The Fence Nobody Wanted by Naomi Ragen on November 20th, 2011

Who really built the fence?
The recent stabbing of a teenager in the northern Jerusalem suburb of Ramot, apparently by a resident of Beit Iksa, hit me hard. I lived in Ramot for 23 years, 16 of them directly across the wadi from Beit Iksa. All during the intifada when buses were blowing up all over the country, the men of Beit Iksa walked across the wadi and up the steps next to my house to work as laborers, without incident. Often, they passed me by in groups, watching as I tended my fruit trees and grape vines. Sometimes I even offered them fruit, which they smilingly declined or accepted. The sound of their muezzin and darbuka (drums) filled my home. I accepted it as part of the experience of living in this beautiful spot with its rolling hills and apple orchards. In fact, during the euphoria of the Oslo Accords, I even sometimes imagined walking across the wadi to visit and inviting some of them to my home.
I was rudely awakened by the Palestinian Authority election results in Beit Iksa, where Hamas won a resounding victory. Tangible changes soon followed: powerful new loudspeakers aimed at Ramot brutally blasted the singsong call to prayer like a weapon. Home robberies, always a nuisance, steadily grew worse. One night, robbers invaded my home as my son and his wife were sleeping downstairs. The next morning, among other losses, we found two large kitchen knives missing. On another occasion, I watched in disbelief as in the middle of the night a dozen or so men leaped out of the house next door and down into the wadi before police could arrive. My neighbor, who had been away, arrived to find they’d not only stolen everything not nailed down, but also urinated on her bed for spite.
While the police dutifully came and investigated, they admitted helplessness. Under the Oslo Accords, Beit Iksa was governed by the Palestinian Authority. Only the IDF could go in there. And for that to happen, someone would have to do more than steal a computer.
Nevertheless, most of us with homes adjacent to the wadi were adamantly opposed to a security wall between Ramot and Beit Iksa, reluctant to turn our lovely, rural backyard and heavenly view into an ugly border. So instead we put in alarm systems, which regularly went off.
All that changed on October 22, a sleepy Sabbath afternoon, when Zaid Abd al-Rahman, a 20-year-old enrolled in Al Quds University, allegedly took the 10-minute walk through the wadi, entering Ramot with a sixinch knife and attacking the first person he saw, 17-year-old Yehuda Ne’emad, son of the local grocery owner. Viciously, al-Rahman stabbed Yehuda twice in the back and twice in the stomach, doing his best to kill him. As his victim lay in a pool of blood, al-Rahman turned his attention to a twelve-year old girl and her six year-old brother. “I was sure I was going to die,” she later said. “I took my brother’s hand and I ran.”
As a crowd gathered, Rahman, who apparently wasn’t interested at that moment in martyrdom, ran back down the wadi.
Echoing a popular sentiment, Meir Indor of the Almagor Terror Victims Association connected the crime to the ransom paid four days previously to free Gilad Schalit: “The publicity surrounding the deal turned murderers into culture heroes on the Arab and Palestinian street… All this encourages Arab youths to try impersonating the released prisoners, because they know, just as we know, that if they are caught they will be released sooner or later.”
Ah, if it were only that simple! If one could go to sleep a peaceful student and wake up a blood-thirsty killer because of a single act of government policy! The truth is far more disturbing.
Beit Iksa, six kilometers northwest of Jerusalem, has 1,600 inhabitants and two primary schools. Both are operated by the Palestinian Authority. A 2009-10 report by Arnon Groiss of Impact-Se, the Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Curriculum describes the school books Rahman would have been exposed to as delegitimizing Jews and Israel, denying their historical and religious presence and ascribing to them dubious and nefarious characteristics, as well as assigning full blame to them for the Middle East conflict and stressing the ideal of violent struggle for liberation over peaceful negotiation.
After school, Rahman would have been exposed to Al Aqsa Television children’s programs, like this one: “What do you want to do to the Jews who shot your father?” says the cuddly bear.
“I want to kill them,” a child’s voice pipes up.
“We don’t want to do anything to them,” a little girl shakes her head at the bear. “Just to expel them from our land.”
“But if we slaughter them, they’ll be expelled,” the bear cheerfully corrects her.
“Yes, that’s right,” she agrees.
I suggest you watch this on Youtube, courtesy of Itamar Marcus and Palestinian Media Watch.
Graduating from this kind of education, Rahman enrolled in Al Quds University, with its Abu Jihad Museum, honoring the master terrorist who engineered the Coastal Road Massacre. In 2007, Al Quds held a week-long celebration honoring Yahya Ayyash, the notorious Hamas “engineer credited for numerous deadly attacks and for inventing the suicide belt.”
On March 11, 2011, Al Quds (which has joint programs with Brandeis, by the way) held a celebration of the 33rd anniversary of the death of Dalal Mughrabi, a despicable Lebanese woman who landed on Israel’s coast in a dinghy with a dozen other terrorists, killing nature photographer Gail Rubin and then hijacking a passenger bus which she blew up with a grenade, killing 38 Israelis – thirteen of them children.
“Now we go to a glorious chapter in Palestinian history… ” the Palestinian television announcer says, introducing Mughrabi’s sister, who says: “This is a day of glory and pride for the Palestinian people and a blow to the Zionists. She [Mughrabi] left a note to our father saying to point all rifles at Zionists, so if you haven’t yet…”
The release of terrorist murderers was a bad idea for many reasons. But while it might have emboldened him, it didn’t put the idea of killing Jews into Zaid Abd al-Rahman’s head. For that, it took a village. If the West is ever really sincere about tackling the problem of peace in our area, the first sign will be the halting of all funding and cultural exchanges with the likes of Al Quds “University.” It will be the attention paid to reversing the damage done by years of toxic PA and Hamas brainwashing, the kind that turn young people into monsters.
When the security fence goes up between Ramot and Beit Iksa, as it inevitably will now, we are sure Palestinian apologists, and Al Quds University and its television broadcasting system in particular, will vent its fury at further evidences of Israeli “apartheid.”
But we should all know better who really built this fence.

