Barking (deliberately) at the Wrong Tree

The following article appeared in Hebrew in Israel Hayom on 30.07.2019 following the murder of a young gay Arab man by a family member. It was written by Tal Gilad. I decided to translate it into English for the sake of the English speaking segment of the Israeli population who are not entirely familiar with the antics of the Israeli Left.

Screaming about gay rights and blaming, even by merely hinting, the religious establishment or the entire Israeli society and holding it responsible for the stabbing of an Arab boy by his family, is akin to demonstrating in front of the Knesset against the crime level in the favelas of Rio De Janeiro.

It is impossible to ignore the obvious: the attack is related to the cultural characteristics of the Arab society. However, anyone who will express it explicitly, will be automatically accused of racism. On the other hand, there did not seem to be a problem to accuse the whole Hareidi society of the terrible murder of Shira Banki, may she rest in peace, despite the fact that among the Hareidi community there does not exist a culture of murder for innumerable “justifications,” starting with family honor and ending  with nationalistic revenge.

For some reason, when one deals with the Arab citizens of Israel, the attitude towards gays is not considered an essential problem that needs an intensive treatment.

On the contrary, one must walk on eggshells in order not to offend them. One should avoid talking about motives, education and mentality.

This globalism, the “we are all guilty,” version, is hypocrisy. Dancing  half naked in the streets of Tel Aviv, you will not change by one inch the kind of education a child gets in the Arab society just as you would not be able to change the level of crime in Rio or the rotation of Earth. These are barks at the wrong tree, except the tree is selected deliberately.

Why? Because the concern for gays clashes with the selective principle of “honoring the other.” On the one hand, there is the constant dwelling on women’s rights. On the other, the right of Arabs to degrade women and demand that they cover themselves with burkas because “it is a cultural matter.” The Left is so tolerant that it does not relate to Arabs as rational people who are supposed to blend and become part of in the country in which they live, but as a remote tribe in the Amazon forests whose life style should not be disturbed by giving it a pair of jeans which might spoil the idyllic nature.

Had we been dealing with a Hareidi boy, the Left would have united in an outrageous demand for a pogrom in Benei Brak. However, when we are dealing with a segment where murder for the sake of family honor or revenge are part of its rule of thumb, suddenly it is forbidden to call the child by its name. I do not know exactly how to process the data in the bug full and contradictory politically correct software.

Obviously, it is also convenient. After all, the Left really does not wish to solve problems. It loves them, seeks them, creates them if in lack of them, thrives on them and benefits from them. This is the essence of the Left, to protest and be furious. Perhaps it is better that way. The position in which the Left is in a festival of abstract theater and the Right is in government -  is pretty normal. The Right is rational and knows that two plus two is four, and the Left demonstrates against it since it is racist that two plus two is four.

At the bottom line though, it will not help to look for the coin under the lamplight merely not to offend the  darkness.

A Vanished Culture

Last night, I was watching a TV programme about the acclaimed Yiddish poet, Avraham Sutzkever.

In my view, he is probably the best poet that the Yiddish language ever gave rise to.

Fortunately for me, Yididsh is my first tongue. What a blessing it has been to be able to read and study this and other great Yiddish poets in that language, in the context of the Yiddish culture

Sutzkever was born in the town of Smorgon, my mother’s hometown. As a result of the Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement, their part of former Poland fell into Russian hands. Shortly after the Nazi invasion into the Soviet Union, in the middle of 1941, they set up a Ghetto in Vilna to where my parents and their family were transferred. Sutzkever, also, ended up there.

Vilna, its rich Jewish history and Jewish life have been part of the fabric of my upbringing. Prior to the war, I had a large family there. My late grandmother visited that city on a regular basis. I used to listen to her stories, her vivid description of famous landmarks, its thriving Jewish culture, Yiddish theatre and renowned scholarship of Yerushalayim D’Lita” (Jerusalem of Lita). That city was an inseparable part of me.

I have been to Vilna three times. During one of those times, I spent a summer programme at the Vilnius University Jewish Institute with my daughter. It was there that I was introduced to the great Avraham Sutzkever.

One of his poems that was taught in the course, “By the Golden Chain,” (Songs from the Diary), especially, caught my attention. Here is my free translation of it from the Yiddish:

“By the golden chain […]
Already time to unbutton out of darkness the secrets

Where tiny hearts of slime continue to beat in the ocean’s laboratory

Now it is time to drink wine with long drowned
Sailors in water – innkeepers on deck of ocean, in a cabin

And hear them tell of pirates, albatrosses

And Love of a thousand years, and everything not yet - tranquil.”

