Why, for me, it is Netanyahu only

 

“How is it possible that an intelligent woman, such as you, “votes for Netanyahu?” asked me one of my “enlightened” friends.

“The answer is in your question and in one word, 'intelligent,'" I answered, without flinching.

Allow me to take you back in time to 1977, the year Likud took over. At that time, I lived in the US. I was young dreamer, a student at Berkeley, one who wanted to be a pioneer in making the world a better place. In short, I was a leftist.

After the waves of the initial shock which resulted from that election have subsided, I started to ask, “How did we lose that campaign?”

When I sobered up, I asked, “Why did the Likud win?”

It took me but a short while to realize where I went wrong. Most of the those who voted for Likud in that year, originated from the same countries that wish to bring our demise. Those voters and their parents lived amid dwellers of these countries, some of whom still loath us deeply. 

Immigrants from Arab/Muslim countries have mastered the frame of mind and modus operandi of their neighbours in those countries. Most importantly, they knew best how to stand up to them and what it might take to overcome them. I, a daughter of two parents from Eastern Europe, was clueless on the subject.

Since that day, I am a proud Likudnik.

With your permission, I wish to get back to the titular subject, “Why Netanyahu?”

In our complex world, everything is relative. In order to grasp the subject of relativity, one needs to go through similar experiences in order to establish a firm opinion, and as much as possible, an objective one regarding those encounters.

As some of you know, I have lived in several countries, all democracies. Their leaders all had, of course, the same declared goal, to ensure the health and safety of their citizens. In each of the countries that I lived in, I was involved, through my work or other associations, with members of the government and other agencies, in one way or another.

I followed these leaders very closely and learned to know some of them very well.

I saw leaders who, through failed policies, destroyed their countries. On the other hand, I experienced leaders who through the wisdom of their hearts rebuilt it and turned them into superpower. I also witnessed insignificant politicians using the system for their own benefit either through a populist approach or contributing to vain hatred. At the same time, I saw monumental leaders whose guiding light was the benefit and well-being of their nation.

So, please believe me, the yard stick, the instrument of comparison, which I built over the years, has helped me immensely, especially these days. It allows me to recognize the best, relative to others that resemble each other in look and essence and are clustered together in one group, nations with a democratic core.

Netanyahu stands out among these leaders. He is a responsible prime minister. He is a devoted Zionist, loves his People, is aware of their sanguineous history and, in my view, it is the care for his People and its future is the seminal factor that sparks him every single day.

So, I will continue to support him!

If I were to summarize the essence of this article, it will say that the 1977 change of government has made me a Likudnik. Life in various foreign democracies and the way their leaders conduct themselves, is what has made me a staunch supporter of Netanyahu.

Strengthening your hand, my Prime Minister.

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.

Interfaith

Recently, we have been reading much about “Interfaith Dialogues,” where members of different faiths discuss/share/debate religious beliefs. I personally got a few invitations to partake in such events.

What exactly is it?

So, despite being very short on a commodity called “time,” I decided to embark on a short journey to try and understand what exactly this “Interfaith Dialogue” entails.

I trust that starting any discussion with the intent of making it a productive one, ensuring that all sides speak the same language and have the same understanding of key terms, a short definition of the term, would be useful.

Here are three sources for the definition of the term “Interfaith.”

The first a basic one from Merriam-Webster defines it as “involving persons of different religious faiths.” For those who consider themselves more educated, here are two more by the Cambridge Dictionary and the Oxford one, successively.
“relating to activities involving members of different religions,” and “Relating to or involving different religions or members of different religions.”

For the innocent bystander, such, an almost identical definition of the term “interfaith,”  as bringing together people of different faiths, is the fulfillment of the vision of the end of days and Biblical prophecies. And indeed, it can hold much potential of improving relationship and repair rifts that are, in many cases, the result of religious differences and conflicts as history has proved to us time and again.

My question, though, is, will debating or discussing religious differences really going to bring about the so well sought “kumbaya?” Might it not cause a deeper rift? What is the likelihood that following such debates or religious encounters anyone may change their beliefs? Has the invention of the term “Judeo-Christian” brought more peace between Jews and Christians? Some say “yes,” some say “no,” others say “maybe.” Is it quantifiable? Has appropriation, or usurpation of Jewish symbols, terms and ideas by some Christians resulting from “Interfaith Dialogue,” coupled with Jews allowing it, helped Jews in any way?

My answer is NO!

In my experience such debates ended in deeper divides and more vain hatred. Why can’t members of any faith adhere to and practice what Lord, Rabbi Sacks calls ”The Dignity of Difference?” Why do some members of some faiths feel a need to use scare techniques (I was once told that if I do not accept Jesus/Yeshua I “will burn in hell”) or promises of a “better Afterlife” to lure and gain followers?

