You forgot to mention the delusion of thinking deep seated delusions of millions of people the world over will be solved by a blog post.
You do realize this reads like a Purim spiel, don't you? The left is delusional in thinking the Palestinians will do this, the right is delusional in thinking the Palestinians will do that, the West is delusional in thinking the Israelis will do somesuch and that Palestinians will do whatnot.
So my solution is that the Palestinians should do that the Israelis should do this, the West should believe whatchamacallit, and the UN should disband. Ok? Everybody snap to it now.
Dude, get used it it. You don't have a solution, and neither does anybody else. The Israelis are in an absolutely impossible situation al pi derech haTeva. They are living surrounded by millions who DON'T WANT A SOLUTION. And millions more of the same are embedded in the State itself. And the "West" - the institutions, intelligentsia, and media that runs it - don't seriously want to work for a solution either. Lose your delusions and come to terms with the fact that this is a problem with no solution. We're stuck forever in maintenance and damage control mode, and hope for rachamei shamayim.
This is a reality lost on those who post delusional statements like "I went into a fruit store in Machaneh Yehuda yesterday and saw a ripe pomegranate. If this is galut then I don't know what geulah looks like". But the rest of us just have to come to terms with reality.
Oh whoops. Didn't realize your "Path Forward" was meant as just another delusional scheme that won't work. In that case I'll stick with the Right Wing Delusion and a side order of fries. Thanks.
Not at all. We have to show that we are offering a solution, even if the other side(s) reject it. Otherwise we're seen as the ones in the way of peace.
frankly - ANY offer. A Palestinian State - or even autonomy - will ALWAYS be an irredentist entity. All the talk here about a new national sense of identity, dialects (frankly - 150 years ago more JEWS spoke "Palestinian" Arabic than did Muslims or Christians), and the other nonsense being written really just ignores the elephant in the room. The "Palestinian" Arabs have undermined every single society they have tried to administer or were given any form of autonomy in. Transjordan, Lebanon, Gaza, Judea and Samaria, Israel. That's why no one wants them. the idea that no Arab state wants to resettle them as a means of holding it over the State of Israel has truth to it. But the reality is that even were the State of Israel to disappear tomorrow, none of the Arab states would want the Palestinian Arabs, nor would they allow them to have their own state. the surrounding Arab states would simply gobble up their pieces and destroy every single bit of "Palestinian" identity they could. They would also try and destroy the Islamist offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the rest of them.
There is probably no greater source of intelligence information for the US and its allies than leaks from the diplomatic staff at the UN. Unilateral disarmament because of resentment is not a winning strategy in the New Cold War.
The issues (delusions) are very well presented, and the solution is what absolutely need to happen. But effectively, there are so many variables that are unfortunately completely unrealistic. Deradicalizing Palestinians is actually like 'deradicalizing' chareidim - people with sincere religious beliefs. (I only say that in this context; in just about any other context I'd say this about religious Jews in general...) We can keep trying to figure this stuff out at it shabbos tables and hope for the best.
But if we're being brutally honest, the only true solution is for all of us to do teshuva. I promise that will help...
He makes a correct argument about the cultural problem, but has no absolutely plan for how the cultural change would be effected, making his "path forward" the most delusional of all of them by far. I have a plan how to actually carry out the required cultural change, see my comments below.
Who's talking about them lettings themselves? We will force them through a residential school system, like Canada did, before they stopped. Children are very pliable when removed from the domain of their parents.
Wow, an entire article to solve the problem of Israel's enemies without a single mention of God or Torah. And you think you are going to solve it be radically changing the entire Palestinian culture. Before that happens, time machines will have been invented, and we will be able to come back and laugh at your post. You listed all the delusions except one: The Slifkin Delusion.
Rabbi Slifkin, as others are pointing out, your plan seems the most unrealistic. I have a better plan. In Canada, they had a method of "de-savaging" the indigenous population by forcing them to send children to "residential schools", which were basically boarding schools where the children were taught English, dressed in Western clothes, and educated in Western values and knowledge, and their savage Indian culture was burned out of them by immersion in a superior culture. Despite their current complaints about "cultural genocide", this was actually a great boon for them and for Canada. We can do the same with Palestinian children. We can even make them Jewish converts, as the halacha allows.
We did some of this in the US, too. The idea that the American Indians were "savage" and the Europeans were "civilized" is racist ahistorical poppycock disproven by the genocidal wars that took place in Europe from early modern times right up to 1945.
The American Indians were indeed savages. Not because of their wars, not because of their primitive ideas, and not because of their distance from the Occident of the time. They were עובדי עבודה זרה just like the Canaanim and other evil pre-historic nations. Avoda Zara is not merely a thought crime. The true עובדי עבודה זרה do not respect life, do not believe in a morality by which we need to live, and have no red lines. גם את בניהם ואת בנותיהם ישרפו באש לאלהיהם, they do not care at all. The sexual licentiousness of the Canaanim was replicated by the עובדי עבודה זרה in Africa and the Americas.
Those cultures needed to be obliterated, uprooted, forgotten, and decimated. The job was so well done that people don't even remember or understand why it was necessary. Slavery was not very good, but it did the job of uprooting the Avoda Zara of the Negroes (place politically correct name here, as the generation demands).
Christianity has its own set of problems, but it is many measures better than the pagan worship of yore. As the Rambam writes, these belief systems exist to create the conversation and debate around which Moshiach will arrive and debunk all - Christianity, Islam, communism, democracy, monarchy, socialism and more.
It is a real shame that frums do not go to University and take a course in Comparative Religion! That might teach u a modicum of understanding and respect for your fellow man's intelligence! U would see how wrong Chazal and the Psalmist were wrong about "pagans." Believe it or not, Zundel, "they" knew that their representational ICONS have eyes which see not!
1. It is a real shame that you did not really learn in a Yeshiva, and you don't understand how to be שואל כענין ומשיב כהלכה. Your answer had nothing to do with the evils of the pagan cultures.
2. I have no reason to believe that Westerners, even academics, have any way of understanding the pagan culture outside the lens of the world which they inhabit. They may claim to have this ability, but my uncle claims to be able to sing like Yossele Rosenblatt.
3. My Torah taught me that it is a Mitzvah not only to keep away from idol worship, but to make fun of it and create crude insulting names for it. It's just the Torah, a must for us Jews.
4. The idea that university courses, discussing something that they only know about from archaeology, should know better than Dovid Hamelech who actually lived amongst idol worshippers, is laughable.
5. The Rambam at the beginning of Hilchos Avoda Zara can explain the disconnect. But courses......
Your constant confusion between race and culture is understandable, if inexcusable.
The Indian race is still alive, its culture is, b"h, dead. What's the problem? How is this racism? And if it is, what is actually wrong with it? Make a valid case for what's wrong, and then explain why your issue is more important than the all-encompassing human duty to fully eradicate idol worship from the earth.
By the way, I see Rabbi Slifkin is much more worried about the chareidi problem than the Palestinians problem. My residential school idea would work for chareidim also, just force the parents to send the kids to secular boarding schools and forcibly secularize the kids, burn the primitive Eastern European superstitious spirit from their mind with Western education and values. Problem solved.
I also live in Canada, unless you live on an Indian reserve or are the minister of Indigenous affairs, you have no more special insight into this matter than anyone else. The fact is that the majority of indians did not attend residential schools, and in the US that did not have this broad network of residential schools, the Indians struggle with the same problems or worse. Residential schools were great, the only tragedy is that they shut them down. And there are many who agree, see https://williamgairdner.ca/balancing-the-biased-genocide-story-about-residential-schools/ And I find the obsequious fawning "reconciliation" of the Canadian government to be nauseating.
And even if you argue that the residential schools exacerbated certain problems, they were great at breaking the spirit of savageness that the Indians possessed and demolishing their brutish, animalistic culture, which is exactly what is called for in the case of Palestinians.
I seriously suggest you start the reform from within your own community:
1) Remove the Ben-Gvir and Smotrich (and Noam) RZ parties from the govt. They are the Islamist of Israel in reverse. That appears to align with your aims but is left out of your recommendations despite being the easiest of all these goals to achieve.
2) Reform the RZ community so that they no longer support Islamist-like desires to push out or dominate Arabs from the river the sea. The don't need to be going up to Har Habayit to daven. They don't need to be doing the flag march through Yerushalayim yelling "death to Arabs". RZ Rabbis should disclaim any affiliation with these parties, aims and tactics.
"Reform the RZ community so that they no longer support Islamist-like desires to push out or dominate Arabs from the river the sea. The don't need to be going up to Har Habayit to daven. They don't need to be doing the flag march through Yerushalayim yelling "death to Arabs". RZ Rabbis should disclaim any affiliation with these parties, aims and tactics."
"Rabbi Slifkin often quotes Rabbi Eliezer Melamed as a Torah Authority. Rabbi Eliezer Melamed promotes expulsion of the Arabs, something Rabbi Slifkin also ignores:
The assumption that you restrict the Rabbis you quote or learn from to those who share your political views is a Charedi phenomenon. Others are not bound by this.
Can you explain? Of course learning from some one is related to citing them as an authority. You can't cite someone as an authority if you aren't willing to learn from them. Citing as an authority implies learning from them.
Also can you describe what you mean by the difference between an authority and "some nice rabbi" among many others. There are many authorities with different views. They are always "among many others". The question is whether you will cite someone who you don't agree with over some political view or world outlook. Outside the Charedi world, it is taken for granted that you will.
"Yesterday, Rav Steinman came to speak in Ramat Bet Shemesh. On his previous visit, he spoke about how goyim are murderers and thieves and fools, and about how one should not educate one's children towards earning a living. On this visit, he spoke about how one must vote for the charedi political party and mayor.
