Israel’s self-proclaimed intellectuals will agree to grant you a certificate of intelligence only if you pledge allegiance to the two-state solution – and it was palpably evident at the Herzliya Conference – a Broadway show.
Attending the Herzliya Conference’s panel on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is like following Woody Allen’s therapy through his movies: you know that the patient is hopeless and that the new movie is going to be a mere repetition of the previous one, and yet you maintain the ritual out of snobbism. This year’s panel, however, was more like a flashback. I felt like I was watching the ending scene of Mighty Aphrodite, when the Greek tragedy turns into a Broadway show.
The panel included seven speakers: Tzipi Livni (chairperson of the “Hatnuah” party), Shlomo Avineri (a Hebrew-U emeritus professor), Robert Danin (from the US Council on Foreign Relations), Michael Herzog (from the Washington Institute for Near East Policies), Yoaz Hendel (chairman of the Institute for Zionist Strategy), Nati Sharoni (chairman of the Council for Peace and Security), and Dani Dayan (former chairman of the Judea and Samaria Council). The moderator was Barak Ravid, the diplomatic correspondent of Haaretz.
Supposedly, the purpose of a panel is to present different opinions and to have a debate. In this panel, however, all but one member expressed support for the “two-state solution” (the only minor differences between the speakers were about technicalities). Even the moderator clearly stated his opinion and sided with the six panelists who expressed their support for the “two-state solution.” The only dissident was Dani Dayan, who was added at the last minute (his name was not on the original program, and an extra seat was squeezed-in for him right before the session started). In the end, seven speakers (including the “moderator”) said that a Palestinian state must be established in Judea and Samaria, and one speaker begged to differ. It was a 7-1 ratio, or an 86% majority –an impressive display of pluralism and balance.
Tzipi Livni (whose party represents 5% of the Knesset) opened her remarks by claiming that she speaks for the majority. Then she explained why the establishment of a Palestinian state is so urgent: soon Hamas will be in charge and when that happens signing a deal with the Palestinians will no longer be an option. Is Tzipi Livni aware of her argument’s silliness? If, as she herself admits, Hamas will eventually take over, what is the point of signing with Fatah today a deal that Hamas will trash tomorrow? But what is telling about Tzipi Livni (and about the “majority” she supposedly represents) is not her comical twisted logic, but the way she perceives Israel’s rights. She said that a peace agreement is the Archimedean point of Israel’s existence, and that peace grants legitimacy to Israel. In other words, Israel’s rights and existence are not sui generis, but are only valid if the world (especially Israel’s enemies) approve them.
Even Ehud Barak said during the Camp David negotiations in July 2000 that the Archimedean point of Israel’s existence (he used the very same expression) is the Temple Mount. For Tzipi Livni, this Archimedean point is neither divine nor historical (I suspect Ehud Barak was referring to the second option). Rather, Israel only has a right to exist if its critics agree to it.
Tzipi Livni has the same “externality” problem on a personal level, which is why she has metamorphosed over the years into the spokesperson of Haaretz. Precisely because Israel’s self-proclaimed intellectuals will agree to grant you a certificate of intelligence only if you pledge allegiance to the two-state solution, and precisely because Livni is an intellectual lightweight who suffers from an inferiority complex vis-à-vis the “branja” (the “in” group of “experts”, ed.), she became more royalist than the king. Tellingly, Shlomo Avineri publicly congratulated her during the “debate” for joining the exclusive club of the enlightened ones after years of darkness in the Likud grotto.
“Exclusive club” was the expression used by Barak Ravid to describe those who support the two-state solution. This is typically how the Israeli Left tries to intimidate those who don’t toe the party line: we are the star-belly sneetches. Then Ravid harangued the audience about what he called “Israel’s Apartheid against the Palestinians” and claimed that, for this “apartheid” to end, a Palestinian state must be established as soon as possible in all of Judea and Samaria.
Robert Danin castigated the Israeli government for claiming that there is no partner for peace. When you keep telling people there is no partner, he said, they end up believing it. Danin didn’t discuss whether or not the PLO is a reliable partner for peace. His argument was not about history, but about psychology: if you can convince people that there is no partner for peace, then you can also convince them that there is a partner for peace. The truth or falsehood of the argument itself is irrelevant. What’s important is to believe.