This article was first published in the Jerusalem Post on 18 November, 2011.

Israel is the Only Option

"And if the woman will not desire to follow you, and you will be absolved of my oath - just do not return my son to there." (From Chayei Sarah, Genesis 24:8)

Abraham is already old and has lived out most of his days. Yitzchak is the only link in the chain that will forge ahead with his world-wide faith revolution. Under the circumstances, it would seem that for a good wife from a distinguished family - it would be worthwhile to leave Israel for a few years.

But Abraham says an emphatic "no". "Just do not return my son to there."

Abraham understands something that we have forgotten. A sizeable portion of Israel's citizens hold foreign citizenship in addition to their Israeli ID cards. Former Speaker of the Knesset and Chairman of the Jewish Agency Avrum Burg proudly waves his French citizenship for all to see, explaining why he publicly did what other Israeli leaders have done quietly: For them, the Land of Israel is an option - not a final destination. If things are not working out here as planned, thank you very much and goodbye. Look for us in Europe or the US.

But the Land of Israel is not merely a privilege. It is not optional. There is simply no other place for a Jew. The Exile is finished and we are rapidly progressing to a time when the majority of Jews will live in Israel.

Lamentably, many Jews still retain their exile mentality. The wandering Jew is alive and well in the worldview of Israel's leaders and the stratum of Israeli society that believes that it can arrange itself a more comfortable option, if need be.

If Israel's leaders would assert that for the Jews, Israel is the only option, nobody in the UN would dare question the necessity of a Jewish State in the world and the Iranian tyrant would not dare threaten our existence. He would understand that when a country with nuclear capabilities faces an existential threat and has its back to the wall, it will make use of its weapons. But "existential threat" is not in the lexicon of Israel's leadership and part of its citizenry. Worse comes to worse, they can always hop the first plane to Europe, Canada or the USA.

