Author Archives: Rabbi

(First published at Israelnationalnews.com on January 21)

 There is something abnormal about the “innocent civilians” of Gaza that we would do well to recognize, especially since the blood libel at The Hague is premised on their suffering brought about by the war they and their elected representatives launched against us.

When G-d informed Moshe of the consequences of the tenth and final plague – the death of each Egyptian first born – He noted that there will be a “great outcry” in Egypt at that time that will lead to liberation for the Jewish people. The great biblical commentator Malbim (1809-1879) explained that “outcry” as the “outcry of rebellion” (Shemot 11:6) as the Egyptian people, horrified at their fate and their Pharaoh’s obstinacy “wanted to kill Pharaoh.” They had endured enough suffering, blamed Pharaoh and not the Jews, and wanted relief. That got Pharaoh’s attention and he searched for Moshe and Aharon to inform them that they and the people of Israel should all leave, and immediately.

How is it that there is no indigenous rebellion in Gaza? After all, we are told that there are some 40,000 Hamas fighters in a population of “innocents” that number well over a million people? The “innocents,” apparently, outnumber the terrorists some 25-1, or even 30-1. How is it that aside from a few scattered voices blaming Hamas – often terrorists in captivity conveniently changing their tune or some random Gazan found by the media – there is no movement to displace Hamas?

A few better questions: how is it that Israel lacks informants among the Gazan population? How is it that not one Gazan has revealed the location of any of the hostages (indeed, many Gazan “civilians,” as we now know, have held our capitives hostage in their own homes)? How is it that not one Gazan has revealed the location of the tunnel entrances, sparing our soldiers the hazardous task of finding them? After all, those entrances are usually located in their own homes, or in the schools to which they send their children, or in the mosques in which they pray, or in the hospitals where they presumably seek medical care. If they were as innocent as the world portrays them to be, why the reticence?

There are several inevitable conclusions to be drawn from this. It is the way of the world that people suffering under the yoke of a brutal, deadly, and unwanted leadership try to overthrow those leaders and replace them with leaders who better share the society’s values. Most of the United States’ Declaration of Independence is devoted to articulating the basis of that right. For a society that suffers under despotic rule, “it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government.” That the civilians of Gaza are so docile means that they are either cowardly – or complicit.

Cowardice is a state of mind and difficult to prove conclusively. Even though the “innocent civilians” far outnumber their terrorist leaders, it requires great courage to begin a frontal battle against well armed and evil fighters. But it requires less courage to surreptitiously help Israel, reveal the entrances to bunkers and tunnels, even reveal the location of any of the hostages. That none of this is happening means that the second possibility – complicity – is the more likely reason why Gazans accept the Hamas regime, rejoice in the war against the Jews and the torture they inflicted and are inflicting on our civilians, even participated in the atrocities of October 7 – and would vote for Hamas again given the chance.

That the world has accepted this false dichotomy between Hamas and Gazans is partly mendacity, bias, and insincerity – but it is also partly our government’s fault as it has made little effort to accentuate the complicity of civilian Gazans in the current conflict. Worse, our leaders’ vain boast the day after the massacre that “not one drop of water or fuel will enter Gaza until all the hostages are released” dissipated almost instantly under pressure. Nothing projects weakness more than making promises you can’t keep and threats that you will not carry out. It was a missed opportunity to expose the myth of the “innocent civilians.” 

We are now dealing with those consequences in many ways, not least of which is the continued captivity for the hostages. As our soldiers have reported, Hamas routinely sends out young children and mothers wheeling carriages to ascertain where Israeli soldiers are bivouacked. It presents an almost incomprehensible dilemma for our military. You can’t shoot them – even though their presence and mission endangers our soldier’s lives. I dare all the self-appointed faux moralists across the West to present a solution to that dilemma. Yet, whose Jewish father, husband, son or brother must die in order to protect the lives of these “innocents” who report the location of our forces to Hamas which then shoots RPG’s or other projectiles at our forces? At the very least, this presents an opportunity for our government to dispel the myth of the “innocent civilian,” call for the immediate relocation of anyone who wants to leave, and stop pretending that the future of Gaza is the restoration of the past. For complicity does not only mean that they are actively engaged in terrorism. Complicity also means that they have been educated on hatred of Jews and the illegitimacy of Israel. That cannot be changed, and we should stop pretending that it can change. Let the innocents go abroad and make better lives for themselves; to the extent that they wish to stay only demonstrates how complicit they are.