It struck a familiar note. As an undergraduate in English Literature, these words reverberated those of another poem, a very well known one. It was Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s poem, “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner,” written in the late 18^th century.

 In Coleridge’s poem, after the ancient mariner commits a sin by killing the albatross, guilts hounds him. The ship he was on was wrecked by a storm and its crew of sailors sank to the bottom of the sea. The mariner was its sole survivor.

Without getting into the discussion on why Sutzkever chose that metaphor, I remember being astonished and utterly awestruck at the fact that he was familiar with Coleridge’s work. Moreover, I was very impressed by how well he incorporated it into his poem.

After having delved into some of his other poems, I understood the profundity and talent that Sutzkever possessed. I was intrigued, curious and challenged by his poetic gift and decided to learn more about him. What I discovered was overwhelming.

Poetry, Yiddish poetry it turns out was Sutzkever’s survival mechanism during the harsh daily reality of life in the Vilna Ghetto. That did not come as a surprise to me. Having been exposed to the pearls of Yiddish culture, values, its humour, I was aware of their potential to generate a perennial spring, keeping its speakers’ spirits and minds forever alive and alert. They were the source of vitality, endurance, and resilience that prepared, guided and supported Jews through the monstrous chapter European Jewish history.

Sutzkever wrote a poem every day during his stay at the Vilna Ghetto. He was also involved in the vibrant cultural life and activities in the Ghetto and was even able to salvage some literary works.

Following their liberation, Sutzkever, his wife and young daughter made their way to Eretz Yisrael.

Unfortunately, in the early days of the nascent state, Yiddish was discouraged from being taught, spoken. It was suppressed and even banned. To modern day Yisraelis, it was the language of the Diaspora, the language of the people who had allowed themselves to be led to slaughter without much resistance. Many mocked and ridicule me for speaking it with my grandmother. Many continued to mock me for teaching it to my daughter.

 I vowed, then, that I will do whatever is in my powers to preserve that great and wealthy culture. It is the fiber of my essence, the culture that helped shape my destiny and that of my offspring. I, we owe it to hundreds of years of Jewish survival and to all the immolation our Jewish brothers and sisters have endured to keep its practice alive and thriving.

It will not stop with me. It cannot stop with me.

Who Were the Morioris?

As someone who loves history and hopes not only to learn it but also teach it and as someone who hopes to learn not only from the mistakes of our Jewish People but also from those of others, I wish to share with you the following.

In the late 1990's, I moved to New Zealand where I lived for 10 years.

A great country indeed. Nice friendly people, breathtaking scenery and a relaxing peaceful atmosphere.

There, I heard and read much about the maltreatment of the Maoris by the British during the colonial period. Fortunately for them, nowadays, much is being done to rectify that.

What is yet even more unfortunate is that in the process of remedying that, few, if any remember another group that had lived there BEFORE the Maoris. They are called the Morioris.

Though both the Maori and Moriori tribes are of Polynesian origin, there seem to be differences in practices and their way of life.

Unlike the Maoris and other Polynisian societies, where "bloody tribal warfare was common—in mainland New Zealand, cannibalism remained a feature of many clashes between Māori iwi, or tribes, the Morioris adopted pacifism." It was known as "Nunuku’s law," named after Nunuku-whenua, one of the Morioris ancestor who decreed that "Manslaying must cease henceforth forever."

According to Moriori custom, "if physical conflict were truly necessary, men could hit at one another with tupurau, poles the width of a man’s thumb and a couple of feet in length. But the moment blood was shed or skin broken, they were obliged to stop. Nunuku offered a warning for those who disobeyed his law, King writes: “May your bowels rot the day you disobey!”

In 1832, some Maori tribes set to move to the Chatham Islands where most Morioris settled and "walk the land."

The Morioris decided to adhere to Nunuku law and not fight.

That decision proved detrimental. “They commenced to kill us like sheep,” one survivor said later, “wherever we were found.”

Over two hundred Morioris were killed, many were children.

"Recordings of a council of Moriori elders from 1862 lists all adult Moriori alive on that day in 1835. One cross meant they had died or been killed; two crosses meant they had been cooked and eaten, a Māori custom common to land disputes on the mainland. Those who had not been killed were enslaved, separated from their families, and prohibited from marrying. Many died of illness, overwork, or kongenge, meaning dispiritedness or despair. The historian André Brett argues that what took place was not mass killing, but systematic genocide: “Māori viewed Moriori as a different and inferior people and killed individuals on the basis of their membership of the Moriori group.”

