Thursday, October 29, 2015

Yes, Dear

A Torah Thought for Parashat VaYerah 

By Shmuel Sackett

Allow me to write some words of Torah in his name and in his memory.
In his book “Ohr Ha’Ra’ayon” Rabbi Kahane explains why our mother Sarah demanded that Yishmael be driven out.
The verse says: “Drive away this slave (Hagar) together with her son (Yishmael). The son of this slave will not share the inheritance with my son Yitzchak.” (Genesis 21:10)
Most commentaries state that Yishmael was a bad influence on Yitzchak and this is why Sarah did not want him around.
Rabbi Kahane explains that this was only part of the reason.
The second reason – understood clearly by Sarah – was that the children of Abraham, though not from Sarah (even those born in Israel), will always consider this as their land and will harbor eternal hatred towards Yitzchak and his descendants since they “will not share the inheritance”.
It is only natural that when a father has two sons and he gives one of them everything – and the other just gifts: “Abraham gave all that he owned to Yitzchak and to the sons of the concubines he gave gifts” (Genesis 25:5) – that this will cause jealousy, hatred and eventually murder.
These two sons cannot live together – not even 3,700 years ago!
Sarah saw this clearly and therefore told Abraham to drive Yishmael away.
What was Hashem’s response to this seemingly cruel request of Sarah?
“Do everything that Sarah tells you” (Genesis 21:12)
May we have the wisdom to understand Sarah’s foresight and the courage to act upon it in our day.

Two Eulogies and Flash Floods of Humanity: HaRav Nachman Kahana on Parashat Vayera 5776

Parashat Vayera 5776 
Rabbi Nachman Kahana

Multi-Directional Flash Floods of Humanity

Have you ever experienced a flash flood in one of the Negev’s wadis (a deep gully in the desert)?
It is an awesome experience and often deadly.
The sky darkens and it begins to rain. One hears an approaching train travelling at 300 kilometers an hour; however, there are no trains in the area. Suddenly a gigantic wall of water comes racing through the wadi, uprooting everything in its path, from trees to cars to trucks. If you are standing in the middle of the wadi at the time, you will soon become part of the Dead Sea. In no time the channel is filled and the water leaps over the banks spreading out over the desert floor in every direction.
The flash floods of the Negev serve as a metaphor for what is now happening in Europe. The migrants come from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and other places. They begin in Turkey from where they cross the treacherous straits to Greece and begin their long, trek towards Western Europe. They cross through Croatia, Hungary, and Austria too in their attempts to reach the west.
They arrive 6 to 10 thousand a day, racing across the fields and rail tracks and roads in a huge tidal wave of humanity to get to the Gan Edens of Germany, Sweden and the UK, which they will swiftly turn into Gehennom for the Europeans.
It is indeed a sight to see. This mass of humanity running, shoving, pushing themselves onto the few available buses or trains, trampling the old and the young in their desperation for a “better life”.
These scenes have a current and future connection for the Jewish people.
David Ha’Melech authored the Book of Tehillim, where we wrote in chapter 126 verse 4:

שובה ה’ את שביתנו כאפיקים בנגב:
HaShem, return to us the captives of Israel (the Jews who are now in galut) like the flash-floods of the Negev.

King David saw in his mind’s eye that in the future the exiled Jewish people would return to the Holy Land as swiftly and as powerfully as the rushing waters in the Negev’s wadis.
While the Moslems escaping from the Middle East are a torrent of humanity seeking a new homeland, if Nefesh B’Nefesh succeeds in bringing 300 olim three or four times a year we consider it a great achievement.
King David would have expected that after 2000 years of galut, the Jewish people, led by their great rabbinic teachers, would inundate the consulates and Aliya offices of Israel in a desperate lunge to return home. But that has not happened!
It is a black mark on our rabbis and educators who cling to the galut. However, the words of King David are prophetic, and as such must come to pass. The Jews in the galut will desperately run home to Eretz Yisrael like the flash floods of the Negev wadis. If not willingly, then the scenes of desperation now taking place in Europe will in the future be of Jews who will be forced to fulfill the words of King David.