It is sobering to think that Pharaoh’s Egyptians were more normal, more sophisticated, cared for their children more, had greater respect for life, and feared Pharaoh less (notwithstanding his claim of divinity) than modern Gazans who acquiesce in their suffering, are accomplices in a cult of death, and far from seeking Hamas’ overthrow, voted them into power in 2006 and still support them. We choose to avert our eyes but they have signed on to a cult which declares (Article 8 of the Hamas Charter) “Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.” This death wish is embodied in the oft-quoted statement of radical Muslims that “we love death like you love life,” which they perceive as Jewish weakness and not – as normal people perceive such an assertion – as pathological.

It is not too late for our leaders to reverse the perception of the “innocent civilians” that is leading us directly back to the past, as if we have learned nothing. That the world assumes that “Gazans” should and will control Gaza on the day after makes a mockery of our suffering and sacrifices. Jewish pride, candor forcefully but rationally expressed, and a clear sense of our strategy for the future are the demands of the hour, if we want to salvage something positive from the catastrophe imposed upon us. Innocent? Hardly. And that point must be hammered repeatedly by all who speak in Israel’s name.

(First published at Israelnationalnews.com)

In a world that seems constantly on edge, on the verge of apocalypse, and saturated with daily outrages – usually fabricated, contrived, or vacuous – there is a surprising lack of outrage at genuine indignities that we ignore at our peril. On second thought, perhaps it is not so surprising, as the outrages are perpetrated against Jews. There is a daily stream of anti-Israel outrage about the plight of the Gaza civilians that certainly elides the role that they play in their own suffering – and they continue to play gathering intelligence for Hamas. But Hamas rockets are still launched against Israel’s cities, towns and villages, and we are still forced into our safe rooms. Where’s the outrage? Why does the world not find it intolerable that Hamas, presumably on its last legs, continues to target Israeli civilians after massacring 1200 of us on October 7? Do not Israeli civilians bleed as well? Why did the “world” ever find it tolerable? Why is Antony Blinken silent about this continued affront to civilization? And if the answer is that, well, the flow of rockets and missiles has decreased significantly in the last few weeks, why is any rocket or missile acceptable, and not worthy of a devastating response? What other country in the world is forced to tolerate missiles on its citizens – and receives no sympathy for it, no expression of outrage?

Pursuant to the much-vaunted “international law,” civilians caught in a war zone are entitled to leave, and the international community is obligated to find them safe passage to avoid the ravages of war. Such was done for more than five million Syrian civilians who fled Syria’s civil war in just the last decade, finding a haven in Europe and elsewhere. Why are such accommodations not afforded to Gazan refugees, far fewer in number than Syrian refugees? Why does “international law” not pertain to them, or is “international law” just a cynical, rhetorical cudgel to use against Israel? Where is the outrage?

Where is the international effort to save these “civilians” or at least to condemn Hamas to the extent that they are not allowed safe passage out of Gaza? Instead of affording these “civilians” the protections of “international law,” haters of Israel and their accomplices use the plight of these “civilians” to hamstring Israel and encroach on our right of self-defense. They are deliberately kept in the war zone in order that they should be killed – and some who try to flee have been killed by Hamas. So where is the outrage?

Even worse, in defiance of international law, Antony Blinken has trumpeted a number of conditions that are supposed to serve as the end game, the ultimate goal of the cessation of hostilities: the first – “no forcible displacement of Palestinians from Gaza” – is hollow, as even voluntary displacement is denied them. What measures have been undertaken to aid the resettlement of Gazans out of the war zone – not north to south (which is only a few miles) but out of Gaza entirely? It is clear that the entire territory of Gaza, small as it is, is a center for terror. It is equally clear that Gaza will be uninhabitable for years. Why is the obvious solution – resettlement from the terror-infested war zone – not seriously contemplated? Where is the concern? Where is the outrage?

