Yisrael - The National Jewish Home or a home for Jews?

 Special thanks Moshe Schwartz who inspired the titular question of this article

Almost three quarters of a century after its birth, who would have imagined that the essence of the State of Yisrael would still be a focus of debate and mostly among Yisraelis?

The subject was brought to my attention a couple of weeks ago. One of my friends told me that her youngest son who is in high school was given an assignment on the issue. Students, she told me, were requested to deliberate on whether Yisrael’s National anthem, “Ha’Tikvah,” which includes expressions to the yearning of the “soul of a Jew” to Zion should be revisited. Following such pondering, the students were instructed to express an opinion on whether its lyrics which, do not mention non-Jews should be modified and include other minorities such as Druze, Muslim, Christians, and others who are Yisraeli citizens.

As a frame of reference, the teacher suggested a few sources. One of them was an article entitled “Lost in Translation – Hatikva in Arabic Too” was written by Gadi Benmark. In it, Benmark evokes that Yisrael follows the example of Canada. There, the anthem, “Oh Canada” was originally written in French, in the seventeenth century when Canada was “The New France.” The British, who arrived much later, explains Benmark, evidently felt that the French version excluded them and hence added an English language version, which is not a translation of the French one. “So now,” comments Benmark, “it is a national universal song that every Canadian, of every origin, can sing proudly.” In conclusion, Benmark suggests that Yisrael duplicates the Canadian experience so that every Yisraeli can sing the version that suits them.

With all due respect to Canada, not only do I consider such an analogy inappropriate, I also deem it an insult.

I am afraid that no matter how one addresses it, neither the French, nor the English possess the same bond to Canada, which is a few hundred years old, as the one that Jews have forged with the Land of Yisrael for over a few millennia. And I am not even touching upon the Biblical connection, as I much as I hold it true, simply because I believe that in today’s geo-political environment, religious arguments are irrelevant. The union between the People and the Land, in the case of the Jews, reflected itself for thousands of years not only in religious rituals and customs. It also paraded itself in Literature, Art, Archeology and documented historical accounts.

Canada, unlike Yisrael, was created in a unilateral move by the British in 1867. The British Parliament then passed the North America Act. Canada was introduced into the family of nations in an arbitrary step by a colonial power. Its purpose, its goal, its core, and its nature were left undefined.

The creation of the State of Yisrael was anything but an arbitrary move by one government. No act of one state, one parliament or a single colonial power decreed its  foundation or created it. Its idea, yes, but not its actual creation.

From the very first moment of the inception of the notion, starting with the Balfour Declaration, Yisrael (AKA Palestine, the artificial name given to it by the Romans in 135 C.E.) was defined as the place where a National Home for the Jewish People, not just a home for Jews, would be erected. The State of Yisrael was decreed as Jewish in its essence and by more than one source.

The Jewish character of Yisrael was further reinforced in the San Remo Accord of 1920 which was voted upon by the Supreme Council of Five that acted as an International Court of Law. It was an International Order, not just an Act of Parliament of one power.

And then, of course there was U.N resolution 181 of November 29, 1947. In it, the family of nations, voted to establish two states in Eretz Yisrael, one Arab, and one Jewish. The Jewish State was born following a democratic vote after a long painful labour period.

Ironically enough, more than the Jews defined the nature of their state, the Gentiles did.

As a Jewish state, the only Jewish state on the globe, might I add, Yisrael should adhere to the designated nature and substance decreed to it. It should keep the blue and white flag with the powerful symmetric Star of David at its center. It should maintain the emblem of the Menorah that adorned the Temple of Solomon and it should keep the words of Ha’Tikvah intact.

If someone feels that certain lines in Yisrael’s Jewish National Anthem are hard for them to digest, I suggest they refrain from singing it. Losing our national identity at the cost of accommodating others is not an option, I am afraid. Turning Yisrael from the Jewish National Home to merely a home for Jews is a risk we cannot afford to take. That is one of the most important lessons that our Jewish history curriculum has taught us.

