web analytics
June 20, 2013 / 12 Tammuz, 5773
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘Herzl’

The Story of Israel’s Independence

Friday, April 19th, 2013

Scene 1

Enter the shackled. Enter the despondent, wretched souls. Enter the man and woman, boy and girl, deemed “menace to society,” destined to roam endlessly about. Number the stars upon their lapels and the Chai’s upon the chains that grace their necks. Note the fire in their eyes and the resilience in their hearts. See the laws they transcribed from the lips of Hashem, the bulwark of civilization.

Let the backdrop be constructed, the set pieces raised onstage. Livid and malevolent minor characters fill the void, the dark world of apathy and contempt. They seek redemption, to purge themselves from their nightmares and their guilty conscience. They would fly away if they had the means. But instead, they gather scapegoats and project their hate onto the usual suspects. These be our antagonists.

Scene 2

Enter the dreamer, the conceiver of a noble and ambitious project. Distraught over the subjugation of his people, he deems it necessary to act and to will the dream into being. There are no doubts in his mind, no second thoughts. He is sure of the task in front of him and the weight he must carry. The weight of millions alive and yet to be born. He is blessed with a burden, an obligation to freedom. He yearns for the soil, the earth that gave birth to his people.  That old-new land inspires the once and future kings and queens of Zion.

Our protagonists dash. Like lightning, they hurry across the stage. They ascend and journey to that land, that they read of in their Book, that land that they dreamed of in their slumber, that they trembled for, that they dared to desire in Godforsaken places, where evil men attempted to quench their spirit. “Next year,” they whispered. “Next year in Jerusalem.” They come and go in waves. They come by the thousands. But the dream is not yet fully realized.

Scene 3

Let the lights be dimmed and the sea of humanity be tossed and turned about. Let the audience wretch at the putrid stench of the bodies stacked miles high. Feel the flames of the ovens as the sparks hit your flesh. Hear these screams, these shrieks that will remain nameless, faceless. A grandmother here or there. A young boy cursed by his age. A Rabbi made to dig his own grave. A ravine from which they must all jump. Breathe in this air, this foul air. Let it consume your lungs. But avert not your eyes, for you must always remember this, this carnage, this culmination of libels and pogroms. Etch these souls onto your bones. See this and engrave these six million in your heart.

Look how our protagonists now command the world’s attention. See how the globe convulses at its crimes. Of apathy. Of evil. Of genocide. Yet, see how the longing for the land increases, how determination abounds. Let the new Exodus begin, the glorious journey to Zion. Let the ground bring forth its food and the towers be constructed. Let the ancient settlements spring forth anew and the first to Zion rejoice. Let humanity sing, and The City of Peace be painted in gold. For our protagonists have done it. They have triumphed.

Epilogue

This is for you. This is for you, oh man and woman, boy and girl. I can trace the laugh lines of your 65 years across your beautiful terrain. I know your worth and your virtue. They speak of you in paradise. Your spirit is infinite.

So take my hand and walk this land with me. For this is a production of epic proportions. This is Judah’s manifest destiny. This is the uncanny persistence of his youth, the anthem of his old. The memory of his fallen, the battle cry of his founders. The depth of his texts, the blast of his trumpet. This is the no more huddled, no more wretched. This is Judah’s voice, no longer whispered but bellowed. No longer stifled but liberated. So sing it, scream it, shout it until your lungs bursts, not of gas but of joy. Not of sorrow but of delight. Let Judah roar and his enemies quiver in fear and let the song of his people resound throughout the earth. Am Yisrael Chai.

Friday Morning Overnight Update

Friday, November 16th, 2012

7:35 AM NYC closed the area around the Israeli Consulate in light of the protests and for security reasons. Security has also been increased around other Israeli sites in the city.

The Federation announced they are donating 5 million dollars to Israelis in the South.

A Suspicious Object was found near the Jerusalem light rail at the Herzl train stop.

IDF was busy pounding terror targets overnight.

6:55 AM Missile hits house in Ashdod. No injuries.

 

Benzion Netanyahu, Father of Prime Minister Benjamin, Dies at 102

Monday, April 30th, 2012

Benzion Netanyahu, the father of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Entebbe rescue hero Yoni Netanyahu, died Monday at his Jerusalem home at the age of 102. The elder Netanyahu was visited by his son Benjamin for the last time on Sunday at the family home on 4 Haportzim Street.  He will be laid to rest on Monday at 5pm at Jerusalem’s Har Menuchot Cemetery.

Benzion Netanyahu served as secretary to Revisionist Zionist proponent and Beitar leader Ze’ev Jabotinsky, served as editor for the Encyclopaedia Hebraica, and served as professor emeritus at Cornell University.