Blinken’s other conditions are equally farcical. “No use of Gaza as a platform for terrorism or other violent attacks,” which is a delusion if Israel is not responsible for security. Oh, “no reoccupation of Gaza after the conflict end,” so how will Israel ensure that Gaza does not revert to a terror center? Relying on “others” recalls PM Yitzchak Rabin’s Oslo fantasy that Yasser Arafat will crack down on terror better than Israel can because Arafat will not be encumbered by Israel’s Supreme Court. And how did that work out?

Furthermore, Blinken routinely intones, “no attempt to blockade or besiege Gaza,” which is an odd tactic if the goal is to preclude future terrorist activity. The day is nearing when Israel will be told that we must again allow concrete and metal back into Gaza for “construction purposes,” which has always meant the building of terror infrastructure. And finally, in the Blinken world view, “no reduction in the territory of Gaza.” In other words, there can be no victory for Israel and there should be no price paid by the aggressor. This is a classic recipe for stalemate, for conflict management, by the chief diplomat of a country that has not won a war in eighty years. It should be indulged in the short term – and then rejected for the repugnant absurdity that it is.

After all, Israel is now in the process of conquering Gaza for the third time. Israel first conquered Gaza in 1956 (and surrendered it under American pressure in 1957). Israel conquered Gaza again in 1967 (and surrendered it in a mindboggling act of folly, a self-inflicted wound, in 2005). How many times must we conquer the same land? How many soldiers must die over the same few kilometers? Where is the outrage?

There is no other country in the world that is expected to surrender to the aggressor the territory from which it was aggressed – and whose invasion was repeatedly repulsed. Why must Israel? The question answers itself – we must not, and if we do, we have only ourselves and our weak leadership to blame. It is worse than insane – it is immoral to continue to coddle our enemies and restore to them the bases of their aggression, regardless of what “new leadership” is suddenly produced. After all, to do so means there is no price to be paid for attacking, for marauding, for murdering – and that simply incentivizes the next attack.

The mere suggestion of such a policy – the Blinken objective – is abhorrent. It will consign us to future invasions and wars, is the opposite of victory, and renders our suffering futile and our sacrifices pointless. Wars end when the aggressive enemy loses its territory and all hope of recovering it. The Blinken plan promotes stalemate, provides the enemy with hope and a way forward. And the enemy is not just Hamas – that is just today’s bogeyman Israel was savaged in the international media for bombing “hospitals, schools, and mosques,” all venues touted by “international law” as sacrosanct, inviolable, and off limits to military activity because of their primary civilian purpose. In truth, the verbal attacks on Israel have somewhat subsided, once it became clear that each of these facilities were used for terrorist purposes, as weapons depots, rocket launching pads, and entrances to tunnels.

It is actually worse than that. The terror infrastructure was so extensive that it is patently obvious that these facilities were constructed as terrorist bases in the first place. In other words, a terror base was erected – with schools used as fronts. A terror center was established – with hospitals used as cover for their nefarious activities, with the doctors, administrators, and staff all Hamas operatives. Hamas built a terror headquarters – and masked its evil behind the façade of a functioning mosque.

And where is the outrage? The time has come for Israel to define its ultimate objective in this conflict as victory, with all that entails – security, sovereignty, and settlement. We have become so accustomed to stalemate that we have no bigger picture, not even a clear expression of our strategic goals. Every war cannot end in a draw, tilling the soil for the next war.  We should be rightly outraged as a nation that we have been forced to fight in Gaza repeatedly, win, leave, and then do it all over again, and again.

We cannot expect the world’s outrage or even recognition of its own hypocrisy. The biblical destiny of the Jewish people in   G-d’s land is not yet universally acknowledged. Nonetheless, we can at least muster our own outrage – at the repeated retreats, at the failed “quiet for quiet” policy, at the political and diplomatic games played at the expense of the lives of our soldiers and civilians.

