By Ruth King, Mid East Outpost
Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben Gurion proclaimed: “History did not spoil us with power, wealth, nor with broad territories or an enormous community: however, it did grant us uncommon intellectual and moral virtue, and thus it is both a privilege and an obligation to be a light unto the nations.”
Where did that hubris-fraught term originate? From the Book of Isaiah. There are three references.
-
“Yea, He saith, ‘It is too light a thing for you to be My servant, to establish the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the scions of Israel, and I shall submit you as a light unto the nations, to be My salvation until the end of the earth’ (Isaiah, 49:6)
“I the Lord have called unto you in righteousness, and have taken hold of your hand, and submitted you as the people’s covenant, as a light unto the nations” (Isaiah, 42:6)
“And unto your light, nations shall walk, and kings unto the brightness of your rising” (Isaiah, 60:3)
The notion mesmerized those who aspired to become a utopian, agrarian, virtuous, socialist model to the world. It even lured some realists who wanted the nation to be admired, respected and looked upon as a role model.
In the early post-independence years, the “light” bearers of Israel were depicted as super heroes–farmers/scholars who made the desert bloom and could turn their plough shares and pruning hooks into rifles at a moment’s notice to defend their nation, yet remain devoted to the goal of achieving peace with their neighbors and eager to make sacrifices to obtain it. Who would not be delighted by this image, coming as it did only three years after the Holocaust? How comforting was it to see them as models to illuminate a dark and venal world?
But Israel’s implacable neighbors sought only to destroy it and the price of survival became a seemingly endless series of wars, which sat ill with the utopian image.
Nonetheless, the afterglow of the “light unto the nations” continued and subsequent Israeli leaders continued the destructive fantasy and self-righteous preening. A good example is the egregious comment from supposedly tough Golda Meir : ““We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children.”
What hogwash. Did Meir not understand that she was creating a moral equivalence between barbarians who kill children and those who must take harsh measures to stop them? There is a direct line from her statement to the abominable movie “Munich” which draws parallels between the perpetrators of the murderers in the Munich Olympics and those who sought to find them and bring them to justice.
Israel’s adversaries also took up the ‘light unto nations” rhetoric as a weapon against her. In a speech to the Jewish Theological Seminary in November 1984, Nobelist Bishop Tutu declared that Israel betrayed its status as “a light unto the nations” by losing its direction and becoming unfaithful to its calling.
Defending the nation became an abrogation of Israel’s supposed role as the light unto the nations and Israel’s detractors have had a field day voicing their disillusion and prodding for more appeasement, surrender, and abnegation.
What nations was Israel to “enlighten?” The Muslim states who enable and endorse jihad while subjugating their own populations with unendurable Sharia laws? The members of the European Union for whom Israel’s existence and success are anathema? Or is it the United Nations, that cesspool of moral turpitude?
I would suggest we drop the plural from nations to nation and that Israel focus on being a light unto its own nation–the Jewish nation.
It has enough to gloat about. It is a shining, thriving democracy with outstanding humanitarian, academic, scientific and cultural institutions which has never lowered its standards to those of its genocidal neighbors. It has wonderful people in the brave settlers of Judea and Samaria and countless patriotic citizens and soldiers. There are clear-seeing and speaking academics like Moshe Sharon, Steven Plaut, Emmanuel Navon and the Nobelist Robert J. Aumann. There are legislators past and present like Naftali Bennet, Aryeh Eldad, Michael Kleiner, Yoram Ettinger, Danny Danon, and Moshe Feiglin. There are journalists like AFSI’s own William Mehlman, Sarah Honig, Ruthie Blum, David Hornik, Caroline Glick, Martin Sherman.
They buck international political pressure (and Israel’s own still active destructive light unto the nation moral preeners) to declare “this land is my land and we are the only ones with the right and legitimacy to define its borders.”
In his Independence Day speech in May 1948 Menachem Begin spoke far better than Ben Gurion. He said: “Our God-given country is a unity, an integral historical and geographical whole. The attempt to dissect it is not only a crime but a blasphemy and an abortion. Whoever does not recognize our natural right to our entire homeland, does not recognize our right to any part of it. And we shall never forego this natural right.” He ended:”God, Lord of Israel, protect your soldiers. Grant blessing to their sword that is renewing the covenant that was made between your chosen people and your chosen land. Arise O Lion of Judea for our people, for our land. On to battle. Forward to victory.”
And that victory in Israel’s War of Independence was a light unto Israel, to Jews everywhere and to all people of good will, that shines to this day, and illuminates the path to freedom for all the Jews in the Diaspora who are oppressed.
@ AJ – Raalte:
AJ – Raalte Said:
Alas, truer words were never spoken.
On behalf of the creation of a Provisional Jewish National Government. I believe that the time has come for the people to act to stem the disasters that are imminent.
Netanyahu, on his and his controllers desperation to complete their plans, have effectively elevated as formal negotiating partner a non elected government which is meant to form a new state, nothing less. And in our Land.
Is that outrageous violation of basic laws sufficient to support the creation of a Provisional government?
ppksky Said:
Your giving non Catholic Christians a pass does not stand in the light of facts and truth. Therefore it is an intellectually dishonest (by omission) position you have taken.
@ Shai ben Tekoa:
A visible demonstration on how G-d has manifested himself through the Jewish people in the Land of Israel as a beacon to the nations of the world.