We cannot and should not allow ourselves to fail that course.

Am Yisraek Chai 

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.

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.

One Hundred Years Later.....

This year, on November 2nd, will be the 100th Anniversary of the Balfour Declaration.

The Declaration, for those who are unfamiliar with it, stated "His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".

The declaration does not provide a map or borders of the proposed state nor any other details of its size or its nature other than a “National Home for the Jewish people,” – a Jewish Homeland.

The following is a map of the area called Eretz Yisrael (AKA “Palestine”) during the times of Lord Balfour

This is also the area part of which was promised to the Jews, in the Balfour Declaration and in San Remo (1920) where a National Jewish Homeland would be founded.

The Balfour Declaration and the San Remo Accord were also the basis for UN Resolution 180 when, thirty years after the issue of the Declaration, in 1947, it voted on a partition plan for Palestine,

Had the Arabs accepted this UN Resolution, there would have been established an Arab State for the Palestinian refugees and the map of the middle east would have looked like this:

But since, in the words of Abba Eban, “The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity,” they rejected this plan and instead attacked the newly founded, Yisrael, the Jewish State.

The Following is a map which is the result of the 1949 Armistice agreement, a map whose borders were never recognized by any International entity and are hence illegal and any call to return to them as expressed by president Obama, for instance, are not in line with International Law:

The ongoing efforts by Arabs state to drive the Jews into the sea (my childhood nightmare which pushed me to force my parents to get me swimming lessons!) eventually plunged them into a reality which made them realize the opportunity they had missed twenty years earlier.

In June 1967, almost 50 years to the day after the Balfour Declaration, Yisrael, subsequent to being pressed into a corner by Egypt, Syria and Jordan, elected to engage in a pre-emptive. That move, the Six Day War, ended with Yisrael getting closer to the attainment of the area allocated for a National Jewish Homeland by both the Balfour Declaration and the San Remo Accord, both of which are anchored in International Law.

It resulted in this redrawn map:

Before anyone jumps to the wrong conclusion that Yisrael entered this war with the desire to reach the borders of the aforementioned Jewish Homeland, let me propose that it was the Arabs in their irrational hatred of Jews and their desire to complete that which Hitler was unable to, that brought about the near implementation of the Balfour plan.

I grew up in Yisrael during the years that preceded the 1967 war. I was a teenager. We did not want that war. If not for Jewish ingenuity and superb military ability, that war would have cost us, according to projections, thousands of dead and tens of thousands of injured. We were happy with the tiny strip of land that we ended up with after Yisrael’s War of Independence.

Furthermore, let me share a secret with you. We would have been happy with the implementation of the UN Partition Plan of 1947. My parents, both Shoah survivors and many like them, along with their children, would have been happy with that.

But not the Arabs! One more state which they could have had then without the bloodshed without the millions that their leaders have amassed while their population of refugees are held as pawns, is what they want now!

Will someone please explain to them that History is NOT a dress rehearsal? Would someone please explain to them that one hundred years of history cannot be washed down the drain, forgotten and replaced by narratives?

The Hellenists among us

 The term "Hellenism" which literally means, "to speak Greek," or "make Greek," refers to ancient Greek rule and history and covers the period following the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BCE and the rise of the Roman Empire. It ended in 31 BCE.

 To many, "Hellenism" denotes ancient Greek Culture and is mostly perceived as that period in history where Greek language, Culture, Literature, Art, Architecture, Science, Philosophy and Erudition prevailed. 

The Hellenistic period had deep influence on the Eastern Mediterranean area, which was under Greek rule for a long time. That, unfortunately, also included Eretz Yisrael.

I say, "unfortunately," because in many spheres, this cultural phenomenon had a lasting and devastating impact on Judaism and the thought process of our Jewish People, an impact that is felt until this very day.   In almost every way, Hellenism and Judaism were culturally diametrically opposed in terms of mankind’s place in the world, the role of personal responsibility, man’s relationship with G-d, and the concept of and role of hope.

