Trump's Declaration - Too Good to Be True? Probably.

President Donald Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel was met with jubilation by the State of Israel, and most of the Jewish people.  And for good reason.  For seventy years, in the eyes of the world, Israel was the only state whose capitol wasn't recognized by the majority of the world powers.  International law applies equally to every state, except when it involves Jews.  As Trump pointed out, every nation has a right to name its own capitol – on the surface, the recognition of Israel's own choice for a capitol should be business as usual for the community of nations.  In fact, it has been - in practice, if not in name.  So, it seems only natural that Trump's declaration, the U.S. recognition, would be met with satisfaction, and a sense of finally – it's about time the world stopped holding a double standard for the Jews. 

To support those who greet this recognition with celebration, we should note that usually when those condemning the declaration include Israel's and the Jewish people's most ardent haters, then obviously this must be good for the Jews, right?  So, considering the reaction.  It must be.

Well, maybe.

The Jewish people certainly do not need any outside validation to know that Jerusalem is our center, our heart – our capitol city, for all eternity.  This was the case even when the Romans renamed it Aelia Capitolina, when the Jews were expelled or banned from the city under successive Roman, Christian and Muslim rule.   Jerusalem was and is the focus of the Jewish People's prayers, even when there weren't enough Jews in the city to form a prayer quorum.  Jerusalem is and will be the center of the world for the Jewish People for all eternity.

So, as much as we should appreciate President Trump's recognition of reality – something are indeed necessary on the political stage, there are reasons why, when examined carefully, it might also give us pause.   There are many hidden implication to his statement; implication which even he may not have considered.

It should be noted that Trump was only recognizing West Jerusalem as Israel's capitol – a fact reinforced by, among others, the US Ambassador to the UN, Nikky Haley.  The United Capitol of Jerusalem (which includes the Temple Mount and the Old City) is only united in the eye of the Jews.

And, if one were to take Trump's central reason – that each state has a right to name it's own capitol – then what's to prevent the Palestinians from declaring Jerusalem, or if you prefer Al-Quds, their capitol.  And, if they did, there would be no reason for the US, or any country  to not recognize it as such. 

Jews do not need validation from the rest of the world.  In fact, we are told quite clearly in Numbers (23:9) - “Lo, it is a people that shall dwell alone and shall not be reckoned among the nations.”  This has been interpreted as both a curse and a blessing – and in fact it is both, but that is entirely dependent as to how we choose to see it.  When we chase after the world's blessing, then we will be reminded. the hard way, that we have no place among them.  We will be chased and pursued.  However, when we stop looking over our shoulder, accept our birthright and march forward under the banner of truth, the rest of the world will follow our lead, and acknowledge our lone status as the Firstborn.   

Remember, any time there's a performance on the world stage, all the players will dutifully perform their role, full of sound and fury, but the only true significant echo will be the one from Heaven, when we, as a nation, act as a reflection of  Gd's Will.

So, is Trump's declaration too good to be true?  Only if we think it really matters.

The Other 800 Pound Gorilla in the Room - Small Parties and Government Stability

The recent elections in Israel have exposed several of those eight hundred pound gorillas that have been hanging about in the room.  But most of them, such as the potential power of the Arab vote, had been known, and conveniently ignored, for years. What amazes me, is the other eight hundred pounder, the one that people invented, which led to the birth of the United Arab Party.

From nearly every corner of Israeli society, there has been a constant call for government stability, which is political parlance for a limited number of large parties, as opposed to a collection of smaller parties which “hold the government hostage,” over their particular issues.

In fact, it was to fulfill this desperate need for eliminating smaller parties that the last government raised the threshold allowing a party to enter into the Israeli Knesset (parliament). And so, they were successful. In the last election, instead of three or four small Arab parties, Israel now has a large united Arab list, which represents more mandates than they did previously. In terms of government stability, this changed nothing. The Arab list had no intention of being part of a Likud led or a Labor led government, and therefore their unity has little effect on the executive branch of the government. Their unity may potentially help their constituency, as they will now be eligible for more seats on important parliamentary committees, but as far as forestalling early elections, it will have little effect.

