Who built the modern State of Yisrael

Recently, Minister Miri Regev has come yet again under a monthly dose of fire, this time over the assertive manner in which she protected PM Benjamin Netanyahu. As always, the critics could not resist the temptation of Making some semi-racist remarks about Miri Regev’s origins’ accompanied with the reminder that “The Left Founded the state.

Did it? Most of us, myself included, occasionally repeat this myth, and in our imagination we envision Socialist pioneers with a Russian accent and rolled up sleeves, who courageously left the conservative tradition behind and made their way to the deserted land to create all out of nothing. Is that the case indeed? Prior to checking that, we need to preface and say that the Zionist Left did much. It has established kibbutzim and agricultural communities, it created facts on the ground which created an interminable Jewish territoriality. Most of the "Homa Umigdal" (an improvised construction system during the British Mandate period) settlements, which were important for drawing borders were part of the Left. The Left created central institutions, prepared for the future state and turned Hebrew into an everyday language. Eliezer ben Yehudah was indeed the person who revived the language but it was the immigrants from the movements of the Left were the ones who took it seriously and insisted on the use of the language. The Left led the way to instating the ethos of labor and safeguard.

It raised awareness to the necessity of Jews working their ancestral land rather than using Arab workers. The Left was momentous in setting up the military wing of the Jews in Yisrael the Haganah and the Palmach which later became the IDF. One cannot underestimate the cardinal role of the Zionist Left movements.

However, and it is a big however, the Left was not alone. Along with it were many others. Its historical sin was that it decided to entirely exclude the others instead of sharing with them the honor that they deserved. The Left took control of the narrative, dictated what future generations will know or rather not know.

When I was at the age of zero and a bit, in elementary school, my friends and I wrote a song for the Choir: "In the beginning there was swamps and barren land/until our brothers arrived, they were the Bil"uyim/ they set up settlements/ and had no choice but to fight the Arabs."

This is what we absorbed from our studies. No one, no teacher, no parent, bothered to correct us that the bil"uyim were but a small and insignificant group of the first wave of immigration, sixty people, half of whom escaped back to Russia and those that remained ended up fighting among themselves, the way the assertive socialists do. Not a success story to say the least.

And oh, by the way, - another small detail: in 1980, prior to the first wave of mass immigration, there were already 27,000 Jews (mostly Sfaradim) in Eret Yisrael, later reffered to as "Hayeshuv Hayashan," descendants of the continuous Jewish presence in the land.

When did the first wave of immigration start? All together now - 1882. Wrong. The first waves started already in 1881. These included 2500 Yemenite Jews. But in 1882 the first fourteen Bilu"yim arrived and the Bolshevik educational system brainwashed us into believing that they were the forerunners. Until this very day, on the Labor party's web page, Bil"u is mentioned as those whose arrival in Eretz Yisrael symbolized the first wave of immigration.

Thirty four settlements were established during the first wave of immigration, out of them how many were created by Bil"u? Twenty? Ten? Shall we compromise on three? One - Gedera. And even that was due to the purchase of land for them by Rabbi Yechiel Pines of the Religious Zionism. No one hinted that almost all of those from the first wave of immigration and the old establishment were religious, observant Jews. What was stressed repeatedly was Bil"u Bil"u Bil"u, the acronym of Beit Yaakov Lechu Venelcha. Needless to mention that the verse from Isaiah (2;5) was never quoted in it entirety, "Beit Yaakov Lecho Venelcha B'or Hashem." ("Come, descendants of Jacob, let us walk in the light of the Lord"). After all, Socialists are enlightened people, they do not discuss nonsense of those who are religious.

Out of curiosity, I decided to check and see how many of the towns in Yisrael were established by the Left.

The exit outside of the Walls in Jerusalem started already in the middle of the 19th century, so, it turns out, there was not much of the Left there. There were Ashkenazic as well as Sefardic Jews and the main donor was Moses Montefiori with the help of a fund bequeathed by the American Jewish philanthropist, Judah Toro. Both Toro and Montefiore were of Sefardic origins and devoid of any connection to socialism.

Ahuzat Bayit which after a year became Tel-Aviv was established in 1909 by Jews from Jaffa. Judging by their names, most were Ashkenazi without any defined political affiliation (and

why should there be Left or Right to found a settlement? What's the relevance?)

