No one seems to have commented on two of the books mentioned by Rabbi Slifkin, The Genius of Israel and Start-Up Nation. My wife and I have read them both and we really encourage people to read them. Some absolutely fascinating information about Israel and many of its people. It's funny that although the authors are not religious (at least I don't believe they are), reading these books makes me see more of G-d's hashkacha over the land of Israel.
It takes a certain kind of intellectual stupidity to think the existence of Israel needs "defending"; it takes even more intellectual stupidity, plus arrogance, to think the committed anti-semites who think thus about Jews will be convinced otherwise by her brilliance. Truly, the lady doth protest too much.
If you're the listening type, I would recommend this political steamer (if you're okay with listening to some profanity), he is a leftie politically, but when it came to this Israel thing he found himself *very* pro-Israel. His name is Steven Bonnell, known online as "Destiny" (don't ask) and he is really interesting to listen to on a whole variety of topics, especially this one. You can Google "destiny Israel debate" or something like that.
Was waiting for someone to quote the first Rashi in the Torah. All these arguments don't work. The only right the Jewish people have to the land of Israel is - divine. Why would you push secondary reasons that can be refuted?
It all starts with those ignorant people who pontificate about the Tanak"h being dependent on its zeitgeist, or scientists of its time, instead of searching for the explanation behind Hashem's words.
Why would the outside world accept the word of the Tanak"h if some Jews seek to undermine its message whenever they can?
Your argument doesn’t work either. I can direct you to divine injunctions against Jewish rights to the land on which Israel exists. I refer you to the Satmar Three Oaths that prohibit the establishment of a Jewish State until God permits Moshiach to establish his Divine Holy Kingdom. Presently , there are a number of other “divinely” inspired sects that would dispute your assertion.
Those Satmar arguments are like the arrow put in the center with the target drawn around it afterward. First they were anti-israel then they developed those theological arguments afterward.
Well, you’re right about Satmar. They just make up stuff. They’re not as meshigah as the Neturei Karta crazies but they’re not some small fringe sect. They’re so large that they have 2 Satmar Rebbes! And they despise each other. But they’re equally True Believers in their religions. That Jews of whatever Hashkafa, even after all our historical suffering, can be so anti-Zionist is beyond my understanding. And that’s the problem. All the religions in the regional violent, bloodthirsty struggle believe that God is on their side.
But with 7.2 million Jewish lives at stake how can any Jewish society be so anti-Israel?? It’s mind-boggling.
This is true. The real reason for anti-Zionism is because most Jews at the time thought conquering the Land of Israel from Arabs was a crazy venture that would just lead to endless, ever-worsening bloodshed. Sure proved them wrong!
You believe in the Torah others don't.עם ישראל must show and justify their actions to be the light unto the nations. Remember Hashem stated that עם ישראל does not deserve ארץ ישראל but the Nations have sinned so much that the time has come to drive them out (unless they will change their corrupt culture)
We should not follow the first Rashi in the Torah. You cannot tell people "This land belongs to us because G-d said so." Rather, the meaning of the divine promise of the land is that the Jews will be able to get hold of the Land of Israel in a just and fair way. Meaning, divine providence will make sure things work out. That includes the Jews defeating their enemies, even though they are stronger. And it includes the enemies obstinately refusing peace and going for war and then losing. See my previous comment where I elaborate on how that happened at the time of Moses and Joshua.
Here's the simple meaning of the verse brought by Rashi:
כוח מעשיו הגיד לעמו לתת להם נחלת גויים
G-d told, i.e. showed, His strength to the people of Israel, by making them able to acquire the land of the seven nations at the time of Moses and Joshua.
The divine promise is something internal to the Jewish people. It is what inspired the Jews to return to the land of Israel and establish a beautiful state, and what gave them success in that endeavor.
You cannot tell people "G-d appeared to me and told me He's giving me what belongs to you."
For example, Abraham did not talk that way to Efron. Rather, Abraham paid Efron for the Machpela field.
If our faith is based on religious dogma, then we are in a stalemate with the other religions. For example, Muslims can say "G-d says we should kill whoever does not accept Muhammad."
G-d's promise is an internal matter of the Jews. Our argument regarding the state of Israel is that we have a right to exist, like any other person or nation. And if people want to check how the state of Israel came about, they are welcome to do so, because everything we did was OK.
I think the likelihood of convincing the world that "everything we did was OK" is lower than convincing them that God gave us the land. Sure, go tell everybody to read all the intricate historical discussions and debates and come to the exact conclusion you want them to come to. Not happening.
A much better option is telling the world "even if everything we did was not OK, we are no worse than almost every other country in the world that was founded on violence, ethnic cleansing, etc".
The land of Amon was not part of the original conquest of Israel as promised by Hashem which was the 7 nations, right? So Yiftach needed a justification. What justification did Yehoshua give when he started conquering the land? It is true that if a nation wants peace with us and accepts the 7 mitzvos we must let them remain, under our dominion, but that's not what we are talking about here.
Sure! We can quote the Torah to those who want to listen. We can tell them "See how the promise לזרעך נתתי את הארץ הזאת has been fulfilled again, how the Jews have managed to return to the promised land and establish a beautiful country. See how כח מעשיו הגיד לעמו לתת להם נחלת גוים -- how G-d showed the Jews His strength by making them defeat their enemies and possess the land."
But for those who don't want to hear about the Torah, we just say "everything we did is fair".
You never tried did you? I've quoted the Torah to many anti-Israelis it shuts them up right away. They have nothing to argue back. They sometimes say, well the Torah is made up, but they deep down know it's not...
I recently saw a quote- it may have been Ahad Ha'am- that says that forcing a Jew to defend himself when it is plainly clear that he is innocent is an aspect of anti-Semitism. The anti-Semite delights in making the Jew defend himself even though he knows the Jew will be proven right. It's a form of humiliation.
Gavison *starts* by acknowledging the truth before going off to justify her essay. She writes, "only a state whose existence is justified by its citizens can hope to endure." Really? The United Kingdom has existed for about 1,500 years and has never been called upon to justify its existence; nor does it even cross anyone's mind that it should. Russia has existed for over a thousand years; ditto. I can go on.
On the other hand, much more recent, artificially created countries are *also* never called upon to justify their existence. Can anyone justify the existence of Jordan? Iraq? North Macedonia? Not really. But no one asks.
As I've said here before, ultimately it's pointless. The type of person who is "troubled" by the existence of Israel is already at a place where no justification of its existence is going to work. That, or they're a thoughtless enough follower of the mob, informed only by TikTok videos, that they won't be able to read Gavison's essay.
It's very nice that we have an essay like this, and good on Gavison for trying. But again, ultimately it's pointless if not self-destructive. Full throatily fighting the forces- which Gavison mentions- who are opposed to nationhood, period- for white (or "white") people, that is- is, in my humble opinion, a much better ploy.
He makes the same blindingly obvious points (viz, America has no business talking about "colonialism") that everyone knows. Only a fool tries to argue with an anti-semite. Proverbs 26:4.
They - whoever "they" is - dont ask Jews to justify their existence either. We Jews do it ourselves, the same way we've been obsessing about "rising anti-semitism" for at least thirty years and counting. All self created. Leviticus 26:36. "They will flee from the rustling leaf...when none pursueth."
Ahad Ha'am correctly predicted that attempts to found a state against the wishes of the Arab residents -regardless of whether these Arabs were reasonable - would only end in disaster and doom all the positive aspirations of Zionism. If he were around today, he would have Likudnik goons outside his house 24/7 calling him a traitor.
There's no reason I can't quote someone who I would disagree with on other matters.
And don't talk about "Likudnik goons" screaming outside people's homes when I've had leftist lunatics screaming outside my home for four solid years, and who eventually sent me to the hospital.
It's trivially true that you can disagree with someone about some things and agree with them about others, but Ahad Ha'am's warnings about the dire consequences of political and military Zionism aren't just some opinion he had, they were kind of his whole jive. Were he here today, he would say something like 'I tried to warn you, now you're screwed'. He certainly wouldn't endorse the utterly tired low IQ hasbara of calling anyone and everyone who observes that the Zionist project is an unfolding disaster anti-semitic, and I think it's reasonable to assume that he would object to Hasbara NPCs enlisting him in support of it.
The way you throw around the word "hasbara" makes me feel I'm in the white supremacist websites I sometimes visit.
I have some bad news for you: Judaism, and Zionism, has been political and military since the days of, oh, Avraham. The gentle souls who can't deal with this fool themselves into thinking otherwise.
Lame deflection, but 10/10 for cringe reference to יפי נפש. All you need to do now is spend 15 straight hours listening to trance music until your brain stops functioning, guzzle something fried in re-used soy oil, preferably on a slightly melted plastic plate, and you won't be a larping Anglo anymore, but a real life Right Wing Israeli. וואלאה
*(Actually, I lie, you will always be a larping Anglo.)
