The shul is in the home of a Religious Zionist person and the shaliach tzibbur was likewise dati-leumi. After he finished chazaras ha-shatz, he omitted saying tzidkascha. This was in line with the principle that one does not say tzidkascha on a day when tachanun is not said, and tachanun is not said on the eve of a festive day. And Sunday, being Yom Yerushalayim, is a festive day.
One person in shul started saying tzidkascha very loudly, gesturing to the shaliach tzibbur that he should say it. This person also waved a luach, and announced that the luach doesn't say anything about omitting tzidkascha. (Of course, since the luach was a charedi publication, that was hardly surprising.)
This was most upsetting. Regardless of one's persuasion, one should follow the custom of the shul where one is praying. And it's a pity that he couldn't understand the cause for celebration on Yom Yerushalayim. I was recently re-reading the late Yehudah Avner's wonderful book The Prime Ministers. He describes the bleak scenario that Israel faced, forty-eight years ago:
The Syrian water diversion stratagem continued to menace Israel like a floating mine, and by the late spring of 1967, the situation had deteriorated so drastically that war correspondents began descending on Israel in droves. With mounting audacity, provocation followed provocation as Egyptian president Gamal Abdul Nasser made common cause with Syria, moving his vast army and air force into the Sinai, ousting the United Nations peacekeeping forces, blockading Israeli's Red Sea port Eilat by closing the narrow Straits of Tiran, and signing a war pact with King Hussein that put the Jordanian Army under Egyptian command....
I traveled by bus to Tel Aviv to keep an appointment with another clutch of journalists...Baruch Hashem for Israel's amazing success in 1967! If only people were more aware and appreciative of this miracle!
As I drew near the hotel, I caught sight of a hearse pulling up at the gateway of a small park overlooking the beach. Out of it tumbled half a dozen black-caftaned, pie-hatted, bearded members of the chevra kadisha... Immediately, two of the undertakers began pacing the park's grassy area, calling out distances to a third, who wrote down the measurements in a notebook.... A sudden shock of black premonition shot through me. Anxiously, I asked him what it was they were doing, and he coolly replied that his Jerusalem chevra kadisha had been instructed to help the Tel Aviv chevra kadisha consecrate city parks for cemeteries. Rabbis all over the country were consecrating parks for cemeteries. He himself had seen a warehouse stockpiled with tons of nylon rolls for wrapping bodies.
When I was in Israel in the late 1990's, I remember people debating whether to say hallel on yom haatzmaut. I think if klal Yisroel can go two years without having such debates, Moshiach will come and we'll all say hallel.
ReplyDeleteI was the shaliach tzibbur at Mincha and skipped it. Afterward, a man- he looked a bit Sephardi Charedi, Shas or whatever- came up and asked me why I skipped it. I told him tomorrow is Yom Yerushalayim, and he nodded and said, "Ah, so you you skip it the Mincha before, of course." And that was that. Nice.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, you only skip Tachanun in Mincha before Yom HaAtzmaut if it's late. If it's early, you don't, because it's still very much Yom HaZikaron.
On the first Yom Yerushalayim, at the Kotel, R' Goren told the shaliach tzibur, another chaplain, to skip Tachanun and say Hallel. He answered that he's been burying people all day and can't say Hallel. So they said Tachanun and Hallel, side by side.
In Rabbi Sholom Gold's new autobiography, he writes that Rav Elyashiv criticized a black-hatter from America who dismissed Yom Yerushalayim as nothing. "You don't know," Rav Elyashiv told the young man, "how much we pined for the Kotel from 1948-1967 and how much it means to us now that we have it back." I am quoting from memory, but this was the gist of what he told him.
ReplyDeleteI used to daven in a shul where one of the members was a loud Lubavitcher who protested anything that he thought was Zionistic. Not only would he protest Yom Yerushalayim, but he loudly objected to the saying of Hallel on Yom Ha'atzmaut, even during the prayer.
ReplyDeleteI hope you said something to stop the man from his disturbance or invited him to daven elsewhere. We should not encourage those who give succour to our enemies with our silence.
You are equating those who don't say Hallel on Yom Ha'atmaut with giving "succour (sic) to our enemies"?! That's patently ridiculous.
DeleteI agree that "loud objections" in shul are improper. So is hyperbole.
For those interested in the names of the paratroopers in David Rubinger's famous photograph....the most well-known of the three is Dr Yitzhak Yifat who is in the middle.The gentleman on the left's last name is Oshri and the one on the right is Karsenty (I am afraid I don't know their first names).
ReplyDeleteMany years ago, a friend of mine attended a lecture by Ruth Blau who was a famous figure in Neturei Karta. She was asked how can she explain Israel's victories and success if it is so abhorrent to her ideology and theology. Her reply was that it was all a coincidence(!) and the result of various historical forces (very Marxist!). This just goes to prove that religious extremism is really kefira...a denial that G-d runs the world.
Hypocrisy is hardly new. \For example, the same Chababniks who loudly remind people NOT to say tachanun on Kislev 19 because it's a yom tov for all Jews because their rebbe got out of prison don't understand why other Jews say Hallel on Yom Ha'atzmaut because God got His people out of prison. And they're not alone, just the most convenient example.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with your example--a Chabadnik wouldn't/shouldn't force everyone else not to say Tachanun on the 19th of Kislev, even if he's the shaliach tzibbur in a non-Chabad minyan. He just won't say it himself.
DeleteOn the other hand, since this was Ramat Beit Shemesh you should be celebrating that no punches or dirty diapiers were thrown!
ReplyDeleteWrong Ramat Beit Shemesh. R' Slifkin lives in Ramat Beit Shemesh Aleph, not Bet.
DeleteYou're welcome to find your religious significance wherever you like, but you should be aware of the facts.
ReplyDelete"The Syrian water diversion stratagem continued to menace Israel like a floating mine, and by the late spring of 1967, the situation had deteriorated so drastically that war correspondents began descending on Israel in droves. With mounting audacity, provocation followed provocation "
Actually, it was Israel intentionally provoking. As Moshe Dayan said, "''Never mind that. After all, I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was.''"
"Egyptian president Gamal Abdul Nasser made common cause with Syria, moving his vast army and air force into the Sinai,"
No, he didn't move his "vast army and air force." He moved enough that he thought it would deter Israel from a large scale invasion of Syria. The technique had proved effective in 1960, and it was for this very reason that Syria and Egypt had a treaty. Israel seemed to think it could invade countries at will, as it had invaded Jordan only months earlier (and was censured by the UN) and as it had its air force dropping bombs on Syria the month prior. Of course, in hasbarah an actual invasion by Israel is not grounds for war but the closing of a strait is. Menachem Begin said, "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. ... We decided to attack him." Abba Eban wrote, "Nasser did not want war. He wanted victory without war."
"ousting the United Nations peacekeeping forces,"
You mean those very forces Israel had refused to host to begin with? Well, we all know that there are different rules for Israel and everyone else.
"blockading Israeli's Red Sea port Eilat by closing the narrow Straits of Tiran"
It's not clear that Egypt as legally required to allow Israel to pass. If Israel thought they were, bring them to court. Israel went to war because it wanted war.
"and signing a war pact with King Hussein that put the Jordanian Army under Egyptian command"
Because Israel thought it could betray its agreement with Hussein and attack Jordan but, a few months later, ask it to stay out of its next war.
"Rabbis all over the country were consecrating parks for cemeteries. "
Maybe they were hysterical, I don't know. But the US President Johnson said, "All of our intelligence people are unanimous that if the UAR attacks, you will whip hell out of them." Maybe it was like this past summer when Hamas rockets, which have a kill rate of about 1 in a thousand rockets, were feared to cause mass casualties, but Israeli and US intelligence both knew who would win. As Israeli cabinet member Mordechai Ben-Tov said, "[The grave danger of attack was] invented of whole cloth and exaggerated after the fact to justify the annexation of new Arab territories."
I tried to quote enough kosher sources for you to realize that Israel was not facing immanent extermination nor was Israel's success miraculous. I have a feeling though that your belief is a religious one.
I can't refute the factual evidence and quotes that you bring. I do remember though that in the television miniseries "Heritage: Civilization and the Jews", Abba Eban referred to the Six-Day War as "the war that nobody wanted". (Maybe it just means he didn't want it.)
Deletehttp://www.jpost.com/Israel/Q-and-A-with-Michael-Oren
Deleteyou say "Actually, it was Israel intentionally provoking"
Deleteand in your view Syria supporting Palestinian terrorist attacks against Israel was the soverign right of syria to resist the zionist entity and was not a provocation at all.
Depends on what you call a "miracle". If you mean an overturning of the laws of nature, then the wasn't a "miracle". However, President Johnson and his Generals and Intelligence experts who assured Eshkol that Israel would win also said the US would win the war in Vietnam. The German General Staff in 1914 said the German army would advance x number of kilometers per day and would enter Paris on day y. However, things got unexpectedly complicated and, as I understand it, in the confusion it was a lowly army Captain gave the order that shifted the attack so that it ultimately failed. Was that a miracle for the French?
DeleteI just heard a lecture by someone who said that the original War Minister in Britain during World War I was Lord Kitchener who was a legendary figure of immense prestige. He was adamantly anti-Zionist and would have had the power to block the Balfour Declaration when it was proposed. However, in 1916, he was on a ship headed to Russia when a German U-Boat spotted his ship and the Captain decided to torpedo it. Was it a miracle that the U-Boat happened to be in the right place at the right time and that his torpedo hit and that Kitchener didn't manage to get in a life boat and that this enabled the Jewish state to ultimately be established?
Was it a miracle that millions of Jews didn't give up during all the years of despair of the Galut and assimilate so they would be around to create Israel? Was it a miracle that Ben-Gurion was able to get a majority of one in the Jewish Agency Executive in order to proclaim the state even though the opposition had serious doubts about whether it was wise. Was it a miracle that FDR, who promised King Abdel Aziz ibn-Saud that he would make no move on Palestine that the Arabs didn't approve of died before 1948?