If we tolerate these outrages, the world community will demand that we continue to swallow one indignity after another, and never win. That is because its vision for our future is wholly different than what our vision should be. Certainly, we cannot thumb our noses at the world. What we must do, however, is define our ultimate interests, stand up for them and not back down, and achieve them. That is how nations act when they want to prevail and not simply stalemate. Then we will garner the respect we deserve from our friends, and gain even more allies.

(First published at Israelnationalnews.com)

The abrogation of the Knesset’s “Reasonableness Law” by Israel’s Supreme Court was expected, given its ideological bent, although the thin margin that voided a Basic Law should give pause to any reasonable jurist. It seems lost on the majority of justices that the law that passed 64-0 was considered too narrow to meet the Court’s standards but the overturning of the law by an 8-7 majority must be, to the Court, a landslide. Suffice it to say that self-awareness is not the Court’s strength.

It further escapes the Court – or perhaps it does not – that the Oslo II agreement, as well as other significant pieces of legislation, passed the Knesset with even thinner majorities. And, like this decision for which the 8^th vote in the majority was provided by an Arab Muslim justice, both Oslo Accords were passed without a Jewish majority voting for it. Of course, the difference as always comes down to ideological and political preferences, not law or justice. The Court finds rationales to sustain anti-democratic legislation and policies it favors and negates democratic legislation and policies it disdains. The justices are essentially politicians in robes, unelected and part of self-perpetuating oligarchy, claiming to be preserving democracy while evidently mocking it.

The decision legalizing same-sex adoption is of the same character. Its ban in Israel reflected Jewish tradition and the Torah’s ideal conception of a family and parenting, with mother and father raising children. Perhaps more importantly from a technical perspective, current law already accommodated same sex adoption, as can be seen from the Knesset Speaker’s family. Why, then, would the Court (again) usurp the Knesset’s power of legislation to coerce an unnecessary law? It would be only to flex its muscles by (again) poking a stick in the eye of Jewish tradition. It did, only because it could, because it has no restraints, no guardrails, no limiting principle.

The justices are not defenders of democracy; they are mockers of democracy, purveyors of pluralism and contempt for Jewish tradition, engineers of social justice rather than arbiters of the law. A child of nine could read in the current adoption law the words “a man and his wife” and understand their meaning. A progressive justice reads those same words and sees something else entirely – not a new interpretation of a Knesset law but an opportunity to usurp the voice of the people and implement what the court perceives as a desirable social policy. 

Whatever that is, it is not democracy, as anyone but far left activists would understand the term. Our votes literally mean nothing. We don’t get to choose electors who propose laws with which we agree and thwart others with which we disagree – of whatever political persuasion that voter is. The judicial activists and their acolytes who fear the loss of democracy actually fear democracy itself.  And a Jewish state that is not rooted in Jewish values rests on a shaky foundation. 

Where does it end?

Well, where did it begin?

The great economist and political thinker Thomas Sowell recently published (at age 93, in fact!) a book entitled “Social Justice Fallacies” in which he discusses, among many other concepts, the development of judicial dictatorships, now well over a century old. It is rooted in the idea that the masses know little and need to be ruled and controlled by a cadre of elites who uniquely possess the “consequential knowledge” that affords them, and only them, the capacity to make correct decisions for everyone. And then, too, it was done under the false façade of democracy.

Its political patron was Woodrow Wilson, who posited (even before he became America’s 28^th president) that consequential knowledge was concentrated in “experts,” whereas the people were “selfish, ignorant, timid, stubborn or foolish.” Wilson deplored the “error of trying to do too much by vote” (Chapter 5).

Roscoe Pound, the long serving Dean of the Harvard Law School, aggressively promoted this notion, among other progressives.