Some people in the community announced this event as being an opportunity to hear from "The" (sic) Gadol HaDor. So I thought that it would be valuable to share other people's perspective on who is The, or even A, Gadol HaDor."
“They don't need to be going up to Har Habayit to daven.”
Please explain why there should be places where Jews are not permitted to (or simply “shouldn’t”) daven. Sounds like “whites only bathrooms” (l’havdil).
At the kotel, people from every nation around the earth come to pray - in their own way.
Saying “no” to discrimination against Jews is not the same as trying to “dominate Arabs”.
Yes, I absolutely understand how that could feel like anti-semitism and exclusionary to a Jew. And some of it may actually be anti-semitism. But we still shouldn't do it.
I am going to assume here that you are also a traditional/orthodox Jew in the following.
1) Religions including our are exclusionary of outside practices and sometimes people in religious/holy spaces. In fact, it is not true that anyone can come to the Kotel to pray in their own way as attested to by the monthly women of the wall conflict; the modes of prayer are restricted based on religious principle by the Western Wall Rabbi and then "enforced" beyond those regulations by private Jewish enforcers.
To be more specific, the halachot of the Beit Hamikdash is establish locations where Gentiles, Women, and Non-Cohanim can go as well as what would considered by other to be discriminatory practices against Cohanim with disabilities.
So yes, if you are against all religion, you can say that religions are like Jim Crow. Otherwise, I think we can make distinctions just like we distinguish Jewish discriminatory practices.
2) Israel physically controls Har Habayit but cede authority to the waqf to administer it because we don't want to have religious war over the area. We understand they have very strong religious feelings about their holy places and we don't want there to be any implication that Israel's control of Yerushalayim stands in the way of that. When Jews come up to pray including a prayer that the Jews will be allowed to control Har HaBayit and re-establish the Beit HaMikdash, then this could be considered a political and religious statement agains the right for Muslims to continue to control their holy area. And in fact, they are often correct. The people who make the biggest show going up there are the ones who believe in the Kahanist vision of force population transfers of Palestinians.
Yes that leaves the few people just simply feel that they would have better kavannah (or whatever other better davening) up on the mount as opposed to the Kotel left out. It is better than fomenting a religious conflict over Har Habayit.
As I indicated below, I generally agree with your subsequent comment in which you "state it shorter;" however, with specific regard to this comment, as an Orthodox Jew, I can agree with you that for the most part, religions including ours have exclusionary elements.
However, within my own segment of the Orthodox Jewish world, we strive for something approaching "separate but equal" for example with men and women praying together albeit on opposite sides of a Mechitza. Men and women both providing leadership in the shul, men and women both taking an active role in leading and attending shiurim, etc. At the same time, I recognize that many of our exclusionary policies are within our own private institutions and largely self-imposed and self-enforced, for instance in some shuls women might never lead formal davening or get an Aliyah, while in others, women-only minyanim with such roles might be more common place.
As I said, that is in a private setting; in a more public, outdoor, national setting such as Har HaBayit and the Kotel, things are not quite so simple. We live in a big world with Jews of various streams and perspectives. And, we as a people (perhaps to the exclusion of a certain segments) generally strive to respect one another despite some (at times fundamental) divergent views and practices.
We recognize that the needs of our people change and, we make efforts to accommodate those needs. For example, at the Kotel, there is now a men's area, a women's area, and an egalitarian area. Most people try to respect that. however, as you pointed out, not everyone respects that. Last summer (2022), I had a drawn out dispute with a former (now banned) commenter on this blog which touched on the Women of the Wall (among other things). I referenced the completely disgusting nature of many of the attacks on the egalitarian worshippers (including one where an "orthodox" (and I use that term in quotes because I fail to see how that person could actually have ahavat yisrael or yirat Hashem) individual blew his nose in a page torn from a siddur. A real travesty.
Personally, I fervently pray for an even more universal Beit HaMikdash, which will fulfill the words of Isaiah, "Ki Beiti, Beti Tefila Yikareh l'chol haAmim."
On the other side, I spoke in my own shul the first day of this past Sukkot (2023) about the abhorrent acts in Dizengoff square in Tel Aviv. At the time, I mourned the fact that one of the worst recent anti-Jewish activities were committed by Jews (little did i know what horrors would unfold just one week later). And I noted that for the sake of unity Chazal decided to abrogate a Torah Mitzvah (Sukkot 43b-44a).
At the same time, I recognize that the world is not only Jewish. There are other religions too not all of whom share my view when it comes to permitting others into holy sites. (Mecca might be one good example, the Mormon Tabernacle might be another, certain Shinto temples might be a third). But that does not mean that we as Jews - whom as you point out, have ultimate physical control of the Har HaBayit - should permit such discrimination.
Your other point regarding ceding administration to the Waqf is well taken, and I think related to the point I agreed with below - not every act of worship need be a provocation; or to be less diplomatic, I agree that intentional provocative acts (not to include the prayers that have been part of our liturgy for centuries) should be prohibited. But prayers should be permitted.
I understand that we disagree, but I think that you can understand that when I say that we should avoid Jewish prayer on the temple mount is it not an endorsement of Jim Crow, but a practical measure to avoid what could be a religious war. As it is now, the politicians go up their to provoke and that makes it worse for everyone.
To state it shorter: I agree with your anti-discrimination approach which is why removing the anti-Arab parties is the most important thing. Prayer on the temple mount doesn't have to be a provocation but unfortunately it intentionally is. If we can dial that down, then maybe having with the right kavannah properly praying there without the anti-Arab implications will be possible.
I agree that prayer on har habayit doesn’t have to be provocation but unfortunately it (often) intentionally is.
I agree with the general tenor of this comment, though I’m not sure if it’s really just “stat[ing] it shorter” or just something different than your prior comment. I suppose you know your original intent much better than I do.
Is that how you respond to everything, by asking inane questions?
Go back and re-read your comment, and see if you can figure out what about suggesting the "removal" of duly elected members of knesset, and duly appointed ministers, and wholesale involuntary "reforms" of constituencies, might have prompted my own. Get back to us when you've figured it out.
I wrote "Remove the Ben-Gvir and Smotrich (and Noam) RZ parties from the govt."
Forming a government in Israel is part of democracy. There is no democratic right be part of the governing coalition. Ministers can be fired for a variety of reasons. This is all democratic: https://en.idi.org.il/articles/6104
As far as reforming a movement; that is part of the essence of democracy. As much as I don't like what he did, Trump completely reformed the Republican electorate and party in the US, changing and even reversing its policy goals. It's part of the marketplace of ideas.
What list are your referring to? I don’t have such a list. I think that the conversation would work better if you just stated your disagreement instead of gesturing to it. I’ll try to respond.
Just to make it clear, I’m angry at Hamas for slaughtering us. My comment is not about anger but about what we can do to avoid creating additional needless conflict. Hamas are Islamists intent on destroying Israel. We can’t directly change that. We can change our own approach to avoid creating more Hamas members and becoming the Jewish version of Hamas. Beside the obvious moral objection to anti-Arab racism, there are 2 million Palestinians citizens of Israel living on the Israel side of the Gaza wall and West Bank barriers. If they become radicalized the country will be become a very unpleasant place to live.
"Unfortunately, what is true for extreme right-wing Zionist political power is not true for charedi political power. While the security and political downsides of extremist right-wing policies are immediate enough to place brakes on those who would act in such a way, the same cannot be said for the economic consequences of raising a third of the next generation without secular education. While the consequences of such a thing are catastrophic, they only play out a few decades from now - at which point it's too late to do anything about it anyway."
Mind you- I don't think Dr Slifkin especially cares for the Ben Gvir types. A government of Bennet-Meretz-Labor-Ra'am is fine too. There's really only one all important, overriding concern which dictates his approach to things:
"As someone who voted for Bennett myself, I am aligned with many others who believe that he did exactly the right thing, which is to deal with the circumstances at hand in the best way....
"Finally, here's something else to appreciate: the new coalition government in Israel will have one of the largest number of Zionist MKs of any government in the last few decades.
This is, of course, because the non-Zionist charedi parties are not part of it. And this provides a unique opportunity to make necessary changes to help the charedi community, which has been greatly harmed by its elected representatives indulging their short-term needs at the cost of their long-term wellbeing. Radical change is needed to prevent the charedi community causing immense harm to itself and the country as a whole, and this government might possibly be able to make this happen."
I think it is much more productive to make a list of things to buy when winning the lottery.
First, I will run off to the local car dealer and get myself a car that tickles my fancy. It has to be an SUV, I can't handle climbing into a Sedan or a sports car. As many bells and whistles as possible, and off we drive.
Second, write and send a check to ten Kollelim. This is just to poke NS in the eye.
Third, write and send a check to another ten Kollelim. But this is because it is a wonderful thing to do.
Fourth, buy the supplies needed for a two week vacation, with a grill/barbecue, insulation box for the meat/milk, and an easy set of tools to cook and eat that which we will be taking along.
Fifth, pay the neighbors, family and friends to take in my children for the two-week vacation that I will take.
Sixth, get into the brand new Suv and start driving. Make sure the trip takes us to the Blue Mountain Ridge, and book the Presidential Suite in the fanciest hotel wherever the trip takes us.
Eretz Yisrael is are ancestral home. Invasion of Israel in the 7th century by the Saudi Arabs doesn't eliminate our claim to the land. Neither does Ottoman control until 1917.Jordan is a Palestinian state which was created in violation of the Balfour Declaration.
As you indicated, "Palestinian statehood" is a relatively new idea which should never have taken place. The chances of an Arab change of mentality is next to possible. If possible we should take over all of the territories. The Arabs have their countries and we should have ours. The fact that the British gave us a tiny piece of land for a State- don't do us any favors with our land. Who made them the boss. It's all politics and power. So I suggest continued settlement. The Arabs are not making peace any time soon. We will have to play it by ear.