In contrast, because of the raised threshold several smaller parties, principally YaHad, will not be represented, and this will surely affect the stability of the government, to its detriment. Further, the stability of Israeli society, it would seem, would benefit from the greatest plurality of representation, what we would call in any non- political venue, consensus.

But, before we talk about the stability of society, and what's best for the average citizen, I will demonstrate how small parties have the ability to make the government far more stable, though each of its constituents might have less power. This is, of course, is the eight hundred pound gorilla that no one wants to discuss. When the politicians talk about “stability,” what they really mean is more concentrated power. Stability has become a euphemism for control and rule, for the ability to push through what would otherwise be, unpopular agendas. In fact, especially in the early years of the state, the “instability” was the result of the prime minister not being able to bully his partners into complying with his will. In the early years of the state (when the threshold was at its lowest), only the fourth Knesset was forced into early elections. The dissolution of the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth , seventh,eighth and tenth governments all fell due to the Prime Minister being unable to force his agenda on the other members (and, the eleventh government fell because of Ben-Gurion as well, who was not the Prime Minister at the time). Fortunately, for the most part during these “unstable” governments, the citizens were saved from early elections. In fact, many of the newly formed governments consisted of the same coalition partners as before the government “fell,” making a mockery of the concept of instability.

In fact, the instability of Israeli governments has much more to do with the various mechanization of the politicians in the larger parties to gain and hold onto their power than it has to do with small parties' demands. There is absolutely no correctional between the raising of the threshold and the stability of the government in power. In fact, it might be the opposite.

The truth is that a plurality of small interest parties requires everyone to limit their appetite, restrain action which might alienate participants and try and arrive at a common consensus of policy - policy that, while not what everyone one wanted, would be what everyone could agree upon.

To demonstrate: Likud received thirty mandates, which is less than the number necessary it needs to form a government alone. It is currently courting five parties, Kahlon, Jewish Home, Shas, United Torah Judaism and Yisrael Beytenu, which bring another thirty seven mandates collectively. Yet, each and every one these parties can hold the rest of the parties, particularly Likud, “hostage.” Without their mandates, the government can not be formed. And if it is formed, then each of them can threaten to bring down the government by leaving. This is no more stable than the last government.

However, if the threshold hadn't been raised, then YaHad would also be a natural candidate for the government, and with its three mandates, no one party (other than Likud) could threaten the government by leaving. And if the threshold was even lower to allow for Yaleh Yaroq (The Green Leaf) party to have entered into Knesset, it is possible that their one issue could have been accepted to add even more stability.

In fact, if one looks at the previous governments of Israel, that is exactly how the more stable ones remained in power. They catered to a wide consensus of the electorate's will.

And of course the most stable government would be one in which the executive branch's role was not a vehicle of power and privilege, but fulfilled its limited but vital role to execute the will of the people, either expressed directly (though various methods such as a referendum) or via a legislature. In such a scenario, the largest consensus of society could be represented on each issue, as each representative or deputy of the people would vote based on the issue and not based on their position in a power base called a political party.

Which leads us to the idea of a stable society. In truth, the instability of the government is really only a reflection of the greater fragmentation of Israeli society. Israel society has become more complex, and its issues have become more varied and nuanced. The focus of the society is less on the country's survival, the question of its existence, and much more on the quality and character of the society. Stifling that nuanced and important discussion, by limiting opinions through raising the threshold will not make the society more stable, more homogeneous. Quite the opposite, those sectors who feel that they are not represented, who feel they have no voice, may resort to other methods of expressing their will.

And again, the recent elections are a prime example. A large number of people who voted for the ill fated YaHad, come from the same sections of society accused of “nationalistically motivated crime,” actions, which come about through feelings that their will is frustrated; that their voices are stifled. Silencing more voices, frustrating more people's political will, will not bring about stability. Rather, it has the potential to create an explosion.

If democracy means that everyone has a voice, then the ideal would be a mechanism that allows for the greatest plurality of representation, as in a referendum system. The opposite would limit representation and choice to as narrow a field as possible, as we have seen in extremes, with the one party systems of the former Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. It is true that a one part system will be a more stable, efficient government. But then again, all forms of dictatorship, including an oligarchy, are. Yet, it is also true, especially in the extreme, that the less pluralistic the system of representation, the further away a government is from realizing the collective will of its citizens. A pluralistic system might be less efficient, but it will certainly arrive much closer to an approximate consensus of the people.

