Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled that the Rabbinate must allow for the allocation of Hechsherim based upon the Heter Mekhira. Personally, I am very sad that it came to this, because the Israel Supreme court is the absolutely last government agency that I want to see having any say in the future of the Torah. This certainly the case as the government works to foist more non-Orthodox conversion options on the population.
Indeed, it need not have come to this.
1) After all, as I pointed out below, what were Tzohar and Emunah asking for? They wanted a credible halakhic option to be made available. That's all.They wanted to prevent people from erring and transgressing. How? If you use Otzar Bes Din, you need to treat the produce בקדושת שביעית. Most people don't have a clue how to do so. So they buy produce and desectrate it unknowingly. If the Heter is implemented, at least that burden is removed, as the people will rely upon those Poskim who support it. Those who don't wish to do so, תבוא עליהם ברכות רבות מידו הרחבה ית'. [ It's not unlike an Eruv. No one forces anyone to carry if they don't hold by the Eruv. Those who do, though, יש להם על מי לסמוך.]
2) It might, however, be objected that יבול נוכרי is available. True. Is that, however, conscionable? The Arab suppliers have been known to cheat the Jews on this by supplying over priced 8th rate produce. The produce from Aza and the PA pays for terror (as the PA and the Hamas extort huge sums from their own people). This last point was laid out very cogently by Rav Shlomo Aviner, here.
This, in turn, reminded me of a story involving my beloved friend, and erst-while חברותא, Rabbi Dr. David Ha-Levi Applebaum זצוק"ל הי"ד (which I confirmed last night with his wife). David, as a loyal talmid and בן-בית, of Rav Ahron Soloveitchik זצ"ל, did not rely upon the Heter Mekhira. We once had a very, errrr, lively discussion on the matter. At the end he said: 'You're right. But I want to do it (i.e. not rely on the heter). So, what did he do? He travelled. He drove all over Israel: Bet Shean, Gush Qatif ע"ה, the Aravah, Eilat. You name it. However, he would never, ever bring יבול נוכרי into his house. The most he would do was, in case he needed to go out to eat, he would only go to a Mehadrin restaurant (יבול נוכרי) and would say he was going to go eat treif! (Oh, how I miss him!)
3) A Haredi apologist recently offered the following defense of coercing all Jews in Israel to reject the Heter Mekhira:
Later Shmittah years saw increasing number of farmers follow suit. Seven years ago, the number of acres left untilled had risen more than 200-fold from the 60s, to 55,000. This year, 3000-3500 farmers will be observing Shmittah, and 100,000 acres are expected to be left fallow in accordance with the Torah’s direction. Every major Orthodox kashrut-certification agency in North America approves only Israeli produce hewing to the highest Shmittah standard.
The reasons for the growth of Shmittah-observance are several, among them a general trend toward greater observance, recognition of the ad-hoc nature of the heter mechira, and the experience of farmers who not only did not suffer for their Shmittah observance but experienced unusual blessings.
To this half story, my neighbor, friend and colleague Professor Moshe Koppel replied:
1. Every individual and community has the right to set stringent standards for itself. But often these standards are such that they can be observed by a particular community only if the majority of people do not observe them. In plain English, much of the frumkeit of charedi communities in Israel is predicated on the fact that most Israelis are secular. I won’t go through the whole tired list of examples. This raises many basic questions about whether the Torah is intended as a way of life for the whole nation or is inherently limited to a frum minority supported by a minority of Jewish shabbos goyim. It may be that in the end many will decide, legitimately, that their stringencies trump global considerations, but the cost of that position might merit a few moments of reflection, none of which is evident in this article.
2. It is true that a small number of farmers can afford to take a year off and be supported by charity. But this is not a general solution. When you suddenly diminish the supply of produce with no parallel diminution in demand, there is more than a local bump in prices. Outside suppliers quickly take advantage of the situation, prices spiral upward along the whole supply chain, foreign customers abandon Israeli suppliers for more stable markets, and the whole agriculture-related economy can collapse. You might not personally know anybody who will lose their livelihood as a result but they are out there. In light of this, perhaps some of the rabbanim who are willing to sell twenty bucks worth of lokshen so their congregants can head off to Florida for Pesach without too much of a headache might have another look at the issue.
