Bibi is a clever politician and has been trying to do the right thing for both Israeli's and the US at the same time. Let us not forget this is not real right wing coalition. Bibi is running a political show and that alone proves he is neither Torah based or driven.
Bibi is clearly buying time, for he knows if he complies with the US slowly....nobody may notice.
January 31, 2010
January 28, 2010
Another Few Outposts On The Way To Jerusalem
By MK Dr.Michael Ben-Ari
(Knesset speech translaned into English by Daniel Pinner)
Back in Isaiah’s day, Sennacherib, King of Assyria, the undisputed ruler of the mightiest empire in the world, arose, proclaiming himself as the international leader. He, too, waved his hand towards Jerusalem, after having passed by all the other outposts which were not really all that important to him. The prophet describes Sennacherib’s rapid succession of conquests: “he has come to Ayyath, after passing Migron; he deposited his tools in Michmas” (Isaiah 10:28).
After his impressive conquests, and intimidating the entire world with the impression he left, Sennacherib went for the icing on the cake – Jerusalem: “Today, he [Sennacherib] will yet stand in Nob, waving his hand contemptuously at the mountain of the Daughter of Zion, the Hill of Jerusalem” (ibid, verse 32).
The rest is history: the Assyrian king’s army was forced into retreat, his royal dynasty was destroyed by internecine fratricidal murders, and of all his boastfulness, little remained. Sennacherib and his empire were finished.
Just a few years ago, the arch-murderer Arafat arose and gave his Jerusalem/Al Quds speech. He had already received several cities – Jericho, Ramallah, Shechem [Nablus], Jenin, and others; and he then enunciated his true ultimate goal, the icing on his cake: Al Quds, wa-ba’ada, wa-ba’ada, wa-ba’ada; that is to say, Jerusalem, and onwards, and onwards, and onwards.
Obama, fortunately for us, has not prevaricated at all: he openly and honestly follows in the footsteps of previous oppressors. His hatred for Israel flows freely and naturally from his mouth. Let no one make any mistake: the issue of outposts is merely tactical, and not the actual goal itself. And consequently, continuing to build them has become our single most existential national task here. Dismantling the outposts will be the signal that heralds the evil, and the beginning of the crumbling of our entire existence.
Obama, like Arafat before him, sees Jerusalem as the lynchpin of the issue: integral parts of Jewish Jerusalem such as Ramot and Neve Ya’akov are “occupied territory”, and the appropriate way to deal with them is summarised in the term “internationalisation”.
It is all too clear that dismantling any outpost, even the smallest, demoralises all those of us who still cleave to our national ideals and values; and the excuse that abandoning Migron enables us to keep Jerusalem is no longer relevant after the eloquent speech of the President of the United States of America.
The time has come for us to stand straight and proud, and to tell the President of the USA to deal first of all with some of the “smaller” problems that are rampant in his region – such as more than half a million Americans being made redundant every month, which is a social earthquake of far greater dimensions than our squabbles; likewise the North Korean nuclear program, and so on.
A self-respecting leadership would announce: We have returned to our land by the will of G-d, in spite of the USA’s fundamental opposition back in those first critical days of Israeli independence. We will continue to build throughout this land, fulfilling the vision of countless past generations and for the sake of the future generations.
Dr. Michael ben Ari is the only current member of the Israeli Knesset who speaks and acts from the perspective of the authentic Jewish idea.
January 27, 2010
An ode to the cheeseburger
Rabbis detail the law of the Torah, apparently to make it clear. Such an
approach, however, is wrong. By analogy with secular law,that which is
unspecified in the law is left to personal choice. If one is commanded to bring
a sacrifice, it is irrelevant whether he starts walking toward the Temple from
the left or right foot. In rabbinical law, the simple rules of kosher food, and
the prohibition of certain animals, evolved into a hodgepodge of petty, often
absurd regulation, such as when a “milk” steel pot is prohibited for
“meat” usage because the pot ostensibly retains “a taste of milk.” The
rabbinical concept of exhaustive interpretation is open-ended: as we can mount
questions about every rule, the more rules they heap, the more questions keep
springing up. After the rabbis have established prayer texts and prescribed
specific body movements during prayers, one can still ask how to breathe during
prayers; this question is no more mundane than the artificial questions posed
and answered by rabbis.
Jewish law was meant to put an end to superfluous pagan religious laws, with
their myriad deities and complicated rites. The Torah leaves a lot to the
people’s discretion for a reason: that they keep thinking about the law, and
have no trouble practicing it.
Rabbis began constructing a “fence around the law,” bringing up additional
prohibitions to preclude inadvertent violations of major commandments when the
Jews went into the Exile. Now that the Exile has ended, the concept of the fence
has become irrelevant and highly counterproductive, as it drives Jews away from
Judaism, whose rules are actually simple and straightforward.
Jacob bribed Esau with, among other things, milking camels. Jewish tradition
asserts that the forefathers accepted the yoke of the commandments before Moses
received them on the Sinai. That is, Jacob did not imagine that the prohibition
of non-kosher meats precluded him from drinking camel’s milk (camels are a
non-kosher animal). Non-kosher animals—just like the
equally-unsuitable-for-food human beings—enjoy great protection in Judaism. We
refrain from eating them out of respect for their lives rather than because of
their uncleanness (humans are clean, but we’re not cannibals). Just as it is
permissible to hire (but not eat) humans, it is also permissible to work, shear,
milk or otherwise use non-kosher animals—anything short of killing them.
Jewish children can play with pigs by the same logic which allowed Jacob’s
household to drink camel milk.
By proclaiming some milk non-kosher, the rabbis created the problem of kosher
milk. They require supervision to make sure that the cow's milk is not mixed
with horse or camel milk. If ever there were a far-fetched fear, this is truly
the one.
Jewish children drink the milk of their non-kosher mothers for food, and can
likewise consume the milk of other non-kosher animals. An obvious rejoinder is
that children do not have to observe the commandments. But breast-feeding
requires the participation of a Jewish adult; either all Jewish mothers grossly
transgress by offering their non-kosher milk, or kosher laws don’t apply to
milk. And indeed, Rashi says that kashrut is only applicable to meat, not to any
other animal parts or products.
The meat-milk prohibition refers, according to Maimonides, to a pagan rite of
boiling a young goat in its mother’s milk. He noted that the prohibition is in
the section dealing with pagan practices rather than dietary laws. The meat-milk
ban had nothing to do with food in the first place.
Rabbis expanded the meat-milk issue to avoid inadvertent violations. Boiling
other meat in milk was originally prohibited because goat meat could
theoretically be sold as beef. By such reasoning, all meat should be prohibited:
what if someone is selling pork as beef? Inadvertent violations are not sinful,
and the problem of fake beef is not urgent in our days of kosher supermarkets.
Chicken-milk combinations were banned lest someone see you eating chicken with
cheese and think you were consuming a cheeseburger. By the same reasoning, you
should not go out with your wife, lest someone think she’s your neighbor’s
fiancée. Someone could see you eating a beef burger and think it is
pork—that’s no reason to become a vegetarian. “They-might-think”
reasoning is irrelevant at home: obviously, your wife knows she didn’t cook a
goat in its milk. The absurdity is underscored by the fact that cheeseburger
itself is not prohibited: it is beef rather than goat meat or veal, and it is
not boiled in milk, as the Torah is careful to specify.
Rabbis advance yet another argument: self-imposed restrictions show our love to
God, our willingness to go an extra mile. But do they read his mind? Why presume
that he would like us to expand his prohibitions? The government limits driving
speed to 65 miles per hour; would anyone show his patriotism by driving 20 mph?
I doubt your wife would interpret certain self-imposed restrictions as a sign
of love. Why imagine that God wants more restrictions of us? He who created the
animals and had the man name them to establish dominance would probably love us
to eat meat in various forms. It is not even nice, let alone justified, to
reject them. We’re explicitly commanded to enjoy the meat of our sacrifices.
Judaism is not a monastic perversion but a religion of joy in that holiest
place, the World Created.
The path of expanding prohibitions is arbitrary and precarious. There are
prohibitions regarding various forms of incest. Should we expand them to the
remote, even the seventh-degree kin out of love for God? Or take food: Through
kosher laws, God banned all animals for food and only made a permissive
exception for four animals. Here his intent to limit animal slaughter is
manifestly clear. Should we all become vegetarians? Foreseeing our questions,
the Torah enjoins us from subtracting from the laws—but also from adding to
them.
“There are enough prohibitions in the Torah for you to invent new ones,”
says the Talmud. The Torah’s laws are foremost practical. The laws are so easy
that the nomadic Hebrews observed them in Sinai. Some commandments interpret the
others: thus, the prohibition of homosexuality is consequential to “You shall
not commit adultery.” It is sensible, therefore, to interpret commandments in
the Oral Law—but not violate the commandments’ plain sense.
On one hand, the sages pronounced correctly that no word or letter in the Torah
is superfluous. On the other hand, rabbis disregard the wording. The Torah says,
“You shall not boil a kid in his mother’s milk.” “Boil”—not cook in
any other fashion; a cheeseburger is okay. A specific prohibition of boiling
makes perfect sense in the context of the pagan rite.
Another fixed point is “his mother’s.” That might be remotely interpreted
as “someone of his kin,” just as “your fathers” refers to ancestors
generally; but it cannot possibly be read as “any milk.” The Torah does not
prohibit boiling a goat kid in cow’s milk.
There is some latitude in understanding the word gdi, kid. In the Tanakh, gdi
never certainly means any other animal besides goats. In particular, a gdiah is
a she-goat. Commentators assert ex nihilo that gdi can also mean lamb, but
that’s unlikely, given that there are other words for she-lamb (rchl) and lamb
(seh). Even if gdi means lamb, the two points are clear: gdi means only a young
animal and never a calf. In many contexts, gdi is taken from herd; there were no
herds of cows in the ancient Middle East. The most inclusive reading of the
commandment prohibits boiling a young lamb or goat in, respectively, sheep or
goat milk. The commandment is simple and unobtrusive; the balance is made by
rabbis.
Consider the gap between Torah and halacha. Boiling a young goat in goat milk
was extended to cows, then birds (chicken), then any mode of cooking, then any
contact, then any food which includes chicken or milk, then dishes which were
used to serve milk or meat, then storage, then sinks, then eateries—and now we
have separate meat and dairy kosher restaurants.
approach, however, is wrong. By analogy with secular law,that which is
unspecified in the law is left to personal choice. If one is commanded to bring
a sacrifice, it is irrelevant whether he starts walking toward the Temple from
the left or right foot. In rabbinical law, the simple rules of kosher food, and
the prohibition of certain animals, evolved into a hodgepodge of petty, often
absurd regulation, such as when a “milk” steel pot is prohibited for
“meat” usage because the pot ostensibly retains “a taste of milk.” The
rabbinical concept of exhaustive interpretation is open-ended: as we can mount
questions about every rule, the more rules they heap, the more questions keep
springing up. After the rabbis have established prayer texts and prescribed
specific body movements during prayers, one can still ask how to breathe during
prayers; this question is no more mundane than the artificial questions posed
and answered by rabbis.
Jewish law was meant to put an end to superfluous pagan religious laws, with
their myriad deities and complicated rites. The Torah leaves a lot to the
people’s discretion for a reason: that they keep thinking about the law, and
have no trouble practicing it.
Rabbis began constructing a “fence around the law,” bringing up additional
prohibitions to preclude inadvertent violations of major commandments when the
Jews went into the Exile. Now that the Exile has ended, the concept of the fence
has become irrelevant and highly counterproductive, as it drives Jews away from
Judaism, whose rules are actually simple and straightforward.