Is religious interfaith indeed the ONLY answer to ensure a better future for all?

Why can’t Jews, Christians, Muslims or members of other faiths enter a fruitful and productive “Interfaith” exchange in areas such as business, culture, sports or art? Why does it always have to be a “religious interfaith?”

As my dear, wonderful and very wise friend, Roger Froikin likes to end his stimulating, well thought of and challenging comments, “think about that!” 

The "Hidden Jews" of the East

Many of us have heard about the fate of the Spanish Jews who lived under the Inquisition, the Anoosim. Few, however, myself included, have heard about the Mashadi Jews in Iran who had to endure a similar fate.

A few days ago, I met with a descendant of one such family, Kami Izhakov. This is their story.

Their story begins in 1734 when a king by the name of Nadir Shah, a tolerant man, sought to fortify the northeastern border of then Persia. Towards that end, he brought Jews and resettled them in Mashad, in the District of Khorasan. It is the second holiest city to Shiite Muslims and was, therefore, forbidden to Jews.

The city of Mashad is situated on the silk road was renowned for commerce, mainly leather and fur. The King’s decision paid off. Soon after the resettlement of Jews there, prosperity followed. Their business sagacity coupled with their international connection soon helped the Jews turn the city into a vibrant business center. Even the Muslim residents who had treated the Jews contemptuously and had shunned them socially, soon enjoyed their contributions. Relationships between the two communities improved and both enjoyed the wealth and economic growth.

Unfortunately, after the assassination of the king twelve years later, Muslims began to persecute the Jews and make their lives unbearable.

According to some accounts, matters got worse following an incident which occurred in 1838. A Jewish woman who suffered from leprosy, sought the advice of her doctor. The latter suggested that she uses the blood of a dog to treat her ailment. The woman hired a young Muslim boy to kill a dog for her. The two had a scuffle and the young boy announced to the Muslims that Jews killed a dog during the holy fast day for the revered Ali whom the Shi’a Muslims consider the First Imam appointed by Muhammad.

That incident triggered the resurgence of Muslim hatred to Jews. On that day, crowds of Muslims burst into Jewish homes, pillaged, burned houses and the synagogue and murdered 32 Jews. The Jewish community at that time counted 400 people.

From that day on, the Jews of Mashad, endured a similar fate to the Jews of Spain and Portugal during the Inquisition. They became, outwardly, “Jadid Al Islam,” the New Muslims sadly assumed the role of leading a double life, one Jewish, one Muslim. It was reflected in their names, customs and practices.

The clever and pious Jews of Mashad, however, managed to remain loyal to their Judaism by using various means to deceive their Muslim oppressors. They prayed in cellars. They stationed a woman at the entrance to their buildings which stopped the entry of Muslims. They opened their shops on Shabbat but never conducted business. A child would generally be put in charge of the store and instructed to tell the customers that the owner was gone or that the merchandise they wish to purchase was not available.

Keeping Kashrut on Pesach was a more difficult endeavor. Yet, the Jews of Mashad never failed that either. They baked their own Matzah and continued to buy bread which they eventually shared among the poor residents of the city. Throughout their history, the Jews of Mashad postponed the Pesach celebration by about one week due to persecution and intimidation by their Muslim neighbours.

Kosher slaughter, another important tenet of our Jewish culture, as difficult as it was at times, was also adhered to by these Jews. On one occasion, a ritual slaughterer was caught, tortured and eventually killed for performing this important Mitzvah. 

Their double life was also reflected in the way, Mashad Jews attended houses of worship. Prior to entry into the mosque, they would ask forgiveness from G-d. On Friday mornings, they would go to the Mosque and in the evening observe the Shabbat rituals at home, in secrecy of course.

Under pressure applied by their Muslim authorities, many Jews were also forced to perform the custom of the Haj. Those that partook in the pilgrimage to Mecca, were honoured immensely. Funnily enough, they were the leaders of the Jewish community and were the most staunch and devout believers.

One of them was Kami’s grandfather.

Born in 1883 under the Name Rachamim Ben Yitzchak, he adopted the Muslim name Abdul Karim Izhakov. As one of the leaders of the Jewish community in Mashad, Rachamim was very influential. He was a successful businessman who travelled much and was there fore able to maintin valuable contacts with Jewish communities elsewhere. That important fact helped him smuggle a Sefer Torah to Mashad from Russia, a Sefer Torah that is proudly housed in a synagogue in Ramat Hasharon.

Moreover, when Rachamim made the Haj pilgrimage, he stopped in Eretz Yisrael and bought a piece of land in Yerushalayim. He was determined to ensure that he strikes Jewish Zionist roots for his future generatiosn here in Eretz Yisrael.