This is precisely why I once wrote an article called “The Two State Religion.” It’s not about facts. It’s about faith.
Michel Herzog made a point which I also find fantastic: we have to negotiate with the Palestinians so that we can say to ourselves and to the world that we tried. Well, what about Camp David in July 2000, what about Taba in December 2000, and what about the Olmert proposal to Abbas in 2008? Didn’t we try then? Hasn’t Herzog been around for the past twelve years?
Yoaz Hendel publicly confirmed that he agrees with Tzipi Livni (he had briefly considered running on her list for the 2013 Knesset elections). He also claimed that “the Israeli people accepts the two-state solution” (actually, over 50 MKs oppose it: 12 MKs from the Jewish Home, 28 MKs from Likud-Beitenu [if you exclude Netanyahu, Tzahi Hanegbi, and maybe Sylvan Shalom], and at least 2/3 of the 18 MKs from the two ultra-orthodox parties).
Nati Sharoni pledged to “get rid of the occupied territories” and played a short movie by Dror Moreh, the author of The Gatekeepers. The movie explains (with soft background music) how to ethnically cleanse Judea and Samaria from its Jews.
Danny Dayan claimed that a two-state solution is unreachable because the gap is too wide between the maximum that Israel is willing to offer and the minimum that the Palestinians are willing to accept (as proven by Abbas’ rejection of Olmert’s proposal). He suggested improving the status quo by granting the Palestinians full civil rights under the rule of the Palestinian Authority, while maintaining Israel’s exclusive security prerogatives.
To which Shlomo Avineri replied that Dayan’s proposal meant denying the Palestinians full national rights, and that this constitutes an injustice. Finally there was a debate (this was the only interesting part of the panel). The difference between Shlomo Avineri and Dani Dayan on this issue is not that wide: Avineri doesn’t really believe that a solution is possible, but he wants to keep trying nevertheless. Dayan really doesn’t believe that there is a solution, and thinks it isn’t worth anyone’s time to keep banging your head against the wall.
But the debate between the two raised an important question: is it legitimate to grant the Palestinians full civil rights, but to deny them national rights?
My answer to this question is positive, for four reasons.
First, because the “Palestinians” do not constitute a genuine people. They are part of the Arab nation, a nation that has 22 states.
Second, because the Palestinian narrative is a fraud and because the Archimedean point (to use that expression again) of “Palestinism” is the destruction of Israel.
Third, because the Palestinians openly admit that they won’t tolerate any Jewish minority in the “Palestinian state” (by contrast, there is a significant Arab minority in the Jewish state).
Fourth, because such a state would inevitably be militarized, it would incite its population (as the PA currently does) against Israel and the Jews, it would eventually be run by Hamas, and it would be an ally of Israel’s worst enemies (especially Iran).
So, yes, there are very good reasons to grant the Palestinian Arabs full civil rights, but to deny them national rights.
As the panel was coming to an end, Barak Ravid tried very hard to find out if Netanyahu might actually take concrete steps toward the establishment of a Palestinian state (the dream of the Israeli Left). Shlomo Avineri said he didn’t think so because of Netanyahu’s “revisionist” upbringing.
Referring to Netanyahu, Avineri said the following: “Beware of people who are true believers, because true believers never admit that they are wrong.”
Well said, professor. You obviously didn’t realize that you were unintentionally ridiculing the “two-state” believers such as yourself. But I had a good laugh: thank you for turning the Greek tragedy into a Broadway show.
The author heads the Political Science and Communications Department at the Jerusalem Orthodox College, and teaches International Relations at Tel-Aviv University and at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya.
Bernard Ross Said:
Yes because they know better and yes because they make a conscious decision to remain in exile. As to their dress and customs think of the difference between acculturation and assimilation. Most of what you describe can be laid to acculturation of their sects but not assimilation as we see in most non observant Jews both in and out of Israel. They can justify with some theological merit that Israel is ruled by atheists and the laws of the land or antithetical to Torah Law. They reason that such a state cannot be what the almighty intended.