The last full blooded Moriori, Tommy Solomon died in 1933. His descendants live in the Chatham Islands which were annexed to New Zealand in 1842.

I only learned about this history when I lived in New Zealand and even there it is not discussed much.

How unfortunate that along the timeline of history, some try to bury injustices in the hope that they will fade away into the creases of the collective subconsciousness of humanity. We simply refuse to learn the lessons of history and bury them, merely to keep repeating them.

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/moriori-people-genocide-history-chatham-islands

Shabbat Shalom and a peaceful weekend to all

חזקת החפות

 כמורה בישראל, קשה לי מאוד להיות עדה לאמירות אשר נאמרות מבלי שמץ של מאמץ לבדוק את אמיתותן (כן, גם אני מעדתי בעבר בנושא זה והיכיתי על חטא).

"ביבי מושחת," היא אומרת לי.

"וכי למה?" אני שואלת.

"תראי את כל כתבי האישום שהוגשו נגדו," היא עונה לי בהבעת "ניצחון."

ממתי לגלם תפקיד של תוכי הוא עילה לשאת ארשת ניצחון?

אז למען "למד את בני יהודה קשת" (השכלה וידע, כלי נשק חשובים עד מאוד),

החלטתי לעשות את אשר לצערי מערכת החינוך אינה עושה ובוודאי ובוודאי שהמדיה בארץ ובעולם אינה עושה, לבדוק נושא בצורה הוגנת ושקולה אשר בעקבותיו יבואו המסקנות.

ובכן, כצעד ראשון חשוב להגדיר מהו כתב אישום.

זהו מסמך הפותח את ההליך הפלילי, קובע את מסגרתו ומוגש על ידי המאשימה-המדינה.

עלפי הנחיית פרקליט המדינה,

“.תכליתו של כתב אישום להביא בפני בית המשפט והנאשם את מכלול העובדות והנתונים המתייחסים לאשמתו לכאורה של הנאשם, ובכלל זאת: פירוט העובדות המבססות את סעיפי העבירה; הוראות החיקוק בהן מואשם הנאשם; רשימת עדי התביעה ונתונים רלוונטיים נוספים, הכל כפי שיפורט להלן. מטבע הדברים מדובר במסמך פורמלי, שיש לנסחו בקפידה, בדייקנות ובשפה ראויה. בנוסף לכך ראוי שכתב האישום, ככתב טענות המוגש מטעם התביעה, יציג את עמדת המדינה באופן סדור ומשכנע.  (https://www.justice.gov.il/Units/StateAttorney/Guidelines/003.1.pdf)

עצם הגשת כתב אישום א י נ ה הוכחה לאשמה.

במדינות דמוקרטיות אדם חף מפשע עד אשר הוכחה אשמתו מעל לכל צל של ספק כפי שהדוגמאות הבאות מצביעות:

"כך נאמר על חפות הפשע בבית המשפט העליון של ארצות הברית אשר למדה מהתיקון ה-14 לחוקת ארצות הברית:

“The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is the undoubt law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law"

מגילת הזכויות הקנדית (הצ'רטר) קובעת: "חזקה על אדם שהנו חף מפשע, כל עוד לא הוכחה אשמתו".

השופט יצחק קיסטר טבע בלשונו: "אדם הוא בחזקת כשרות כל עוד לא הורשע, גם אם הועמד לדין".

השופטת שושנה נתניהו סברה כי: "לפי העקרונות שלנו, אדם הוא בחזקת זכאי כל עוד לא הוכחה אשמתו."

פרופ' שניאור זלמן פלר קבע במאמרו "...כך הוא בהתאם לכלל in dubio pro reo; זכותו הבסיסית של כל אדם להיות מוגן מפני הפללה כל עוד קיים ספק סביר שמא בכל זאת הוא חף מפשע".

בישראל קיימת הצעה לחקיקת חוק יסוד, היא הצעת חוק יסוד: זכויות במשפט, המבקשת לקבוע בסעיף 4 שלה, את "חזקת הזכאי" כזכות יסוד הגורסת - "כל אדם בחזקת זכאי כל עוד לא הורשע בדינו".

עדיין חושבים שביבי או כל אחד אחר אשר כנגדו הוגש כתב אישום,  אכן אשם?

בבקשה קראו שנית את הכתבה וחישבו על תכנה..

Zion

“Where does the word ‘Zion’ appear first?’” I asked one of my Facebook friends during a discussion over the subject of “Zionism.”

“In the dictionary,” came the surprising answer from a fellow Jew whom I consider intelligent and educated.