" but Ahad Ha'am's warnings about the dire consequences of political and military Zionism"
Have you actually read Ahad Ha'am? He died in 1927 before the existence of a Zionist "military". And no, small unorganized self defense groups don't constitute a military.
I don't think you've read Ahad Ha'am, nor do I think you're accurately representing his views.
You don't know what the term 'military zionism' means. Maybe go read a book. Ahad Ha'am's predictions are only inaccurate in that he failed to appreciate the full cultural and spiritual horrors of what Zionism would unleash. He did not predict that the Jewish people would produce someone as repellent as הצל, as grotesque as Almog Cohen, as rank as Tzvika Fogel, but who could? Who could have imagined, in their very worst nightmares, that the Jewish people would be brought down, not just to the rank of an average nation, but to a cultural level that would shame a Somali or Pashtun? Look at the following video. Which one of the early Zionist leaders would not, upon seeing it, instantly have renounced Zionism in its entirety and have fled, as if from a demon straight out of the abyss?
And, since Israel isn't going anywhere, there are centuries to come in which this phenomenon of generational devolution can play out. What will be in hundred years time? Will the Jewish people crawl on all floors, grunting in a language with perhaps five consonants left, while displaying their tattoos to each other, only pausing to call people anti-semites? It can no longer be ruled out. Yes, there are still brave, dignified, handsome men like Aharon Barak who try to pull this country back from the abyss into which it desperately wants to fall, but, given all the constant hassle they get, why should they keep bothering?
Theoretical, subjective, and ex post facto, hence totally irrelevant.
And don't forget all the other "goons", a political technique often used in the haredi community that even includes stealing corpses against family wishes.
Ha ha, I just "knew" someone would try that. Obviously I was using the modern name of a country (and they are essentially the same country) that has existed since the early Middle Ages, England.
In any event, you are incorrect, if you're going to go there. The United Kingdom dates to 1801. Great Britain was founded in 1707.
And since you're so blase about Third World immigration, it is supreme irony that the person trying to destroy it is a Pakistani anti-Semite who doesn't even like "nationalism" but somehow holds himself out as authentically "Scottish" enough to secede.
Of course, London, Ireland, and the UK as a whole are all run by South Asians. (They haven't gotten to Wales yet.) Yeah, that's nothing to notice.
That's interesting. What sort of scandals? Also, I once read that Britain has part of it's nuclear arsenal stationed in a great geographic hideout in Scotland and that Scottish independence would result in their removal, hence, Britain will do about anything to make sure independence is never achieved, no?
" Can anyone justify the existence of Jordan? Iraq? North Macedonia? Not really."
Half right. People do question the existence of Jordan & Iraq. But that's: other Arab dictators, or leftists attacking the imperialists who created such states (and it's more about critiquing world powers.)
The only justification for the creation and existence of Israel is power, survival of the fittest. Everything else is empty talk. UN, International Law, 'Morality' are empty ideas to be used in one's national interest. They never meant anything and never will. But a softy anglo eccentric doctor, who runs a Museum of Natural History, hasn't learned the main lesson of the Evolution that he preaches.
>"The only justification for the creation and existence of Israel is power, survival of the fittest. Everything else is empty talk. "
Yakov, throughout this conversation, you're committing a "motte and bailey": "where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend".
First, you say that Darwinism is a justification. When criticized, you say that you're simply describing the world as it is
The Torah expects us to show our actions as morally justified and defensible. Do what is right and good in the eyes of G-d.RDNS believes in this and so should you.The real question is why you feel the need to malign RDNS.?! To exaggerate and twist not becoming a Chareidi ?!
Actions which are moraly justifiable and defensible from Torah's perspective are considered such because of their Divine source. Go explain at the UN why בן נח נהרג על פחות משווה פרוטה.
Rabbi Josef Elijah Henkin considered people who misunderstand this law to be amaratzim. The law is that a gentile court can impose whatever penalty for robbery they see fit , up to and including death. It is not advocating the death penalty for theft.
A state is a nation and a nation evolves. For example, our high IQ is the result of a long exile under adverse circumstances when it was beneficial and thus selected for.
It was also an evolutionary tradeoff. Due to external restrictions (the non-Jewish genetic contribution was <1% per generation, pre-emancipation), harmful diseases such as Tay-Sachs, Gaucher, breast and ovarian cancer, weren't "bred out" (Tay-Sachs has fallen by 90% thanks to screenings).
The idea is that extra brain power takes a toll on the brain and nervous system. Hence, if you have one copy of Gaucher (it stimulates an intense yet controlled growth and branching of neurons), you might seriously end up being a genius. But if you've two, you're effectively wasted.
A great example of this was the past observation regarding 250 adult patients with Gaucher at Yerushalayim's Shaare Zedek Medical Center Gaucher Clinic. About 15% of them were exceptional engineers or scientists (compared with 2.25% of non-Gaucher Ashkenazim in the general working-ag population).
But you were talking about States. Now you're talking about people. States don't have IQs. Nor has the State existed long enough to be affected by evolution.
It's not the question of OK or not OK. There is life on this planet Earth that follows certain patterns. Any morality is subjective and evolutionary. Think of our own now. 3000 years ago it was not unusual, today many moral principals that we have are outdated in the Western world and are impossible to justify.The more fit under the changing conditions survive, the less fit disappear. This is the story of our species.
I've no problem with evolution (although I'm not sure about abiogenesis).
What "immorality" in the Torah are you referring to? Slavery, stoning children? The genocide of 'Amaleq? All those are false or simple misunderstandings of the text.
Morality may indeed be subjective (it could have even evolved differently). However, this sort of speculation is akin to asking if my grandmother had balls, would she be my grandfather.
To point is this: we live in the world we live in. And society would simply collapse if we treated morality as subjective whims. Murder is wrong. Tzedakah is right.
Nice words, but read the fine print and drill down to details to how Murder and Tzdokah are practically applied.
כתב הרמב"ם (הלכות רוצח ושמירת הנפש, פרק ב, הלכה יא): "ישראל שהרג גוי השומר שבע מצוות בני נח אינו נהרג עליו בבית דין שנאמר: 'וכי יזיד איש על רעהו', ואין צריך לומר שאינו נהרג אם רצח את הגוי שאינו שומר שבע מצוות בני נח. ואחד ההורג את עבד אחרים או ההורג עבדו הרי זה נענש בגזר דין מוות, שהעבד כבר קיבל עליו מצוות ונוסף על נחלת ה'". קריטריון ברור לעונש מוות לרוצח – קיום מצוות. רצח יהודי או עבד, שחייבים במצוות, העונש עליו הוא מוות. רצח גוי, אפילו מאמין בתורה ושומר שבע מצוות בני נח (זהו גר תושב), יהא הרוצח פטור מעונש.
מותר לתת צדקה לגויים מפני דרכי שלום, וכמו שכתב הרמ"א יורה דעה (סימן רנא סעיף א) ומפרנסים עניי עובדי כוכבים עם עניי ישראל מפני דרכי שלום,
I once asked R. Yehudah Gershuni זצ"ל about halachot that seem to be prejudiced against the non Jew. He answered me saying that it is the area where Jews have to treat the non Jew equally and morally
G-d left it to us to understand and act accordingly.
Without context, your post could easily be confused as a chillul HaShem.
Yes, darchei shalom is paramount, however, one doesn't simply help ger toshavim (even non-Jews outside of Eretz Yisrael), or save their lives on Shabbat, because it's a practical solution to otherwise rampant antisemitism. One does it because the Torah teaches b'tzelem Elohim.
Moreover, if one kills a non-Jew, they don't deserve kaparah. That's why they're not executed. In any case, according to HaMeiri, the Tannaim never understood such things as applying to modern non-Jews rather, they applied to Apikorsim and ancient star worshippers who persecuted us with impunity. In an ethical society, such halachos obviously don't apply.
Meiri's intrrpretation is very attractive, but he is in a minority. These are just two of the endless examples. If you chose to ignore the obvious, I will not try to dissuade you. But I prefer to let the text, including its various interpretations, speak for themselves.
לכלב תשלכון אותו - אף הגוי ככלב. או אינו אלא כלב כמשמעו? תלמוד לומר בנבלה: "או מכור לנכרי" (דב' יד , כא) - קל וחומר לטרפה , שמותרת בכל הנאות. אם כן מה תלמוד לומר לכלב? לימדך שהכלב נכבד מן הגוי , שהנבלה לגוי והטרפה לכלב
I accept my heritage for what it is, but maybe you can provide the context?
What is the context of בן נח נהרג על פחות משווה פרוטה?
And of this:
אמרו חז"ל (סנהדרין עו:): והמחזיר אבידה לנכרי - עליו הכתוב אומר (דברים כט יח) 'למען ספות הרוה את הצמאה לא יאבה ה' סלח לו'.
וכתב רש"י בביאור הענין: והמחזיר אבידה לנכרי - השווה וחבר נכרי לישראל, ומראה בעצמו שהשבת אבדה אינה חשובה לו מצות בוראו, שאף לנכרי הוא עושה כן שלא נצטווה עליהם.