Fast forward to 1967....was it a miracle that the government and the IDF had enough weapons and the proper training to be able to carry out the war successfully even though the Arab states have a much larger population and armies?. Was it a miracle that no Egyptian Air Force commander said " Hey, it isn't a good idea to leave all our aircraft unprotected out on the tarmac. Let's disperse them and build hardened shelters for them"? Was it a miracle that King Hussein ordered his artillery to open up on West Jerusalem and the Tel Aviv area even though he had been assured that if he stayed out of the fight Israel wouldn't move against him, leading to the liberation of Jerusalem and Judea/Samaria?
I could go on and on.
Of course it was a miracle....all it needs is for a little sensitivity to spot it!
It's a little strange to read such historical revisionism here. It's a fact that during the days before the war Egypt massed its forces along its border with Israel, ordered the UN "peacekeeping" troops to leave (they did so within 24 hours), and announced that this time they would succeed in destroying the state of Israel. It's also a fact (I was living in Jerusalem then) that Jordanian radio broadcast notices to their Jewish listeners in western Jerusalem that this time they would drive us into the sea, and they followed that with the sound of machine-gun fire.
DeleteThere are a lot more facts to list, but I have a feeling that "Shalom" will dismiss them all as just Zionist propaganda. And so, not surprisingly, the war against the Jews continues.
Shalom,
DeleteJust to be clear – most of evidence you bring does not relate to the miraculous (or non-miraculous) result of the military campaign – but rather to who initiated or provoked the conflict. I think that should be seen as two different issues.
The one piece of evidence you bring that does relate to the nature of the situation and the victory- “All of our intelligence…” – seen here – https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol49no1/html_files/arab_israeli_war_1.html which includes original documentation does seem very clear.
I am very interested in both issues – was the war justified and how unusual was the nature of the victory. Just to lay all my cards on the table - I must admit that I am a lover of Israel, I love the country, I love the people – they are my people, I love the entire idea, I cry when I sing haTikva, I cry when I visit the Kotel, I’m an American but I berate myself for not doing my share in the defense of Israel - I did not volunteer in the IDF, I let others bear the burden - I consider myself a shirker in that regard.
Nevertheless, I’m interested in the truth. If Israel is in the wrong I definitely want to know. In order to determine the facts I hope to read from people who have reviewed the relevant evidence, who present it fairly and can point to sources.
Shalom, I know you weren’t writing a paper on the subject here, but you did use some unfair tactics – and that’s disappointing.
1) You quote the paragraph “The Syrian water diversion stratagem…” which Avner describes as a danger to Israel. You don’t deny that as a fact but move on to “Actually, it was Israel…” You set up your own diversion. If Avner’s proposition is true then I see here a danger and provocation. If you want argue the truth of the statement or its significance then do so. The fact that Israel might also be provoking is not germane at this point.
2) Further, the example you bring from Moshe Dayan, might be viewed as a provocation but does not seem to be a danger to Syria. And so in my eyes its significance would be less than that of the Avner data.
3) "ousting the United Nations peacekeeping forces," by Egypt does seem to be a prelude to war – whether or not Israel had refused to host them earlier.
4) "blockading Israeli's Red Sea port Eilat by closing the narrow Straits of Tiran" – whether it was legal or not, it definitely seems hostile.
etc.
For whatever reason, Shalom, you seem to have an anti-Israel agenda. The facts that I have seen point to a very muddled situation.
On the other hand, R. Slifkin, you point to the miraculous victory and implied justification for war. You quote Avner who might well be a very biased source. The CIA data seems to point to an expected victory. You are the rationalist – how do you go about finding enough factual evidence to be comfortable with one conclusion or another? Where is your evidence?
Other readers – what is the case? How do you know?
Thanks.
PG
There are many people who see the hand of G-d in every small action, if they miss a bus or get sick or trip over they assume that G-d is sending them a message.
DeleteIf there is a national disaster, they assume that it is somehow related to our actions.
But when there is a military victory of massive historic proportions, it can be explained by basic military tactics and intelligence and G-d has nothing to do with it - very strange view of G-d.
LI Reader-
DeleteI heard that Jews living in Musrara, right on the border in Jerusalem, many of whom spoke Arabic heard the loudspeakers in the Mosques on the other side of the line screaming "kill them all!". I also heard that the legendary Egyptian singer Umm Kulthum came out with a hit song during the waiting period before the war when Nasser said this was going to be the final reckoning called "Cut their throats". Now, we all heard this just 20 some years earlier in Europe and it was meant with all earnestness. Is it surprising that Jews, including the Israeli leadership would be worried?
Unfortunately, Shalom's arguments are very much in line with Satmar, Neturei Karta, and Jew haters alike. I have read his exact same points mentioned in a variety of websites all of which are aimed at discrediting the entire establishment of the State of Israel whether it comes from Satmar or the Jew haters themselves. Dont expect a response from him. He simply cut and paste from those other sites and for all we know he might not even be Jewish. Dont waste your time.
DeleteAnother point: even if Shalom is correct that Israel instigated the war on the Syrian and Egyptian front--I understand that, immediately after the war, Israel offered back the Sinai to Egypt and the Golan Heights to Syria in return for recognition and peace agreements. (The Wikipedia page on the Six-Day War says as much.) So, Israel didn't go to war to expand it's territory in some sort of Manifest Destiny, but rather to be able to bargain a peace agreement with Jordan, Syria and Egypt in the war's aftermath.
DeletePhil Goode,
DeleteI am very impressed by your response. I am impressed by your love for your people, your humility in thinking you do not do as much for them as you should and, most of all, by your willingness to consider truths which may be uncomfortable. Despite your not unfair stereotyping of me, I am not anti-Israel. Though my love for my tradition, people, and country may not be as strong as yours, it is there. Perhaps my negative tone comes from realizing that the stories I was raised on were untrue. In any case, enough of the psychobabble and on to your points.
"You quote the paragraph “The Syrian water diversion stratagem…” which Avner describes as a danger to Israel ... The fact that Israel might also be provoking is not germane at this point."
This requires clarification from multiple angles. I am certainly not an expert in water rights nor water geography, but let me ask you something. Hypothetically, if Israel had access to a river which afterward flowed in to another country, do you think Israel would hesitate about how much of the water it could use? And were Israel to dam a river and use more than agreed, would you support another country's military response? As Israel takes water from the Palestinian's aquifers (and takes other natural resources from their territory against international law and the Geneva Conventions) do you support Palestinian military action against Israel? All of these questions aside, I was not dodging the issue but refocusing it where it ought to be. The border skirmishes with Syria are generally considered what led to the war. Oren may have found some other point where he could place blame on Syria, and for all I know perhaps with some element of truth, but the diversion is Oren's, not mine.
"Further, the example you bring from Moshe Dayan, might be viewed as a provocation but does not seem to be a danger to Syria. And so in my eyes its significance would be less than that of the Avner data."
Then Oren has succeeded in his diversion. The conflict grew out of the skirmishes and not out of water rights. If Israel had a problem with Syrian actions, it should have taken them to court or found some other way to resolve the conflict. Israel can't answer every problem it has with bombs. I understand and even agree with what you are saying about the relative importance of matters, but it isn't how the war started.
""ousting the United Nations peacekeeping forces," by Egypt does seem to be a prelude to war – whether or not Israel had refused to host them earlier."
It might or might not have been. I believe the evidence is that Egypt did not really intend to attack Israel. But don't trust me, trust Israeli and American intelligence at the time. If I recall correctly, even Oren admits this much.
""blockading Israeli's Red Sea port Eilat by closing the narrow Straits of Tiran" – whether it was legal or not, it definitely seems hostile. "
First of all, Egypt had a mutual defense treaty with Syria whom Israel had *already* attacked. Second, no one is claiming that these countries were acting nicely to Israel. The question is whether or not Israel chose war, and it did.
"The facts that I have seen point to a very muddled situation."
Then your understanding is already ahead of 99% of your peers who think that Israel is always just trying to make peace and the Arab countries are all irrationally bent on Israel's destruction. Congratulations. If I sometimes seem to make things black and white in the other direction it is mainly in an attempt to get people to realize what you already know, it's all "a very muddled situation."
Yehuda P.,
Delete"I understand that, immediately after the war, Israel offered back the Sinai to Egypt and the Golan Heights to Syria in return for recognition and peace agreements."
You make a fair point and confirm Phil Goode's perception of "a very muddled situation." Just to clarify, Israel decided to make this offer, may have thought that it made the offer, but never actually did make this offer (the US neglected to convey it). Any country, even those run by a monarch and certainly those with democratically elected representatives, makes decisions with input from numerous people with conflicting, ambiguous, and even internally-divided ideas. Think about the current negotiations between the US and Iran. You have hawks, doves, and those in between. Some in Iran may reject any offer the US makes, some might accept any, and most probably lie in between. For whatever reasons they had, enough people in Israel thought it was time to go to war with Egypt. Using completely made up numbers and over-simplified ideas, let's say 60% of decision makers decided it was wise to attack Egypt and 40% would have waited to see what Egypt did. Of those 60% say 2/3 (44% of total decision makers) wanted to attack for more land and 1/3 (22% of total decision makers) wanted to attack pre-emptively because they were genuinely worried about what would happen to Israel if it were attacked. Well, as soon as Israel won, the 40% doves and the 22% who were genuinely concerned got together to approve plans for peace. You get the idea; these are groups of people we're dealing with and you can't make Talmudic arguments with their decisions.
Rabbi Sedley,
DeleteWhat’s your take? Do you see G-d’s (your spelling, in deference) intervention in all the events you described? In some of them? Where’s the line?
