Tisha B'Av 5770-Why are we still in Exile?

There's been something I've been wanting to get off my chest for a while, and I thought that today would be an appropriate day to do so.

One of the biggest highlights in my life over the past few week's was welcoming our friends the Adler's to Israel, finally making Aliyah.

I went to Ben Gurion Airport to greet them and the other 200+ olim from the United States, and having been here for almost 2 years, I still felt the incredible sense that history was being made, that there was something incredibly significant about what was happening.

I couldn't put my finger on it until today.

While going through the Kinnot in shul the first section is about the destruction of the Beit Hamikdash, but the the Kinnot that follow this section are different. They start to describe the other tragedies that have befallen the Jewish people over the last 2000.

The first time period the Kinnot describe is the beginning of the Crusades. I was looking through some of the commentary, and saw a disturbing parallel between what happened then and what's happening now.

There was a dialogue between the Brisker Rav, Rav Yitzchak Zev Soloveitshik and various other Gedolim following the destruction of European Jewry to decide if there would be a new national day of mourning over what had been lost.

The response was to look at the 25th Kinnah.

The 25th Kinnah is about the destruction of the communities of the Rhineland-Worms, Speryer and Mainz. The point of that Kinnah was to stress that every single tragedy that befalls the Jewish people is not considered a new tragedy. All of our problems come from one source, the destruction of our Holy Temple.

During the destruction of the Crusades, there was a stark dialogue between the Jews of Worms and the Jews of Jerusalem. In a nutshell the Jerusalem Jews were calling their brothers in Exile to come home and join them and help them build something great. The Jews of Worms responded, "You stay where you are in the great Jerusalem, we will continue to stay in our little Jeruslaem."
Something similar would be said almost 1900 years later about Berlin, Germany.

But the true tragedy here is not that the Jews of Worms and Berlin (and today America) couldn't handle moving out of their affluence and living in a land that they thought (think) would be difficult to live in. The tragedy is that they no longer understood why living in Israel was so important.

The first Tisha B'Av took place shortly after the Jews left Egypt. The spies had gone into the land and brought back an evil report. The Jews then spent the whole night crying, and Hashem's response was "If you're going to cry over nothing, I'll give you something real to cry about on this night instead."

Something in this story doesn't make sense. Hashem had just brought the Jews out of Israel, split the sea for them, given them the Torah, and was about to give them Eretz Yisrael, and because of this response he's going to make them suffer throughout history? What happened to Hashem being a merciful G-d?

The key to understanding this is to look at the language the spies used. Their words were, "We were like grasshoppers to them in our eyes... We will die when we enter this land."

"Like" grasshoppers. The inhabitants did not see the spies as grasshoppers, the spies just felt that they did, and that's were the mistake was. They didn't say they were weaker, they said they felt weaker.

Hashem said they would enter the land, wage war and defeat it's inhabitants. The Jewish people heard this report and said, "We can't do it, it's too hard." Hashem said, "what gives you the right to say you can't? I'm saying you can!"

These false tears, Hashem was telling them, will be what causes your destruction, not because of me, but because of you.

The mistake the Jews in the desert made, the mistake the Jews at the time of the Temple's destruction made, and the mistake that the Jews of Worms, Berlin, and New York made and are making, is the mentality of "I can't."

Hashem said you can be a better person, you canmake a difference in the world, you can live in Israel, you can bring the Beis Hamikdash. The only thing keeping us back, is because we think we can't.

What we're mourning on Tisha B'Av is the destruction, yes. But what we're also mourning is the attitude that after 2000 years still nothing has changed. We still think we can't. We still don't believe in ourselves.

That's why we're still in Exile.

That's why I was so moved by the Nefesh B' Nefesh flight, because 200+ Jews said "Yes, We Can."

The Ethnic Cleansing of "Palestine"

Classic Post from 2008
Note: the following story and analysis is purely satirical (although there's probably some truth to it)

I was in the library last week and noticed that there was a stand of book's about Israel in honor of Israel's 60th birthday.

I wandered over and started to browse through them, noticing various books, some I've read and some I haven't. Books like O' Jerusalem, Dershowitz books, and others.

Then one book caught my eye.

Located on a stand about Israel (a stand supposedly to show Israel in a POSITIVE light) was the book "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine."

I have not read the book, I probably will not read the book, but even without reading that book, I can tell you that the book is full of lies.

You want to see ethnic cleansing, look at Darfur. You want to see ethnic cleansing, look at the Nazi's. Israel's relationship with it's Arab neighbors is not ethnic cleansing

Now I'm going to make a rather interesting statement: even though the premise of that book is false, that Israel is ethnically cleansing Palestinians, the creation of a Palestinian state will cause the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians (Pretty strong claim right? Watch this).

According to the Arabs they are considered to have "Palestinian nationality" in that they have the right to property in the state of Israel (more commonly know is the Right of Return or Death to Israel or "We the Arabs unabashedly declare that we hate all Jews and want you dead") , whether they be first generation, 2nd generation, 3rd...it doesn't matter. If they had a ancestor that, at one point in time, owned land there, all of his descendant's have a right to that land. (Whether they even owned the land to begin with is for another post)

Here's an example of how their claims are taken directly from a page in Jewish history and twisted to meet their false agenda.

Hitler determined a Jew by a person had at least one Jewish grandparent. If you're grandfather married a Christian and your family have only married Christians since, you are still considered a Jew.

My (as in like me, the author of this blog) grandfather came to Israel (AKA, British mandated "Palestine") from Russia in the mid-30's. On his passport (wasn't really a passport, it was more like an ID card), under nationality, was stamped "Palestinian."

Ah, here's where it gets interesting, these Arabs want to claim that they are an indigenous nation, that have lived here for millennia (just like the Jews have), yet how could a Jew have the same nationality as they do AKA "Palestinian"? The only way for this to make sense is for people who lived under the British Mandate, who were issued identification cards to be given that nationality.

Now the local Arab population did not like the name "Palestinian" at all. That word was associated with all this nasty things, like the PALESTINE Post (later to be renamed the Jerusalem Post), the PALESTINIAN Airways (later to be renamed El Al), and worst of all PALESTINIAN (later to be renamed "Israeli" or another eternal name Jew/Yid/Yihudi/Bnei Yisrael).

Yes, they didn't like that name at all, in fact if you would call and Arab a "palestinian" he would shout at you for calling him a Jew.

Anyways, to get back to the ethnic cleansing. There was no ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, because the Palestinians were the Jews. But to follow the logic of the Arabs, I would be a 3rd generation Palestinian because my grandfather was given the nationality of "Palestinian" because he happened to live in the Land of Israel during the time the British were labeling people who lived there that name.

But wait! My grandfather left Israel shortly after it became a state, do I still have that lofty status as a"Palestinian?"

According to them I do. Remember, they view anyone who had, at one in history, owned property in the Land of Israel, or even just lived there, as the rightful owners for the rest of time to their ancestors. They also, even if they left, maintain the status of "Palestinians." (You can find people who claim to be 2nd or 3rd generation "Palestinian" who live in America)

So anyways according to that I am a Palestinian.

I am also an Israeli.

Therefore if there is ever (chas v'shalom) the creation of a Palestinian state in Judea & Samaria (or let's say even if they decide to make their state somewhere else, a ploy that we know is only so they can destroy Israel) I should be able to have duel citizenship to both places, correct? I should have a Israeli passport like I do now, or I should have a Palestine passport.

Right?

WRONG!

Because I would not be allowed to have a Palestinian citizenship purely because of the fact that I AM A JEW! I would not be allowed to even visit their state because the Palestinian state would be Juden Rein! No Jews! None!

But let's say that I was living in community in Judea & Samaria (something that is very likely to happen) I would be ethnically cleansed by ISRAEL with the support of the UNITED STATES, from my home there. Israel is not the one doing the ethnic cleansing because they want to drive the Arabs out of Israel, the ethnic cleansing is going on purely for the Arabs! Its' the ARABS WHO ARE ETHNICALLY CLEANSING THE ORIGINAL PALESTINIANS, THE JEWS!

So anyways, I will probably never read the book "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine" because it will most likely a work of fiction that doesn't examine the history correctly. As Rabbi Ken Spiro put it, "The creation of Palestinian history, is one of the most successful historical fabrications in the history of the world."

But don't worry, in another 5, 10, 50, 100 years eventually the threat of the "Palestinians" will disappear, and I can guarantee you, the Jews will still be here.

Giving Our Enemies a Voice

Update at the bottom

Enemy.

What does that word mean.

Is someone you hate your enemy?

Is someone who hates you an enemy?

In order for two people to be enemies do they have to mutually hate each other?

I just finished reading a speech given by Barack Obama to AIPAC, in which he has an interesting quote:

And my plan includes a robust regional diplomatic strategy that includes talking to Syria and Iran

Let's ask the question why do we need to talk to Syria and Iran? Because according to the United States, the plan is that is, that sometime in the future there will (theoretically) be peace in the entire Middle East. Not an unstable peace, but a real genuine peace.

And therein lies the problem.

In order for a peace to be reached you need to have two sides who agree on something, something that will benefit both sides. What benefit does Iran have in stopping their nuclear program? Or funding terrorists in Israel who kill Jews?

When all you're doing is talking, the most Iran can fear is that they're going to be yelled at.

Then there's the other issue of really suave Middle Eastern men.

When Achmadinajad came to the US to speak back in September, I was struck by how smooth he seemed. If I didn't know who he was I would have thought that he was a nice guy.

But we know what kind of guy he is, he's a guy who stands on balconies and screams "Death to Israel and the Jews" to cheering crowds below.

What gain to we have by talking to them? To understand them more?

The fatal mistake the both the US and Israel are making is that they think that they're dealing with people who think like they do and have the same values as themselves.

George Bush seems to think that he can send the army into an Arab country topple the government, give them cable TV and they're going to love democracy.

As we've seen he hasn't been too successful at that.

But the number one underlying cause of every single conflict in the Middle East stems to down to three question.

How do you define evil?

What does America consider to be evil?

And is the definition of evil different for Obama, McCain, or Clinton?

Because this next president is going to have to be the one to define that question.

Update:
I think that the question "How do you define evil" is still an important question still plaguing us today.
Last week we had the Gaza Flotilla incident, and as soon as the reports started going out at what had happened out on the high seas, the world became split, and most straight down the middle, on the issue.
There were people on the Right who were claiming that Israel was in the right and had not done anything wrong.
There people on the Left who jumped on the IDF for "creating a violent incident" on the flotilla.
(Oddly enough the majority of Jews here in Israel remained together on their stance.)

What disturbs me is that there is even a question here. Normally a ship being boarded by a country's Navy is back page news. Why is this such a big incident? What's the big deal?

It all comes down to how do we define evil? Is evil boarding a ship of people who are trying to break a blockade, while armed with knives, metal clubs, hosting terror leaders and just bringing with them a horrific atmosphere of hate?

Or is evil lowering IDF commandos from a helicopter onto the bow of the boat in order to commandeer the boat that was trying to break a blockade, a blockade which has only one purpose, to stop the trafficking of weapons into Gaza?

I'm Starting this Blog Again

After quite some time, I've decided to start writing again.
Well "writing" may not be the best word, as I'm planning on re-posting a lot of things that I wrote on my old blog that is still relevant today. But there will start to be fresh posts here again soon as well.
So here's an oldie entitled: "Giving Our Enemies a Voice"