Saudi Arabs played no role in history until the 18th century. "Saudi" means a particular family from a particular area on the Arabian Peninsula, who joined and provided support for an extremist religious movement. Nobody would care about them except that the Brits helped to fund them in their war against the Ottoman Empire and that in the 1930s it was discovered that the land they control is floating on easily extracted oil.
The Balfour Declaration has utterly no relevance to international law. The Brits were promising everything to everyone at that time. Balfour wasn't even part of the British War Cabinet. The person really responsible for it was Lloyd-George, known widely within and outside the UK as a duplicitous lying backstabber. (That is how he became PM in the first place.)
What WAS relevant was the Treaty of Lausanne, in which the new Republic of Türkiye gave up its claim to the region as of 1924, and the earlier League of Nations Mandate which was allowed to take effect because of the aforementioned Treaty. If you read the actual Mandate, it doesn't mention any boundaries for the Jewish National Home and in any case TransJordan had already been established over a year earlier. It changed its name in 1946.
For Israel to encourage its citizens to settle anywhere beyond the 1949 Armistice Line is a clear violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which Israel voluntarily ratified in 1951. Arguably an actual annexation would have addressed that problem, but Israel has not properly annexed either East Jerusalem or the Golan Heights. I personally think that anyone who says that Jews shouldn't live in some WASPy suburban community in the US is a vile anti-Semite and kal v'chomer anywhere where Jews lived for centuries or millenia (and from some of which were ethnically cleansed from) but the damage from pretending that the Geneva Convention doesn't matter has been terrible for Israel.
The area now occupied by SA. The point is that there were invasions and foreign control. of EY until today.Now Israel reclaims it's ancestral home of 1000 years. (+75 independence of Israel).
That’s simply incorrect. The original mandate went until the Jordan River. The 1949 armistice lines NEVER abrogated the original mandate. Only 2 countries recognized the annexation by kingdom of Transjordan of the areas west of the Jordan River under its control. The Geneva Convention simply does not apply to those areas.
Furthermore I found out that they would be selling kosher food at the rally. This implies that we get our nourishment from food and not from HKBH R”L. I felt it was not good that a Ben Torah be exposed to such Kefirah.
Nachum - Charlie Hall is correct that the original mandate after the Treaty of San Remo only included the land "between the river and the sea" for the development of a Jewish national home. Transjordan was added later on- and then removed unilaterally by Great Britain who decided to establish an autonomous government there under the Hashemites. But Charlie Hall is being disingenuous in attempting to state that Judea and Samaria were not included under the original Mandate. They were. And the UN partition resolution did NOT rescind the mandate. Which is why only 2 countries recognized the annexation by the Kingdom of Transjordan. And which is why the Geneva Convention is not applicable to the areas of Judea and Samaria. Israeli has VOLUNTARILY applied to the areas of Judea and Samaria CERTAIN humanitarian provisions of the 4th protocol to the GC. But not the provisions governing settlement of Jews in those areas. Which still fall under the Mandate provisions and t he Treaty of San Remo, which recognized that the Jews are indigenous to those areas and have national rights to those areas. Once can try to come up with a solution - and even vacate national claims to a territory in order to implement a solution - e.g. like the Malays did with Singapore; the Javanese eventually did with East Timor; the Czechs and Slovaks did by separating one State into two ethno-national states (each of which had minorities of the other as well as third nation minorities); and other examples. But there is a VERY long line between that, and even between the UN general resolution recommending a division of the area into 2 states, than saying that Israel is a conquering nation and that the settlers are criminal in breach of IHL. By Charlie Hall's reasoning, all of Jerusalem, Ramla, Lod, Ashkelon, Beer Sheva, Haifa and more are also breaches of IHL - as the 1949 ceasefire lines have no basis in establishing legal or illegal insofar as the Protocols to the Geneva Convention. One only has to look to the plans of the Eisenhower administration to see this.
The San Remo Agreements also have no standing under international law, as Türkiye refused to ratify the Treaty of Sevres. The Palestine Mandate did, but it never specified the borders of the Jewish National Home nor did it include any provision for an independent sovereign Jewish state. What created international recognition for a Jewish state was UN Resolution 181, which provided for the termination of the Mandate and established the borders of the Jewish state. In 1951, Israel extended its borders to the 1949 Armistice Lines by applying Israeli law there and making all residents there into Israeli citizens. That remains the status quo today, because Israel has not done that in East Jerusalem or the Golan Heights, much less the West Bank or Gaza.
There was a general idea, before Sykes-Pico, that the Jewish state would extend a bit into the neighboring countries- up to the Litani in what is now Lebanon, and east to the Hijaz railway in Syria and Jordan. (The Sinai was originally considered on the Asian side, but Britain had taken it well before the war so as to protect the Suez Canal.) There were actually Jewish settlements and land purchased in the Golan and Jordan which were cleared out when Syria and Jordan got that land.
An important detail of the UN partition plan is that it was a *General Assembly* vote, not a Security Council vote, and so was "merely" advisory and had no binding force. In addition, there is the obvious fact that the Arabs didn't accept it, so of course it never applied. Ironically, for those who think the Three Oaths are significant (of course, many don't), the UN resolution has more halakhic/hashkafic significance than legal.
UN Resolution 181 was acknowledged by all at the time to create the justification for a Jewish State. Don't go where you are going.
Had Truman had his way he probably would have had the US vote against UN Resolution 181. We can thank Henry Wallace, Clark Clifford, and Eddie Jacobson for changing his mind.
Many Palestinian families are big into geneology and trace their ancestry back hundreds of years -- in the same or nearby locales. (This includes Israeli Arabs.)
Probably none. Besides, forcible conversions to Islam were rare in the region. The Umayyad, Abbassid, and Fatimid Caliphates preferred to tax Jews (and Christians) rather than to convert them. And paying the tax got Jews (and Christians) exempted from military service. Academic studies have shown that not until after the time of the Crusaders was there a Muslim majority in the region.
Not accurate. After the Muslim conquests there were many forced conversions. There have been studies which show that over half the “indigenous” Arabs in the southern Hebron hills region are descended from Jews forcibly converted. And have Jewish genes. Many still have certain Jewish customs.
Much of that Jewish DNA derives from Jewish women that wealthy Arabs prized and forcibly abducted into marriage. Islam has no prohibition against "foreign" wives.
R' Slifkin was kind enough to ask my opinion and even incorporate some of it. I "threatened" him that I would post the whole megillah of a response here, so here it is:
Let me start by saying that I am an apologist for no one here. I have never voted for Bibi and voted for no party in his coalition. This despite one left-wing protester a couple of weeks ago, having covered me in my own blood, telling me my hands were covered in blood just like Bibi's. But I have a lot less sympathy for those baying for his head, not the least because they've been keeping me awake for four years, and because I see their current protests- yes, even the ones with the families of the kidnapped, for whom I pray, God help them- as the height of cynicism. So maybe that colors my views a bit (that, and my pre-existing politics), but I think I, at least, am entitled.
"…many others have lived in Israel/Palestine for many centuries. Accordingly, they also have a legitimate claim to statehood (albeit not everyone with a claim to statehood actually gets one)."
There is a great leap between those two statements. Merely existing in a place for many centuries (even if that were true) does not mean one has a "legitimate claim to statehood." Indeed, it's not clear that everyone, or even anyone has a "legitimate claim to statehood." And even if there was such a concept as a "legitimate claim," it would mean nothing. Israel had to fight- still has to fight- for that "right." So did most, maybe all, countries.
And, indeed, you acknowledge that in your parenthetical statement at the end. Not everyone gets a state. I could give you a long, long list of peoples who don't get a state, a lot of them a lot more established and peaceful than the Palestinians. Is that fair? Maybe, but I don't care. More on that, and all of this, below.
"The Palestinians are not going anywhere. There is no way to transfer them out of the country."
And yet nothing else can really be done, and yet something must be done, as you immediately go on to say. And so something "impossible" and even distasteful must be tried. We're not a dumb people; we can think long and hard and maybe we can think of something creative. I know I can. How can it be implemented? I can think of ways, or at least seeds of ways. But there are far smarter people who can do better than I, if only they are allowed to or told to do so.
One good start, though, is to lay down the law that there will never be another independent state between the river and the sea. Again, more on that in a bit.
"Ben Gvir and extremist settlers yelling and waving guns do not bring security."
That's quite the caricature. They may not bring security in an ultimate national sense, but they may bring other things. I know it's all fashionable to yell "Ben Gvir!" these days, but he's actually acting rationally and responsibly at the moment. Certainly more so than many of those above him. And "settler" is a word we should stop using immediately. It is, frankly, racist. Or something like that. I'm not up on all that lingo.
"This past government was the most right-wing government ever, and yet Oct. 6th happened."
Contrary to the myths circulating ("moving soldiers to the West Bank" and nonsense like that, the attack- I think you mean the 7th, by the way- was not a result of any "right-wing" aspect. It's not like, say, Meron, where Deri got exemptions and people died. I wouldn't say the Yom Kippur War happened because Golda Meir was a Labor member. Did people mess up? I imagine. (Although I have increasing distaste for this Israeli fashion to always find people to blame.) But of course We Must Never mention the much more obvious faults, which lies with the three most recent prime ministers who didn't serve out their terms, one assassinated, one felled by a stroke, and one sent to jail, and another prime minister who has…skeletons. The last times I suggested that I was literally assaulted.
"And the two million Israeli Arabs are also a ticking time-bomb."
Hmm, I seem to recall someone else who focused on that. And he was screamed down. Still is, albeit by a lot less people than before. Interesting how things work out.