After the waves of the initial shock had subsided and at the risk of me, a secular Jewess, being accused of “religionization,” I decided to cite the sources for that name, that place that is so central to our Jewish lifeblood, a name that has developed into an enriching concept which, unfortunately, more often than not, gets misunderstood and misused.

The name “Zion” first appears in the Tanach, in 2 Samuel 5:7: “Nevertheless, David captured the fortress of Zion – which is the City of David.” In a later chapter and in the Book of Chronicles, we are told that David paid money for land which Ornan, its owner, was willing to give him for free. In fact, “Zion” appears in the Tanach 152 times as a title for Yerushalayim.

The answer I received above for my opening question, raises for me a rather serious issue that is symptomatic of the challenges facing our People nowadays. And I love challenges!

As a first step and out of curiosity, I decided to look the word “Zion” up. Since I hold my Facebook friends in high esteem, I decided to look it up not on just any online dictionary. I decided to go to one of the best and more highly regarded, the Oxford dictionary. Here is its definition:

“1. A hill in Jerusalem, on which the Temple was built (used to symbolize the city itself, especially as a religious or spiritual center).

2. The Jewish People

3.Palestine as the Jewish Homeland and symbol of Judaism

4.heaven as the final gathering place of true believers

5. A city in Illinois.

I hope that, as a Jew, my FB contender would not consider the last three points of the definition as relevant to the Concept of “Zionism,” which is derived from “Zion.” As the verse above shows, “Zion” is the name of a place. It is a few millennia old and has been the spiritual center of the Jewish people almost as long. The Oxford definition even ventures to take it further and identify it with the Jewish People.

I hope this settles the issue of where the word appears first and that we can all agree then that “Zionism” or “Zion” are not just some words, or entries in some dictionary where strangers define that which only Jews can. Rather, it is a notion that goes hand in hand with the Jewish People only along its odyssey through major milestones in our history, tradition, culture, art, literature, prayers, writings and, above all, our essence.

It was that concept which pushed Jews only to weep “by the rivers of Babylon… when” they “remembered Zion.” It is also the same concept that vibrates in Jews only when we recall the destruction of Yerushalayin (AKA Zion) at the height of our joy under the Chuppah and pledge, “If I forget you Oh, Yerushalayim..”
It is the very same belief that animates Jews only to rise from the Passover table and vow, “Next Year in Yerushalayim,” pray towards Yerushalayim three times a day, and what pushed Rabbi Yehuda Halevi in the 12^th century, to lament,

“How can I find savour in food? How shall it be sweet to me?
How shall I render my vows and my bonds, while yet

Zion lieth beneath the fetter of Edom, and I in Arab chains?
A light thing would it seem to me to leave all good things in Spain--
Seeing how precious in mine eyes to behold the dust of the desolate sanctuary.”

Zion and Zionism, that which is at the core of our Jewish spirit, cannot be reduced or watered down to merely an item in a dictionary. That is a slap in the face of all our brothers and sisters whose blood is flowing in the rivers of history while struggling to keep the vows and remain loyal to that which we are.

If you wish, however, to show support and endorse the political movement established by Herzl in the late 19^th century, a movement that bears the same name as the concept, please accept my gratitude but please also understand that it is merely a fraction of what Zionism, the few millennia old Jewish only notion, is.

All I ask of you, dear readers and supporters, is that you respect it.

Thank you and Shabbat Shalom. ❤️🇮🇱❤️

The "just-not-Bibi" Party

The following article appeared in Israel Hayom on March 18, 2019. It was written in Hebrew by Tal Gilad, who is a regular columnist there. Like all of his article, this one is excellent and we decided to translate it into English so that the its very important message is extended to include a wider readership.

Though it is too early to determine, it seems that cracks are forming in the initial commotion surrounding Blue and White. It should not surprise us as we are not talking about a political movement that grew from grassroots. Rather, we are talking about an artificial plant that looks good until one touches its leaves and discovers that they are made of plastic; something that was hastily put together in order to win first prize in an exhibition except, it does not have roots.

The adage attributed to Lincoln (some say it belongs to the founder of the Barnum Circus), “you can fool all of the people some of the time, or some of the people all of the time, but not all of the people all of the time,” fits perfectly in the case of Blue and White. How long can such a rickety structure last, without a clear agenda other than “we are for good and against evil?” How long can conflicts between the four heads – which have emerged - be avoided.

The older parties – Likud, Labor, Meretz, Shas, The Jewish Home and others – grew out of the public, out of a need and on an established ideological basis with very clear goals.

