Rosh Hashana: Shana Tova (Good New Year)

In order for there to be a Shana Tova (a good new year), we first have to understand what is “good” and what is “evil”. After all, it is difficult to conceive how someone who thinks that good is evil and vice versa can really have a “good” year. As the prophet Isaiah admonished his generation: “Woe to those who call evil, good and good, evil; darkness light and light darkness.” Indeed, the basic problem during these times is the obscuring and confusing of the concepts of “good” and “evil”. Is “good” the mimicking of Western culture? Or perhaps “good” is the separation from foreign and non-Jewish ways. Is “good” the subduing of the haters of Israel, or is it giving in to them? Is “good” the protecting of the honor and modesty of women, or is it promiscuousness and immodesty in the name of “equality” and “women’s liberation”?

G-d desires with all His Might to bestow upon us true good. Therefore, the Sefer HaChinuch explains, “He paved for us the way of good and commanded us to follow it.” In this way, we would merit receiving an abundance of true
good. Indeed, the blessing of a “Good Year” is not some empty greeting to be uttered each year, but rather it is a task incumbent upon us, and well within our grasp. Shana Tova!

New Years Resolution #1: Overhaul In The Education System

Last week’s strike by the Israeli education department was quite difficult for the parents. But any parent will admit that what made things difficult was the fact that the “baby-sitters” were on strike. After all, not too many parents out there expect that the Israeli educational system will really educate their child. Indeed, it isn’t quite clear in which situation the children come out less damaged – with a strike or without one. This educational system, which never instilled Jewish values, has not succeeded in instilling basic human and social values either. Only the most degenerate and materialistic values have been instilled into the students of the Israeli education system, and as a result the schools are plagued by drugs and violence. The system is indeed in need of an overhaul.

New Year’s Resolution #2: Overhaul In The Justice System

The Supreme Court of Israel is in the process of accepting the decision to extradite a Jew who has been accused of murder. One of the great merits of Menachem Begin was the bill he drew up which forbid the handing over of an
Israeli citizen to the goyim. Begin understood that the basic obligation of the Jewish state must be the caring for even the lowest of Jews, and that he be tried and judged in Israel, and not handed over to the goyim, G-d forbid.
And now the judiciary system in Israel is determined to pervert the intention of this law, and to eradicate it. The court system continues its all-out-war against the Jewish character of the Jewish state. This de-Judaization process is now under the supervision of skullcap wearing Elyakim Rubenstein, who must prove he is holier than the pope

Mishpatim: They Shall Not Dwell in Your Land

Several months ago a group of 120 Rabbis from the “religious-Zionist” camp issued a statement regarding the prohibition of handing over parts of Eretz Yisrael to gentiles. The five part statement began as follows: “Eretz Yisrael in its entirety belongs to the Jewish nation, and we are commanded by the Torah to inherit it and to dwell in it, and not to leave it in the hands of any other nation. It is forbidden to allow the gentiles to have a foothold in Israel, as it is written,’do not allow them a foothold’, and it is also written, ‘they shall not dwell in your land’. Therefore it is forbidden to withdraw from any part of Eretz Yisrael, thereby leaving it, G-d forbid, in the hands of gentiles”.

Seemingly, there is nothing new here. Ever since the withdrawal process from Eretz Yisrael got underway under Menachem Begin, we have heard from many sources, including the chief rabbinate, about the Torah prohibition forbidding the handing over of parts of Eretz Yisrael to gentiles. But in this latest statement, there is an addition which caught our eye, and that is the inclusion of the verse from our parsha, “they shall not dwell in your land”.

The Obligation To Expel the Goyim
Up until now, it was customary for such pronouncements to only mention the verse, “do not allow them a foothold”. From here the sages learn that “it is forbidden to give them (the gentiles) a foothold in the land” (Trachtate Yibamot), and this is brought down as the halacha. But they would never mention the verse, “they shall not dwell in your land”, which is a clear prohibition against allowing gentiles to live in Eretz Yisrael while under Jewish sovereignty. Indeed we find that when the Rambam brings the halacha forbidding gentiles to live in Eretz Yisrael, he sites this verse as the source of the prohibition. Here are his words from chapter ten of Hilchot Avodah Zarah (halacha 6) “But at a time when Israel has power over them (the gentiles), it is forbidden to allow them to live amongst us. Even as temporary residents… as it is written ‘they shall not dwell in your land’ – even temporarily. And if they accept the seven mitzvot of Bnei Noach, then they have the status of a resident stranger. And we only accept resident strangers when the Jubilee is in effect”.

Why did the religious national camp refrain from quoting the verse “they shall not dwell in your land” when justifying our hold onto the land? The answer is obvious. During the holy struggle by the rabbis to prevent withdrawals from Eretz Yisrael, they uncannily omitted the requirement of driving out the gentiles. This requirement is the flip side to the mitzvah of “yishuv HaEretz”, inseparable from and essential to the mitzvah of Eretz Yisrael. There can be no inheritance of the land without a disinheritance of it’s inhabitants. In order to avoid this issue, they were reluctant to bring the verse, “they shall not dwell in your land”. [At this point we should mention that the verse, “do not allow them a foothold”, also refers to the prohibition against allowing gentiles to remain in those parts of the land which we control, and not just to the buying, renting, or handing over of land, which is certainly forbidden as well. In any event, the rabbis preferred bringing the verse “do not allow them a foothold” since it usually connotes the more limited prohibition of handing over Jewish land to gentile sovereignty, and thus avoids the bigger issue of removing the
Arab trespasser].