The effects of Hellenism on the Jewish population were felt as early as the year 200BCE. At that time, there surfaced a group among the Jewish population called Mityavnim, meaning Hellenists. Its members, most of whom were those closest to the Greek rulers and eager to please them, adopted Greek culture and way of life, which was foreign to the Jewish one in almost every way. Their practice of it reached such a degree that, almost unvaryingly, it replaced their Jewish culture and Jewish identity. One example of the extent to which these individuals were willing to go in order to be accepted as Greeks or Hellenizers, relates to one of the most central practices in Judaism, circumcision. 

Ancient Greeks, as we all know, were great believers in practicing the art of nudity. That was demonstrated in sports, which were done in the nude.  Bathhouses in ancient Greece were popular and, likewise, were attended in the nude. Circumcision was not among their practices. Therefore, in order to avoid embarrassment and be accepted as an equal and "Good Greek," Hellenized Jews "underwent painful operations-at a time with minimum anesthetics-to restore their foreskin and appear Greek…" Naturally, those who were ignorant of Jewish life and tradition fell easy prey to Hellenism and some of its positive aspects. "Others, however, became vicious self- haters." Among the latter group, many detested their Jewish brethren and thus became willing collaborators, ones who were ready to help them in their attempts to eradicate Judaism in Eretz Yisrael and replace it with their "more enlightened pagan culture of theirs."  (http://www.jewishhistory.org/the-hell-in-hellenism/).  

Our Sages warned at the time about Hellenism invading Jewish thought, how it would pervert how Jews thought of themselves and of their own beliefs, how Hellenism was like a disease that would leave the Jewish People sick and how difficult it would be to rid ourselves of this sickness.

Now, let us fast forward into the present.

If we replace ancient Greek and Hellenism with The New Israel Fund (NIF) and their agenda of a New Middle East, an agenda that is foreign to Jewish culture and traditions then we reach the unavoidable and unfortunate conclusion that history, in this case, Jewish history, repeats itself. For how else can one describe organizations such as "Breaking  Silence," or "B'Tzelem," both of which are funded and supported by (NIF) and other entities whose sole purpose is to remove the Jewish essence of Eretz Yisrael, but self- hating Jewish collaborators?  For people to so want to appease and conform to the beliefs and interests our their enemies is sick.

How else or what else can we call those who loathe and despise anything Jewish and in their efforts to blend with the "in" crowd are ready and willing to sacrifice their brethren, their Jewish core on the altars of modern day Hellenism?

But there is yet another kind of Hellenism, one that stems not from self- hatred but from misplaced gratitude to the non-Jewish supporters of the Jewish people and political Zionism (the movement established by Herzl at the end of the 19th century). That kind of Hellenism stems from the fear of losing that support of the world that is so void of love for Jews.

We should be happy and thankful for the support others show us.  Nothing is wrong with that.  Everyone wants and needs friends in this world.   But, here’s the interesting question.  “Friendship”, real friendship, means accepting us for what we are, respect for our traditions, our beliefs, our security, our rights.   Those who are really friends will not try to change us, not try to redefine us in ways alien to our traditions and beliefs, nor impose things on us for their own benefit.

There are, sadly, those Jews, however, who have adopted Hellenism, replacing Judaism and the noble concept of honest Jewish gratitude, out of some mistaken fear of losing friendship and needed support, and in the process seem willing to shed some underlying fundamental principles in our few millennia old Jewish tradition and leave them in the hands of those who are, for now, friends. Many of those who claim to be our sincere friends and sincerely love us, are rarely familiar, if at all, with what Judaism is all about, and through really no fault of their own try to define us, our beliefs, our traditions, in terms that are familiar to them and alien, to a degree, to what our tradition teaches us. 

We are not going to accuse people of having evil intent.  We don’t see evil in this.  We see misguided.  We see something akin to Stockholm syndrome.  Two Thousand Years of persecution and deprivation has an effect of making a people vulnerable to being liked, eager to seek approval, but let’s not fool ourselves.  Approval and being liked that comes from giving up what you are and copying those who you fear might not like you, is not acceptance. It is surrender.  