4) Finally, I just don't understand those rabbis who refuse to offer the Heter Mekhira option. In the local chat-list, I've been debating this issue for three days now. The borttom line, as I see it is what I responded to one letter:
My comments were directed solely at two issues: 1) The propriety of blocking legitimate recourse to a speific heter, when that places intolerable burdens on the community (something I learned from the Rov, in the name of Reb Hayyim) 2) My surprise at the news that Reb Shlomo Zalman זצ"ל , endorsed the legitimacy of the HM (as late as 1984), though he did not personally rely upon it.
When I had shimush in psak from the Rov זצ"ל and מו"ר Rav Gedaliah Felder זצ"ל, the author of the monumental series יסודי ישורון, the operative principle I learned was always to be מחמיר for oneself and try to be מיקל for others. This was summed up by a story the Rov told us on a number of occasions.
When Reb Moshe Soloveichik זצ"ל left for his first Rabbonus in Rassein, Reb Hayyim told him that a Rov has to do three things: א רב דארף גומל זיין חסד, א רב דארף לערנען תורה, און ניט פאסקענען פחות פחות מכשיעור פאר א חולה שיש בו סכנה יום כיפור.
עד כאן.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
For Love of Fenway
Here and there, you see them. They are wearing this sublime, deeply felt, yet cautious and lonely smile. They are Boston Red Sox fans, who live in Israel. Many of us remember the Impossible Season of 1967, which ended with Yaz flying out and we muttered: 'Hullio Havier is a Herk.' Others remember Pudge Fisk's tie-breaking homerun in the 11th inning against Cinncinnati, screaming 'We're Number One' all night in Kenmore Square, only to lose the seventh game. And so it went until 2004. When pigs finally flew (Ad astra per alia porci), and the Babe's curse was consigned to the trash heap of history, and the Sox finally did it, we Red Sox fans exulted in this world (and, I suppose, the next).
It was, however, very lonely for us abroad. Here, few people seemed to care. The Israelis didn't have a clue. Most American Israelis came from that 'other place.' I wore my Sox cap to school, and felt a bit foolish. That is, until a Law Student who was not alive in the magical year of 1967 (0r 1975 or 1987, for that matter), came up to me with tears in her eyes and said: 'Thank you. I was up all night watching the game and talking to my sister in Newton. When I got off the phone, I felt so alone, it was unbearable.' I commiserated with her and we both felt better and a lot less lonely.
So, here we are again. The Sox crushed the Rockies in the first game, and we have three more to go, Inshallah. We, the loyal fans of the knghts of Fenway Park, need to reassure and support one another. So, I'm going to start sporting the colors today and hope others will do so as well.
It might not help, but it certainly won't hurt.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
והיו עיניך רואות את מוריך
Rav Shmuel Mohilever זצ"ל
Rav Yitzhok Elchonon Spector זצ"ל
In an absolutely brilliant piece, on the inimitable Seforim blog, Rabbi Chaim Rappoport of London exposes the efforts to bowdlerize R. Shlomo Zalman's Auerbach זצ"ל's book on Shmittah, because he validates the Heter Mekhira (without, himself, endorsing it). As it turns out, the group of Gedole Torah who either endorsed or acnowledged the validity of the Heter Mekhira included a galaxy that make you shake when you invoke their names.
I hope that this won't be taken as grandstanding, but here they are:
Rav Avraham Yitzhak ha-Kohen Kook זצ"ל
Rav Moshe Feinstein זצ"ל
R. Isser Y. Unterman זצ"ל
Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank זצ"ל Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer זצ"ל
Rav Shaul Yisrael זצ"ל
12 Marheshvan
Today is the twelfth anniversary of the murder of Yitzhak Rabin ז"ל.
The airwaves are full of people concerned that that horror does not happen again.
Required reading for the day:
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Sunday, October 21, 2007
קרדום לחפור בו את ראש חברך
Let's get this out in the open. This Shemittah has, for various reasons, been a disaster (and it's only 9 Marheshvan). The Rabbanut and its Haredi handlers have colluded to cause most Jews to violate Shemittah, and sin, by effectively outlawing the Heter Mekhirah. This has also incurred millions and millions of dollars of loss to the economy. It has created a Hillul HaShem of new proprtions. In addition, the efforts to create an effective alternative through Otzar Bet Din has failed miderably. There's no food, no vegetables and no fruit (though the latter isn't even relevant until Tu BiShnat). On Shabbat, we were informed that Heter Mekhira produce and Otzar Bet Din Produce was mixed up and therefore everyone has to accept all the humros of everybody else.