Making the “Psak Halacha” Complete
The inclusion of the verse “they shall not dwell in your land” in this latest pronouncement is certainly a positive development. The problem is that after quoting this verse, and the verse, “do not allow them a foothold,” we are told in the very same breath that the conclusion of all this is that “it is forbidden to withdraw from any part of Eretz Yisrael and leave it G-d forbid, in the hands of gentiles”. That is the only conclusion?? Can we not deduct something more from these two verses? If they are going to take the time to finally quote “do not allow them to dwell in your land”, should they not take the next step in pronouncing “that we must drive the gentiles out of all parts of the land which are under our control, and no longer allow them to live in our land”, (and then afterwards they can add) “and all the more so it is forbidden by the Torah to hand over parts of the land to the gentile”!?

Either Us or Them
By now it is crystal clear to everyone that the tragic withdrawal process we find ourselves mired in is derived from the fact that we failed to drive out the gentile inhabitants after conquering the land. It is only the presence of huge and hostile Arab population centers which brings us to the decision that “there is no choice” other than handing over land to them. If we would have fulfilled the verse “do not allow them to dwell in your land”, then we would have been spared the transgression of the prohibition, “do not allow them a foothold”. These commandments are intrinsically dependent on one another.

On the verse, “do not allow them to dwell in your land”, the Sforno comments: “On those parts of the land which you conquer and dwell in – they shall not dwell. This was not done in the time of Joshua. As it is written, ‘the Canaanites lived amongst them at Gezer’ (Judges chapter 2)…” In other words, our generation made the same tragic mistake as did the generation of Joshua. Yes, they captured the land. But by not driving out the inhabitants, they failed to actualize their conquest and sovereignty, which in effect, rendered their conquest insubstantial. (see Judges, chapter 2) “The deeds of the fathers are a sign for the sons”.

Rabeinu BeChayei, in his book Kad HaKemach writes: “It is forbidden to appear before a gentile court of law, but only before Jewish ones, as the Torah says ‘these are the ordinances which you shall set before them’ “, and Rashi comments: ‘before them, but not before the heathens’. And the sages teach us that it is forbidden to be judged before a gentile court, even if you know that regarding a certain law, they will decide it like the laws of Israel. And so, one can only go to a court of God-fearing Torah scholars, as it says “before them”… The major substance of the Torah are its laws, and if we do not use them, this is a Chillul Hashem, and he who does not protest against this desecrates the Name of God, and disgraces the Torah of Moshe, and gives a hand to idol-worship….

And so it is no coincidence, that the Israeli judiciary stands at the front-line of the Hellenist camp in this cultural war we find ourselves in the midst of. The recent decisions by the Israeli Supreme Court to coerce the chief rabbinate to defy the Jewish halacha regrading the laws of marriage, kashurt, and “who is a Jew” is a part of their overall goal to cut down their natural foe – the rabbincal courts. It is to show them again and again, who the “boss” is, what are the values upon which the state of Israel postulates – democratic values or Jewish ones


The countdown is well underway here and the constant thought of all those gathered in this beautiful town on the shores of the Mediterranean is: When are they coming? The thought is a grotesque one. “They” are the ones that the children have come to fear. “They” are the ones that hundreds of Jews have come to look upon as the threat. “They” are the Jewish soldiers of the army of Israel. It is the Kfkaesque tragedy.

… The truth is that I am appalled at the lack of organization and policy here. The settlers simply do not what to do. There is no definite line. When the soldiers come, what should the reaction be? Should people simply leave? Should they sit down and be dragged out? Should they fight? There are no directions from the leaders because they themselves are not sure.

The bomb shelters, which, if stored with food, water, light and other supplies would be ideal fortresses that would take the army days to break into and pull out the settlers, are all locked. [ed: Rabbi Kahane and his followers eventually took over one of these bomb shelters, calling it “Bunker Kiddush Hashem”. This stronghold turned out to be the only serious resistance against the dismantlement of Yamit) The settlers spend their time going to meeting after meeting, all of which end with ringing declarations that mean little, and a decision to meet again.

Sholom Oren meets me. He is the reporter for Israel Radio. What do I think of the situation? I tell him. What do I intend to do about it? I am forming a second command post which will advocate using counter force against any effort to drag Jews away by force. I make it clear that I am opposed to any force if the army does not use it but that the halacha is clear: “If the King comes to violate a law of the Torah, we do not listen to him.” That night, the interview is broadcast on state radio. A debate develops in Yamit.. I explain the halacha and add: “I respect anyone who refuses to lift a hand against the army. But let that person know that he will not stop the retreat. The army uses force and a Jew does not depend on miracles. Faith yes, but along with it, the self-sacrifice needed..

A number of rabbis, notably those from Merkaz HaRav, as well as Hanan Porat, are alarmed. They sense that many of the settlers are frustrated and want concrete answers. Some of the rabbis, including Rabbis Nerya and Aviner forbid any violence. Rabbi Nerya, head of yeshivot Bnei Akiva, is quoted in the papers as having told two of his students, now soldiers, that if the army orders them to drag away settlers, they must obey. I am appalled. The halacha is clearly the opposite.