Professor Sowell continued (ibid): “Roscoe Pound set forth principles of judicial activism— going beyond interpreting the law to making social policy— that would still be dominant, more than a hundred years later, and on into the present. One of the rationales for such an expanded role for judges has been the claim that the Constitution is too hard to amend, so that judges must amend it by “interpretation,” to adapt it to changing times.”

“Like so much that has been said and repeated endlessly by elites with the social justice vision, this rationale is contradicted by readily available facts. The Constitution of the United States was amended 4 times in 8 years— from 1913 through 1920 — during the heyday of the Progressives, who claimed that it was nearly impossible to amend the Constitution. When the people wanted the Constitution amended, it was amended. When the elites wanted it amended, but the people did not, that was not a “problem” to be “solved.” That was democracy, even if it frustrated elites convinced that that their superior wisdom and virtue should be imposed on others.”

“Why judges and sociologists should be making social policy, instead of people elected as legislators or executives, was not explained…Whether in law or in other areas, one of the hallmarks of elite intellectuals’ seeking to preempt other people’s decisions— whether on public policy or in their own private lives— is a reliance on unsubstantiated pronouncements, based on elite consensus, treated as if that was equivalent to documented facts… Supreme Court Justices with lifetime tenure are classic examples of elites who institutionally pay no price for being wrong— no matter how wrong, and no matter how high the price paid by others.”

Professor Sowell was not, but could have easily been, defining and excoriating Israel’s judiciary, which has far exceeded even Wilson and Pound’s wildest fantasies in its contempt for the people. And that has become the bottom line in Israel’s Supreme Court – not merely the trampling of democratic norms but also the sheer hubris in thinking that they are better, wiser, and superior to the rest of us, that we the people are rubes who cannot be trusted with any decision and that even our votes should not count for much. In a nutshell, that is the essence of the Court’s nullification of the “Reasonableness Clause.” It is a keen distrust of the people and the people’s voice. Knesset members – the people’s voice – can and should pay a price for bad policies. The Court pays no price at all, ever; no matter the harm it inflicts on the people, it marches merrily along wrapped in the robes of its sanctimony.

Thus, the Court comes alive when a right-wing government is in power and sits quietly when a left-wing government rules. It is less a Court that defends democracy than a star chamber that endows its own decisions with sanctity and certitude, is convinced of its inerrancy, and protects its prerogatives at all costs.

That the Court chose to release these decisions at such a perilous time in our history underscores how disconnected it is from the rest of us. Granted, the internal regulatory bookkeeping mandated, it will claim, the publication of these decisions. But since when was this Court bound by anything in writing, by tradition, or by legislation? Surely it could have found a better way than to sow disunity in wartime.

This is especially true because of, arguably, the Court’s own complicity in the catastrophe of Shemini Atzeret, as its ruling in years past that prohibited the IDF from opening fire on hostile elements approaching the Gaza border fence could have inhibited the preparations and response of the army. And we will likely never know because this Court will insist on controlling the formation of any commission of inquiry after the war – to protect its power and to influence the conclusions.

The Court’s pronouncements make our country less Jewish, less democratic, and less safe. For how long will that be tolerated? What can be done? The answers to these questions will literally determine the spiritual and physical future of our State.

(First published at Israelnationalnews.com)

“From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” chant myriads of Jew haters and their airheaded acolytes in academia. It is meant to be offensive, provocative, and intimidating, and is a not-so-subtle call for the genocide of the Jews of Israel. It has become a staple at rallies and on college campuses, where analogous calls for ethnic cleansing anywhere else in the world but Israel and to any other ethnic group but Jews would be met with swift retribution. By the modern standards of the loony left, this is protected free speech.

There are those who argue that this is the case (although campus rules are stricter and the First Amendment does not alow for threatening speech) but “free” has never been synonymous with “intelligent,” and this slogan is one of the dumbest imaginable. If those who scream it ever came within a country mile of understanding the full implications of what they were saying, they would halt immediately, apologize profusely, burst out laughing, or become Zionists.

Because these protesters are more known for their blind hatred and ferocious anti-Jewish venom than they are for their perspicacity, decency, or common sense, they will pay no mind to the absurdities they continue to squeal.