Worse still, the local chat-list has been burning up over the very propriety of the Heter Mekhira. This was my most recent exasperated response.
Let me put things this way. The argument over the Heter Mekhira is almost 130 years old. In its various forms, it has been endorsed by Gedole Torah who dwarf ANYONE alive today. It was also opposed by Gedole Torah who dwarf ANYONE alive today.
What, then, are mere mortals to do?
First, given that both options are legitimate, it is absolutely illegitimate to delegitimize either the supporters or the opponents of the Heter Mekhira. It is certainly patently forbidden to coerce vast sectors of the Jewish population to accept one option or the other, if their behavior reflects the considered opinions of Gedole Torah. Consider this. In the name of what is, at most, a de-rabbanan (Shemittah) these people are forcing others to commit a slew of de-Oraytas (Sinat ha-Torah, Sinat Hakhamim, Hillul ha-Shem, Hakhshalat ha-Tzibbur etc.)
Second, as opposed to the denizens of the rabbanut, real Gedole Torah respect the views of their colleagues. Let me provide a case in point. A disciple of מורי ורבי Rav Soloveitchik זצ"ל approached him on the eve of his Aliyah and asked him what to do about שמיטה. Now the Rav personally opposed the idea of the Heter Mekhira, for reasons of both family tradition (i.e. the opposition of the Bet HaLevi and Reb Chaim Brisker) and reasons of principle. In fact, I remember vividly that when were learning Qiddushin in the Summer of 1973 we encountered a Rashi (41b s.v. Terumatan) that prompted the Rav to comment, regarding Shemittah, that 'No one is a Ba'alim i.e.owner on Eretz Yisroel to sell it to a Goy.' [BTW, this is the other side of his much mis-quoted statement about territorial compromise.]
In any event, to the talmid who asked, the Rov replied: 'Do you sell your Hametz?' the talmid answered: 'Yes.' 'So,' offered the Rov, 'if you can rely on a mekhira for a din de-oraysa (i.e, owning Hametz on Pesah), you can certainly rely on a mekhira for a din-derabbanan (i.e. Shemittah). Now, this does not mean, God forbid, that the Rov retracted his own position. He did, however, deeply respect the views of other Gedolim and saw no problem in having his own talmidim rely upon their rulings. On the contrary, as opposed to the denizens of the Rabbanut and their Haredi handlers, he absolutely refused to impose his opinion on others, especially le-humra. What is more, he openly advocated the use of Etrogim that grew during Shemittah on the following Sukkot, on principled halakhic grounds. [ I might add that one of the Rov's leading talmidim has told the above story, while under the mistaken impression that the questioner was some layperson and not a fellow talmid. Unfortunately, that vitiates the point and the lesson should be adjusted accordingly.]
Let me make this clear. I deeply respect anyone who uses Otzar Bet Din or is stringent about treating all produce as Qadosh be-Qedushat Shevi'it (funding the murderers of Jews, as the Badatzim do, is quite another matter). However, no one has the right to coerce the Jewish People to abandon a decision of Gedole Yisrael in order to impose their own opinion. No one has the right to do mitzvos oyf yenems playtzes (as Reb Yisroel Salanter once said.) No one has the right to להכשיל את הרבים. As the Netziv says in the Introduction to Bereshit, God does not tolerate such pseudo-Tzaddiqim.
Neither should we.
Worse still, the local chat-list has been burning up over the very propriety of the Heter Mekhira. This was my most recent exasperated response.
Let me put things this way. The argument over the Heter Mekhira is almost 130 years old. In its various forms, it has been endorsed by Gedole Torah who dwarf ANYONE alive today. It was also opposed by Gedole Torah who dwarf ANYONE alive today.
What, then, are mere mortals to do?
First, given that both options are legitimate, it is absolutely illegitimate to delegitimize either the supporters or the opponents of the Heter Mekhira. It is certainly patently forbidden to coerce vast sectors of the Jewish population to accept one option or the other, if their behavior reflects the considered opinions of Gedole Torah. Consider this. In the name of what is, at most, a de-rabbanan (Shemittah) these people are forcing others to commit a slew of de-Oraytas (Sinat ha-Torah, Sinat Hakhamim, Hillul ha-Shem, Hakhshalat ha-Tzibbur etc.)