..Unfortunately, the leaders of the Stop the Retreat Movement (ed: a conglomerate of Gush Emunim and nationalist Techiya party ) had no coherent plan to seriously deal with the naked fact of Israeli army force. The elementary question of how to deal with the arrival of the army was simply ignored. Does one resist or simply give in to the soldiers with guns, the gas, and the strength? If one resists, the questions remains how?.. If there are no plans to physically fight the soldiers, then the retreat is assured because Begin and Sharon will have no fears or hesitations about moving against people they know are not “dangerous”..

When I arrived and told the news media that the answer was either determined resistance or guaranteed retreat, many Jews were angered, but many others frustrated and hapless agreed. Above all, for the first time, a red light flashed in the government’s mind.

For months, Begin..has lived in fear of a serious clash in Yamit between Jews.. He has no fear of Tchiya, a Geula Cohen or Hanan Porat. They are “moderates” who will be forcably moved out with relatively little trouble. It was the sudden arrival of Kach with its image of “extremism” that caused the pulse rate of the PM’s office to quicken. The point is so clear and logical, that one almost wants to weep in frustration: The way – the only way to stop the Begin-Sharon steamroller is to have them believe that they are dealing with “fanatics” and “extremists” who may do anything…

Is the Temple Mount in Our Hands?

   It was the unforgettable, majestic, glorious day in June, 1967, as Jewish soldiers crashed through the walls of Jerusalem’s old city. Redeeming, reclaiming, liberating the ancient streets and alleyways; racing towards the Wall, scaling it and then – the electrifying words of the Commander, Motta Gur: “The Temple is in our hands! The Temple Mount is in our hands!”

    There was not a Jewish heart that did not pound with a sense of Divine, historic moment. There was not a Jewish spine, so straight and proud after two millenia of being supine, that did not shiver in a sense of awe. There was not a Jew, though the most extreme of scoffers, who, at that moment, did not see G-d!

    “The Temple Mount is in our hands!” Jerusalem of Gold, of holiness, of David; Zion, out of which the L-rd roared and uttered his voice. The Temple Mount, from which the trumpet the Holy One, Blessed Be He, blasted. “When our fee within thy gates, O Jerusalem” – we wept with tears of disbelief. For the Temple Mount was in our hands. . . “As the mountains are round about Jerusalem, so the L-rd is round about people” – and we knew it to be true. For the Temple Mount in our hands. “Ye that stand in the courts of the House of G-d, praise the L-rd!” And we believed. For the Temple Mount in our hands!

    Let me quote from a letter that appeared in the March 1979, issue of Maariv, Israel’s largest newspaper. It was written by a rabbinical student at Yeshivat Merkaz Harav and is obligatory reading for all those who, for Zion’s sake, will not be silent: “It was the Shabbat, when many Jews come to visit the Old City of Jerusalem. . . . Suddenly, after leaving one of the gates near the Temple Mount, the rioting began. Tens of Arabs, throwing stones and carrying knives and broken bottles, came at us. A storekeeper leaped upon me and I joined the others fleeing, as my hand bled profusely, eyeglasses left behind.

    “How could it happen in the State of Israel today? Arab police are responsible for the safety of the East Jerusalem region. ‘Autonomy’ already exists when Arab police see Arabs throwing stones and nothing is done to arrest them. One who was arrested was a yeshiva student who kept calm and tried to help others. Before my very eyes, the police leaped upon him like wild beasts. This can serve to show us what we can expect in the future under `autonomy’… ”

    Jerusalem. Where in 1967, electric shocks of ecstasy, a national thrill of incredulity, swept the Jewish people throughout the world, as Israeli Jewish troops smashed into the Old City, sweeping terrified Arabs before them as chaff in the wind. Jerusalem, City of David, Jerusalem of the Temple Mount and Western Wall and Holy of Holies and Zion, was, once again, in Jewish hands – all of it, Jewish. By the tens of thousands Jews streamed through the alleyways of the Old City where just a few days before the Arabs had ruled and no Jew dared step. Now, the Arab – awed, shattered – groveled before the Jew whom he saw as being blessed by G-d and His miracles. Fear gripped the Arab in Jerusalem just as pride and confidence and certainty was the Jewish cloak in the wake of the awesome war of Six Days.

    Jerusalem. Where, by 1986, less than 20 years later, Jews fear to go to the Wall by way of the Demascus Gate as Jews are stabbed and shot in the same marketplace and streets where a short time earlier they walked as Jewish giants on the earth. As night falls, only a handful of foolhardy Jews risk walking through what the Israelis allow to be called, still, the Moslem Quarter. No Harlem ever held greater fears for the Jew than parts of his own capital city. Nothing more underlines the obscenity of Jewish fears in their own capital than the picture report that appeared in the Jerusalem weekly, Kal Ha’Ir (August 4, 1984).

    Three pictures; all taken in the Old City of Jerusalem. The first shows a hassidic Jew, surrounded by Arab youngsters, two of whom have snatched his hat from his head. The photo shows a policeman standing calmly by with obviously no intentions of intervening. He is, like the vast majority of police in the Old City, an Arab.

    The second picture shows the Jew, watching helplessly as the Arabs taunt him. The Arab policeman has, by now, disappeared.