Jacob bribed Esau with, among other things, milking camels. Jewish tradition
asserts that the forefathers accepted the yoke of the commandments before Moses
received them on the Sinai. That is, Jacob did not imagine that the prohibition
of non-kosher meats precluded him from drinking camel’s milk (camels are a
non-kosher animal). Non-kosher animals—just like the
equally-unsuitable-for-food human beings—enjoy great protection in Judaism. We
refrain from eating them out of respect for their lives rather than because of
their uncleanness (humans are clean, but we’re not cannibals). Just as it is
permissible to hire (but not eat) humans, it is also permissible to work, shear,
milk or otherwise use non-kosher animals—anything short of killing them.
Jewish children can play with pigs by the same logic which allowed Jacob’s
household to drink camel milk.
By proclaiming some milk non-kosher, the rabbis created the problem of kosher
milk. They require supervision to make sure that the cow's milk is not mixed
with horse or camel milk. If ever there were a far-fetched fear, this is truly
the one.
Jewish children drink the milk of their non-kosher mothers for food, and can
likewise consume the milk of other non-kosher animals. An obvious rejoinder is
that children do not have to observe the commandments. But breast-feeding
requires the participation of a Jewish adult; either all Jewish mothers grossly
transgress by offering their non-kosher milk, or kosher laws don’t apply to
milk. And indeed, Rashi says that kashrut is only applicable to meat, not to any
other animal parts or products.
The meat-milk prohibition refers, according to Maimonides, to a pagan rite of
boiling a young goat in its mother’s milk. He noted that the prohibition is in
the section dealing with pagan practices rather than dietary laws. The meat-milk
ban had nothing to do with food in the first place.
Rabbis expanded the meat-milk issue to avoid inadvertent violations. Boiling
other meat in milk was originally prohibited because goat meat could
theoretically be sold as beef. By such reasoning, all meat should be prohibited:
what if someone is selling pork as beef? Inadvertent violations are not sinful,
and the problem of fake beef is not urgent in our days of kosher supermarkets.
Chicken-milk combinations were banned lest someone see you eating chicken with
cheese and think you were consuming a cheeseburger. By the same reasoning, you
should not go out with your wife, lest someone think she’s your neighbor’s
fiancée. Someone could see you eating a beef burger and think it is
pork—that’s no reason to become a vegetarian. “They-might-think”
reasoning is irrelevant at home: obviously, your wife knows she didn’t cook a
goat in its milk. The absurdity is underscored by the fact that cheeseburger
itself is not prohibited: it is beef rather than goat meat or veal, and it is
not boiled in milk, as the Torah is careful to specify.
Rabbis advance yet another argument: self-imposed restrictions show our love to
God, our willingness to go an extra mile. But do they read his mind? Why presume
that he would like us to expand his prohibitions? The government limits driving
speed to 65 miles per hour; would anyone show his patriotism by driving 20 mph?
I doubt your wife would interpret certain self-imposed restrictions as a sign
of love. Why imagine that God wants more restrictions of us? He who created the
animals and had the man name them to establish dominance would probably love us
to eat meat in various forms. It is not even nice, let alone justified, to
reject them. We’re explicitly commanded to enjoy the meat of our sacrifices.
Judaism is not a monastic perversion but a religion of joy in that holiest
place, the World Created.
The path of expanding prohibitions is arbitrary and precarious. There are
prohibitions regarding various forms of incest. Should we expand them to the
remote, even the seventh-degree kin out of love for God? Or take food: Through
kosher laws, God banned all animals for food and only made a permissive
exception for four animals. Here his intent to limit animal slaughter is
manifestly clear. Should we all become vegetarians? Foreseeing our questions,
the Torah enjoins us from subtracting from the laws—but also from adding to
them.
“There are enough prohibitions in the Torah for you to invent new ones,”
says the Talmud. The Torah’s laws are foremost practical. The laws are so easy
that the nomadic Hebrews observed them in Sinai. Some commandments interpret the
others: thus, the prohibition of homosexuality is consequential to “You shall
not commit adultery.” It is sensible, therefore, to interpret commandments in
the Oral Law—but not violate the commandments’ plain sense.
On one hand, the sages pronounced correctly that no word or letter in the Torah
is superfluous. On the other hand, rabbis disregard the wording. The Torah says,
“You shall not boil a kid in his mother’s milk.” “Boil”—not cook in
any other fashion; a cheeseburger is okay. A specific prohibition of boiling
makes perfect sense in the context of the pagan rite.
Another fixed point is “his mother’s.” That might be remotely interpreted
as “someone of his kin,” just as “your fathers” refers to ancestors
generally; but it cannot possibly be read as “any milk.” The Torah does not
prohibit boiling a goat kid in cow’s milk.
There is some latitude in understanding the word gdi, kid. In the Tanakh, gdi
never certainly means any other animal besides goats. In particular, a gdiah is
a she-goat. Commentators assert ex nihilo that gdi can also mean lamb, but
that’s unlikely, given that there are other words for she-lamb (rchl) and lamb
(seh). Even if gdi means lamb, the two points are clear: gdi means only a young
animal and never a calf. In many contexts, gdi is taken from herd; there were no
herds of cows in the ancient Middle East. The most inclusive reading of the
commandment prohibits boiling a young lamb or goat in, respectively, sheep or
goat milk. The commandment is simple and unobtrusive; the balance is made by
rabbis.
Consider the gap between Torah and halacha. Boiling a young goat in goat milk
was extended to cows, then birds (chicken), then any mode of cooking, then any
contact, then any food which includes chicken or milk, then dishes which were
used to serve milk or meat, then storage, then sinks, then eateries—and now we
have separate meat and dairy kosher restaurants.
January 26, 2010
Polish Anti-Semite Bishop: Holocaust Is Jewish Invention
As if he was speaking on cue, retired Polish Bishop Tadeusz Pieronek accused Jews of exploiting the Holocaust, using it to "advance propaganda agendas". The cleric's remarks appeared on a Roman Catholic website.
He stated the Jewish capitalization of the Holocaust is "not permissible" and "While it is undeniable that most of those who died in the concentration camps were Jews, there were also gypsies, Poles, Italians and Catholics on the list."
He did not stop there, but continued accusing the Jews of using the Holocaust to "obtain advantages that are often unjustified", and "the Holocaust as such is a Jewish invention". "The Shoah is used as a propaganda weapon and to obtain advantages that are often unjustified," he charged.
As the Vatican defends Pope Benedict XVI's decision regarding the beatification of anti-Semite Pius X, insisting he did act to help the Jews but it was unknown, Pieronek, the former spokesman of Poland's Bishops Conference made his anti-Semitic position crystal clear, a position that many believe echoes the actions of the Church during WWII.
The retired Polish cleric also addressed current political realities, calling Israel's security partition barrier, which was constructed to halt suicide bombers, "a colossal injustice against the Palestinians". He is calling for a day to honor the Palestinians, timing his statements two days before the 65th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, obviously seeking to draw a comparison to the suffering of the PA residents due to Israeli policy.
After news of his remarks hit the press, the bishop released a statement that his comments appearing on the Italian Roman Catholic website were taken out of context.
(Yechiel Spira - YWN Israel)
He stated the Jewish capitalization of the Holocaust is "not permissible" and "While it is undeniable that most of those who died in the concentration camps were Jews, there were also gypsies, Poles, Italians and Catholics on the list."
He did not stop there, but continued accusing the Jews of using the Holocaust to "obtain advantages that are often unjustified", and "the Holocaust as such is a Jewish invention". "The Shoah is used as a propaganda weapon and to obtain advantages that are often unjustified," he charged.
As the Vatican defends Pope Benedict XVI's decision regarding the beatification of anti-Semite Pius X, insisting he did act to help the Jews but it was unknown, Pieronek, the former spokesman of Poland's Bishops Conference made his anti-Semitic position crystal clear, a position that many believe echoes the actions of the Church during WWII.
The retired Polish cleric also addressed current political realities, calling Israel's security partition barrier, which was constructed to halt suicide bombers, "a colossal injustice against the Palestinians". He is calling for a day to honor the Palestinians, timing his statements two days before the 65th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, obviously seeking to draw a comparison to the suffering of the PA residents due to Israeli policy.
After news of his remarks hit the press, the bishop released a statement that his comments appearing on the Italian Roman Catholic website were taken out of context.
(Yechiel Spira - YWN Israel)
Birthright or Taglit?
Meaning of program that brings young Jews to Israel needs clarification
Every Friday as I wander through Machane Yehuda, Jerusalem's large outdoor market known locally as the "shuk", I am always delighted to see amongst the packed crowds dozens of young English-speaking tourists from various Birthright groups. For someone who remembers the quiet times in the shuk nearly 10 years ago when ongoing terrorists attacks kept most tourists away, I'm very happy to see the shuk hopping again and for the added business that the presence of these groups provide to the local shopkeepers. However, I'm even happier for the Birthright participants themselves who are firsthand getting a real taste of Jerusalem. I have no doubt that the shuk experience makes quite an impression on them.
I've also been fortunate to occasionally have Birthright participants as guests for a Shabbat meal. While their personal stories are usually intriguing, it’s the fact that they are thoroughly enjoying their brief stay in Israel that provides me with the greatest satisfaction. For this reason, I tip my hat off to the Birthright organization since it’s obvious that something good is being done here.
Following a recent Shabbat when we had two guests, one a female Birthright participant from a college in Pennsylvania and the other a young female Israeli soldier working at Army Radio as part of her military service and currently accompanying the Birthright group, a question began creeping into my head. For the first time I started to ask the obvious question, namely what is the meaning of the two words that are interchangeably used for the program, “birthright” and “taglit,” since one is not merely a translation of the other.
Regarding the latter, taglit, it is Hebrew for “discovery.” Moreover, according to Natan Roi, an Israeli writer who was commissioned in 1995 to write the original project after the nascent idea of Yossi Beilin was brought to light, the term taglit, which Roi chose for the project, originally meant that through the discovery of the Land of Israel a Jew could come to discover his real self. With this idea in mind Roi invested eight months carefully crafting an assortment of programs in order to cater to the diversified nature of various target groups in the Diaspora. Thus the term taglit, at least according to the original intended meaning of Roi, is clearly understandable as a way to fight against assimilation.
Regarding the term ”birthright”, however, a term that was given by the North Americans who eventually bought the Taglit program, the meaning is not so clear. In other words, what exactly is the birthright of every young Diaspora Jew? Does this term refer to the Jewish tradition and the right of every Jew to explore it? Or is it the right of every Jew to settle in the Land of Israel? Or is it the right of every Jew to feel Jewish and to have a connection to the Jewish people? Or is it simply the right of every young Jew to visit, at least once in his life, the Land of Israel? This is certainly not a criticism of the Birthright organization since as I mentioned above I've witnessed a lot of good firsthand. It's just my own small call for clarity since I’d like to know what is the intention of the word birthright and how, if at all, is it connected to the stated goals of the organization. If someone has the answer to this question, I'd be happy to know.
One final note. When I think back to the female soldier who joined us for Shabbat and to how much she enjoyed accompanying the Birthright group as they traveled around the country, it seems clear to me that an Israeli version of Taglit, according to the original meaning of the word as envisioned by Roi, is sorely needed in this country. Such a program, adopted by the Ministry of Education and implemented via inspirational and knowledgeable tour guides, would be a fabulous way to attach many young Israelis to their country and eventually to themselves.
Yoel Meltzer
Every Friday as I wander through Machane Yehuda, Jerusalem's large outdoor market known locally as the "shuk", I am always delighted to see amongst the packed crowds dozens of young English-speaking tourists from various Birthright groups. For someone who remembers the quiet times in the shuk nearly 10 years ago when ongoing terrorists attacks kept most tourists away, I'm very happy to see the shuk hopping again and for the added business that the presence of these groups provide to the local shopkeepers. However, I'm even happier for the Birthright participants themselves who are firsthand getting a real taste of Jerusalem. I have no doubt that the shuk experience makes quite an impression on them.