Second, as opposed to the denizens of the rabbanut, real Gedole Torah respect the views of their colleagues. Let me provide a case in point. A disciple of מורי ורבי Rav Soloveitchik זצ"ל approached him on the eve of his Aliyah and asked him what to do about שמיטה. Now the Rav personally opposed the idea of the Heter Mekhira, for reasons of both family tradition (i.e. the opposition of the Bet HaLevi and Reb Chaim Brisker) and reasons of principle. In fact, I remember vividly that when were learning Qiddushin in the Summer of 1973 we encountered a Rashi (41b s.v. Terumatan) that prompted the Rav to comment, regarding Shemittah, that 'No one is a Ba'alim i.e.owner on Eretz Yisroel to sell it to a Goy.' [BTW, this is the other side of his much mis-quoted statement about territorial compromise.]
In any event, to the talmid who asked, the Rov replied: 'Do you sell your Hametz?' the talmid answered: 'Yes.' 'So,' offered the Rov, 'if you can rely on a mekhira for a din de-oraysa (i.e, owning Hametz on Pesah), you can certainly rely on a mekhira for a din-derabbanan (i.e. Shemittah). Now, this does not mean, God forbid, that the Rov retracted his own position. He did, however, deeply respect the views of other Gedolim and saw no problem in having his own talmidim rely upon their rulings. On the contrary, as opposed to the denizens of the Rabbanut and their Haredi handlers, he absolutely refused to impose his opinion on others, especially le-humra. What is more, he openly advocated the use of Etrogim that grew during Shemittah on the following Sukkot, on principled halakhic grounds. [ I might add that one of the Rov's leading talmidim has told the above story, while under the mistaken impression that the questioner was some layperson and not a fellow talmid. Unfortunately, that vitiates the point and the lesson should be adjusted accordingly.]
Let me make this clear. I deeply respect anyone who uses Otzar Bet Din or is stringent about treating all produce as Qadosh be-Qedushat Shevi'it (funding the murderers of Jews, as the Badatzim do, is quite another matter). However, no one has the right to coerce the Jewish People to abandon a decision of Gedole Yisrael in order to impose their own opinion. No one has the right to do mitzvos oyf yenems playtzes (as Reb Yisroel Salanter once said.) No one has the right to להכשיל את הרבים. As the Netziv says in the Introduction to Bereshit, God does not tolerate such pseudo-Tzaddiqim.
Neither should we.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Our Noah Feldman
It's now official. The Religious-Zionist community in Israel has its own Noah Feldman. His name is Hanoch Daum, one of the more gifted young journalists. (As he lives in nearby Alon Shvut, he's also something of a neighbor.) He recently published a gut-wrenching, personal expose ('אלקים לא מרשה' or 'God Does Not Allow') in which he laid bare the dirty laundry of the world in which he was raised, and the process that led to to living as a 'reverse Marrano;' i.e. Religious on the Outside, secular in private.
As opposed to Feldman, Daum's excruciatingly frank apologia pro vita sua is not an arrogant, self-serving manifesto, though he does present the reader with a demand for validation, on his terms. As one reviewer summed it up:
What Daum seeks is to observe religious commandments out of love, not fear. He wants to put on tefillin when he feels like it, to have Shabbat dinner but sit down at the computer afterward. Many secular readers may not understand what the fuss is about. All this pathos for a swig of Coke on Yom Kippur? Many of them would prefer a clear-cut message at the end of the book. They would like to see the author tossing away his skullcap and leaving Gush Etzion. But Daum wants to have his cake and eat it, too. He has learned to write trendy Hebrew with no trace of a "religious accent." His imagery stems from secular culture. "I am a loaded gun of doubt and longing," he writes on two different occasions.
Like Feldman, Daum does present his community with some serious questions. In Feldman's case, he forced the Modern Orthodox Community to question its priorities, especially regarding the relationship between Torah and General Culture and Society.
Daum, on the other hand, highlights the unbending and absolute identification of Judaism with 'the question of Eretz Yisrael' (עניין ארץ ישראל). He points out the unforgivingly high standards of religiousity that are set by the religious leadership of the Religious Zionist Community, and its educational institutions. His own experience, as one afflicted by OCD, sheds light upon the obtuseness of religious educators to the personal needs of their students.
As he himself writes:
"Maybe everything is fine in our sector. The social and political Jewish and religious codes - all perfect. But we will never know for sure unless we start out from the very opposite assumption: that we are settlers by inertia, religious by inertia, and above all, suffer from a huge, almost existential, superiority complex. We live with a sense of self-righteousness, harboring the insufferable belief that we know something others don't, and should the day ever come when everyone will think the way we do, we will all be better off. We think that everyone should keep the laws we keep, observe the commandments we observe, and have a political agenda with the same priorities we have."