Born in Warsaw on March 25, 1910 as Benzion Milikovsky, he and his family immigrated to Israel in 1920.  In 1944, he married Tzila Segal, with whom he had three sons: Yonatan, born 1946, a former commander of the elite Sayeret Matkal who was killed in the 1976 Operation Entebbe rescue of 102 Israeli and other hostages, Benjamin, born 1949, and Ido, born 1952, a radiologist, author, and playwright.

Working as the secretary of Zionist icon Ze’ev Jabotinsky, Netanyahu maintained a belief in Jewish sovereignty over the Greater Land of Israel, including parts of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt.  He was one of the signers of a petition against the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine in 1947.

Benzion’s strong Zionist values were a major part of Benjamin’s upbringing.  The prime minister’s father imparted on him the importance of protecting Jewish heritage sites such as Hebron.  He advocated a tough stance in the region, and predicted that threats to world peace would emerge from parts of the Muslim world harboring violence, terror, nuclear power, and oil.

According to a report in Haaretz, Prime Minister Netanyahu stated that his father predicted a Muslim attack on the Twin Towers in New York, as well as the rise of tyrannical Islamic regimes which would make efforts to attain nuclear weapons.

In his last interview with Channel 2 news – at the age of 99, Benzion stated that his powerful son does not support a Palestinian state.  “He supports the kind of (diplomatic) conditions they (the Palestinians) would never in the world accept,” Benzion said.  “That’s what I heard from him.  Not from me – he put forth the conditions.  These conditions – they will never be accepted, not even one of them.”

“No, No, Herzl and Landau did not toil in order to build a Palestinian state,” Benzion told the reporter.  “This land is a land of the Jews, not a land of the Arabs.  There is no room here for Arabs, there will not be, and they will never negotiate to terms (which would create a Palestinian state).”

Moreover, Benzion believed that Arab citizens are a threat to the fabric of Israel, and that they would conflict with the Jews by nature.  ”The tendency to conflict is in the essence of the Arab.  He is an enemy by essence… His existence is one of perpetual war,” Benzion is quoted by the Associated Press as telling Maariv in 2009. “The Arab citizens’ goal is to destroy us. They don’t deny that they want to destroy us.”

Benzion was a strong opponent of Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from the Jewish communities in Gaza known as Gush Katif.  The forced expulsion of Jewish residents who wanted to remain in the area was a “crime against humanity”, according to Benzion.

As an academic, Netanyahu specialized in Medieval Spanish Jewry.  In his controversial book on the subject, he rejected the theory that the Spanish Inquisition was a result of Jewish isolationism or separatism, saying Spanish Jews were interested in assimilating into Christian society and Spanish culture, and were forced into being Marranos when their efforts to shed their Jewishness did not afford them full acceptance.

1 Dead, Several Injured in Stage Collapse at Har Herzl, Jerusalem

Wednesday, April 18th, 2012

At least one person has been reported killed and 6 injured in the collapse of a light array above stage being assembled at the Mount Herzl military cemetery in Jerusalem for Rememberance Day ceremonies.

Initial reports indicate that the deceased is a 20 year-old female soldier and that at least two of the injured are in moderate condition.

A lighting fixture collapsed on a crew assembling the main stage for the annual day memorializing soldiers who have fallen in defense of the State of Israel.

Magen David Adom paramedics and Jerusalem police are on the scene.

Jewish State, Zionist Conflict

Wednesday, February 8th, 2012

Near the end of the nineteenth century, Theodor Herzl, the Viennese journalist who would wrestle with the plight of Jews amid the enticements and dangers of modernity, felt trapped. For his son’s sake he considered conversion to Christianity; to solve the vexing “Jewish Question” he even fantasized the mass conversion of Jews.

Yet Herzl also worried lest the freedom enjoyed by newly emancipated Jews lead to assimilation (as, indeed, it did for Herzl himself). In the end, he decided the solution could be found in Zionism, the nascent national movement that had begun to inspire handfuls of Russian lovers of Zion (known as Hovevei Zion) to relocate to Palestine and rebuild a Jewish community there.

The virulent French anti-Semitism that erupted in 1894 with the scandalous trial and conviction of Captain Alfred Dreyfus for treason convinced Herzl that Jews were “one people” needing a state of their own. “We have sincerely tried everywhere to merge with the national communities in which we live, seeking only to preserve the faith of our fathers,” he wrote. But, he concluded, “it is not permitted us.” Religion alone was insufficient.

Herzl’s The Jewish State, published two years later, was his plea for a Zionist solution to the Jewish problem. But Herzl was too much the assimilated Viennese gentleman to want anything other than an “aristocratic republic” (preferably modeled on Switzerland), which would become an “outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism” in the Middle East.