I've also been fortunate to occasionally have Birthright participants as guests for a Shabbat meal. While their personal stories are usually intriguing, it’s the fact that they are thoroughly enjoying their brief stay in Israel that provides me with the greatest satisfaction. For this reason, I tip my hat off to the Birthright organization since it’s obvious that something good is being done here.
Following a recent Shabbat when we had two guests, one a female Birthright participant from a college in Pennsylvania and the other a young female Israeli soldier working at Army Radio as part of her military service and currently accompanying the Birthright group, a question began creeping into my head. For the first time I started to ask the obvious question, namely what is the meaning of the two words that are interchangeably used for the program, “birthright” and “taglit,” since one is not merely a translation of the other.
Regarding the latter, taglit, it is Hebrew for “discovery.” Moreover, according to Natan Roi, an Israeli writer who was commissioned in 1995 to write the original project after the nascent idea of Yossi Beilin was brought to light, the term taglit, which Roi chose for the project, originally meant that through the discovery of the Land of Israel a Jew could come to discover his real self. With this idea in mind Roi invested eight months carefully crafting an assortment of programs in order to cater to the diversified nature of various target groups in the Diaspora. Thus the term taglit, at least according to the original intended meaning of Roi, is clearly understandable as a way to fight against assimilation.
Israeli version of Taglit sorely needed
Regarding the term ”birthright”, however, a term that was given by the North Americans who eventually bought the Taglit program, the meaning is not so clear. In other words, what exactly is the birthright of every young Diaspora Jew? Does this term refer to the Jewish tradition and the right of every Jew to explore it? Or is it the right of every Jew to settle in the Land of Israel? Or is it the right of every Jew to feel Jewish and to have a connection to the Jewish people? Or is it simply the right of every young Jew to visit, at least once in his life, the Land of Israel? This is certainly not a criticism of the Birthright organization since as I mentioned above I've witnessed a lot of good firsthand. It's just my own small call for clarity since I’d like to know what is the intention of the word birthright and how, if at all, is it connected to the stated goals of the organization. If someone has the answer to this question, I'd be happy to know.
January 25, 2010
Has Treason Been Legalized in Israel? A Logico-Political Analysis - Prof. Paul Eidelberg
During Israel’s February 2009 election campaign, Binyamin Netanyahu was studiously silent about the paramount issue of that election: the “two-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Since Netanyahu had been widely perceived as a “right-winger,” many people were surprised, a few months later on June 14, when the golden orator, speaking at Bar-Ilan University, endorsed a Palestinian—really an Arab-Islamic—state in Judea and Samaria.
No public outrage followed despite the absence of any debate on this issue in Israel’s parliament. Thus, even though Netanyahu called for a demilitarized Palestinian state, and now adds that it must have an Israeli presence on its borders, I ask: “From what source did he derive the authority to give away the heartland of the Jewish people? Is Israel a parliamentary democracy, or is it a prime ministerial dictatorship? If it is a democracy based on the rule of law, why wasn’t he formally accused of violating the Treason Law concerning the State of Israel?
Perhaps this law was rendered obsolete by the Oslo or Israel-PLO Agreement of 1993? In other words, perhaps that agreement legalized what hitherto was deemed treason? If so, let’s examine the four categories of acts no longer prohibited by that law:
1. Acts which "impair the sovereignty" of the State of Israel—section 97(a);
2. Acts which "impair the integrity" of the State of Israel— section 97(b);
3. Acts under section 99 which give “assistance to an enemy” in war against Israel, which the Law specifically states includes a terrorist organization;
4. Acts in section 100 which evince an intention or resolve to commit one of the acts prohibited by sections 97 and 99.
If we consider the meaning of these acts as layman, not as lawyers, it would be reasonable to conclude that since the 1993 signing of the Oslo Agreement, every government of Israel—its prime ministers, foreign ministers, defense ministers, and other cabinet ministers, as well as every Knesset Member that voted for withdrawal from any part of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza—is prima facie guilty of treason! Perhaps this is why the Treason Law has not been applied to territorial withdrawal, for that would be tantamount to making treason legal!
Of course, some lawyers might challenge the basis of this conclusion by saying that Judea, Samaria, and Gaza do not belong to the Jews. Canadian attorney Howard Grief disagrees. His monumental work, The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law, offers an abundance of legal evidence that this land belongs exclusively to the Jewish People. Eminent American jurists and professors of international law agree with Grief’s conclusion.
The trouble is that this conclusion has been rejected by Israel’s Supreme Court. In fact, the Court rejected petitions challenging the legality of the Oslo Agreement—including petitions attorney Grief drafted on behalf of prominent Israeli citizens. (See, for example, HC3414/96.)
Leaving the Court’s ruling aside, I want to raise an issue that has not been considered by lawyers and laymen: “Does the Land of Israel belong to the People of Israel or does it belong to the Government of Israel? This is a constitutional issue. But lo and behold, the People of Israel have been deprived of a Constitution! The Government failed to draft a Constitution, even though it was obliged to do so by Israel’s 1948 Declaration of Independence.
In contrast, the French Constitution stipulates that the territory called France belongs to its People, not to its Government. This is quite reasonable. After all, governments are transient, whereas a people constitute an enduring cultural entity. If the Land of Israel belongs to the People of Israel, we may infer that only the people can relinquish part of their land. The most fitting way of doing this is by a national referendum.
Ah, but no national referendum has ever been held in Israel on any issue—not even on Israel’s form of government! Does this mean the Government of Israel is illegitimate? Perhaps, but that would make the Treason Law and every law enacted by the Knesset a mere act of arbitrary power. Allow me to skirt this issue by assuming that tacit public consent to Israel’s form of Government makes it legitimate.
Assuming that the Government is legitimate, it does not follow that it can legitimately enter into agreements with a terrorist organization and give it any part of the Land of Israel. According to Professor Louis René Beres, agreements with terrorist organization constitute violations of international law.
Speaking more generally, agreements between Israel’s Government and any foreign entity are usually submitted to the Knesset for approval, although Knesset approval is not legally required. Notice, too, that the Knesset, unlike any legislature except Finland’s, does not require a quorum or minimum number of Knesset members to enact laws binding on the country. Therefore, the Government, supported by a minute plurality of the Knesset, can give away any Jewish territory Israel recovered in the Six Day War of June 1967. This also applies to the Jewish territory Israel recovered in the 1948-1949 War of Independence. Hence the Government can commit national suicide—and not only theoretically!
This leads to the conclusion that Israel’s Government is not the custodian but the owner of the Land of Israel. As owner, the Government can discard any part of this land regardless of the wishes of the people. Furthermore, as the owner, the Government can expel any number of people from this land.
However, the Treason Law implies that the Government does not own the Land of Israel, hence, that it cannot arbitrarily expel anyone from this land. Since governments come and go, the punishment prescribed by the Treason Law—death or imprisonment for life—indicates that treason involves acts against the People of Israel, affirming that the people own the Land of Israel.
This means that the People own Judea and Samaria. What about Gaza, or the part which the Government gave to Hamas? Giving this land to Hamas was an arbitrary act of the Sharon Government.
In fact, the political parties that opposed withdrawal from Gaza in the 2003 national election won 84 seats or 70 percent of the Knesset’s membership, and the paramount issue of that election was withdrawal from Gaza! Gaza is relevant to the issue of Judea and Samaria. It indicates that for reasons of security, cultural continuity, and simple humanity, a larger percentage of the voters would oppose withdrawal from Judea and Samaria, since this would entail the expulsion from their homes of some 300,000 Jewish men, women, and children. If this projected expulsion is not treason as well as a crime against humanity, we have abandoned logic and common sense as well as human decency.
Surely this is not beyond the comprehension of Prime Minister Netanyahu? Yet the crime of ethnic cleansing would logically follow the creation of an Arab-Islamic state in Judea and Samaria. A Government that would commit such a crime can hardly be deemed legitimate.
Logic and common sense tell me the Netanyahu Government has forfeited its legitimacy. Logic and common sense tell me this Government, like any dictatorship, stands above the law. Logic and common sense tell me this Government has betrayed its trust: to serve the people of Israel, to protect their lives and property including their homeland. Admittedly, this Government came to power by a democratic election. But a democratic election is nothing more than a means of securing the people’s God-given rights—as America’s Founding Fathers put it, their unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, rights which may not be voted away or taken away by any majority—certainly not by the Government.
Mr. Netanyahu has virtually expressed the intention of nullifying these rights by endorsing an Islamic state in Judea and Samaria in contravention of section 100 of the Treason Law. True, he has been authorized by a ruling of a politically motivated Supreme Court to violate the plain meaning of that law. But this only confirms what Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin indicated in an interview published in Ha'aretz on 5 June 2003. Speaker Rivlin said, “instead of the rule of law, we have in Israel a gang of the rule of law." In that interview he alluded to Likud Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Supreme Court President Aharon Barak.
It was in 2003 that Sharon became Labor’s surrogate prime minister by adopting Labor’s policy of disengagement from Gaza. Sharon effectively nullified the 2003 election. He was given authority to expel the Jews from Gaza by Judge Barak’s disingenuous ruling that Gaza is “belligerent occupied territory.” If, as Mr. Rivlin said, “instead of the rule of law, we have in Israel a gang of the rule of law,” no wonder treason has been legalized in this country. ___________________________
*Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, January 25, 2010.
Knesset Passes Law for Pardoning Expulsion Protesters
The Chairman of the Jewish Home party, Minister of Science and Technology Prof. Daniel Hershkowitz, voiced his pleasure Monday with the vote. “The scar that the Disengagement left behind has not healed for many, but the sign of Cain in the form of criminal records must be erased, for those who did not endanger human life and did not engage in serious violence during the protest.”
"The opponents and supporters of the Disengagement need to unite and bridge the rift that the uprooting of communities created in the nation,” he added.
MK Michael Ben-Ari of the National Union was less enthusiastic about the law, which he said was “an illusion.” Ben-Ari said that “the Prosecution, headed by [Deputy Chief Prosecutor Shai Nitzan], succeeded in changing many items [in the law] and people charged with blocking a road will not be pardoned. It is apparent yet again that the Prosecution rules and dictates the tone in the Legislature.”
"The opponents and supporters of the Disengagement need to unite and bridge the rift that the uprooting of communities created in the nation,” he added.
MK Michael Ben-Ari of the National Union was less enthusiastic about the law, which he said was “an illusion.” Ben-Ari said that “the Prosecution, headed by [Deputy Chief Prosecutor Shai Nitzan], succeeded in changing many items [in the law] and people charged with blocking a road will not be pardoned. It is apparent yet again that the Prosecution rules and dictates the tone in the Legislature.”
Menachem Youlus is called the Indiana Jones of Torah recovery and restoration
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Youlus showed the Kushners the antique scroll and recounted his adventure: While traveling in Ukraine, Youlus was approached by an unnamed farmer who offered to sell him a handwritten map. As Kushner remembers the story, the farmer said he had been told by his father that if he ever encountered anyone wearing a skullcap, he should show him the map. The farmer led Youlus to his land, which had a pigsty built on a foundation of Jewish gravestones. Seeing Hebrew writing on the map, Youlus bought it and went off with the farmer to a spot marked on it. The rabbi started digging and uncovered a mass grave containing the bones of more than 200 people, as well as two relatively intact Torahs. He and his driver reburied the human remains and marked each individual grave with verses from the Book of Psalms. Months later, Youlus -- who is also a Torah scribe -- restored the Torahs to kosher condition so they could once again be read in synagogues.
Click the link above for pictures and much more detail!