I’ve noticed that orthodox Jews don’t talk much about theology. I’m a religious person (at least outwardly) but with many questions - kept in my heart. I relish an opportunity to discuss the religious aspect (really, the G-d dimension) of any event.
Let me know if you’re up for a discussion.
Thanks,
PG
R. Shalom,
DeleteI liked your little piece about how decisions are reached. And it’s because there is a lack of uniformity of opinion in these processes that it’s probably always possible to find evidence that support one position – or its contrary.
R. Shalom, please direct me to the sources you are using for forming your opinions. And let’s take a step back. Chovevei Zion, Herzl, World War I, Balfour, Mandate, etc. What’s your take? Were the Zionists ever in the right (or at least did they have as valid a claim as any other)? Or were they always wrong – a European colonizer displacing an indigenous people? Somewhere in—between?
Just to be clear, I’m discussing this absent religious imperatives. No promised land, chosen people, or God’s will is part of the conversation that I’m currently interested in.
All other readers are welcome as well - - how are you forming your opinions?
If you want to take this offline you can reach me at phil.goode@yandex.com
PG
I believe the evidence is that Egypt did not really intend to attack Israel.
Delete*******
shalom
so what was operation dawn about
http://www.sixdaywar.co.uk/crucial_quotes.htm
"Taking over Sharm el Sheikh meant confrontation with Israel (and) also meant that we were ready to enter a general war with Israel. The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel” - Gamal Abdel Nasser speech to the General Council of the International Confederation of Arab Trade Unions
We want a full scale, popular war of liberation… to destroy the Zionist enemy" - Syrian president Dr. Nureddin al-Attasi speech to troops [6
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dawn_%281967%29
shalom
Delete###And were Israel to dam a river and use more than agreed, would you support another country's military response?###
###As Israel takes water from the Palestinian's aquifers###
I believe nasser said he is prepared to go to war if yemen diverts egypt's waters.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/comment-claims-israel-deprives-palestinians-of-water-are-groundless-1.5192
According to the Oslo 2 accords they signed, they are entitled to 23.6 million cubic meters a year - but in fact they pump, with Israeli consent, 70 million cubic meters.
R. Goode,
Delete"...it’s because there is a lack of uniformity of opinion in these processes that it’s probably always possible to find evidence that support one position – or its contrary."
Agreed.
"R. Shalom, please direct me to the sources you are using for forming your opinions."
Wish I could, but I don't have a particular source. I would recommend not using an Israeli ambassador as your only source though.
"And let’s take a step back. Chovevei Zion, Herzl, World War I, Balfour, Mandate, etc. What’s your take? Were the Zionists ever in the right (or at least did they have as valid a claim as any other)? Or were they always wrong – a European colonizer displacing an indigenous people? Somewhere in—between?"
The answer to every question is somewhere in between ;). Were they a European colonizer displacing an indigenous people? Of course. Would I criticize a people as harassed and persecuted as the Jews for, in the age of colonial powers, taking the British up on their offer of a homeland? No. But gradually along the way Israel has turned from the homeland of a weak minority to the homeland of a militarily and politically powerful force itself persecuting a weak minority.
"If you want to take this offline you can reach me at phil.goode@yandex.com"
I'd be happy to, but for now you seem to be a great moderator.
"so what was operation dawn about"
DeleteGot me. Maybe some Egyptian general did have a plan to attack Israel (and all militaries have a million plans which never actually occur), but all indications are that the pivotal people and organizations of the time believed that Egypt would not attack. To quote Yithak Rabin, "The two divisions he sent to Sinai on May 14 would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it."
shalom
Deleteso why did nasser say he was going to destroy israel, if his actions were entirely peaceful and defensive
Just as a note, operation Dawn is irrelevant. It was a plan by a general who was a rival to Nasser and did not have his consent. It was abandoned when it was made known by the US to Israel. Just wikipaedia it.
DeleteShalom - saying you don't have a particular source doesn't cut it. You're quoting from somewhere after all, and the quotes you've chosen are selective and out of context. For example the quote from Moshe Dayan is impossible to make proper sense of out the context in which he said it.
A question if I may? What do you think the Israeli leadership's plan was in the alleged provocations in Syria. What was to gain? The Arab propogandists make a big thing of it but why on earth did Israel want to provoke a pan Arab reaction? If you can't answer that, you need to reconsider your position. Because while the Arabs had reason to provoke, ie widespread anti-Jewish and and anti-Israel sentiment, plus the ex-palestinians wanting to strike back at those they perceived had wronged them, the Israelis had no such equivalent except possibly the desire to control the small demilitarized zones.
Equally, if positing Israeli expansionist ambitions, you'd need to explain the known fact that they immediately offered all territory gained in return for permanent peace (even if the offer may not have been received due to no fault of Israel's) and that they promised Jordan they would not attack the West bank unless attacked, which Jordan turned their noses up at and took the offensive ('The die is cast' said King Hussein in response, then attacked).
So quoting 'kosher sources' is all very well but context and counter-sources are vital.
"so why did nasser say he was going to destroy israel, if his actions were entirely peaceful and defensive"
DeleteYou don't move troops to be entirely peaceful. Israel had already attacked Syria once and it looked like they would again. Egypt and Syria had a mutual defense pact and, naturally, Egypt would do what it could to prevent attack of Syria. Placing troops on the border looked like a good way to do that and had worked before. As for Nasser's quote to a trade union (!?), I'm not a Nasser expert, but I suspect he was generally a trash-talker. In particular, he was looking for lead the Arabs and was amassing troops on his border against an Arab enemy state (not to mention the added embarrassment of Israel having connived with Britain and France to invade Egypt in recent memory). Again, when thinking about the situation as it was then, I urge you to give more credence to the actual Israeli and American intelligence service analyses of the time than to the stories we have developed afterwards.
"saying you don't have a particular source doesn't cut it."
DeleteGoogle it.
"What was to gain?"
I don't get your argument in the least. Israel took the Golan heights (not to mention the West Bank, Gaza, and the Sinai penninsula). Not to mention another kicking of Arab behind which Israel probably hoped would resign them to its existence (in which they also succeeded).
" If you can't answer that, you need to reconsider your position."
Here's where you go wildly wrong. Even if I didn't know what Israel wanted to gain I would know that the Israeli leaders as well as Israeli and US intelligence all thought Egypt was not going to attack. The intelligence assessment of the USSR at the time was that Israel was planning war with Syria. All of that is the contemporaneous assessment of highly qualified intelligence services. If you think that some svara of yours forty years later proves that Egypt was looking for war then you learned in yeshiva too long.
"you'd need to explain the known fact that they immediately offered all territory gained in return for permanent peace"
Read previous comments.
"and that they promised Jordan they would not attack the West bank unless attacked, which Jordan turned their noses up at and took the offensive ('The die is cast' said King Hussein in response, then attacked)."
Amazing, Israel was so nice it didn't want a third front. I like how you make it seem Hussein recklessly attacked Israel when Israel had attacked Jordan a few months earlier and after Israel had just surprise attacked Egypt.
"So quoting 'kosher sources' is all very well but context and counter-sources are vital."
When you provide them, let me know.
@Shalom--I would like to know if you have a similar analysis of the events leading up to the Yom Kippur War--Israel clearly let the Arabs attack first, without even calling up reserves. It would be difficult to paint Israel as the aggressor in that one.
DeleteI still hold by the girsa that Israel wanted some sort of bargaining chips to make peace with Egypt, Jordan and Syria: I read that regarding the Camp David Accords with Egypt, the Americans were surprised that Israel returned the entire Sinai--they expected Israel to keep at least some of it for themselves. Sadat supposedly said, "Poor Menachem. I got the entire Sinai back. What does he have? A piece of paper." But nonetheless Israel yielded back the entire Sinai, because it would bring us a peace accord (and only held onto Gaza because Begin felt that it was part of the Biblical borders of Israel). Israel yielded a piece of the Arava to Jordan in order to make a peace agreement, and it was ratified 117-3, or something like that. As for Syria--well, I guess it's better we didn't make any peace accord with Syria, considering the shape they're in now. But it was certainly bandied about during Rabin/Peres and Barak administrations to get things moving on the "Syrian track" to get a peace agreement.
I think your rabin quote about 2 divisions on may 14 is out of date. as by the eve of the war israel was facing 6 or 7 egyptian divisions. enough to attack.
Deleteisrael was also facing an jihad mentality by arab masses, which nasser could not afford to ignore. nasser also admitted that if syria attacked israel then he would join in to help. syria had sworn to annihilate Israel. and israel could not afford to keep all its reserves there for any long period of time,its economy would have been crippled.
so Israel had no choice but to pre-empt.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/intel67.html
ben
Deletenot irrelevant according to this
http://www.sixdaywar.org/content/Immediate-Drift.asp
Egyptian Field Marshal Abd al-Hakim Amer, a onetime close confidant of Nasser whose growing power eventually came to threaten the president, was largely able to wrest control of the country's armed forces from the Supreme Headquarters. He developed a war plan, called "Dawn," whose goal — capturing the whole Negev desert — far exceeded the more limited plan to isolate Eilat and bomb specified targets. Nasser didn't intervene with Amer's orders, despite the fact that they wrought chaos among the poorly-equipped troops pouring into Sinai, and contradicted Egypt's longstanding three-pronged defense strategy, dubbed "Conqueror."
shalom
Delete"Were they a European colonizer displacing an indigenous people? Of course. "
jewish immigrants purchased land,at inflated prices not took it at the point of a gun. no one
was displaced. so if there was a victim here it was jews being subject to profiteering.
shalom
Delete"If Israel had a problem with Syrian actions, it should have taken them to court or found some other way to resolve the conflict"
so if syria send terroriststo kill innocent Israelis, it should not rataliate militarily, but complain to the un. and the un being impartial will stop the terrorists. do you really believe that. ?
YP,
DeleteObviously Israel was attacked in '73, and obviously I'm not saying Israel never makes peace.