Not necessarily. It's not just the brutal force, it's the totality of the evolutionary fitness and advantage. And Israel is under an existential threat.
That's not a great argument without any of the nuance. According to that why can't I kick you out of your house and if I win, hey! Survival of the fittest!
You are correct. There are in the group laws, like ואהבת לרעך כמוך, and there are outer group laws like לא תחייה כל נשמה וגרש תגרשם. All human societies have something along these lines.
Nations act out of percieved self interest. Sometimes it's war and conquest, at other times it's peace and coopration.
Jews, and Ashkenazi Jews in particular, have the highest IQ on the planet. They have evolved to survive and succede under the most adversary of circumstances. They, by the virtue of their talents and culture come to dominate the societies that they live in and no native population likes it. This Holocust is nothing unique in human history. In Rwanda 800,000 members of the succesful and dominant minority were
killed in 3 months at the rate that is DOUBLE the rate of extermination in
the Holocust. In Indonesia 500,000 Chinese were killed in the 60s. The list is endless. This is how the human evolution plays out. It becomes clear when you look at this planet as a visiting alien.
Also, Germans, a very talented and capable nation, couldn't dominate the world as long as a more talented nation was present to make it impossible.
All I can say is I'm embarrassed to belong to the same religion as you. That is, if you can be said to have any religion at all. (And assuming you're not a troll)
Russia was perfectly justified in attacking Ukraine, but miscalculated and failed to achive its goals. If the war is not stoped soon, Ukraine will end up losing.
A disclaimer: I'm originaly from Russia and hate Ukranian Nazis.
Mate, this is an internal discussion. A speaker for the State of Israel should use the lies and propoganda that is likely to work, just like everyone else does.
Under international standards, a state may declare an official religion, provided that basic rights -- including the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief -- are respected for all without discrimination. This means that the existence of a state religion cannot be a basis for discriminating against or impairing any rights of adherents of other religions or non-believers or their communities. Unfortunately, in practice many states with official state religions do not meet this test. "
Regarding Gavison's article: I just skimmed through it because it's very long. But from what I saw, I disagree. I think as follows:
Our right to a Jewish state stems from the fact that we established it without violating anyone's rights. From the time of the Aliyot on, the Arabs' hate towards us was completely unjustified. Migration to another country is something natural, that people do all the time. Therefore, there was nothing morally wrong with the Aliyot. We also legally purchased the lands.
Regarding the Arabs' claims that they also have a right to fulfill their national aspirations: There is no such inherent right. In general, people cannot fulfill all their aspirations they have, national or otherwise, because sometimes those aspirations trample on other people.
All along, the Jews wanted to live in peace with the Arabs, but the Arabs hated us and attacked us all the time. That caused them to lose again and again. That's why they have today what they have, and we have what we have.
It reminds me of Moses and Sihon. Moses offered peace, Sihon responded with war, and we won the war. Moses adds that Sihon's obstinacy was part of G-d's plan.
"Regarding the Arabs' claims that they also have a right to fulfill their national aspirations: There is no such inherent right."
There is also no such aspiration. Palestinian Arab nationalism is based on negating the Jewish ties to the land. Beyond that they have no aspirations. That's why when given some measure of sovereignty they neglect building their country and concentrate on Jew killing. This was evident in the pre-State era when the Arab leadership explicitly asserted their right to keep the land desolate and undeveloped.
OK, I'll try to check out later what the Ramban says. But from what I see in the psukim, G-d promised Moses *privately* that He will give us the land of Sihon. Then Moses just asked Sihon to pass through, and Sihon attacked Israel. The story of Israel just asking Sihon to pass through and then Sihon attacking Israel is repeated 3 times in the Tanach: Parshat Chukat, Parshat Dvarim, and in the book of Judges (by Yiftach).
(Do you want to summarize for me what Ramban says differently?)
The very idea that a nation feels that it needs to justify its existence to anyone is a sign of national decay and weakness. Show me another nation that obsesses about justifying its own existence?
No, engage in hasborah and diplomacy like everyone else does. But these are essentialy lies to benefit and advance your cause. The silly articles that Slifkin linked 'to make us feel good' are the typical winning of the confused and the weak.
I guess the rhetorical pyrotechnics of Abba Eban would make you nauseated.
"Show me another nation that obsesses about justifying its own existence? "
It's an interesting idea, but I would like see to you develop it further. You shouldn't compare Israel to all other countries. A more pointed version of your question would be:
"Show me another nation under existential threats that obsesses about justifying its own existence? "
See the difference? Are you still certain about national decay and weakness?
Would you apply the same metric to the Kuzari subtitled "Book of Refutation and Proof on Behalf of the Despised Religion"? Or other classics works that justify Judaism existence? Or perhaps other classic Torah works that justify certain contentious positions within the broad Torah community? Are all defensive manifestos a sign of decay?
A contemporary of Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi wrote אמונה רמה. Not everyone felt that Judaism was a despised religion. But here we are talking about a period when the Jews were in exile and under a disadvantage and persecution, not about an independent state. The existence of the State of Israel is difficult to justify in an honest and open discussion in today's world, the only thing to do is to make it a fact. The vast majority of the world says Israel should not exist, and the ones that still support it, will not lose any sleep if it disappears.
"A contemporary of Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi wrote אמונה רמה."
Which no one (except certain connoisseurs) have heard of. And isn't it actually called האמונה הרמה? It's clear that only the former has become a classic and reflects a mainstream position- namely the requirement to justify one's existence.
"But here we are talking...."
You have found a difference. But is it a difference without distinction?
" the only thing to do is to make it a fact."
I'm not a fan of restrictive "only"s. Why not do both? Concentrate on establishing the facts, while at same time engage in hasbara. (In the case of war, do now and explain later.)
Counterpoint. If you read any of the early Zionist thinkers, it's unambiguous that Zionism has completely failed on every count. It hasn't connected Jews to the soil, it hasn't made Jews more honest (cf binary options), it hasn't made Jews more manly (cf Covid), it hasn't Jews more cultured (indeed the opposite). It hasn't made Jews more independent (cf incredibly disproportionate American aid). It hasn't made Jews less hated. Israeli culture is incredibly lame and trashy, Israelis don't even dress properly and think a vest is a formalwear as long as it has sleeves. Israeli 'art' is rock bottom, Israeli music is somehow simultaneously saccharine-mawkish and also incredibly crude, Israeli cuisine is third rate. Israel has the highest single-use plastic use of any country in the world, and its citizens habitually exercise absolute contempt for the environment, only caring about the Land of Israel in as much as not wanting Arabs to have it. Modern Hebrew is an ugly gutter language completely unfit for poetry or literature. Israeli architecture is to so incomprehensibly, deliberately ugly that after a walk around Afula or Haifa, you can see 'normal' modernist building in חו''ל and think they're not so bad. The effect on Judaism has been nothing short of disastrous (everything this blog documents plus so much more). And, on all these counts Israel gets worse not better with every passing year (some aspects of 1948-era Zionism were actually quite wholesome and nice). The only thing left was that Zionism protects Jews from crazy goyim massacring them. Give up. It's over. Nothing left to do now but muddle through.
You really shouldn't have written "completely" and "unambiguous"- it allows a "complete" refutation by merely showing "partial" successor or an ambiguous failure.
We also need to take a fresh look at the Torah, what it means when it says that G-d gave the land of Caanan to the children of Israel, and whether the children of Israel violated the rights of the Caananites during the conquests of Moses and Joshua.
By saying that G-d gave the land of Caanan to the Israelites, the Torah doesn't mean that ownership passed to the Jews. Jews cannot come to non-Jews and say "this land belongs to us because G-d said so". Rather, the Torah promises that divine providence will make sure that the Jews will manage to inherit the land, and that they will do so in a fair way. The divine promise is something "internal" to the Jewish people.
We see these two aspects of the divine promise in the conquests of Moses and Joshua:
1) G-d promises that the Israelites would defeat the Caananites, even though the Caananites were more numerous, stronger, and heavily armed and fortified.
2) The Israelites would do so in a fair way. This latter aspect depended on G-d hardening the heart of the Caananite kings, so they would refuse the Israelites' calls for peace and in many cases open war against the Israelites (perhaps thinking they would easily defeat the Israelites).
We see in Deuteronomy ch. 2 Moses' words of peace to Sihon, which Sihon countered by attacking the Israelites. In the ensuing war, the Israelites completely obliterated Sihon's entire people. Moses points out that Sihon's refusal was due to G-d hardening his heart, which He did in order for the Israelites to be able to inherit Sihon's land.
A similar statement appears in Joshua ch. 11 regarding all the Caananite cities in general (except for Gibeon). The verse states that G-d hardened their heart, so they refused the calls for peace (=surrender) and chose instead to wage war against the Israelites. Thus, the verse says, were the Israelites able to fulfill the commandment of obliterating the Caananites.