Surrender cannot be allowed to define the Jewish Future. Jews and Am Yisrael are here to stay regardless of what either group does or says.  How difficult our journey will be depends on how well we guard what we are and grow by our own beliefs and traditions as we alone can define them.  Regardless, our fate is known, sealed and proven. We are an eternal nation, no matter what!

Chag Sukkot Sameach to all of you.


Written jointly with Roger Froikin.

When it comes to Jews and Yisrael, “Open Season” is always there

Borrowed from the hunting domain where the term “Open Season” means  “a period when it is legal to kill or catch game or fish protected at other times by law,” it has also come to suggest a time when someone or something is openly attacked or criticized by many and often for no reason.

Yes, I know, some here will go up in arms and cry, “here they come again waving the ‘victim card,’ the Jews are at it again, Yisraelis are at it again!”

Well, dear readers, if you look closer, or at least try to look closer, you will see that it is not a “victim card” we are waving at you, rather, it is the “reality card!” Nowadays, when it comes to Yisrael, it has become indeed an “Open Season,” mostly by those who wish to bring an end to it and, sometimes, even by those who claim to be sympathizers and friends.

I am appalled anew each time that I see, read and witness clichés being thrown, used, abused and misused when it comes to Yisrael. Let us take for example the term “Apartheid” How many parrot the term irresponsibly when they barely know what it really means and what it stands for?

In anticipation of such ignorance, I always supply myself with a very basic definition of the term. I have used it numerous times to educate those who are in dire need for it. The definition of “Apartheid” that I carry around with me is very basic. It is derived from www.oxforddictionaries.com.It states that “Apartheid” is "(In South Africa) a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race"

I challenge our listeners to find one but one such policy or law in the Yisraeli system, one that separates Jewish Yisraelis from other Yisraelis. I urge them to point at any decree that discriminates against anyone based on color, creed, religion or race.
They all remain speechless!

Does it stop them?

I could go on and name other examples of unjustified and baseless attacks against the Jewish state. The venomous kool-aide that many innocent and ignorant victims have been drinking is very potent. Seems that the antidote for it has yet to be invented.

It is not only foes, however, that Yisrael and Yisraelis seem to be open to criticism and attacks to. There are those well-wishers who, out of belief that they only mean well, criticize us, attack us and drag our name through the mud.

Let me indulge you with some illustrations.

Two weeks ago, there was a terror attack in the heart of Tel Aviv. A Christian friend who claims to be a dear friend of Yisrael and the Jewish people, suggested that it was a form of punishment for Tel Aviv holding a gay pride parade a few days earlier. Oh really?  To that we can only say, "we will be damned if we do and damned if we don't."

And then, of course, there are friends who love us so dearly that they feel they can define us, tell us who we are and what we should be. They use terminology coined by Hellenistic heathens who had forced their lexicon upon us, dictated to us what to do, how we should do it and when. Yes, these friends only mean well, we are certain, but should we try to defy their efforts, take our destiny into our own hands and shape it, that is when their true colors come out.

Christian missionaries are a perfect example for that. Of course they will claim they do not attack us. Of course they will claim that they only want to help us. Of course they feel that if they trespass our boundaries and put deceitful leaflets into our mailboxes, they only mean well. After all, their sole wish is to turn us into "complete Jews."

Time to close the season, dear foes and friends. If there is a law protecting animals against hunting, there should be one defending Jews in Eretz Yisrael and the world over. The time when Jews were treated as merely another species in the Animal Kingdom is over. The Ghetto Jew is dead. Yisrael, should create laws to protect its Jewish citizens. Everyone else here seems to be already protected!

Did you say "occupation?" Which occupation?

The Yisraeli “occupation” of Judea and Samaria has, unfortunately, become a household mantra which is used to excuse and explain many problems that befall our world.