"and especially the US"
True. But I think that at a certain point we're just going to have to live with the fact that some people have it in for Jews and Israel, and we're not going to change their minds. And yes, the differences are heavily partisan. Joe Biden is a man very much of two minds himself, as his record shows, and he's got different people pulling him both ways as well. Should we work on one half of those equations? Sure. Should we be realistic about the other? Just as much.
Regarding Section 4, I have a more general comment to make: No, I do not agree that creating a Palestinian state should be an Israeli task, and indeed I think that it should be made clear that there will never be one, even if every single Israeli and Palestinian Arab wholeheartedly converts to Buddhism. Call me "messianic" if you must- not that every Orthodox Jew shouldn't be, and not that the Left is far, far more "messianic" than even your average Kahanist- but this is our land, ours by right, ours by Divine gift, and it's not that big, and in any event giving up parts of it sends exactly the wrong signal, that even Israel proper is transient. (Why do you think charedim are so OK with the idea?) You write, "as long as it is made clear that this is not a sign of weakness to be exploited". But of course it will be seen as such, and indeed it is.
(A side point about Section 4: I'm not as optimistic about Ra'am as you are. But it's the right idea. I just think there are other Arabs who may be more of a hope. It will take a long, long time, but I think we have that. R' Schachter once said we were in galut 2,000 years and it will take that long to get out of it. I'm a cock-eyed optimist, sure, but I think it will be a lot less than that, at least in this aspect.)
Here's my main point, though: We have to take our own side in arguments. What you've presented here- and believe it or not, I actually agree with much of what you wrote, even in Sections 3 and 4- are a few incompatible, no-win scenarios. OK, granted. But we're the Jews and Israelis here. So we can concentrate less on the problems of the Palestinians, and the Arabs, and the "international community," and the tiny, tiny Jewish Left (I mean, even Merav Michaeli is breathing fire now), and deal with the "right-wing" (or standard Israeli) delusions. And that might mean seeing them not so much as "delusions" as "problems to be solved." Once we get past that hurdle, who knows what can happen? If only it didn't have to take so much tragedy for people to start thinking about it.
Thank you for making me think about this more than I usually do. 🙂
I then added:
If you really want to know, my idea is citizenship for those abroad. Like making Palestinians Jordanian citizens. It's actually done in other contexts, but of course it's no good for Jews. Obviously Jordan would refuse. But like I said, some good thinking and you never know. France comes to mind: They actually have constituencies for overseas citizens. Eventually, the problem arises- if there's peace- of why some Arabs are citizens and some aren't. But on the other hand, lots of countries have non-citizens among them. I guess my main point is that there are out-of-the-box options, and maybe if Israel and "friends of Israel' just stop talking about "two states" people can start thinking about them.
You should say it a little more directly: Oct 7 happened b/c we pulled out of Gaza, and we pulled out of Gaza bc of Oslo. The single greatest disaster, ongoing, in the history of Israel, responsible for far more dead and maimed bodies, and the loss of far more territory, than anything else. Rabin is responsible, and its about time the right stopped worrying about the left and started pointing this out, forcefully and frequently. A debate over Bibi's future is fair, but not at this moment, and the debate should be entirely among those who screamed and pleaded and fought against Oslo. Not a single left winger should date open his mouth. Their opinion counts for nothing. They are entitled to vote in the election, and they should count themselves lucky for that.
Excellent piece. My father, R' Nachman Bulman zt'l, made a speech over 25 years ago in which he said that those who say peace with the Arabs is impossible and who want to expel all Arabs from Eretz Yisrael (like Meir Kahane) are right, and those who say such expulsion is impossible and we have to find a way to live with them (like Peace Now) are also right. His conclusion was that bederech hateva there is no solution. The only solution is learning Torah, doing mitzvos, doing chessed, davening, teshuva. If our army exists so we can have a country and our country exists so we can have an army, the whole Medina is pointless. As Saadya Gaon famously wrote, ein umaseinu umah elah baTorah. This does not preclude hishtadlus -- we still need statesmen, soldiers and police and may Hashem bless, help and protect them -- but the Arab problem will never be solved in any rationalistic way. May Hashem help and guard His people.
"Furthermore, there are those among the two million Israeli Arabs who are also hostile to Israel, which could turn into violence (as happened in the Lod riots), and for which there is no perfect security solution. The extreme right-wing professes to want to give them less government money, but this does not help them become loyal citizens."
"Tragically, the only thing that really seems to work is hitting rock-bottom. According to a report in The Times of Israel, as a result of the budget cuts, "for the first time in years, the number of Haredi students enrolling full-time in yeshiva study dropped by a whopping 4,400." Far from trying to "exterminate" charedim, the goal of the government is to encourage charedim to work for a living and to follow Chazal's eminently sensible directive that a person should teach his child a profession."
Why are you so opposed to helping Palestinian Israelis hit rock bottom? Isn't it in their *own* interests?
As decisive and aggressive Israel is at the moment, this must be applied to a peace plan. Israel can put forward a detailed scenario , something that could take time to implement but is agreed upon .At the moment the worlds attention is on the Mideast conflict. This is the perfect time for Israel to declare exactly what it wants. Personally, because of the War, I have educated myself in ways that were not possible before. I don't believe I alone. This declaration is to be proposed rationally and thoughtfully, in a way that will once for all time acknowledge the State of Israel and its sophisticated understanding of it's place in the world. At this juncture it would not be necessary to ask Palestinians what they want. Israel will come up with a plan to treat all people fairly, as democracies do and let the Israel document serve as the chief document for future peace. As observant Jews, we know Israel's true mission to serve as a "Light" unto the world. Reading such well written strategy will be the first of lighting the world. As Jews we have been disproportionately successful by would standards. Our disproportionate ability to defend ourselves is also well known. If we are 'chosen', it is not insurmountable to make peace. Hashem has given us this purpose. Military might all recognize, but about a doctrine that is realistic and at the same time, a document towards an increase of holiness will also take place. This is our highest moment. However, we start such a challenge, we must get did of Netanyahu and his government. because of their colossal failure they cannot be part of this process. Every thing they will touch and advocate for since October 7th will be tainted and never be beneficial. To create a very very detailed and complex declaration the enemies within Israel must first be defeated. Now, in addition to IDF action , a new front of reasonable and accurate future will be made to the world. At the moment, in a climate of WW3, we can state and propose a reality that will do as much good in the world, more so than the evils of World War
Rabbi Slifkin, that was a courageous effort on your part, and you deserve praise for it.
There are many points in the development with which I disagree, but having a vision for the future, something else than the usual cycle of violence, that's the most important part.
The clarity of thoughts expressed in this writing must be shared with all political factions in America and beyond. Iran's role has been defined and America should be supportive of Rationalist Judaism thinking related to Hamas and other terrorist thinking.
Little Tip: posts like this, in which NS claims, again, to have the SOLE correct view, whilst and everyone else's is based on "delusions" that only he himself alone is smart enough to apprehend - simply cannot be taken seriously. Your arrogance, which once might have been amusingly charming, is starting to grow tedious.
Since the correctly stated delusions of the Palestinians are innate and embedded in their culture, religion, and national identity, there is no realistic way that they can be dispelled, despite the claim that this can be done, the obviously flawed comparisons to Germany and Japan notwithstanding. Thus, proposing that we remove these delusions is pointless and fruitless. Given this, there is *no* realistic plan to resolve the conflict in a fundamental way. The very virtues of the post in their correct description of the delusions that exist are what makes the title ("a realistic plan") ironically completely incorrect.
You forgot to mention the delusion of thinking deep seated delusions of millions of people the world over will be solved by a blog post.
You do realize this reads like a Purim spiel, don't you? The left is delusional in thinking the Palestinians will do this, the right is delusional in thinking the Palestinians will do that, the West is delusional in thinking the Israelis will do somesuch and that Palestinians will do whatnot.
So my solution is that the Palestinians should do that the Israelis should do this, the West should believe whatchamacallit, and the UN should disband. Ok? Everybody snap to it now.
Dude, get used it it. You don't have a solution, and neither does anybody else. The Israelis are in an absolutely impossible situation al pi derech haTeva. They are living surrounded by millions who DON'T WANT A SOLUTION. And millions more of the same are embedded in the State itself. And the "West" - the institutions, intelligentsia, and media that runs it - don't seriously want to work for a solution either. Lose your delusions and come to terms with the fact that this is a problem with no solution. We're stuck forever in maintenance and damage control mode, and hope for rachamei shamayim.
This is a reality lost on those who post delusional statements like "I went into a fruit store in Machaneh Yehuda yesterday and saw a ripe pomegranate. If this is galut then I don't know what geulah looks like". But the rest of us just have to come to terms with reality.
What makes you think that I think that the radical change is actually going to happen?
Oh whoops. Didn't realize your "Path Forward" was meant as just another delusional scheme that won't work. In that case I'll stick with the Right Wing Delusion and a side order of fries. Thanks.
You made it sound like you had a solution few times....
If you don’t think it’s going to happen then it’s pretty irrational to propose it as a possible “solution”.
Not at all. We have to show that we are offering a solution, even if the other side(s) reject it. Otherwise we're seen as the ones in the way of peace.
what happens if they accept our bad offer? Like Anwar Sadat did. or Yasser Arafat did. Or King Hussein did.
The "world" will hate us no matter what we do - so we might as well state the truth.
What bad offer?
frankly - ANY offer. A Palestinian State - or even autonomy - will ALWAYS be an irredentist entity. All the talk here about a new national sense of identity, dialects (frankly - 150 years ago more JEWS spoke "Palestinian" Arabic than did Muslims or Christians), and the other nonsense being written really just ignores the elephant in the room. The "Palestinian" Arabs have undermined every single society they have tried to administer or were given any form of autonomy in. Transjordan, Lebanon, Gaza, Judea and Samaria, Israel. That's why no one wants them. the idea that no Arab state wants to resettle them as a means of holding it over the State of Israel has truth to it. But the reality is that even were the State of Israel to disappear tomorrow, none of the Arab states would want the Palestinian Arabs, nor would they allow them to have their own state. the surrounding Arab states would simply gobble up their pieces and destroy every single bit of "Palestinian" identity they could. They would also try and destroy the Islamist offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the rest of them.