It should also be pointed out that the Torah states (Exodus 23:22) that the Caananites were "enemies" אויביך and "adversaries" צורריך of the Israelites. In Numbers 35:23 we see that "enemy" אויב means someone who "seeks your harm". And in Numbers 25:18 we see the Midianites as an example of צוררים due to the harm they did to the Israelites (via their daughters in this case).
Hence, it was justified for the Israelites to call for war or surrender of the Caananites.
Also note that the story of the conquest of Laish in Judges 18 gives an example of an *immoral* way to conquer the land. The group from the tribe of Dan did not call for peace, but rather just attacked Laish by surprise. Furthermore, the story emphasizes that Laish lived isolated and had no "dealings" with anyone (presumably meaning they had no conflict with anyone). Scrpture's tone of disapproval to the entire conduct of the Danite group throughout this story shows that the Danites acted improperly.
"By what right does a British or American Jew move to Israel, whereas a Palestinian cannot? "
Someone with Irish or Polish or German Ancestry can get an Irish or Polish or German passport and live in those countries if the Irish or Polish or German ancestor was just a few generations ago. Someone with a Mexican ancestor can get a Mexican passport no matter how many generations ago. It is called *jus sanguinis* citizenship and every country in the Eastern Hemisphere has it as their primary nationality definition except for Pakistan.
In most of the Western Hemisphere the primary nationality definition is being born in that country, *jus solis*. All countries on the North American continent have that and all countries in the South American continent have that except Columbia. Mexico is unusual in that it has both *jus soli* and *jus sanguinis*, the former since 1917 and the latter added in 2021.
Many people in the US assume that the entire world has the same nationality laws as the US. Not true. And interestingly, for the purpose of immigration to the US, the US treats your nationality as your country of birth not the country you are a citizen of, no matter what the other countries' laws say.
You can't throw around a term like "Western Hemisphere" without acknowledging that it includes two very different kinds of nations, the two at the north and the rest. Birthright citizenship is not something countries dealing with huge waves of illegal immigrants should have. Countries like (checking map on Wikipedia) Pakistan, Chad, Tanzania, and those of Latin America don't have that problem.
So really, the US and Canada, and no one else that need be concerned. Here are some counter-examples from the First World: Singapore's population is 40% non-citizen. Switzerland's is over a *quarter*.
The US is not experiencing huge waves of illegal immigrants. It is experiencing huge waves of legal asylum applicants. Birthright citizenship has been the rule in the US since 1790 and it was put into the Constitution in 1868.
Brazil and Canada have always had birthright citizenship.
Singapore is 40 percent non citizen because it does not allow dual citizenship. It is actually one of the easiest countries in the world to immigrate to. Switzerland has some of the most restrictive immigration laws outside of the Arab world.
If the Middle East had birthright citizenship the entire Palestinian refugee problem would cease to exist in one generation. But nativist bigots all over the world prefer weaponize problems rather than solve them.
"It is experiencing huge waves of legal asylum applicants."
Yes, I know Biden and his people are trying the old "redefine it out of existence" trick. Where are all those applicants located?
"Birthright citizenship has been the rule in the US since 1790 and it was put into the Constitution in 1868."
It's not a "rule" if it's not written. And it's certainly debatable if the 14th Amendment legalizes it, certainly in the way it is used now. It took a hundred years for the courts to suddenly "realize" all the things the 14th Amendment supposedly says.
"Singapore is 40 percent non citizen because it does not allow dual citizenship. It is actually one of the easiest countries in the world to immigrate to."
Immigration is not the same as naturalization. Singapore is 40% non-citizen because it restricts citizenship. Israel didn't permit dual citizenship for many years and people naturalized.
"Switzerland has some of the most restrictive immigration laws outside of the Arab world."
That's not possible, if 25% of the population aren't citizens.
'That's not possible, if 25% of the population aren't citizens."
The majority of the population of Bahrain are non citizens. 67 percent of Kuwait residents are non-citizens. 88 percent of the population of the United Arab Emirates are non- citizens. Qatar has a similar percentage of non-citizens as UAE.
"Singapore is 40% non-citizen because it restricts citizenship."
No, its Naturalization procedures are pretty simple. Just a ten year residency and knowledge of one of the languages. But because it doesn't allow dual citizenship few immigrants become citizens there.
".it's certainly debatable if the 14th Amendment legalizes it"
No it isn't. Again you show your ignorance. What the 14th Amendment did was to expand birthright citizenship to people who weren't White. Read the horrible Dred Scott decision.
You have now shown that you are also an ignoramus about the English Common Law legal system. Birthright citizenship was part of that. But in any case it was also enacted in a US statute by the Federal Government in 1790, hence the date in my comment.
If it makes you feel good to call someone with a lot more legal education and knowledge than yourself an "ignoramus" over and over again, by all means continue to do so. Just be warned that it exposes your nature and leaves you open to similar charges.
The UNRWA does not use the UN's own definition. But in any case there are millions of stateless people who are forbidden to ever acquire citizenship in the countries in which they are now living, and can't even travel because they can't get passports. You don't have to call them refugees but as long as they are stateless they are a problem. Only Israel and Jordan have ever granted citizenship to Palestinian Arabs.
No one seems to have commented on two of the books mentioned by Rabbi Slifkin, The Genius of Israel and Start-Up Nation. My wife and I have read them both and we really encourage people to read them. Some absolutely fascinating information about Israel and many of its people. It's funny that although the authors are not religious (at least I don't believe they are), reading these books makes me see more of G-d's hashkacha over the land of Israel.
It takes a certain kind of intellectual stupidity to think the existence of Israel needs "defending"; it takes even more intellectual stupidity, plus arrogance, to think the committed anti-semites who think thus about Jews will be convinced otherwise by her brilliance. Truly, the lady doth protest too much.
Thanks Rabbi.
If you're the listening type, I would recommend this political steamer (if you're okay with listening to some profanity), he is a leftie politically, but when it came to this Israel thing he found himself *very* pro-Israel. His name is Steven Bonnell, known online as "Destiny" (don't ask) and he is really interesting to listen to on a whole variety of topics, especially this one. You can Google "destiny Israel debate" or something like that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gj-3Ji3CN80&pp=ygUeZGVzdGlueSBjbGlwcyBpc3JhZWwgcGFsZXN0aW5l
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4qGjKXKpUQ&t=84s&pp=ygUjZGVzdGlueSBjbGlwcyBpc3JhZWwgcGFsZXN0aW5lIGNlbms%3D
Was waiting for someone to quote the first Rashi in the Torah. All these arguments don't work. The only right the Jewish people have to the land of Israel is - divine. Why would you push secondary reasons that can be refuted?
Um... unfortunately, most people don't take TaNa"Kh seriously.
It all starts with those ignorant people who pontificate about the Tanak"h being dependent on its zeitgeist, or scientists of its time, instead of searching for the explanation behind Hashem's words.
Why would the outside world accept the word of the Tanak"h if some Jews seek to undermine its message whenever they can?
@Inquire,
Your argument doesn’t work either. I can direct you to divine injunctions against Jewish rights to the land on which Israel exists. I refer you to the Satmar Three Oaths that prohibit the establishment of a Jewish State until God permits Moshiach to establish his Divine Holy Kingdom. Presently , there are a number of other “divinely” inspired sects that would dispute your assertion.
Those Satmar arguments are like the arrow put in the center with the target drawn around it afterward. First they were anti-israel then they developed those theological arguments afterward.
@Inquire,
Well, you’re right about Satmar. They just make up stuff. They’re not as meshigah as the Neturei Karta crazies but they’re not some small fringe sect. They’re so large that they have 2 Satmar Rebbes! And they despise each other. But they’re equally True Believers in their religions. That Jews of whatever Hashkafa, even after all our historical suffering, can be so anti-Zionist is beyond my understanding. And that’s the problem. All the religions in the regional violent, bloodthirsty struggle believe that God is on their side.
But with 7.2 million Jewish lives at stake how can any Jewish society be so anti-Israel?? It’s mind-boggling.
This is true. The real reason for anti-Zionism is because most Jews at the time thought conquering the Land of Israel from Arabs was a crazy venture that would just lead to endless, ever-worsening bloodshed. Sure proved them wrong!
" The real reason for anti-Zionism is because most Jews at the time thought conquering the Land of Israel from Arabs was a crazy venture "
There are many varieties of anti-Zionism. You're oversimplifying things.
There are many *justifications*, but ultimately anti-zionism is the counsel of cowardice. Cowards, however, are often correct.
You haven't responded to my comment.
"but ultimately anti-zionism is..."
Again, the sentence makes no sense since "There are many varieties of anti-Zionism"
Ye ofc we pasken based on אגדות
You believe in the Torah others don't.עם ישראל must show and justify their actions to be the light unto the nations. Remember Hashem stated that עם ישראל does not deserve ארץ ישראל but the Nations have sinned so much that the time has come to drive them out (unless they will change their corrupt culture)
We should not follow the first Rashi in the Torah. You cannot tell people "This land belongs to us because G-d said so." Rather, the meaning of the divine promise of the land is that the Jews will be able to get hold of the Land of Israel in a just and fair way. Meaning, divine providence will make sure things work out. That includes the Jews defeating their enemies, even though they are stronger. And it includes the enemies obstinately refusing peace and going for war and then losing. See my previous comment where I elaborate on how that happened at the time of Moses and Joshua.