Consider:

1) If Palestine would be indeed “free” if Jews in Israel were exterminated or expelled, it would become the only free Arab, Muslim country in the Middle East. This region has a sorry – i.e., deadly – history and Arabs have an unblemished record of being incapable of sustaining any type of democracy or protecting the freedoms of any of its citizens. We must therefore believe, as the chant goes, that something breathtaking and novel will occur in the Arab polity that this land – “from the river to the sea” – will achieve something no Arab state has achieved: freedom.

2) There were (are) two areas “from the river to the sea” that are controlled by Arab Muslims – the territory under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority (our Judea and Samaria) and the shrinking territory under the jurisdiction of Hamas. Neither of those areas are “free” by any reasonable definition of the term. No freedoms are protected – not press, not movement, not commerce, not speech, not religion, not assembly. Women are routinely subjected to “honor” killings by their loving relatives. The death penalty is arbitrarily and summarily applied. If “Palestine” were to be given over to the Palestinian Arabs, and is indeed to be free, it will necessitate the elimination of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.

3) The only time in all of history that “Palestine” has ever been “free” is when it has been controlled by Israel, meaning, now. Palestine was never a country or a nation. It was a geographic entity formerly called Judea, spawned by the Romans, and ruled over by Christians, Byzantines, Muslims, Crusaders, Ottomans, and the British. In the more than nineteen centuries since the destruction of the Second Temple and the exile of most but certainly not all Jews (there has always been a remnant of Jews in the land of Israel), the territory of Palestine has only tasted freedom in one era. That is from 1948 until today – and only those areas under Israel’s control. All of which makes the proper retort to “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” that “it already is! And it will only be free if it exists under its classic name, Israel, not under the name the Roman interlopers gave it. And it will only be free as long as it is governed by Jews.

4) If the pusillanimous protesters want to get technical, historic Palestine includes land on both sides of the Jordan River. That was the original British Mandate over this land in the aftermath of its conquest during World War I. The eastern part of the territory called Palestine was unilaterally severed by the British from the Jewish homeland in 1921 by Winston Churchill, who later boasted that he created Transjordan “with the stroke of a pen one Sunday afternoon in Cairo.” Perhaps that is why they mention “the river,” because though Jordan is part of historic Palestine, the lack of freedom for its citizens troubles none of the chanters, if only because the Jews do not administer that country.

In fact, the lack of freedom anywhere else in the Middle East or the world, for that matter, is of no interest. It is then not freedom that concerns them, but Jewish sovereignty. For historic Palestine to be “free,” Jordan would have to be displaced as well. But then they would need a new slogan. “From Iraq to the sea…?”

The chant is certainly insincere, but it is also fraudulent to the core. Israel is the only bastion of freedom in the entire Middle East, the only country where the rights of citizens and residents are protected. That is one good reason Israeli Arabs, for all their conflicted identity, prefer living in Israel with the Jewish Zionists rather than moving to the territory controlled by the PA or by Hamas and living under Arab Muslim rule. This is born out not only by repeated polling – but by the votes with their feet. They would rather be in Israel than anywhere else. No Israeli Arab leaves his home in Nazareth to go live in Jenin.

Indeed, it is instructive that this chant has not made its way to Israel – anywhere in Israel, from the river to the sea. The Israeli Arabs know firsthand where they find freedom and where they will find oppression, brutality, and hatred. They choose to live as a minority in freedom with the Jews than in despotism with their fellow Arabs.

“From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is a poor reflection on the chanters’ morality and intelligence. As has been demonstrated, most of them cannot even name the river and the sea they are yelping about. All it has going for it is a rhyme, fueled by an intense hatred of Jews.

Our response should be a better rhyme, one created by Ribonut Achshav, the Israeli Sovereignty movement: “From the river to the sea, Israeli sovereignty.” It rhymes perfectly. It has the additional bonus of being cogent, coherent, moral, and Jewish.

We should get used to it, because when we do, the world will get used to it as well.