Blue and White is not even a party of antithesis; it is a list of patches and ranks. It is made up of people who do not always share the same views or their political and economic stance. Their only common denominator is “just-not-Bibi.”

How will they run a state with such a world view? Will they offer a “just-not-Bibi” economic plan, build a “just-not-Bibi” security policy, conduct “just-not-Bibi” political discussions and foreign relations?

Which headlines will we see – the government discussed the budget and reached a consensus on “just-not-Bibi” ? In response to the Trump plan, the spokesperson to the government announced that we have only “just-not-Bibi” comments?

What is known about Blue and White is the clear Leftist tendencies of one of its heads and the populist tendency in every direction of the second head. Even its selected name is typical of efforts by the Left to sway voters – just like waiving the Israeli flags during a demonstration (lest they may be regarded as enemies of the state), just like the Clint Eastwood Show show which they are pumping now, as if they are about to launch a powerful attack against Gaza.

Seems like a cumbersome effort to play the new Rabin, kind of the New Left. Of course, they would not have any other consideration – strategic or economic – except for blood in their eyes, or whatever sounds good to the nervous voter.

Each one of the four seems unreal, in a way that even Lapid stands out among them. Ganz is distressed at the mere thought that he might be elected and then will be forced to act or understand what subsidies mean; Lapid is not worried, he will explain to him that subsidies are beautiful goddesses in the Greek mythology; Ashkenazi….ok, let’s move on; and Ya’alon acting as the Right wing fig leaf. Something induces discomfort with this foursome that toils so hard to look like part of the crowd that is out to have a good time.

Why not debate them on the heart of the matter? Gladly, but they must determine first what the heart of the matter is. If the four of them travel together in a car, they probably share jokes. However, when someone raises a political issue – “Guys, we have agreed, no politics.”

The Art of Leadership

Dvarim, (AKA Deuteronomy) is the fifth book of the five books of Moses. Dvarim means spoken words.

The book is also called “Mishneh Torah,” the Second Law. Ramban explains that it is called that because in it, Moshe explains to the generation who is about to enter the Land, the Mitzvot that are associated with Eretz Yisrael. According to Chazal, Moshe wrote the first four books of the Chumash as G-d dictated them to him. In Dvarim, Moshe writes them in his own words. Hence the reference to first person here as opposed to third person in the first four. It is the wisdom of G-d as verbally expressed by Moshe.

This week’s Torah portion which bears the same name, Dvarim, starts with a brief summary of the past 40 years of wanderings. Moshe who is 120 years old knows that he will not be able to enter the Promised Land. Moshe is not only old; he is also tired. Bnei Yisrael have fatigued him. He reproves them for their disobedience, their repeated transgressions and their many complaints. He also warns them prior to entering the Land of the need to follow G-d’s words.

As part of his reproof, Moshe recounts and dwells on only two episodes out of the many that occurred in the desert. One is the account of the spies. The other, the appointment of judges.

There is a clear message in it for Am Yisrael.

As we may recall, it was Bnei Yisrael who requested that Moshe send the spies to tour the Land. Twelve spies were selected for this mission. Only two spoke in favour of the Land, Yehoshua and Calev. For that, they are the only ones of the twelve who have become part of the annals of history and will be remembered for eternity.

Unlike Yehoshua and Calev, those who spoke against the Land that G-d promised Avraham and his descendants and refused to enter it, thus rejecting the mitzvah of settling in it, were fated to die in the desert. The rest of Am Yisrael was destined to continue their wandering for many more years. In other words, the spies’ episode turned out to be calamitous for a nation in its infancy.

The account of the judges, as opposed to the story of the spies, details the success of an endeavour to conduct rewarding and constructive guidance and control. It details the art of leadership.

In an perfect state, the leader should be governing and, at the same time, inspiring. An important ingredient to their success which leaders need to have is the support and consent of their people. When in the Book of Shmot (AKA Exodus), Moshe follows the advice of Yitro and suggests naming judges,  the support of his people for such a submission was crucial in making it a successful undertaking.

When the process  is reversed, as in the case of the spies, failure is unavoidable. Here, the suggestion to send spies is initiated and raised by Am Yisrael, Moshe accepts. He is not involved in the course of selection.

In other words, by juxtaposing the two stories, that of the selection of the spies and appointment of judges, Moshe was hoping to teach Am Yisrael a useful lesson. A leader needs to be the one who is in charge, the one who directs and leads with the unequivocal help and approval of the people. That is the recipe for guaranteed success

If, on the other hand, the leader is directed by the people and is reduced to merely approving their decisions and lets them carry them out, they are all doomed to failure.


Shabbat Shalom