His dream of a Jewish state was conspicuous for its Jewish barrenness. Jewish history, for Herzl, was a burden from which emancipated Jews, even Zionists, must escape. Religion offended him: “We do not mean to found a theocracy,” he wrote, “but a tolerant modern civil state” in which “our clergy” would not have “even the slightest chance to assert their whims.” His Jerusalem would feature a grand Temple, emptied of Jewish content, and an Old City that would become “an international centre which all nations might regard as their home.”

In Herzl’s multilingual state “every man can preserve the language in which his thoughts are at home.” After all, he wondered, “Who among us knows enough Hebrew to ask for a train ticket?” Yiddish, the “stunted and twisted jargon” of Eastern European Jews, was a ghetto remnant deserving to be eradicated. Jewish culture must draw upon Enlightenment virtues: “justice, truth, liberty, progress, humanity, and beauty.” Herzl cared little about the location of a Jewish state; as between Argentina and Palestine he was indifferent.

Herzl’s call for the revival of Jewish nationalism proved equally offensive to the Protestrabbiner (as he labeled his European religious opponents) as it did to the enlightened and emancipated Jews of modernity. Because American Jews already stood on “freedom’s holy soil,” prominent Reform rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise declared, Zionism was nothing more than “a momentary inebriation of morbid minds.”

* * * * *

Secular Zionists succeeded in creating the old-new land of Herzl’s imagination. Against seeming insuperable odds, Israel not only survived the murderous hostility of its enemies; it flourished. Finally, Jews could once again live as citizens in their own country and, if necessary, die defending it.

But neither the Zionist movement nor its ultimate fulfillment in Jewish statehood could resolve the underlying tension between competing Israeli and Diaspora visions of Jewish modernity: independence or assimilation. Jewish leaders in the United States were infuriated when Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion appealed to young American Jews to make aliyah to the fledgling state. Then and ever since, the overwhelming majority of American Jews have preferred to remain where they are, ever more closely identified with the liberalism that has been their entry ticket to mainstream American society.

It might be said that American Jews have remained faithful to the teaching of Jeremiah after the Babylonian exile: “Build houses, and dwell in them; and plant gardens, and eat the fruit of them.” Indeed, when Ezra led the exiled community from Babylon back to Jerusalem, he discovered an “unclean” land whose Israelites, hardly immune to the enticements of foreign cultures, had adopted their “abominations.” Exile, even then, might also occur at home.

The pursuit of normality, given the tragedies and horrors of Jewish history, inspired Zionism, and statehood was its astonishing – and historically unprecedented – achievement. But the tension between a normal and a chosen people, between secular liberalism and Judaism, would remain deeply embedded in the fledgling state. Indeed, Israel has long displayed its own Zionist version of the tale of two cities, with Tel Aviv as the apex of secular Zionist hedonism and Jerusalem as the sanctuary of Jewish history and memory.

Built a century ago on sand dunes along the Mediterranean shore, Tel Aviv symbolized the Zionist repudiation of Jewish memory. With its back to the geographical cradle of Jewish history in the Samarian hills, it faced west toward modern sources of inspiration, at first Europe – witness the Bauhaus architecture in the old city center – and eventually the United States.

Pages: 1 2 3 All Pages

Zionist Art Nouveau: Ideal Or Idealistic?

Wednesday, February 15th, 2006

Artistic Expressions of’ the Jewish Renaissance

Hermann Struck and E.M. Lilien

Opened November 17, 2005

Curated by Amy Stempler

I. Edward Kiev Judaica Collection

The George Washington University

Melvin Gelman Library

2130 H Street, NW, Washington, DC

http://www.gwu.edu/gelman/spec/kiev/expressions/index.html

 


It’s just about the last thing you’d suspect of relevance and contribution to anything culturally meaningful. Its size is unexceptional, and the tiny exhibit in which it resides, occupies a pair of glass cases of the Kiev Collection at the seventh floor of the George Washington University Gelman Library. But Ephraim Moses Lilien’s (1874 -1925) etching of a man dressed in Babylonian garb with a Renaissance halo about his head – all set in a dreamy, Art Nouveau backdrop with glittering stars and volcanoes that evoke “spaghetti” – is, alone, well worth the trip. Sounds like a pointless artsy gimmick? Consider that the portrayed man is the Budapest-born Zionism futurist, Theodor Herzl, and that Herzl is boldly – even profanely – cast as Moses with the tablets in his hands, and suddenly the piece emerges as one of the most provocative gems of Jewish art.