The neighborhoods which preceded Ahuzat Bayit which later included Mahaneh Yehudah, Neve Tzedek and others were established by immigrants from Yemen and North Africa. There is reason to believe that they were not socialists and did not drink from such mecchiato.

The first Jewish settlers in Haifa were Sefardic. Later the settlement widened during the first and second waves of immigration. Yoel Moshe Solomon the one who with his friends made the first experiment in Petah Tikvah "on a damp morning in the year of tarla"ch" (1878), was a rabbi. In the song bearing his name it is not even mentioned that he was one of the founders of the neighborhood of Mea Shearim.

Let us move southward - present day Ashdod was established after the founding of the State of Yisrael and its first residents were Moroccan Jews. Ashkelon, likewise, by the mere fact that it is situated far enough from the pure and unblemished center of the country, it was settled by immigrants from the East. The socialist government still had its delicate touch to the subject - through applying pressure and threats they forced out of the area those Arabs who did not flee in '48. Fortunately, nowadays, they have the time to oppose the commemoration of Gandi.

Rishon letzion was established in the 19th century by the committee of Yesod Hama'alah, founded by a Chabbad member' Zalman Levontin, on lands that were purchased by Baron Rothschild and Haim Amzaleg, who as his name suggests, was not an Ashkenazi. Rehovot, the city of science was established by the Religious Movement- "Menucha V'Nachalah."

Mazkeret Batya, Zichron Ya'akov, Rosh Pinah and many other settlements are the purchase of Baron Rothschild which were settled by different groups of "Hovevei Zion" (Lovers of Zion). Among them were traces of Bil"u and they had to face a reality in which one needs money and a patron in order to realize the Utopia in which one does not need money and a patron.

Herzliya was founded by the Jewish - American (and far from a socialist) "Kehilat Zion" and by Histadroot Benei Binyamin. Since it had Right wing inclinations, it was not sponsored by the Zionist Federation. What else is new.

Benei Binyamin founded, in the late 20's the city of Netanya which names after Natan Shtraus to whom the founders were forced to turn as there was no other monetary resource, so the mere naming of Netanya, testifies to its ‘inappropriate’ political source. An interesting story which is unrelated to Right-Left and testimonial : Natan Shtraus broke his leg while visiting Eretz Yisrael in 1912. As a result, he was forced to cancel his then planned trip from England to New York in a gigantic luxury ship, the first of its kind : the Titanic.

Holon was established through the unification of five neighborhoods, the first of which was founded by Moshe Green, an observant Jew from Jaffa who immediately set up a synagogue next to his hut. Bat-Yam was erected by a nucleus of observant and religious families, originally from Tel - Aviv.

Bnei Brak was formed by the Hareidi Movement of "Bayit Venachalah."

Ra'anana was formed in 1912 by American Jews. The first lands of Kfar Saba were also purchased by Rabbi Yechiel Pines, the very same one who had saved the butt of the last of the Bil"uyim. The first settlers of Kfar Saba in 1903 were religious and secular without any political affiliation, at least not anything that is related to the settlement of the land.

Nes Ziona was founded during the first wave of immigration by a Chabbad Hasid, Reuven Lerer, a member of "Hovevei Zion," since the German who sold it to him told him that it was near Jerusalem. Beit Shemesh, in its early years, a transit camp, where many of its residents were immigrants from middle eastern countries plus a few Romanians and Bulgarians. The same was the case with Kiryat Gat, a transit camp which became a city founded by immigrants from Morocco, and in which a baby girl was born in 1965 to a struggling family, an un-socialist girl, undoubtedly, by the name of Miriam Siboni, whom we know today as Minister Miri Regev.

O.K. so we strike out cities. But what about the defense forces that the Left established? The Palma"ch, and the Haganah and Yigal Alon and the "beautiful forelock?" Everything is correct and everything is very important, but the first Jewish force that fought and liberated an area from the Turks in Eeretz Yisrael was company 38 of the Hebrew Brigade (The Jewish Legion) under the command of – guess who? - Ze'ev Zabotinsky. G-d forbid that we should mention such a detail in the Bolshevik history lesson. Incidentally, Zabotinsky also published a book at that time which explains how to pronounce Hebrew correctly, in a

Sefardic pronunciation.