A Tale of Two Zionisms

Since the advent of "modern Zionism" the political-social "ism" has been the subject of a very deep internal tension.  With the creation of the State of Israel, the military victories and acquisition of territory, the tension deepened.  The current "threat of peace," has created a crisis of dissonance that cannot be ignored.  At its root it is an identity crisis:  What is Zionism?  What is its purpose, its reason d'êtres?

This is why so many, speaking in the name of "Zionism," voice such disparate and contrary positions.  Even many individuals are found to sometimes speak in "two voices," as many individuals, particularly those involved in politics have affinities for aspects of both models.

On the one hand, according to the Herzelian model of Zionism, it has already fulfilled its purpose and has therefore become irrelevant.  This is the phenomena of the so-called "Post-Zionism."  Herzelian Zionism came into existence to answer the eternal and troubling "Jewish Question."  This wasn't only a question for Jews, as the world had for centuries struggled with the same question: What to do with the Jews?  While many of the "solutions" proffered to this question were quite horrendous, Herzl, in his monumental effort, did not radically stray from the basic parameters and constraints of the "problem."  The Jews, as a social religious national group, stood apart from the rest of civilization, unable or refusing to integrate with the rest of the world.  As a result, according to the model, Jews were subject to persecution.  The establishment of a modern "normal" state for the Jews was intended to facilitate the Jewish nation's integration into the family of nations, while at the same time provide a haven, and refuge from persecution.

Yet, there is another voice, an older, deeper voice of Zionism that resonates, and has always resonated in the hearts of even the most cynical and pragmatic Jew.  This is the voice of Redemptive Zionism.  Within this paradigm of Zionism, the State of Israel is but a step in the continually unfolding process of redemption, a redemption that is defined through the unification of the people of Israel with the God of Israel in the Land of Israel.  It is a process of Zionism that culminates in the fulfillment of Israel's role as a light, a teacher and example, a leader to the rest of the world, and is symbolized through the building of the Temple on Mount Moriah. 

When there are voices decrying that Jews cannot live under "foreign rule" (because it's not safe), or that they should refuse the Spanish citizenship (because we "can't trust the goyim), these are echoes of the Herzelian Zionism.  A Redemptive Zionist would not ask how Jews could live under foreign rule, but rather, how could the Land of Israel be under foreign rule?  And further, how can the Jewish State be run by foreign rules? 

Redemptive Zionists are not threatened by a government trying to make amends for its past.  They are not "afraid of the goyim," but rather recognize their mission to redeem the other nations from their spiritual and moral slumber.

For Redemptive Zionists, the State of Israel is not "compensation," for the crimes of humanity have perpetrated against the nation of Israel.  It doesn't see Israel as victims.  Rather, it sees the ingathering of the nation of Israel to the Land of Israel as the fulfillment of an eternal promise by Gd.  Redemption Zionists see it as incumbent to remain loyal to that promise and to help enable its complete fulfillment. 

Herzelian Zionism, particularly in the early years, siphoned the strong natural inclination of Redemptive Zionism that is implanted in every Jewish soul.  But the goals of Herzelian Zionism are a false destiny, and are therefore doomed to fail.  The miracle of Israel can not be truncated by the pragmatism.  Any attempt to do so will only set back the entire enterprise. 

It is time for the Redemptive Zionists to stop listening to the echoes of Herzl.  There is no Jewish problem to solve, only a Jewish promise to fulfill.

I hope I'm Wrong אני מקווה שאני טועה ...

*******The English version follows the Hebrew*******

אני עוקב אחרי המשא ומתן על קואליציה עם אותו הלם שמישהו רואה תאונת דרכים:  נורא מדי להסתכל, אבל אי אפשר לסגור את העניים ולמנוע עצמו ללא לצפות.
 

אני אחד מאלה מיהודה ושומרון שלא הצביע "לבית יהודי."