Obviously, while I am truly sorry to see Daum's pain, I do not accept his solutions. However, I sincerely hope that the members of the 'sector' (as it styles itself) will not dismiss his story, and undertake the appropriate חשבון הנפש.
As opposed to Feldman, Daum's excruciatingly frank apologia pro vita sua is not an arrogant, self-serving manifesto, though he does present the reader with a demand for validation, on his terms. As one reviewer summed it up:
What Daum seeks is to observe religious commandments out of love, not fear. He wants to put on tefillin when he feels like it, to have Shabbat dinner but sit down at the computer afterward. Many secular readers may not understand what the fuss is about. All this pathos for a swig of Coke on Yom Kippur? Many of them would prefer a clear-cut message at the end of the book. They would like to see the author tossing away his skullcap and leaving Gush Etzion. But Daum wants to have his cake and eat it, too. He has learned to write trendy Hebrew with no trace of a "religious accent." His imagery stems from secular culture. "I am a loaded gun of doubt and longing," he writes on two different occasions.
Like Feldman, Daum does present his community with some serious questions. In Feldman's case, he forced the Modern Orthodox Community to question its priorities, especially regarding the relationship between Torah and General Culture and Society.
Daum, on the other hand, highlights the unbending and absolute identification of Judaism with 'the question of Eretz Yisrael' (עניין ארץ ישראל). He points out the unforgivingly high standards of religiousity that are set by the religious leadership of the Religious Zionist Community, and its educational institutions. His own experience, as one afflicted by OCD, sheds light upon the obtuseness of religious educators to the personal needs of their students.
As he himself writes:
"Maybe everything is fine in our sector. The social and political Jewish and religious codes - all perfect. But we will never know for sure unless we start out from the very opposite assumption: that we are settlers by inertia, religious by inertia, and above all, suffer from a huge, almost existential, superiority complex. We live with a sense of self-righteousness, harboring the insufferable belief that we know something others don't, and should the day ever come when everyone will think the way we do, we will all be better off. We think that everyone should keep the laws we keep, observe the commandments we observe, and have a political agenda with the same priorities we have."
Obviously, while I am truly sorry to see Daum's pain, I do not accept his solutions. However, I sincerely hope that the members of the 'sector' (as it styles itself) will not dismiss his story, and undertake the appropriate חשבון הנפש.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Oh Jerusalem: Stating the Obvious
Nadav Shragai, a columnist for Haaretz who has not 'gone native,' lays out the obvious implications of the Haim Ramon/Avigdor Lieberman plans to divide Jerusalem. The operative paragraph is:
Those who give the Palestinians control over the Temple Mount, the "outlying neighborhood" next to the Western Wall, will no longer be able to pray in peace at the Wall, or hold Memorial Day ceremonies or induction ceremonies for paratroopers there; nor will they be able to ensure the safety of the president or prime minister should either wish to participate in such ceremonies. Imagine the street battles in the alleys of Sajiyeh and Beit Hanun, in the Gaza Strip, transferred to the ancient streets of Jerusalem, which today teem with Jews. Think about how bar-mitzvah ceremonies or wedding pictures could be held at the Western Wall, or even plain old visits to place a note in the cracks, if Palestinians "controlled" the area a few hundred meters away.
This is not right-wing paranoia. It is actually a respectful evaluation of the sincerely held beliefs of the Muslim world, generally, and the Palestinians, particularly. Want proof, consider this.
Those who give the Palestinians control over the Temple Mount, the "outlying neighborhood" next to the Western Wall, will no longer be able to pray in peace at the Wall, or hold Memorial Day ceremonies or induction ceremonies for paratroopers there; nor will they be able to ensure the safety of the president or prime minister should either wish to participate in such ceremonies. Imagine the street battles in the alleys of Sajiyeh and Beit Hanun, in the Gaza Strip, transferred to the ancient streets of Jerusalem, which today teem with Jews. Think about how bar-mitzvah ceremonies or wedding pictures could be held at the Western Wall, or even plain old visits to place a note in the cracks, if Palestinians "controlled" the area a few hundred meters away.
This is not right-wing paranoia. It is actually a respectful evaluation of the sincerely held beliefs of the Muslim world, generally, and the Palestinians, particularly. Want proof, consider this.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Oh Jerusalem! Oh al-Quds!