And let us stress yet again - the Left has done much, very much. We should, by all means, continue to tell it, praise it and sing it. Kol Hakavod. However, the moment it got hold of all power strongholds, it erased the others created an unbalanced political narrative, chewed and agenda ridden truth. And it is known already that half a truth is worse than lying.

In the story, education, the state as a whole, "those who do not sing with us" were pushed aside. There will be those who will say that this is the result of hostility and exclusion of members of the Old Settlement towards the secular socialists who had arrived from Russia with ideas that seemed crazy.

Perhaps, yet the Left's approach since it emerged from its egg during the French Revolution has always been: either you are with us or against us, no middle. And if you are not with us we shall fight you, banish you, embitter your life.

Dear Left, Miriam Siboni, the young girl from Kiryaqt Gat, who became the Minister of Culture and Sport, you should have welcomed with a standing ovation. Miri Regev was your chance to make the switch. But, as always, you responded by acting in an aloof manner and stupid arrogance. You were cheered by being petty over nonsense. You are still with the sensation that you are the state, that it was stolen from you, a sensation which you pass on to the next generation and that is why twenty years old Meretz and Labor voters believe that they have blue blood. So here is the news: Not only is the state is not yours - Yisrael never, at any stage was never your exclusive brand name. Talk about respecting the other? Start with that.

Almah

Almah means “a maiden,” or “an unmarried woman” in Hebrew. It appears in a few places in the Tanach. Two are of special interest to me. The is first mentioned in the Tanach in this week’s Parashah (Genesis 24). The other, in the Book of Isaiah (7, 14).

Had the discussion over the use of the term in Isaiah not surfaced in a past exchange that I had, the one in this week’s Parashah would have gone unnoticed by me and this essay not written. So, let me get right to it.

About twenty years ago, a fellow Jew, who embraced Yeshua (AKA Jesus) as his messiah, and I were debating the issue. When I asked him what convinced him to make that decision, he directed me to the said verse in Isaiah. Someone, sometime, somewhere, so it seemed, tried and evidently succeeded to mislead him by telling him that the verse in question is a prediction of the birth of Jesus whom we, Jews, rejected as our messiah. For those who are unfamiliar with that specific verse, here It is: “Therefor the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son’ and shall call his name Immanuel.”

It includes, so it seems, G-d, a virgin and a son, all the essential elements needed to persuade simple, uneducated and baffled Jews that it referred to Jesus.  Not so fast, I say. As a native Hebrew speaker, I hated to burst his bubble of belief in a comforting and rewarding way of life which shakes any form of personal responsibility off us. And what a better way to convince the gullible, naïve souls seeking redemption than to use a mistranslation of the Hebrew language, deliberate or otherwise, to please the perplexed?

The Hebrew word for virgin is betulah. If Isaiah had indeed intended to impress upon us that he was prophesying the immaculate conception, would he, a speaker of Hebrew, not used “betulah” instead of “almah?”

“But hey,” retorted my devout “Jew for Jesus” challenger, “were not all maidens, during Biblical era, expected to be virgins?” A valid argument, one would suggest.

It is on occasions such as this that I enlist the help of a publication called “Bible Concordance,” a verbal index to the Bible. It lists every word that appears in the Tanach and cites it. Since my challenger suggested that a Biblical maiden had to be a virgin, I looked up the references to a “maiden’ and the context in which they were used.  “Maiden” appears seven times in the Tanach.

 The first one appears in this Parashah (Genesis 24:43) where Eliezer, the servant of Avraham describes Rivkah, the future wife of Yitzchak, as a maiden, “See, I am standing beside this spring. If a maiden comes out to draw water and I say to her, “’Please let me drink a little water from your jar.’” In that same chapter, verse 17, Rivkah is described as a “Virgin,” betulah “that no man knew” (and we all know what “to know” means in the Biblical sense).

The question that is begging to be asked is, if indeed it was so clear that in Biblical times, almah was akin to betulah, why was there a need to reiterate it in the case of Rivkah? Evidently, it was not that obvious.

Another question that is begging to be asked is, how did the Hebrew almah become “virgin” in the English translation of Isaiah?