Lilien’s move of casting Herzl as Moses makes a lot of sense. Moses is a fierce warrior, steadfast in his stance against his people’s every attempt to return to Egypt to assimilate. Moses is literally an iconoclast – he smashes the Golden Calf – and he strives his entire life for the one goal he can never attain: to enter the holy land. Like Moses, Herzl was steadfast in his view that his people must not assimilate, even to escape anti-Semitism, a view he came to embrace in college and later more strongly, during the Dreyfus Affair. Like Moses, Herzl died outside of Israel, weakened by pneumonia before he could see Israel arise as a state.


Lilien’s name might be obscure to many readers, but his work probably isn’t. He is the photographer of Herzl, and his famous photograph of Herzl leaning over a balcony at the Drei Koenige (Three Kings) Hotel in Basel, at the First World Zionist Congress, is very widely known. It would later be hijacked and re-appropriated by Zionist propaganda that would use the image for stamps, brochures and other campaign materials.


But Lilien’s portrait of Herzl-as-Moses should also be considered as an effort in self portraiture. When considered as such, it is ambiguous at best, and even foreshadows Lilien’s eventual disillusionment with the Zionist ideal. Lilien started off as a fierce Zionist, evidenced by a letter to his future wife, the assimilated German Jew, Helena Magnus. Lilien writes, “You do not know Jewry and you are like that pauper who speaks of a million and thinks of a million pennies. You think about the 800,000 German Jews, who however have no significance compared with the nine million Russian, Austrian and Rumanian Jews These millions of Jews, who all speak Hebrew and have their own poets and philosophers, do not even consider committing suicide through assimilation.” Lilien writes of the need for a Jewish state: “When a Jew writes me saying: I am a German, I have to remember the bridegroom who says ‘I am half in agreement with my bride: I want to and she does not’ The Jew must therefore strive for what is the ideal of every nation: political independence.”


But Lilien’s Zionism has something of James Joyce’s love for Dublin; he does it best from a distance, with nostalgia. Though Lilien would co-found the Bezalel Academy of Art and Design with Boris Schatz and would, by all appearances, seem ready to move to Palestine and live the Zionist dream, instead, he remained in Israel only for several months. He left Israel, armed with his portraits of Jews and his landscapes, and moved to Germany. Some of his best work was for the multi-volume set of Bibles in German that he illustrated, based on many of his photographs and paintings made in Palestine. Like Joyce, he seemed to love his country best by attacking it in his art, from a far distance. And yet, like Joyce who would forever describe himself an Irishman, and like Modigliani who overtook the Parisian art world by storm, announcing himself as Modi the “Italian, the painter, the Jew,” Lilien would sign his artwork as “E.M. Lilien, son of Jacob Lilien, who was a kohen.”


To me, The Herzl-as-Moses painting in the Art Nouveau style foreshadows Lilien’s eventual disillusionment with Zionism. Art Nouveau was born in the later two decades of the 19th century and is often called an “international style”, which explains why it later gave way to Art Deco. For Nouveau, the names to remember are Aubrey Beardsley, Antonio Gaud



í, Gustav Klimt, and more locally, American artists Louis Sullivan and Louis C. Tiffany. Nouveau relies heavily on curvaceous, often organic, forms that derived from the East.


Both curator Amy Stempler and George Washington University Assistant Professor of Hebrew, Yaron Peleg were skeptical about my proposition. Peleg, who is the author of the recently published “Orientalism and the Hebrew Imagination” (Cornell University Press, 2005), mentioned Susan Sontag’s essay “Notes on ‘Camp’” (1964), which explores how “camp” experiences are often “consciously artificial.” Sontag writes, “Camp is a vision of the world in terms of style – but a particular kind of style. It is the love of the exaggerated, the ‘off,’ of things-being-what-they-are-not.” She calls Nouveau the “most typical and fully developed Camp style. Art Nouveau objects, typically, convert one thing into something else: the lighting fixtures in the form of flowering plants, the living room which is really a grotto.” But Peleg finds no indication that Lilien used Nouveau in any way to critique Zionism.


I respectfully disagree. Viewers can easily recognize Lilien’s detachment from Israel in his image. Though Moses’ (Herzl’s) beard and eyebrows are bold and clear, the entire picture shows an idealistic castle in the clouds. Moses’ feet are obstructed by rapidly evaporating cloud formations. Moses, very literally, has no solid ground upon which to stand. He happens to be suspended conveniently at the moment of capture in the drawing, but Lilien offers us no indication that he won’t topple head over heels the next moment. Is this drawing then, a compliment of the Zionist state – and thus, Herzl by association – by appropriating the budding, organic creative aspects of Art Nouveau to show a ripe, healthy Zionism? Or, is Zionism a sham, a strong, powerful face upon a body that is only suspended by amorphous, unstable clouds? And that, perhaps, is why Lilien casts Herzl as Moses atop Sinai with the 10 Commandments. Moses has a choice: to keep the tablets, or to cast them down and shatter them across the mountain; that is the question.