All of Israel (except the Israelitische burghers um-Mosaische glaubens at Haaretz) are in shock over the declaration by PA presidential advisor Sheikh Adnan al-Husseini (from the people who brought you Mufti Haj Amin 'Itbah al Yahud' al-Husseini, Abdel Khader al-Husseini, Faisel 'Trojan Horse' al-Husseini and Yassir 'There was Never a Jewish Temple on Haram a Sharif' Arafat al-Husseini) that the Palestinians will never cede sovereignty over the Al-Buraq Wall, which is an integral part of the Al-Aqsa Mosque.
Never heard of the Al-Buraq Wall? Well, Jews know it as the Kotel Ha-Ma'aravi. In other words, after Haim Ramon and Co. have abdicated the Temple Mount, the Palestinians want the Kotel.
This is not surprising. The overwhelmingly dominant Muslim belief (irrespective of history, which is irrelevant in this context) is that there was never a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, and that the Jews have absolutely no rights to pray there or nearby (just as they have no rights to the Cave of Machpelah or Kever Rachel). For infidels to pray at Muslim holy places is a blasphemy against God and Muhammad. Thus, it is a non-negotiable item.
What do the Israelis respond? Well, the so veddy veddy sophisticated are saying good riddance to a piece of architecture that stands in the way of progress. Others, like the genius on the mid-day news, in their typically myopic and blatantly paternalistically racist fashion, refuse to take this claim seriously. It must be a negotiating stance, they say. Why? Well, in my opinion, since they don't believe in anything, they can't imagine that anyone else does.
Anyone who knows anything about Islam (just watch Hoda TV), however, is well aware that Muslims are profoundly and militantly loyal to their fundamental beliefs. They will, mirabile dictu, sacrifice their lives in order to defend and advance those beliefs. No amount of money will get them to abandon those beliefs.
The nullification of Judaism, the Islamic character of Jerusalem, and the irrevocable right of Muslims to rule every square inch of what ever was the Dar al Islam are esential components of Muslim belief and policy. Sheikh Adnan al-Husseini just stated the obvious.
Are we listening? In a recent review of Shmuel Berkowitz' book on the Temple Mount, in Azure, Emmanuel Navon writes:
In the end, Israeli Jews must make a choice between claiming their Jewish past and relinquishing it altogether. Throughout recent history, some have believed that by choosing the latter option, they would finally be left in peace. But as history has shown, the opposite is true: Denying our past, as well as our historical mission as a people, is as hopeless an act in our own land as it was in exile. Instead, the time has come to reclaim our past--indeed, to fight for it.
Never heard of the Al-Buraq Wall? Well, Jews know it as the Kotel Ha-Ma'aravi. In other words, after Haim Ramon and Co. have abdicated the Temple Mount, the Palestinians want the Kotel.
This is not surprising. The overwhelmingly dominant Muslim belief (irrespective of history, which is irrelevant in this context) is that there was never a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, and that the Jews have absolutely no rights to pray there or nearby (just as they have no rights to the Cave of Machpelah or Kever Rachel). For infidels to pray at Muslim holy places is a blasphemy against God and Muhammad. Thus, it is a non-negotiable item.
What do the Israelis respond? Well, the so veddy veddy sophisticated are saying good riddance to a piece of architecture that stands in the way of progress. Others, like the genius on the mid-day news, in their typically myopic and blatantly paternalistically racist fashion, refuse to take this claim seriously. It must be a negotiating stance, they say. Why? Well, in my opinion, since they don't believe in anything, they can't imagine that anyone else does.
Anyone who knows anything about Islam (just watch Hoda TV), however, is well aware that Muslims are profoundly and militantly loyal to their fundamental beliefs. They will, mirabile dictu, sacrifice their lives in order to defend and advance those beliefs. No amount of money will get them to abandon those beliefs.
The nullification of Judaism, the Islamic character of Jerusalem, and the irrevocable right of Muslims to rule every square inch of what ever was the Dar al Islam are esential components of Muslim belief and policy. Sheikh Adnan al-Husseini just stated the obvious.
Are we listening? In a recent review of Shmuel Berkowitz' book on the Temple Mount, in Azure, Emmanuel Navon writes:
In the end, Israeli Jews must make a choice between claiming their Jewish past and relinquishing it altogether. Throughout recent history, some have believed that by choosing the latter option, they would finally be left in peace. But as history has shown, the opposite is true: Denying our past, as well as our historical mission as a people, is as hopeless an act in our own land as it was in exile. Instead, the time has come to reclaim our past--indeed, to fight for it.
Monday, October 08, 2007
Our Twenty Percent (Part I)
An acquaintance of mine, who happens to be a Psychiatrist, once observed that many people suffer from unnecessary stress and anxiety that are brought on by frustration at things over which they have no control (e.g. traffic jams). People, he offered, would be much better off if they concentrated on their twenty percent, the portion of their lives over which they have some degree of control and influence. (Or, if you wish, one should adopt the philosophy advised by the Serenity Prayer.)
When you live in Israel, especially, this is more easily said than done. The culture, garrulous and raucous in character, conditions you to rail for or against things over which you really have very little impact. On the other hand, it is very difficult to know wherein lies one's own twenty percent.
I was thinking about this quandry today, as I watched the introduction leading up to the opening of the winter session of the Knesset. Olmert's government has already as much as announced that it is prepared to: a) Divide Jerusalem and thereby expose the Jewish sections to ongoing terror or worse b) Hand the Temple Mount and other sacred places to the Jordanians (whose record between 1949 and 1967 was horrific) c) Withdraw from over 92% of Judea and Samaria (leaving over175,000 more Jews homeless) and d) Allow for the return of some so-called refugees to Israel. In order to save his 'Diplomatic Initiative,' the government refuses to protect the Jews of the south from daily, incessant missile attack. In addition, the Prime Minister is under criminal investigation on four counts.
Despite all of this, the political commentators are all united in their opinion that the government will not fall and that there will not be elections in the foreseeable future. The reason is simple. Even though every poll shows widespread disgust with Olmert and opposition to his policies, the members of the Knesset, who know that most of them will not be returned to office, are more concerned with their status and perks than with the will of the people. At best, as with Shas and UTJ, they are more interested in their narrow interests than those of the people, at large. So, Olmert can buy them off. The PM himself, incorrigibly corrupt and cynical, is protected by the media as long as advances their Post-Zionist agenda.
So many times I have thought of Oliver Cromwell's words to the Rump Parliament: '"You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately… Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!" However, whereas Cromwell was a political leader and could act on his words, for the average Israeli, they are just more bluster. Bringing down the government, at present, does not appear to be within anyone's twenty percent (not even that of Bibi Netanyahu).
I fear that we will pay a terrible price for this. It would be healthier for us all, though, if we acknowledge our own impotence and seek out that which we can do.
More on that, later.
When you live in Israel, especially, this is more easily said than done. The culture, garrulous and raucous in character, conditions you to rail for or against things over which you really have very little impact. On the other hand, it is very difficult to know wherein lies one's own twenty percent.
I was thinking about this quandry today, as I watched the introduction leading up to the opening of the winter session of the Knesset. Olmert's government has already as much as announced that it is prepared to: a) Divide Jerusalem and thereby expose the Jewish sections to ongoing terror or worse b) Hand the Temple Mount and other sacred places to the Jordanians (whose record between 1949 and 1967 was horrific) c) Withdraw from over 92% of Judea and Samaria (leaving over175,000 more Jews homeless) and d) Allow for the return of some so-called refugees to Israel. In order to save his 'Diplomatic Initiative,' the government refuses to protect the Jews of the south from daily, incessant missile attack. In addition, the Prime Minister is under criminal investigation on four counts.
Despite all of this, the political commentators are all united in their opinion that the government will not fall and that there will not be elections in the foreseeable future. The reason is simple. Even though every poll shows widespread disgust with Olmert and opposition to his policies, the members of the Knesset, who know that most of them will not be returned to office, are more concerned with their status and perks than with the will of the people. At best, as with Shas and UTJ, they are more interested in their narrow interests than those of the people, at large. So, Olmert can buy them off. The PM himself, incorrigibly corrupt and cynical, is protected by the media as long as advances their Post-Zionist agenda.
So many times I have thought of Oliver Cromwell's words to the Rump Parliament: '"You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately… Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!" However, whereas Cromwell was a political leader and could act on his words, for the average Israeli, they are just more bluster. Bringing down the government, at present, does not appear to be within anyone's twenty percent (not even that of Bibi Netanyahu).
I fear that we will pay a terrible price for this. It would be healthier for us all, though, if we acknowledge our own impotence and seek out that which we can do.
More on that, later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)