During WWII when Jewish children, later known as The Teheran Children, made their way out of the inferno in Poland on their way to Eretz Yisrael, it was Rachamim and his fellow Jewish community members that hosted them and helped ease the trauma that those kids had undergone.

With the rise to power of Riza Shah, the father of the late Shah, life became easier for the Jews of Mashahd. About 2000 of them realized their dream to move to Eretz Yisrael.

It is accounts like this one that  make my Jewish essence overflow with pride and awe echoing over and over again the ancient bliss, “Am Yisrael Chai!”

Language and symbols – as unique as the culture that they reflect

This article was written jointly by Roger Froikin and Bat-Zion Susskind-Sacks

Languages and symbols are the defining edges and the shapers of a culture and its members. They determine their views and perspectives.  They affect how they interpret their reality, how they decide during adulthood and what their values are in the subtlest of ways. 

Both are also harsh, sometimes, and for a reason.

Ever since early days, mankind has been using, borrowing and adopting symbols and terms of cultures alien to their own. In many case, such usage has helped bridge over differences and mend divides that human nature has erected. Cultures and groups have been willingly sharing ideas, inventions and moral codes, all for the benefits of the many.

What is repeatedly forgotten, however, is that most often in history, words, languages, meanings and symbols are adopted by the dominant cultural group in order to reflect its frame of reference, its world view. When these are, therefore, assumed and used by others, meanings are likely to be changed, often to the disadvantage of the smaller, less numerous and less powerful group that holds those cultural parameters. 

These practices among cultures have been so widespread that, in many instances, it almost seems to us that the game of sharing has turned into Chinese whispers. People are either using terms in the wrong context, or using them in the right one but mispronouncing them.

That could be, at most, funny and entertaining. But not always.

As a result of such misuse, and in an effort to keep original meanings intact, the smaller less powerful culture must make an extra effort to maintain its identity and those cultural artifacts in symbols and language as originally intended,

Moreover, in many cases, people do not only use symbols and terms of other cultures in the wrong context, mispronounce them, misapply them, and sometimes use them as objects of ridicule. In many cases, they also, and worst of all, claim them as their own while trying to convince others that those had always been theirs.

For instance, many of us have heard the famous saying “Love thy neigbour as thyself.” It is being referred to as a “Christian idiom” and has, regrettably, been unquestionably accepted as such.  Those, however, who are familiar with the original Hebrew/Jewish Scriptures would know that not only is this verse taken from the Torah, it was also misinterpreted when translated into Greek and from Greek into other languages.

It first appears in ויקרא   (VaYikra, Leviticus) 9:18. The original Hebrew states "ואהבת לרעך כמוך."  Which translates “You should love your friend as yourself.” Surely not every friend is our neighbour and not every neighbour is our friend. 

Another and more important example of change might be in the popular translations of the 10 Commandments. Some popular versions in the West, while claiming authenticity, actually edit out portions that might be inconvenient to non-Jewish cultures, and mistranslate others while leaving them with the beliefs that were never intended by the original. This does not stop some from claiming with religious fervor that their versions are the word of G-d.  The example that comes to mind is when about 5 years ago, the wife of an Evangelical minister spoke on radio claiming that she believed every word of the Bible because she had read and studied it in the “original English” and knows what G-d commands us to believe.

Unlike language, Symbols, sometimes carry even a deeper cultural meaning. 

For Jews, for instance, Jewish symbols, from the Magen David to the Talit to the symbolism of the care taken when lifting and using the Sefer Torah, all have special meaning that distinguish our traditions, our struggles, or resistance, our identity and, therefore, make them unique to us. 

When Gentiles adopt those symbols because they believe it brings them closer to their Christ, that changes the meaning of those symbols, and, to be blunt, though some Jews mistakenly interpret that as being pro-Jewish, most of us see that as some sort of parody that distorts that which those things mean to us. This is akin to the sentiment of a Christian being insulted when witnessing a Muslim using the symbol of the Cross in some play or another context in a manner which is remote from the intentions of it creators. 

These are just a couple of examples as to why and where harsher and more crisp guidelines need to be adopted and applied by members of the culture whose essence is being hijacked, mistranslated and sometimes misused. It happened in the past albeit in a manner which cannot be repeated or affected, let alone enforced in today’s world.  One example where such measures were used is ancient Rome. There, laws and fines were in place against efforts to usurp that which belonged and was limited to one group.

And before anyone jumps at our throat and puts words in our mouths, let us reiterate that we do not advocate such an approach. We are merely stating a historical fact where members of one group, in this case, Jews, seek to defend, and justifiably so,  that which belongs to them against efforts to appropriate its essence, spiritual and other.