The world clearly senses that we have not internalized the fact that the Land of Israel is our final destination; the last, blessed stop on our 2000 year journey. But the moment when every Jew will have to make the fateful choice is rapidly approaching.

This is our Land!: By Moshe Feiglin

The destruction of Jewish homes in the Land of Israel continues, as if there is no way to prevent the State of Israel from self-destructing; no way to prevent it from sending the riot police to carry out the goals of Peace Now.

But to judge by the amount of people who showed up at last week's prayer gathering at Giv'at Asaf, another settlement slated for demolition, it looks like the faith- based public has despaired of its ability to stop the destruction. The common excuse is that people are tired of demonstrations or that they have lost faith in their effectiveness, but that is not correct. The public is willing to rally around ideals and vision. It is simply tired of a rearguard war.

The process of collapse and destruction that we have witnessed over the years is not the trademark of any particular government. Actually, every government that has been in power in Israel in the last generation, from both Right and Left, has been dragged in one way or another into the same modus operandi. The disintegration stems from the fact that Israelis today feel morally inferior to the Arabs.

The era in which the legitimacy for our presence in this Land could be drawn from an ideology that denies the existence of the Creator is finished. The elites that fashion the Israeli mindset no longer believe that this is our Land. They feel like uninvited guests here; they worship the "deep bond" between the Arab and the Land and are painfully careful not to "desecrate" it. Whether an Arab home is legal or illegal, its destruction is unthinkable. Even the Arab olive harvest has become a sanctified ritual and guarding it the supreme mission of the IDF. It makes no difference that the olive trees are in the settlement of Itamar, right under the home of the Fogel orphans. It also makes no difference that the harvesters are part of the murderers' family, whose smiles mock the Jewish residents of the town still reeling from the horrific massacre.

All of Israel's leaders of the past generation represent the mentality that prefers to buy temporary legitimacy in Tel Aviv by dividing the Land of Israel. That is why the terrorists are jailed in such comfortable conditions. After all, they are actually freedom fighters, recognized by the Israeli mindset as the just side in the struggle over the Land. That is why it is simply a matter of time until they are released.

So now what do we do?

Lately, a lot of people have been invoking the memory of 'Zo Artzeinu,' the successful protest movement from the Oslo era that eventually evolved into Manhigut Yehudit.

What was Zo Artzeinu's secret? How is it that under the direction of a small and largely unknown movement, tens of thousands of Israelis went out to protest in the streets and were willing to be arrested?

A lot of factors came together to bring the people out in the streets. There was leadership, independence of the 'establishment' and more. But the real, underlying reason that everybody remembers Zo Artzeinu is very simple: Its name means "This is our Land."

Sixteen years ago, the Israeli mindset was already sick with the moral inferiority flu. The audacity to declare that "This is our Land" was engraved on its intimidated consciousness and has remained there ever since.

The Land of Israel is ours. Not because a particular settlement was built on public land and not private land. Simply because G-d gave it to us. Whoever tries to live side-by-side with the Israeli mindset that sees this country as Arab land will always find himself on the wrong side of the law. But if our actions are guided by the conviction that this is our Land, we will always be right.

More danerous than a nuclear bomb - Moshe Feiglin

Is Israel preparing to attack Iran? According to media reports, Netanyahu is trying to convince his ministers to go on the offensive. If that is true, Netanyahu will go down in history as the prime minister who saved the State of Israel from destruction – not necessarily nuclear.

There is no doubt that an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities will bring swift retaliation on Israel, the results of which are unforeseeable. On the surface, as long as there is a chance to neutralize Iran's nuclear capabilities via other methods; diplomatic, electronic, economic and the like, it is not logical to prefer the military option. Presumably, the ministers who oppose the attack are considering the question through this very keyhole: Can we stop Iran in some other way or is the military option the only route available?

Clearly, the non-military options are like a finger in the dike. As long as the Moslem motivation continues to rise on the other side of the wall, it is just a matter of time until the dike breaks. Further, as time goes by, the mission becomes more difficult and complex. The reactor in Bushehr is already "hot." Until about two years ago, it could have been destroyed without much environmental damage. That is no longer the case.