Two Eulogies

The Gemara in Megilla 3a discusses the important contribution of the illustrious Tana Yehonatan ben Uziel, the most outstanding student of Hillel (Suka 28a), with his Targum (explanatory translation) on Tanach.
As an example the Gemara quotes the problematic pasuk in the Prophet Zacharia 12,11:
“On that day, there will be a great eulogy (and funeral) in Yerushalayim, as great as the eulogy of Haddadrimon, in the Valley of Megiddon.”
Problematic: because we do not find anywhere in the Tanach a person called Haddadrimon who was eulogized in a place called Megiddon.
Yehonatan ben Uziel explains as follows:
“On that day, there will be a eulogy as great as the one said over Achav ben Omri (king of the northern tribes), who was killed by Haddadrimon ben Tavrimon on the Gilad Heights, and as great as the eulogy for Yoshiyahu ben Amon (king of the southern tribes, from the family of King David), who was killed by Pharaoh Necha in the valley of Megiddo.”
Why did these two people merit such impressive funerals and eulogies, which serve as the model for the eulogies in the future of two great men in Yerushalayim?
The problem is especially acute with regard to Achav, who is mentioned in the Mishna in Sanhedrin 90a as one of the three kings who lost his place in Olam Haba (paradise). (The other two are Yeravam ben Navat and Menashe ben Chizkiyahu.)
It would be an understatement to say that Achav did not follow the Torah. He and his Phoenician gentile wife, E’zevel (Jezebel), sought out the religious leaders of the northern tribes and killed them all but 100 who were hidden in caves by the righteous Ovadia (Melachim 1,18:4).
They introduced idolatry into every Jewish home by the sword. But when Achav died, there was an astonishingly large and emotional funeral with loving eulogies.
The answer is that Achav, by all accounts, was a beloved leader. He brought great wealth to the land and fought in many wars to protect the independence of his country.
The way he died is indicative of his greatness as a leader who lived for his people. Achav fought his last battle against the Aramians (today’s Syria) while standing in his chariot, an enemy soldier whose name was Na’aman (Yalkut Shimoni Melachim 1:22) shot an arrow randomly into the air. It came down and struck Achav through a small opening in his armor. Achav could have retreated from the battle to get medical treatment, or, at least, descended from his strategic position in the command chariot in order to be treated. But since this would entail removing himself from view of his soldiers, and thereby possibly weakening their resolve to fight, he chose to remain in his lead chariot until he died.
Achav was a highly respected and beloved leader, despite being a man devoid of Torah.
In total contrast, Yoshiyahu, King of Judah and Yerushalayim, was a tzaddik (righteous person.) In his lifetime, Yoshiyahu made extensive and costly repairs to the Beit Hamikdash structure. He eradicated almost entirely the worship of avoda zara (idolatry) from the land, and put to death the priests of idolatry. He restored the “aliya la’regel” (pilgrimage to Jerusalem). The Tanach relates that during his rule, Pesach was not practiced in such a glorious manner since the days of Yehoshua ben Nun. Yoshiyahu was, like Achav, a staunch nationalist. He was killed in a battle in Megiddo, attempting to prevent the Egyptian army from using Eretz Yisrael as a land corridor to do battle with the army of Assyria.
The Gemara in Bava Kama relates that when Yoshiyahu’s body was brought home to Yerushalayim, he was escorted by 36,000 pallbearers on the way to his tomb. The question was asked; why was Achav paid the same honor? The Gemara replies that in the case of King Yoshiyahu, they placed a sefer Torah on his bed and called out, “This man performed what is written in this Torah.”
Both the God-fearing Yoshiyahu and Achav, the denier of Torah, merited the love of their subjects, for they had fought for the honor of the Jewish people and were protectors of Eretz Yisrael.
The prophet Zacharia predicted that in the future, Yerushalayim would be witness to two eulogies as great as those held for King Yoshiyahu and King Achav.
Since the destruction of the Temple and exile of our people, the city of Yerushalayim has not seen funerals as large in attendance and as emotionally charged as the funeral of my brother, HaRav Meir Kahana and of Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin Z”L.
Rabin was no Achav, and HaRav Meir was no Yoshiyahu, but in their time, both could be compared to those kings of the Tanach.
Rabin denied the Torah, but like Achav, he was a soldier who had defended the country since his youth. He was a beloved leader for many people, and thousands attended his funeral to mourn his death.
Meir was a talmid chacham (Torah scholar) and a great leader for many people. He brought the plight of the Jews in the Soviet Union from page 54 of the newspaper to page one, which eventually brought down the Soviet Union and opened the gates of freedom to all Jews who wished to leave. There were close to two hundred thousand people at his funeral!
Each of the honored deceased represented radically different outlooks, and their deaths testified to their contrasting beliefs.
Rabin was killed on Motzei Shabbat of parshat Lech Lecha, and Meir was killed close to the following Shabbat, parshat Vayera (in different years).
In parashat Lech Lecha, when Avraham is informed that Sarah will give birth to a son, Avraham replies to God “lu Yishmael yich’ye le’fanecha” – “May Yishmael live before you”. Avraham comes to the defense of Yishmael and requests equal rights for his son born of Hagar, the Egyptian woman.
In parshat Vayera, Sarah demands that Avraham send Yishmael away, saying, (Beraisheet , 21:10)
“Chase away this maidservant and her son, for this son of the maidservant will not inherit together with my son Yitzchak”
Sarah instinctively sees the evil and wildness in the soul of Yishmael, and knows that Yitzchak and Yishmael will never be able to live together. God tells Avraham to abide by Sarah’s request, for she is correct in declaring that Yishmael’s progeny and the future descendants of Yitzchak would never be able to live together.
Rabin, who was killed motzei Shabbat of Parshat Lech Lecha, adopted Avraham’s position and believed that the two peoples could live together. Toward this end, he returned the PLO murderers living in Tunisia to Eretz Yisrael and gave them forty thousand weapons. HaRav Meir, whose holy neshama left the world close to parshat Vayera, adopted Sara’s divinely affirmed position that the souls of the two are hewn from vastly different worlds – Yitzchak is the ben Torah and worthy to be a korban for God on Mount Moriah, while Yishmael is a “pereh adam” who prefers death over life.
God tells Avraham that Sarah is correct in her assessment of his two sons – Yishmael must be sent away, for he cannot live side by side with Yitzchak.
HaRav Meir preached and pleaded that the people of Israel should see the future and take steps to prevent the tragedies we are witnessing to this very day. Rabin wanted to give them half of Eretz Yisrael, despite the words of our mother Sarah that “the son of this maidservant will not inherit with my son Yitzchak”. History has played out according to God’s command to Avraham to abide by Sarah’s wishes.
May the souls of both these men be united with the living souls in Olam Haba.
Shabbat Shalom,
Nachman Kahana
Copyright © 5775/2015 Nachman Kahana

Trials -- At the Akeidah and Today

By HaRav Dov Begon
Rosh HaYeshiva, Machon Meir

“After these events, G-d tested Abraham” (Genesis 22:1). 

Abraham had just forged a covenant with Avimelech in which he temporarily gave up parts of Eretz Yisrael. He thought that through dialogue and agreements with Avimelech he would be able to alter the unsavory traits of Avimelech and his people: “Abraham complained to Avimelech about the well that Avimelech’s servants had taken by force” (21:25). Yet Avimelech “played dumb,” answering, “I don’t know who could have done such a thing. You never told me! I heard nothing about it until today” (21:26). 