“…for the land shall be full of knowledge of the Lord as water covers the sea bed.” Isa 11:9)
“I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God: I will strengthen you although you have not known Me.”
“In order that they know from the shining of the sun and from the west that there is no one besides Me; I am the Lord and there is no other.”
“Who forms light and creates darkness, Who makes peace and creates evil; I am the Lord, Who makes all these.”
G-d’s blueprint.
Excerpt from a lecture by R Meir Kahane (H’YD)at yeshiva University. (Video clip of this excerpt.)
Full article including all clips of lecture:
“According to the Rambam one is ordered to conquer the land and not leave it in the hand of any of the nations. This commandment of conquering the land is a commandment that is called a Melhemet Mitzvah, a War of Obligation and that’s what this is. When the Jews have the power we are not allowed to let the pagans live in Eretz Yisrael. If he accepts the seven noahide laws and the status of being a resident stranger and not a citizen he can live there…and if he doesn’t he is not allowed to live even for a moment in the land and some say he is not even allowed to pass through the land. Now that is for when we have power but the question is what if there is a danger to life. In the Tanach we find many nations going to war with the Jews, we never find a single Jewish leader confronted with someone saying give me land saying here take the land or giving the land. We never even find a case where they say give them tribute. The most classic case is the case of Yiftach, he was a judge, he was the godol of his time, so we find that the Amonim suddenly declare war on the Jews. So the judge sends a messenger asking ‘why are you going to war with me, what you got with me?’ The King of Amon answers, ‘you have occupied my land, when Israel came out of Egypt you occupied my land. Just give back the land and let there be peace.’ This is obviously one of the more moderate Arabs. So here is one offering peace and there is no question that the Jews occupied that land, Yiftach does not give it back in peace and he replies, and one will see in this the whole concept of why one is not allowed to give up land, he said ‘you have an elil (pagan god) named Chamosh, whatever your god gives you that is what you possess and all that our G-d drove before us is what we possess’ and he goes to war and there is no question Jews fell in that war and he did not give up any land. Think carefully of his answer.”
Melhemet Mitzvah: War of Obligation-
“There are two kinds of wars, Melhemet Mashoot and Melhemet Mitzvah. Melhemet Mashoot, which is only a war outside of Israel. It’s a voluntary war, a King decides to conquer land. David did it, Solomon did it in that part which is not Eretz Yisrael. For this type of Melhemet you need a Navi (prophet) a Sanhedrin and so that’s not practical in our time.
So what is Melhemet Mitzvah? There are three kinds of Melhemet Mitzvah: 1.) The war against the Canaanites to conquer Israel, 2.) Melchemet Amalek (i.e. extermination of the Amalek people), and 3.) any time the enemy comes up against Jews that is a Melchemet Mitzvah and that is applicable in our time. There is no need for a Navi, nothing. It’s a gammorah…what does it mean when the enemy comes up against you? Rambam narrows it further…it means whenever there is an enemy trying to take land or even tribute, this is a war of obligation.
Obviously the above war of obligation than would apply to the Arabs not only in the occupied territories but also actual Arab citizens within Israel, and not only Arabs but any non-Jew who has land in Israel.
@ Laura:
I have reason to believe that Ruth does not live a classical Jewish life of mitzvot and thus not surprisingly misinterprets the Hebrew “or laGoyim.” For sure she is right to disdain those who use it to preen themselves on their “Enlightened” views which commonly screw the Jews when it comes to the putatively Paleolithic phantom Palestinians. But as Ken (below) rightly observes, who are we to change the language, delete the expression? Rather, “a light to the nations” can mean the opposite of weeping over the “victims of Zionism”; it can mean uncompromising resistance to their demands and their barbarism. Judea and Samaria is Israel’s as of legal and moral right. Fighting for that, denying the PLO murderers their outrageous demands for a state on our property can also be a light to the nations; the Jewish people’s eternal war against the barbarians of Islam.
I would much more dedicated about not being again second Holocaust victims than about being or should be a light into our mortal enemies. We must cut away from surreal pretenses and focus like hawks on our triumph, not just survival.
Our most deadly enemy are the post Jewish government elites.
And those may not subjects for illumination but for stern removal.
Light unto the Nations? Here is an interesting line of thought of that means from Obadiah Shoher 😉
Turn on the light unto the nations
Rather, the light is similar to the beacon’s. 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.
Ruth’s suggestion should be rejected because Hashem has said that Israel shall be a light to the nations – who are we to change the word of Hashem. Being a light to the (gentile) nations is part of Israel’s being a light unto its own nation – the Jewish nation.
She didn’t say that. In fact Ruth said: I would suggest we drop the plural from nations to nation and that Israel focus on being a light unto its own nation–the Jewish nation.
It seems as though Ruth Kind misses the point too. Who says that Israel shall be a light unto the nations? It is God that is speaking and it is God’s purpose that is to be fulfilled in God’s relationship with the Jewish people.
This is what is anathema to both Islam and the Catholic Church who both represent the current wave of antisemitism posing as anti-Zionism. Both corrupt history and especially the history of the beliefs of the Jewish people. It is the personal relationship between a nation, a people and their God who promises nothing but nationhood that is a real threat to Islam and Catholicism.
Both are criminals in history even to this very day and the restoration of Israel is a death knell to their legitimacy in history.
Sooo, Israel IS a light unto the nations …!
Alas, the nations prefer darkness.