That Lilien portrays Herzl in an Art Nouveau format is also revealing. The Nouveau forms were set in a dreamy atmosphere that later inspired much of the artistic exploration of Freud, such as in Magic Realism and Surrealism. Using that dreamy temperament, Nouveau achieved some sort of bridge between architecture and decorative design. But Lilien’s blend of Judaism and Nouveau, happily and diplomatically playing together in the same historical sandbox, is hardly a new idea. In fact, architect, Hector Guimard’s synagogue Agudath Hakehilot at 10 Rue Pavee, Paris, is arguably one of the finest Nouveau specimens, and Aubrey Beardsley’s Nouveau illustrations adorn Oscar Wilde’s play (later an opera) Salome, which tells the tale of Herod’s stepdaughter, Salome.


By combining the dreamy Art Nouveau form with Herzl’s Zionism and Moses’ revelation and receiving of the Law on Sinai, Lilien does far more than random “pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey”. The image is edgy by trying to modernize Moses. But it is a microcosm for Lilien’s politics and religious views, foreshadowing his later assimilation. Maybe Lilien didn’t know for certain that he would abandon his Zionism, but his pen subconsciously drew his uncertainty and his criticism even into his idolization of the Zionist giant, Herzl. And yet in doing so, Lilien produced one of the greatest pieces of Jewish art that manages to join Herzl and Art Nouveau into “happy matrimony” to both praise and condemn Zionism, in one grand brushstroke.


Menachem Wecker welcomes comments at mwecker@gmail.com. He is a painter and writer, residing in Washington, DC.

Letters To The Editor

Wednesday, February 4th, 2004
Immediate Response

Last week you published my letter about a firefighter at Ground Zero finding a sefer Tehillim that belonged to someone named Avraham Binyomin Shapiro or Spira. I asked anyone with information about that person’s whereabouts to contact me.

Wednesday evening - just hours after The Jewish Press hit the newsstands - I received an e-mail from Rabbi Avraham Binyomin Spira’s father, who had an office in the World Trade Center complex. Thursday I spoke with Rabbi Avraham Binyomin Spira himself and confirmed that he is the owner of the sefer Tehillim. We are arranging a time convenient to both Rabbi Spira and the firefighter for the return of the sefer.

Thank you for publishing my letter and helping to perform the mitzvah of hashavat aveidah.

Mordechai Dovid Levine
Spring Valley, New York

Sounds Of Silence

Your riposte to the Forward was right on the mark. Would that the Agudah be heard on this as well. Frankly, I am amazed that with all of the letters and articles the Agudah has placed in the Forward and the Jewish Week over the years, there has been complete silence from
that organization in response to those publications’ shameful distortions of the essence and significance of Chanukah. If the Agudah sent in letters or articles taking issue with those distortions, shame on those papers for not publishing them. But if the Agudah did nothing, all the greater is the shame on a once proud organization.

I strongly believe that this episode raises serious questions regarding the Agudah’s capacity to confront the attempts to eliminate religious imperatives from Judaism or achieve equivalence between Orthodox and non-Orthodox movements.

Elliott Rosen
(Via E-Mail)

Heartless Scam

It was with great interest that I read the articles by Rachel Weiss (no relation) titled “To believe or Not to Believe” (Jewish Press, Dec. 12) and the follow-up “Believe It or Not” (Jan.2).

A few months ago on a late summer Friday afternoon, my husband and children waited for me in our car while I ran up to visit a cousin at NYU Medical Center. A man came up to my husband and said he needed to get to New Jersey for Shabbos and that a cab had just left
with all his possessions. Feeling the urgency of this man’s predicament, my husband helped him flag down a taxi. The man inquired about the fare to his destination and told my husband that it would cost $90. My husband had $70, and my daughter chipped in the other $20. This man took our phone number and promised to repay. Of-course we never heard from him. Our stories are too similar. This sounds like one man using his trick over and over again.

What a zechus it would be for Rachel Weiss and The Jewish Press if some good will come out of these articles. Readers ought to be made aware of this story-teller who roams the city streets and peddles his bogus pleas. He should be stopped in his tracks.

Chany Weiss
Brooklyn, NY

Exercise In Futility?

By what right do the editors of The Jewish Press arrogate to themselves the role of Defenders of the Faith? It may be useful to confront challenges to the primacy of mitzvot in Judaism, but it seems entirely misplaced when you confront a respected rabbi like Shlomo Riskin over an interpretation he developed from the text of the Bible.