Pls watch more than once if need be all 4 parts
yamit82 Said:
I read the link and yur excerpt.
yamit82 Said:
To assume superiority from this principle would be taking credit for G_D’s Will. I believe that being a light unto the nations is to be a tool of G_D and deserving of no boasting or credit. G_D may choose to create events that fulfill the “curse and blessing” without regard to the status of the individual or collective Jews but to show the nations his covenant. In that way the Jews are a light by being an example of his will. He may choose Jews to be a light through their righteousness such as the Israeli aid to enemies and the disaster stricken. A light shows the way but in no account do I believe that credit should be taken. yamit82 Said:
I find this argument vain and boastful. the Jews being a light is G_d’s Will and I expect they were a light every day of existence. As a light to show the G_D’s glory and will. I believe we should expect that the Jews were a light when they died in the holocaust and are a light at the ingathering. As an individual or nation during the exile or after aliyah the Jew is a light whether he wishes it or not.
On antoher note, from your link:
However, our Sages have said that: “God regrets having created four things: Exile, Babylonians, Ishmaelites and the Evil Impulse”. (Succah 52b).
yamit82 Said:
I have read the links you sent and will reply in more than one part to avoid moderation. You have many times written similarly to the point of declaring Jews who do not make aliyah to being non Jews. Does this principle also apply to the ultra orthodox like the Satmar, Naturei Karta, etc.? The Ultra orthodox embrace the exile more than the assimilated because they make a conscious decision to do so, and ascribe their decision to Hashems’s will. Their clothing, appearance and yiddish scream of the european ghettos and their unwillingness to leave behind the most visible accouterments speak of being bound to the idols of the exile. However, because they learn Torah and observe external ritual they are automatically considered as Jews even the Christian hierarchy have carefully “educated” themselves in Torah and their version of ritual abounds. If the ultra orthodox position is wrong then it follows that they have sinned. By your position they are non Jews and breaking a commandment greater than being a light unto the nations.
yamit82 Said:
rather than use the word can’t”” I would use the word “unlikely” because I would not pretend to render Hashem with my limitations. If Hashem wishes me to know his ways then I will know his ways. I would be very cautious in ascribing to Hashem my beliefs or putting my words into His mouth. We are faced today with a cacophony of religious and atheist Jews all purporting to represent the will and thinking of Hashem. The very fact that there are ultra orthodox jews who consider aliyah a sin and ultra orthodox Jews who consider aliyah to be a very important commandment should, in my opinion,pose some questions. Why does G_D present us with this seeming confusion: which religious Jews should I follow, are they in fact religious, or do they give the appearance of being religious? For me, every rendition of Man which purports to represent G_D should be viewed skeptically and should be compared with reality. I believe, perhaps wrongly, that nature is one of the most direct works of G_D because it is unfiltered by man and can be directly apprehended by the tools given to man individually. I believe that nature is created by G_Ds will and its current daily unfolding is his will in action. When scientists tell us about nature we can see if nature verifies their predictions and even then it is a transitory apprehension and understanding because it is filtered through the present comprehension of Man(e.g. Newtonian and Einsteinian Physics). Tomorrow we may turn around and discover that all, or some, which we believed about G_ds Will, which passed through men, might be wrong; especially since men cannot agree on G_Ds ways. When we say we can’t know His ways then we attempt to limit his desires. Usually it means that we are unable to figure out his reasoning within the confines of our current assumptions; that there appear to contradictions with our assumptions. Perhaps if we accepted events as representing His will, and allowed ourselves to arrive at conclusions which contradict our beliefs, perhaps we might know a little more.
It appears to me that G_D’s will is unfolding. Why should I assume that it is not unfolding in exactly the way, the rate, the speed at which He will it to unfold?
What were the ways and the acts which were Judged to exile and why was it almost 2000 years until the ingathering began? Is it possible that the ways and acts continued during that period?
yamit82 Said:
The Orthodox lived separately and appeared righteous; were they a “light unto the nations”? should we assume that they were not chosen to lead the ingathering because hashem deemed them as unworthy as the assimilationists? If G_D willed the Jews to be a “light unto the nations” wouldn’t he have chosen the most worthy so as to be clear as to who is right? The ultra orthodox still reject aliyah. The Satmar of Brooklyn are separate and have a town in NYS known to be the poorest town in the USA and they live on gentile welfare. Are they a light to the nations?