"I think your rabin quote about 2 divisions on may 14 is out of date. as by the eve of the war israel was facing 6 or 7 egyptian divisions. enough to attack."
DeleteThe quote is from 1968.
"jewish immigrants purchased land,at inflated prices not took it at the point of a gun. no one
Deletewas displaced. so if there was a victim here it was jews being subject to profiteering."
Jews came to take over the country. You can call it what you want.
"so if syria send terroriststo kill innocent Israelis, it should not rataliate militarily, but complain to the un. and the un being impartial will stop the terrorists. do you really believe that. ?"
DeleteI said Israel should have found a non-violent way to deal with Syrian diversion of water and you translate that into my saying Israel should not react violently to terrorists? I think you've passed into dishonest non-constructive dialogue. Incidentally, it might retaliate but better to refrain from perpetrating its own terrorist massacres such as in Qibya.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.657394
DeleteI assume those who believe that non-military actions such as closing straits is justification for war now believe that Iran has had the right to attack Israel for the past 36 years?
shalom
Deletemy apologies for not checking carefully what you were referring to. but you say Israel should have found a non-violent way to deal with Syrian diversion of water. have you any evidence that Israel did not try?
you say "The quote is from 1968. " do you understand what rabin meant as by the eve of '67 israel was facing 6-7 egyptian divisions
also israel could not afford to keep all its reserves there for any long period of time,as its economy would have been crippled so Israel had no choice but to pre-empt.
you say "Jews came to take over the country. You can call it what you want. " jews were violently displaced from their country and came to regain it. what has that got to do with displacing an indigenous people? the palestinians were never sovereign there.
Deleteyou say
Delete"I like how you make it seem Hussein recklessly attacked Israel when Israel had attacked Jordan a few months earlier " what incident are you referring to .was it in response to jordanian terror attacks. ?
'Indigenous' according to Dictionary.com: 'originating in and characteristic of a particular region or country'. and 'European' - 'native to or derived from Europe'
DeleteArabs invaded the area in the 6th century, originating from, wait for it, Arabia. They are are therefore not indigenous according to the above or any other definition. There has been no indigenous population there since the Babylonion empire.
Ashkenazi Jews are not European by the above definition. We do not originate in Europe, we've just lived there a long time. About the same time the Arabs have been in Israel it so happens. Jews have always been considered outsiders in Europe by themselves and others. And did you wilfully ignore the Sefardim?.
So how can you state that we're Europeans who displaced the indigenous population with a straight face?
"but you say Israel should have found a non-violent way to deal with Syrian diversion of water. have you any evidence that Israel did not try?"
DeleteFrankly, I've never checked, but it little concerns me. Did you follow the haaretz link I left just above your comment? It's been 36 years since Israel stole what probably amounted to a couple billion dollars from Iran at that time. Has that led to war? Is there even the remotest possibility that Iran would go to war with Israel over that money (not that it would choose to go to war with Israel over almost anything considering Israel's greater strength)? The point is that Israel chose war. You can point to a million ways that Israel felt screwed at the time but Israel still chose war.
"you say "The quote is from 1968. " do you understand what rabin meant as by the eve of '67 israel was facing 6-7 egyptian divisions"
The quote is from an interview in Le Monde in which Rabin explains that the additional divisions were also defensive as Egypt feared an Israeli attack in response to its closure of the straits. This is the IDF's Chief of Staff at the time I will remind you.
"also israel could not afford to keep all its reserves there for any long period of time,as its economy would have been crippled so Israel had no choice but to pre-empt."
Again, assessments at the time were that Egypt was not going to fire the first shot and that Israel was far stronger in any case. The US was afraid Israel was about to start a war and was trying to stop it. I have no doubt Israel could have arranged for de-escalation if it felt that was in its interest.
"jews were violently displaced from their country and came to regain it"
Jews were not violently displaced from their countries when they started coming to take over Israel. I'll also ask you to see how Israel responds to far fewer African asylum seekers who have no hope of political power in the country.
"what has that got to do with displacing an indigenous people? the palestinians were never sovereign there."
First of all, in case you missed it, Israel expelled hundreds of thousand of Palestinians by force and has still not allowed them to return. Second, welcome to the modern world where people are not slaves to be passed from one master to another. Or perhaps, in some people's minds, they are.
"what incident are you referring to .was it in response to jordanian terror attacks. ?"
Everything is in response to something, although the Israeli allegation of a terror attack having come from that specific area was never proven. Wikipedia "Samu incident."
"jews were violently displaced from their country and came to regain it. "
DeleteI'm sorry, I completely misread your sentence earlier. You're claiming that since the Jews were forcibly expelled at some unspecified time, they have a right to return 2,000 (?) years later? First, I wonder what expulsion you are talking about. Was it before R' Yehuda Hanasi edited the mishna? Before the Talmud Yerushalmi was edited? When exactly was this forcible expulsion?
Second, making the assumption that there was such an expulsion, \does that give Jews the right to return thousands of years later? Would you apply that right all over the globe, that those who had been expelled may return? I assume if you apply it to a Jewish return thousands of years later then you certainly apply it to a Palestinians return 60 years later? Perhaps the Palestinians are really one of the supposed seven nations we expelled, will you advise your bretheren to get up and leave for them?
"Arabs invaded the area in the 6th century, originating from, wait for it, Arabia. They are are therefore not indigenous according to the above or any other definition."
DeleteFirst of all, whether you're a believer in science or religion there was a time when there were no people! Does that mean no one is indigenous to anywhere? Second, the Middle East was Arabized but genetics suggests that the Palestinians have been there for far earlier. In fact, they are probably out closest genetic relatives. Third, you're welcome to consider them indigenous or not, the point is that they were there and we came and took over.
"There has been no indigenous population there since the Babylonion empire."
Ah yes, indigenous begins just when your people get there! Miraculous.
"Ashkenazi Jews are not European by the above definition."
Of course not, but that's because you feel free to define things however you like.
"And did you wilfully ignore the Sefardim?"
Because you think that sephardim come from Israel?
Firstly, Shalom, I'd like to acknowledge that your quotes and questions directed me to research enough to see the six day war in a new light. I now tend to agree that the Israeli victory was predictable having seen the opinion of the Israeli and American top brass before the war, for example. Point is I'm not averse to changing my mind.
DeleteHowever, back to our debate:
'Of course not, but that's because you feel free to define things however you like.'
Now that's a bit rich. I quoted the dictionary definition. You avoided a definition then said it doesn't matter if they were indigenous or not. Do I take it you actually meant to say that they were the current and long standing occupants? If so, that raises the question what proportion of them were in fact long standing occupants as of 1948 (rather then recent immigrants from surrounding countries) and also of other long standing occupants. The was a Jewish population in Israel all the way through from the Roman period, albeit small. If occupant status is significant to self determination, that also needs consideration.
'Ah yes, indigenous begins just when your people get there! Miraculous.'
Well now you've lost me completely. The Babylonian empire is when the Jews left not when they arrived. My point was that the Assyrians and the Babylonians between them displaced everyone. The only people who could be considered indigenous are the pre-Israelite peoples, some of whom were still left at the Assyrian period. There is no cultural or ethnic trace of them left. The only historical exception may be the Shomronim, who certainly aren't Arab.
'Because you think that sephardim come from Israel?'
Er no, I think they come from North Africa and the Middle East. Do you think they come from Europe? Because if not why would you say that the new Jewish arrivals were European. I realise that the majority were, but let's not overstate. Trying to paint the the Jewish influx as a European attempt at colonising just isn't right. It sounds as if it's bit like the British in India or the French in Morroco. The Jews were a homeless, largely persecuted people with an ancient attraction to their ancient homeland. Yes modern Zionism was a European style ideology in large part, but it just ain't accurate at all to associate it with European colonialism when it was about self determination.
I do realise that the Zionists underestimated the problem of the current majority residents though. However there was no displacement of Arabs, nor no threat to do so, at all until they attacked us in May 1948. If you think our desire for self determination was a sufficient provocation for them to attack us, well, that's another question.
About the genetic evidence, it indicates that by and large both Jews and Palestinians originate in the Levant. That really doesn't help determine ownership of the land, nor who's been there longer.
In response to Phil Goode's initial comment I want to stress a number of things. First of all, military intelligence is not a totally objective science requiring no interpretation or conclusions to be drawn. There are multiple reports analysts, interpretations, opinions and viewpoints, and yes biases. Someone who does not want party a to strike first and launch war in vain hope it will never start or for any reason, would tell party a "wait it out. Even if they strike first we know you will wipe the floor with them." America was against a war. Remember the politicized intelligence reports on iranian nuclear program over the years?
DeleteI guess I could compile all reports that took a certain viewpoint and then say "all reports indicated" but that wouldn't make it true and it oversimplifies how intelligence is actually used in the real world. In any case, more importantly I would like to assert that even if some reports indicated Israel would win, or even if we somehow received a prophecy and knew for a fact Israel would win guaranteed, that does not mean Israel would be "in the wrong" (to use your wording) for launching the war. I don't see any logic to the claim that they would be.
Sometimes war is inevitable. Striking first to make sure you win is smart. Waiting for the Egyptians to surprise attack you first and weaken your defenses and march into the interior of your country killing hundreds of your soldiers in the process, just so you can say "we didn't start it" is beyond stupid and being stupid doesn't magically turn something moral.
Ben,
DeleteYou surprise me, changing your mind about the expected outcome in 1967. Now that's you and Phil Goode. I have sinned in underestimating the readership of this blog.
