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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
I stopped caring to answer the question a long time ago, unless it is asked of other countries.
Israel exists, period.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Testing
there is only one justification and that is what Rashi writes at eh beginning of Genesis
All I see is a nation of murderers.
I don't mean the commentators. They appear to be primarily those who have lost all hope. May God resurrect them!
I mean people with a voice. Serious people.
Murderers to the last one.
https://youtu.be/pp7OL1kQ5-M?feature=shared
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.
@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.