    The third shows a large rock being thrown by an Arab youth at the Jew. It hit him in the head. Another day of Jewish pride in Jerusalem, Zion. The tragedy of Jewish glory turned into humiliation and fear by a Jewish policy that defies any normal logic and understanding.

    Jerusalem, where the Jewish students on Mount Zion sign a petition of desperation, detailing not only sexual and criminal assaults on them by Arabs, but the cynical indifference and lack of any law enforcement by the local police – Arabs.

    “We, the undersigned to this petition, are demanding security , for our lives and property. For the past ten years there have been ‘, thousands of incidents such as those outlined in this petition: Stabbings, rapes, attempted rapes, molestings, obscenities through indecent exposure, burglaries, vandalism. . . .” And the police do nothing. And Jerusalem becomes Arab autonomy. The tragedy of a Jewish policy that defies any normal logic and understanding.

    A, Jewish policy? Say, rather a policy of Jews that was conceived in un-Jewishness and born in gentilized fear and timidity, a policy whose apex of humiliation is the desecration of Judaism’s holiest site – The Temple Mount. The very moment of glorious Jewish victory in 1967 was the beginning of a flight to shame.

    It began immediately after the greatest Jewish victory and miracle in 2500 years. The terrified and cowering Arabs of East Jerusalem were approached by the Defense Minister Moshe Dayan. Not enough that the Israeli government of 1967 committed the worst of mistakes by not driving out the Arabs who hated Israel and had tried to wipe her out. Not enough that in their fear of “world opinion,” of what the Vatican and Islam might say, orders were given by the Israeli army to the liberators of the Old City not to use artillery to shell Arab positions lest they damage a single holy Moslem and Christian place (and how many Jewish soldiers died because of that policy!). The fearful and timid leaders of Israel immediately approached the heads of the Moslem community to assure them that the Temple Mount – the holiest of holiest of Jewish places – would remain in their hands. Jews were forbidden to enter there to pray, on their holiest site, a site stolen from them by invading Moslems who desecrated Judaism by building two mosques there. (And can one imagine the reaction of Moslems if Jews, conquering Mecca, built, on the holiest site of Islam – a synagogue?)

    When in 1967, on the Fast of Tisha B’Av, the national day of mourning for the Jews, the anniversary of the destruction of both Temples, Army Chief Rabbi Shlomo Goren and 50 Jews went to pray on the Temple Mount. Defense Minister Moshe Dayan ordered the commander of the Central Command to prevent any further action that might incite the Moslems: “Honored Rabbi,” said the general, “if you will go up to the Mount again, I will be compelled to remove you by force.” The following day the Ministerial Committee in charge of the holy places met and unanimously forbade Jewish prayer that had been set for the following Shabbat. That was the beginning of a humiliating Jewish policy that stunned no one more than the Moslems who could not believe the manifestation of Jewish madness they had just seen.

    From that day, the government of Israel, in a remarkable exhibition of masochism, has paved the way for a total change in Moslem attitude. From a frightened, cowering population, they turned into a confident, arrogant, dangerous one. From people who feared the Jewish conqueror, they became throwers of stones, knife stabbers, and grenade and bomb throwers. Most of all, the Temple Mount became once again theirs, this time returned to them by two-legged lemmings of the Mosaic persuasion – and they grow ever more passionately convinced that time is on their side.

    The government, police, courts have all had a hand in the shameful, tragic Jewish descent into humiliation. Already on April 15,1969, responding to an order nisi against Police Minister Shlomo Hillel (who later went on to become Knesset Speaker), the State Attorney explained that Jews should not be allowed to pray on the Temple Mount because “premature prayer” (sic) there would raise grave security and international political problems. The years that followed saw police again and again forceably remove Jews attempting to pray on their holy site. Moslems watched in growing amazement, and growing arrogance and boldness, as the Jew who wished to enter as a tourist with camera and jeans was freely allowed access but the same son of Abraham entering with prayer shawl and prayer book was banned!

    (In the years when American synagogues sold tickets for pews at High Holiday services, a rueful joke told of the Jew rushing up to the door without a ticket and telling the guard that he only wished to tell something to someone inside. Said the guard: “Fine, but if I catch you praying, I’ll throw you out.” The joke is alive and well today on the Temple Mount.)

    Then, in 1976, a lower Jerusalem court, through Judge Ruth Or, ruled that Jews have a right to pray on the Temple Mount, but Police Chief Hillel blithely announced that he would continue to bar Jews. (This contempt for law is apparently endemic with Hillel as, nearly ten years later, in his capacity as Speaker of the Knesset, he announced that he would refuse to table certain bills by Knesset Member Meir Kahane, despite a High Court order to do so.)

    The government hastily appealed the lower court order and on July 1, 1976, the Jerusalem District Court overruled Judge Or in a fascinating display of ghettoism. The court ruled that Jews who ‘ attempted to pray “demonstratively” (sic) on the Temple Mount were guilty of behavior “likely to cause a breach of the peace.” Jews had an unquestionable right to pray on the Temple Mount, but public order, ruled the court, overrules that right of prayer.