Nice plan the hard part get people to listen and implement it.
What do you think blogs are for? To throw around ideas. Otherwise, why write about anything?
"the UN should disband"
There is probably no greater source of intelligence information for the US and its allies than leaks from the diplomatic staff at the UN. Unilateral disarmament because of resentment is not a winning strategy in the New Cold War.
Good point.
The issues (delusions) are very well presented, and the solution is what absolutely need to happen. But effectively, there are so many variables that are unfortunately completely unrealistic. Deradicalizing Palestinians is actually like 'deradicalizing' chareidim - people with sincere religious beliefs. (I only say that in this context; in just about any other context I'd say this about religious Jews in general...) We can keep trying to figure this stuff out at it shabbos tables and hope for the best.
But if we're being brutally honest, the only true solution is for all of us to do teshuva. I promise that will help...
He makes a correct argument about the cultural problem, but has no absolutely plan for how the cultural change would be effected, making his "path forward" the most delusional of all of them by far. I have a plan how to actually carry out the required cultural change, see my comments below.
Your solution also won't work. They are dogmatic. They would never let themselves be westernized (and the world would never let us do it anyway).
Same goes for your comment below about chareidim.
Who's talking about them lettings themselves? We will force them through a residential school system, like Canada did, before they stopped. Children are very pliable when removed from the domain of their parents.
What, at gun point??
Wow, an entire article to solve the problem of Israel's enemies without a single mention of God or Torah. And you think you are going to solve it be radically changing the entire Palestinian culture. Before that happens, time machines will have been invented, and we will be able to come back and laugh at your post. You listed all the delusions except one: The Slifkin Delusion.
Rabbi Slifkin, as others are pointing out, your plan seems the most unrealistic. I have a better plan. In Canada, they had a method of "de-savaging" the indigenous population by forcing them to send children to "residential schools", which were basically boarding schools where the children were taught English, dressed in Western clothes, and educated in Western values and knowledge, and their savage Indian culture was burned out of them by immersion in a superior culture. Despite their current complaints about "cultural genocide", this was actually a great boon for them and for Canada. We can do the same with Palestinian children. We can even make them Jewish converts, as the halacha allows.
We did some of this in the US, too. The idea that the American Indians were "savage" and the Europeans were "civilized" is racist ahistorical poppycock disproven by the genocidal wars that took place in Europe from early modern times right up to 1945.
The American Indians were indeed savages. Not because of their wars, not because of their primitive ideas, and not because of their distance from the Occident of the time. They were עובדי עבודה זרה just like the Canaanim and other evil pre-historic nations. Avoda Zara is not merely a thought crime. The true עובדי עבודה זרה do not respect life, do not believe in a morality by which we need to live, and have no red lines. גם את בניהם ואת בנותיהם ישרפו באש לאלהיהם, they do not care at all. The sexual licentiousness of the Canaanim was replicated by the עובדי עבודה זרה in Africa and the Americas.
Those cultures needed to be obliterated, uprooted, forgotten, and decimated. The job was so well done that people don't even remember or understand why it was necessary. Slavery was not very good, but it did the job of uprooting the Avoda Zara of the Negroes (place politically correct name here, as the generation demands).
Christianity has its own set of problems, but it is many measures better than the pagan worship of yore. As the Rambam writes, these belief systems exist to create the conversation and debate around which Moshiach will arrive and debunk all - Christianity, Islam, communism, democracy, monarchy, socialism and more.
Unbelievalbly racist propaganda not worthy of a Jewish site and not worthy of a response. Woe to whomever tried to teach you Torah.
You fail to explain what the problem is.
But this has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with culture. The Indian culture was evil and had to be eradicated. Not the race.
And indeed, the race was not eradicated, just like the Africans. But most of their culture, b"h, was.
You double down on your racist trash. Woe to me that I am in the same people and the same religion as someone of your ilk.
So still no answer. I thought as much.
It is a real shame that frums do not go to University and take a course in Comparative Religion! That might teach u a modicum of understanding and respect for your fellow man's intelligence! U would see how wrong Chazal and the Psalmist were wrong about "pagans." Believe it or not, Zundel, "they" knew that their representational ICONS have eyes which see not!
1. It is a real shame that you did not really learn in a Yeshiva, and you don't understand how to be שואל כענין ומשיב כהלכה. Your answer had nothing to do with the evils of the pagan cultures.
2. I have no reason to believe that Westerners, even academics, have any way of understanding the pagan culture outside the lens of the world which they inhabit. They may claim to have this ability, but my uncle claims to be able to sing like Yossele Rosenblatt.
3. My Torah taught me that it is a Mitzvah not only to keep away from idol worship, but to make fun of it and create crude insulting names for it. It's just the Torah, a must for us Jews.
4. The idea that university courses, discussing something that they only know about from archaeology, should know better than Dovid Hamelech who actually lived amongst idol worshippers, is laughable.
5. The Rambam at the beginning of Hilchos Avoda Zara can explain the disconnect. But courses......
Real same that you DID learn in a yeshiva and turn I to one of the most vile racists I have ever encountered on the internet.
Your constant confusion between race and culture is understandable, if inexcusable.
The Indian race is still alive, its culture is, b"h, dead. What's the problem? How is this racism? And if it is, what is actually wrong with it? Make a valid case for what's wrong, and then explain why your issue is more important than the all-encompassing human duty to fully eradicate idol worship from the earth.
Seeing other ignoramuses talk is a negative not a positive
Shulman, whom r u addressing, and what is your point?
You. That these competitive religion courses are preaching to the choir
Should have extended the historical period back to near the beginning of Christianity. We all know about the Crusades but that was only one example.
By the way, I see Rabbi Slifkin is much more worried about the chareidi problem than the Palestinians problem. My residential school idea would work for chareidim also, just force the parents to send the kids to secular boarding schools and forcibly secularize the kids, burn the primitive Eastern European superstitious spirit from their mind with Western education and values. Problem solved.
When it came to the Chareidi problem of not joining the IDF, Rabbi Slifkin had a much shorter answer: "You don't".
And then immediately proceeded to say you need to punish them financially...
Your right. He just didn't say why it's delusional in that case that they will all of a sudden join the Army.
Living in Canada, I get to see the side-effects of that "great boon" --
. . . destroyed family culture,
. . . people who never learned to parent their own children,
. . . terrible levels of drug abuse and imprisonment.
So White (non-aboriginal) Canada is currently experiencing t'shuvah (called "reconciliation") for that "great boon".
I don't think it would work any better for the Palestinians.
I also live in Canada, unless you live on an Indian reserve or are the minister of Indigenous affairs, you have no more special insight into this matter than anyone else. The fact is that the majority of indians did not attend residential schools, and in the US that did not have this broad network of residential schools, the Indians struggle with the same problems or worse. Residential schools were great, the only tragedy is that they shut them down. And there are many who agree, see https://williamgairdner.ca/balancing-the-biased-genocide-story-about-residential-schools/ And I find the obsequious fawning "reconciliation" of the Canadian government to be nauseating.
And even if you argue that the residential schools exacerbated certain problems, they were great at breaking the spirit of savageness that the Indians possessed and demolishing their brutish, animalistic culture, which is exactly what is called for in the case of Palestinians.
I'd like to see the UN approve of that.
Not like the UN approves of what Israel is doing now or has been doing for many decades
True, but there's certain things that internationally won't have any support.
I seriously suggest you start the reform from within your own community:
1) Remove the Ben-Gvir and Smotrich (and Noam) RZ parties from the govt. They are the Islamist of Israel in reverse. That appears to align with your aims but is left out of your recommendations despite being the easiest of all these goals to achieve.
2) Reform the RZ community so that they no longer support Islamist-like desires to push out or dominate Arabs from the river the sea. The don't need to be going up to Har Habayit to daven. They don't need to be doing the flag march through Yerushalayim yelling "death to Arabs". RZ Rabbis should disclaim any affiliation with these parties, aims and tactics.
"Reform the RZ community so that they no longer support Islamist-like desires to push out or dominate Arabs from the river the sea. The don't need to be going up to Har Habayit to daven. They don't need to be doing the flag march through Yerushalayim yelling "death to Arabs". RZ Rabbis should disclaim any affiliation with these parties, aims and tactics."
As noted by commenter Yehoshua Dalin below.
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/israel-and-the-palestinians-a-realistic/comment/43928921
"Rabbi Slifkin often quotes Rabbi Eliezer Melamed as a Torah Authority. Rabbi Eliezer Melamed promotes expulsion of the Arabs, something Rabbi Slifkin also ignores:
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/379718 "
The assumption that you restrict the Rabbis you quote or learn from to those who share your political views is a Charedi phenomenon. Others are not bound by this.
Who said anything about not learning from anyone? Dr Slifkin cites R Melamed as an authority, not as some nice rabbi among many others.
Can you explain? Of course learning from some one is related to citing them as an authority. You can't cite someone as an authority if you aren't willing to learn from them. Citing as an authority implies learning from them.
Also can you describe what you mean by the difference between an authority and "some nice rabbi" among many others. There are many authorities with different views. They are always "among many others". The question is whether you will cite someone who you don't agree with over some political view or world outlook. Outside the Charedi world, it is taken for granted that you will.
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/who-is-gadol
"Yesterday, Rav Steinman came to speak in Ramat Bet Shemesh. On his previous visit, he spoke about how goyim are murderers and thieves and fools, and about how one should not educate one's children towards earning a living. On this visit, he spoke about how one must vote for the charedi political party and mayor.