Furthermore, your criticism of Rabbi Riskin over such a minor matter was an exercise in futility. Those who are followers of his surely were not swayed by your arguments, while the rest of us were either amused or could not have cared less.

Sheldon Blaustein
(Via E-Mail)

Wish We’d Said It

Although I generally agree with your criticism of Rabbi Riskin, I would point out two things you missed.

In challenging Rabbi Riskin’s assertion that Yitzchak Avinu was reacting out of a sense of weakness when he decided to choose Esav over Yaakov, you correctly point to Avimelech’s prostrating himself before Yitzchak. You should also have noted that just prior to that, G-d spoke to Yitzchak and told him that He would be with him in all things.

In addition, you let pass Rabbi Riskin’s comment that if he were (as you said he was) “presumptuous” in his analysis, then “so were all of the commentators of the past.” I would have thought this astonishing display of hubris on his part deserved some comment from you.

Michael Lazar
Cincinnati, OH

Hey, We Were Merely Speculating

Whoever writes your editorials better get a grip. You really can’t believe that Libya threw in the nuclear towel as part of an Arab conspiracy to pressure Israel on the nuclear weapons issue. Or do you? It’s time you abandoned the self-centeredness that, as another reader recently pointed out in a different context, leads many Jews to believe that the world revolves around them.

Doug Fischler
New York, NY

No Alternative To Day Schools

We subscribe to U.S. News and World Report, which is about the only weekly news magazine with a favorable viewpoint toward Israel. But I was angered by John Leo’s column in the January 4 issue.

He asserts that it is not harmful to a Jewish child’s sense of well-being to be forced to sing Christmas carols in school, as long as there are a couple of Chanukah songs to go with them.

When I was a child in the 1950′s, we were forced to sing those songs in public school. I knew there was something wrong with that, and when I told my mother, she said I should just move my lips and pretend I was singing along. That was the only “solution” back then.

But 28 years ago, when my daughter was in public-school kindergarten, she started bringing home Christmas artwork from school. I protested to her teacher, and she then started bringing home artwork with Jewish themes. But when I went to the kindergarten concert, I was shocked and appalled to hear my daughter singing about Jesus and the “virgin mother and child.” And it didn’t help that the concert included two requisite Chanukah songs.

Thereupon I made my choice. I pulled her out of that school and placed her in a Jewish day school. Today she is a rabbi’s wife. Needless to say, her children are all receiving an authentic Torah education.

Thank G-d that now, unlike when I was growing up, we have so many Jewish day schools available. Parents, if you care anything about your children’s Judaism, enroll them in a Jewish day school. Furthermore, all Jews should be sure that a good portion of their tzedakah goes to these schools.

Phyllis M. LaVietes
DeSoto, Texas

More On Howard Adelson

Beth Gilinsky Spiro’s Dec. 12 obituary tribute to Professor Howard Adelson was simply peerless. Her evaluation of this good man’s life and work is right on the mark. His love of learning, his activism and his ability to defend the interests of the Jewish people was beyond
belief.

I met Professor Adelson in Eilat in 1970 while on a small tour of the Sinai area south of Taba. I was able to speak with him at some length in a local cafe. I was a liberal back then, but this did not stop either of us from conversing. I did not believe that a conservative could have been a professor at CCNY (today I would be right to think so, but for different reasons).

A few months later I saw him on television speaking against “open enrollment” at CCNY and the other CUNY colleges. I rememeber well his saying, “There hasn’t been a brilliant class at the city colleges since the 1940′s, and now there won’t be a very smart one,” or words to that effect. What arrogance, I thought back then; what a brilliant analysis, I think today!

During the years that followed I saw his name on many a petition to the powers that be defending the Jewish people and Israel against our enemies. Your tribute covered the ground very well.

I am fortunate to have met him; you, Ms. Gilinsky Spiro, are more fortunate to have known him.

David S. Levine
Hobe Sound, FL

Chanukah In Kuwait

Last month I celebrated my third Chanukah away from my family with the U.S. Army. I was deployed in 1994 for Operation Vigilant Warrior. I was deployed in 2002 for Operation Enduring Freedom. And I was deployed in 2003 for Operation Iraqi Freedom.

We had a wonderful Chanukah party in the chapel at Camp Doha, Kuwait. We celebrated the eighth night of Chanukah and the Sabbath in a very moving service. It was truly remarkable that so many Jewish soldiers and civilians came from military camps in the area to attend our simple service. Ours was a mixed bunch; from California, Florida, Pennsylvania, Washington, and other locales, representing the Army, Air Force, and even the American Embassy. As for supplies, we were blessed with many Chanukah cards, dreidels, and chocolate gelt. Before our service ended, we made certain to add many prayers for our fallen comrades, and for those on patrol this evening keeping our compound safe.