The difference between now and two years ago is that Netanyahu's public approval rating is better now than it was then. And when it comes to a prime minister from the Right, a political window of opportunity is just as necessary as an operational window of opportunity. If the social protest movement had managed to curtail Netanyahu's popularity, there may not have been any government deliberations about attacking Iran. If we are in a political and operational window of opportunity right now, we must give the Prime Minister all the support that he needs on this existential issue.

Considering the attack strictly through the keyhole of cost and gain does not portray a true picture of the dismal reality. Nuclear weapons are not the greatest danger to the existence of the State of Israel. One third of our Nation was destroyed in Europe without them. The Germans' main weapon was the de-legitimization of our right to exist. Strategically, de-legitimization is much more dangerous than any nuclear weapon, for its practical application is only a matter of time – with or without nuclear capabilities.

When the Iranian leader declared his intent to destroy us, the world stood collectively held its breath in anticipation of Israel's retaliation. When that did not happen, the historical question mark that hangs over the right of the Jews to breathe the air on this planet reappeared.

Whether the Jews have a right to a state or whether they have a right to exist at all was not asked in important Western universities until the world realized that we are willing to live with Iran's intention to destroy us. The Iranian Amalek and the German Amalek work the same way as the Biblical Amalek. They declare an existential war against us, are willing to pay a price and negate our legitimacy in the eyes of the nations. The Holocaust did not begin with the outbreak of war but rather, in Hitler's hate-filled speeches and in the Der Sturmer propaganda.

The ministers who oppose an attack do not understand that the results of the attack are not what matters. Israel must attack Iran in order to restore the legitimacy for its very existence. Israel must restore the equation that says that whoever plans to destroy us automatically becomes a legitimate target for destruction- personally. Bushehr is not the only target, but every plane, car and building in which the heads of Iran's regime are to be found.

Sarkozy Tells Obama, 'Netanyahu is a Liar’

French president Sarkozy is in a diplomatic knot after telling Obama in what he thought was a private talk, “Netanyahu is a liar.”

Sarkozy Tells Obama, 'Netanyahu is a Liar’

Delegitimizing the delegitimizers - By C.B. Glick

The only way to defeat those who deny our rights to our land, our nationhood and our history is to expose their corruption, and their hateful intentions towards the Jewish people.

    You have to hand it to the Palestinians.

They decided to abandon the peace process and seek international recognition of the “State of Palestine” – a state in a de facto state of war with Israel. And they are pursuing their goal relentlessly.

This week their efforts bore their first fruit with the UN’s Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) vote to accept “Palestine” as a full state member.

It is not a coincidence that the PLO/PA decided to apply for membership for “Palestine” at UNESCO first. Since 1974, UNESCO has been an enthusiastic partner in the Palestinians’ bid to erase Jewish history, heritage and culture in the Land of Israel from the historical record.

In 1974, UNESCO voted to boycott Israel and to “withhold assistance from Israel in the fields of education, science and culture because of Israel’s persistent alteration of historic features in Jerusalem.”

UNESCO’s moves to deny Jewish ties to Jerusalem and the rest of historic Israel have continued unabated ever since. For instance, in 1989, UNESCO condemned “Israel’s occupation of Jerusalem,” claiming it was destroying the city through “acts of interference, destruction and transformation.”

In 1996, UNESCO held a symposium on Jerusalem at its Paris headquarters. No Jewish or Israeli groups were invited to participate.

Beginning in 1996, the Arab Wakf on the Temple Mount began systematically destroying artifacts of the Second Temple. The destruction was undertaken during illegal excavations under the Temple Mount carried out to construct an illegal, unlicensed mosque at Solomon’s Stables.