Even so, Abraham forged a covenant with him, and that covenant brought upon Abraham the severest trial he had ever faced, the Akeidah [the binding of Isaac]. As a result of that trial, the Jewish People have suffered throughout the generations, and they continue to suffer. As Rashbam teaches (Genesis 22:1), G-d grew angry at Abraham, so “He troubled and vexed him... He said to him, ‘You were so bold as to take the son I gave you and to forge a covenant that will apply between him and Avimelech’s children? Take Isaac and bring him as an offering. We shall see what comes of your covenant.” That miserable accord led to our being defeated in wars, to the destruction of the First and Second Temples, and to other things... 

Today as well, we are facing an exceedingly difficult trial and paying a heavy price for the miserable agreement with the Arabs. Those who signed that agreement hoped it would bring about dialogue and peace and a change in the Arabs’ relationship and behavior towards the Jewish People and State. 

An agreement that includes giving up parts of Eretz Yisrael, even a single millimeter of our holy land, is null and void. It has no moral force and will not bring our enemies to change their hostile relationship to the State of Israel, as we are clearly seeing now. 

Only G-d’s covenant and oath are in force: “On that day, the L-rd made a covenant with Abram, saying, ‘To your descendants I have given this land’” (Genesis 15:18); “I have sworn by My own Essence.... that Your offspring shall inherit their enemies’ gate” (22:16- 17). The result of this will be that “all the nations of the world shall be blessed through your descendants” (verse 18). 

Likewise, it says, “The L-rd gives strength to His people” (Psalm 29:11). Only through that strength will G-d “bless them with peace” (Ibid.) 

Looking forward to complete salvation,
Shabbat Shalom.

Do the Judges of the Supreme Court Live in Switzerland or the Hague?

By Rav Yisrael Rosen
Dean of the Zomet Institute

"And [Sarah] said to Avraham, Expel this maidservant and her son... And G-d said... Whatever Sarah tells you to do, listen to her voice" [Bereishit 21:10,12]. "This teaches us that in prophecy Avraham was minor as compared to Sarah" [Rashi, based on the sages].

Do the judges of the Supreme Court live in Switzerland or the Hague? And what about the Chief Rabbinate?

The Battle over Morale and Hasbarah

The citizens of Israel are standing up, with tremendous courage, against individual terrorism, with no clear target for fighting back. The State of Israel stands, in a very weak stance, against a communications attack in the world media based on lies. The god of our Moslem enemies is a god of murder, evil, and stage-managed falsehood which have been concocted to pull the wool over the eyes of the world. There are two main realms where this despairing battle is taking place: National morale and international "hasbarah" – advocacy. To our great sorrow as a nation, we also suffer in this struggle from serious obstacles at home, including two enterprises which reign supreme in their respective realms: The Supreme Court (together with the State Attorney) and none other than the Chief Rabbinate.

With great pain, I will expand on this general statement.

We are at war! It reeks of blood and it is filled with tears. An important element in our ability to withstand this attack is national morale, since after all the main warriors in the current struggle are regular citizens, who must stand up against a rioting group of riffraff. Many advisors, led by security experts, propose to destroy the houses of the terrorists, as a security act of war and not on a basis of military or civil punishment. It has also been proposed that we rescind the citizenship of close relatives of the terrorists, confiscate their property, and expel them to the broad "oceans" of the Islamic world. It is eminently clear even to the youngest children, but not to the judges of the Supreme Court who lounge in their comfortable chairs, that such measures are not meant as punishment but aspsychological deterrence, in order to lift up our national morale and to depress that of the enemy. But the Supreme Court does not allow it! It would destroy the very foundation of democracy! It is eminently clear to every child, but not to the judges of the Supreme Court and the State Attorney, that a battleground has different rules than normal life. It is clear to every child, but not to the judges of the Supreme Court and the State Attorney, that these suggestions are meant for a time of crisis, when it is not possible to maintain the "Swiss" laws and rules relevant under normal circumstances. It is clear to every child that every delay by the Supreme Court and the State Attorney brings us a step closer to national suicide on the altar of the religion of the Hague, as a mirror image of the Shahidim who kiss their Islamic swords.

I am well aware that the effectivity of such moves is a matter of dispute, and in the short run it will not be possible to prove that there they lead to positive results. However, in my eyes it is a national tragedy to see the Supreme Court put legal sticks into the wheels of our security, thereby helping in a roundabout way to sacrifice our young men and women to the idol of democracy.

I call out to the Supreme Court to come down from its ivory tower and from its couches, and to remove itself in practice (not necessarily in a public declaration) from any judgement against the national security forces, based on a rationale of a lack of jurisdiction during war, or using any other convoluted legal device, a procedure at which they have great expertise...

The Chief Rabbinate Indirectly Supports Enemy Lies

And this leads me to the second front of this war: International advocacy in the realm of detestable lies. Every child knows that the libel of Jewish attempts to gain control over the Temple Mount can be listed as one of the legends of Ali-Baba and the Forty Thieves, along with the other stories of the Arabian Nights. What is going on is a holy war by incited Moslems who are fighting against imaginary Crusaders who want to destroy their mosque on the Temple Mount. And now, the Chief Rabbinate has joined in the fray just at this point by publishing a declaration, "a prohibition by 100 rabbis" to enter the Temple Mount, playing directly into the hands of the enemy, almost as if to say, "Our call to Jews to retreat from the occupied mountain is justified." This is clearly the point of this declaration, because otherwise why did the Chief Rabbinate find it necessary to publish a halachic ruling at this time? The proof of this is a parallel declaration by a hundred (religious?) academics, not to visit the Mount at this time and upset the Moslems. In addition, if the declaration of the Rabbinate is non-political, why doesn't it refer to the halacha prohibiting the entry of all Gentiles onto the Temple Mount?