Regarding your points, I believe you continue to make several errors in your post. Regarding your definition of indigenous, I thought that I made it obvious that all indigenous people arrived at their location at some point in time, none was always there. In your (presumably Orthodox Jewish) belief, Jews arrived in Canaan a few thousand years ago. In the four and a half billion years that this planet has been around (or is it six thousand?) why does three thousand years ago become the determinant for what is considered indigenous? Or are you painting circles around your arrow and calling it a bullseye? Second, there is no good evidence that your people was living in that area before the Palestinians were, whatever apparently arbitrary date you are using to determine what indigenous means. It is entirely possible that they were in the area before we were. You should know that academics generally do not subscribe to a violent Israelite people conquering of the land and that Israel most likely emerged from, or at least blended in with, the local population. If anything, the Palestinians are likely to have been there at least as long as we (I know this is surprising when you live in a community that likes to simply call everyone "the Arabs." Third, you question the number of "long standing" Palestinians who lived in Israel in 1948, and the answer is a far far higher percentage that Jews. You seem to recognize that the Jewish population was small over the centuries, and in fact it was at some points less than a percent of the population. You may or may not be aware than in 1800 it was still only two or three percent of the population, steadily climbing during waves of immigration to about 30% in 1947. The whole business of "a land without a people" is fiction.
Side issues not particularly relevant to our debate which you may consider exploring are the percentage of Jews expelled over the centuries by conquerors; I believe most scholars believe the number to be rather low. Regarding your sephardi issue, the sephardim arrived after 1948. Regarding you distinction between colonialism and self-determination, I appreciate the point your trying to make, but like your indigenous point, it is largely a matter of semantics. The bottom line is that Jews came to the country with the goal of obtaining political authority over people who already lived there.
"" Is there even the remotest possibility that Iran would go to war with Israel over that money (not that it would choose to go to war with Israel over almost anything considering Israel's greater strength)? ""
Deleteare you aware that Iran has been condemmned by the un for threatening to wipe out Israel.
some restraint.
""The quote is from an interview in Le Monde in which Rabin explains that the additional divisions were also defensive as Egypt feared an Israeli attack in response to its closure of the straits. This is the IDF's Chief of Staff at the time I will remind you. ""
is this a reliable link of the rabin interview ? as I could not find where he said the additional divisions were also defensive
http://www.avrammeitner.com/general-rabin-does-not-think-that-nasser-wanted-war/
""Again, assessments at the time were that Egypt was not going to fire the first shot and that Israel was far stronger in any case.
""
I think the us assesement was 1 third of israel's airforce would be wiped out, if the arabs took the initiative, not something that israel could afford.
""The US was afraid Israel was about to start a war and was trying to stop it. I have no doubt Israel could have arranged for de-escalation if it felt that was in its interest. ""
fascinating observation. so you are saying that the arabs were the vctims of israeli agression in '67. so why did nasser say?
"We will not accept any…coexistence with Israel.…Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel….The war with Israel is in effect since 1948"
"First of all, in case you missed it, Israel expelled hundreds of thousand of Palestinians by force and has still not allowed them to return. "
I believe only a small proportion of palestinians were expelled by israel over the borders.
at the time the arabs tried to throw the jews in the sea, fearing that the jews would do to them what they tried to do to the jews, they fled.
however even if they had expelled all of them. can you really blame the Israelis not wanting to live next to genocidal maniacs. I am sure you would not want to live next to a convicted murderer, so why should the israelis. and bear in mind 60 years later the arabs have still not apologised for their attempted genocide. I am not sure if they are even able to.
comparing what the jews did to the palestinians. how many jews remained in the west bank from 1949-1967. I read it is zero. now that is a proper ethnic cleansing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waqmv-mlX_k
see here from 16:14
"Second, welcome to the modern world where people are not slaves to be passed from one master to another. Or perhaps, in some people's minds, they are. "
Deletethe jews wanted to run palestine for the benefit of everybody. their intent was for the arabs to have gained immensely being liberated from despotic arab rule. I read that up to 200,000 arabs immigrated into present day israel in the 20's and 30's because of the economic improvements that came because of the jews.
it is libelous to assume they wanted the arabs to be their slaves. dhimi is not a jewish concept.
""Everything is in response to something, although the Israeli allegation of a terror attack having come from that specific area was never proven. Wikipedia "Samu incident." ""
quote from wiki
'Prime Minister Eshkol listed 14 major acts of sabotage carried out from Jordan in the past year, climaxed by the land-mine explosion that killed three Israeli troops on 12 November. Eshkol said: "It is regrettable that this particular act of aggression came from Jordan." But since it did, he had picked Jordan as his target. "No country where the saboteurs find shelter and through whose territory they pass on their way to Israel can be exempt from responsibility'
so are you saying that the land mine terrorists and previous terror acts came from syria rather than jordan ?
"Second, making the assumption that there was such an expulsion, does that give Jews the right to return thousands of years later? Would you apply that right all over the globe, that those who had been expelled may return?
"
if a people have been expelled or dispossed from their country, they have every right to get their country back, when there has been no intervening sovereignity. the last time there was a sovereign state in present day Israel pre-1948, it was also called Israel. see bible for relevant terminology. and this right to jewish self determination was recognised by the league of nations in the '20s. it can apply to anyone you want to. who is your candidate ?
"I assume if you apply it to a Jewish return thousands of years later then you certainly apply it to a Palestinians return 60 years later? "
the palestinians never had a state which they lost. so I am not sure of the connection.
"Perhaps the Palestinians are really one of the supposed seven nations we expelled, will you advise your bretheren to get up and leave for them? "
few historians would take the buffoon erekeat seriously. although you are welcome to believe him.
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/insideisrael/2014/February/Abbas-Erekat-Arabs-Here-for-Thousands-of-Years/?Print=true
Meanwhile, at a conference in Munich earlier this month, P.A. chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat said he's a descendant of the Canaanites, thereby predating the Israelites.
"I am the proud son of the Canaanites who were there 5,500 years before Joshua Ben Nun burned down the town of Jericho," he said.
But numerous historians took exception to that statement.
..............
what do you think of this summary of the events of 1948 ?
http://www.drybonesproject.com/blog/D07513_3.gif
"The whole business of "a land without a people" is fiction. "
Deletethe phrase is "a land without a people" not "a land without people"
and indeed the country was sparsely populated
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/The_Jewish_Claim_To_The_Land_Of_Israel.html
In 1937, a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, told the Peel Commission, which ultimately suggested the partition of Palestine: "There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria."
"The bottom line is that Jews came to the country with the goal of obtaining political authority over people who already lived there. "
you are confusing goals with means. the goal was jewish self detemination on their ancestral lands. the means was jewish immigration until there was a jewish majority.
where instead of the jews being persecuted and pogrommed they would run the country for the good of every one bringing prosperity to all jew and arab alike.
the safest place in the middle east today for a minority to flourish is israel, even more after 'democracy' came to the middle east in the form of the arab spring.
zionism was and is a great humanitarian endeavour, deserving of a nobel peace prize
Shalom
Delete'I have sinned in underestimating the readership of this blog.'
Quite. And you seem to make other assumptions about your correspondents which may be unfounded. I'm not a Slifkin-esque rationalist Jew either.
'why does three thousand years ago become the determinant for what is considered indigenous?'
I didn't for a moment suggest that it did, and don't understand why you think I did. I thought I was clear, so let me restate. Indigenous refers to the earliest known inhabitants of an land. That means the pre-Israelite peoples in our context. Not Jews, not Arabs, not any current group. The Palestinians simply have no connection to the pre-Israelite people in historical, ethnic, cultural or any other terms except perhaps few ancient genes hanging around. So lets drop the indigenous issue as being irrelevant. Having established that:
' there is no good evidence that your people was living in that area before the Palestinians were'
Are you serious? There is archeological evidence of Jewish presence since the first temple period. That means that there is such an historically evident entity as the Jewish people, with a presence in Israel for over 3 thousand years, at times lesser and at times greater. There is absolutely no historical people known as the 'Palestinians'. The people currently with that name have lingistic, cultural, religious or any other sociological commonality with the non-Jewish inhabitants of the area before the Arab invasion 1500 years ago. Do you think a few ancient genes changes that?
If you mean simply that the area has had a non-Jewish population throughout its history then that's true but irrelevant. The various non-Jewish inhabitants have had no unifying identity, culture etc. And they never formed a cohesive society at any point. They certainly never formed a national entity.
Ethnicity and peoplehood is a sociological construct, not genetic. Look up the definitions.
I know where you're coming from by the way, the anti Israel books by Israeli leftists in the last few years have made these arguments but they're deeply flawed for the above reasons.
'You should know that academics generally do not subscribe to a violent Israelite people conquering of the land '
True but irrelevant. Firstly, there are archeologists who certainly do claim evidence of a conquest. Those who do not are basing themselves on lack of evidence, which is a deeply flawed way to form a theory. Secondly, even if there wasn't a conquest, that doesn't change the points above.
'I know this is surprising when you live in a community that likes to simply call everyone "the Arabs." '
Please, enough with the assumptions about who I associate with. Stick to the relevant arguments.
'The whole business of "a land without a people" is fiction. '
For the reasons above it is far from a fiction. I agree that it was not a land without a population, as a lot of Zionists thought. But there was no Palestinian people - again, go and look up the definition in a textbook of sociology then try to apply it to the Palestinians. They didn't even make a claim that the land belonged to them historically until well into the 20th century. Tell me if you find a quote otherwise.
Part 2:
Delete'Side issues not particularly relevant to our debate which you may consider exploring are the percentage of Jews expelled over the centuries by conquerors'
Thanks for the suggestion but I've done that already. There was minimal expulsion by the Romans. Most people left through persecution, harsh economic conditions due to war etc , leaving a small core of varying sizes right up to the modern period. Not sure your point. If you mean that the usual narrative about forcible expulsion by the Romans is inaccurate, then I agree. But not sure how that's relevant. Again, see first paragraph above.
I suggest, in turn, that you explore further the extent and nature of the non Jewish populations in the area during the second temple period.