Felix Quigley Said:
The Hebrew calendar says that today is Yom Aleph 6th Nisan, 5773. First day of the week in the month of Nisan in the year 5773. And you talk about us relating to 1918 as some watermark and extraordinary date in our history? For Jews our history is a continuum, our past when studied are our guideposts to our present and future. The G-d of the Jews is the G-d of History. He shapes the present and decrees the future. He created the past and He controls the present and He wills the future. The Jewish G-d is the G-d of creation, the G-d of History past and future.
I am reminded of the Disraeli reply to a taunt by Daniel O’Connell, “Yes, I am a Jew, and when the ancestors of the right honorable gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon.”
There is Yamit trying to screw the clock back to the time of the King and basically trying to replicate a far off time, with no feet on the ground, and in fact when you are a mad prophet yelling in the desert you can yell anything.
But you cannot turn the clock back like this.
Intelligent man, that is historical man, in understanding history has to take into account the phases of the world, one of these is slavery plus tribalism, a second is Feudalism, the third is the changes brought about by capitalism.
You may wish an alternate but all I say wish away you fool.
The world that Israel cane into being was the world of 1918, it was the world of the defeat of the Ottomans, and it was the world of British and other deceit motivated by capitalist interests (partially oil)
The world of Antisemitism.
Hitler began precisely there (see Wistrich “Hitler’s Apocalypse”) and so did British betrayal.
That is why the vital issue is Jordan and the British. It is because of people like Curious that the betrayal has taken place…where there should be clarity they cloud the issue.
In the end they take the feet from under you.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Jordan was created on 80% of the palestine mandate territory designated to be a jewish homeland. It was created to be, and it still is, JEW FREE. Gaza and the PA west bank are the same. This is unacceptable. There are no possible permanent agreements with such entities, only temporary. All of your cajoling and those of the euro-christians is based upon swindling the Jews. Justice must be restored and damages mitigated. The only way that there can be a change for Israel is through the assertion of strength. The enemy dogs will continue to sabotage Israel. the best thing tha OBL said was “the world favors a strong horse” this observation is very apropos to Israels current relation to the world. The current relation is the overt demonstration of weakness, this is treated the same as would a pack of wolves. the outcome of the 67 war changed the relationship for the better, the subsequent back sliding has dug a pit of confusion.
Strength, clarity and a new paradigm which is not confusing: no double standards will be accepted or even entertained and past abuse must be mitigated with justice restored. Israel has the ability to accomplish much but it continues to reside in the shtetl of the mind trying to appease the crazy jew killers and more dangerously, their european allies.
Ted my comment to Felix was spam blocked.
Felix Quigley Said:
There is more to it than your ideological dogmatic and simplistic view of history.
Ans this: All nations to a larger or lesser degree faced what Germany faced economically at that timeet Hitler oly arose in Germany and in no other country. Why do you think?
Before the Evian conference Hitler was willing to expel the Jews if there were other countries willing to take them in. None! Zero! Zip!! were willing. Then he knew he could get away with his plan of extermination.
Stalin allowed and even profited from German Industry and their rearmament with the sale of natural resources to Germany. Was that Capitalism?
Yes wall st. Loved him, American Industrialists profited by him and made billions from his build up of Germany; Churchill praised him as a great leader and Time Magazine named Hitler man of the year twice. The Catholic Church viewed him as the bulwark against communism.
Hitler was a Socialist, certainly no Capitalist or supporter of Capitalism. The Final Solution wasn’t a German invention, but a collaborative effort by the Christian world.
Christian Russia thought about some kind of Final Solution in the nineteenth century. The Russian government was receptive to Zionist leaders because they offered to rid Russia of Jews. The Russian government prompted waves of pogroms. In the early twentieth century in Ukraine, government forces annihilated the Jews in numbers only exceeded in the Holocaust.
Then came Stalin. He was deeply anti-Semitic, but allowed Jews into the most visible—and hated—positions in the communist hierarchy. Stalin committed a disastrous strategic error by partitioning Poland with Germany: the absence of that buffer state in June 1941 allowed the Germans to extinguish the Russian army in a matter of days. The only reason for partitioning Poland was to pass Jewish towns into German hands. Indeed, Germany and Russia carved Poland specifically the way that major Jewish population centers fell to Germans. Russians supported Nazi Germany until the very day it launched its offensive against the Soviet Union; Germany thrived on Russian iron, grain, and many other products.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Why do we, the Jews celebrating Pesach (Passover) in Jerusalem, still say: “Next year in Jerusalem!” Aren’t we already here?