In general, since when does the Chief Rabbinate publish halachic rulings in matters of public interest, while gathering the signatures of city and neighborhood rabbis for support? It could easily collect "a declaration of 200 rabbis" against Hesder yeshivot, against army prep schools, against the "heter mechirah," against boys and girls meeting together in youth groups, against women giving halachic advice, against minyanim with greater equality of the sexes, against and against more and more. Has the Chief Rabbinate ever used this device before, except for the matter of entering the Temple Mount, which has direct political consequences? We could understand if there was some possibility that such a declaration might have an effect in deterring people from going up to the Temple Mount, but every child knows that nobody will be influenced by the proclamation, since those who do enter the Mount do not see their rabbis among the signatories. I checked, and I found only two prominent religious Zionist rabbis who might have some influence, and three more who are members of the "Har-Hamor" yeshiva. I conclude that this proclamation was created as a political message (similar to the prohibition of making Aliya to the land from many years ago) and not as a halachic ruling for people who have asked for guidance. It was created in order to echo in the realms of the government in its hesitation and for the world media, as if to say, "We also prohibit going onto the Mount," in response to the loud cheers of the Israeli left. I cannot identify even one "consumer" who will be interested in this proclamation.

I therefore recommend to the Chief Rabbinate to make use the principle of "sitting idly by and not making any proclamations," even if this halachic ruling is real and seems to the Rabbinate to be important. Just look what happened in our media, so thirsty for Israeli blood, in reaction to the correct statement by our Prime Minister that the Mufti of Jerusalem helped to push along the "Final Solution" in the time of the Holocaust.

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

The Leading Prime Minister and the Maneuvering Prime Minister

By Moshe Feiglin

It is irrelevant to this article if I think that nullification of residency is good or bad for the Jews. The sad fact is that Israel has a maneuvering prime minister – not a leading prime minister. A maneuvering prime minister is incapable of making any decision that even smacks of strategy. Nullification of residency is an example of a strategic decision.
A leading prime minister understands that he is facing a new strategic situation; he understands that war has been declared upon him and that when you are in a war, winning is the only option. A maneuvering prime minister does not understand the new strategic situation. His one and only strategic goal is to get to twelve o’ clock at night and to go to sleep with the reins of government still in his hands.
When Rabbi Yehudah Glick was nearly murdered by an assassin last year, I anticipated the PM’s reaction and turned to him in a short speech at a Likud faction meeting. I said that regardless of religious beliefs and political views, when the debate over the Temple Mount escalates into political assassination, the worthy Zionist reaction of any leadership would be for the entire government, headed by the Prime Minister – to go to the Temple Mount and declare that assassination will not move us from the heart of Jerusalem and Judaism’s most holy place.
This is the way that Ma’aleh Hahmisha, Giv’at Hashlosha and many more towns and villages were built throughout Israel. When Zionism was in its early days, it understood that wherever Arabs murder Jews to try to drive them away, the Nation of Israel must build new homes and communities and make new life flourish.
Tragically, the Prime Minister did just the opposite: He slammed more limitations on the Jews on the Temple Mount, awarded violence and encouraged and paved the way for the current outburst of violence.
Now, Netanyahu is employing the same method, trying once again to get to twelve o’ clock at night. What exactly does his meeting with the Jordanian king, the further empowerment of the Muslim wakf on the Temple Mount and the further restrictions on the Jews project? Does it project zero tolerance for knifings? Or does it reward the murderous phenomenon and encourage it?
This morning I heard the head of the electric company promise to restore the electricity (which has been out in many communities for almost two days after a storm) to the homes of all the ‘customers’. But a person who has no alternative is not a customer. We are not ‘customers’ of the electric company. We are its captives.
The same is true for both Right and Left in Israel. We are not customers of the political system. We are its captives. The Left’s path has collapsed, the Right’s path never existed and we are all captive ‘customers’ on a dead end path, led by Netanyahu.
The time has come to emerge from captivity. The time has come for Zehut.

Monday, October 26, 2015

Palestinian Terrorism: Institutional or Random?