Here's the simple meaning of the verse brought by Rashi:
כוח מעשיו הגיד לעמו לתת להם נחלת גויים
G-d told, i.e. showed, His strength to the people of Israel, by making them able to acquire the land of the seven nations at the time of Moses and Joshua.
The divine promise is something internal to the Jewish people. It is what inspired the Jews to return to the land of Israel and establish a beautiful state, and what gave them success in that endeavor.
We need to internalize the message first. Then we can figure out how to respond
You know better than the Medrash - even though the Medrash says to specifically respond in this manner?!
You cannot tell people "G-d appeared to me and told me He's giving me what belongs to you."
For example, Abraham did not talk that way to Efron. Rather, Abraham paid Efron for the Machpela field.
If our faith is based on religious dogma, then we are in a stalemate with the other religions. For example, Muslims can say "G-d says we should kill whoever does not accept Muhammad."
G-d's promise is an internal matter of the Jews. Our argument regarding the state of Israel is that we have a right to exist, like any other person or nation. And if people want to check how the state of Israel came about, they are welcome to do so, because everything we did was OK.
I think the likelihood of convincing the world that "everything we did was OK" is lower than convincing them that God gave us the land. Sure, go tell everybody to read all the intricate historical discussions and debates and come to the exact conclusion you want them to come to. Not happening.
A much better option is telling the world "even if everything we did was not OK, we are no worse than almost every other country in the world that was founded on violence, ethnic cleansing, etc".
We will convince some people but not others. G-d will protect us even if we do not convince everybody.
BTW which type of argument did Yiftach give to the Ammonites in the book of Judges? (And did he convince them?)
The land of Amon was not part of the original conquest of Israel as promised by Hashem which was the 7 nations, right? So Yiftach needed a justification. What justification did Yehoshua give when he started conquering the land? It is true that if a nation wants peace with us and accepts the 7 mitzvos we must let them remain, under our dominion, but that's not what we are talking about here.
"You cannot tell people "G-d appeared to me and told me He's giving me what belongs to you."
For example, Abraham did not talk that way to Efron. Rather, Abraham paid Efron for the Machpela field."
רש"י "גר ותושב אנכי עמכם" - ...אם תרצו הריני גר ואם לאו אהיה תושב ואטלנה מן הדין שא"ל הקב"ה לזרעך אתן את הארץ הזאת
Right... Rashi is consistent. Note also that Rashi says that the "call for peace" does not apply to the 7 nations (Deut. 20:10).
You are lacking pride in your Judaism! The non-jews need to and want to hear us quoting the Torah!
Sure! We can quote the Torah to those who want to listen. We can tell them "See how the promise לזרעך נתתי את הארץ הזאת has been fulfilled again, how the Jews have managed to return to the promised land and establish a beautiful country. See how כח מעשיו הגיד לעמו לתת להם נחלת גוים -- how G-d showed the Jews His strength by making them defeat their enemies and possess the land."
But for those who don't want to hear about the Torah, we just say "everything we did is fair".
You never tried did you? I've quoted the Torah to many anti-Israelis it shuts them up right away. They have nothing to argue back. They sometimes say, well the Torah is made up, but they deep down know it's not...
I recently saw a quote- it may have been Ahad Ha'am- that says that forcing a Jew to defend himself when it is plainly clear that he is innocent is an aspect of anti-Semitism. The anti-Semite delights in making the Jew defend himself even though he knows the Jew will be proven right. It's a form of humiliation.
Gavison *starts* by acknowledging the truth before going off to justify her essay. She writes, "only a state whose existence is justified by its citizens can hope to endure." Really? The United Kingdom has existed for about 1,500 years and has never been called upon to justify its existence; nor does it even cross anyone's mind that it should. Russia has existed for over a thousand years; ditto. I can go on.
On the other hand, much more recent, artificially created countries are *also* never called upon to justify their existence. Can anyone justify the existence of Jordan? Iraq? North Macedonia? Not really. But no one asks.
As I've said here before, ultimately it's pointless. The type of person who is "troubled" by the existence of Israel is already at a place where no justification of its existence is going to work. That, or they're a thoughtless enough follower of the mob, informed only by TikTok videos, that they won't be able to read Gavison's essay.
It's very nice that we have an essay like this, and good on Gavison for trying. But again, ultimately it's pointless if not self-destructive. Full throatily fighting the forces- which Gavison mentions- who are opposed to nationhood, period- for white (or "white") people, that is- is, in my humble opinion, a much better ploy.
Nachum, Bret Stephens wrote something similar - https://www.myheraldreview.com/opinion/commentary/bret-stephens-settler-colonialism-a-guide-for-the-sincere/article_c760198e-c56b-11ee-923a-afc6792af157.html
He makes the same blindingly obvious points (viz, America has no business talking about "colonialism") that everyone knows. Only a fool tries to argue with an anti-semite. Proverbs 26:4.
A good piece, but I'm not sure what you mean by "similar". Similar to Gavison? OK, so she's hardly alone.
No, similar to what you said
I better read it again. :-)
They - whoever "they" is - dont ask Jews to justify their existence either. We Jews do it ourselves, the same way we've been obsessing about "rising anti-semitism" for at least thirty years and counting. All self created. Leviticus 26:36. "They will flee from the rustling leaf...when none pursueth."
Ahad Ha'am correctly predicted that attempts to found a state against the wishes of the Arab residents -regardless of whether these Arabs were reasonable - would only end in disaster and doom all the positive aspirations of Zionism. If he were around today, he would have Likudnik goons outside his house 24/7 calling him a traitor.
There's no reason I can't quote someone who I would disagree with on other matters.
And don't talk about "Likudnik goons" screaming outside people's homes when I've had leftist lunatics screaming outside my home for four solid years, and who eventually sent me to the hospital.
It's trivially true that you can disagree with someone about some things and agree with them about others, but Ahad Ha'am's warnings about the dire consequences of political and military Zionism aren't just some opinion he had, they were kind of his whole jive. Were he here today, he would say something like 'I tried to warn you, now you're screwed'. He certainly wouldn't endorse the utterly tired low IQ hasbara of calling anyone and everyone who observes that the Zionist project is an unfolding disaster anti-semitic, and I think it's reasonable to assume that he would object to Hasbara NPCs enlisting him in support of it.
The way you throw around the word "hasbara" makes me feel I'm in the white supremacist websites I sometimes visit.
I have some bad news for you: Judaism, and Zionism, has been political and military since the days of, oh, Avraham. The gentle souls who can't deal with this fool themselves into thinking otherwise.
Lame deflection, but 10/10 for cringe reference to יפי נפש. All you need to do now is spend 15 straight hours listening to trance music until your brain stops functioning, guzzle something fried in re-used soy oil, preferably on a slightly melted plastic plate, and you won't be a larping Anglo anymore, but a real life Right Wing Israeli. וואלאה
*(Actually, I lie, you will always be a larping Anglo.)
Your mother must be very proud of you.
"15 straight hours listening to trance music until your brain stops functioning"
But enough about Wagner's Ring.
" but Ahad Ha'am's warnings about the dire consequences of political and military Zionism"
Have you actually read Ahad Ha'am? He died in 1927 before the existence of a Zionist "military". And no, small unorganized self defense groups don't constitute a military.
I don't think you've read Ahad Ha'am, nor do I think you're accurately representing his views.
You don't know what the term 'military zionism' means. Maybe go read a book. Ahad Ha'am's predictions are only inaccurate in that he failed to appreciate the full cultural and spiritual horrors of what Zionism would unleash. He did not predict that the Jewish people would produce someone as repellent as הצל, as grotesque as Almog Cohen, as rank as Tzvika Fogel, but who could? Who could have imagined, in their very worst nightmares, that the Jewish people would be brought down, not just to the rank of an average nation, but to a cultural level that would shame a Somali or Pashtun? Look at the following video. Which one of the early Zionist leaders would not, upon seeing it, instantly have renounced Zionism in its entirety and have fled, as if from a demon straight out of the abyss?
https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=996897705445778&id=100053766730226
And, since Israel isn't going anywhere, there are centuries to come in which this phenomenon of generational devolution can play out. What will be in hundred years time? Will the Jewish people crawl on all floors, grunting in a language with perhaps five consonants left, while displaying their tattoos to each other, only pausing to call people anti-semites? It can no longer be ruled out. Yes, there are still brave, dignified, handsome men like Aharon Barak who try to pull this country back from the abyss into which it desperately wants to fall, but, given all the constant hassle they get, why should they keep bothering?
So I take it you actually never read Ahad Ha'am, and only know his work from carefully selected quotations.