Some people in the community announced this event as being an opportunity to hear from "The" (sic) Gadol HaDor. So I thought that it would be valuable to share other people's perspective on who is The, or even A, Gadol HaDor."
Sorry to hear that. Not sure what it has to do with anything I said.
“They don't need to be going up to Har Habayit to daven.”
Please explain why there should be places where Jews are not permitted to (or simply “shouldn’t”) daven. Sounds like “whites only bathrooms” (l’havdil).
At the kotel, people from every nation around the earth come to pray - in their own way.
Saying “no” to discrimination against Jews is not the same as trying to “dominate Arabs”.
Yes, I absolutely understand how that could feel like anti-semitism and exclusionary to a Jew. And some of it may actually be anti-semitism. But we still shouldn't do it.
I am going to assume here that you are also a traditional/orthodox Jew in the following.
1) Religions including our are exclusionary of outside practices and sometimes people in religious/holy spaces. In fact, it is not true that anyone can come to the Kotel to pray in their own way as attested to by the monthly women of the wall conflict; the modes of prayer are restricted based on religious principle by the Western Wall Rabbi and then "enforced" beyond those regulations by private Jewish enforcers.
To be more specific, the halachot of the Beit Hamikdash is establish locations where Gentiles, Women, and Non-Cohanim can go as well as what would considered by other to be discriminatory practices against Cohanim with disabilities.
So yes, if you are against all religion, you can say that religions are like Jim Crow. Otherwise, I think we can make distinctions just like we distinguish Jewish discriminatory practices.
2) Israel physically controls Har Habayit but cede authority to the waqf to administer it because we don't want to have religious war over the area. We understand they have very strong religious feelings about their holy places and we don't want there to be any implication that Israel's control of Yerushalayim stands in the way of that. When Jews come up to pray including a prayer that the Jews will be allowed to control Har HaBayit and re-establish the Beit HaMikdash, then this could be considered a political and religious statement agains the right for Muslims to continue to control their holy area. And in fact, they are often correct. The people who make the biggest show going up there are the ones who believe in the Kahanist vision of force population transfers of Palestinians.
Yes that leaves the few people just simply feel that they would have better kavannah (or whatever other better davening) up on the mount as opposed to the Kotel left out. It is better than fomenting a religious conflict over Har Habayit.
Why terrorism works. By David ohsie
As I indicated below, I generally agree with your subsequent comment in which you "state it shorter;" however, with specific regard to this comment, as an Orthodox Jew, I can agree with you that for the most part, religions including ours have exclusionary elements.
However, within my own segment of the Orthodox Jewish world, we strive for something approaching "separate but equal" for example with men and women praying together albeit on opposite sides of a Mechitza. Men and women both providing leadership in the shul, men and women both taking an active role in leading and attending shiurim, etc. At the same time, I recognize that many of our exclusionary policies are within our own private institutions and largely self-imposed and self-enforced, for instance in some shuls women might never lead formal davening or get an Aliyah, while in others, women-only minyanim with such roles might be more common place.
As I said, that is in a private setting; in a more public, outdoor, national setting such as Har HaBayit and the Kotel, things are not quite so simple. We live in a big world with Jews of various streams and perspectives. And, we as a people (perhaps to the exclusion of a certain segments) generally strive to respect one another despite some (at times fundamental) divergent views and practices.
We recognize that the needs of our people change and, we make efforts to accommodate those needs. For example, at the Kotel, there is now a men's area, a women's area, and an egalitarian area. Most people try to respect that. however, as you pointed out, not everyone respects that. Last summer (2022), I had a drawn out dispute with a former (now banned) commenter on this blog which touched on the Women of the Wall (among other things). I referenced the completely disgusting nature of many of the attacks on the egalitarian worshippers (including one where an "orthodox" (and I use that term in quotes because I fail to see how that person could actually have ahavat yisrael or yirat Hashem) individual blew his nose in a page torn from a siddur. A real travesty.
Personally, I fervently pray for an even more universal Beit HaMikdash, which will fulfill the words of Isaiah, "Ki Beiti, Beti Tefila Yikareh l'chol haAmim."
On the other side, I spoke in my own shul the first day of this past Sukkot (2023) about the abhorrent acts in Dizengoff square in Tel Aviv. At the time, I mourned the fact that one of the worst recent anti-Jewish activities were committed by Jews (little did i know what horrors would unfold just one week later). And I noted that for the sake of unity Chazal decided to abrogate a Torah Mitzvah (Sukkot 43b-44a).
At the same time, I recognize that the world is not only Jewish. There are other religions too not all of whom share my view when it comes to permitting others into holy sites. (Mecca might be one good example, the Mormon Tabernacle might be another, certain Shinto temples might be a third). But that does not mean that we as Jews - whom as you point out, have ultimate physical control of the Har HaBayit - should permit such discrimination.
Your other point regarding ceding administration to the Waqf is well taken, and I think related to the point I agreed with below - not every act of worship need be a provocation; or to be less diplomatic, I agree that intentional provocative acts (not to include the prayers that have been part of our liturgy for centuries) should be prohibited. But prayers should be permitted.
I understand that we disagree, but I think that you can understand that when I say that we should avoid Jewish prayer on the temple mount is it not an endorsement of Jim Crow, but a practical measure to avoid what could be a religious war. As it is now, the politicians go up their to provoke and that makes it worse for everyone.
I agree that going up to provoke is neither a good idea nor one that I condone.
"We" shouldn't do it?
What do you mean?
Who exactly is doing things here? First person plural including you?
For the record, I just as much object when American Jews say things like "We shouldn't give up any land."
It's beautiful, honestly, when diaspora Jews identify with Israel. I draw the line at pronouns, though.
To state it shorter: I agree with your anti-discrimination approach which is why removing the anti-Arab parties is the most important thing. Prayer on the temple mount doesn't have to be a provocation but unfortunately it intentionally is. If we can dial that down, then maybe having with the right kavannah properly praying there without the anti-Arab implications will be possible.
I agree that prayer on har habayit doesn’t have to be provocation but unfortunately it (often) intentionally is.
I agree with the general tenor of this comment, though I’m not sure if it’s really just “stat[ing] it shorter” or just something different than your prior comment. I suppose you know your original intent much better than I do.
And, it goes without saying, netanyahu is out
If you're already proposing the elimination of democracy, why not just go all the way and eliminate voting altogether?
Where am I suggesting the elimination of democracy?
Is that how you respond to everything, by asking inane questions?
Go back and re-read your comment, and see if you can figure out what about suggesting the "removal" of duly elected members of knesset, and duly appointed ministers, and wholesale involuntary "reforms" of constituencies, might have prompted my own. Get back to us when you've figured it out.
I wrote "Remove the Ben-Gvir and Smotrich (and Noam) RZ parties from the govt."
Forming a government in Israel is part of democracy. There is no democratic right be part of the governing coalition. Ministers can be fired for a variety of reasons. This is all democratic: https://en.idi.org.il/articles/6104
As far as reforming a movement; that is part of the essence of democracy. As much as I don't like what he did, Trump completely reformed the Republican electorate and party in the US, changing and even reversing its policy goals. It's part of the marketplace of ideas.
Where do you live, David?
I live in the US, so if you would like to say that my opinion doesn't count, you are free to do so and I can't argue with you.
God forbid! I merely wish to congratulate you on your consistency. After all, if we don't belong on the Har HaBayit, we don't belong in Tel Aviv.
You seem a lot...angrier at your fellow Jews than at our enemies. I'm hope I'm wrong.
Could you clarify? I didn't say any of that.
I guess I read the list of all the places you think Jews don't belong as...a list of places Jews don't belong.
What list are your referring to? I don’t have such a list. I think that the conversation would work better if you just stated your disagreement instead of gesturing to it. I’ll try to respond.
Just to make it clear, I’m angry at Hamas for slaughtering us. My comment is not about anger but about what we can do to avoid creating additional needless conflict. Hamas are Islamists intent on destroying Israel. We can’t directly change that. We can change our own approach to avoid creating more Hamas members and becoming the Jewish version of Hamas. Beside the obvious moral objection to anti-Arab racism, there are 2 million Palestinians citizens of Israel living on the Israel side of the Gaza wall and West Bank barriers. If they become radicalized the country will be become a very unpleasant place to live.
Let him defend himself.
"That appears to align with your aims but is left out of your recommendations despite being the easiest of all these goals to achieve."
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/when-it-gets-real
Can't do that. Would distract from the 'real' existential threat.
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/when-it-gets-real
"Unfortunately, what is true for extreme right-wing Zionist political power is not true for charedi political power. While the security and political downsides of extremist right-wing policies are immediate enough to place brakes on those who would act in such a way, the same cannot be said for the economic consequences of raising a third of the next generation without secular education. While the consequences of such a thing are catastrophic, they only play out a few decades from now - at which point it's too late to do anything about it anyway."
Mind you- I don't think Dr Slifkin especially cares for the Ben Gvir types. A government of Bennet-Meretz-Labor-Ra'am is fine too. There's really only one all important, overriding concern which dictates his approach to things:
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/an-underappreciated-wonder
"As someone who voted for Bennett myself, I am aligned with many others who believe that he did exactly the right thing, which is to deal with the circumstances at hand in the best way....
"Finally, here's something else to appreciate: the new coalition government in Israel will have one of the largest number of Zionist MKs of any government in the last few decades.
This is, of course, because the non-Zionist charedi parties are not part of it. And this provides a unique opportunity to make necessary changes to help the charedi community, which has been greatly harmed by its elected representatives indulging their short-term needs at the cost of their long-term wellbeing. Radical change is needed to prevent the charedi community causing immense harm to itself and the country as a whole, and this government might possibly be able to make this happen."
I think it is much more productive to make a list of things to buy when winning the lottery.
First, I will run off to the local car dealer and get myself a car that tickles my fancy. It has to be an SUV, I can't handle climbing into a Sedan or a sports car. As many bells and whistles as possible, and off we drive.
Second, write and send a check to ten Kollelim. This is just to poke NS in the eye.
Third, write and send a check to another ten Kollelim. But this is because it is a wonderful thing to do.
Fourth, buy the supplies needed for a two week vacation, with a grill/barbecue, insulation box for the meat/milk, and an easy set of tools to cook and eat that which we will be taking along.
Fifth, pay the neighbors, family and friends to take in my children for the two-week vacation that I will take.
Sixth, get into the brand new Suv and start driving. Make sure the trip takes us to the Blue Mountain Ridge, and book the Presidential Suite in the fanciest hotel wherever the trip takes us.
Seventh, buy two new hats.
Any more?
Eretz Yisrael is are ancestral home. Invasion of Israel in the 7th century by the Saudi Arabs doesn't eliminate our claim to the land. Neither does Ottoman control until 1917.Jordan is a Palestinian state which was created in violation of the Balfour Declaration.
As you indicated, "Palestinian statehood" is a relatively new idea which should never have taken place. The chances of an Arab change of mentality is next to possible. If possible we should take over all of the territories. The Arabs have their countries and we should have ours. The fact that the British gave us a tiny piece of land for a State- don't do us any favors with our land. Who made them the boss. It's all politics and power. So I suggest continued settlement. The Arabs are not making peace any time soon. We will have to play it by ear.
That is quite dreamy, especially for all so called rationalist
I'm a believer! אני מאמין בנבואות הה/. ואנו כנראה בתהליכי הגאולה
Saudi Arabs played no role in history until the 18th century. "Saudi" means a particular family from a particular area on the Arabian Peninsula, who joined and provided support for an extremist religious movement. Nobody would care about them except that the Brits helped to fund them in their war against the Ottoman Empire and that in the 1930s it was discovered that the land they control is floating on easily extracted oil.
The Balfour Declaration has utterly no relevance to international law. The Brits were promising everything to everyone at that time. Balfour wasn't even part of the British War Cabinet. The person really responsible for it was Lloyd-George, known widely within and outside the UK as a duplicitous lying backstabber. (That is how he became PM in the first place.)
What WAS relevant was the Treaty of Lausanne, in which the new Republic of Türkiye gave up its claim to the region as of 1924, and the earlier League of Nations Mandate which was allowed to take effect because of the aforementioned Treaty. If you read the actual Mandate, it doesn't mention any boundaries for the Jewish National Home and in any case TransJordan had already been established over a year earlier. It changed its name in 1946.
For Israel to encourage its citizens to settle anywhere beyond the 1949 Armistice Line is a clear violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which Israel voluntarily ratified in 1951. Arguably an actual annexation would have addressed that problem, but Israel has not properly annexed either East Jerusalem or the Golan Heights. I personally think that anyone who says that Jews shouldn't live in some WASPy suburban community in the US is a vile anti-Semite and kal v'chomer anywhere where Jews lived for centuries or millenia (and from some of which were ethnically cleansed from) but the damage from pretending that the Geneva Convention doesn't matter has been terrible for Israel.
The area now occupied by SA. The point is that there were invasions and foreign control. of EY until today.Now Israel reclaims it's ancestral home of 1000 years. (+75 independence of Israel).
That is like calling the Byzantine Empire "Türkiye".
That’s simply incorrect. The original mandate went until the Jordan River. The 1949 armistice lines NEVER abrogated the original mandate. Only 2 countries recognized the annexation by kingdom of Transjordan of the areas west of the Jordan River under its control. The Geneva Convention simply does not apply to those areas.
Furthermore I found out that they would be selling kosher food at the rally. This implies that we get our nourishment from food and not from HKBH R”L. I felt it was not good that a Ben Torah be exposed to such Kefirah.
The Mandate actually went much further than that.
Nachum - Charlie Hall is correct that the original mandate after the Treaty of San Remo only included the land "between the river and the sea" for the development of a Jewish national home. Transjordan was added later on- and then removed unilaterally by Great Britain who decided to establish an autonomous government there under the Hashemites. But Charlie Hall is being disingenuous in attempting to state that Judea and Samaria were not included under the original Mandate. They were. And the UN partition resolution did NOT rescind the mandate. Which is why only 2 countries recognized the annexation by the Kingdom of Transjordan. And which is why the Geneva Convention is not applicable to the areas of Judea and Samaria. Israeli has VOLUNTARILY applied to the areas of Judea and Samaria CERTAIN humanitarian provisions of the 4th protocol to the GC. But not the provisions governing settlement of Jews in those areas. Which still fall under the Mandate provisions and t he Treaty of San Remo, which recognized that the Jews are indigenous to those areas and have national rights to those areas. Once can try to come up with a solution - and even vacate national claims to a territory in order to implement a solution - e.g. like the Malays did with Singapore; the Javanese eventually did with East Timor; the Czechs and Slovaks did by separating one State into two ethno-national states (each of which had minorities of the other as well as third nation minorities); and other examples. But there is a VERY long line between that, and even between the UN general resolution recommending a division of the area into 2 states, than saying that Israel is a conquering nation and that the settlers are criminal in breach of IHL. By Charlie Hall's reasoning, all of Jerusalem, Ramla, Lod, Ashkelon, Beer Sheva, Haifa and more are also breaches of IHL - as the 1949 ceasefire lines have no basis in establishing legal or illegal insofar as the Protocols to the Geneva Convention. One only has to look to the plans of the Eisenhower administration to see this.
The San Remo Agreements also have no standing under international law, as Türkiye refused to ratify the Treaty of Sevres. The Palestine Mandate did, but it never specified the borders of the Jewish National Home nor did it include any provision for an independent sovereign Jewish state. What created international recognition for a Jewish state was UN Resolution 181, which provided for the termination of the Mandate and established the borders of the Jewish state. In 1951, Israel extended its borders to the 1949 Armistice Lines by applying Israeli law there and making all residents there into Israeli citizens. That remains the status quo today, because Israel has not done that in East Jerusalem or the Golan Heights, much less the West Bank or Gaza.
There was a general idea, before Sykes-Pico, that the Jewish state would extend a bit into the neighboring countries- up to the Litani in what is now Lebanon, and east to the Hijaz railway in Syria and Jordan. (The Sinai was originally considered on the Asian side, but Britain had taken it well before the war so as to protect the Suez Canal.) There were actually Jewish settlements and land purchased in the Golan and Jordan which were cleared out when Syria and Jordan got that land.
An important detail of the UN partition plan is that it was a *General Assembly* vote, not a Security Council vote, and so was "merely" advisory and had no binding force. In addition, there is the obvious fact that the Arabs didn't accept it, so of course it never applied. Ironically, for those who think the Three Oaths are significant (of course, many don't), the UN resolution has more halakhic/hashkafic significance than legal.
UN Resolution 181 was acknowledged by all at the time to create the justification for a Jewish State. Don't go where you are going.
Had Truman had his way he probably would have had the US vote against UN Resolution 181. We can thank Henry Wallace, Clark Clifford, and Eddie Jacobson for changing his mind.
Many Palestinian families are big into geneology and trace their ancestry back hundreds of years -- in the same or nearby locales. (This includes Israeli Arabs.)
How many of them have traced it back to Jewish villages forcibly converted to Islam?
Probably none. Besides, forcible conversions to Islam were rare in the region. The Umayyad, Abbassid, and Fatimid Caliphates preferred to tax Jews (and Christians) rather than to convert them. And paying the tax got Jews (and Christians) exempted from military service. Academic studies have shown that not until after the time of the Crusaders was there a Muslim majority in the region.
Not accurate. After the Muslim conquests there were many forced conversions. There have been studies which show that over half the “indigenous” Arabs in the southern Hebron hills region are descended from Jews forcibly converted. And have Jewish genes. Many still have certain Jewish customs.
I stand on my statement which you have not refuted.
Much of that Jewish DNA derives from Jewish women that wealthy Arabs prized and forcibly abducted into marriage. Islam has no prohibition against "foreign" wives.
Excellent article.
R' Slifkin was kind enough to ask my opinion and even incorporate some of it. I "threatened" him that I would post the whole megillah of a response here, so here it is:
Let me start by saying that I am an apologist for no one here. I have never voted for Bibi and voted for no party in his coalition. This despite one left-wing protester a couple of weeks ago, having covered me in my own blood, telling me my hands were covered in blood just like Bibi's. But I have a lot less sympathy for those baying for his head, not the least because they've been keeping me awake for four years, and because I see their current protests- yes, even the ones with the families of the kidnapped, for whom I pray, God help them- as the height of cynicism. So maybe that colors my views a bit (that, and my pre-existing politics), but I think I, at least, am entitled.
"…many others have lived in Israel/Palestine for many centuries. Accordingly, they also have a legitimate claim to statehood (albeit not everyone with a claim to statehood actually gets one)."
There is a great leap between those two statements. Merely existing in a place for many centuries (even if that were true) does not mean one has a "legitimate claim to statehood." Indeed, it's not clear that everyone, or even anyone has a "legitimate claim to statehood." And even if there was such a concept as a "legitimate claim," it would mean nothing. Israel had to fight- still has to fight- for that "right." So did most, maybe all, countries.
And, indeed, you acknowledge that in your parenthetical statement at the end. Not everyone gets a state. I could give you a long, long list of peoples who don't get a state, a lot of them a lot more established and peaceful than the Palestinians. Is that fair? Maybe, but I don't care. More on that, and all of this, below.
"The Palestinians are not going anywhere. There is no way to transfer them out of the country."
And yet nothing else can really be done, and yet something must be done, as you immediately go on to say. And so something "impossible" and even distasteful must be tried. We're not a dumb people; we can think long and hard and maybe we can think of something creative. I know I can. How can it be implemented? I can think of ways, or at least seeds of ways. But there are far smarter people who can do better than I, if only they are allowed to or told to do so.
One good start, though, is to lay down the law that there will never be another independent state between the river and the sea. Again, more on that in a bit.
"Ben Gvir and extremist settlers yelling and waving guns do not bring security."
That's quite the caricature. They may not bring security in an ultimate national sense, but they may bring other things. I know it's all fashionable to yell "Ben Gvir!" these days, but he's actually acting rationally and responsibly at the moment. Certainly more so than many of those above him. And "settler" is a word we should stop using immediately. It is, frankly, racist. Or something like that. I'm not up on all that lingo.
"This past government was the most right-wing government ever, and yet Oct. 6th happened."
Contrary to the myths circulating ("moving soldiers to the West Bank" and nonsense like that, the attack- I think you mean the 7th, by the way- was not a result of any "right-wing" aspect. It's not like, say, Meron, where Deri got exemptions and people died. I wouldn't say the Yom Kippur War happened because Golda Meir was a Labor member. Did people mess up? I imagine. (Although I have increasing distaste for this Israeli fashion to always find people to blame.) But of course We Must Never mention the much more obvious faults, which lies with the three most recent prime ministers who didn't serve out their terms, one assassinated, one felled by a stroke, and one sent to jail, and another prime minister who has…skeletons. The last times I suggested that I was literally assaulted.
"And the two million Israeli Arabs are also a ticking time-bomb."
Hmm, I seem to recall someone else who focused on that. And he was screamed down. Still is, albeit by a lot less people than before. Interesting how things work out.
"and especially the US"
True. But I think that at a certain point we're just going to have to live with the fact that some people have it in for Jews and Israel, and we're not going to change their minds. And yes, the differences are heavily partisan. Joe Biden is a man very much of two minds himself, as his record shows, and he's got different people pulling him both ways as well. Should we work on one half of those equations? Sure. Should we be realistic about the other? Just as much.
Regarding Section 4, I have a more general comment to make: No, I do not agree that creating a Palestinian state should be an Israeli task, and indeed I think that it should be made clear that there will never be one, even if every single Israeli and Palestinian Arab wholeheartedly converts to Buddhism. Call me "messianic" if you must- not that every Orthodox Jew shouldn't be, and not that the Left is far, far more "messianic" than even your average Kahanist- but this is our land, ours by right, ours by Divine gift, and it's not that big, and in any event giving up parts of it sends exactly the wrong signal, that even Israel proper is transient. (Why do you think charedim are so OK with the idea?) You write, "as long as it is made clear that this is not a sign of weakness to be exploited". But of course it will be seen as such, and indeed it is.
(A side point about Section 4: I'm not as optimistic about Ra'am as you are. But it's the right idea. I just think there are other Arabs who may be more of a hope. It will take a long, long time, but I think we have that. R' Schachter once said we were in galut 2,000 years and it will take that long to get out of it. I'm a cock-eyed optimist, sure, but I think it will be a lot less than that, at least in this aspect.)
Here's my main point, though: We have to take our own side in arguments. What you've presented here- and believe it or not, I actually agree with much of what you wrote, even in Sections 3 and 4- are a few incompatible, no-win scenarios. OK, granted. But we're the Jews and Israelis here. So we can concentrate less on the problems of the Palestinians, and the Arabs, and the "international community," and the tiny, tiny Jewish Left (I mean, even Merav Michaeli is breathing fire now), and deal with the "right-wing" (or standard Israeli) delusions. And that might mean seeing them not so much as "delusions" as "problems to be solved." Once we get past that hurdle, who knows what can happen? If only it didn't have to take so much tragedy for people to start thinking about it.
Thank you for making me think about this more than I usually do. 🙂
I then added:
If you really want to know, my idea is citizenship for those abroad. Like making Palestinians Jordanian citizens. It's actually done in other contexts, but of course it's no good for Jews. Obviously Jordan would refuse. But like I said, some good thinking and you never know. France comes to mind: They actually have constituencies for overseas citizens. Eventually, the problem arises- if there's peace- of why some Arabs are citizens and some aren't. But on the other hand, lots of countries have non-citizens among them. I guess my main point is that there are out-of-the-box options, and maybe if Israel and "friends of Israel' just stop talking about "two states" people can start thinking about them.
You should say it a little more directly: Oct 7 happened b/c we pulled out of Gaza, and we pulled out of Gaza bc of Oslo. The single greatest disaster, ongoing, in the history of Israel, responsible for far more dead and maimed bodies, and the loss of far more territory, than anything else. Rabin is responsible, and its about time the right stopped worrying about the left and started pointing this out, forcefully and frequently. A debate over Bibi's future is fair, but not at this moment, and the debate should be entirely among those who screamed and pleaded and fought against Oslo. Not a single left winger should date open his mouth. Their opinion counts for nothing. They are entitled to vote in the election, and they should count themselves lucky for that.
A friend who pointed it out was asked if right-wingers could not be so smug. Thus conceding that they actually had a right to be.
What are you, twelve?
Excellent piece. My father, R' Nachman Bulman zt'l, made a speech over 25 years ago in which he said that those who say peace with the Arabs is impossible and who want to expel all Arabs from Eretz Yisrael (like Meir Kahane) are right, and those who say such expulsion is impossible and we have to find a way to live with them (like Peace Now) are also right. His conclusion was that bederech hateva there is no solution. The only solution is learning Torah, doing mitzvos, doing chessed, davening, teshuva. If our army exists so we can have a country and our country exists so we can have an army, the whole Medina is pointless. As Saadya Gaon famously wrote, ein umaseinu umah elah baTorah. This does not preclude hishtadlus -- we still need statesmen, soldiers and police and may Hashem bless, help and protect them -- but the Arab problem will never be solved in any rationalistic way. May Hashem help and guard His people.
"If our army exists so we can have a country and our country exists so we can have an army, the whole Medina is pointless."
This is a catchy phrase - but what does it even mean. Who ever suggested that our country exists so we can have an army?
That phrase is too idiotic to be catchy. It is, at best, a 7th-grader's "paradox."
"Furthermore, there are those among the two million Israeli Arabs who are also hostile to Israel, which could turn into violence (as happened in the Lod riots), and for which there is no perfect security solution. The extreme right-wing professes to want to give them less government money, but this does not help them become loyal citizens."
Wait, wait, WHAT????
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/adopt-disaster
"Tragically, the only thing that really seems to work is hitting rock-bottom. According to a report in The Times of Israel, as a result of the budget cuts, "for the first time in years, the number of Haredi students enrolling full-time in yeshiva study dropped by a whopping 4,400." Far from trying to "exterminate" charedim, the goal of the government is to encourage charedim to work for a living and to follow Chazal's eminently sensible directive that a person should teach his child a profession."
Why are you so opposed to helping Palestinian Israelis hit rock bottom? Isn't it in their *own* interests?
As decisive and aggressive Israel is at the moment, this must be applied to a peace plan. Israel can put forward a detailed scenario , something that could take time to implement but is agreed upon .At the moment the worlds attention is on the Mideast conflict. This is the perfect time for Israel to declare exactly what it wants. Personally, because of the War, I have educated myself in ways that were not possible before. I don't believe I alone. This declaration is to be proposed rationally and thoughtfully, in a way that will once for all time acknowledge the State of Israel and its sophisticated understanding of it's place in the world. At this juncture it would not be necessary to ask Palestinians what they want. Israel will come up with a plan to treat all people fairly, as democracies do and let the Israel document serve as the chief document for future peace. As observant Jews, we know Israel's true mission to serve as a "Light" unto the world. Reading such well written strategy will be the first of lighting the world. As Jews we have been disproportionately successful by would standards. Our disproportionate ability to defend ourselves is also well known. If we are 'chosen', it is not insurmountable to make peace. Hashem has given us this purpose. Military might all recognize, but about a doctrine that is realistic and at the same time, a document towards an increase of holiness will also take place. This is our highest moment. However, we start such a challenge, we must get did of Netanyahu and his government. because of their colossal failure they cannot be part of this process. Every thing they will touch and advocate for since October 7th will be tainted and never be beneficial. To create a very very detailed and complex declaration the enemies within Israel must first be defeated. Now, in addition to IDF action , a new front of reasonable and accurate future will be made to the world. At the moment, in a climate of WW3, we can state and propose a reality that will do as much good in the world, more so than the evils of World War
Rabbi Slifkin, that was a courageous effort on your part, and you deserve praise for it.
There are many points in the development with which I disagree, but having a vision for the future, something else than the usual cycle of violence, that's the most important part.
See above where Rabbi Slifkin responds that he doesn't believe this will happen.
The clarity of thoughts expressed in this writing must be shared with all political factions in America and beyond. Iran's role has been defined and America should be supportive of Rationalist Judaism thinking related to Hamas and other terrorist thinking.
Little Tip: posts like this, in which NS claims, again, to have the SOLE correct view, whilst and everyone else's is based on "delusions" that only he himself alone is smart enough to apprehend - simply cannot be taken seriously. Your arrogance, which once might have been amusingly charming, is starting to grow tedious.
Since the correctly stated delusions of the Palestinians are innate and embedded in their culture, religion, and national identity, there is no realistic way that they can be dispelled, despite the claim that this can be done, the obviously flawed comparisons to Germany and Japan notwithstanding. Thus, proposing that we remove these delusions is pointless and fruitless. Given this, there is *no* realistic plan to resolve the conflict in a fundamental way. The very virtues of the post in their correct description of the delusions that exist are what makes the title ("a realistic plan") ironically completely incorrect.