Our meal was meager but appreciated by all. The latkes did not arrive in time, so we ate semi-stale donuts left over from earlier in the day. My Aunt Esther, Uncle Seymour and Cousin Farrell had sent a variety of nuts, fruits and nosh, so we had some kosher products for our table.

In the end, each individual left with a smile. We came together in the desert to remember a military victory for religious freedom more than 2,500 years ago. And we remembered that the same battle rages on all around us. So the work continues.

Major Jonas Vogelhut
Camp Doha, Kuwait



Who Is A True Zionist?

Wrong To Downplay Impact Of Secular Zionists

Bezalel Fixler’s “Who Is A True Zionist?” (Jewish Press, Jan. 2) was inspiring to read. The
ancient yearning of the Jew for Eretz Yisrael is, these days, all too often taken for granted.
However, while those who yearned for a return to Zion are unquestionably “Zionists,” the return to Zion in the last century and a half was the result of all those whom Mr. Fixler discounts: Herzl, Achad Ha’Am, Pinsker, Lilienblum, Nordau, Jabotinsky, et al.

The fact is, the frum establishment rebuffed or ignored, for one reason or another, all of those
Torah giants who before Herzl and company advocated a return to Zion en masse.

Take the case of Rav Akiva Yosef Schlesinger, who when he visited the then Szigeter Rebbe on his way to Israel was told not to go. The Szigeter assured him that there were positions in Hungary for such a young and vibrant talmid chacham. The Szigeter begged him to abandon his plans for making aliyah. When Schlesinger refused his offer, saying that he was in love with the land, the Szigeter circulated a directive to all who would listen that any aid given to Schlesinger in his pursuit of aliyah would be tantamount to support of idolatry.

Rav Kook left Israel in 1914 to attend a Kenessiah Gedolah of Agudat Yisrael. When he
pleaded with Agudah to reverse its hostile stance on Zionism, he was rebuffed and reviled. The records indicate that the Chofetz Chaim was shaken to the core over the attacks on a person such as Rav Kook.

In fact, the 1947 records of the United Nations Special Committee On Palestine (UNSCOP) indicate that Agudah testified against the idea of an independent Jewish state in Israel.

Now, there is no doubt in my mind that these Torah giants who opposed secular Zionism were, in Mr. Fixler’s words, true Zionists. The only problem is that were it not for all those secular Zionists whom Fixler cites, thousands of marginal Jews would never have been inspired to make aliyah to pre-state Israel.

All that he says about Herzl is accurate save for one detail: The Uganda issue for Herzl, in
Herzl’s own words, was a temporary solution, an overnight stay for streams of Russian displaced persons as a result of the ongoing waves of pogroms. Uganda - and nothing else – was offered to Herzl by the British. And so he jumped at it for a practical reason; namely, that the refugees needed a quiet place to run to. In fact, the British soon rescinded their offer.

The examples offered by Mr. Fixler of, in his words, true Zionism, are all correct and admirable. They do not, however, change the indisputable fact that the overwhelming number of frum Jews and their leadership were hostile to the secular Zionists and turned their backs on this movement. With the vacuum having been created, what is the point of trying to determine who was the first or the true Zionist?

Rabbi Chaim Wasserman
Young Israel of Passaic-Clifton
Passaic, NJ

Who Lived And Who Died

Herzl, Jabotinsky, and Nordau were the greatest Jewish leaders in our generation. Were it
not for Herzl, the existence of a Jewish state after two thousand years of exile would not have come about. It was the youth that followed Herzl and went to Eretz Yisrael to establish settlements, to cultivate the land and make it inhabitable for the thousands of Jews who came after them.

My late father was a chassid of the Rebbe of Czortkow. My father also was one of the organizers of the first Zionist congress in Basel in 1897. He knew Dr. Theodor Herzl and adored him. When Herzl’s body was brought from my home town in Vienna for reburial in Jerusalem, my father, a Cohen, changed our name to Hacohen; the ‘H’ in Hebrew stands for Herzl - Herzl Cohen, Hacohen.

Jabotinsky, whom I had the privilege to know personally, was another of the great Zionist leaders in my generation. I was present in Vienna in 1935 at the first congress of the new Zionist organization Jabotinsky founded. He warned the Jews of Europe to leave for Eretz Yisrael immediately. He said the hour was five minutes to midnight and that if you don’t liquidate the Diaspora, the Diaspora will liquidate you. He foresaw the Holocaust.