By Ambassador (ret) Yoram Ettinger
In contrast to national liberation movements, Palestinian terrorism has targeted – deliberately, institutionally and systematically – Arab and Israeli non-combatants,sometimes hitting combatants.
Palestinian terrorism has haunted Arab societies in Jordan (especially during the 1968-1970 PLO terrorism), in Lebanon (particularly during the 1971-1982 civil wars), in Kuwait (during the 1990 invasion by Saddam Hussein), in Iraq (until 2002, serving as an arm of Saddam Hussein’s ruthless domestic oppression), in Syria (until 2012, bolstering Assad’s regime of horror) and currently in Egypt (collaborating with the Muslim Brotherhood terror organization).  Pro-US Arab regimes consider Palestinian terrorism a clear and present, lethal threat, never fighting on behalf of Palestinians, sometimes dealing them severe military blows (e.g., 1970 Black September in Jordan) and expulsions (e.g., 300,000 expelled from Kuwait), showering them with rhetoric, but not resources.
Since the establishment of the Arafat/Abbas’ Palestinian Authority in 1993,Palestinian terrorism has afflicted the Arabs of Judea, Samaria and Gaza,denying civil liberties and instituting a corrupt, oppressive reign of horror.  It caused the flight of most Christians from Ramallah (Abbas’ headquarters!), Bethlehem and Beit Jallah. In addition, Muslim emigration from the Palestinian Authority has increased since 2000: 25,000 net-emigration from Judea and Samaria in 2014 and 20,000 in 2013. While Egypt prevents emigration from Gaza through Sinai, Gaza’s Arabs have emigrated, in increasing numbers, via the Mediterranean. Moreover, Palestinians flow to Jerusalem’s municipal lines, escaping Abbas’ tyranny, in order to receive Israeli I.D. cards, social benefits and human rights.  
Palestinian terrorists have targeted pro-US Arab regimes and “the arrogant, infidel, Great Satan,” the USA, joining the Ayatollahs in Iran (since the toppling of the Shah in 1979), Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS and other Islamic terror organizations. For instance, the role model, and spiritual mentor, of Bin Laden was Abdullah Azam from Samaria.
Palestinian terrorism has been a recent branch of Islamic terrorism, which has plagued the Middle East – and beyond – since the appearance of Islam in the 7thcentury.   The current intensification of Islamic terrorism throughout the Middle East provides a tailwind to Palestinian terrorism.
Palestinian terrorism has inspired terror cells in Europe, Africa, Asia and the American continent, including sleeper cells in the US
Anti-Jewish Palestinian terrorism has been a Middle East fixture since, at least, the 1920s, well before the 1948 establishment of Israel and the 1967 return of Jewish communities to Judea and Samaria. Its well­-documented collaboration with Nazi Germany intended to prevent the existence – and not reduce the size – of the Jewish State. The political guideline of contemporary Palestinian terrorism – the Palestinian Covenant – was published in 1964, three years before the reunification of Jerusalem.
Palestinian terrorism is nurtured by 23 year of Palestinian hate-education in kindergartens, schools, mosques and media - the most effective production line of terrorists. It was established by Mahmoud Abbas (Arafat’s chief deputy) in 1993, highlighting the fundamentals of Islam, which have intensified Palestinian terrorism: the supremacy of Islam over all other religions; the permanent state of war between the Abode of Islam and the Abode of the “infidel;” the inadmissibility of “infidel” sovereignty over Waqf lands, which are divinely ordained to Islam; the sublime honor of sacrificing one’s life on behalf of Islam’s war against the “infidel”; and the provisional nature of agreements concluded with “infidels.”
Palestinian terrorism has been encouraged by Mahmoud Abbas’ systematic policy of naming streets, squares, monuments and sport tournaments in honor of terrorists, and extending generous financial assistance to their families.
Palestinian terrorism - an endemic feature in the Middle East - provides thewriting on the wall, which highlights the destabilizing, anti-Western, terroristic nature of the proposed Palestinian state.  An Israeli withdrawal from the mountain ridge of the Golan Heights would provide a platform for Islamic terrorists to traumatize northern Israel; but, an Israeli withdrawal from the mountain ridges of Judea & Samaria, would provide Muslim terrorists with a platform to topple the Hashemite regime in Jordan and traumatize Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Ben Gurion Airport and 80% of Israel’s population and infrastructures.
Palestinian terrorism is adrenalized by the immoral moral equivalence(between Israeli counter-terrorism and Palestinian terrorism), misrepresenting Middle East reality. It is fueled by foreign aid to the Palestinian Authority, which funds hate-education. It is rewarded by calls to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority, while Mahmoud Abbas conducts hate-education. It is emboldened by Western pressure for further Israeli concessions and Western denial of Israel’s moral high ground in the topographic high ground of Judea and Samaria.
In order to defeat Palestinian terrorism, it is necessary to defy political correctness, shifting gears from chasing individual terroristic mosquitoes todraining the terroristic swamp: to launch a large-scale, disproportional,preemptive military operation throughout Judea and Samaria and Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem; to precondition any (US and Israeli) direct and indirect contact with – and assistance to - the Palestinian Authority upon an end to hate-education; and to severely punish families and communities of terrorists for failing to exercise communal responsibility.
In order to frustrate Palestinian terrorism, which aims to set Israel on a path of retreat, Israel should proclaim a constructive response, expanding Jewish construction in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.  While it would trigger short-term international pressure, it would yield long-term strategic respect, as documented by the legacy of Prime Ministers Ben Gurion, Eshkol, Golda Meir, Begin and Shamir, who defied much more severe international pressure with slimmer military and commercial resources at their disposal. 

Sunday, October 25, 2015

The Muslim Invasion of Europe

  • The Syrian government sells passports and birth certificates at affordable prices. Many migrants have no passport, no ID, and refuse to give fingerprints.
  • Because Islam is the heart of the culture of people formerly colonized, Europeans rejected criticism of Islam, saying it would blend smoothly into a multicultural Europe. They did not demand the assimilation of the Muslims who came to live in Europe. Much of the time, Muslims are not assimilated -- and often show signs of not wanting to assimilate.
  • Any criticism of Islam in Europe is treated as a form of racism, and "Islamophobia" is considered a crime or a sign of mental illness.
  • European people still have the right to vote, but are deprived of most of their power: all important political decisions in Europe are made behind closed doors by technocrats and professional politicians in Brussels or Strasbourg.
  • Europe has renounced force, so to many, it appears weak, vulnerable and easily able to be overpowered.
  • The sudden arrival of hundreds of thousands more Muslims most likely prompts Europeans to think that the nightmare will get worse; they see, powerlessly, that their leaders speak and act as if they have no awareness of what is happening.
  • Central European leaders and people, who have already lived under authoritarian rule, seem to be thinking that entering the European Union was a huge mistake. They came to what was then called the "free world." They do not seem willing to be subjected again to coercive decisions made by outsiders.
  • Illegal Muslim migrants will live on social benefits until the bankruptcy of welfare states.
  • In all 28 countries of the European Union, birth rates are low and the population is aging. People under thirty account for only 16% of the population, or 80 million people. In the 22 Arab countries, plus Turkey and Iran, people under thirty account for 70% of the population, or 350 million people.
The flow of illegal migrants does not stop. They land on the Greek islands along the Turkish coast. They still try to get into Hungary, despite a razor wire fence and mobilized army. Their destination is Germany or Scandinavia, sometimes France or the UK. Some of them still arrive from Libya. Since the beginning of January, more than 620,000 have arrived by sea alone. There will undoubtedly be many more: a leaked secret document estimates that by the end of December, there might be 1.5 million.

Journalists in Western Europe continue to depict them as "refugees" fleeing war in Syria. The description is false. According to statistics released by the European Union, only twenty-five percent of them come from Syria; the true number is probably lower. The Syrian government sells passports and birth certificates at affordable prices. The vast majority of migrants come from other countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Eritrea, Somalia, and Nigeria.

Many do not seem to have left in a hurry. Many bring new high-end smartphones and large sums of cash, ten or twenty thousand euros, sometimes more. Many have no passports, no ID, and refuse to give fingerprints.

Whenever people flee to survive, the men come with whole families: women, children, elders. Here, instead, more than 75% of those who arrive are men under 50; few are women, children or elders.

As Christians are now the main targets of Islamists (the Jews fled or were forced out decades ago), the people escaping the war in Syria should be largely composed of Christians. But Christians are a small minority among those who arrive, and they often hide that they are Christians.

Those who enter Europe are almost all Muslims, and behave as some Muslims often do in the Muslim world: they harass Christians and attack women. In reception centers, harassing Christians and attacking women are workaday incidents. European women and girls who live near reception centers are advised to take care and cover up. Rapes, assaults, stabbings and other crimes are on the rise.

Western European political leaders could tell the truth and act accordingly. They do not. They talk of "solidarity," "humanitarian duty," "compassion." From the beginning, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany said that illegal migrants were welcome: she seemed to change her mind for a moment, but quickly slid back. In France, President François Hollande says the same things as Angela Merkel.
After the heartbreaking image of a dead child being carried on a Turkish beach was published, thousands of Germans and French initially spoke the same way as their leaders. Their enthusiasm seems to have faded fast.

The people of Central Europe were not enthusiastic from the beginning. Their leaders seem to share the feelings of their populations. None spoke as explicitly as Viktor Orbán, Prime Minister of Hungary. He said out loud what many of his countrymen seemed to think. He spoke of "invasion" and asked if there were another word to describe the massive and often brutal entry into a country of people who have not been invited to do so. He added that a country has theright to decide who is allowed to enter its territory and to guard its borders. He stressed that those who enter Europe are from a "different culture," and suggested that Islam might not be compatible with European Judeo-Christian values.

Western European political leaders harshly condemned his remarks and the attitude of Central Europe in general. They decided to take a hard line approach, including: forcing recalcitrant countries to welcome immigrants, setting up mandatory quotas that define how many immigrants each EU country must receive, and threatening those countries that declined to obey. Martin Schulz, President of the European Parliament, said that Europe was built in a spirit of "burden sharing," and that EU breakup was a risk that could not be excluded.

An acute division, in fact, is emerging between the leaders of Western Europe and the leaders of Central Europe. Another division is growing between the populations of Western Europe and their leaders.

Those who rebuilt Europe after World War II thought that an enlightened elite (themselves) could make a clean sweep of the past and build a dream society where peace and perpetual harmony would reign.

Because they thought democracy had brought Hitler to power, they decided to restrict democracy.[1] Because they thought nationalism was the cause of the war, they decreed that nationalism was harmful and that the cultural identities in Europe had to disappear and be replaced by a new "European identity" that they would shape.[2]

Because Europe had a colonialist past and Europeans had believed in the superiority of their cultures, they claimed that Europe should redeem its guilt and affirm that all cultures were equal. And because Islam was at the heart of the culture of people formerly colonized, the Europeans rejected all criticism of Islam, and said that it would blend smoothly into a multicultural Europe. They did not demand the assimilation of Muslims who came to live in Europe in increasing number.

Because the Europeans thought poverty had led to the rise of Nazism, they built welfare states that were supposed to eliminate poverty forever.

Because two world wars had started in Europe, the Europeans decreed that from now on, Europe would renounce the use of force, and solve all conflicts through diplomacy and appeasement.[3]
We now see the results.

European people still have the right to vote, but are deprived of most of their power: all important political decisions in Europe are made behind closed doors, by technocrats and professional politicians, in Brussels or Strasbourg.

Cultural identities in Europe have been eroded to such a point that saying that Europe is based on Judeo-Christian values has become controversial.

Any criticism of Islam in Europe is treated as a form of racism, and "Islamophobia" is considered a crime or a sign of mental illness.

Islam has not melted into a smooth multiculturalism; it is creating increasingly distressing problems that are almost never brought to light.

Muslim criminality across Europe is high. Consequently, the percentage of Muslims in prisons in Europe is high. In France, which has the largest Muslim population in Europe, the prison population is 70% Muslim. Many European prisons have become recruitment centers for future jihadis.
Muslim riots may occur for any reason : police upholding the law, a Soccer League celebrationor in support of a cause.

Welfare states have created a government-dependent class in Europe of many people who live permanently on social benefits. These people are often Muslim. Much of the time, they are not assimilated – and often show signs of not wanting to assimilate. Many reside in virtually autonomous, so-called no-go zones (e.g. France, the UK, and Germany).

Europe has renounced force; to many, it therefore appears weak, vulnerable and easily able to be overpowered.

Populations of Western Europe increasingly think that the dream society that had been promised has turned into a nightmare. The sudden and often brutal arrival of hundreds of thousands more Muslims most likely prompts Europeans to think the nightmare will get worse. They see, powerlessly, that their leaders speak and act as if they have no awareness of what is happening.

Central European leaders and their people, who have directly experienced authoritarian rule, seem to be thinking that entering the European Union was a huge mistake. When the Soviet Union collapsed, they became members of the EU to join what was called then the "free world." They do not seem willing to be subjected again to coercive decisions made by outsiders.

After living under the Soviet yoke, they preserved their desire for freedom and self-government, and evidently will not now agree to give them up. They know what submission to Islam could mean. Bulgaria and Romania were occupied by the Ottoman Empire until 1878. Hungary was under the boot of Ottoman rule for more than a hundred and fifty years (1541-1699).

Polls show that a majority of Muslims living in Europe want the application of sharia law and clearly reject any idea of assimilation.

Hundreds of thousands of Muslims living in Europe have joined fundamentalist Islamic organizations. Thousands have joined jihadist movements and are now fighting in Syria or Yemen. Many have returned and are ready to act against Europe.

Illegal Muslim migrants are likely to join the Muslims already living in Europe; and they will remain Muslim. They will live on social benefits until the bankruptcy of welfare states. They will reside in the "no-go zones," and the "no-go zones" will continue to grow. Their occupants come from countries where Christians and women are mistreated; in Europe, they are already mistreating Christians and women.

They come from countries where Western civilization is despised and where hatred of Jews is inescapable -- and this remains so among Muslims already living in Europe. For more than two decades, almost all assaults against Jews in Europe were committed by Muslims.

Many of those who arrive, according to European intelligence sources, are already radicalized.

project to overwhelm Europe by a huge wave of migration was already described by the Islamic State in documents discovered this February. It is hard to rule out that the Islamic State plays a role in what is happening. Turkish authorities are ignoring the massive departures taking place from their coast. If they really wanted the current process to stop, they could stop it. That is clearly not what they do. The Islamic State could not survive without Turkish help. Daily flights on Turkish Airlines bring illegal migrants to Istanbul; they continue unhindered to Europe. The Russians, in their military intervention in Syria, similarly does not seem interested in stopping what is occurring.

Angela Merkel said in Strasbourg, on October 7, that migrants entering Europe today are attracted to Europe, for the reasons Europeans migrants who arrived in America a century ago were attracted to America: to "realize a dream," presumably of opportunity.

In all 28 countries of the European Union, birth rates are low and the population is aging. People under thirty account for only 16% of the population, or 80 million people. In the 22 Arab countries, plus Turkey and Iran, people under thirty account for 70% of the population, or 350 million people.

Jews are fleeing Europe in increasing numbers. "Native" Europeans are starting to flee as well.

In 1972, in his book "The Camp of the Saints," French writer Jean Raspail described flooding Europe with Muslim migrants crossing the Mediterranean. At the time, the book was a work of fiction. Today, it is reality.

Out with the old, in with the new... European officials estimate that 1.5 million migrants, mostly Muslims, will arrive in the European Union this year. Jews are fleeing Europe in increasing numbers. "Native" Europeans are starting to flee as well.

[1] Christopher Booker, Richard North, The Great Deception, The Secret History of the European Union, Bloomsbury Academic, 2005.
[2] Neil Fligstein, Euroclash: The EU, European Identity, and the Future of Europe, Oxford University Press, 2009.
[3] Wolfram Kaiser, Christian Democracy and the Origins of European Union, Cambridge University Press, 2007.
© 2015 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. No part of this website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Moshe Feiglin: New “Status Quo Accords” on Temple Mount Will Intensify Violence

In a radio interview on Sunday on the new accords on the Temple Mount, Moshe Feiglin said that Netanyahu does not understand the source of the wave of violence currently engulfing Israel, employing instead more of the same tools that he has always used. “Since the Temple Mount was handed to the Arabs immediately after it was liberated in the Six Day War,” said Feiglin, the status quo there has been deteriorating. Over the past few years, the situation has critically deteriorated for Jewish visitors.”

As an example, Feiglin said that “Four years ago, any citizen or tourist could go anywhere they chose on the Temple Mount. Now, even when as an MK, I attempted to enter the Dome of the Rock as a representative of Israeli sovereignty, the police officer prohibited my entry. He told me that that area is under Muslim sovereignty and that I could not enter.”

“Now, with the new accords,” Feiglin continued, “the Muslim wakf will decide the fate of Jews on the Temple Mount. This makes the situation worse.”

“If you do not think that the current wave of Arab violence is part of a broader strategic threat,” Feiglin continued, “you may think that it is a good idea to try to pacify the Arabs by conceding to their demands. But if you are willing to face Israeli reality, you see that when Israel concedes to the Arabs in order to keep the peace, it loses it legitimacy and its strategic position deteriorates.”

“When was Iran closer to a bomb to destroy us? Ten years ago or now?” Feiglin brought his point home. “The PM engaged in all kinds of verbal acrobatics, made beautiful speeches and conceded here and there. And strategically, Israel is in a worse place now than it was ten years ago. The Prime Minister doesn’t seem to understand that we are in a war.”

“Since the attempted assassination of Temple activist Rabbi Yehuda Glick a year ago,” Feiglin continued, “the PM has prohibited me from entering the Temple Mount. That is a reward for terror. The method of making concessions to terror on account of the not too distant future intensifies the flames of violence and brings them closer,” Feiglin concluded.

The Inanities of John Kerry

By Rabbi Steven Pruzansky

It would be unfair to think ill of John Kerry because he is the grandson of an apostate Jew, who changed his name from Cohen to Kerry and pretended to be an Irish Catholic, even if such a pedigree has inevitably shaped Kerry’s views towards Israel. After all, you cannot choose your parents, grandparents or any relative. But he can be ridiculed and lambasted for making one of the dumbest comments in recent history, one that if analyzed shows either intense animus towards Israel and Jews, a warped view of life and personal responsibility or all of the above.

Intruding where he is unwelcome, has nothing to offer and can only prop up another aging anti-American dictator, Kerry is trying to “calm” tensions in Israel. He offered this gem: “We continue to urge everybody to exercise restraint and restrain from any kind of self-help in terms of the violence, and Israel has every right in the world to protect its citizens, as it has been, from random acts of violence.”

Forgive the run-on sentence (this is an administration populated by people who don’t speak intelligibly outside the four ells of the teleprompter) and parse the words themselves.