UNESCO never bothered to condemn this act. It was silent despite the fact that the Wakf’s actions constituted a grave breach of the very international laws related to antiquities and sacred sites that UNESCO is charter bound to protect. Similarly, UNESCO never condemned Palestinian desecration of Rachel’s Tomb, of Joesph’s Tomb or of any of the ancient synagogues in Gaza and Jericho which they razed to the ground.

The reason for UNESCO’s miscarriage of its responsibilities is clear. Far from fulfilling its mission of protecting world heritage sites, since 1974 UNESCO has been a partner in one of the greatest cultural crimes in human history – the Palestinian and pan- Arab attempt to wipe Jewish history in the Land of Israel off the historical record. And UNESCO’s crimes in this area are unending. In 2009 it designated Jerusalem a “capital of Arab culture.”

In 2010, it designated Rachel’s Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron as “Muslim mosques.” UNESCO’s campaign against Jewish history is not limited to Israel. In 1995, it passed a resolution marking the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II. Despite requests from Israel, the resolution made no mention of the Holocaust.

In December 2010, UNESCO published a report on the history of science in the Arab world. Its report listed the great Jewish doctor and rabbinic scholar Rabbi Moshe Ben Maimon – Maimonides – as a Muslim renamed “Moussa ben Maimoun.”

In light of UNESCO’s virulently anti-Jewish policies and actions, it is not surprising that it cooperated with the PLO/PA’s bid to achieve recognition of a state that is in a state of war with Israel.

MORE SURPRISING than UNESCO’s behavior was the behavior of all but five EU member states.

Aside from the Czech Republic, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Sweden, all EU member states either voted in favor of the Palestinian membership application or abstained.

The reason it is surprising is because the EU has made strengthening UN institutions and speeding up the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians to facilitate Palestinian independence the central aims of its foreign policy. And by supporting or failing to oppose the Palestinian membership bid, the Europeans undercut both aims.

UNESCO was weakened by the vote for two reasons. First, since US law bars the government from funding UN agencies that accept “Palestine” as a member nation outside the framework of a negotiated peace with Israel, in accepting “Palestine” UNESCO reduced its budget by the 22 percent covered by US contributions.

Second, by accepting the Palestinians as a member state, UNESCO undermined its legitimacy and organizational viability. Accepting “Palestine” represents a breach of the organization’s charter. The charter stipulates that only states can be accepted as members.

Moreover, it represents a repudiation of the goals of UNESCO as laid out in its charter. Those goals involve among other things promoting cooperation in education and advancing the rule of law. As a recent report by the Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education (IMPACT-SE) showed, PA textbooks remain imbued with Jew-hatred at all education levels.

By enabling this breach of the UNESCO charter, the Europeans made a mockery of UN rules and so weakened not just UNESCO but the UN system as a whole.

The Europeans’ claim to support the cause of peace between Israel and the Palestinians was rendered hollow by their behavior at UNESCO. The peace process between Israel and the PLO/PA is predicated on the latter’s commitment that a Palestinian state can arise only as a consequence of a peace treaty with Israel. By supporting the Palestinians’ breach of this fundamental commitment at UNESCO, the Europeans diminished the possibility of achieving a negotiated peace that will lead to Palestinian statehood.

What the Europeans’ behavior at UNESCO indicates is that just as UNESCO is willing to undermine its mission to harm Israel, so the Europeans are willing to undermine the declared goals of their foreign policy if doing so will harm Israel.

This state of affairs has important consequences for Israel. To date, Israel has placed fostering good relations with EU member states high on its list of priorities. In light of the Europeans’ behavior at UNESCO, this ranking should be revised. The Europeans do not merit such high consideration by Israel.

Finally, the UNESCO vote exposed disturbing truths about US President Barack Obama’s position on Israel. Obama has been widely praised by American Jewish leaders as well as by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for his announced commitment to veto the draft Security Council resolution recommending that the PLO/PA be granted full state membership at the UN. Obama’s pledge – forced out of him by massive congressional pressure – is touted as proof of his commitment to the US alliance with Israel.