    The decision was mindboggling, the product of thinking most Jews assumed had disappeared with the Warsaw Ghetto revolt. To state that Jews had a right to pray on their holiest site and then to declare that this should be prevented because of fear of Arab rioting, was a paean to the shtetl of Minsk, Pinsk or Casablanca. But not even this was enough for the Israeli government, which wished to remove the decision that Jews have a theoretical “right” to pray on the Temple Mount and an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court. Meantime, Interior Minister Dr. Joseph Burg (himself a leader of the National Religious Party) declared that “the law will be kept.” (Translation: Jews will not be allowed to pray on their holiest site.)

    The astonished Arabs saw that the Jews, far from meting out to them the punishment they deserved and that they had given to the Jews when they ruled the Old City, were allowing them to retain all the power and authority that they would use later to demand total autonomy and independence. The Temple Mount served as the most glaring example of the fact that, despite Jewish protestations to the contrary, the land taken in 1967 was not liberated but “conquered.” The Jews had come not as returnees to their own borders, but as an occupation army. One who loses his property and then unexpectedly finds it does not allow it to remain in the possession of another. He leaps upon it joyfully and cries out: “It is mine!”

    The Arabs correctly understood Jewish “concessions” to be the product, not of goodness and grace, but of timidity and fear. And so, from a cowering Arab, the Jews produced a sneering, openly hating, stick bearing, stone throwing, grenade tossing thing – a time bomb waiting to explode.

    The newspapers described some of the events. In 1979, as a number of yeshiva students came up to the gate of the Temple Mount to pray (in front of and not on the Mount itself), they were showered with rocks. Soldiers hid behind cars because they had orders not to shoot, lest The New York Times and Time magazine feature them on their front pages. The head of the Central Command, General Moshe Levi, watched the mob. Levi, a member of the leftist Hashomer Hatzair kibbutz, was later to become Chief of Staff and won undying something-or-other with his statement during a speech in Tel Aviv (May 25, 1986): “To say that the Arabs are the enemy is simplistic and dangerous. For me the Arabs are not the enemy.” When the Jew excels, he outdoes all others-especially in madness.

    I return to the newspaper account of the Arab riot in 1979:
“‘Only in this state could such a picture emerge,”’ a police officer said angrily, yesterday, at the sight of the commander of the Central Command, Moshe Levi, and the head of the police central region, who entered the Temple Mount to meet face-to-face with angry Arab youths.
“The general walked over and asked them why they were holding sticks in their hands[!]. But during the entire conversation not one of them backed down and not one dropped his stick. ‘This is the real autonomy,’ muttered the same officer.”

    Meanwhile, in 1980, the Knesset passed a new Jerusalem Law which declared in paragraph (3):

    “The holy places shall be protected from any desecration or attack on anything likely to damage the rights of all members of religions to access to the hply places or their feelings concerning them.”

    This paragraph which clearly – to all but those who would refuse to see – outlined the absolute right of Jews to access to their holy places, now seemed to guarantee that the High Supreme Court of Israel would order the government to allow Jews, on their holiest site, the same right of prayer that they allowed Moslems who had stolen the site. But no, the ghetto-shtetl syndrome remained part of the Israeli genetic code, proving once again that it is far easier to remove the Jew from the Exile than the Exile from within the Jew. On October 30, 1981, the High Court of Israel ruled on the issue. The following is the UPI wire service report:

    “Jerusalem (UPI)–The Supreme Court today upheld the right of Israeli police to keep Jewish worshippers from praying on the Temple Mount because it creates a threat to public order, Israel radio said.”

    A threat to public order. The Arabs might riot. Ah, if Meir Kahane were Prime Minister and the Arabs knew that the police had orders and full backing to use as much force as they desired to keep “public order” -is there one normal person who believes that there would be an Arab threat to public order?

    Since then, the Arabs have systematically destroyed every vestige of Jewish presence on the Temple Mount, destroying valuable archeological evidence. A memorial to the Arabs killed at Sabra and Shatila is even placed on the Jewish holy site. The Temple Mount is on our hands!…

    The lemmingism of the Israeli government is incredible! Who can count the ways? In February, 1985, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Sheikh Sa’ad a-din Alamei, told the French news Agency:
“Any Moslem who will give up one inch of Palestinian land will lose without benefit of appeal, every attachment to Islam.”

    The Mufti, by declaring a ban on any Moslem who sold land or houses to Jews, was clearly guilty of sedition against the Jewish state. On February 26, 1985, I wrote to the Chief of Police asking that criminal proceedings be opened against the Mufti and personally filed a criminal charge with the police commander of Jerusalem’s Old City. In my complaint I noted that if a Jew were to hand out flyers called on Jews not to buy from the Arabs of the Old City because they were enemies of Israel and pro-PLO, he would be arrested for sedition (indeed, a few months later, that is precisely what happened). On March 13, 1985, the office of the Chief of Police sent me the following reply:

    “Your complaint has been investigated and it is clear that the material of the investigation does not indicate a criminal offense. Because of this, the police will not investigate the complaint.”

    The successor to the other Mufti who in the twenties and thirties led pogroms against the Jews of the Holy Land and who in 1942 met with Hitler to discuss the “final solution” for the Jews there, should have been given a Nobel Prize for extraordinary ability to keep from bursting into hysterical laughter. And, indeed, the Moslem religious leader has good reason to believe that Jews are mentally limited.

    When the PLO conference was held in Amman, Jordan, in November 1984, one of the telegrams sent to Arafat was from the Jerusalem Mufti. It read: “From Al-Aksa mosque (on the Temple Mount) we emphasize our support of your Council and renew our oath of loyalty to the man of struggle Yasir Arafat. . . . Continue forward on your path, we are with you.”

    When the Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel in January, 1986, called for a synagogue in the southeast part of the Temple Mount, Mufti Alamei declared: “Over the bodies of a million Moslems.”

    The Israeli reaction? Timid and fearful silence, lest the Arabs, Moslems and world react. And so, a mentally unbalanced Jew, Alan Goodman, shoots and kills two Arabs on the Temple Mount declaring that he wishes to liberate the spot and “become king of the Jews.” Some thirteen years earlier, a Christian, Dennis Michael Rohan, set fire to the Al Aksa mosque. The Israeli court declared the Christian not criminally liable by reason of insanity. Yet Goodman, clearly unbalanced, received a life sentence plus two terms of 20 years. Once upon a time, in the Exile, the Jews would decide every major step by the proposition: What will the gentiles say? Then they created Israel, where Jews would be sovereign and free. . . . Laugh not, but rather weep for generations.

    Jerusalem. Where the Palestinian autonomy and eventual state is being built. Jerusalem, which mirrors so much of the other desecration that fills the land. The Temple Mount is not in our hands. East Jerusalem is not in our hands. Judea and Samaria and Gaza and the Golan are not in our hands. The Biblical Eretz Yisrael which we liberated through G-d’s decree in 1967, is not in our hands.

    “On Mount Zion which is desolate, there the foxes walk. . . (Lamentations 5).

    The Temple Mount is in their hands, the foxes, the cunning Arab foxes. And the words of Motta Gur ring hollowly – and it is we who are to blame. We, who took a miracle and disdained it. We, who took holiness and profaned it. We, who were given a Zion, a Jerusalem, a Temple Mount – and gave it over to the jackal-foxes.

    What we see today is a mini-renewal of Arab rioting, murder and pogrom of the twenties and thirties. Then, the Arab mobs surged into the streets shouting, “Addowlah ma’anah” (“The government is with us!”). They meant the British Mandatory occupation government. Today, the Arabs know that the Jewish “occupation” government, because of its fear of world opinion, has given strict orders to soldiers not to shoot. In that sense it has opened the door to Arab boldness and contempt and attacks on Jews. In that sense the Jewish government of occupation is also “with” them. The Arabs have smashed the dam of fear and it will spill over. If Jews are attacked on their way to the Wall, and if a Jew is seriously hurt, or, G-d forbid, murdered, and if the residents of the Jewish Quarter are in increasing danger-know that it is the Jews who are to blame.

    He who controls the Temple Mount will control Jerusalem. And he who controls Jerusalem will control the Holy Land. And the desecration of the Land and of G-d is inconceivable. One shakes his head in utter incomprehensibility when reading the words uttered by Menachem Begin in 1977:
“If I become the Prime Minister, I will open the Temple Mount to Jews. I will not fear the reactions of the Christians and Moslems. ”

    Begin became the Prime Minister. The Temple Mount is still in Arab hands.

An Oylem Goylem

What Alexander Hamilton said in his day (“the masses are asses”) was a mere echo of a famous Yiddish folk saying, “der oylem iz a goylem”. The golem, one recalls, is that brutish being incapable of independent thought, and keyed to the will of its master. Alas, the more things change, the less anything in the Jewish world does. The OYLEM, the Jewish audience, remains a GOYLEM…

I speak of the incredible willingness of the Jew to want to believe any lie, fraud and cynical manipulation – as long as that allows him to preserve his illusions of heroes. I speak of the almost absolute ability of politicians to do and say anything, in the knowledge that their idolatrous followers will see only divinity and truth in them – despite the fact that if the same act would be done to by a politician they despise, they would be crying for “the traitors scalp.” And I write this, as the cult of Ariel Sharon spreads among the masses that is a GOYLEM, the masses of asses.

There is an apparent need on the part of human beings, and certainly Jews, for a hero. There is a need for man to worship. Alas, G-d lacks charisma for the modern Jew, who seeks something more exciting. And in every decade there is someone else to worship, some other god with feet and mind and soul of clay. Now, it may be legitimate to raise high the banner of a leader, but only the GOYLEM refuses to see his feet of clay and his nakedness of principle.

In the past it was Moshe Dayan, he of the one eye and the lion heart of Judah. Jews of the Exile, humiliated for two millennia, ached for a hero and here was the Jewish Samson who smote the gentiles and gave every Jew in Levittown pride and self-respect. Little matter that Dayan was a man of tiny faith and immense fear of the gentiles, who along with Golda Meir (yet another Jewish winner) – refused to allow the Israeli Army to strike a preventive blow a day before they knew the Yom Kippur War was to begin, out of fear of the American reaction.

No less than 4,000 Jewish boys fell because of that criminal decision by Moshe the lion-hearted, who was quoted in the first week of that war that seemed to be a debacle, “we are seeing the destruction of the Third Temple”. And who recalled, or cared to, that it was Dayan, who, in the Six Day War, opposed reaching the Suez Canal and capturing the Golan Heights lest Israel get involved with the Soviets. (It was Divine Providence that saw the Israeli Army outrun Dayan’s pathetic orders). And who recalls, or cares to, that it was Dayan who refused to expel the Arabs in 1967, when the world stood awe-struck, lest as he put it, “the world think that there is another wave of Arab refugees.” Indeed, he ordered the army to return thousands of Arabs who had fled on their own, and the tragedy of today is in such large measure the doing of Moshe Dayan, hero of the Jewish people. And yet he continues, incredibly, to dwell in the private Pantheon of millions of Jews.

Indeed, an OYLEM GOYLEM.

And Golda, the architect of the murder of 4,000 Jewish soldiers because of fear of the world. The architect, too, of the saying that will surely enter the Hall of Fame of Insanity, as she declared: “I can forgive the Arabs for having killed our soldiers but I can never forgive them for making us kill theirs.” And yet, this person still remains in the eyes of millions “the only GEVER (man) in the Israeli cabinet…”

And Begin. What shall we say about a man who will go down in history as the saddest and weakest of all Prime Ministers, while, at the same time, continuing to reap the koodoos and hurrahs of millions who make up his OYLEM GOYLEM. Had Peres given up the Sinai, with its huge oil supplies and land area, knocked down Jewish settlements and dragged out Jews; had Peres stopped the Israeli Army in Lebanon from annihilating the PLO and its leadership and thus cause more than 650 Jewish soldiers to die for nothing; had Peres allowed his army officers to take the blame for Sabra and Shatilla – Begin and his groupies would have taken to the streets calling for the head of the “traitor”. But since it was Begin who did it, the GOYLEM accepts it as the decision “forced upon him”. What an OYLEM! What a GOYLEM!

Every decade, every year, the goylem finds himself another hero. Shamir. He is better than Peres. Why? Only G-d knows why a man who arrested and prosecuted the Jewish underground; who is Prime Minister of the “intifada”; whose plan for elections is a guarantee of a Palestinian State (It was Shamir who first raised the idea of holding elections in the territories as part of his government policy – and this was adopted eventually at the Oslo Accords – editors note); who lied on every issue (except money) to the religious parties; who speaks loudly and carries a small twig – is lionized by the OYLEM GOYLEM. And worst of all – is Sharon.


It was a Saturday night and Begin was on the verge of signing the infamous, insane Camp David Accords. The sticking point was Sadat’s absolute refusal to allow Jews to remain, hence the need to dismantle the settlements and remove the Jews. Begin feared one man. Sharon. He called him from the U.S. to ask if he would support the plan. What else was said we can only guess. But what is known is that Sharon agreed to support it, voted for the Camp David accords in the Knesset (Shamir did not) and then was appointed Minister of Defense.

And as Minister of Defense, it was Ariel Sharon, hawk, hero, salvation, who hovered over the area in his helicopter directing the knocking down of Jewish settlements (and creating a precedent for Judea and Samaria) and bodily dragging out Jews from their homes. If Peres had done that, what would the hawk have said? What would the hero have shouted? What would the salvation have exclaimed? Masses. Asses. OYLEM, GOYLEM.

I know of countless cabinet ministers in the world, and even some in Israel, who resigned over principle. If the handling of the “intifada” is so terrible (as Sharon then said as a minister in the Likud government, after being Minister of Defense -editors note), and it is, and if Israel is headed toward disaster (and it is!) , why does not Sharon resign? And what can one say about a man who in November 1987 and then again in December of that year and again after that, called for the drafting of Arabs into the army and who condemns Meir Kahane for his proposal to expel them instead?

Donkeys, asses, are programmed in their limitations. They cannot see; they cannot grasp reality. Human donkeys are different. They can – but they are worse than the four-legged brand because they refuse to see and admit truth and reality. The same Ariel Sharon is a man whose word is suspect (and I attempt to be kind). In an interview with the newspaper “Ma’ariv” on the eve of the 1973 elections, he told the paper that he supported equal rights for all wings of Judaism – Reform, Conservatism, as well as Orthodox, and was for public transportation on the Sabbath. Today he goes to the Lubavitcher Rebbe for his “blessings” in his battle against Shamir’s elections plan, and the OYLEM GOYLEM goes wild in ecstasy.

And all the rest. Tchiya and Geula Cohen (whose hatred for Kahane is more than pathological). She writes a letter to “Ha’Aretz ” in July, 1986 offering Israeli citizenship to any Arab of the territories who wishes it after annexation. And Prof. Yuval Neeman, indeed a good man and the finest of all of them, but who is interviewed by two French journalists who write: “He says that in no way is he a racist and claims that he would accept an Arab son-in law, provided of course he adhered to the values of the Jewish State…”

And Rabbi Levinger who is a good man, just as the Arab he thankfully shot was not, but like Gush Emunim which blasted any idea of expulsion of Arabs and instead raised high the lie of coexistence with them, (“lest they be branded “racists”) – is responsible in the end for the “intifada” and for the Arabs who stoned his car.(And as a result, he shot and killed one of them as mentioned above – editors note) The February 10, 1984 issue of the Jewish Press carries a long article on a Levinger trip to America. In it he says: “In Judea and Samaria, in general, there is no trouble. Arabs and Jews work together, travel together… It is not only good to live in a settlement near Arabs, it is good to live together…”)

I could go on and on. But hopefully the point is clear to that percentage of Jews that has risen above the OYLEM GOYLEM, who have achieved more than donkey status. Be honest. Be truthful. AND ABOVE ALL, CEASE BEING IDOL WORSHIPERS. A horror committed by Ariel Sharon is just as horrendous as one committed by Yossi Sarid. The Likud is not better than Labor and either in the end is Tchiya or Moledet whose leader, Rechavam Ze’evi called for an Arab Vice-Speaker of the Knesset and never tires of disclaiming any attempt to force Arabs out of the country (“I speak of voluntary transfer..)

