Gog V' Magog: On Israel's Borders

Where Is Biblical Israel?

It is not news that Israel's Borders are contested; what is news, is what is the real debate.

Learning out Israel's Borders according to the Chumash takes a lot of Daas Torah, to figure exactly what the minimum is. King David sought to go beyond the minimum by conquering Syria, and by doing so he erred. The Minimal Eretz Yisrael must be conquered first, with a Beis Hamikdash on the essential Biblical Borders; after which the Prophetic Borders given to [the future of] Abraham's seed would come into the picture.

Thus again, the real question is: what are our Essential Borders? The contention of War with Islam is this very issue, and this is a main cog of Zionist dynamics.

Gog V'Magog is also dictated by these terms of Biblical Israel and the fallacy of.

Zionism is in part a theology of this very issue: Israel's Borders and a Prime Directive of agenda and operation based as such.

The Torah seems to be minimal, and with Geulah, Beis Hamikdash, and general conquest - the promised expansion will commence prophetically, as dictated to Abraham. Thus its the order of operation that is imperative, to reach mutual goals of a True Israel.

Zionism has its own views, ideally Left, Right, and Centrist.
The article presented here blames the Right and asks to give the Left a chance. Ironically, it is the Left that is more Biblically sound in respect to the Borders, yet their philosophy of how is treif.

It looks like there is a fundamental War within Armilos and Erev Rav going on now: Left vs. Right i.e. Peres vs. Bibi - Zionism at its best.
Perhaps Peres and the Left is a form of Erev Katan [davka Katan - small!] and Bibi and the Right is a form of Erev Rav [davka Rav - big]

What happens when their War commences? - As is predicted in Talmud Sukkah: The argument between Simcha and Sasson - depicted Erev Rav and Katan, and as is known, their argument leads to the Geulah, as this is the nature of their War.

Zionism isn't the answer, in fact it is treif, yet it reveals several Truths; as for Sheker to be believed it must contain an element of Truth - and the concept of Borders of Israel are as truthful as it gets.
All Klippah and Kedusha are invested in this War of Biblical Israel. Once settled, one can expect the Beis Hamikdash and the elimination of the Erev Rav and Katan; Torat Emet will then prevail.


Haaretz.com:

In a rare move, Shimon Peres exhibited a clear stance against an Israeli attack on Iran without coordination with the United States. Given Peres’ phenomenal experience and his role in building Israel’s deterrence, including its presumed nuclear arsenal, it is not easy to simply discard what he says.

Likud MK Zeev Elkin, in an appearance on the popular “London and Kirschenbaum” program tried to disqualify Peres’ opinion. With a shrewd smile he said that Peres was, after all, one of the architects of the Oslo Accords and had spoken of a “New Middle East” at the time. Elkin implied clearly that Peres’ political judgment has always been wrong, and that he is thoroughly unreliable.

The term “left” has become a term of denigration and accusation, and Peres has become the right’s symbol for the left’s being a loser. Here is the list of accusations: Israel got the second intifada because leftist Rabin gave the Palestinians guns; we got the shelling of Southern Israel because rightist turned leftist Ariel Sharon disengaged from Gaza; and we got the second Lebanon war because the leftist Barak pulled out of Lebanon in 2000.

So maybe it’s time to set the record straight. The left’s political views were never given a chance; and there are strong arguments for the thesis that Israel’s troubles are a direct consequence of the right’s blunders, mistakes, messianic ideology and aggressive expansionism of the last thirty-five years.

Let’s begin with Lebanon: Does anybody remember that this was a war of choice that not even the Begin government authorized? Does anybody remember Sabra and Shatila, and that Sharon was declared unfit to serve as minister of defense forever? Does anybody remember that Israel’s staying in Lebanon for eighteen years created Hezbollah? So is the Lebanon conundrum due to Barak, or to Sharon’s megalomaniac conquest of Lebanon?

While we are at it: Sharon is now hailed for the unilateral disengagement from Gaza. Does anybody remember that Sharon refused to hand over the Gaza strip as part of a general agreement with the Palestinians? Sharon never turned to the left: There is strong evidence that the disengagement was primarily meant to separate between Gaza and the West Bank, to make sure that Israel could keep the latter without having to rule the former. The disengagement was, on purpose, done in ways that weakened Fatah and Mahmoud Abbas – successfully, and with catastrophic consequences.

Making the left uniquely responsible for the failure of Oslo is also tendentious, to say the least. Let’s start with the dreadful mistakes made before Oslo: In the 1980s repeated attempts were made to build a political structure in the West Bank. Moderates like Feisal Husseini, Hanan Ashrawi and Nabeel Cassis tried to build the foundation of a Palestinian civil society. They were striving for compromise with Israel, often paying a great personal price.

Instead of engaging with these attempts, Israel saw great danger in Palestinian civil society and did everything it could to prevent it. This notoriously included supporting Hamas, thus fatefully changing the Palestinian political landscape.

At this point, right-wingers like Elkin will become impatient, and say “leave us alone with early history. What about Oslo’s failure?”

Well, the Oslo process never got a chance. Right-wingers who use the term “Oslo” as if it were the greatest idiocy of the twentieth century conveniently forget that Israel never met its obligations under this agreement, and never moved out of the West Bank according the stages agreed upon by the Accords.

Idith Zertal and Akiva Eldar have documented in detail how all Israeli governments including those headed by Rabin and Barak continued building in the West Bank, thus eroding Palestinian belief that Israel genuinely intended ever to grant Palestinians a viable state. Add to this the fact that that Netanyahu was filmed bragging that he had destroyed the Oslo process, a claim that members of the Clinton administration would certainly endorse: they came to see Netanyahu as an unreliable, arrogant liar – a title that the Obama administration would certainly agree to.

I am not trying to claim that the left hasn't made mistakes. But the course of Israeli history since 1967 was predicted by Ben-Gurion in the weeks after the fateful victory of the six-day war: he said that if Israel would not return the territories within a year, this would be the Zionist project’s end. He was dead-on. Israel’s tragedy is the consequence of the right’s dream of the greater Israel and not the left’s mistakes.

Edom will fall into the hands of Pras:
Edom = Erev Rav?
[The Gra says Erev Rav is a klippah of Edom!]
and Pras is a variation of Peres, which in Hebrew are the same פרס ?
Is this famous Talmudic Passage a hint of an internal War between Erev Rav and Katan?

There is precedent for Peres representing Erev Katan:

"Peres' grandfather, Rabbi Zvi Meltzer, a grandson of Rabbi Chaim Volozhin, had a great impact on his life. In an interview, Peres said: "As a child, I grew up in my grandfather's home… I was educated by him… my grandfather taught me Talmud. It was not as easy as it sounds. My home was not an observant one. My parents were not Orthodox but I was Haredi. At one point, I heard my parents listening to the radio on the Sabbath and I smashed it." At the age of four, Peres was taken by his father to Radun' to receive a blessing from Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan (The Chofetz Chaim)."

If Peres is Armilos, then perhaps his involvement against attacking Pras [Iran] is more significant than we know - perhaps he is being a true Leftist, and the last thereof. Maybe his Border fervor will even cause Gog V'Magog.

Peres elected Bibi; perhaps this gesture was actually a primal war cry.
Time will tell the true story of the Erev Rav - there is bound to be more than meets the eye.

...there were two heretics named Simcha [Erev Rav]and Sasson [Erev Katan]...
and we call them Bibi and Peres. Some may even call "it" Armilos.