Youlus showed the Kushners the antique scroll and recounted his adventure: While traveling in Ukraine, Youlus was approached by an unnamed farmer who offered to sell him a handwritten map. As Kushner remembers the story, the farmer said he had been told by his father that if he ever encountered anyone wearing a skullcap, he should show him the map. The farmer led Youlus to his land, which had a pigsty built on a foundation of Jewish gravestones. Seeing Hebrew writing on the map, Youlus bought it and went off with the farmer to a spot marked on it. The rabbi started digging and uncovered a mass grave containing the bones of more than 200 people, as well as two relatively intact Torahs. He and his driver reburied the human remains and marked each individual grave with verses from the Book of Psalms. Months later, Youlus -- who is also a Torah scribe -- restored the Torahs to kosher condition so they could once again be read in synagogues.
Click the link above for pictures and much more detail!
January 24, 2010
Observant Jews and their children's Intermarriage
How can this be? Are Observant Jews children simply social Jews? Do they not believe in HaShem?
If a Jewish child believes in HaShem, whether they are fully observant or not...how can they justify marrying a non-Jew?
I am certainly far from fully observant, but the though simply makes my heart cry...
Do these children really believe that they are accepted?
Do they think that there will never come a conversation from their spouse, or spouses family...where they will be referred to as the dirty Jew?
I hear what people say about Black people when there are no black people around....
Is the Shoah something that happened to someone else and THEIR family?
Are we not all one?
If a Jewish child believes in HaShem, whether they are fully observant or not...how can they justify marrying a non-Jew?
I am certainly far from fully observant, but the though simply makes my heart cry...
Do these children really believe that they are accepted?
Do they think that there will never come a conversation from their spouse, or spouses family...where they will be referred to as the dirty Jew?
I hear what people say about Black people when there are no black people around....
Is the Shoah something that happened to someone else and THEIR family?
Are we not all one?
Rahm Emanuel Warned Not To Make Son's Bar Mitzvah In Israel
Chevron activists Baruch Marzel and Itamar Ben-Givir, who also serve as parliamentary aides to MK (Ichud HaLeumi) Dr. Michael Ben-Ari, have sent a letter to White House Chief of Staff Rom Emanuel suggesting he celebrate his son's bar mitzvah elsewhere, not at the Kotel as reports indicate he plans to do.
In their letter they quote Maseches Avos, in which we learn a child reaching bar mitzvah is responsible for adherence to mitzvos, stating that his example and observance of mitzvos to date is as far from what the Torah demands "as East and West", and even worse, that "he is a Hellenist, working against Israel and Eretz Yisrael".
They point out that "to our sorrow? during the last year, President Barak Obama's tenure in the White House, "You have worked against the State of Israel and the Jewish People". They remind Emanuel of his recent comment to Israel's consul general to Los Angeles, in which he is quoted as saying "I have had it with the Israelis".
"You are not the first Jew in history trying to advance himself at the expense of his people. There were traitors before you such as Josephus Flavius and others, who in all likelihood also celebrated their bar mitzvah but we remember them as traitors, seeking riches and honor, at the expense of their people.
"Unlike the Government of Israel, we will not bow and participate with all those seeking to hurt the Jewish People", promising if Emanuel comes to Yerushalayim to mark his son's bar mitzvah, he will be met and escorted by protests "as is fitting and not with candies and flowers".
(Yechiel Spira - YWN Israel)
In their letter they quote Maseches Avos, in which we learn a child reaching bar mitzvah is responsible for adherence to mitzvos, stating that his example and observance of mitzvos to date is as far from what the Torah demands "as East and West", and even worse, that "he is a Hellenist, working against Israel and Eretz Yisrael".
They point out that "to our sorrow? during the last year, President Barak Obama's tenure in the White House, "You have worked against the State of Israel and the Jewish People". They remind Emanuel of his recent comment to Israel's consul general to Los Angeles, in which he is quoted as saying "I have had it with the Israelis".
"You are not the first Jew in history trying to advance himself at the expense of his people. There were traitors before you such as Josephus Flavius and others, who in all likelihood also celebrated their bar mitzvah but we remember them as traitors, seeking riches and honor, at the expense of their people.
"Unlike the Government of Israel, we will not bow and participate with all those seeking to hurt the Jewish People", promising if Emanuel comes to Yerushalayim to mark his son's bar mitzvah, he will be met and escorted by protests "as is fitting and not with candies and flowers".
(Yechiel Spira - YWN Israel)
January 23, 2010
Some Reflections on Barack Obama - Paul Eidelberg
1. Obama is not a deliberate liar so much as a culturally conditioned liar. This was evident in the lies he uttered in his Cairo speech. He simply uttered the lies typical of Muslims—lies he unconsciously internalized.
2. It’s natural for Muslims to blame the United States for their woes if only because Muslims—according to Islamic doctrine—do not have free will. Their sufferings are therefore the result of external forces—concerning which the United States is the main culprit.
3. Hence Obama apologizes (primarily to Islam) for America’s “misdeeds,” especially for its economic power or imperialism.
4. Obama may be deemed a college-educated Manchurian candidate primed to undermine American capitalism.
5. Obama has obviously been conditioned by his “mentors” to undermine the foundations of America: The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He is really a man without a country.
6. Notice that Obama appeals to no higher authority for his actions, such as natural or divine law or the Bible. This accounts for his arrogance as well as his shallowness.
7. His professed reverence for Islam is merely a verbal contradiction: it stems from his lips, not from his heart. His heart is filled with disdain, or devoid of gratitude, of a grateful recognition of America’s contribution to the good of humanity. That’s why he does not put his right hand over his heart when patriotic music is played.
8. Former UN Ambassador John Bolton rightly referred to Obama as a “post-American” president—a deliberate euphemism for an anti-American president. This anti-American attitude will compel Obama not only to lie about America, but also to undertake anti-American policies under an American façade. Obama needs this façade to increase his power—and power or self-aggrandizement is the name of his game.
2. It’s natural for Muslims to blame the United States for their woes if only because Muslims—according to Islamic doctrine—do not have free will. Their sufferings are therefore the result of external forces—concerning which the United States is the main culprit.
3. Hence Obama apologizes (primarily to Islam) for America’s “misdeeds,” especially for its economic power or imperialism.
4. Obama may be deemed a college-educated Manchurian candidate primed to undermine American capitalism.
5. Obama has obviously been conditioned by his “mentors” to undermine the foundations of America: The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He is really a man without a country.
6. Notice that Obama appeals to no higher authority for his actions, such as natural or divine law or the Bible. This accounts for his arrogance as well as his shallowness.
7. His professed reverence for Islam is merely a verbal contradiction: it stems from his lips, not from his heart. His heart is filled with disdain, or devoid of gratitude, of a grateful recognition of America’s contribution to the good of humanity. That’s why he does not put his right hand over his heart when patriotic music is played.
8. Former UN Ambassador John Bolton rightly referred to Obama as a “post-American” president—a deliberate euphemism for an anti-American president. This anti-American attitude will compel Obama not only to lie about America, but also to undertake anti-American policies under an American façade. Obama needs this façade to increase his power—and power or self-aggrandizement is the name of his game.
January 22, 2010
Loud warning to Obama -
Republican win in Massachusetts represents win of mainstream US worldview
Yoram Ettinger
Scott Brown's victory constitutes an unprecedented earthquake in US politics. If a Massachusetts Senate seat is not safe, then no House, Senate or White House seat is safe anymore!
Scott Brown's victory dealt a severe blow to the Democratic Party in its own Flag Ship, Massachusetts, the state of the Kennedy family and Tip O'Neil, the state which introduced the healthcare reform, the only state which voted for McGovern in 1972, the state which had not elected a Republican Senator since Ed Brooke in 1972, the state which accorded President Obama a 26% margin in 2008, a state where only 12% of the registered voters are Republicans.
Brown's election highlights a victory of the unique US democracy, which revolves around constituents and not around the president, Congress or political parties. Massachusetts voters supported Brown in defiance of the Republican machine, which did not consider him a worthy candidate at the beginning of the race, and in defiance of the Democratic machine, which attempted to discredit him.
Brown's victory is an indicator of Obama's desertion by Independents, who represent 51% of the Massachusetts electorate and 33% of US voters. From a 31% deficit 45 days ago, Brown surged ahead by 4% due to the Independent bloc, which voted Obama in 2008, was frustrated by Obama's performance in 2009 and considers Scott Brown an effective venue to send a loud warning to the White House.
Brown's victory will cause aftershocks throughout the USA in general and in the White House, 100 Senate offices and 435 House offices in particular. The victory has adrenalized Republicans, ahead of the spring 2010 primaries and the November 2010 congressional and gubernatorial election. It entices better candidates to enter the Republican primaries and generates more campaign contributions to Republican war chests.
On the other hand, it is already causing sleepless nights for Democratic incumbents and increases the potential for retirement and possible switchovers among moderate and conservative Democrats. The closer they get to November, the closer they get to their constituents, and therefore the farther away they may want to get from the president.
Brown has also criticized the White House soft position on Islamic terrorism and harsh attitude toward the CIA: "The President should bolster the armed forces and not bolster legal defense of terrorists."
Brown's victory was achieved in spite of – and due to – the intense involvement of White House Chief-of-Staff, Rahm Emanuel in Obama's policy-making and in the Massachusetts election. Once again, it was evident that – in the US political arena - arrogance, rudeness, scorn and aggression drive voters away from elected officials. It constitutes a lethal boomerang.
Brown's election represents the victory of America's mainstream worldview over the worldview of President Obama. Brown represents non-apologetic patriotism, belief in liberty for the people and checks and balances for the government, Judeo-Christian values, pride in the moral, military, technological and economic US exceptionalism, reservations about the UN and the European state-of-mind, determination to defeat – and not to engage – rogue regimes, supporting mutually-beneficial cooperation with allies, which are bonded by shared values, mutual threats and joint interests.
Yoram Ettinger
Scott Brown's victory constitutes an unprecedented earthquake in US politics. If a Massachusetts Senate seat is not safe, then no House, Senate or White House seat is safe anymore!
Scott Brown's victory dealt a severe blow to the Democratic Party in its own Flag Ship, Massachusetts, the state of the Kennedy family and Tip O'Neil, the state which introduced the healthcare reform, the only state which voted for McGovern in 1972, the state which had not elected a Republican Senator since Ed Brooke in 1972, the state which accorded President Obama a 26% margin in 2008, a state where only 12% of the registered voters are Republicans.
Brown's election highlights a victory of the unique US democracy, which revolves around constituents and not around the president, Congress or political parties. Massachusetts voters supported Brown in defiance of the Republican machine, which did not consider him a worthy candidate at the beginning of the race, and in defiance of the Democratic machine, which attempted to discredit him.
Brown's victory is an indicator of Obama's desertion by Independents, who represent 51% of the Massachusetts electorate and 33% of US voters. From a 31% deficit 45 days ago, Brown surged ahead by 4% due to the Independent bloc, which voted Obama in 2008, was frustrated by Obama's performance in 2009 and considers Scott Brown an effective venue to send a loud warning to the White House.
Brown's victory will cause aftershocks throughout the USA in general and in the White House, 100 Senate offices and 435 House offices in particular. The victory has adrenalized Republicans, ahead of the spring 2010 primaries and the November 2010 congressional and gubernatorial election. It entices better candidates to enter the Republican primaries and generates more campaign contributions to Republican war chests.
On the other hand, it is already causing sleepless nights for Democratic incumbents and increases the potential for retirement and possible switchovers among moderate and conservative Democrats. The closer they get to November, the closer they get to their constituents, and therefore the farther away they may want to get from the president.
Non-apologetic patriotism
Brown's victory – on the day of Obama's first Presidential anniversary – confirms that the November 2009 election was indeed a validation of Obama's collapse in public opinion, of the growing public disappointment in Obama's character and capabilities and of Obama's increasing vulnerability at home and abroad. Brown targeted for criticism Obama's domestic and international policies. The Senator-elect represents the majority of the US public, which suspects – rightly or wrongly - that Obama is about to defy an American ethos by increasing taxes, exacerbating the budget deficit and expanding government involvement in the economy.Brown has also criticized the White House soft position on Islamic terrorism and harsh attitude toward the CIA: "The President should bolster the armed forces and not bolster legal defense of terrorists."
Brown's election represents the victory of America's mainstream worldview over the worldview of President Obama. Brown represents non-apologetic patriotism, belief in liberty for the people and checks and balances for the government, Judeo-Christian values, pride in the moral, military, technological and economic US exceptionalism, reservations about the UN and the European state-of-mind, determination to defeat – and not to engage – rogue regimes, supporting mutually-beneficial cooperation with allies, which are bonded by shared values, mutual threats and joint interests.
Why Israel gives humanitarian aid whether or not it is appreciated or acknowledged.
It happened again in Haiti.
An earthquake struck leaving horrible devastation and death in its wake. Current estimates project more than 70,000 victims. In its aftermath, one result is an unfortunate possibility, the other a verifiable certainty.
The first is a wry observation by Amos Oz following the recent earthquake in Iran: “It is crystal clear to me,” he wrote, “that if Arabs put down a draft resolution blaming Israel for the recent earthquake in Iran it would probably have a majority, the U.S. would veto it and Britain and France would abstain.”
Having served as the scapegoats of history, Jews are no longer amazed when they are blamed for almost any misfortune, including even natural disasters. But what often escapes recognition is the other event that invariably follows a tragedy on the scale of a tsunami or an earthquake, be it anywhere on earth: the certainty that the state of Israel will reach out to give aid and assistance, to stretch out its hands in humanitarian spirit whether this help is appreciated or even acknowledged.
Sure enough the Israeli newspapers reported the story: “Israel sends aid as Haiti braces for massive death toll in quake. The Israeli Foreign Ministry on Wednesday prepared a rescue team for departure to the disaster-stricken country. The rescue team includes elite army corps engineers and medical corps ready to deploy field hospital, the Israeli consulate in New York reported.”
It is a response that deserves some explanation. To play devil's advocate for a moment, why wouldn't it be reasonable for Israel not to become involved with the justification that its own myriad problems deserve priority? Why must Israel take on the problems of others when there are so many needs at home that require attention and funds? What is the proper moral and ethical imperative for the Jewish people in terms of its relationships with “the others,” the very same nations who so often have turned their backs on Jews and their concerns throughout the centuries?
The answer for us must come from the Torah. And it is in the Torah, as our commentators point out, that God makes clear the standards by which He judges our attempts to seek spiritual perfection.
Three Degrees of Care
The man who achieved greatness more than any other was Moses. It was he who was given a call at the burning bush to lead the Jews out of Egypt and to bring them to Sinai to receive God's message to mankind. What was it that God saw in him to make him worthy of this mission? There are only three short stories recorded in the Bible about Moses before we learn of his selection. They all share one powerful theme. In each of them, Moses did not sit by passively in the presence of evil. He did not justify inaction with the claim that it was none of his business. He intervened and did whatever he could because he intuitively understood that all men are responsible one for another.
The three stories are well known. In the first, Moses saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew to death and he killed him before the Egyptian could murder his innocent victim. In the second story, Moses saw two Hebrews fighting with each other and he broke up the quarrel. In the third story, after he had fled to Midian, he was upset to see shepherds taking advantage of some Midianite maidens who had sought water for their flock and he again intervened to save the young girls from these bullies.
These are the only three things the Torah sees fit to record about the life of the man divinely chosen for greatness. In Jewish law a threefold repetition assures constancy of character. Three times Moses demonstrated the one trait more than any other that God used as the defining characteristic of greatness and leadership -- the willingness to intercede when witness to the difficulties faced by others.
So much for a simple understanding of the story. On a far deeper level however it did not escape the attention of the rabbis that these three stories represented a sequence with a powerful theological message. In an ascending order of difficulty, the stories conveyed three levels of our understanding of the principle that we are all responsible one for another.
The first story called for a response when Moses witnessed an Egyptian beating a Hebrew. The victim was a fellow brother; the assailant a self-proclaimed enemy. It is the easiest kind of incident to elicit an active response. In modern terms it would be the equivalent of a Jew witnessing an anti-Semite, a Nazi or a member of Hamas about to slaughter a fellow Jew. Intervention is almost assured. Who could sit by and watch an innocent murdered by an avowed enemy of one's own people?
In the second story, the identity of the combatants changed. It was now Jew versus Jew. Anti-Semitism no longer played a role. The test for Moses was to see whether he would be equally incensed and moved to action if there was no outsider involved. And Moses was up to the task. He passed this test as well.
The most difficult one yet awaited him. He was now in a foreign land. Neither the offending bullies nor the harassed maidens had any relationship to him. He knew not the victims or the assailants. Simply put, what was happening before him had no personal connection to his life -- other than the fact that fellow human beings were in danger and he was in a position to help. The third and final test was the one that we are faced with every time a situation arises when it is not our family, our people or our nation is threatened but only other human beings with whom we share but one thing -- our common creation in the image of God.
It was because Moses passed this final test of his character that he became our greatest hero. It is with this characteristic that he must also serve as our ultimate role model.
I take great pride in our people whenever we respond to the challenges of anti-Semitism around the globe. I think it is admirable as well when Jews with different religious, political and communal views learn to live together in harmony and do not ignore attacks on each others' rights and privileges. But what thrills me more than anything else is when I learn that inevitably one of the very first nations to respond to the human needs of a disaster, such as an earthquake in Haiti, is the State of Israel. That is what reassures me that we have never lost that trait which made Moses so beloved to God -- and which enables us to continue to fulfill our mission of tikkun olam, repairing the world.
An earthquake struck leaving horrible devastation and death in its wake. Current estimates project more than 70,000 victims. In its aftermath, one result is an unfortunate possibility, the other a verifiable certainty.
The first is a wry observation by Amos Oz following the recent earthquake in Iran: “It is crystal clear to me,” he wrote, “that if Arabs put down a draft resolution blaming Israel for the recent earthquake in Iran it would probably have a majority, the U.S. would veto it and Britain and France would abstain.”
Having served as the scapegoats of history, Jews are no longer amazed when they are blamed for almost any misfortune, including even natural disasters. But what often escapes recognition is the other event that invariably follows a tragedy on the scale of a tsunami or an earthquake, be it anywhere on earth: the certainty that the state of Israel will reach out to give aid and assistance, to stretch out its hands in humanitarian spirit whether this help is appreciated or even acknowledged.
Sure enough the Israeli newspapers reported the story: “Israel sends aid as Haiti braces for massive death toll in quake. The Israeli Foreign Ministry on Wednesday prepared a rescue team for departure to the disaster-stricken country. The rescue team includes elite army corps engineers and medical corps ready to deploy field hospital, the Israeli consulate in New York reported.”
It is a response that deserves some explanation. To play devil's advocate for a moment, why wouldn't it be reasonable for Israel not to become involved with the justification that its own myriad problems deserve priority? Why must Israel take on the problems of others when there are so many needs at home that require attention and funds? What is the proper moral and ethical imperative for the Jewish people in terms of its relationships with “the others,” the very same nations who so often have turned their backs on Jews and their concerns throughout the centuries?
The answer for us must come from the Torah. And it is in the Torah, as our commentators point out, that God makes clear the standards by which He judges our attempts to seek spiritual perfection.
Three Degrees of Care
The man who achieved greatness more than any other was Moses. It was he who was given a call at the burning bush to lead the Jews out of Egypt and to bring them to Sinai to receive God's message to mankind. What was it that God saw in him to make him worthy of this mission? There are only three short stories recorded in the Bible about Moses before we learn of his selection. They all share one powerful theme. In each of them, Moses did not sit by passively in the presence of evil. He did not justify inaction with the claim that it was none of his business. He intervened and did whatever he could because he intuitively understood that all men are responsible one for another.
The three stories are well known. In the first, Moses saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew to death and he killed him before the Egyptian could murder his innocent victim. In the second story, Moses saw two Hebrews fighting with each other and he broke up the quarrel. In the third story, after he had fled to Midian, he was upset to see shepherds taking advantage of some Midianite maidens who had sought water for their flock and he again intervened to save the young girls from these bullies.
These are the only three things the Torah sees fit to record about the life of the man divinely chosen for greatness. In Jewish law a threefold repetition assures constancy of character. Three times Moses demonstrated the one trait more than any other that God used as the defining characteristic of greatness and leadership -- the willingness to intercede when witness to the difficulties faced by others.
So much for a simple understanding of the story. On a far deeper level however it did not escape the attention of the rabbis that these three stories represented a sequence with a powerful theological message. In an ascending order of difficulty, the stories conveyed three levels of our understanding of the principle that we are all responsible one for another.
The first story called for a response when Moses witnessed an Egyptian beating a Hebrew. The victim was a fellow brother; the assailant a self-proclaimed enemy. It is the easiest kind of incident to elicit an active response. In modern terms it would be the equivalent of a Jew witnessing an anti-Semite, a Nazi or a member of Hamas about to slaughter a fellow Jew. Intervention is almost assured. Who could sit by and watch an innocent murdered by an avowed enemy of one's own people?
In the second story, the identity of the combatants changed. It was now Jew versus Jew. Anti-Semitism no longer played a role. The test for Moses was to see whether he would be equally incensed and moved to action if there was no outsider involved. And Moses was up to the task. He passed this test as well.
The most difficult one yet awaited him. He was now in a foreign land. Neither the offending bullies nor the harassed maidens had any relationship to him. He knew not the victims or the assailants. Simply put, what was happening before him had no personal connection to his life -- other than the fact that fellow human beings were in danger and he was in a position to help. The third and final test was the one that we are faced with every time a situation arises when it is not our family, our people or our nation is threatened but only other human beings with whom we share but one thing -- our common creation in the image of God.
It was because Moses passed this final test of his character that he became our greatest hero. It is with this characteristic that he must also serve as our ultimate role model.
I take great pride in our people whenever we respond to the challenges of anti-Semitism around the globe. I think it is admirable as well when Jews with different religious, political and communal views learn to live together in harmony and do not ignore attacks on each others' rights and privileges. But what thrills me more than anything else is when I learn that inevitably one of the very first nations to respond to the human needs of a disaster, such as an earthquake in Haiti, is the State of Israel. That is what reassures me that we have never lost that trait which made Moses so beloved to God -- and which enables us to continue to fulfill our mission of tikkun olam, repairing the world.
Mitchell Pitches a New 5-Point Plan
George Mitchell is back and still trying to destroy Israel.
New plan to have Israel pull back to Green Lines...Ho Hum what a dolt...
No idiot will agree to any of this stuff....
Even Obama admitted this week he Misunderestimated the ME.
Perhaps he should have just called GW on this one (HaHaHa).
There is no rhetoric available to these anti-semites that will convince anybody of this crap....except perhaps Melvin Gibson.
May George be judged fairly by HaShem....
Avi
New plan to have Israel pull back to Green Lines...Ho Hum what a dolt...
No idiot will agree to any of this stuff....
Even Obama admitted this week he Misunderestimated the ME.
Perhaps he should have just called GW on this one (HaHaHa).
There is no rhetoric available to these anti-semites that will convince anybody of this crap....except perhaps Melvin Gibson.
May George be judged fairly by HaShem....
Avi
January 21, 2010
The Old New Jew: By Moshe Feiglin
The goy drew a circle on the ground, stood the Jew inside and triumphantly declared, "If you leave the circle, you're a dead man!"
He then proceeded to rob the Jew's wife and went on his way. When the danger had passed, the wife angrily said to her husband, "Why didn't you help me? Don't you have any self-respect?"
"Didn't you see?" the husband retorted. "While the goy was robbing you, I put my foot out of the circle."
There is no need to explain what this joke reminded me of. Somebody in Israel's Foreign Ministry dared step out of the circle. But in today's reality, the joke continues. The goy, after he has robbed the Jew's wife, notices that her husband stepped out of the circle and demands an apology. Then the Jew boasts to his wife that he didn't apologize exactly the way the goy demanded.
I have a sinking feeling that this joke will be continued. Astute observers of the joke called Israel's foreign relations can easily guess how the diplomatic crisis between Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister and the Turkish ambassador will progress. (This article was written last Wednesday afternoon. By Wednesday evening, the Jew had apologized once again, in the language dictated by the goy.)
Israel's relations with Turkey, which are actually part and parcel of Israel's relations with England, Sweden, Egypt and actually - all the nations of the world - epitomize the sad story of Zionism.
We wanted to be a normal nation so badly. "On the day that the Jewish State is established, anti-Semitism will disappear," Herzl promised. Well, at least the first part of his dream was fulfilled.
The second half, though, smolders deep within our being, giving us no rest. The desire to be normal, to be part of the "family of nations," to be rid of the Diaspora hunch on our backs, to purge ourselves of our Jewish destiny - is actually the inner, founding ethos of the State of Israel. It is also the open secret of its infirmity and its Achilles heel. It is the vicious cycle from which we cannot extricate ourselves.
In the whole world, there is not a leader more dismal than Abu Mazen. He is a scarecrow set up in Ramallah by Israel, surviving there only with the help of the IDF. But this scarecrow stands Netanyahu in a circle and makes conditions for his very willingness to speak with him. And Netanyahu allows the "bully" to rob him of his right to build our Land, promises him total retreat before "negotiations" even begin and then boasts to the people he was supposed to defend - a.k.a. the Israeli public - that he does not agree to pre-conditions. We would be better off if the Jew from the joke was prime minister. At least he had to deal with a genuine bully.
From where does Abu Mazen get his chutzpah? From where do the Bedouins and Israel's Arabs get theirs? How is it that the spy, former Knesset Member Azmi Bashara was allowed to escape to Jordan and continues to receive a hefty Knesset pension? How has Israel been transformed from a local superpower to a doormat for the whole world?
We are experiencing a closing of the circle. First, there was the Jew from the joke. After that, came the proud Zionists and created the new Jew, who knew how to fight back hard. "You can call me a Jew if you would like," explains Yudka the Pioneer in Haim Hazzaz's story. "But I am no longer a Jew - I am a Zionist."
Our new Jew establishes a state that is not Jewish. It is Zionist. Together with the curse of the exile and the spinelessness that were rightfully shed, the new state also sheds its Jewish destiny and disengages from the long chain of Jewish heritage - from our Forefathers, from the ethos of the Exodus from Egypt, from King David, from the Holy Temple, from the Diaspora, from the Biblical and Talmudic epic - from everything.
But the values that Zionism pretended to establish in place of Judaism have evaporated. All that is left is reality TV, grotesque celebrity figures and a president who hates history. The only real remnant of Zionism is the aspiration that never fades; to be like everyone else, to be accepted, to stop being different.
And that means that we absolutely cannot have Turkey recalling its ambassador, because that would return us to the starting point that we tried to escape. And we absolutely cannot arrest Bashara, because in the high profile trial that would ensue, it would become clear that there is no such thing as an "Israeli Arab." It would be obvious that Israel must be a strictly Jewish state and that Yudka the Pioneer has failed.
We have come full circle. At soon as the non-Jews in Israel and the rest of the world understood that we needed them to fulfill our fantasy of the "new Jew", we became doormats. The strongest doormats in the world, replete with nuclear weapons and advanced technology - doormats that look and act more non-Jewish than the non-Jews. We have glittering Americans like Bibi, tough, proud Russians like Yvette and a Deputy Foreign Minister who has disconnected himself from his nation and married a Christian Evangelist.
The Zionist dialectic has turned us into first rate non-Jews. We have come full circle. The entire world looks at us and sees the Jew from the joke. It turns out that the new Jew is really the new, old Jew. With just one difference. He has sold not only his honor, but also his ancient culture - down the river.
He then proceeded to rob the Jew's wife and went on his way. When the danger had passed, the wife angrily said to her husband, "Why didn't you help me? Don't you have any self-respect?"
"Didn't you see?" the husband retorted. "While the goy was robbing you, I put my foot out of the circle."
There is no need to explain what this joke reminded me of. Somebody in Israel's Foreign Ministry dared step out of the circle. But in today's reality, the joke continues. The goy, after he has robbed the Jew's wife, notices that her husband stepped out of the circle and demands an apology. Then the Jew boasts to his wife that he didn't apologize exactly the way the goy demanded.
I have a sinking feeling that this joke will be continued. Astute observers of the joke called Israel's foreign relations can easily guess how the diplomatic crisis between Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister and the Turkish ambassador will progress. (This article was written last Wednesday afternoon. By Wednesday evening, the Jew had apologized once again, in the language dictated by the goy.)
Israel's relations with Turkey, which are actually part and parcel of Israel's relations with England, Sweden, Egypt and actually - all the nations of the world - epitomize the sad story of Zionism.
We wanted to be a normal nation so badly. "On the day that the Jewish State is established, anti-Semitism will disappear," Herzl promised. Well, at least the first part of his dream was fulfilled.
The second half, though, smolders deep within our being, giving us no rest. The desire to be normal, to be part of the "family of nations," to be rid of the Diaspora hunch on our backs, to purge ourselves of our Jewish destiny - is actually the inner, founding ethos of the State of Israel. It is also the open secret of its infirmity and its Achilles heel. It is the vicious cycle from which we cannot extricate ourselves.
In the whole world, there is not a leader more dismal than Abu Mazen. He is a scarecrow set up in Ramallah by Israel, surviving there only with the help of the IDF. But this scarecrow stands Netanyahu in a circle and makes conditions for his very willingness to speak with him. And Netanyahu allows the "bully" to rob him of his right to build our Land, promises him total retreat before "negotiations" even begin and then boasts to the people he was supposed to defend - a.k.a. the Israeli public - that he does not agree to pre-conditions. We would be better off if the Jew from the joke was prime minister. At least he had to deal with a genuine bully.
From where does Abu Mazen get his chutzpah? From where do the Bedouins and Israel's Arabs get theirs? How is it that the spy, former Knesset Member Azmi Bashara was allowed to escape to Jordan and continues to receive a hefty Knesset pension? How has Israel been transformed from a local superpower to a doormat for the whole world?
We are experiencing a closing of the circle. First, there was the Jew from the joke. After that, came the proud Zionists and created the new Jew, who knew how to fight back hard. "You can call me a Jew if you would like," explains Yudka the Pioneer in Haim Hazzaz's story. "But I am no longer a Jew - I am a Zionist."
Our new Jew establishes a state that is not Jewish. It is Zionist. Together with the curse of the exile and the spinelessness that were rightfully shed, the new state also sheds its Jewish destiny and disengages from the long chain of Jewish heritage - from our Forefathers, from the ethos of the Exodus from Egypt, from King David, from the Holy Temple, from the Diaspora, from the Biblical and Talmudic epic - from everything.
But the values that Zionism pretended to establish in place of Judaism have evaporated. All that is left is reality TV, grotesque celebrity figures and a president who hates history. The only real remnant of Zionism is the aspiration that never fades; to be like everyone else, to be accepted, to stop being different.
And that means that we absolutely cannot have Turkey recalling its ambassador, because that would return us to the starting point that we tried to escape. And we absolutely cannot arrest Bashara, because in the high profile trial that would ensue, it would become clear that there is no such thing as an "Israeli Arab." It would be obvious that Israel must be a strictly Jewish state and that Yudka the Pioneer has failed.
We have come full circle. At soon as the non-Jews in Israel and the rest of the world understood that we needed them to fulfill our fantasy of the "new Jew", we became doormats. The strongest doormats in the world, replete with nuclear weapons and advanced technology - doormats that look and act more non-Jewish than the non-Jews. We have glittering Americans like Bibi, tough, proud Russians like Yvette and a Deputy Foreign Minister who has disconnected himself from his nation and married a Christian Evangelist.
The Zionist dialectic has turned us into first rate non-Jews. We have come full circle. The entire world looks at us and sees the Jew from the joke. It turns out that the new Jew is really the new, old Jew. With just one difference. He has sold not only his honor, but also his ancient culture - down the river.
Change? Go Ask Pharaoh - Feiglin
Pharaoh's stubbornness doesn't make sense. "Do you not see that Egypt is doomed?" his servants desperately cry toward the end of this week's Torah portion. Why does the Egyptian tyrant continue with his intransigence when reality explodes in his face time after time? Why doesn't he change his ways when it is so obvious that his obstinacy is destroying Egypt?
Pharaoh's intransigence is not for personal reasons. All the foundations of Egyptian civilization, a civilization that endured longer than any other civilization in the ancient world - were now being put to the test.
The king of Egypt was worshipped as a god. But Moses was forcing him to obey the real G-d, the G-d of Israel.
A regime that is founded on a particular conception will not easily give it up.
Buses and restaurants may explode, missiles may screech into homes, guards may be needed at the entrance to every store, train stations may look like military checkpoints, there may be fences and walls surrounding towns and roads, concrete reinforcements on every roof, international arrest warrants for senior government ministers, furious delegitimization campaigns throughout the world and intense anti-Semitism. But all of these plagues cannot change the ways of a regime that has predicated its very existence on the conceptions that have given rise to the plagues, in the first place.
10 plagues, 50 plagues, 250 plagues - it depends how you count. But no plague can convince the regime to act in a way that contradicts the foundations of its existence. The surrender of the Oslo conception would cause the collapse of the entire house of cards upon which the Israeli regime is founded.
There is only one plague that finally convinces Pharaoh to give up the conception of slavery. Not the plagues that cripple the people, but rather, the plague that cripples the regime. Before the exodus from Egypt, not one slave had ever escaped from Egypt. It was the oldest and largest concentration camp in history. And who were the masters? Those who were born to be masters; the first born. The plague of the first born threatened the entire conception. That is why Pharaoh gave in and agreed to free the Israelites. The fact that the Egyptian children were dieing did not faze him. But the plague posed an insurmountable problem for the Egyptian regime.
Nothing has made the Israeli regime open its eyes. "Do you not see that Israel is doomed? That missiles will explode in Ashkelon? That the rifles that you give to the terrorists will be aimed at us? That the entire world scorns us? That we will lose the legitimacy for our existence as an independent state?" None of that has made an impression on the Israeli regime and none of that will. Only a threat to the stability of the regime itself will convince it to open its eyes.
Shabbat Shalom,
Moshe Feiglin
The Chasdei Meir Charity Fund
The Chasdei Meir Fund is named after Rabbi Meir Kahane.
"We have a method of bypassing the freeze orders. There is no freeze on trees and no one can prohibit plantings on Tu B'Shvat. This is how we can take hold of vast areas in Judea and Samaria,"
The Chasdei Meir Charity Fund
founded some 12 years ago under the supervision of Rabbi Yehuda Kroizer SHLIT"A and with the endorsement of leading Rabbis in Israel, has been helping needy families in and around Jerusalem and Yesha.
http://www.chasdeimeir.org/chasdei.htm
"We have a method of bypassing the freeze orders. There is no freeze on trees and no one can prohibit plantings on Tu B'Shvat. This is how we can take hold of vast areas in Judea and Samaria,"
The Chasdei Meir Charity Fund
founded some 12 years ago under the supervision of Rabbi Yehuda Kroizer SHLIT"A and with the endorsement of leading Rabbis in Israel, has been helping needy families in and around Jerusalem and Yesha.
http://www.chasdeimeir.org/chasdei.htm
Rightists to plant trees in West Bank
'Obama's satellite can't pick up trees, in future homes will be built next to them'
Bentzi Gopstein, of the Chasdei Meir Charity Fund, said Thursday, "This is a method of bypassing the freeze orders. It's a clever Zionist answer to the freeze."
Rightists say the temporary freeze in construction in settlements issued by the government does not cover trees, and are spending around NIS 100,000 ($27,000) on those to be planted throughout the West Bank.
The Chasdei Meir Fund behind the plan is named after Rabbi Meir Kahane. "We have a method of bypassing the freeze orders. There is no freeze on trees and no one can prohibit plantings on Tu B'Shvat. This is how we can take hold of vast areas in Judea and Samaria," Gopstein said.
"Obama's satellite can't pick up the trees and in the future homes will be built near them," he added.
Gopstein said the activists involved in the venture had begun to advertise it two weeks ago. "Residents from Tel Aviv, Raanana, Jerusalem, and other places throughout Israel donated money for the transcendence of the soul of someone close to them, and with this money the saplings were bought," he explained.
Efrat Weiss
| Published: | 01.21.10, 10:26 / Israel News |
| Right-wing activists plan to plant 15,000 trees in the West Bank on Tu B'Shvat, which will be celebrated this weekend. |
Bentzi Gopstein, of the Chasdei Meir Charity Fund, said Thursday, "This is a method of bypassing the freeze orders. It's a clever Zionist answer to the freeze."
Rightists say the temporary freeze in construction in settlements issued by the government does not cover trees, and are spending around NIS 100,000 ($27,000) on those to be planted throughout the West Bank.
The Chasdei Meir Fund behind the plan is named after Rabbi Meir Kahane. "We have a method of bypassing the freeze orders. There is no freeze on trees and no one can prohibit plantings on Tu B'Shvat. This is how we can take hold of vast areas in Judea and Samaria," Gopstein said.
"Obama's satellite can't pick up the trees and in the future homes will be built near them," he added.
Over 400 Pack Manhigut Yehudit Event at Ramat Gan's City Tower Hotel
Here is a story from the Jerusalem Post on Monday night's Manhigut Yehudit Dinner in Ramat Gan. In spite of predictions of stormy weather, Manhigut supporters packed the ballroom for a night of electric excitement. One Manhigut activist who attended wrote to me and reported, "Last night was very exciting and there was something in the pure atmosphere there that gave us power for the coming year. Moshe is leading us for something good and I'm not the only one feeling that. The Israeli media is full with garbage and it was good for all of us (more than 400 attended) to hear something real. It wasn't just to hear something real but to hear it from a guy that actually holds the key for the solution and is taking action on the right field." There you have it folks - the news direct from our brothers and sisters in Israel. We will have more details soon and photos and G-d willing video too. Check back. Meanwhile here is a fairly sparse report from Gil Hoffman at the Jerusalem Post. If you want more detail, write Gil a polite email and ask for a more complete report. See the link on the story as follows. Click here Here is the relevant part of the article entitled "Livni's Brother Praises Moshe Feiglin"}
Kadima leader Tzipi Livni's brother praised far-right Likud activist Moshe Feiglin at the annual dinner of Feiglin's Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) ideological forum at Ramat Gan's City Tower Hotel on Monday night. Eli Livni, a lifelong Likud member who is secular, received a prize at the event for promoting Jewish education for secular students at the religious school that he runs. He told The Jerusalem Post at the event that he "supports most of Manhigut Yehudit's political agenda."
Asked what he thought about the multiple speakers at the event who declared Feiglin Israel's next prime minister, Livni downplayed it, saying, "So what? I know someone else who thinks that," referring to his sister.
Feiglin predicted at the event that just like the Iron Curtain unexpectedly fell, the "elites" who he said run the country would eventually fall and men of faith would take over Israel's leadership. "How can it be that [Iranian president Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad goes free around the world and no one thinks about arresting him while Israeli ministers fear going abroad?" Feiglin asked the crowd. "The reason for this nadir is not connected to the conflict with our neighbors. The problem is that we are suffering from leaders who lack faith."
Kadima leader Tzipi Livni's brother praised far-right Likud activist Moshe Feiglin at the annual dinner of Feiglin's Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) ideological forum at Ramat Gan's City Tower Hotel on Monday night. Eli Livni, a lifelong Likud member who is secular, received a prize at the event for promoting Jewish education for secular students at the religious school that he runs. He told The Jerusalem Post at the event that he "supports most of Manhigut Yehudit's political agenda."
Asked what he thought about the multiple speakers at the event who declared Feiglin Israel's next prime minister, Livni downplayed it, saying, "So what? I know someone else who thinks that," referring to his sister.
Feiglin predicted at the event that just like the Iron Curtain unexpectedly fell, the "elites" who he said run the country would eventually fall and men of faith would take over Israel's leadership. "How can it be that [Iranian president Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad goes free around the world and no one thinks about arresting him while Israeli ministers fear going abroad?" Feiglin asked the crowd. "The reason for this nadir is not connected to the conflict with our neighbors. The problem is that we are suffering from leaders who lack faith."
January 18, 2010
MK Candidate Dr. Ben Ari: Follow King David's Advice on Gaza - by Gil Ronen
"I will chase my enemies and catch up to them and I shall not return until I annihilate them."
"This should be the slogan of every leader and IDF commander," he said. "The enemy must know that whoever raises his hand on Israel, we will teach him a lesson and annihilate him as well as all his helpers and supporters, and only thus will we take out their will to fire missiles at us."However, he is under no illusions that the present government will do so.
Ben-Ari, a proud disciple of former Knesset Member Rabbi Meir Kahane, supports the troops fighting in Gaza but says the operation is "like giving aspirin to a patient who is in serious condition."
"It is a sedative but it does not address the root of the problem," he said Friday. "Everyone knows this and that is why they were so hesitant to begin this operation. That is why I believe that sooner or later we will return to Gaza and Gush Katif," he added.'It will end with a ceasefire'
"The conflict will be decided on the political level," Ben-Ari predicted. "In the end, the Arabs' pleas for a ceasefire will be heeded before we break the enemy's will to fight, just like our humiliating defeat in the Second Lebanon War and Resolution 1701."
"There will probably be an agreement on some kind of ceasefire but the enemy will never agree to lose their ability to rearm. Their entire existence depends on their ability to keep on hurting us," he said. "Their motivation is to one day be able to chase us out and return to Ramle and Lod."
"The operation is beginning to teach the public that the statement 'it's either us or them' [which was used by Rabbi Kahane – ed.] is not an election slogan but is a very existential one."International solution?
The solution to the Gaza problem, said Ben-Ari, should be an international one.
"The international community needs to find the Arab population in Gaza a spacious area somewhere in which they can live and where they will have something to lose," he explained. As things are, the enemy in Gaza "is dreaming of the nice houses in Ashkelon and Ashdod as it lives in the impossibly crowded and run-down streets of Gaza."
We need to understand that "a few bombs or diplomatic talks or 'lulls' will only make the problem worse, not solve it," he explained.
The enemy within
If Rabbi Kahane were alive today, he said, "he would remind us that after the Holocaust we vowed never again to let Jews live in fear. He would say – 'A Jew who lives in fear is a great chilul Hashem' [desecration of G-d's Name – ed]."
Ben-Ari is also gravely worried about "the internal enemy" – the Arabs with Israeli citizenship. "The enemy is waking up and getting stronger and the danger will only become greater unless we have leadership that is not afraid of the Supreme Court, of the United Nations and of the deranged people in the Left, but is only committed to the survival of the Jewish people."
"When the enemy raises signs saying 'death to the Jews' in Sakhnin, it brings the catastrophe nearer," he warned. "It reminds me of the Jews' disregard of all the signs that preceded the Holocaust."Ben Ari also blasted "those who deride the 'hilltop youth' and the outposts'" – in an apparent reference to recent comments by the Jewish Home leadership. "The people who say this will unintentionally cause the enemy to sit in those hilltops, and Hadera, Kfar Saba and the Azrieli Towers will be the next targets for Grad missiles," he warned.
The Dichotomy of Democracy and Judaism* - Prof. Paul Eidelberg
Israel’s most fundamental dilemma—almost never discussed in a candid and philosophic manner—is the dichotomy of Democracy and Judaism. Having dealt with this dichotomy in several books, here I will only touch on Israel’s democratic quagmire.
Israel’s ruling elites—politicians and judges, academics and journalists—boast that Israel is the only Democracy in the Middle East. This boast is quite understandable, for it is precisely Israel’s democratic reputation that endows its government with legitimacy and Israel’s intellectual elites with respectability. It seems never to have occurred to her policy-makers and opinion-makers that showcasing Israel as a democracy increases Israel-bashing one the one hand, and Israel’s territorial shrinkage on the other! Bear with me as I explode some myths.
Beginning on the surface, it’s obvious that the tendency of politicians in any democracy is to speak in a manner calculated to win the approval of the voters. This democratic tendency corresponds to Israel’s notorious efforts to win the approval of the nations.
Israel is the only nation preoccupied with “hasbara” or information campaigns to solidify Israel’s existence and reputation as a democracy. Here is a nation that has periodic multiparty elections where Arabs have their own representatives in the Knesset. But here is also a nation where professors can blatantly identify with Israel’s enemies with impunity, and where Arab students can wave PLO flags on university campuses and retain their government subsidies!
Israel is so egalitarian that its Supreme Court has ruled, in effect, that disloyal citizens are entitled to the political rights of loyal citizens. Israel is so liberal or permissive that its government often refrains from retaliating against Arab stone-throwers and terrorists. The elites can rightly boast of Israeli democracy—unrivaled in its indiscriminate egalitarianism and libertarianism!
Of course, we must bear in mind that Democracy is the religion of the modern age, that politicians across the political spectrum are forever burning incense to this secular religion—more immune to questioning than any revealed religion. Still, the frequency with which Israel’s elites speak glowingly of Israeli democracy is amazing. They obviously believe that showcasing Israeli democracy will garner support abroad and simultaneously diminish anti-Semitism. For these cognoscenti, Israel’s democratic reputation is more important than her Jewish reputation. No wonder, since they obviously believe that Israel’s Jewish reputation incites anti-Semitism. This prompts Israel’s ruling elites to diminish Israel’s Jewish character.
Since Democracy today is the standard of what is acceptable, Israel’s yearning for acceptance by the democratic world magnifies her fear of pursuing national security policies that may cast doubt on Israel’s democratic credentials. Hence, Israel’s government unwittingly imposes on itself the necessity of pursuing a policy of self-restraint against Arab terrorists. But this means—and no one dares say—Jews are being sacrificed on the altar of Democracy!
Summing up, since Israel’s elites believe that the legitimacy of Israel’s government and their own prestige depend primarily on Israel’s democratic reputation, they will be all the more inclined to pursue policies dangerous to Jewish life and detrimental to Israel’s Jewish character.
A subtle way of diminishing Israel’s Jewish character is to propagate former Supreme Court president Aharon Barak’s disingenuous contention that Judaism and Democracy are compatible. Israel’s Illuminati mindlessly purveyed this falsehood while warning the public that “Arab demography”—a euphemism for the democratic principle of “one adult/one vote”—endangers Israel’s survival as a Jewish state!
Of course, Judge Barak’s obscurantism regarding Judaism and Democracy facilitates the anti-Zionist goal of transforming Israel into “a state of its citizens” or multicultural society. But the fulfillment of this goal requires, to begin with, Israel’s disengagement from Gaza followed by withdrawal from Judea and Samaria. The government’s abandoning Israel’s heartland is therefore motivated not simply by a desire for peace—as is commonly thought—but also by a desire to emasculate Israel’s Jewish character in view of the high birthrate of religious Jews.
The remedy? (1) Erase the historical memory of Jews by surrendering patriarchal Jewish land; (2) shrink the Jewish content of public education; (3) facilitate an influx of gentiles from Russia via the “grandfather clause” of the Law of Return; and (4) multiply judicial rulings that negate Jewish ideas and values. This will spare the elites of anti-Semitism, and Israel, deJudaized, will be accepted by the nations.
At first blush it may seem this conclusion is contradicted by Binyamin Netanyahu’s insistence that the Palestinian Authority recognize Israel as a Jewish state. But for this secular prime minister, a Jewish state is little more than a haven for Jews. Notice how impatient he is to surrender Judea and Samaria, land inseparable from the teachings of Israel’s prophets and sages. Those teachings are very much the well-spring of Jewish consciousness, which will evaporate if Judea and Samaria are Islamized. Follow Netanyahu’s road map to peace and in one or two generations Israel will be little more than a subject for antiquarians. Yes, but at last Israel, or what’s left of it, will have “a place among the nations”—the title of one of Netanyahu’s books.
That title betrays his ardent desire for international approval. So it was with Ariel Sharon. Recall that Sharon justified “disengagement” from Gaza as a means of improving Israel’s international image. Sharon was practicing “PR-manship” in contrast to Jewish statesmanship.
PR-manship underlies Netanyahu’s endorsement of the “two-state solution” to the Israel-Palestinian conflict—the solution demanded by the democratic world. But now let’s think beyond the complacency of democracy.
We see that democracies, since the end of the Second World War, have succumbed to moral decay and cowardice. Even America, an unrivaled superpower, now appeases terrorist thugs and tyrannies. Hence the time has come to question Churchill’s adage: democracy may not be the best form of government, but all others are worse. I dare say that Israel’s Torah, which saved Rome from utter degeneracy, again offers humanity the key to salvation.
Allow me a brief digression about an extraordinary philosopher and theologian, Rabbi Eliyahu Benamozegh, whose magnum opus Israel and Humanity, was published posthumously in 1914. In this monumental work, its author—who was called the Plato of Italy—refutes the widespread prejudice that the Torah exemplifies a theocracy. In his profound erudition we can see that Torah government is more rational, more conducive to justice and human dignity, and even more consistent with popular sovereignty than Israel’s current political system!
Speaking of the Torah, note first that it was not a secular democratic state that bestowed on mankind the Bible, the fountainhead of civilization, where individual freedom, limited government, compassion for the poor, and hatred of violence are basic principles.
Second, it should be obvious that the ethical precepts of the Torah are being trashed by contemporary democracy, where moral relativism now thrives along with a frivolous and power-oriented atheism. Perhaps this is why democracy is succumbing to the absurd and power-oriented creed of Islam.
Third, it was not a leveling democracy that produced the exalted wisdom of Psalms or Proverbs. Neither King David nor King Solomon ever thought of Israel as having merely “a place among the nations,” where Israel now finds itself—to its disgrace—in the corrupt United Nations.
While Israel’s ruling elites boast of Israeli democracy, no one expects even the shadow of Israel’s philosopher-kings to rise in this or is any secular democratic state. The secular democratic state has reached such a level of spiritual decay that its citizens are awed by the vacuous oratory of Barack Obama!
That a prime minister of Israel should cow tow to this semi-educated demagogue is a sad reflection on Israel’s reputedly Jewish character. This may explain why most people in this country despise Israeli politicians. It may also help explain why so many nations despise Israel.
Notice that since its rebirth in 1948, Israel has produced some 30 governments, all led by secularists, all fragmented, none capable of pursuing a distinctively Jewish domestic and foreign policy. There is little sense of Jewish national pride and purpose among Israel’s secular elites. They are random men, as may be found in any democratic society, where individuals drift hither and yon animated by nothing more than their own egos.
Israel’s salvation ultimately depends on having Torah men at the helm of state, but men capable of interfacing Torah and science—the prerequisite of national unity. Such men will know how to make Israel democratic by means of Jewish principles, as well as Jewish by means of democratic principles. This will provide a governmental structure for transcending the dichotomy of Democracy and Judaism, a precondition for overcoming Israel’s enemies and bringing peace to mankind.
January 16, 2010
The Days of Israeli Pride Appear to be Gone Forever; Ayalon Apologizes To Turkey Following Deadline
While reports are somewhat conflicting, it appears that following the intervention of President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, the Foreign Ministry may indeed be issuing a formal apology to Turkey, after Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon announced earlier Wednesday that no such act would be taking place following his clarification issued earlier. His words were echoed by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, resulting in the announced backing from Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.
Turkish President Abdullah Gul issued an ultimatum on Wednesday, stating that if Israel does not apologize by day's end, he would recommend recalling Turkey's ambassador. It was clear from his statement that this would be the case if an apology was not forthcoming. Gul understands that just like Israel has acquiesced with terrorists in negotiations over the years, the same would be true in the diplomatic talks, as he has seen since the signing of the Oslo Agreement in 1993, an act that seems to have routed Israel on a path of unilateral self-destructive concessions to her enemies.
Earlier Wednesday evening, sources in Jerusalem indicated there would be no apology and the Turkish ambassador was being recalled, but now this is uncertain due to the high-ranking intervention, seemingly trying to prevent yet a further breakdown in relations between Jerusalem and Ankara.
In his comments in Knesset earlier in the day, Ayalon stated with confidence that ultimately, he believed his handling of the affair would prove mutually beneficial, but it appears Netanyahu and Peres do not share his confidence.
Unfortunately, usurping the Foreign Ministry and the state's integrity, 17 MKs signed an apology and sent it to Turkey, feeling their noble gesture was an act that is praiseworthy, stepping in to correct the malfeasance of the Foreign Ministry, yet in actuality, it just serves to further divide the administration and send a message of weakness and a lacking of unity to the Turkish administration, which has been nothing but hostile to Israel over the past year.
Turkey's official news agency is reporting the ambassador will return home for discussions, and possibly, Turkey will lower the level of its diplomatic representation in Israel.
Some reports on Wednesday night state that Deputy Minister Ayalon issued a letter of apology on Wednesday evening, but Turkey, which exhibits national pride, something that appears lacking in Jerusalem, insists its ambassador will be returning home on Thursday morning.
Without any official statements being released from Israel at this time, it remains unclear if an apology will be forthcoming from the deputy foreign minister; and if the Turkish ambassador will remain or return home; and if so, temporarily or for good.
(Yechiel Spira - YWN Israel)
Turkish President Abdullah Gul issued an ultimatum on Wednesday, stating that if Israel does not apologize by day's end, he would recommend recalling Turkey's ambassador. It was clear from his statement that this would be the case if an apology was not forthcoming. Gul understands that just like Israel has acquiesced with terrorists in negotiations over the years, the same would be true in the diplomatic talks, as he has seen since the signing of the Oslo Agreement in 1993, an act that seems to have routed Israel on a path of unilateral self-destructive concessions to her enemies.
Earlier Wednesday evening, sources in Jerusalem indicated there would be no apology and the Turkish ambassador was being recalled, but now this is uncertain due to the high-ranking intervention, seemingly trying to prevent yet a further breakdown in relations between Jerusalem and Ankara.
In his comments in Knesset earlier in the day, Ayalon stated with confidence that ultimately, he believed his handling of the affair would prove mutually beneficial, but it appears Netanyahu and Peres do not share his confidence.
Unfortunately, usurping the Foreign Ministry and the state's integrity, 17 MKs signed an apology and sent it to Turkey, feeling their noble gesture was an act that is praiseworthy, stepping in to correct the malfeasance of the Foreign Ministry, yet in actuality, it just serves to further divide the administration and send a message of weakness and a lacking of unity to the Turkish administration, which has been nothing but hostile to Israel over the past year.
Turkey's official news agency is reporting the ambassador will return home for discussions, and possibly, Turkey will lower the level of its diplomatic representation in Israel.
Some reports on Wednesday night state that Deputy Minister Ayalon issued a letter of apology on Wednesday evening, but Turkey, which exhibits national pride, something that appears lacking in Jerusalem, insists its ambassador will be returning home on Thursday morning.
Without any official statements being released from Israel at this time, it remains unclear if an apology will be forthcoming from the deputy foreign minister; and if the Turkish ambassador will remain or return home; and if so, temporarily or for good.
(Yechiel Spira - YWN Israel)
Overcoming the ‘Regime of the Parties’ - Prof. Paul Eidelberg
Political parties have a bad reputation, particularly in Israel where they are so numerous, so narrow, and so noxious. Although parties serve the purpose of presenting and supporting candidates, they also muddle the relationship between the candidate and the voter. This is especially true in Israel, where citizens are compelled to vote for a party slate, and not an individual candidate representing a regional constituency. Recognizing these facts, some countries require open primaries, the registration of candidates rather than parties, and the funding of candidates by public means.
Israel is a ‘regime of the parties.’ Their primary function, David Ben-Gurion once said, is to divide the public treasury. Nevertheless, while parties are still necessary to democracy, it would serve Israel’s best interests to diminish their number and power. Here are three ways of doing this.
The first and simplest way is to raise the electoral threshold for seats in the legislature. The second is to adopt—and retain over time— the presidential model of government. Because only one candidate can win a national election for the presidency, voters will not want to waste their votes on small parties. This is why presidential governments usually produce a two-party system, the more readily when the legislature is constituted by multi-district elections—a third method of reducing the number and power of national parties.
What prevents the formation of a national two- or three- party system is that the Knesset continues to be based on a single national constituency with proportional representation.
Limiting the number of Israeli parties would enlarge their mental horizons; for to compete effectively in district elections, each party would have to consider the views and interests of diverse groups of citizens. This is why proportional representation is not necessarily conducive to the interests of minorities, even though the latter may win a few seats in the legislature. A legislature of numerous parties will be incapable of rational deliberation, to say nothing of petty rivalry and intrigue. This cannot but impair executive-legislative relations as well as a President’s ultimate function, which is to foster national unity.
Although various political scientists are critical of presidential government, their arguments are of limited validity. Invariably they refer to the failings of presidential systems in Latin America. I dare say, however, that parliamentary systems would probably fare no better. As John Quincy Adams saw some 180 years ago, the culture and class structure of most Latin American countries — their extremes of wealth and poverty — are not conducive to majoritarian democracy, parliamentary or presidential.
Critics also deplore the ‘dual sovereignty’ they associate with presidential governments. By this they mean that popular election of the president and of the legislature results in two competing ‘sovereignties.’ (A parliamentary system is immune to this phenomenon, since the ruling party controls both the executive and the legislature.) Linked to ‘dual sovereignty’ is the ‘gridlock’ that supposedly occurs in the United States when the President and the Congress are of opposite parties. But appearances are deceiving. Studies indicate that the passage of congressional legislation is usually independent of which party controls which branch of government. Public problems must be attended, and American politicians, unlike their Israeli counterparts, are more attentive to their constituents than to their parties.
Also, the notion of ‘dual sovereignty’ is misleading. A President represents the people in their collective capacity. He is expected to emphasize their common interests. This emphasis differs from that of a legislature whose members represent the particular interests of diverse constituencies. Although a legislator will presumably promote the common good, he is obliged to emphasize the concerns of his own constituents. (This applies to parliamentary governments with district elections, except that party-dominated parliamentary systems severely limit the independence of individual parliamentarians.)
Another defect attributed to presidential government is its fixed term. The truth is that parliamentary governments seldom succumb to a vote of no-confidence, meaning they usually run their allotted term. Politicians do not like to hazard their careers on new elections.
The one solid advantage of parliamentary systems is their ‘shadow governments,’ which enable experienced politicians to assume office when the ruling party falls from power. This does not apply, however, to Israel where any tyro can become a cabinet minister, thanks largely to the absence of district elections.
One way of compensating for the absence of a ‘shadow government’ is to require each presidential candidate (other than an incumbent President), to announce say five of his intended cabinet appointments. It may be assumed that only well-known, respected, and experienced public figures will be designated.
Finally, the presidential model is more consistent with Judaism than the parliamentary model. A president is an elected monarch. His election by the people is consistent with Jewish law. So too are multi-district elections. Combining the latter with a presidential system is the best way to overcome the ‘regime of the parties.’
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)