was created in order to prevent a repeat of what happened in Europe under the malaise aggression of Nazism. For this reason, Article 49 of the Geneva Convention states, “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

The International Commission of the Red Cross clarified this article in 1958 by asserting, “It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race.” This establishes the point that Article 49 of the Geneva Convention refers to forced transfers of population that result in endangering a conquered nations’ existence, not voluntary settlement to open areas, even for cases when an occupation does indeed take place.

http://unitedwithisrael.org/why-israel-is-not-violating-fourth-geneva-convention/

Right I have work to do, so catch you all later

I would still like to know though sassy when you want to ethnically cleanse hundreds of thousands of jews in settlements and not be formed as part of a new Palestinian state,

Laters

sassy wrote:FGS will you mind your own bloody business

It is my business as it is for all of us you force your DAILY spam upon.

You and Didge should have your own forum on this subject.

FGS Ethnically cleanse?   Talk about weasel words, you can't ethnically cleanse people who have taken land illegally - you eject them back to where they belong - Israel.

Stormee wrote:

sassy wrote:FGS will you mind your own bloody business

It is my business as it is for all of us you force your DAILY spam upon.

You and Didge should have your own forum on this subject.

If you don't want to read it, don't click on it, it's simple.  You don't get to tell people the subjects they can post on.

I don't read it, just fed up of all your miles of daily spam.

A discussion is not spam and I'm fed up with your constant bleating.

posters can post on any subject (within reason) provided its in the correct forum Stormee

YOU dont get to have a say in whats allowed...

Its NOT a democracy

If sassy and didge like throwing pixels at each other ...then fair enough

as said ...you dont have to read it....

Lord Foul wrote:posters can post on any subject (within reason) provided its in the correct forum Stormee

YOU dont get to have a say in whats allowed...

Its NOT a democracy

If sassy and didge like throwing pixels at each other ...then fair enough

as said ...you dont have to read it....

I already know that LF.

Stormee wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:posters can post on any subject (within reason) provided its in the correct forum Stormee
YOU dont get to have a say in whats allowed...
Its NOT a democracy
If sassy and didge like throwing pixels at each other ...then fair enough
as said ...you dont have to read it....

I already know that LF.

And despite your ill contrived NEED to constantly dump your nasty arsed opinion into these threads/topics --- some of us {ME} enjoy reading the updates and most recent happenings in this region    22 posts and 110 viewings...seems there are others just reading as well ~~~  

Just because 'I' willfully chose to just read and not post a comment - doesn't make the thread worthless --- NO ONE FORCES 'YOU' to open them   As my aussie friend would say; 'now go BUGGER OFF and quit your whining' 

Stormee wrote:
FGS, when will this daily spamming stop on this subject.

YOU HAVE already demonstrated often that you don't understand the term "troll(ing)",  Stormee...

NOW we can add the word "spamming" to your list of regular malapropisms on here..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Stormee wrote:
FGS, when will this daily spamming stop on this subject.

YOU HAVE already demonstrated often that you don't understand the term "troll(ing)",  Stormee...

NOW we can add the word "spamming" to your list of regular malapropisms on here..

I know what a 'twack' is.

Well you would, you only have to look in the mirror.