' Regarding your sephardi issue, the sephardim arrived after 1948'
Really? So the position of Rishon LeTzion, an Ottoman title, is from after 1948? Was there perhaps a chief rabbi without a community? Have you perhaps visited the Sephardi shuls (Persian, Syrian etc ) in Nachlaot dating from the beginning of the 20th century? And what of the Yemenite community in Silwan in the 1880s?
Or have you visited the 1948 war section of the Mount Herzl military cemetary and read the names countries of origin of those who fought and died? At least a third are sefardi. Don't take my word - go and look.
Or, perhaps you mean that most Sefardim arrived after 1948. That's true. But your statement as is is verifiably false. But you have a habit of ignoring nuance in your observations, which may explain why you've fallen for the anti-zionist narrative who depend on lack of historical nuance to make their case.
For full disclosure my favoured source of historical information is Benny Morris, unfavoured by zionists and antizionists alike, because he's the most objective writer out there. I suggest you peruse him.
'The bottom line is that Jews came to the country with the goal of obtaining political authority over people who already lived there.'
No, they came to rule over themselves, that was their goal. Obtaining political authority over others was a side effect which they would have been happy without. I can think of no early Zionist source at all indicating otherwise. That is another blanket statement you've made without foundation. You've making a habit of those.
This is a long conversation which is past it's online sell by date, and may well be best carried on offline if you wish. I'm at bdbradley70@hotmail.com.
''For full disclosure my favoured source of historical information is Benny Morris, unfavoured by zionists and antizionists alike, because he's the most objective writer out there. I suggest you peruse him.''
Deletewhatt do you think of this ?
http://www.meforum.org/466/benny-morris-and-the-reign-of-error
“Quite. And you seem to make other assumptions about your correspondents which may be unfounded. I'm not a Slifkin-esque rationalist Jew either.”
DeleteLet’s not overestimate my sins; I did not characterize you as a pseuo-rationalist at any point.
“ I thought I was clear, so let me restate. Indigenous refers to the earliest known inhabitants of an land. That means the pre-Israelite peoples in our context. Not Jews, not Arabs, not any current group.”
Seems to me you are backtracking and not restating. You originally claimed the Jews were indigenous, now you are not. Now you claim that indigenous means “earliest known inhabitant.” I don’t agree with your new definition either, but I continue to assert that it is a red herring. The Palestinians were there, and we came to take over. If you don’t like to consider the Palestinians indigenous then don’t.
“I know where you're coming from by the way, the anti Israel books by Israeli leftists in the last few years have made these arguments but they're deeply flawed for the above reasons.”
Now who’s making assumptions? I haven’t read any.
“Firstly, there are archeologists who certainly do claim evidence of a conquest. Those who do not are basing themselves on lack of evidence, which is a deeply flawed way to form a theory.”
“'The whole business of "a land without a people" is fiction. '
For the reasons above it is far from a fiction. I agree that it was not a land without a population, as a lot of Zionists thought. But there was no Palestinian people - again, go and look up the definition in a textbook of sociology then try to apply it to the Palestinians. They didn't even make a claim that the land belonged to them historically until well into the 20th century. Tell me if you find a quote otherwise.”
How about we compromise? I agree that part of what formed Palestinian self-identity was the influx of Jews. Can you agree that we came to control a territory in which other people, who didn’t want us there, lived?
“Most people left through persecution, harsh economic conditions due to war etc , leaving a small core of varying sizes right up to the modern period. Not sure your point. If you mean that the usual narrative about forcible expulsion by the Romans is inaccurate, then I agree. But not sure how that's relevant.”
Part of many people’s justification for the morality of our return is that we were forcibly expelled. I thought you implied something similar previously but may be mistaken.
“Or, perhaps you mean that most Sefardim arrived after 1948. That's true. But your statement as is is verifiably false. But you have a habit of ignoring nuance in your observations, which may explain why you've fallen for the anti-zionist narrative who depend on lack of historical nuance to make their case.”
Obviously most, so I am failing to understand why you thought the existence of Sephardi Jews was so important earlier. If by missing “nuance” you mean that I don’t blow the presence of tiny populations of proportion, you are correct. To put things in perspective, all Jews, Ashkenazi and Sephardi alike, constituted two to three percent of the population at the beginning of the 19th century. I suppose that those with nuance claim that we were always living there, just like the Palestinians, and have at least as great a claim to the land as a result.
Delete“For full disclosure my favoured source of historical information is Benny Morris, unfavoured by zionists and antizionists alike, because he's the most objective writer out there. I suggest you peruse him.”
I have and like him as well although I have not yet been able to verify his place as “most objective.” Incidentally, Benny Morris is a zionist.
“No, they came to rule over themselves, that was their goal. Obtaining political authority over others was a side effect which they would have been happy without. I can think of no early Zionist source at all indicating otherwise. That is another blanket statement you've made without foundation.”
That’s like saying that when [famous genocidal leader] took over surrounding countries, he didn’t intend to rule over the people who lived there. In fact, he would have been happy without them at all! People freaking lived there.
Levi
DeleteThanks for that interesting article. It does cast a new light. I'd found Morris to be very balanced and with no evident agenda in presenting evidence, although I didn't always buy his conclusions. He did seem to lean away from limud zechus when I thought it was justified. I would also note that the article was about an essay by Morris 20 years ago. I believe he's changed a mind a bit since then to the side of Israel.
Shalom
Delete'Can you agree that we came to control a territory in which other people, who didn’t want us there, lived?'
Agreed. However I do not believe there was any intention to to dispossess anyone in so doing. The intention was to create a democratic state with a Jewish majority with rights for all, Western style. That's clear from the zionist leadership's documentation of the period, not to mention the Declaration of Independance.
Which means I can see no moral problem at all with the Zionist idea. For all the reasons already mentioned above it seems to me that the group with by far the best claim to rule was the Jews.
It is clear that the offence taken by the Arab leadership to the new neighbours was rooted in anti-semitism, rather than general anti-foreigner sentiment.Morris brings plenty of evidence for this. After all they had no problem being ruled by the British per se, the riots in the 30's were due to Jewish issue. You'll pardon me for not having sympathy with this as a reason for attacking us.
So they didn't want us there. Well, you don't always get to choose your neighbours. I think it's historically clear that we came in peace and only resorted to violence when left with no choice.
'That’s like saying that when [famous genocidal leader] took over surrounding countries, he didn’t intend to rule over the people who lived there.'
No it's not. The small differences are that Israel was always planned as a democracy for all its inhabitants, and that the Palestinians had never had self-rule ever. This didn't ever bother them in the slightest since they did not consider themselves a single entity and therefore there was no self to rule. If you have any historical evidence to the contrary at all, please let me know.
shalom
Delete"The Palestinians were there, and we came to take over."
take over from who. not from the palestinians.
it would be more accurate to say the local arabs were under the control of the ottoman empire and that the zionists came to take control from this corrupt regime and emancipate the local population and give both jew and arab an equal say in running their lives.
" Can you agree that we came to control a territory in which other people, who didn’t want us there, lived?"
no.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths3/MFroots.html#1
Even a leading Arab nationalist believed the return of the Jews to their homeland would help resuscitate the country. According to Sherif Hussein, the guardian of the Islamic Holy Places in Arabia:
The resources of the country are still virgin soil and will be developed by the Jewish immigrants. One of the most amazing things until recent times was that the Palestinian used to leave his country, wandering over the high seas in every direction. His native soil could not retain a hold on him, though his ancestors had lived on it for 1000 years. At the same time we have seen the Jews from foreign countries streaming to Palestine from Russia, Germany, Austria, Spain, America. The cause of causes could not escape those who had a gift of deeper insight. They knew that the country was for its original sons (abna’ihi-l-asliyin), for all their differences, a sacred and beloved homeland. The return of these exiles (jaliya) to their homeland will prove materially and spiritually [to be] an experimental school for their brethren who are with them in the fields, factories, trades and in all things connected with toil and labor.
Emir Faisal also saw the Zionist movement as a companion to the Arab nationalist movement, fighting against imperialism, as he explained in a letter to Harvard law professor and future Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter on March 3, 1919, one day after Chaim Weizmann presented the Zionist case to the Paris conference. Faisal wrote:
The Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. . . . We will wish the Jews a hearty welcome home. . . . We are working together for a reformed and revised Near East and our two movements complete one another. The Jewish movement is nationalist and not imperialist. And there is room in Syria for us both. Indeed, I think that neither can be a real success without the other (emphasis added). 23
Seeing beyond all the smoke and mirrors and vast propaganda machine promoting and providing cover for it, "Palestinianism" is a post modern fiction founded in ruthless hate and based solely on hate, namely the hatred of Jews. How anyone, especially a Jew, could be enamored with its evil goals, its manifesting sick behaviors, and the disgusting lies and slanders it nurtures is something I will never understand.
DeleteNo I cannot accept that they are justified in fighting us. Never ever ever.
Part 1/2
Delete"The intention was to create a democratic state with a Jewish majority with rights for all, Western style."
There's a lot of truth to what you just wrote, but I would like you to think hard about what that really means. How can one intend to create a Jewish majority somewhere where Jews are a distinct minority, against the wishes of the majority of the population and call that democracy? I haven’t the foggiest clue what that means on a theoretical level. Can you imagine whites coming to South Africa and saying that they intend to create a white majority there while insisting that they are democratic? And not just any white majority, but they want to create a “homeland” for whites in South Africa with all that that entails on the cultural, political, and inevitably economic levels, but don’t worry because it’s “democratic.” It just makes no sense.
“It is clear that the offence taken by the Arab leadership to the new neighbours was rooted in anti-semitism, rather than general anti-foreigner sentiment.Morris brings plenty of evidence for this. After all they had no problem being ruled by the British per se, the riots in the 30's were due to Jewish issue. You'll pardon me for not having sympathy with this as a reason for attacking us.”
I won’t claim to have expertise in this area, but I find the contrast with the British unconvincing for many reasons. Being part of a superpower’s empire and having some other ethnicity overtake your country are two very different things. If hundreds of thousands of Mormons came to the country claiming it was their rightful homeland, I’m not at all convinced the reaction would have been different.