That has everything to do with the Greek translation of the Tanach, a translation, which as I have shown in the past, has caused us, Jews, and our Tanach much damage.

It all started in the third century B.C.E. with the Greek ruler, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, the king of Ptolemic Egypt. An educated man, Ptolemy wished to augment his library in Alexandria and commissioned seventy-two (six from each of the twelve tribes) scholars to translate the Torah and later the rest of the Tanach into Greek. This translation came to be known as “The Septuagint” (Seventy in Latin). The main reason for producing the translation was for the benefit of the many Jews who were scattered throughout the Greek Empire and who were beginning to lose their Hebrew language. The translation also gave many non - Jews an opportunity to have a glimpse at the Hebrew Scriptures. Apparently, a noble cause but, as you will soon learn, dear readers, a great reason for alarm.

In Greek, the word Parthenos means BOTH “maiden” and “virgin.” Isn’t it natural, therefore, that to make their case for the immaculate conception, early Christianity conveniently chose the word virgin instead of the original Hebrew word for maiden?

Wishing my fellow Jews Shabbat Shalom, a meaningful Thanksgiving celebration to my fellow Americans and a weekend full of blessings to all.

“And for your husband shall your Desire be….”

The story of Creation as recounted in Bresheet continues to fascinate me. It is not only the details of the evolvement of our universe that intrigues me. That is but one facet of it.

What continues to enthrall me, though, is what happened to Man and Woman following the consumption of the Fruit of the Tree of “Knowledge.” I am particularly referring to the change in perceptions, comprehension, insights and what lesson G-d had wanted us, humans, to draw out of that experience.

In my essay of two weeks ago, I dwelt on the benefits of eating the forbidden fruit. I also mentioned that the main gain from that rebellious act of Adam and Eve was a moral one as they learned to distinguish between Good and Evil. The story in Genesis also tells us that as soon as they ate the fruit, Man and Woman were made aware of their bareness and rushed to cover themselves as they felt ashamed and that it was morally bad and inappropriate.

In many cultures, being naked or even semi naked is associated with lust, sex and sensuality. It has thus become a taboo in many societies. Some, however, as, for example the tribes I visited in Namibia where women walk bare breasted publicly, see nothing bad or evil in such practices. We, in most parts of the world, regard it as inappropriate and that is what is being taught to us from an early age.

So, why do so many of us believe that nudity is morally “Evil?” After all, had Man and Woman not walked shamelessly unclothed for a while before they discovered their nakedness? “Adam and his wife were both naked’ and they felt no shame.” Genesis 2:25.

And that is where the terms “Desire” and “Lust” enter the discussion.

Unfortunately, “lust” (ta’avah) and desire (tshukah) appear, both in the Hebrew and the English languages, as synonyms for each other. Though these two terms have some common denominator, I beg to differ. Lust (ta’av ah), in my view, is mostly associated with the physical, carnal and sexual realm. It is an urgent need that once satisfied, lies dormant until some stimuli, some catalyst awakens it again.

Desire (tshukah), however, is a fabric that is made up of various threads. It encompasses longing, love, ambition, an urge, an attraction for someone or something. Of course, it also includes the erotic, the sensual but not just that, as the term Lust resonates.

Herein, in my view, lies the lesson that G-d had wished Adam and Eve, especially Eve, to take on. It was she who first saw that “the fruit of the tree was good and lust (ta’avah) to the eyes.” (Genesis 3:6). It was lust, as the verse teaches us, that caused their downfall and eventual eviction from the Garden of Eden. G-d had known that lust would be the Achilles’s heel of mankind. He had also been aware that once Man and Woman discovered each other’s nakedness, lust will take over.

It is precisely this kind of a reality that G-d was trying to avoid. Knowing the effect Eve had on Adam, He informed her, “Your desire will be for your husband.” (Genesis 3:16). Since it was Eve who lured Adam into eating the forbidden fruit, G-d ordered her to desire her husband, to love him, support him, be there for him and lust him but NOT JUST lust him. He employs the word Tshukah to imply the unending union between Man and Woman, a union that is based on the Spiritual, Emotional and Intellectual spheres, not merely the carnal.

And that is the lesson of this episode, I believe. It is the differences rather than the similarities between Desire and Lust which morally set Good and Evil apart.