The rebuilt Jerusalem we pray for is not this modern city, and the redeemed Eretz Israel is not the political state of the Jews we see today. As the influence of the Torah extends, so will the boundaries of Eretz Israel expand accordingly.
“To your descendants I have given this land, from the Egyptian River as far as the great river, the Euphrates.”
Bereshit (Genesis) 15:18
The tribes of Gad and Menashe added much of what is known as Jordan to the land of Israel covenant due to the fact that they fought with the other tribes in the conquest of West of the Jordan.
Gen. 15:18 is a vast territory delineating the borders of the Empires of those times Egypt and Mesopotamia.
Israel may choose to initiate optional wars of conquest to acquire those territories: An optional war is a war of choice as opposed to a war of obligation or mandatory war.
A mandatory war: A war against the seven [Cana’anite] nations, a war against Amalek, and a war to deliver Israel from the enemy attacking him. Thereafter he may engage in an optional war, that is, a war against neighboring nations to extend the borders of Israel and to enhance his greatness and prestige.
For a mandatory war, the king need not obtain the sanction of the court. He may at any time go forth of his own accord and compel the people to go with him. But in the case of an optional war, he may not lead forth the people save by a decision of the court of seventy-one.
An optional war is “a war against neighboring nations to extend the borders of Israel and to enhance [the king’s] greatness and prestige.” It is possible to understand that this category includes two types of war:
1) War waged to extend the borders of the land of Israel.
2) War waged to enhance the king’s greatness and prestige.
It is a given that when fighting a defensive war and Land of Israels enemy falls into the hands of the Jews, they automatically became indistinguishable from any other part of the Land of Israel covenant.
THE WARS OF G-D OR THE WARS OF ISRAEL? All wars fought by Israel are G-d’s wars!!
Jews were not expelled from Jordan. They were forbidden to settle there. Different thing altogether.
The Jewish historical presence in Jordan is weak. Even in Davidic times, Jews never really settled in Jordan except along the bank of the Jordan River. They had tributary control for a short while over other nations, but that was about it. The tribes of Israel were assigned to present day Israel more or less.
The Balfour Declaration was an attempt to give the Jews most of the Abrahamic Covenant in full (or close to it). The problem is: That covenant will not be fulfilled until the Messiah comes (or more precisely returns).
For present day Jews to get upset over the so called loss of Jordan (a land they barely controlled in antiquity – and then only temporarily) strikes me as a stretch.
In fact, David did not even control Gaza in his day.
The followers of Hajj Amin el Husseini, Arabs, must be expelled.
Hajj who says dumb Stalinist Anarchist?
Go learn some history dummy! In the meantime we will act to defend.
Yamit82
Wistrich does not understand Hitler. Hitler arose because of capitalist crisis. In the first place he was the agent of the German bankers.
Bernard Ross
Correct what you say. Livni is affirmation that Jews have to fight correctly to be able to “live alone”. Livni is the internal agent. of course she represents the majority!!! Thus the BBC can now interview her infinitely.
Netanyahu sells out to that hoping to pacify the BBC somehow!!!
CuriousAmerican Said:
this might be but then that condition exists on a permanent basis whereas the removal of the hostiles will move the focus of energy and resources. Israel will be able to focus on war and defense, emply drone warfare across the borders, with less terror and local policing of the 5th column. The introduction of the pals would help destabilize the surrounding hostile nations. the refugee problem will only be filmed for media outside of Israel. Israel should also declare that any land seized in war will be permanently annexed and the population pushed out(repudiate the one sided GC). Under this principle it should seek to annex back the Sinai and suez canal. this would increase resources and strategic control.
CuriousAmerican Said:
hogwash!
It is practical as Israel has demonstrated the required ability in the relevant areas: It can seize and hold buffer zones across the borders of gaza, lebanon, and now syria; it is able to bus large amounts of people in a short time, It can set up tent cities in the zones, The UNRWA is already operating in tne 3 entities and can shift current operations to those areas by expanding existing infrastructure. a great deal of money will boost the local economies of those areas, aid will abound.