אני כמעט תמכתי בו – כמעט.  בכל הדברים לקראת  הבחירות היו נקודות - דברים שבנט אמר, רעיונות המציאו, ותוכניות שהציגו – שגרם לי לחשוב שאולי הפעם, אולי מפד"ל (המפד"ל שפעם) באמת חזר לתשובה.   היו לי רגעים של תקווה, אמנם היא הייתה אותה תקווה  של בעל שכבר נתפס זמן רב את אשתו במצבים חשודים, אבל בכל זאת הייתה תקווה.

ואז קרה משהו שהורד לי את התקווה.  באמת, אניני יכול לבטא את מה היו אותם הדברים, אבל הם חזרו אותי לעמדה של "לחכות ולראות."  חשד דחף את תקוותיי, ובסופו של דבר, לא הצבעתי לבית יהודי, ואף על פי כן קיוויתי שאני טועה.

אבל עכשיו, אני חייב להודות, אני לא מתחרט על ההחלטה שלי בכלל.  "ודנה כתבה די רשים:  מנא ,מנא, תקל, ופרסין (דניאל ה:כה)."  מפד"ל הישן עדיין חי.  המפלגה שבגדה בארץ ישראל – יש להם אחריות מאליות שנתנו  האפשרות של ההתנתקות לצאת לפועל,  ובכך יצירו אפשרות "ניתוק" בין ארץ ישראל ועם ישראל - כעת אמרו לבגוד בתורת ישראל, ולעודד "ניתוק" בין העם לתורת ישראל.

להיות ברור, אני לא אוהד של השקפת עולמו של הציבור הליטאי החרדי.  אני לא חסיד של מבט עולם של ה"ישיביש," מבט עול הנוכחי שלו שמתעלם ממה כתוב בתורה והכתובה שלהם ושולח נשיהם לבעלות אחרת חוץ הבית כש אנשיהם יכול להחביא עצמם בתוך הישיבות בלי ללמוד ממש.  וקשה לי להאמין שהגאולה שלימה תתממש דרכם.  באמת נראה לי שהם עושים ממאמץ טוב ביותר, במודע או שלא, כדי לעכב את גאולה כמה שאפשר.

עם זאת, בית יהודי לא בצד נכון במלחמה המערבולת הפוליטית הנוכחית.  בואו להיות ישר ולדבר דוגרי לרגע.  הוויכוח הוא לא על הסחת הדעת של "ניטל שווה", אלא על אך להופך ולהכניע התורה למדינה.

הטעונות, על ממון, שווה בנטל וכדומה, כולם כל לסיח הדעת, תחבולות לכסות הטענה המרכזית לכפות סקטור מסוים (שמפחיד פחד מוות את כל המגזרים האחרים), לקבל את הערכים ואת אורח החיים של הסקטורים האחרים.  בקיצור אנחנו בהמשך של התהליך הניסיון להפוך היהודי לישראלי החדש.

והוא קרב שמפד"ל כבר וותר עליו, בכניעת התורה לעליונות של המדינה, במיוחד במונחים של ארץ ישראל, אבל גם כמו כן בנושאים רבים אחרים,  כגון לכפות על בחורים להקשיב לקול אישה ל"טובת המדינה."

וכמו רוב אנשים נכנעים הם רוצים שאחרים ייכנעו גם.  לכן, הם רוצים לכפות על החרדים לקבל תפישת העולם שהמדינה מעל הכול, כולל התורה.  למטרה הזאת, מפד"ל משתמש בנושא של שירות צה"ל (שאפילו בנט בעצמו אמר שהצבא גדולה מדי להיות יעילה) לכפות עליהם להיות כמו הם, לקבל ערכים שלהם.  וגרוע מכך, למטרה שאת בנט הכניס מפד"ל לברית עם דמות, באהבה מוצהרת, מכחיש את עצם העקרונות וערכים המצהרים של מפד"ל.  לפיד הצהיר באופן ברור שמטרתו היא לא לשבור את "המונופול החרדי על תורה, אלא להחסיר את ההגמוניה של שומרי תורה בכלל בארץ (לפיד אמר מפורש הוא רוצה לתת כוח ללא אורתודוקסים בארץ).  ולאחר שנכנע העקרונות שלו לשם האינטרסים המיידי שלו (בדיוק כפי שהם עשו כך בהתנתקות), לא יהיה למפד"ל כוח לעצור אותו.  

I've been following the coalition negotiations in Israel with the same fascination one watches a car crash:  It's too horrible to watch, but you can't take your eyes off it.

I'm one of those people living in Yehudah and Shomron (Judea and Samaria – the Territories) who didn't vote for Bayit Yehudi (Jewish Home). 

I almost did support them - almost.  In the time leading up to the election, there were things that Bennett said, ideas offered, and plans made that made me think that maybe this time, maybe Mafdal (the old NRP) has really been reformed.  For a moment I had hope.  Granted it was the hope of a man who had already caught his wife too many time in compromising situations, but it was still hope. 

Then something happened that shook my hope.  I'll be honest, I can't articulate what those things were, but they pushed me back into a wait and see attitude.  Suspicion crowded out my hope, and, in the end I didn't vote for them.  I thought, even hoped that I was wrong.

But now, I have to admit, I do not regret my decision at all.  The writing is on the wall.  The old "Mafdal" (NRP) still lives.  The party that betrayed the Land of Israel – they are bear ultimate responsibility for allowing the Disengagement to take place, and thus allowed for a creation of  "disconnect" between the Land of Israel and the People of Israel – will now betray the Torah of Israel, and encourage a "disconnect" between the nation the Torah.

To be clear, I am not a fan of the worldview of the Lithuanian "Haredi" community.  I am not a proponent of the current Yeshiva world mentality, and I find it difficult to think that the final redemption will be realized through their agency.   In fact, I suspect that they are doing their best, consciously or not, to delay the final redemption as long as possible. 

That said, Bayit Yehudi is on the wrong side of the battle in the current political maelstrom.  For, let's be honest, the debate isn't about the red herring of "equal burden," but rather about making the Torah subservient to the state. 

The arguments, about funding, equal burden etc. are ALL red herrings, a thinly veiled ruse for the central argument of trying to force a certain sector that's scaring the pants off all the other sectors, to accept the VALUES and lifestyle of those other sectors. It's a continuation of trying to "Israelize" the Jew.

This is a battle that Mafdal/NRP had already conceded, at least in terms of the Land of Israel, as well as many other issues such as the forcing of young man to listen to a woman sing. 

And, now, they want force the Haredim to also accept such a worldview, and it is using the issue of army service (of which Bennett himself has already said is too big to be effective) to coerce them to accept it.   Worse, Bennett has brought the Mafdal/NRP into an alliance with a figure who, though in professed love not hate, denies the very principles and values for which it supposedly stands.  Lapid has clearly stated he doesn't just want to break the Haredi "monopoly" on Torah, but the Orthodox hegemony one as well.  And having surrendered their ideals to expediency (just as they were with the Disengagement), Mafdal/NRP will be powerless to stop him.

Excerpts from "The First Tithe"  Israel Eldad

"Thirteen years have passed since the appearance of the first edition of the First Tithe.  The name and content of that book imply a second tithe; but there is none, not yet, at least not in any coherent way.  Most of my spiritual energy has been invested in twelve volumes of Sulam L'Malkhuth Yisrael (The Ladder towards a Sovereign Israel); which was established together with my friends, carriers of the soul of Lehi, carriers of the idea of complete Israeli liberation, of buttressing the concept of Jerusalem in the face of opposing concepts, in the face of empty concepts.

Unlike the years of the first tithe, these years have been without actual combat and without an official organization.  And while this is not a positive development, still, we do not wish to be numbered among those who believe that what we do is important rather than what we say.   We are descendants of a people who have at the beginning of their Bible and in the depths of their soul the declaration," And God said, let there be light and there was light," and we believe man was created in the image of God and we believe – we know – from the experience of man and Israel and this generation, the great strength of words spoken truthfully and their power to induce deeds; for only light itself was created by God out of nothing, while since then man carries the light and flame, the light of clear thought that clarifies; and the flame of a burning soul that ignites, the eternal flame.  The flame of necessity of bodies who want redemption will come even if it is delayed, even if it has fallen with us into the coastal plain and the valley.

On this side of the mountains, of the Mountain, in the middle of the journey, it has fallen into the material.  It may have fallen because of shortness of breath, or damned up soul, or weariness, or bounty - the body's satisfaction with its bounty, or the soul's satisfaction with what has been achieved so far – or perhaps because of the natural limitations of the achiever.  It has fallen under various and sundry kinds of inaction and non-fulfillment, of dropping of the initiative, and even of an honestly felt and easily adopted attitude towards the State of Israel.

This state is an achievement only if it is viewed as a stage, meaning as a bridgehead toward Malkhuth Yisrael, the Sovereign Kingdom of Israel, with all this entails in terms of strengthening its political position, especially in light of the hatred surrounding it and the dark treason and plotting within, even among former Fighters for the Freedom of Israel, and with all this implies for the importance of maintaining the spiritual tension that desires the great things which are to come, things necessary and beautiful, which means raising high the idea of Malkhuth.

We have come to the threshold of this Malkhuth for which we are destined.  That this is true can be seen in everything that surrounds us, from the confusion and continued desert and ruins in the geopolitical region waiting for Hebrew mastery, to our continuing social and spiritual oppression and servitude to both external and internal slavery – including the spiritual confusion within Israel on questions of Judah vs. Israel, Judaism vs. Israeli-ness, all of which are a sign that the process has come to a halt at its very beginning, a sign that the revolution is in its twilight and awaits renewal.  The Almighty is signaling – with lights and with shadows, with all the colors and in all the directions of the historical and political and ideal traffic lights – what must come next in the process of redemption, and without which what has already been attained will not last, and will become a modern version of Betar instead of a modern version of Modi'in.  And the fault lies not in the length of our arms, nor any inability, but in the fat that surrounds our heart and the fog in our brain. 

For today, our arms are not short, and great is the physical power in the hands of the Jewish people in Israel and in the Exile.  This was not the case in those days that are the subject of this book.  This is not the case of the Jewish people who were for the most part in cages and crematoria, slaughtered and shocked and shoveled  and burned, and only a few took their expansive souls in their little hands and set out to act, to begin the redeeming act.  And though the deed was great and holy, this book will tell of the constant gap between the idea and the song of the great Kingdom with their powerful desires and readiness, and the arms' inability to carry through, such that breath came up short and the soul turned asthmatic and the cannon, when it was forged, was given to those of little faith.

And so we have come this far, to the physical power of two million in this little parcel of land, who are equal in ability and science and organization to all the surrounding states, whoa are equal in meaning and purpose to ten million Jews in Exile.  In the land, we have the tremendous potential to manage our national and physical and spiritual powers in a wide expanse, yet we also see so many brains and hearts reduced to a lack of vision, or even an openly professed and exhibited anti-Vision of the type now expressed in what is called literature and art; a culture of content of which is abandon and which, in boredom and plenitude, mimics the wild and disturbed West which is actualizing the anthem of the East:  No god, no king, no heroes.

Therefore let this second edition of The First Tithe come not only to meet the need of a first edition that long ago sold out, but also to fill the need to return to the great days of desire and action and action –which-flows-from-desire.

The Lehi movement published more material than other movements in the 1940s, and its publications have even been collected in two large volumes.  This book does not purport to be the history of Lehi.  It is a personal memoir.  And if a baker may praise his own wares, let it be said that it speaks well of a book of this sort that after thirteen years, its author has nothing to change in its text,  excepting minor consequential corrections.  And though the words originally came close upon the organizational demise of Lehi, and though they came from the heart, a heat which is often burning and shaken, the author can sign off today on all the judgments and evaluations inside, which he judged the events, the movements and the people then and which – not this or that detail – are the stuff of this book.

From the perspective of thirteen years, from the permanency now attached to and the calm, for better or worse, attained regarding the past events, nothing stands out that obligates the author to say:  I erred in assessing it.  And the author is only able to take this view because he looks out from the Sulam, the Ladder.  As he is neither prophet nor son of a prophet, and is able to ascertain the end of things from the beginning, still he is able to see the beginning and what followed upon that beginning, the beginning of the ladder, the ladder towards which events moved, on which they climbed, even if they did not mount it; but all their value, and the means of judging them, is on this ladder, at the top of this ladder.  From this ladder the relative importance of what happened – and what may yet happen is judged, and this is done so that it may happen again on the coming rungs, and this is my wish for those who continue to climb the ladder."

-         Israel Eldad, 5723 (1963), Introduction to the Second Edition, The First Tithe.