"grunting in a language with perhaps five consonants left"
Now you're being silly. It would take more than a century for a language to lose that many consonants.
" Yes, there are still brave, dignified, handsome men "
Handsome?
" the abyss into which it desperately wants to fall"
wants?
"Ahad Ha'am correctly predicted that attempts to found a state against the wishes of the Arab residents... would only end in disaster"
But it hasn't ended in disaster. So he didn't correctly make such a prediction, did he? De he even make such a prediction?
I suspect you actually haven't read Ahad Ha'am; maybe you've only read excerpts at best, or out of context one line quotations.
He "correctly predicted" that Israel would "end in disaster"?
1) Ahad Ha'am didn't predict
2) He wasn't correct
3) It didn't end
4) No disaster
Aside from that he's spot on target.
Theoretical, subjective, and ex post facto, hence totally irrelevant.
And don't forget all the other "goons", a political technique often used in the haredi community that even includes stealing corpses against family wishes.
The United Kingdom has existed since 1707 and there is an active movement to break it up.
Ha ha, I just "knew" someone would try that. Obviously I was using the modern name of a country (and they are essentially the same country) that has existed since the early Middle Ages, England.
In any event, you are incorrect, if you're going to go there. The United Kingdom dates to 1801. Great Britain was founded in 1707.
And since you're so blase about Third World immigration, it is supreme irony that the person trying to destroy it is a Pakistani anti-Semite who doesn't even like "nationalism" but somehow holds himself out as authentically "Scottish" enough to secede.
Of course, London, Ireland, and the UK as a whole are all run by South Asians. (They haven't gotten to Wales yet.) Yeah, that's nothing to notice.
You just showed how little you understand European history. Or contemporary politics.
Scotland wants their independence. I'm not sure about the northern half or Ireland.
The good news for Great Britain is that the Scottish Nationalist Party has imploded in scandals.
That's interesting. What sort of scandals? Also, I once read that Britain has part of it's nuclear arsenal stationed in a great geographic hideout in Scotland and that Scottish independence would result in their removal, hence, Britain will do about anything to make sure independence is never achieved, no?
" Can anyone justify the existence of Jordan? Iraq? North Macedonia? Not really."
Half right. People do question the existence of Jordan & Iraq. But that's: other Arab dictators, or leftists attacking the imperialists who created such states (and it's more about critiquing world powers.)
And sensible Jews like me.
The only justification for the creation and existence of Israel is power, survival of the fittest. Everything else is empty talk. UN, International Law, 'Morality' are empty ideas to be used in one's national interest. They never meant anything and never will. But a softy anglo eccentric doctor, who runs a Museum of Natural History, hasn't learned the main lesson of the Evolution that he preaches.
>"The only justification for the creation and existence of Israel is power, survival of the fittest. Everything else is empty talk. "
Yakov, throughout this conversation, you're committing a "motte and bailey": "where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend".
First, you say that Darwinism is a justification. When criticized, you say that you're simply describing the world as it is
The Torah expects us to show our actions as morally justified and defensible. Do what is right and good in the eyes of G-d.RDNS believes in this and so should you.The real question is why you feel the need to malign RDNS.?! To exaggerate and twist not becoming a Chareidi ?!
Actions which are moraly justifiable and defensible from Torah's perspective are considered such because of their Divine source. Go explain at the UN why בן נח נהרג על פחות משווה פרוטה.
Rabbi Josef Elijah Henkin considered people who misunderstand this law to be amaratzim. The law is that a gentile court can impose whatever penalty for robbery they see fit , up to and including death. It is not advocating the death penalty for theft.
Go explain to the UN:
וּבָעִיר הַסְּמוּכָה לַסְּפָר, אֲפִילּוּ לֹא בָּאוּ עַל עִסְקֵי נְפָשׁוֹת אֶלָּא עַל עִסְקֵי תֶּבֶן וָקַשׁ — יוֹצְאִין עֲלֵיהֶן בִּכְלֵי זֵיינָן
Then again, go explain anything to the UN.
UN was a meant to mean the world at large. I should have used a different wording.
Today we would not apply this law למען השלום
I know, but למען השלום means because we are weak
Yakov-Not necessarily.
Argument by inapplicable analogy. Wrong. Evolution does not apply to States.
A state is a nation and a nation evolves. For example, our high IQ is the result of a long exile under adverse circumstances when it was beneficial and thus selected for.
It was also an evolutionary tradeoff. Due to external restrictions (the non-Jewish genetic contribution was <1% per generation, pre-emancipation), harmful diseases such as Tay-Sachs, Gaucher, breast and ovarian cancer, weren't "bred out" (Tay-Sachs has fallen by 90% thanks to screenings).
The idea is that extra brain power takes a toll on the brain and nervous system. Hence, if you have one copy of Gaucher (it stimulates an intense yet controlled growth and branching of neurons), you might seriously end up being a genius. But if you've two, you're effectively wasted.
A great example of this was the past observation regarding 250 adult patients with Gaucher at Yerushalayim's Shaare Zedek Medical Center Gaucher Clinic. About 15% of them were exceptional engineers or scientists (compared with 2.25% of non-Gaucher Ashkenazim in the general working-ag population).
"For example, our high IQ "
But you were talking about States. Now you're talking about people. States don't have IQs. Nor has the State existed long enough to be affected by evolution.
So if Iran fully develops their nuclear arsenal and murders us all, it's okay (even "justified")?
TaNa"Kh taught us morality, not "survival of the fittest."
We've already seen the dogmatic "survival of the fittest" at work. If case you've already forgotten, just Google HaShoah.
It's not the question of OK or not OK. There is life on this planet Earth that follows certain patterns. Any morality is subjective and evolutionary. Think of our own now. 3000 years ago it was not unusual, today many moral principals that we have are outdated in the Western world and are impossible to justify.The more fit under the changing conditions survive, the less fit disappear. This is the story of our species.
כל דילים גבר. The opposite of what the Torah teaches us.
כל דילים גבר.
I've no problem with evolution (although I'm not sure about abiogenesis).
What "immorality" in the Torah are you referring to? Slavery, stoning children? The genocide of 'Amaleq? All those are false or simple misunderstandings of the text.
Morality may indeed be subjective (it could have even evolved differently). However, this sort of speculation is akin to asking if my grandmother had balls, would she be my grandfather.
To point is this: we live in the world we live in. And society would simply collapse if we treated morality as subjective whims. Murder is wrong. Tzedakah is right.
Nice words, but read the fine print and drill down to details to how Murder and Tzdokah are practically applied.
כתב הרמב"ם (הלכות רוצח ושמירת הנפש, פרק ב, הלכה יא): "ישראל שהרג גוי השומר שבע מצוות בני נח אינו נהרג עליו בבית דין שנאמר: 'וכי יזיד איש על רעהו', ואין צריך לומר שאינו נהרג אם רצח את הגוי שאינו שומר שבע מצוות בני נח. ואחד ההורג את עבד אחרים או ההורג עבדו הרי זה נענש בגזר דין מוות, שהעבד כבר קיבל עליו מצוות ונוסף על נחלת ה'". קריטריון ברור לעונש מוות לרוצח – קיום מצוות. רצח יהודי או עבד, שחייבים במצוות, העונש עליו הוא מוות. רצח גוי, אפילו מאמין בתורה ושומר שבע מצוות בני נח (זהו גר תושב), יהא הרוצח פטור מעונש.
מותר לתת צדקה לגויים מפני דרכי שלום, וכמו שכתב הרמ"א יורה דעה (סימן רנא סעיף א) ומפרנסים עניי עובדי כוכבים עם עניי ישראל מפני דרכי שלום,
I once asked R. Yehudah Gershuni זצ"ל about halachot that seem to be prejudiced against the non Jew. He answered me saying that it is the area where Jews have to treat the non Jew equally and morally
G-d left it to us to understand and act accordingly.
Without context, your post could easily be confused as a chillul HaShem.
Yes, darchei shalom is paramount, however, one doesn't simply help ger toshavim (even non-Jews outside of Eretz Yisrael), or save their lives on Shabbat, because it's a practical solution to otherwise rampant antisemitism. One does it because the Torah teaches b'tzelem Elohim.
Moreover, if one kills a non-Jew, they don't deserve kaparah. That's why they're not executed. In any case, according to HaMeiri, the Tannaim never understood such things as applying to modern non-Jews rather, they applied to Apikorsim and ancient star worshippers who persecuted us with impunity. In an ethical society, such halachos obviously don't apply.
Meiri's intrrpretation is very attractive, but he is in a minority. These are just two of the endless examples. If you chose to ignore the obvious, I will not try to dissuade you. But I prefer to let the text, including its various interpretations, speak for themselves.
לכלב תשלכון אותו - אף הגוי ככלב. או אינו אלא כלב כמשמעו? תלמוד לומר בנבלה: "או מכור לנכרי" (דב' יד , כא) - קל וחומר לטרפה , שמותרת בכל הנאות. אם כן מה תלמוד לומר לכלב? לימדך שהכלב נכבד מן הגוי , שהנבלה לגוי והטרפה לכלב
I accept my heritage for what it is, but maybe you can provide the context?