“We continue to urge everybody to exercise restraint…” Surely Kerry must know that asking the attackers and the defenders to exercise restraint is a certain formula for a massacre if the aggressors choose, strangely, not to heed Kerry’s importuning and the attacked, foolishly, comply. He must be able to intuit, on some level, the repugnance implicit in the moral equivalence of the violence used by the barbarians to stab and shoot innocent Jews and the violence used by the civilized to thwart them. The equation alone is so monstrous that only malevolent, spiteful minds – of which the world, clearly, has many – could utter such drivel and presume it sensible and reasonable. It is tantamount to saying: “Jews, die! And don’t kill anybody while in the process of dying.”

This inversion of morality placates and emboldens the evildoers – a clear Obama administration goal transparent in its dealing with Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and the Palestinian Authority – and can even be understood as evidence of the world’s corrupt double standard towards Israel and the Jewish people. It doesn’t make it right – in fact, it is very wrong and abhorrent – but not atypical enough to warrant any attention. But Kerry continued to call on all sides – but he meant the Jews – to “restrain from any kind of self-help in terms of the violence…” Before scrutinizing this breathtaking inanity, it is only fair to include Kerry’s succeeding clause, in which he conceded (reluctantly?) that “Israel has every right in the world to protect its citizens, as it has been, from random acts of violence.” How gracious of him.

Doesn’t Israel’s right to “protect its citizens” negate Kerry’s call for restraint on all sides? How can a nation defend its citizens by exercising restraint, unless the true defense that Kerry is seeking – one that will end all conflict – is Israel’s surrender to its enemies? That would, at least in his mind, end the cause for violence, notwithstanding the minor detail that Jews were savagely massacred in Hebron in 1929, across the land of Israel in 1936-1939, and victimized by Arab terror in the 1950’s and 1960s – in the former cases long before there was a Jewish state and in the latter cases long before the ”settlements” became the “obstacle to peace.” So the unctuous call for restraint, i.e., do not kill the attacker nor harm him in any way, is nothing more than a bland acquiescence to the mass murder of Jews. There is no quantity of liberal Jewish palaver about how great to Israel a friend Kerry is, was, or will be that can reverse the implications of his call to shackle the innocent so the murderous can have free reign. His moral compass is askew.

Even the phrase “random acts of violence” – the same gibberish uttered by Obama after Jews were massacred in a kosher supermarket in Paris earlier this year (where’s the last place one would think to find Jews? Obama: A kosher deli, of course) – understates the problem and does not properly assign blame to the perpetrators of these murders and attempted murders. The acts of violence might be “random” in terms of victims selected for carnage but they are not “random” in the sense of being haphazard or unsystematic. The Arab enemy is attacking innocent Jews and trying to slaughter as many as they can because of the blood lust for Jewish life, the cult of death and glorification of martyrdom that permeates the world of radical Islam, and their rejection of any semblance of Jewish sovereignty in the land of Israel or even any non-Islamic sovereignty over any territory claimed for Islam.

That is not “random” at all, but rather a focused effort to rid the Middle East first and then the world of any Jewish national and perhaps even individual presence. This is genocidaljihad, and the hackneyed response of liberal Jews and peaceniks has always been to attack anyone who points this out and exposes how foolishly misguided they have been. In the alternative, they seek reasons for the violence that rationalize and even justify Arab terror. Those pretexts always include the lack of a peace process, the building of settlements, the attempt to change the status quo on the Temple Mount, the lack of rainfall, etc. (For all the false clamor about Israel’s desire to change the status quo on the Temple Mount, I really wish they would.) Those who think that the genocidal jihadists can be placated – like Obama, Kerry and their acolytes, even some in Israel – should really not be allowed near a microphone or in any building where the crafting of foreign policy is taking place. They are dangerous people.

All of which leads to the one of the dumbest statements of the year, a year in which a healthy competition for that title is ongoing. He urged all sides to “restrain from any kind of self-help.” In context, Kerry must have been urging Israelis to ignore their government (the same government that he conceded has the right to “protect its citizens”), as that government has urged all Israelis who possess firearms to bear them in the streets and with them subdue and/or eliminate any terrorist who dares to raise his hand against an innocent person. In essence, “Israel” has the right of self-defense, but not the “people of Israel.” Huh?

But who in his right mind would ever demand that someone not engage in “self-help”? Answer: only a person on the political left who feels that government is responsible foreverything in the lives of the citizens. It reminded me first of Ronald Reagan’s quip: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” But Kerry’s sentiment is worse than bizarre: Who ever tells people not to help themselves? New Jersey is the only state in the Union where citizens are not permitted to pump their own gasoline, and that too is peculiar. Who would tell someonenot to defend his own life but to wait for someone else to come along and defend it for him? And if it’s too late, tsk tsk tsk, and we will shed crocodile tears and call for an end to the cycle of violence. That is beyond bizarre. Underneath that nice head of hair, what is Kerry thinking?

Self-help is the foundation of personal responsibility. The very suggestion that one should “restrain from any kind of self-help” is paternalistic, and when the self-help is actually defending one’s life it is downright cruel, and in this context, nothing less malicious. It is clear from the reaction in the Arab world and their fellow travelers in the West that they are distressed that the Arab attackers in the recent wave of Arab terror have mostly been killed while trying to kill Jews, rather than being captured, arrested, tried, convicted, incarcerated and then shortly thereafter released in a prisoner exchange – a pattern to which they became accustomed and mostly enjoyed. Maybe that is the change in status quo that has them all riled up.

Kerry’s musings show his evil intent, and his offensive ramblings prove his irrelevance to the protection of both Jewish life and Western civilization. Israel needs a stronger hand, and it needs more – not less – citizen involvement in self-defense and taking the war to the Arab terrorists.

Kerry, for his own good and for the good of the world and the Jewish people, should just go to Iran and help them build their nuclear weapon. If his engineering skills are as keen as his proficiency in diplomacy and his coherence in thought, the world will be able to rest easily for decades.