But Obama’s response to the PLO/PA’s bid for UNESCO membership tells a different story. In the lead up to the vote, the Obama administration went out of its way not to threaten UNESCO. It did not threaten to withdraw the US from the organization. Instead, just days before the vote, US Under Secretary of Education Martha Kanter addressed the body and praised the “great things [that] have happened at UNESCO,” over the past year. Kanter then announced the US’s bid for reelection to UNESCO’s executive board.

The administration did not attack the move as one that undermines chances of peace. It did not note that by endorsing the PA/PLO’s decision to act unilaterally, UNESCO was making it all the more difficult for Israel and the Palestinians to achieve a negotiated peace deal. Rather, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland sufficed with claiming that the move was “regrettable,” and “premature.”

Administration officials did not make clear that in accordance with US law, all US funding to UNESCO would end if the Palestinian membership bid was approved. Rather administration officials joined forces with UN officials to lobby Congress to change the law.

As Claudia Rosett reported in Forbes on Tuesday, David Killion, the US ambassador to UNESCO, made what bordered on an apology for the US funding cut-off when he said, “We sincerely regret that the strenuous and well-intentioned efforts of many delegations to avoid this result fell short.”

Killion added, “We pledge to continue our efforts to find ways to support and strengthen the important work of this vital organization.”

So after UNESCO thumbed its nose at the US, undermined its mission, breached its own charter and seriously diminished chances of Palestinian peace with Israel by accepting “Palestine” as a member state, the Obama administration reacted with near groveling apologetics.

TO UNDERSTAND the full significance of the administration’s behavior, it is important to contrast it with the administration’s response to the Israeli government’s decision in the aftermath of the UNESCO vote to approve the construction of housing for Jews in Jerusalem, Ma’aleh Adumim and Efrat. All of the housing units will be built in areas that will remain part of Israel even after a peace deal. And the administration knows this.

But speaking of the government’s decision, a US official told Reuters that the administration is “deeply disappointed by the announcement.

“We continue to make clear to the [Israeli] government [that] unilateral actions such as these work against efforts to resume direct negotiations and do not advance the goal of a reasonable and necessary agreement between the parties.”

So on the one hand, the Palestinians’ move to abandon the peace process and UNESCO’s support for their move is merely “regrettable” and “premature.” But on the other hand, Israel’s decision not to discriminate against Jewish property rights undermines efforts to resume peace talks and harm prospects for an agreement.

Since entering office, Netanyahu has repeatedly characterized Arab and leftist efforts to delegitimize Israel as “a strategic threat” to the state. In truth, he overstates the danger. Delegitimization is a political threat, not a strategic threat. Israel will not be destroyed by the UN or by professors at Oxford and Columbia or by trade unions in Norway.

But still it is a threat that Israel cannot ignore.

Since September 2009, citing the need to demonstrate the dishonesty of the delegitimizers’ accusations against Israel, Netanyahu abandoned his lifelong opposition to a Palestinian state. He believed that Israel had to embrace the PLO/PA as a legitimate partner for peace in order to prove to the likes of Obama and his supporters that Israel has a right to exist. In the meantime, and in the face of Netanyahu’s staggering concession, the PLO/PA abandoned the peace talks and escalated its political war to criminalize Israel and delegitimate it.

UNESCO’s acceptance of “Palestine” demonstrates that Netanyahu’s chosen policy is misguided.

By accepting the legitimacy of the Palestinian demand for statehood, Netanyahu indirectly conceded Israel’s rights to Judea and Samaria and at a minimum placed its right to sole sovereignty over Jerusalem in question. In so doing, Israel gave the Palestinians’ supporters at the UN, in Europe and at the White House no reason to reconsider their anti-Israel bias.

With the Palestinians relentlessly asserting their rights, and Israel conceding its rights, why should anyone side with Israel?

In the end, the only way to defeat those who delegitimize Israel and deny our rights to our land, our nationhood and our history is to expose their corruption, and their malevolent, dishonest and hateful intentions towards the Jewish people and the Jewish state. That is, the only way to defeat the delegitimizers is to delegitimize them by proudly and consistently asserting Israel’s historic and legal rights and the justice of our cause.

caroline@carolineglick.com

Sacrifice of our enemies

The Orthodox criticism of Reform Judaism is misplaced.
Honestly, the Reform “rabbis” can be accused of a single thing, atheism.
They mold Judaism in their own image to suit their preconceived political and social views—and they don’t believe that there is God above to punish them for the perversion. The God of punishment and revenge, they don’t believe in him. Perhaps they believe in a Santa Claus who forgives them for the lack of faith.

But Orthodox rabbis are in no position to criticize the reforms. The pharisaic rabbis instituted major changes in Judaism, compared to which the Reform’s reforms pale.

Let us not argue here about the Oral Law, which is apparently unknown to the Temple priests. Even if Mishna is of divine origin, transmitted orally through centuries, the Gemara is unquestionably a product of learned discourse, and the subsequent halacha is a heap of man-made restrictions. Maybe one in a thousand of the Orthodox halachic rules is directly traceable to the Oral Law.

Orthodox Judaism abrogated the central pillar of our religion, sacrifices.
The rabbis deliberately viewed them as insignificant because the Pharisees lacked access to the Temple where the Zadducean priests officiated. Unable to officiate the sacrifice, the rabbis denigrated them. Contrary to the facts, they also denigrated the priests, proclaiming them Hashmoneans, the descendants of Maccabees rather than the priestly family of Zadok. Never mind that the Maccabees were of Zadokite descent. If the high priests’ descent could be questionable, the clergy was doubtlessly kohanim.
The rabbinical skepticism won incidentally when the Temple was destroyed. Before then, they were popular as any anti-establishment clergy, but far from dominant. The Temple’s destruction left the Zadducean priests without business and income, and the Pharisaic rabbis triumphed. In subsequent centuries, they shaped a Temple-less Judaism. On one hand, they preserved Judaism in some form. On the other hand, they quenched Jewish demands for rebuilding the Temple. As Emperor Julian’s example demonstrates, the Jews could have rebuilt the Temple if they were persistent enough.


Given good relations with our Muslim occupiers, we could plausibly have built a Temple long ago. That, however, would have spelled the end of rabbinism. When the Temple stands, synagogues—the extraneous houses of worship—will unquestionably be banned, and scores of rabbis will be unemployed. Jewish donations would flow to the Temple rather than to the yeshivas. The priests would take the rabbis’ halachic jurisdiction. Most rabbis, therefore, oppose the Temple construction much more forcefully than any Arab.
But look, we can strike a middle ground between the Torah and the rabbis. For a long time, Jews brought sacrifices without a Temple. Even when the Tabernacle stood, Jews sacrificed in the open, as Samson’s father did habitually at a stranger’s suggestion. The rabbis’ appeal to Hosea’s statement, “I desired zealousness and not an offering,” is mistaken: the “offering” refers to unauthorized sacrifices on mountaintop altars (Hosea 4:13) rather than proper sacrifices. A prophetic pronouncement cannot justify abrogation of the clear law on sacrifices; note that the Temple priests rejected the prophecies altogether, regarding them as folk tales. The rabbinical position was never wholehearted, as they symbolically interpret the Shabbat table as an altar of offerings. If God does not desire sacrifices, certainly much less he desires gefilte fish.
What’s the big deal about sacrifices? They stop leftism like nothing else. Sacrifices run against the basis of leftist ideology—reforming societies, ostensibly for the better. Returning to the ancient practice of sacrifices, unquestioning and savage, is the best barrier to liberal views. And the liberals are not so liberal: they resent sacrifices but love steaks. They kill animals for food; we would kill for a better reason—and eat the cake, too. Sacrifices develop a different kind of person: the priest who smears his fingers and ears with sacrificial blood is not your typical leader, but a cruel and relatively fearless Jew.

It is a small step from sacrificing the animals to killing our enemies, which is a commandment, too.