What is the context of בן נח נהרג על פחות משווה פרוטה?
And of this:
אמרו חז"ל (סנהדרין עו:): והמחזיר אבידה לנכרי - עליו הכתוב אומר (דברים כט יח) 'למען ספות הרוה את הצמאה לא יאבה ה' סלח לו'.
וכתב רש"י בביאור הענין: והמחזיר אבידה לנכרי - השווה וחבר נכרי לישראל, ומראה בעצמו שהשבת אבדה אינה חשובה לו מצות בוראו, שאף לנכרי הוא עושה כן שלא נצטווה עליהם.
It should not be and it is the responsibility of of every human to debunk this theory.
You are funny, you want to debunk Evolution? Well, it will debunk you first.
Fortunately you are wrong because under your system a small country like Israel wouldn't last long.
Not necessarily. It's not just the brutal force, it's the totality of the evolutionary fitness and advantage. And Israel is under an existential threat.
They did though.
That's not a great argument without any of the nuance. According to that why can't I kick you out of your house and if I win, hey! Survival of the fittest!
You are correct. There are in the group laws, like ואהבת לרעך כמוך, and there are outer group laws like לא תחייה כל נשמה וגרש תגרשם. All human societies have something along these lines.
You're saying that Hitler did nothing wrong because the Holocaust is just how one treats out-groups?
That's a little different, but he would seemingly be okay with Hitler's take over of Europe.
Don't make me laugh, mate. I'm just looking at things as they are. Like an alien visiting this planet.
Nations act out of percieved self interest. Sometimes it's war and conquest, at other times it's peace and coopration.
Jews, and Ashkenazi Jews in particular, have the highest IQ on the planet. They have evolved to survive and succede under the most adversary of circumstances. They, by the virtue of their talents and culture come to dominate the societies that they live in and no native population likes it. This Holocust is nothing unique in human history. In Rwanda 800,000 members of the succesful and dominant minority were
killed in 3 months at the rate that is DOUBLE the rate of extermination in
the Holocust. In Indonesia 500,000 Chinese were killed in the 60s. The list is endless. This is how the human evolution plays out. It becomes clear when you look at this planet as a visiting alien.
Also, Germans, a very talented and capable nation, couldn't dominate the world as long as a more talented nation was present to make it impossible.
"They, by the virtue of their [Ashkenazi] talents and culture come to dominate the societies that they live in and no native population likes it."
Antisemites will love you for ridiculous sentences like that. For them, a Jew confirming their worldview is priceless.
There is nothing to confirm. This is a fact. You are insecure and don't want to face the truth. There is nothing wrong with it.
All I can say is I'm embarrassed to belong to the same religion as you. That is, if you can be said to have any religion at all. (And assuming you're not a troll)
You personal feelings are meaningless, but maybe you can offer a reason?
Interesting. So you think that any country has a right to take over another, provided that they win?
It's not what I think, it's what the human history has been like until now. I try to apply the principals that work.
Just curious then, what would you say about Russia and Ukraine?
Trump and his supporters in the US think that Russia should just take over Ukraine. It would be a horrible precedent.
Russia was perfectly justified in attacking Ukraine, but miscalculated and failed to achive its goals. If the war is not stoped soon, Ukraine will end up losing.
A disclaimer: I'm originaly from Russia and hate Ukranian Nazis.
Even if you're right, it's not the end-goal (Olam HaBa).
Mate, this is an internal discussion. A speaker for the State of Israel should use the lies and propoganda that is likely to work, just like everyone else does.
See https://www.uscirf.gov/publications/did-you-knowmuslim-constitutions where it says "Of the 46 countries in the world with majority Muslim populations, 23 declare Islam to be the state religion in their constitutions...
Under international standards, a state may declare an official religion, provided that basic rights -- including the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief -- are respected for all without discrimination. This means that the existence of a state religion cannot be a basis for discriminating against or impairing any rights of adherents of other religions or non-believers or their communities. Unfortunately, in practice many states with official state religions do not meet this test. "
Hmmm...
Regarding Gavison's article: I just skimmed through it because it's very long. But from what I saw, I disagree. I think as follows:
Our right to a Jewish state stems from the fact that we established it without violating anyone's rights. From the time of the Aliyot on, the Arabs' hate towards us was completely unjustified. Migration to another country is something natural, that people do all the time. Therefore, there was nothing morally wrong with the Aliyot. We also legally purchased the lands.
Regarding the Arabs' claims that they also have a right to fulfill their national aspirations: There is no such inherent right. In general, people cannot fulfill all their aspirations they have, national or otherwise, because sometimes those aspirations trample on other people.
All along, the Jews wanted to live in peace with the Arabs, but the Arabs hated us and attacked us all the time. That caused them to lose again and again. That's why they have today what they have, and we have what we have.
It reminds me of Moses and Sihon. Moses offered peace, Sihon responded with war, and we won the war. Moses adds that Sihon's obstinacy was part of G-d's plan.
"Regarding the Arabs' claims that they also have a right to fulfill their national aspirations: There is no such inherent right."
There is also no such aspiration. Palestinian Arab nationalism is based on negating the Jewish ties to the land. Beyond that they have no aspirations. That's why when given some measure of sovereignty they neglect building their country and concentrate on Jew killing. This was evident in the pre-State era when the Arab leadership explicitly asserted their right to keep the land desolate and undeveloped.
OK, I'll try to check out later what the Ramban says. But from what I see in the psukim, G-d promised Moses *privately* that He will give us the land of Sihon. Then Moses just asked Sihon to pass through, and Sihon attacked Israel. The story of Israel just asking Sihon to pass through and then Sihon attacking Israel is repeated 3 times in the Tanach: Parshat Chukat, Parshat Dvarim, and in the book of Judges (by Yiftach).
(Do you want to summarize for me what Ramban says differently?)
The very idea that a nation feels that it needs to justify its existence to anyone is a sign of national decay and weakness. Show me another nation that obsesses about justifying its own existence?
So: just give up on hasbara? Then we truly lose, because the entire world will become our mortal enemy.
Is it fair? No! But it's the world we live in.
No, engage in hasborah and diplomacy like everyone else does. But these are essentialy lies to benefit and advance your cause. The silly articles that Slifkin linked 'to make us feel good' are the typical winning of the confused and the weak.
How are they lies? An example or two would help.
I guess the rhetorical pyrotechnics of Abba Eban would make you nauseated.
"Show me another nation that obsesses about justifying its own existence? "
It's an interesting idea, but I would like see to you develop it further. You shouldn't compare Israel to all other countries. A more pointed version of your question would be:
"Show me another nation under existential threats that obsesses about justifying its own existence? "
See the difference? Are you still certain about national decay and weakness?
Would you apply the same metric to the Kuzari subtitled "Book of Refutation and Proof on Behalf of the Despised Religion"? Or other classics works that justify Judaism existence? Or perhaps other classic Torah works that justify certain contentious positions within the broad Torah community? Are all defensive manifestos a sign of decay?
A contemporary of Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi wrote אמונה רמה. Not everyone felt that Judaism was a despised religion. But here we are talking about a period when the Jews were in exile and under a disadvantage and persecution, not about an independent state. The existence of the State of Israel is difficult to justify in an honest and open discussion in today's world, the only thing to do is to make it a fact. The vast majority of the world says Israel should not exist, and the ones that still support it, will not lose any sleep if it disappears.
"A contemporary of Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi wrote אמונה רמה."
Which no one (except certain connoisseurs) have heard of. And isn't it actually called האמונה הרמה? It's clear that only the former has become a classic and reflects a mainstream position- namely the requirement to justify one's existence.
"But here we are talking...."
You have found a difference. But is it a difference without distinction?
" the only thing to do is to make it a fact."
I'm not a fan of restrictive "only"s. Why not do both? Concentrate on establishing the facts, while at same time engage in hasbara. (In the case of war, do now and explain later.)
I'm not against hasbarah, I'm against pathetic Jewish wining.
Ukraine
Testing
there is only one justification and that is what Rashi writes at eh beginning of Genesis
Counterpoint. If you read any of the early Zionist thinkers, it's unambiguous that Zionism has completely failed on every count. It hasn't connected Jews to the soil, it hasn't made Jews more honest (cf binary options), it hasn't made Jews more manly (cf Covid), it hasn't Jews more cultured (indeed the opposite). It hasn't made Jews more independent (cf incredibly disproportionate American aid). It hasn't made Jews less hated. Israeli culture is incredibly lame and trashy, Israelis don't even dress properly and think a vest is a formalwear as long as it has sleeves. Israeli 'art' is rock bottom, Israeli music is somehow simultaneously saccharine-mawkish and also incredibly crude, Israeli cuisine is third rate. Israel has the highest single-use plastic use of any country in the world, and its citizens habitually exercise absolute contempt for the environment, only caring about the Land of Israel in as much as not wanting Arabs to have it. Modern Hebrew is an ugly gutter language completely unfit for poetry or literature. Israeli architecture is to so incomprehensibly, deliberately ugly that after a walk around Afula or Haifa, you can see 'normal' modernist building in חו''ל and think they're not so bad. The effect on Judaism has been nothing short of disastrous (everything this blog documents plus so much more). And, on all these counts Israel gets worse not better with every passing year (some aspects of 1948-era Zionism were actually quite wholesome and nice). The only thing left was that Zionism protects Jews from crazy goyim massacring them. Give up. It's over. Nothing left to do now but muddle through.
