Vayishlach - the Art of Diplomacy

 

After over twenty years of absence, the decision has finally ripened in Yaakov, and he is preparing to leave his father in law’s home in Padan Aram and move back to resettle in the Land that G-d has promised him and his posterity. During the years that he was living with Laban, Yaakov flourished, built a strong family, amassed wealth, and many assets. Now, he is ready to legitimize his status as primogeniture and fulfill his calling as a son of the Covenant.

That major step, however, is cloaked with distress and much concern for him. There is still one issue that needs resolving, his strained relationship with his estranged brother, Esav, who vowed to kill him for having stolen his birthright. As much as Yaakov is looking forward to meeting his brother, the fear that Esav might launch a war against him hovers over his head. He does not want to kill, nor does he want to be killed.

Yaakov who is determined to go ahead and meet Esav, elects to use a three-pronged approach. The first step he takes is in the form of appeasement. He sends Esav gifts of cattle and flocks and instructs his messengers to tell Esav that: “it is a present sent unto my lord, even unto Esav; and behold, he also is behind us.” (Bresheet 32:19). Furthermore, in verse 21, Yaakov expounds and adds to his message, “Moreover, behold, thy servant Yaakov is behind us. ‘For he said: ‘I will appease him with the present that goeth before me, and afterward I will see his face, peradventure he will accept me.” It could not be more obvious that Yaakov’s hand is stretched out for Peace.

The second plan that Yaakov conceives of will be echoed many centuries later in the immortal words of the Roman Military expert, Vegetius, “Si vis, para bellum” (If you want Peace, prepare for war). While aiming for peace, Yaakov is preparing for the possible eventuality of a war with his brother. “And he divided the people that was with him and the flocks and the herds, and the camels, into two camps. And he said: ‘If Esav come to one camp, and smite it, then the camp which is left shall escape.” (32:8-9). Yaakov is splitting his household into two camps to ensure that, at least some do survive if a war does break out.

Finally, as a true son of the Covenant, Yaakov puts his trust in G-d through prayer. He reminds Him of His promise to watch over him and multiply his seed. (32:10-13).

When Esav and Yaakov eventually meet, both brothers seem to have transformed, through character development, into mature men who have learned to respect each other and put family before everything else. They part ways in peace and continue with the course of their lives.

The Midrash explains that the conflict between the brothers started already in their mother’s wombs (Bresheet 25:2). It was over the inheritance and control of the two worlds, this world, the corporal one, and the world to come, the spiritual world.

The Mahara”l of Prague dwells on this issue in his book, “Netzach Yisrael” (The Eternity of Yisrael). He claims that Yaakov was born with the inherent tendency towards the world to come, while Esav’s natural inclination is towards the physical world. The latter came into the world a fully physically developed newborn (with hair). Yaakov came out holding Esav’s heel. He, apparently, needed Esav’s support and was dependent on him. Esav’s descendants, the Mahara”l explains, feel at home in this world and reside in peace, alongside it. They have a stronghold in it which allows them to determine where war and peace should nest.

Unlike Esav, the core and the role of Yaakov and Am Yisrael (the children of Yaakov whose name changes to Yisrael, later, in this Parashah), continues the Mahara"l  is spiritual. Their task is to improve the world and build the House of the Lord. It is, therefore, only a matter of courtesy to seek permission from Esav, the one who controls the corporeal, earthly world prior to entering to make changes in it.

Even though G-d promised the Land to Yaakov and his future generations, Yaakov still seeks Esav’s consent and permission to enter it, as reflected in this his week’s Parashah. Yaakov’s future generations will, likewise, need the approval and the back of Esav’s offspring, concludes the Mahara”l.

This, as it turns out, is, indeed, the case through our Jewish history. Each time our People wish to pursue our yearning desire to leave the diaspora to join the Family of Nations, we seek the approval of the representatives of Esav.

The next time we encounter such an effort is when Am Yisrael leaves Egypt and is about to enter Eretz Yisrael, the Land that was promised to them. In that instance, they seek permission from Edom (named after Esav).

Similarly, after the Babylonian exile, Cyrus, the Persian King, issued his renowned Declaration. It granted and authorized the right of the Jews to return to Zion and build the Second Temple.

In modern times, we detect the same course. Did not Herzl, the founder of Political Zionism, bounce from one world leader to another, from the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire to the Kaiser, king of Prussia to seek permission from a great power to support his idea to establish a Jewish Homeland? Did not Chaim Weitzman approach Lord Balfour with the same request, an encounter that produced the Balfour Declaration and later, the San Remo Accord which decreed the rights of Jews to build their National Home in Eretz Yisrael, their ancestral Homeland?

Yes, that is our forefathers’ legacy to us. What a great privilege it is to be part of a nation, a culture that abides by international laws, engages in the art of diplomacy in a manner that dignifies not merely its members but also displays respect and courtesy towards those who are in power, in a mere effort to seek approval for what has already been rightfully ours.

Shabbat Shalom Fellow Jews and Am Yisrael and a wonderful weekend to all.

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 

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?