TO GO AS ALLIES WITH THE BEST OF THE WORST – OF COURSE. But when the question is whom to support and join and believe in – the answer is only those whose record is that of consistency; who never changed and never wavered and never compromised. Anything less than that will never bring salvation. Ever.

No, It Is Not Peace

    “Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20). “Hear, ye deaf, and look, ye blind, that ye may see” (Isaiah 42:18).

    The Anatomy of a Peace Treaty – On the morning that the Knesset was to vote on the Egyptian-Israel “peace” treaty, it was discovered that the copies of the document that had been given to the members of Parliament were not those of the final, official version. The picture of the Knesset members about to vote without having seen an accurate, final version, is mirrored in the general, gleeful Jewish belief that peace is underway. It is a belief by Jews who TO THIS DAY have never read the text of either the treaty or the Camp David accords that gave birth to it. It is because of this that we so utterly fail to comprehend the dangerous reality of the Sinai withdrawal and the true implications of the autonomy plan of Mr. Begin. Worse, because of our ignorance of the agreements so solemnly signed by the Prime Minister of Israel, we fall prey to the illusions spread by official government sources, notably the Prime Minister himself, illusions based on the premise that we have taken a major step towards peace.

    When Mr. Begin says that there will never be a “Palestinian state,” a careful look at the agreements he signed reveals something not quite as certain. When he defines his autonomy as being a mere grant of “administrative” power to the Arabs, a cursory study of the accords shows this to be untrue and that persistence in this claim must lead to collapse of talks with blame for this collapse leveled directly at Israel. When we are told by a smiling Prime Minister that the signing marks a great day and that peace is at hand, the hollowness of the statement is seen by merely reading the agreements that Israel signed. It is my contention that a careful reading and study of the various agreements will make it abundantly clear that no possible real accord can be reached unless Israel does the unthinkable – give up the liberated lands in their entirety (including Jerusalem) and set up a “Palestinian” state (and even this will prove to be only a temporary lull until the next step); that since Israel will never agree to this, the “peace” with breakdown will occur AFTER Israel has given up most of the Sinai with attendant strategic importance and vital oil and other natural resources; that the breakdown will be blamed on Israel; that the reason for this will have its roots in the agreement by Prime Minister Begin to various concepts and concessions, an agreement that was originally planned as an evasive maneuver to escape pressure, and that was purposely couched in vague and foggy terms in the belief that it is possible to evade problems through deception and deliberate imprecision. It may be a well-meaning policy but it is one that will cost us dearly.

    And so, because Jews should know what they are talking about; because they should understand the unfortunate deviousness of government policy and statements; because the fate of people and state are at stake – we must study the words and paragraphs agreed to by the Prime Minister of Israel. For they are obligations that no one – neither Washington, Cairo, the American people nor American Jewish leaders will allow Israel to ignore. It is crucial that we know the course we are taking so that we can change it, lest we pay heavy penalties for hopeless deviousness.

    I. “Palestine” and Autonomy Prime Minister Begin has been adamant in stating that there will “never be a Palestinian state” and “we will never speak with the PLO.” Yet in the Camp David Accords, Mr. Begin agreed to the following: “Egypt, Israel, Jordan and the representatives of the Palestinian people should participate in negotiations on the resolution of the Palestinian problem in all its aspects.” And again: “The solution from the negotiations must also recognize the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people and their just requirements.” The “Palestinian” people. For decades, Israeli leaders were careful never to speak of or recognize a “Palestinian people.” For if there exists a “Palestinian people,” what is a more just requirement and a more legitimate right than a state of their own? What is the most basic right of any people if not the right to its own state? How can we speak of a “Palestinian people” and then say “but they cannot have their own state!” And if we speak of the “representatives of the Palestinian people,” what will be if these “people” choose as their representatives, the PLO? And any Israeli leader who tells us that the majority of the “Palestinians” do not accept the PLO as their leaders, lies to us, and proof is his for the asking by simply allowing free elections in which the PLO is allowed to participate.

    Indeed, there is ludicrousness in the repeated pledges against speaking with the PLO even as there is daily contact and cooperation with the PLO mayors of Hebron, Ramallah, Shchem and other towns. When Begin signed an accord which had in its official English translation the concept of a “Palestinian people” and its “legitimate and basic rights,” he set the stage for a confrontation with the entire world, a confrontation which is of his own making. Instead of having cleaved to a staunch, open and honest disclaimer of any “Palestinian people,” he, for the countless time, chose the path of deviousness by which he signed an accord that speaks of a “Palestinian people” and then stated in a letter to President Carter that he construes “Palestinian people” to mean “Palestinian Arabs.” It is, once again, the tortured legalism that Begin uses so often to evade confrontation but which is so meaningless to the world. The official version speaks of a “Palestinian people” and its legitimate rights, the most basic of which is clearly the right to the same kind of state that Jews have.

%d bloggers like this: