A Call From Shiloh To Rabbis, Leaders and Educators

I address these thoughts to Rabbis, educators and leaders of Jewish organizations who have been caught up with a renewed wave of critical attacks on Israel from within the Jewish community.

You are familiar with them if only because on these times of social media platforms but also because of the aggressive invasive nature of these attacks and the wide support certain Jewish media and members of the Rabbinate and academia lend to them.

We have completed the Ten Days of Penitence between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur.

Most of you, at one time or another in the past few years, probably had occasion to comment on the Haftarah of the first day of Rosh Hashana.  The story of Hannah awakens thoughts of mercy, of pain, of being socially outcast, of feminism, of misogyny and other issues to which American Jewry especially is attuned.

The childless Hannah accompanies her husband with his second wife to the Tabernacle and in an act of courage, she prays at the Tabernacle for a son:

Hannah rose up...and she was in bitterness of soul--and prayed unto the LORD, and wept sore...remember me, and not forget Thy handmaid...Now Hannah, she spoke in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice could not be heard; therefore, Eli thought she had been drunken. And Eli said unto her: 'How long wilt thou be drunken? put away thy wine from thee.' And Hannah answered and said: 'No, my lord, I am a woman of a sorrowful spirit; I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but I poured out my soul before the LORD. Count not thy handmaid for a wicked woman: for out of the abundance of my complaint and my vexation have I spoken hitherto.' Then Eli answered and said: 'Go in peace, and the God of Israel grant thy petition that thou hast asked of Him.' And she said: 'Let thy servant find favor in thy sight.' So the woman went her way, and did eat, and her countenance was no more sad.

The Talmud states that "on Rosh HaShana Sarah, Rachel, and Hannah were remembered by God and conceived sons" and in a braita explanation, Rabbi Elazar said:

"This is derived by means of a verbal analogy...it is written about Hannah: 'And the Lord remembered her' (I Samuel 1:19). And...the term remembering is derived from another instance of the term remembering, with regard to Rosh HaShana, as it is written: 'A solemn rest, memorial proclaimed with the blast of a shofar' (Leviticus 23:24). From here it is derived that Rachel and Hannah were remembered by God on Rosh HaShana."

Furthermore, "the meaning of one instance of the term revisiting is derived from another instance of the term revisiting. It is written about Hannah: 'And the Lord revisited Hannah' (I Samuel 2:21), and it is written about Sarah: 'And the Lord revisited Sarah” (Genesis 21:1). From here it is derived that just as Hannah was revisited on Rosh HaShana, so too, Sarah was revisited on Rosh HaShana.

You may wondering where I am going with this.  

My intention is simple: do you know about Shiloh?

The Tabernacle to where Elkanah, Penina and Hannah walked was located at Shiloh.

The Tabernacle was erected there by Joshua:

And the whole congregation of the children of Israel assembled themselves together at Shiloh, and set up the tent of meeting there

The tribal portions were divided amongst the tribes:

And Joshua cast lots for them in Shiloh before the LORD; and there Joshua divided the land unto the children of Israel according to their divisions.

Shiloh was where the tribe of Benjamin was permitted to unite with the rest of the tribes at the:

feast of the LORD from year to year in Shiloh...And they commanded the children of Benjamin, saying: 'Go and lie in wait in the vineyards; and see, and, behold, if the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in the dances, then come ye out of the vineyards, and catch you every man his wife of the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin...And the children of Benjamin did so, and took them wives

Shiloh was where the Prophet Achiah berated a King of Israel when he was visited by Jeroboan's wife:

when Ahijah heard the sound of her feet, as she came in at the door, that he said: 'Come in, thou wife of Jeroboam; why feignest thou thyself to be another? for I am sent to thee with heavy tidings. Go, tell Jeroboam: Thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel: Forasmuch as...thou hast not been as My servant David, who kept My commandments, and who followed Me with all his heart, to do that only which was right in Mine eyes; but hast done evil above all that were before thee, and hast gone and made thee other gods, and molten images, to provoke Me, and hast cast Me behind thy back; therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam,

And it where the children of Israel were told that

the land was subdued before them. 

and from where three men appointed from the tribes were told that they would be sent, to

arise, and walk through the land, and describe it according to their inheritance

We've recited these past two weeks the "Mi Sh'Anan, Hu Yaneinu" prayer numerous times, and among the geographic places mentioned in the 20 verses are Mount Moriah in Jerusalem (or perhaps East Jerusalem as some of your call it), Bet El, Mitzpah, Gilgal and Jericho, all located in what several Jewish leaders call the "West Bank".

What all this indicates, in all simplicity, is that a Jew cannot ignore that Judaism's religious, moral, ethical and philosophical values cannot be separated from our people's geographic history.  Not only time but place are essential to the reality of Jewishness.

As you are in the positions you are in, you should point out to the students, the youth and others who have been caught up with recycled non-to-anti-Zionist positions as if predicated on something called "occupation".

The land "occupied" is part of the historic Jewish homeland, first and foremost.  Not some far-flung colonial enterprise.  Indeed, it was the area intended to enjoy the right of "close settlement on the land as per the decision of the League of Nations and continuously confirmed.

Those who employ a veneer of "Judaism" in order to negate that reality, historical and contemporary, should and need be corrected.  Do not allow them to proclaim falsehood.

And that is your job.

____________

P.S.

"There is no Jewish existence without the Bible; it doesn't exist," the prime minister said. "In my opinion, there is also no Jewish future without the Bible."

And without the Bible and subsequent Jewish continuum of residency in the Land of Israel, the Jewish People loses its ability to grasp its geo-political Jewish identity.

^

Communities, Settlements

My veteran readers (I am approaching the end of my first decade blogging) know that I do not use the term "settlements" to describe Jewish residency locations.  They are "communities".  They are Jewish revenant communities.

You do not like "communities"?  The use cities, villages, neighborhoods, kibbutzim, moshavim, agricultural-based villages, etc.  But not hamlets, as it doesn't sound kosher.

So what do I find?

This, from the book, Complex Communities: The Archaeology of Early Iron Age West-Central Jordan:-

Complex Communities explores how sedentary settlements developed and flourished in the Middle East during the Early Iron Age nearly four thousand years ago. Using archaeological evidence, Benjamin Porter reconstructs how residents maintained their communities despite environmental uncertainties. Living in a semi-arid area in the present-day country of Jordan, villagers faced a harsh and unpredictable ecosystem....Settlements developed what archaeologists call "communal complexity," a condition through which small-scale societies shift between egalitarian and hierarchical arrangements. Complex Communities provides detailed, scientifically grounded reconstructions of how this communal complexity functioned in the region.

These settlements emerged during a period of recovery following the political and economic collapse of Bronze Age Mediterranean societies. Scholars have characterized west-central Jordan's political organization during this time as an incipient Moabite state...

The use of "communities" is the obvious.

But notice that the area is "Jordan".

Anti-Zionists among archaeologists and academia in general still insist the area west of the Jordan River is Palestine, not Israel.  Jordan, which never ever existed until 1946 (until then it was the Emirate of TransJordan), all of a sudden becomes a Moabit state with ancient history.

^

My LATimes Op-ed on the Obama Visit

Here's the Opinion web page:

That Ami Ayalon is so ... moderate - and he got double the words I was allowed.

My op-ed:-

Obama in Israel: Can he overcome low expectations?

Obama's upcoming visit to Israel offers a chance to revive a relationship crucial to both countries.

By Yisrael Medad

March 8, 2013

Later this month, President Obama will visit Israel, a country intended by an act of international law to be the reconstituted Jewish national home. The visit will be highly charged, but at the same time, many Israelis have low expectations for what could come of it.

The president's protracted but unsuccessful attempts to stifle Iran's nuclear weapons program, his insistence on zealously challenging Israel's right to a united Jerusalem and his inability to pressure the Palestinian Authority to fulfill its obligations are among the chief reasons for the lack of excitement in Israel.

Still, as befits the representative of Israel's most faithful ally, Obama will be treated with respect, for it is our hope that the visit will help the president come to a truer understanding of the needs of Israel and the reality of the region. In the meantime, he might want to contemplate a few issues.

In September 2009, at the United Nations, Obama referred to Israeli communities established across the former Green Line as the "settlements." His exact words were: "We continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements."

I live in such a community, Shiloh, which sits less than 30 miles north of Jerusalem, and I can't imagine how my village and its inhabitants can be considered illegitimate. As archaeological excavations prove, the site was where Jews had lived for many centuries until the 2nd century. Our community, along with other cities, towns and villages, was established in territory where Jews had even lived in the 20th century, until forced to move by Palestinians during the period of the British Mandate and Jordanian occupation. How can reclaiming land that was lost through what some would term ethnic cleansing be considered illegitimate?

The president should be careful about using the word "illegitimate," by the way. A lot of Israelis are particularly sensitive to it because it is a word favored by those who think our state shouldn't exist. In an October 2006 live broadcast, for example, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad labeled Israel a "counterfeit and illegitimate regime that cannot survive."

Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria is quite legitimate. For 90 years, our enemies rejected all partition proposals and employed terror against us. Finally, in a war of defense in 1967, Israel assumed the administration of what are now commonly called the Palestinian territories. It's true that their status is disputed. But would it not be apartheid if Jews were prohibited from living there? Should Arabs be banned from Israel, where they are 20% of the population?

Moreover, a land-for-peace approach cannot resolve a problem that's not territorial. There were no "settlements" before 1967, but there was Arab terror, and a war broke out. Indeed, our communities could be a bridge to peace and coexistence. Until Israel is accepted as the Jewish national state, no border is sufficient.

Another matter of deep concern to Israelis is the case of Jonathan Pollard, a U.S. intelligence analyst who supplied classified information to Israel (an ally of the United States) that he felt was vital to its security. He has already served more than 25 years of a life term for his actions, much longer than in similar cases. He should be pardoned.

Not only Israelis but also at least one U.S. federal judge and many former government officials and elected representatives have made clear in statements that Pollard's situation is unfair and deserves a presidential act of grace.

When it comes to Israel, Americans too question the president's positions. In a recent poll by the website the Hill of 1,000 people, for example, only 13% of respondents said the president's policies toward Israel were too supportive, whereas a full 39% said he was not supportive enough, up from 31% in 2011. These numbers should be of concern to Obama.

The president's upcoming visit could be an opportunity to reorient the administration's outlooks and policies and to reestablish the foundations of our countries' long-standing friendship and strategic relationships. It could also assist the principles of democracy, peace, security and civic well-being in the face of a disappointing Arab Spring. Weakening Israel would endanger America as well.

Yisrael Medad resides in Shiloh and acts as a foreign media spokesperson for the YESHA Council of Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria.

======================

UPDATE



Two letters and one response:

I firmly agree with Ayalon that a two-state solution is vital if Israelis are ever to know peace and total acceptance in the world community. Yisrael Medad, who wrote the other Op-Ed piece in this package, speaks for the settlers who choose to live in Judea and Samaria, also known as the West Bank.
The simple solution is to establish a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with the stipulation that the hundreds of thousands of settlers can choose to remain. Israel has many non-Jewish citizens, so why can't a new Palestinian state tolerate the Jewish settlers?
Martin J. Weisman
Westlake Village

If Medad truly believes the Jewish settlements beyond the 1967 armistice line are legitimate and should be permanent, then he should support the logical next step and give all the adult legal residents in those areas the vote in Israeli elections. This would create a one-state solution with an Arab majority. Otherwise, Israel will be maintaining a non-democratic apartheid state in the West Bank.
David Ben-Gurion, a founder of modern Israel, recognized in 1948 that for Israel to be a Jewish, democratic state, the Zionists had to accept partition, with a Jewish majority in Israel and Arabs outside the Jewish state.
Medad not only undermines Israel's democratic Zionist principles and security, he also asks the United States to forswear its own democratic principles and security interests.
David Perel
Los Angeles

Yisrael Medad at 03:17 AM March 15, 2013As for David Perel's points, that I "should support the logical next step and give all the adult legal residents in those areas the vote in Israeli elections. This would create a one-state solution with an Arab majority."
a) I do support that.  After peace which means acceptance of Jewish national ethos.  And after a law is passed prohibiting political parties who seek to subver the state of Israell as the Jewish national home.  In Finland, parties can exist only if they express respect for democratic prinicples and in Austria, it's a criminal offense to endanger national independence or constitutionally mandate form of government, for example.  I think such would protect Israel.
b) there is no current threat of an Arab majority nor is there a demographic problem that cannot be dealt with.

^

The NYTimes Repudiates Its William Safire

In a May 14, 2010 piece, the New York Times' Public Editor (aka the ombudsman), Clark Hoyt, dealt with 'Semantic Minefields', one of which was the use of the word "settlements to describe locations of Jewish residency in the area set aside by international law - the 1923 League of Nations decision after the removal of TransJordan which still left what today is Judea, Samaria and Gaza no matter what you might call them - as the intended to be reconstituted Jewish national homeland.

Extracts:

...Should new construction authorized by Israel in East Jerusalem be called Jewish “housing” or “settlements”? Times journalists juggle such questions daily as they try to present the news in clear and evenhanded language. Depending on their choices, advocacy groups or individuals of one political persuasion or another accuse them of being inaccurate, retreating into euphemism or taking sides. In the war of words, there is sometimes no safe middle ground.

...No subject arouses reader passion more consistently than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and The Times navigates a semantic minefield with almost every story on the subject. When [Helene] Cooper wrote this month about a lunch that Obama had with Elie Wiesel, the Nobel laureate and Holocaust survivor, she said the president was trying to mend fences with American Jews upset at the administration’s stance against construction of “Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem.”

Nathan Dodell of Rockville, Md., said it was “tendentious and arrogant” to use the word “settlements” four times in the article when the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has explicitly rejected it in relation to East Jerusalem. Obama has used the term himself to refer to construction in East Jerusalem, and Cooper told me, “I called them settlements because that’s the heart of the dispute between the Israelis and the United States: settlement construction in Arab East Jerusalem, which the Palestinians want for an eventual Palestinian state.”

But to Dodell, she was taking sides. He asked why she didn’t use a neutral term like “housing construction.”

Settlement is a charged word in this context, because it suggests something less than permanent on someone else’s land. Israel argues that all of Jerusalem is its undivided capital, a claim not recognized by the United States and most of the world. Articles by Times reporters in Jerusalem do generally use words like “housing” instead of “settlement.” Still, Ethan Bronner, the bureau chief, said it would be unwise to adopt a hard and fast rule, because some areas of the city taken by Israel in 1967 had long been Jewish neighborhoods while others, built more recently, had the feeling of settlements.

I think Cooper should have found a more neutral term...it is best to use language as precise as possible. But like Bronner, I don’t think a rigid rule is the solution...

Well, Hoyt could have reviewed what a previous language maven wrote in the New York Times.

As I noted, in my piece on the term "revenant" to replace the very imprecise and pejorative "settler":-

In his August 5, 2001 column, On Language, in the New York Times Weekend Magazine, Safire has written: "Words have connotations. In the disputed territory known as the West Bank, an Israeli village is called a settlement, implying fresh intrusion; a small Palestinian town, even one recently settled, is called a village, implying permanence." Of course, his use of “disputed” rather than “occupied”, or for that matter, “liberated”, in another example of the importance of how one calls an act or a situation.

So, is Safire not good enough for the New York Times?

Republican Contenders Like Jewish Communities in Yesha

Noam Neusner, the principal of Neusner Communications, LLC, and who served as a speechwriter and Jewish liaison for President George W. Bush, explains:

Why Palin and Huckabee Dig Settlements

...In recent months, however, a new issue has emerged with which Republican contenders are trying to distinguish themselves: West Bank settlements...Mike Huckabee made a high-profile visit to the West Bank...Sarah Palin offered a more curious rationale for settlement expansion: “That population of Israel is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. And I don’t think that the Obama administration has any right to tell Israel that the Jewish settlements cannot expand.”

...Rep. Eric Cantor, has called the settlement issue “a distraction” from the bigger threat posed by Iran. “The status of the settlement blocks is something to be resolved in future agreements; it is not something we should begin pressuring Israel on now, when there really have not been adequate steps taken by the Arab states and the Palestinians,” Cantor told The Jerusalem Post.

So what explains the zeal on settlements from Huckabee and Palin?

...their focus on settlements could also be seen as a calculated political move to distinguish themselves from the Republican pack....And the settlement issue, of course, has particular appeal to Christian conservatives who believe God gave Israel to the Jewish people. Saying that settlements are Israel’s right is a way of telling Christian Zionists, “I’m with you.”

...So what’s driving Palin and Huckabee — conviction or political expediency? The answer is probably at least a bit of both. I don’t doubt that they have both arrived at their positions on settlements in good faith, though it’s unlikely they have devoted serious study to 42 years of American foreign policy on the issue. And, in any case, they likely see the settlement issue as a cost-free way of scoring political points against an incumbent president who is seen by many as the least friendly president toward Israel since Jimmy Carter...

That's So Much Better

Here.

And here.

From the Archives

From the Israel Foreign Ministry site:

Speaking in the U.S. Senate, Charles H. Percy of Illinois, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, made certain remarks questioning the right of Jews to settle in the West Bank. While expressing full support for the existence of Israel, the Senator said he wanted to exchange views with the Prime Minister of Israel on this issue. Following is the reply of Mr. Begin to Senator Percy from June 10, 1979

Dear Friend,

I have read in extenso the statement you made from the floor of the Senate on June 5. May I, at the outset, readily and fully reciprocate your expressions of friendship.

I understand from your statement that you would like to exchange views with me on the matter of Jewish settlements in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza District. I, therefore, take this initiative to present to you my view as Prime Minister of Israel.

Dear Senator Percy:

Jews have a perfect right to live in any area of Eretz Israel which foreigners, since the days of Emperor Hadrianus, renamed or misnamed, Palestine. This is the land of our forefathers to which we returned as of right. Just as we are entitled to dwell in Tel Aviv, Haifa and Jerusalem so, no less, do we have the absolute right to live in Judea, Samaria and the District of Gaza.

This right is inseparably bound up with the needs and demands of our vital national security. I would ask you, dear Senator, to take a glimpse at the map. You will understand that from those areas mentioned above come the professional killers of the so-called PLO. They came to a town called Petah Tikva and killed a mother and her baby girl, just to mention one example of many throughout the country relating to recent terrorist atrocities and attempted attacks.

What, therefore, is the security importance of Jewish settlements? In answering this question five Justices of our Supreme Court handed down the following unanimous opinion. I quote:

"One does not have to be a military and a security expert to realize that terrorist elements operate more easily in an area inhabited only by a population that is indifferent or is sympathetic towards the enemy than in an area where there are also persons likely to look out for them and to report any suspicious movement to the authorities. Such persons will offer them no hideout, assistance or supplies. The matter is simple and needs no elaboration."

If anybody should ask me, as the head of the Government of Israel, to forego any effort humanly possible to prevent or to stem the movement of these professional killers - who, in Nahariya, for instance, smashed in the head of a four-year old child - I would never assume responsibility for such a gross dereliction of duty. True, I cannot guarantee that despite all the measures we undertake such atrocities will not be repeated. The reason is mathematically simple: when the civilian population is the target of attack then you have more than three million targets in the Land of Israel. But not to try, by every means to prevent such atrocities?!

Senator Percy, I gave an oath of allegiance in the Knesset to faithfully carry out my duties as Prime Minister of Israel. I am determined to do so. My generation witnessed one and a half million Jewish children dragged to a wanton death whilst nobody in the whole world did anything to try and rescue even one Jewish child. It is our responsibility therefore, to care for our own children and grandchildren. As I have said, Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel is an inalienable right per-se. It is also, however, crucially important for the protection of the lives of our children and grandchildren.

President Sadat and I signed a treaty of peace between our two countries. What our contribution has been to the achievement of this treaty is known. I am a friend of President Sadat and, of course, we should help each other. But what about my difficulties? President Sadat was cheered in El-Arish, my friends and I were jeered, and worse, at Neot Sinai.

In the presence of President Sadat, in Beersheba, I said:

"The constructive idea of autonomy is ours. At Camp David it was accepted by both the American and the Egyptian delegations. It is a progressive, noble idea. The Arab inhabitants of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza District will elect their own Administrative Council, which will deal with all the aspects of their daily lives, without interference. We shall reserve security, which under the circumstances of the destructive, inhuman, bloodthirsty rampage of the genocidal so-called PLO is an absolute inescapable necessity of life, already recognized by every man of goodwill."

I believe with all my heart that you, Mr. Senator, feel goodwill towards Israel and its absolute need to live in peace. Please, consider our unique situation.

I must add that in pursuing this policy not one Arab is being evicted from his village or town. We want Jews and Arabs in the land to live together in peace, in security and in human dignity.

With my best wishes,

Yours in friendship,
Menachem Begin

Pnei Chever Is A Community

CNN reports so:

Lt. Assaf Ramon died in the crash near the Israeli community of P'nei Chever in the southern Hebron Hills, the IDF said.

(Kippah Tip: MF)

The TIME Photo Essay

It's here.

Too many spelling errors. Too many of the pictures darkish/foreboding. If the essay text itself is similar, too bad. No agriculture. No schools with schoolchildren. Much missing if the purpose was to reflect life, day-to-day existence.

I picked three photos of people I know personally.

1) Daniella Weiss in Kedumim:


2) Sharon Katz, husband Izzy and family in Efrat:

3) Moriyah Avraham-Greenglick here in Shiloh:




Sorry, but I missed the full essay itself (I caught first the photo essay).

Here it is. I'll read it through and maybe will comment, so, do come back.

And one more photograph of a neighborhood in Shiloh:

4) Einat Bloch:

The Siege. No, Not That Of Gaza

According to Haaretz,

European diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity as a fresh economic offensive on the West Bank settlements has not been officially approved, said Miliband has been trying to muster support in Brussels for tougher implementation of existing customs regulations in the hope that settlements, a core issue in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, could be placed under a siege that could help hasten their dismantlement.

So, do we call for international solidarity?

Since we can't ask friends to come in by sea on boats from Cyprus, maybe we'll need to dig tunnels?

But, of course, this is a very nasty, immoral approach.

We can't lay siege to Gaza, the Europeans, Sec'y of State Condi Rice, International Solidarists and other loonies claim but they are more than willing to consider Jewish civilian residency as more evil and more responsible for the lack of peace than Arab terror.