2/2
DeleteThe above two issues are very interrelated, and so it is worthwhile to stress again that Zionist leaders knew that the native population would not welcome them, would fight being overtaken, and would have to be suppressed. As Jabotinsky wrote, “"We cannot promise any reward either to the Arabs of Palestine or to Arabs abroad. A voluntary agreement is unattainable, and thus those who regard an accord with the Arabs as a condition sine qua non of Zionism must admit to themselves today that this condition cannot be attained and hence we must eschew Zionism. We must either suspend our settlement efforts or continue them without paying attention to the mood of the natives. Settlement can develop under the protection of a force which is not dependent on the local population, behind an iron wall which they will be powerless to break down."
The position of the Zionists may be inferred by contrast with the small Zionist splinter organization Brit Shalom which proposed equal rights for the Arabs in a binational state. As Arthur Ruppin wrote in 1930, "In the foundations of Brith Shalom one of the determining factors was that the Zionist aim has no equal example in history. The aim is to bring the Jews as second nation into a country which already is settled as a nation - and fulfill this through peaceful means. History has seen such penetration by one nation into a strange land only by conquest, but it has never occurred that a nation will freely agree that another nation should come and demand full equality of rights and national autonomy at its side. The uniqueness of this case prevents its being, in my opinion, dealt with in conventional political-legal terms. It requires special contemplation and study. Brith Shalom should be the forum in which the problem is discussed and investigated."
“I think it's historically clear that we came in peace and only resorted to violence when left with no choice.”
I’m not proposing we came as Vikings, I’m proposing that many knew exactly what we were getting in to and the few who didn’t, such as Herzl, probably had such a colonialist mentality that what the Palestinians wanted simply wasn’t worth even noticing.
Slightly off-topic but a fascinating quote from Ahad Ha’am written in 1913, “I can't put up with the idea that our brethren are morally capable of behaving in such a way to humans of another people [Palestinians], and unwittingly the thought comes to my mind: If this is so now, what will our relations to the others be like if, at the end of time, we shall really achieve power in Eretz Israel? And if this be the Messiah, I do not wish to see his coming." As Mr. Ha’am prophesied, it’s all been downhill since.
"How can one intend to create a Jewish majority somewhere where Jews are a distinct minority, against the wishes of the majority of the population and call that democracy? "
Delete...
because the jews were sovereign, not the palestinians. there was never a sovereign palestinian state as their leaders have admitted. the palestinian status changed for the better. they were going to be upgraded from guests to full citizens.
"As Jabotinsky wrote, “"We cannot promise any reward either to the Arabs of Palestine or to Arabs abroad."
jabotinsky was a minority view but unlike you jabotinsky was a zionist
"I’m not proposing we came as Vikings, I’m proposing that many knew exactly what we were getting in to and the few who didn’t, such as Herzl, probably had such a colonialist mentality that what the Palestinians wanted simply wasn’t worth even noticing. "
palestinian violence does not make right.it dertainly does not negate the jewish claim to nothing as anti-zionists would wish.
“I can't put up with the idea that our brethren are morally capable of behaving in such a way to humans of another people [Palestinians], "
pity he was able to put up with the local jews being persecuted by the arabs.
Shalom -
DeleteBravo! Although I disagree with some of what you wrote, it's certainly refreshing to hear from a fellow Orthodox Jew who isn't reflexively pro-Israel. In my experience religious Jews tend to approach the Israeli-Palestinian issue in the same way that Charedim approach the Chazal-science issue, and when I discuss Israel with fellow religious Jews the conversation often takes the same form as when I discuss Chazal with Charedim. I may be 'right' or they may be 'right', but when the best they can do when presented with facts is respond with weak ad hominems (most commonly, 'Oh, you're naĆÆve'; 'You're just too young to understand'; and - my favourite - 'You're a self-hating Jew', to which one original thinker added 'You also think 9/11 was justified, don't you'!) the conclusion that the great majority of Orthodox Jews are uninformed, misinformed, and deeply biased can seem inescapable.
Moe Nomreste
In this particular shtiebel, no one is ever invited to attend elsewhere, hence the author's attendance.
ReplyDeleteIts a shame that the day has been hijacked by the religious zionist fanatics that have turned it into a day of racism and provoking arabs instead of hallel and hodaah to hashem. they really view arabs as nothing more than a bunch o f animals who can be trampled on with impunity.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Live-updates-Jerusalem-Day-march-to-commence-403335
and this is considered mainstream in the dati leumi comunity. everyone goes toit. we hear 0 condemnations from there leders. sounds familiar...
Jason Weisenfeld
Agreed that people should behave lawfully at marches. But Jerusalem belogs to Israel and a march of Israelis to commemorate its liberation from Jordan in their hard-won city and in the midst of international attempts to divide it is a good thing. Fear of upsetting Muslims and foreign journalists with the existence and joyous presence of Jews should not be a consideration. Your speculation about how religious Zionists view Arabs disqualifies your comment as anything but your personal expression of hatred.
Deletehow about chanting "death to arabs" and vandalizing arab homes and stores? is that ok? because that has been going on at this march for the past few years. It has been reported widely in the news every year on yom yerushalayim. Its half the reason so many police have to be there. And if the only news you look at is arutz sheva, than take it from an eye witness. I went to the march a couple of years ago and saw with my own eyes these things happening. It was disgusting. This has nothing to do with our right to jerusalem and everything to do with common decency. Face it, the dati leumi community fails to teach their children that arabs have a basic human dignity that must be respected (Obviously I'm talking about the normal everyday arab going about his or her business and not about terrorists. unless you claim that they are all terrorists and then we have nothing to talk about).
DeleteJason Weisenfeld
My children all went through the Dati Leumi Torani system which is very supportive of the settlement movement. I was constantly asking them if their teachers told them to hate Arabs or to treat them disrespectfully. They always said no. Now, we would all be putting our heads in the sand if we were to pretend that the ongoing Arab terrorism and incitement from the Arab leadership, both in Israel and the Palestinian-controlled territories wouldn't have an effect. Often,maybe the majority of the times the Arab started it. I recall years ago someone asked a prominent "moderate" pro-settlement Rav what to do if Arabs start cursing Jews in our presence. His response was to yell back at them in the same coin. We have our self-respect as well.
DeleteI didn't realize that the arabs in the muslim quarter provoked these youths into coming into there neiborhood to terrorize the inhabitants and vandalize there property. Anyone who actually knows whats going on at the march no that its a bunch of hothead religious zionist teens just looking to start in with the arabs. I was actually was there and saw it. were you?
Deletejason weisenfeld
Look here, Weisenfeld, Temujin doesn't attend rallies, manifestations, marches and whatnots because he deems them to be undignified, somewhat on the silly side assemblies only slightly above mob actions. A mass collection of people gathered for a cause is an implicit threat, mildly undemocratic, a security risk, a sanitation headache, a bloody nuisance all around.
DeleteThat being said, in democracies fellows of all persuasions have the explicit right to assemble in herds whether in a dignified manner, in joy, anger or even as a collection of braying asses...as long as they obey the laws. In this case folks marched to celebrate the delivery of their city which includes the "Arab neighbourhoods" you seem to have so generously surrendered as another tribute to the insatiable Mohammedan. It was a sorely needed salubriuous reminder to all who think that sulking, lying, bombs, car attacks, squatting, antisemitic boycotts, international threats or even the Argie Pope will gain them another chunk of precious Jewish land. As in most cases with marches, it is the duty of the constabulary and the march marshals to keep order and in this case, in spite of your protestations, they probably did a better job of it than the infamous police on the Temple Mount do with the Arab yoots and nasty old ladies hired to harrass Jews and Christians.
And please, do drop the old "I was there" line as the hopeful distraction and debate-stopper; this here is an Internet forum and no one can check the credentials of a single-issue visitor.One should assume that no one in the comments (especially Temujin) is who he or she says he is. So, Temujin, who thinks that he has a pretty good nose for such things, says that you are a mendatious little cad, naughty and devious, although not terribly clever, because it's glaringly obvious that your selective outrage was just a convinient, if creaky, vehicle to deliver your diatribe against the religious Zionists who, you claim, are weaned and groomed on hatred for the Arab...a charge still not withdrawn or even substantiated in your second, rather irrelevant comment.
R. Slifkin,
DeleteI thought that, at least on this blog, we didn’t spit at each other.
Dating back at least 22 years (when I moved to Israel) people would march from Merkaz HaRav to the Kotel in the middle of the night, through the Moslem quarter, deliberately banging on metal gates and the like to make as much of a racket as they can. This was done to "show them who is boss." This is not a simple peaceful march through the city, as anyone who has attended can tell you.
DeleteUm, the march takes place in broad daylight and is high school kids, not Merkaz HaRav students.
DeleteAlso, to get from Merkaz HaRav to the Kotel doesn't involve the Moslem Quarter.
Methinks your memory is playing tricks on you.
Nachum,
DeleteI have to agree with Yehoshua about the march. I was also at one of those Mercaz Harav marches in 1995. We did go through the Muslim Quarter and people did bang on metal gates of the shops to make a lot of noise. But I also have to say that I dont agree with Yehoshua that it was done to show them who is boss. It was done because teenagers are teenagers and thats what Israeli teenagers do. Imagine if the situation was reversed and it was Arabs marching through the Jewish quarter in an Arab country. They would do a lot more than bang on metal gates.
"But I also have to say that I dont agree with Yehoshua that it was done to show them who is boss. It was done because teenagers are teenagers and thats what Israeli teenagers do. Imagine if the situation was reversed and it was Arabs marching through the Jewish quarter in an Arab country. They would do a lot more than bang on metal gates."
DeleteBut that would just be because they're teenagers, right?
I like how we always justify what we do based on our imagination. "What we do makes sense because just imagine what they would do...."