It is in line with the accepted morality and precedence: jews were transferred from arab nations without compensation and without corrective action by world community. all areas of Palestine mandate under current arab control are JEW FREE. The 80% JEW FREE Jordan is enough Judenrein land in Israel.
It is good for Israel: It can be achieved unilaterally as agreements are not necessary with the 3 hostile entities; It will relieve Israel of the pal problem within the borders of Israel; it will force the world community to arrive at real solutions for the refugees,like your incentive payments, because they will now be outside of Israel. Israel will no longer be involved with the problem moving.
The only problem is the will of the Israeli people to repudiated double standards, this is the only problem now and is the main obstruction to its implementation in spite of it being the best solution.
Apparently, I must keep pointing out that your 3rd option is not practical, moral, or even good for Israel. It will backfire.
CuriousAmerican Said:
apparently I must keep pointing out your omission of the 3rd option: Busses across the 3 hostile borders, deposit the hostiles, withdraw.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Jordan was the other side during that period, the tss comes after the jordan treaty.
To be honest, the two state solution was sabotaged by both sides … for different reasons.
The Arabs wanted to destroy Israel.
There were settlers who wanted to annex the area right after the Six Day War, and Israel was not willing to restrain them. Still isn’t for the most part.
They have different motives. One is to destroy Israel. The other is to redeem the land.
But the two state solution was a charade from day one.
Between 1967-1987, before the Intifadas, Israel never made an offer of a two state solution. Neither did the Arabs.
This is a farce.
The Palestinians in Gaza, and the exterior camps (Lebanon, Syria, Egypt) will never accept a two state solution.
There is a large and growing Jewish population which never entertained the thought of giving the land back.
So be honest: Stop saying you want to negotiate when you don’t.
Annex Judea and Samaria and
A) Enfranchise the Arabs
-or-
B) Pay them to leave.
It makes no logical sense that an Arab in Nazareth has an Israeli passport, while one in Ramallah does not.
Israel has let this go on because she wants the land, but not the people on it.
Did Israel expect the Arabs to just walk away?! Disappear?!
She is going to have to make some hard decisions, and stop avoiding them by talking out of both sides of the mouth.
A) Enfranchise the Arabs
-or-
B) Pay them to leave.
@ Yidvocate:
Bernard Ross Said:
Orthodox Jews were liquidated no less even more so than non observant Jews in the Holocaust.
EXPLAINING THE UNEXPLAINABLE:
THE SHOAH AND LOVE OF THE EXILE
Read the above Essay it says it better than I can.
@ yamit82:
The nation that dwells alone, dwells alone. It shines it’s light by example. That is by living a just and righteous life in a just and righteous state according to Torah and mitzvot.
Why has redemption of the land come to the secular state? The redemption is incomplete. Hashem is testing us to see if we will turn to Him once we discover that we indeed are a nation that dwells apart. We’re almost at that point.
Of course, I don’t pretend to know how Hashem thinks, but this is my fervent belief.
@ yamit82:
You know exactly what I mean: – Torah and Mitzvot!
@Bernard Ross:
Why did G-d harden Pharoh’s heart? Why didn’t he skip the whole Egyptian narrative and keep the Hebrews in Canaan? Why did he use Mashiach King Cyrus to liberate the Jews of Persia and Babylon? Why did only 42,000 Jews return out of almost a million exiled by the Babylonians? Those Jews who did return were certainly not the elite or the creme of the creme of Babylonian/Persian Jewry. They were the dregs so to speak.
We can’t know the ways and even the ultimate objectives of our Law Giver but that should never stop us in our pursuit of National Redemption.
Bernard Ross Said:
Turn on the light unto the nations
Nothing overrides the explicit commandment that Jews are “the people that dwells alone.” That does not mean or entail objectively total separation or exclusion from necessary contacts like trade and diplomacy.
Jewish atheists and ultra-Orthodox have found a common point: the ostensible Jewish purpose of light unto the nations. Atheists love its universalist Christian tint, and haredi take it for confirmation of their superiority.
The best thing about this doctrine is its justification for staying in the Exile: in order to bring light to the nations, Jews have to stay among them. Both camps are lying.
Atheist Jewish liberals would not dare say to their gentile friends that Jews possess something which gentiles lack; that the Jewish way of life is inherently better. Liberals have no right to say this, as their way of life is not Jewish in any sense, but indistinguishable from the nations’. A Jewish liberal who speaks of Judaism somehow being equal to Jeffersonian political utopia—what can he teach his gentile acquaintances? His “Judaism” only includes the points acceptable to his fellow gentile liberals; all the rest is abandoned. It has not even been eradicated, as that would have required knowledge of Judaism on the liberal’s part, but simply abandoned, left unlearned and unknown. The liberal’s Judaism is narrower than gentile ethics, a subset of it. Such “Judaism” includes what gentiles accept, but not everything that they accept. It contains only the things which gentiles have long adopted anyway, and therefore cannot serve as a light unto the nations.
Many ultra-Orthodox Jews feel uneasy about showing gentiles their arcane observances. The last thing any sensible gentile imagines as a providential light is a rule to put the right shoe on first and lace the left first. Ultra-Orthodox Jews have withdrawn into secluded communities. In Boro Park, they are just as removed from gentiles as on the Moon. It is highly unlikely that gentiles would stream into Boro Park to learn the truth from those oddly clothed Jews.
Think of Judaism as a lighthouse beam, Ships sail toward it, but it doesn’t go forward to the ships. The beacon stays on its island; the ships move. Nations can start admiring the Jewish way of life only if we prove it to them. After the 1967 war, Jews became hugely popular around the world. By staying in Israel and making it into a strong, daring, unusual state, Jews have the best chance to draw gentiles to our values.
Yidvocate Said:
Your definition or understanding is too general and if I understand it, too narrow. Not sure what you mean by “True Jewish Values”?
The emphasis of Jewish Values since the Exile from Rome places individual Purity Laws above all others in the Torah. Before the exile there was a more balanced view of the Law where National Purity laws were either more important but never less than equal to individual purity laws.
For example we have archeological evidence That ALL Jews used the Mikvah Bath and All males donned tefillin [phylacteries] but in all of Tanach there is not one instance were any Jew ceded voluntarily an inch of the Land of Israel. Case in point Yiftach [Judges 11]. Would Jews before the exile allow for 5 min. the abominations to exist on the Temple Mount? Would Jews of Israel then, allow avodah zarah (strange worship), by allowing their churches to stand in Jerusalem? Their practitioners to parade in public with symbols of their deity around their necks or waists?
“If the Redemption were to occur in good, peaceful times, when quiet prevailed among peoples many of our Jewish brethren would not want to leave the Exile; for what would they be lacking there? …therefore, these calamities come upon us in order to awaken us to return to our Holyland.” HaKadosh Rabbi Yissachar Teichtal, Em HaBanim Smeich p.67-68 (written in Hungary 1944).
Jews have returned to the Land. It’s time to remember the Laws of the Land and to practice and abide by them. The Laws of the Temple to follow. True Judaism is a national religion requiring a Jew to live on the Land of Israel. Among our sages there is in this no disagreement.
Well said, and a dark shadow on the credibility of the conference who apparently at the last minute saw the absurdity of their speakers list.
this appears to be the lie to which the left wishes to give wings. If they represented one percent of the electorate they would still claim to represent the majority. However, this does not explain why the “majority” coalition led by BB has appointed her as justice minister and leader of negotiations. Sounds like a payoff to maintain her desired pretense of being relevant and to allowing her to try and make a comeback in the future from her dramatic, but unacknowledged, fall..
yamit82 Said:
Although, after so many years of slaughter, this desire is reasonable it seems to me that the very notion of being a “light to the nations” means that there must be some sort of interaction, that the Jews are not meant to be isolationists, but are obligated or programmed for interaction. However, I see no contradiction between a strong Jewish nation and Jews interacting with the world. Everywhere I see Jewish Israelis traveling the world and making their identity known.
yamit82 Said:
I agree, but were they Jewish by choice or by circumstance? Weren’t many of the returning european diaspora jews secular? Didn’t they see themselves as Jewish, zionist,non-religious, Israelis. Why did Hashem allow the “non religious” jewish identity to play such a major part in the rebirth of the state of Israel?
yamit82 Said:
I think there is some truth to this but I am not sure as to the purpose or to the path to where it leads. E.G. What is the nature of the “Jewish” continuation? What path is being revealed, or endorsed, by the Shepherd and who is being blessed for traveling that path? Is the endorsed path the path chosen by orthodox Jews who reject the state of Israel and continue to reside in the diaspora, or is it the path of the orthodox who endorse the state to its fullest to settle YS, or is it the secular jews who seek to in gather all descendants and converts and try to make “peace”? I may be wrong, but it appears to me that the nation of Israel, in spite of error and diversity, has been blessed and continues to be blessed, that it is an unfolding miracle. Are the unfolding events in Israel and the in-gathering of the Jews of the world an indication of Hashem’s will, His revealed path, His endorsement? What do you think?
Felix Quigley Said:
My wager is that she is funded and supported primarily by foreign interests, as are most of todays left. In spite of her low constituency she maintains a media voice far beyond the legitimate.
@ yamit82:
You only need antibodies if you are infected. If the infection is failing to be true to true Jewish values and precepts, you’ve just confirmed my understanding of the true cause of antisemitism and shown how to cure this near fatal disease.
Felix Quigley Said:
I keep asking you for a definition, Your definition of fascism and you refuse to give one, yet every comment of your contains accusations of someone or thing being a fascist. I don’t believe you know the meaning of what fascism really is. I think you misapply the term to all those who you consider counter revolutionaries, anti Marxist and especially your crazy denomination.
Can a commie in your opinion be a fascist? Was Stalin a fascist? Lenin? TROTSKY?
Did it ever occur to you the leftist anti Israel and anti Jewish attitudes are grounded in anti State nationalism and Judaism and Israel are the embodiment of both Jewish nationalism and anti Universalism of any stripe and color. We Jews are particularist; we believe we are G-d’s chosen people and The Land of Israel is G-d’s chosen Land.
A Chosen People and A Chosen Land
Revolution? The Hebrew word is “mahapecha” but it’s meaning transcends the narrow gentile concepts you understand.
For we Jews, our concept of “redemption” is itself a revolutionary concept, and implies revolutionary means. Redemption is a decisive and one-time-only change. The redemption from Egypt was extreme and had all the characteristics and values of a revolution.
The Zionist movement or the Jewish National Liberation movement is one of the few modern National Liberation movements that has been successful beyond the superficial trappings of gaining political power from other other nations or from other peoples.
Judaism ia about the concepts of separation both on an individual and national level our national problem is that separation is contrary to human nature, people need to feel the belong and are part of the greater whole which is Empire of Humanity. Not so Judaism we seek to be left alone in our own little national Island. Our conflict has always been that many or too many Jews wanted to be like everybody else and to join up with all the rest. Those Jews when they were successful self destructed as Jews within a few generations when they were allowed.
Thus antisemitism seems to have been a necessary condition for keeping many if not most Jews within a Jewish identity and framework. I think of antisemitism as Jewish antibodies necessary for Jewish continuation. Without the holocaust European Jewry was well on the way to extinction through assimilation in any event.
@ NormanF:
Norman, you got that right.
I believe Yamit has been stating this for many moons.
The doubters, shame.
How about us throwing in the liberal American Jews who continue to support the “Acorn community organizing pamphlet distributing anti-Semite pretending to be a Christian for political reasons who embraces Islam, orchestrated by George Soros & co and the liberal left media incompetent president”.
On reading articles like this I keep wondering why do people like Livni still have a platform and the reasion is that still 5 per cent do vote for her, that is a lot…about 6 per cent too many.
Then I look at Avineri and remember the great work he did on Herzl’s diaries.
In fact in trying to answer this question, and no it is not a religion that is mischievous and misleading, because it is a definite ideology, and you consider the actual theoretical methods of Herzl.
Herzl is revered but there were definite political weaknesses in his political method, he was not a revolutionary in a situation where only that was needed or would work.
But I ask the question who on Israpundit would dare to criticise Herzl
If you take a wonderful book like Wistrich’s Hitler’s Apocalypse that despite the name Wistrich does not understand correctly what is Fascism.
The problems are of method
In Israel, the so-called two state solution is akin to religious faith.
No amount of Arab extremism, rejectionism, belligerency and terror can shake it. The people who subscribe to it live in their own dream world.
Israel’s real problem has never been the Arabs; its always been Jews who have doubted their own rights to their country to the point of being willing to give it all away for a meaningless peace of paper.
That kind of outlook is not going to disappear in the future.