Each time terror strikes, we wait with bated breath for the same chant to be heard. And, in many cases, it is indeed what happens, especially more and more among prominent figures, Yisraelis and others, who are, in many instances, public opinion shapers. We have recently heard it from the current mayor of  Tel Aviv, following the last terror attack that killed four and wounded others in his city. Even the US Democratic party, so we learned today, considers explicit condemnation of Yisraeli “occupation” as part of its 2016 elections platform.

The definition of the term “occupation” is very simple and straightforward. Here is a basic one from www.thefreedictionary.com

“a. Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces.

So, if we follow the logic that this definition unfolds to us, in order for there to be an “occupation,” there has to be an invasion first.

Our question pertains to what the definition does not address, though. We ask, what about territory that was gained as a result of a war forced upon a nation when that nation never sought to invade, occupy and control?

Isn’t that what happened in 1967 when Arab nations bordering with Yisrael, in their unrelenting efforts to rid the middle east of Jews, lodged a war against the sovereign Jewish state? Was the Jewish nation which had already incurred huge losses through history when it was subject to the mercy of others, supposed to just sit there and let others do as they wish, especially when their explicit wish was to complete what Hitler never finished? Can you call a desire to defend oneself against attackers “an invasion?” 

Moreover, can one accuse Yisrael of being “an occupier” when the so called “occupation” was imposed on her through wars and ended with the liberation of lands which according to historical facts and legal documents were rightfully hers to begin with? The Arabs can only blame themselves for the creation of such a reality.

Having said that, we are always surprised that the real occupation which has transpired in plain view is ignored time and again. Yes, we are referring to the Arab occupation of Jewish lands. We are not talking about lands given to us by G-d, as much as we believe in it, because we feel that religious arguments should be kept out of the equation when it comes to the middle east conflict.

The Lands of Judea and Samaria are the true Eretz Tzion V’yirushalayim that our National Anthem, “Hatikvah” speaks about. They are the heartland of Eretz Yisrael, the land where Jews have been dwelling for over three millennia, the land that, as The Declaration of Independence of Yisrael states, “was the birthplace of the Jewish people…” where “their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped…” where “they attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave the world the eternal Book of Books.”

Those that call themselves “Palestinians” are relatively newcomers into this same region where Jews and other members of Am Yisrael have established a deep connection with the Land.  In an effort to build their case and try and establish some credibility to their false claim to the Land, to build their case and false claims to the lands, they have adopted the derogatory name “Palestinians” given to the Jews by the Romans. “Palestine”פלשתינה  is the name the Romans gave to Eretz Yisrael in order to add an insult to injury and sever any relationship between the Jews and their Home.. The only problem with the name “Palestine” is that its origin lies in the term “Pleshet” פלשת.  This is a name appearing frequently in the Bible which in English started to be known as “Philistine” The world root of “Plesheth” lies in the word “palash”,פלש a term which means “to invade” and refers to the Philistine’s conquest of the coast of the Mediterranean. Now you, dear reader, tell us who the invader is, and who once they invade according to the above definition eventually become the occupier? Isn’t invasion part of the definition of “occupation?”

Furthermore, has anyone even mentioned Muslim six hundred years old occupation of parts of Yerushalayim and Jewish religious sites such as Temple Mount?

It is not, however, only Jewish lands and holy places that the “Palestinians” occupy. What concerns us even more is the widespread “Conceptual 'occupation.'” 

The Arab/Muslim world has invaded and planted itself very effectively in the creases of the intangible corners of the minds of the world. It has occupied it and has been feeding it a version of history, perverse terminology and concepts and a twisted narrative which even some of the most imaginative Hollywood script writers could never produce. Unfortunately, it is not only the minds of the gullible world that they have occupied, they have been able to successfully invade and take possession over the minds of many Jews and Yisraelis, especially those with the Ghetto mentality, a mentality that continues to function as fertile ground for such an occupation.

We hate  to sound like prophets of wrath but we both feel a need to warn a slumbering humanity that it is this form of “occupation” it should address and fight lest their children will end up growing in a world deprived of any hope or a promising future.This article was written jointly with Moshe Dagan.

