When the Beloved is Ready for the Lover

[Ben Masada]

WHEN THE BELOVED IS READY FOR THE LOVER

Sorry if this is not what you expected to read. It is about the Land of Israel and the Jew, an essay based on the Songs of Solomon.

When Israel, the Ten Tribes, was transferred to Assyria, the Assyrian king replaced the Israelites with Assyrians.The Beloved reacted against the newcomers by producing wild animals to kill them. (2 Kings 17:24,25) The Beloved had realized that they were not the real Lover.

By the Rivers of Babylon, when the Lover was asked to sing a song from Zion, he refused on the basis that he could not sing so far away from the Beloved. (Psalm 137:1-9) At the end of 70 years, the Lover returned to the Beloved, was acknowledged and the Beloved would no longer deny life as it became fruitiful again.

The Romans came, found the Beloved a hell of a thing to control, destroyed the Temple, and expelled the Lover to the four corners of the earth. Then, throughout 2000 years, several pretenders tried to force themselves upon the Beloved but had eventually to leave on the basis that the Beloved would produce nothing but only swamps and malarial mosquitoes. It was the Beloved's way to reject the wrong pretenders.

Came the Arabs and then the Knights, and only wars between them were mounted to make life for both, unbearable. Those knocking at the door were not the Lover but false pretenders; foxes that would come just to spoil the vines. (Songs 2:15) Every time the Beloved would attend to a knocking at the door, it was not the Lover. (Songs 5:5,6) Where is my Lover, the fairest among all lovers? (Songs 5:9)

The Otomans took charge of the Beloved and were forced out. The Beloved would refuse to produce life. They were dispossessed by the British that, equally would only cause misery to themselves and to the Beloved.

Where is my Lover? Finally, he knocked at the door in 1948, and the both got elated; it was her real Lover whom she would now embrace again to grow and multiply from every corner; swamps and deserts receded to produce sustenance for life, not only for the Lover, but also for those who had tried and failed. The Beloved had finally welcomed her real Lover. And the two have become one flesh again.

Ben

 

[Servetus]

Sorry if this is not what you expected to read.

There is no need to apologize: it was hot!

It is about the Land of Israel and the Jew, an essay based on the Songs of Solomon.

When Israel, the Ten Tribes, was transferred to Assyria, the Assyrian king replaced the Israelites with Assyrians.The Beloved reacted against the newcomers by producing wild animals to kill them. (2 Kings 17:24,25) The Beloved had realized that they were not the real Lover.

By the Rivers of Babylon, when the Lover was asked to sing a song from Zion, he refused on the basis that he could not sing so far away from the Beloved. (Psalm 137:1-9) At the end of 70 years, the Lover returned to the Beloved, was acknowledged and the Beloved would no longer deny life as it became fruitiful again.

The Romans came, found the Beloved a hell of a thing to control, destroyed the Temple, and expelled the Lover to the four corners of the earth. Then, throughout 2000 years, several pretenders tried to force themselves upon the Beloved but had eventually to leave on the basis that the Beloved would produce nothing but only swamps and malarial mosquitoes. It was the Beloved's way to reject the wrong pretenders.

Came the Arabs and then the Knights, and only wars between them were mounted to make life for both, unbearable. Those knocking at the door were not the Lover but false pretenders; foxes that would come just to spoil the vines. (Songs 2:15) Every time the Beloved would attend to a knocking at the door, it was not the Lover. (Songs 5:5,6) Where is my Lover, the fairest among all lovers? (Songs 5:9)

The Otomans took charge of the Beloved and were forced out. The Beloved would refuse to produce life. They were dispossessed by the British that, equally would only cause misery to themselves and to the Beloved.

Where is my Lover? Finally, he knocked at the door in 1948, and the both got elated; it was her real Lover whom she would now embrace again to grow and multiply from every corner; swamps and deserts receded to produce sustenance for life, not only for the Lover, but also for those who had tried and failed. The Beloved had finally welcomed her real Lover. And the two have become one flesh again.

That, I must say, is a thought-provoking essay for the Christian forum. Oddly enough, the editors of my King James Version of the Bible, evidently having had some difficulties understanding the exact nature of this erotic poem, describe the Song of Solomon as an allegory of "Christ's love for His Church." Hmmm. Somehow, I get the impression that that is not quite what you have in mind with this post of yours.

With all things, then, being a matter of interpretation, could you please translate the allegory into more concrete political terms? I think I understand the essential gist of your post, but is it safe to say that, if the two lovers are presently and at long last intertwined in ecstatic embrace (and have been since 1948), they are nevertheless, in some sort of exercise in Tantric sex, delaying orgasm altogether until, some bright day in the future, Michael Ben-Ari and Avigdor Lieberman can escort those pesky, pretending Ay-Rabs, Christians and Muslims alike, to a retirement community for spurned and syphlitic harlots out beyond the borders of an ethnically cleansed Eretz Israel (being defined, in this case, as from the Nile to the Euphrates)?


Serv

 

[Ben Masada]

There is no need to apologize: it was hot!

That, I must say, is a thought-provoking essay for the Christian forum. Oddly enough, the editors of my King James Version of the Bible, evidently having had some difficulties understanding the exact nature of this erotic poem, describe the Song of Solomon as an allegory of "Christ's love for His Church." Hmmm. Somehow, I get the impression that that is not quite what you have in mind with this post of yours.

The name for the editors of your KJV's allegorical interpretation of the Song of Solomon to depict "Christ's love for his Church" is Replacement Theology. No basis at all in plagiarizing the items of a religion to enhance those of another.

With all things, then, being a matter of interpretation, could you please translate the allegory into more concrete political terms?

I don't think any other interpretation could be more political than mine, albeit no less truthful though.

I think I understand the essential gist of your post, but is it safe to say that, if the two lovers are presently and at long last intertwined in ecstatic embrace (and have been since 1948), they are nevertheless, in some sort of exercise in Tantric sex, delaying orgasm altogether until, some bright day in the future,

Probably so. This honeymoon just seems not to have an end.

Michael Ben-Ari and Avigdor Lieberman can escort those pesky, pretending Ay-Rabs, Christians and Muslims alike, to a retirement community for spurned and syphlitic harlots out beyond the borders of an ethnically cleansed Eretz Israel (being defined, in this case, as from the Nile to the Euphrates)?

Well, my friend, I would drink to that. Believe it or not, I would.

Ben

 

[bananabrain]

Well, my friend, I would drink to that. Believe it or not, I would.

and i would consider it a hillul haShem. with an attitude like that, i cannot understand why you would waste your time in this forum. clearly you have understood nothing about the message of the Torah or the prophets. i am disgusted.

ben masada? ben sina, more like.

bananabrain

 

[Servetus]

Probably so. This honeymoon just seems not to have an end.

Your concept of God, in this case, seems no higher than that of an invisible, amorous and all-powerful real estate for Zionism. With that said, how do you know that your beloved, the one who has thrown you into a full nelson, is not the ghost of Baron Rothschild?

Well, my friend, I would drink to that. Believe it or not, I would.

I know you would. I read your posts quite clearly. But admit it, Ben, if you did, with continued help from American arms and so called "humanitarian" money, manage to realize your dream and make Eretz Israel finally goyim rein, or Gentile-free, you might, just might, miss me and our endless tennis matches.

The name for the editors of your KJV's allegorical interpretation of the Song of Solomon to depict "Christ's love for his Church" is Replacement Theology.

Long live Replacement Theology! St. Paul rocks!


Serv

 

[Servetus]

Your concept of God, in this case, seems no higher than that of an invisible, amorous and all-powerful real estate for Zionism.

Aaargh! That sentence lacked an important word. It should read:

Your [Ben Masada's] concept of God, in this case, seems no higher than that of an invisible, amorous and all-powerful real estate agent for Zionism.

To me, an invisible, all-powerful real estate agent for Zionism sounds like the ghost of Baron Rothschild.

Serv

 

[Ben Masada]

and i would consider it a hillul haShem. with an attitude like that, i cannot understand why you would waste your time in this forum. clearly you have understood nothing about the message of the Torah or the prophets. i am disgusted.

ben masada? ben sina, more like.

bananabrain

Why, because of have decided to defend ourselves? I bet you would like us to sit duck like during the Holocaust and be killed like sheep. Guess what? We are a new generation of Jews who have decided to fight back.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

Your concept of God, in this case, seems no higher than that of an invisible, amorous and all-powerful real estate for Zionism. With that said, how do you know that your beloved, the one who has thrown you into a full nelson, is not the ghost of Baron Rothschild?

God has nothing to do with the beloved Land of Israel and her lover, the Jewish People.

I know you would. I read your posts quite clearly. But admit it, Ben, if you did, with continued help from American arms and so called "humanitarian" money, manage to realize your dream and make Eretz Israel finally goyim rein, or Gentile-free, you might, just might, miss me and our endless tennis matches.

Well, if America decides to stop God's blessing on herself by ceasing to bless Israel, we will survive because help will come from somewhere else. That's what Mordechai said to Esther in the Court of Ahasuerus: "Even if you now remain silent, relief and deliverance will come to the Jews from another source; but you and your father's house will perish." (Esther 4:14)

Long live Replacement Theology! St. Paul rocks!

See what I mean? That's why we must defend ourselves.

Ben

 

[Servetus]

God has nothing to do with the beloved Land of Israel and her lover, the Jewish People.

To me, that is increasingly evident.

Well, if America decides to stop God's blessing on herself by ceasing to bless Israel, we will survive because help will come from somewhere else. That's what Mordechai said to Esther in the Court of Ahasuerus: "Even if you now remain silent, relief and deliverance will come to the Jews from another source; but you and your father's house will perish." (Esther 4:14)

I don't consider America's complicity in ethnic cleansing as proof of its "blessing." On the contrary, it is proof of its demise.


Serv

 

[bananabrain]

Why, because of have decided to defend ourselves? I bet you would like us to sit duck like during the Holocaust and be killed like sheep. Guess what? We are a new generation of Jews who have decided to fight back.
Ben

oh, yes, why not bring that up, i'm just a craven ghetto jew, aren't i, not like you proud clear-eyed halutzim. i bet you drain swamps during the day and dance the hora all night as well. sheesh. listen, sunshine, just because i don't agree with your frankly fascistic view of the matzav doesn't make me a sheep. it makes you a militarist. this is precisely the attitude displayed by the first Temple community just before they got destroyed by the babylonians. you appear to have learned nothing from history, let alone the nevi'im.

bananabrain

 

[bananabrain]

I don't consider America's complicity in ethnic cleansing as proof of its "blessing."

if israel is supposed to be an "ethnic cleanser", it is singularly crap at it, as the million non-jewish citizens of israel will tell you. see my response to amergin on the other thread.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Servetus]

if israel is supposed to be an "ethnic cleanser", it is singularly crap at it ...

Not only do the territorial maps of Palestine, over time, tell another story but so does the number of Palestinian refugees worldwide. As I see it, Israel isn't so much crap at ethnic cleansing as it is somewhat slow at it. I see that Dani Dayan, a visionary Eretz Israelite with what sounds like a dramatic, expansionist, single-state solution (not too dissimilar to that here propounded by Ben Masada), has caused some commotion with his recent editorial in The New York Times:

Dani Dayan, "The Settlers are Here to Stay"

I haven't yet heard if Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, interrupted his prayers at the Western Wall to address the political implications of Dani Dayan's article, but I somehow doubt that he did.


Serv

 

[Servetus]

Well, if America decides to stop God's blessing on herself by ceasing to bless Israel, we will survive because help will come from somewhere else. That's what Mordechai said to Esther in the Court of Ahasuerus: "Even if you now remain silent, relief and deliverance will come to the Jews from another source; but you and your father's house will perish." (Esther 4:14)

Mordechai? That helps to explain things.


"MORDECAI (; probably = "belonging to Marduk," a Babylonian divinity)."


Serv

 

[Ben Masada]

To me, that is increasingly evident.

I don't consider America's complicity in ethnic cleansing as proof of its "blessing." On the contrary, it is proof of its demise.


Serv

What do you mean by "ethnic cleansing," trying to blame Israel for something? Before you do, open your TV and listen to the news. Israel is rescuing refugees escaping from Syria's civil war. We are rescuing our own enemies in their predicament. This is like blazing coal on the head of anti-Israel critics.

Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

Mordechai? That helps to explain things.


"MORDECAI (; probably = "belonging to Marduk," a Babylonian divinity)."


Serv

Obviously, you have never read the book of Esther.

Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

oh, yes, why not bring that up, i'm just a craven ghetto jew, aren't i, not like you proud clear-eyed halutzim. i bet you drain swamps during the day and dance the hora all night as well. sheesh. listen, sunshine, just because i don't agree with your frankly fascistic view of the matzav doesn't make me a sheep. it makes you a militarist. this is precisely the attitude displayed by the first Temple community just before they got destroyed by the babylonians. you appear to have learned nothing from history, let alone the nevi'im.

bananabrain

We have indeed learned from history, mind you. That's how Joshua earned for us this land; by acting militaristically in the Spirit of the Lord. That's how we have Jerusalem today, because David acted militaristically in the Spirit of the Lord. That's how Judaism was saved at the time of Greek persecutions, because the Maccabees acted militaristically in the Spirit of the Lord. That's how we have saved present Israel and ourselves from being pushed into the sea, because we have acted militaristically in the Spirit of the Lord during five major wars of aggression against nations and armies many time superior than ours. Now, tell me again: Haven't we learned from History?

Ben

 

[bananabrain]

when joshua was running things, we didn't have military superiority and our opponents were the idolatrous "seven nations", who we were not permitted to make peace with. it was a "milhemet mitzvah". that is not the case today, so you cannot make the same arguments.

during the struggle for jerusalem, we also didn't have military superiority and our opponents were the idolatrous philistines, who we were not permitted to make peace with. it was a "milhemet mitzvah" - but, you will note, david was not permitted to be the one to build the Temple because of the blood on his hands, necessary or not. that is not the case today, so you cannot make the same arguments.

during the maccabean revolt, we also didn't have military superiority and, moreover, greeks notwithstanding, it was also a civil war between hellenisers and those fighting to preserve judaism. many jews killed other jews. that is not the case today, so you cannot make the same arguments.

as for the "five major wars of aggression", i agree on '48, '67 and '73, but not suez - which i do not think israel really won, let alone lebanon either in '81 or '06. in any case, none of those wars were ever designated "milhamot mitzvah" and i struggle to see exactly where the "spirit of the L!RD" was in suez or lebanon. we learn nothing from history if we are not honest about it.

bananabrain

 

[bananabrain]

Not only do the territorial maps of Palestine, over time, tell another story but so does the number of Palestinian refugees worldwide.

with all due respect, there is no other case in the world where the children and grandchildren of refugees are still considered refugees, so that is not an argument that holds water in any fair and reasonable discussion, unless you also apply the same logic to the east prussians, the tibetans, the rohyinga, the greeks and turks of 1923, the indians and pakistanis of 1948 and in fact almost every territorial conflict in the last couple of centuries. no other group on the planet thinks they have a right to start negotiations by turning the clock back by generations. more to the point, if you start a war and lose it, then you must accept that there are consequences. how the purple stuttering feck do the rest of the arabs think that keeping the palestinians in refugee camps helps? the answer is that they don't actually *give a feck*. we have been refugees for 2,000 years - we got on with it and made the best of it. the palestinians, unfortunately, simply cannot face the reality that they have lost every war that they've started and that it is time to try something else - indeed, many of them have simply got on with their lives.

I see that Dani Dayan, a visionary Eretz Israelite with what sounds like a dramatic, expansionist, single-state solution (not too dissimilar to that here propounded by Ben Masada), has caused some commotion with his recent editorial in The New York Times:

Dani Dayan, "The Settlers are Here to Stay"

yes, i think i pointed out jay michaelson's reply to that in the forward; i have no sympathy with dani dayan's point of view, but at least he has spelt it out so that people can see what these idiots are all about.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Servetus]

... more to the point, if you start a war and lose it, then you must accept that there are consequences. how the purple stuttering feck do the rest of the arabs think that keeping the palestinians in refugee camps helps?

Do you mean the Arabs? That must be those whom Sir Mark Sykes was secretly buggaring while, above board, he was handing a piece of Palestine to the Jews for a "national homeland" in contradistinction to a Jewish State.

Said Theodor Herzl: "not everything in politics is disclosed to the public, but only results ..."

Isn't that the truth!

Source (pp. 5-6):
John Quigley

"But Herzl viewed the taking of land and expulsion of Arabs as complementary aspects of Zionism. It would be necessary, he thought, to get the Arabs out of Palestine. "We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country ... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly." Some Zionist leaders advocated moving Palestine Arabs to neighboring countries by force if necessary. Moshe Menuhin, a student at the Herzlia Gymnasium in Palestine during the early twentieth century, recalled years later that "it was drummed into our young hearts that the fatherland must become ours, 'goyim rein' (free of Gentiles.)"

yes, i think i pointed out jay michaelson's reply to that in the forward ...

Was that before or after I posted Dani Dayan's article? In any case, thank you. In this thread, I was responding to a defender of ethnic cleansing (Ben Masada) and, for the most part, I still am.

i have no sympathy with dani dayan's point of view, but at least he has spelt it out so that people can see what these idiots are all about.

The issue, to me, as an American who doesn't care any more about Israel than I do Armenia (although I somewhat care about both), is whether any American politician from the State Department on up to the Executive Branch will discuss Dayan's article and its implications. I doubt it. I suspect that, despite the fact that Kach, Kahane Chai are listed by our State Department as a terrorist organization, absolutely nothing will be done to stop its supporters from sending them and these euphemistically called "settlers" contributions via Paypal. Meanwhile, if a Muslim dares to send a zakat (charity) payment via Paypal, he can expect to soon find an FBI probe up his rectum.


Serv

 

[radarmark]

If you actually do look at a map of the partition (Article 181 in 1947) you would find that about half the land was supposed to be "Palestine". Did Israel keep that from happening. No, Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan illegally annexed the land. Yep, Israel took it over only later. Now refugees. There are more Sephardi and Arabs citizens in Israel then there are Jewish or Palestinian citizens in (take your choice... Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt). Yep the maps proove something, just not what you believe, Sevetus.