I am not justifying any behavior based on "what they would do." And please stop thinking that its our imagination that Arabs (not all arabs) want to kill us. Nothing has changed in the last 2000 years.
DeleteYou remind me of the leftists I argued with regarding the 1929 Hebron Massacre. They argued that while it was wrong for the Arabs to massacre Jews it was a simply a response to Jewish conquest of their lands. It was sort of like a preemptive strike and they really had no choice.
"They argued that while it was wrong for the Arabs to massacre Jews it was a simply a response to Jewish conquest of their lands."
DeleteDid your friends sound like David Ben-Gurion?
A people which fights against the usurpation of its land will not tire so easily... When we say that the Arabs are the aggressors and we defend ourselves — this is only half the truth. As regards our security and life we defend ourselves and our moral and physical position is not bad. We can face the gangs... and were we allowed to mobilize all our forces we would have no doubts about the outcome... But the fighting is only one aspect of the conflict which is in its essence a political one. And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The land, the villages, the mountains, the roads are in their hands. The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country, while we are still outside.
"Did your friends sound like David Ben-Gurion?"
DeleteFirst, when using a quote please use it in its entirety and not excerpts. Quotes of Jewish Leaders are often taken out of context.
The problem here is that Jewish conquest is irrelevant. Arabs massacred 67 Jews. The pathetic attempt by leftists (and perhaps yourself) to justify such barbaric hatred behavior is appalling.
Turning the argument against you, I could claim that the Jews came to settle the land (which they had every right to) in peace and seeing first hand the true colors of their Arab neighbors left them with no choice but to take the land by force. Would you also justify that?
ben gurion opposed murdering innocent civilians. his friends think they are a role model
Deletehttp://www.quora.com/Did-David-Ben-Gurion-really-say-that-Jews-stole-Palestinian-land-If-he-did-what-was-the-context-and-what-does-it-tell-us-about-the-founding-history-of-Israel
Delete...it's important to realize that this was NOT said as any type of admission that Israel 'stole' land from Arabs; Ben-Gurion was speaking rhetorically to a friend about the prospect of peace and deliberately taking the Arab point of view. This is very clear in the book where the quote appears, but if you take the quote out of context, it's not obvious that Ben-Gurion is playing devil's advocate and this is not HIS view of the situation, but the Arab point of view.
Many, many other statements by B-G make it abundantly clear that Jews/Israelis were NOT to seize land without payment, and his great desire to live in peace with their neighbors.
Also regarding the quote - There is also some doubt as to whether B-G actually said this, even speaking rhetorically. The only source for the quote is a book written over 25 years later by the one person who B-G (purportedly) made the statement to. I'm not claiming that B-G didn't say this - I wasn't there, and there was no reason for the source of the quote, an ardent Zionist, to lie; I just want to make it clear that to use the quote as anything other than confirmation that B-G understood the Arab point of view is completely wrong.
Yesterday I had the zechus to daven together with thousands neitz at the kotel on Yom Yerushalayim morning. (I uploaded a video of the morning to Youtube. Search Kotel - Yom Yerushalayim 2015 and you'll find it). Just Right beside our minyan there was a group of dark dressed yiddin. I watched as they finished chazaras hashatz that they went straight into tachanun. Since it was a nusach sefard minyan they began with Ashamnu. I literally watched in shock as they were pounding away on their chest at the exact place where such a great neis occurred years before. How could they really stand there and say tachanun mamash at the kotel when everyone around them is saying hallel.
ReplyDeleteI was really bothered by this and wanted to go over to the oldest member of the group, a gentleman who looked like a Rav with a long white beard, and say the following: Were you not alive 48 years ago? Did you not see with your own eyes the greatest neis that Am Yisrael has experienced in 2000 years? How could you possibly be blind to such an open miracle and stand here at this very place and say tachanun on a day like today?! But before I had a chance the group finished davening, quickly wrapped up their tefillin and left. Unfortunately I didnt get a chance to speak with this person.
But this morning as I was learning Mesechet Megilla in preparation for my sons bar mitzvah, it was as if it was hashgacha pratis that I came across an amazing gemara on daf 14a. The gemara discusses that until the story of purim all the neviim since Moshe didnt add any new mizvot. Then along comes the story of purim and we add the mitzvah of mikra megilla. How could this be? To answer this question the gemara reads like this:
××× ××Ø×ש? ×××Ø ×Ø×× ×××× ××Ø ×××× ×Ø×× ×××שע ×× ×§×Ø××: ××× ××¢××××Ŗ ××××Ø××Ŗ ×××Ø×× × ×©××Ø×, ××××Ŗ× ××××× ×× ×× ×©××?! (פ××Ø×ש ××Ø×הק×Ø××: שצ×Ø×× ××××Ø ×©××Ø×! ××פ××× ×Ŗ××§× × ×ק×Ø×× ××Ŗ ××××××) ×× ××× ××× × ×× × ×××? ××¤× ×©××× ××××Ø×× ××× ×¢× × ×” ש××××¦× ×××Øׄ.
After reading this piece of gemara, I realized this is what I should and would have showed the Rav had I had the chance. Not only was there such a magnificent neis on Yom Yerushalayim but this neis happened in Eretz Yisrael!
To all those who just dont get it and cant see these tremendous nissim that are happening in front of our very eyes every day, I want to give you a bracha that one day Hashem should open your eyes too and you will also be able to give the proper hakaras hatov and thanks to Hashem as well.
So of course the tzibur broke out in raucous dance and laughter until this dogmatic moron left the shul in disgust, never to return again. Anyway, I hope that is how it ended.
ReplyDeleteWhy not assume that the person with the luach, not being acculturated to the dati leumi world, wasn't aware of the minhag to skip tachanun/tzidkat'cha the day before Yom Yerushalayim? (I'm not particularly haredi, and I wasn't aware of that either!) So naturally he pointed to the luach that's normally relied upon in the shul and didn't understand why anyone would skip it. But when he was told of the reason, he backed off, even though it's not his minhag. That's the way I'd tell the story. No controversy here.
ReplyDeletea more general point of practice- why do folks assume they know better (especially regarding tachanun which at some level is rshut) The general rule aiui is follow the tzibbur and ask for clarification later.
DeleteKT
Joel Rich
On a happier note. At the Kotel yesterday for Mincha, the Shaliach Tzibur (who didn't appear to one of the many there celebrating Yom Yerushalayim) didn't say Tachunun in what looked like his reverence for the majority of the Minyan that wasn't saying it.
ReplyDeleteWhy didn't the Shliach Tzibbur add an al hanissim during Modim? Probably, because he imagines that we are not allowed to alter nusah tefilah, that is to say he has basically accepted the Haredi halachic system, but imagines that you can just stick a Dati Leumi hashkafah on top of it. Given this, he shouldn't be surprised when a full blooded Haredi demands his system be properly adhered to.
ReplyDeleteOmissions are easier to justify. Additions would require a generally accepted text, and some tefillot are not allowed to have additions in our time.
DeleteYou wouldn't add Al HaNissim in the Mincha before.
DeleteYep, a good example of the perils of leaving a tangential comment after skim reading something.
DeleteI think what the chardei world thought in 1967 can give us great insight to how the world has changed. Please take a look at .....
ReplyDeletehttps://amhasefer.wordpress.com/
HaModia Yom Yerushalayim 5727 (1967)
Translated by Rav Zvi Leshem
The Day’s Echo
The liberation of Jerusalem within the walls and the Western Wall by the IDF who is striking its enemies, is the climax of the events of these great days. Once again our tears will moisten the Wall which is the remnant of the House of our splendor, the place from which the Shechina has never departed. Once again we will pray there as we did until twenty years ago, before our enemies separated us from there.
A great hour has come upon us, an hour of the revelation of the will of Divine providence which is shining its countenance upon us. This greatness has occurred with dramatic speed and has surprised us, catching us spiritually unprepared. We arrived there with supernatural leaps and bounds, and it is truly too unbelievable to be told were it not that we have seen it with our own eyes, from fear and trembling to deliverance and overturning. Israeli soldiers have raced across the Land of Israel seeing clouds of fire, clouds that restored the honor of Israel and left the world speechless, unable to believe their eyes, as a nation under siege turned the situation upside-down and went from darkness into great light.
Human intelligence is incapable of understanding this and it is doubtful if the world’s greatest military strategists would be able to explain these events in comprehensible human language unless they took recourse to the lingo of the Jewish People who are well-trained in miracles. For as in the days when we left Egypt, HaShem the God of War has shown us wonders that have no comparison in all of human history.
Only one who refuses to face the truth will not see the hand of the Lord who has led the IDF through the Sinai desert, the gates of Jerusalem, the walls of Jericho, to Gush Etzion, and on the way to Hebron, the city of the Patriarchs and place of the Ma’arat haMachpela, the resting place of the “sleepers of Hebron”, in whose merit we have come so far, and to the straits of the Red Sea, which in a lighting operation have again been opened to Israeli shipping.
Let us praise the Lord who is good, Who alone does miracles, who remembered us in our lowliness and delivered us from our suffering, for His loving-kindness endures forever.
People are forgetting that due to the tiny population of Israel, the Arab states could destroy it without launching a full-scale war, by mobilizing enough troops to force Israel to call up its reserves, and thereby paralyze the economy. This is exactly what they were doing.
ReplyDeleteVery good point. People have also forgotten that a war fever spread like wildfire throughout the Arab world. King Hussein of Jordan, who had been on very bad terms with Nasser felt he had to go and humble himself in front of Nasser so he flew to Cairo and agreed to turn over command of the Jordanian Army over to an Egyptian general. Thus, regardless of whether Nasser had an immediate plan to attack Israel, things were spiraling out of control and the leaders themselves were being swept up in the insanity against their will. Hussein admitted this open afterwards in which he swore he would never turn over power over his country to some outside force again.
Delete