@ משכיל,
Your comments are preposterous hyperbolic satire, right.
Many times you can’t really tell from just print alone.
"unambiguous... completely failed "
You really shouldn't have written "completely" and "unambiguous"- it allows a "complete" refutation by merely showing "partial" successor or an ambiguous failure.
...you forgot to dump on their choice of electric current.
@Natan Slifkin - Please see my comments about Chareidim joining tzahal and ideas I proposed. LMK your thoughts.
We also need to take a fresh look at the Torah, what it means when it says that G-d gave the land of Caanan to the children of Israel, and whether the children of Israel violated the rights of the Caananites during the conquests of Moses and Joshua.
By saying that G-d gave the land of Caanan to the Israelites, the Torah doesn't mean that ownership passed to the Jews. Jews cannot come to non-Jews and say "this land belongs to us because G-d said so". Rather, the Torah promises that divine providence will make sure that the Jews will manage to inherit the land, and that they will do so in a fair way. The divine promise is something "internal" to the Jewish people.
We see these two aspects of the divine promise in the conquests of Moses and Joshua:
1) G-d promises that the Israelites would defeat the Caananites, even though the Caananites were more numerous, stronger, and heavily armed and fortified.
2) The Israelites would do so in a fair way. This latter aspect depended on G-d hardening the heart of the Caananite kings, so they would refuse the Israelites' calls for peace and in many cases open war against the Israelites (perhaps thinking they would easily defeat the Israelites).
We see in Deuteronomy ch. 2 Moses' words of peace to Sihon, which Sihon countered by attacking the Israelites. In the ensuing war, the Israelites completely obliterated Sihon's entire people. Moses points out that Sihon's refusal was due to G-d hardening his heart, which He did in order for the Israelites to be able to inherit Sihon's land.
A similar statement appears in Joshua ch. 11 regarding all the Caananite cities in general (except for Gibeon). The verse states that G-d hardened their heart, so they refused the calls for peace (=surrender) and chose instead to wage war against the Israelites. Thus, the verse says, were the Israelites able to fulfill the commandment of obliterating the Caananites.
It should also be pointed out that the Torah states (Exodus 23:22) that the Caananites were "enemies" אויביך and "adversaries" צורריך of the Israelites. In Numbers 35:23 we see that "enemy" אויב means someone who "seeks your harm". And in Numbers 25:18 we see the Midianites as an example of צוררים due to the harm they did to the Israelites (via their daughters in this case).
Hence, it was justified for the Israelites to call for war or surrender of the Caananites.
Also note that the story of the conquest of Laish in Judges 18 gives an example of an *immoral* way to conquer the land. The group from the tribe of Dan did not call for peace, but rather just attacked Laish by surprise. Furthermore, the story emphasizes that Laish lived isolated and had no "dealings" with anyone (presumably meaning they had no conflict with anyone). Scrpture's tone of disapproval to the entire conduct of the Danite group throughout this story shows that the Danites acted improperly.
"By what right does a British or American Jew move to Israel, whereas a Palestinian cannot? "
Someone with Irish or Polish or German Ancestry can get an Irish or Polish or German passport and live in those countries if the Irish or Polish or German ancestor was just a few generations ago. Someone with a Mexican ancestor can get a Mexican passport no matter how many generations ago. It is called *jus sanguinis* citizenship and every country in the Eastern Hemisphere has it as their primary nationality definition except for Pakistan.
In most of the Western Hemisphere the primary nationality definition is being born in that country, *jus solis*. All countries on the North American continent have that and all countries in the South American continent have that except Columbia. Mexico is unusual in that it has both *jus soli* and *jus sanguinis*, the former since 1917 and the latter added in 2021.
Many people in the US assume that the entire world has the same nationality laws as the US. Not true. And interestingly, for the purpose of immigration to the US, the US treats your nationality as your country of birth not the country you are a citizen of, no matter what the other countries' laws say.
Do you know what the citizenship rules are for Liberia? Look it up.
(Edit: I should probably spell it out: They have a Law of Return for all Negroes. Pale white guys like you, Chuck, are out of luck.)
Ghana also has a law of return.
Ireland, even Jordan for Palestinians!
Right. I think we agree. The point is, NS's question ("why can a a British Jew move to Israel, but not a [sic] Palestinian") is not well taken.
You can't throw around a term like "Western Hemisphere" without acknowledging that it includes two very different kinds of nations, the two at the north and the rest. Birthright citizenship is not something countries dealing with huge waves of illegal immigrants should have. Countries like (checking map on Wikipedia) Pakistan, Chad, Tanzania, and those of Latin America don't have that problem.
So really, the US and Canada, and no one else that need be concerned. Here are some counter-examples from the First World: Singapore's population is 40% non-citizen. Switzerland's is over a *quarter*.
The US is not experiencing huge waves of illegal immigrants. It is experiencing huge waves of legal asylum applicants. Birthright citizenship has been the rule in the US since 1790 and it was put into the Constitution in 1868.
Brazil and Canada have always had birthright citizenship.
Singapore is 40 percent non citizen because it does not allow dual citizenship. It is actually one of the easiest countries in the world to immigrate to. Switzerland has some of the most restrictive immigration laws outside of the Arab world.
If the Middle East had birthright citizenship the entire Palestinian refugee problem would cease to exist in one generation. But nativist bigots all over the world prefer weaponize problems rather than solve them.
The Wikipedia maps aren't accurate.
"It is experiencing huge waves of legal asylum applicants."
Yes, I know Biden and his people are trying the old "redefine it out of existence" trick. Where are all those applicants located?
"Birthright citizenship has been the rule in the US since 1790 and it was put into the Constitution in 1868."
It's not a "rule" if it's not written. And it's certainly debatable if the 14th Amendment legalizes it, certainly in the way it is used now. It took a hundred years for the courts to suddenly "realize" all the things the 14th Amendment supposedly says.
"Singapore is 40 percent non citizen because it does not allow dual citizenship. It is actually one of the easiest countries in the world to immigrate to."
Immigration is not the same as naturalization. Singapore is 40% non-citizen because it restricts citizenship. Israel didn't permit dual citizenship for many years and people naturalized.
"Switzerland has some of the most restrictive immigration laws outside of the Arab world."
That's not possible, if 25% of the population aren't citizens.
I've heard from several Rebbeim that this is the meaning of יוצר עמל עלי חוק. Using "definitions" and the trappings of the legal system for evil.
'That's not possible, if 25% of the population aren't citizens."
The majority of the population of Bahrain are non citizens. 67 percent of Kuwait residents are non-citizens. 88 percent of the population of the United Arab Emirates are non- citizens. Qatar has a similar percentage of non-citizens as UAE.
I obviously not talking about totalitarian Third World regimes that import slave labor.
"Singapore is 40% non-citizen because it restricts citizenship."
No, its Naturalization procedures are pretty simple. Just a ten year residency and knowledge of one of the languages. But because it doesn't allow dual citizenship few immigrants become citizens there.
".it's certainly debatable if the 14th Amendment legalizes it"
No it isn't. Again you show your ignorance. What the 14th Amendment did was to expand birthright citizenship to people who weren't White. Read the horrible Dred Scott decision.
Funny, neither the words "white" nor "black" occur in it. I wonder why that is.
"It's not a "rule" if it's not written."
You have now shown that you are also an ignoramus about the English Common Law legal system. Birthright citizenship was part of that. But in any case it was also enacted in a US statute by the Federal Government in 1790, hence the date in my comment.
If it makes you feel good to call someone with a lot more legal education and knowledge than yourself an "ignoramus" over and over again, by all means continue to do so. Just be warned that it exposes your nature and leaves you open to similar charges.
"redefine it out of existence"
Biden hasn't redefined anything. The law has been in effect since 1965. You are either an ignoramus on immigration, or a nativist bigot, or both.
I used to work for the Immigration and Naturalization Service. I know what I am talking about. Shut up before you embarrass yourself further.
You worked for the INS the same way you work at a medical school? Nice. What *aren't* you an expert on?
Oh, being polite.
The UNRWA does not use the UN's own definition. But in any case there are millions of stateless people who are forbidden to ever acquire citizenship in the countries in which they are now living, and can't even travel because they can't get passports. You don't have to call them refugees but as long as they are stateless they are a problem. Only Israel and Jordan have ever granted citizenship to Palestinian Arabs.