---

 [B1]

Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln revisited

                                                                        

Spring is upon us again. For us, Jews and Am Yisrael, this season connotes a spell of rejuvenation, a season of joy, celebration of freedom and our renewed covenant with G-d and His eternal blessing. Unfortunately, this time of year brings to mind other, not so pleasant undertones, historical and current. It is also the time of year when ancient baseless accusations against our people rear their ugly heads again. Yes, I am talking about the rebirth of the old  Blood Libel. It was only a few days ago that I read, in this paper, a chilling interview with the Egyptian politician, Khaled Zaafrani, on al-Hafez TV, a salafist Egyptian station. The interview took place in 2013. There, Zaafrani said that "it is well known that during Passover they make matzos called the "Blood of Zion." They take a Christian child, slit his throat, and slaughter him....they never forgo this rite." More recently, according to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), an Egyptian journalist, Firnas Hafzi wrote the following in the Egyptian monthly 'Al Kibar,' "The Jews combined the preparations of Mazos and the offering up of sacrifices with their enmity towards non-Jews, especially Christians, and mixed the blood of one of their victims into the matzos dough."

Evidently, "matzah blood libel" is alive and well not only in Egypt but throughout the Arab and muslim world where such narratives find fertile ground. Moreover, such accusations do nothing but serve to further fan the already wild fires of hatred in cultures that are steeped in darkness and obscurantism.

Blood libels are not a modern concept. Jews and Christians were accused of the practice of drinking human blood by pagans who misunderstood the meaning of the doctrine of drinking the blood of Christ and eating the Eucharist. Prior to that, King Antiochus the IV (215-164 BCE), in his anti-Jewish propaganda, claimed that Greek prisoners were held in the Temple in Jerusalem for the purpose of drinking their blood

Scholars believe that modern day blood libel originated in in 1144 in Norwich, England where a twelve-year-old boy, William, disappeared. Jews were accused with kidnapping child and draining his blood. Though it was never proved that the allegations were true, it did not stop the incident from gaining impetus and prevent it from growing.

 According to Rabbi Ken Spiro of Aish Hatorah, “the most famous of all blood libel legends is that of the ritual murder of the child Hugh of Lincoln, England in 1255.” The story was eternalized in a ballad entitled, ”Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln.” Rabbi Spiro adds that this ballad is “so well-known in England and Scotland that it is number 155 in the standard cannon of English and Scottish ballads compiled by Francis James Child in the 19th century.” 

For an unfounded claim that was revived and repeated during the dismal, bleak period called the dark ages and with the help of the Church trickled into every aspect of the daily lives, one would hope that, by now, the world has learned some lessons from history and do all it can to disassociate itself from it. Unfortunately, it does not seem to be the case.

In 1987, I taught Hebrew to mostly Jewish students in one of the top public schools in Texas. One day one of student shared with me that one of the other teachers had jokingly suggested that his Jewish students were preparing for the Christmas holiday by murdering a Christian child in order to use its blood for their Jewish rituals. My student responded to such a suggestion was: ““Actually, we do it only at Passover and we use the blood to bake the matzah, our traditional unleavened bread.”

Naturally, I did not find that a laughing matter. I doubted many of my students even grasped the severity of the comment. It raised the strong urge in me to educate them about the sick rumor called “blood Libel” which had caused the untimely death of many of our fellow Jews throughout history. I insisted that they all read Malamud’s novel “The Fixer,” a novel based on the Beilis case which took place in Russia in the early twentieth century. Additionally, I approached the teacher, discussed the issue with him and and got him to apologize to my students.

An apology is also the least I would expect from anyone, a person, an institution or a public figure who in our time and age dares to slander us, Am Yisrael and the Jewish people with such unfounded allegations This is what I believe Yisrael should insist upon unless, of course,  an apology is reserved only to us, for our refusal to disappear and for our strong wish to continue to survive and live in a world that cannot see right from wrong.