By contrast, many chassidic rebbes told their chassidim not to go to Eretz Yisrael because the
Zionist country was ‘treif.’ I mourn the loss of so many chassidim, so many friends of mine, so many venerable rabbis, who were misled by their rebbes and by the anti-Zionist Agudat Yisrael and perished with their families in the Holocaust.

Most of my friends who followed Herzl and Jabotinsky landed in Eretz Yisrael, some legally
and some not. They were the true Zionists.

Dr. Mordecai Hacohen
New York, NY

A Matter Of Terminology

Although I agree with Mr. Fixler’s basic thesis that “Zionism without a religious component is not real Zionism,” I have reservations about the use of the term “Zionist” to refer to the rabbanim, chachamim, and other individuals and groups who made aliyah prior to the nineteenth century.

It is my conviction that historically referenced terms such as “Zionist” and “Zionism” have a
reality and validity all their own. As such, it should not be applied to acts of aliyah to Eretz Yisrael which were an expression of love of Zion or the fulfillment of the mitzvah of yishuv Eretz Yisrael before the advent of the Jewish nationalist movement called “Zionism.”

One should not reference a historical phenomenon back to previous generations who had
no concept that their acts of aliyah would produce the mass migration of Jews to Eretz Yisrael. Even those that hoped for it did not plan for it in the manner that the Zionist movement would later undertake.

We have Medinat Yisrael today because Hashem blessed the Zionist movement. It is likewise true that our inalienable relationship to Eretz Yisrael is based on kedushat haaretz from the
Torah, as we learn from the very first Rashi, cited by Mr. Fixler in his comprehensive article.

Toby Solomon
Kew Gardens, NY

Materialistic Malaise

In his op-ed article in the Dec. 26 issue of The Jewish Press, Rabbi Yehuda Levin did a masterful job of demonstrating that contemporary Hellenization, generally considered the province of halachically-challenged Judaism, has infiltrated the ranks of Orthodoxy (“Orthodox Hellenists, 5764″).

Rabbi Levin cites as evidence the disinclination of ostensibly Orthodox politicians both here and in Israel to stand up to the pro-gay lobby as well as the royal treatment lavished by
certain Orthodox groups on politicians whose stated positions are antithetical to the Torah.
Rabbi Levin views these acts, along with the general apathy regarding them, as proof that
Orthodoxy has lost its moral compass. He is right, but it behooves us to understand how this has occurred.

The answer actually is rather simple. Modern-day Orthodoxy has not rejected the Torah, it has embraced materialism. In parshas Mikeitz, Yaakov Avinu sends his sons to Mitzrayim to purchase grain before their supplies would be depleted. Rashi explains that he wanted to avoid instilling enmity in his non-Jewish neighbors who had been profligate with their produce. In charging his sons, our Patriarch employed the expression “Lomo tisroe” – why do you make yourselves conspicuous” – and here he was speaking to all of his children throughout the millennia.

But this message is lost today in our society. We need look no further than the “edifice complex” that has gripped so many Orthodox communities, as the well off capriciously dismantle perfectly livable abodes to erect visual testimonies to their surfeit. Duly impressed, the neighbors follow suit, finances be damned; must keep up with the Schwartzes, you know.

But then comes the next big decision: Where to go for Pesach? The Catskills? Surely you jest.
Miami? Been there, done that. So it’s Mexico or Europe or whatever exotic port of call is ‘in’ that year. Have no fear, chassidishe shechita and non-Gebrokts are here.

But it doesn’t end there. Not by a long shot. No, we have midwinter cruises, summer vacations, weekend ski trips – all under the protective umbrella of kashrut but all at loggerheads with at least the spirit of Judaism.

So Rabbi Levin is correct. We have become Hellenists and we don’t even know it. Certainly we pledge allegiance to the Torah – but it’s mere lip service. Does the person who imports Italian marble for his kitchen anxiously await the coming of Moshiach? How many families stiff the yeshivas when it’s time to pay tuition, yet drive their kids to school in late model autos yapping away on their high-tech cell phones? Given this atmosphere we can readily understand the lack of outrage when the Torah is slighted or defamed.

Is there an answer? I believe it’s time we speak about olam haba (the world to come) and
return it to its once-prominent place in the spiritual lives of Torah Jews. Throughout the
centuries there was no need to impress upon Jewry its importance. As people lived in poverty, in fear of the next pogrom, it was the belief in a better world  than this one that sustained them. It may be the only antidote available to the materialism that is steadily eating away at our spirituality.

Dr. Yaakov Stern
Brooklyn, NY

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/letters-to-the-editor/letters-to-the-editor-47/2004/02/04/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: