they want the whole enchilda

Kahanism. Its an ideology that won’t go away. Part of the reason is the complicity of the far left, the establishment song and dance men like Gideon Levy promote a brand of Israeli jew at odds with what has been termed as the “jewish jews” and it serves their purpose to brandish Meir Kahane as a mascot and proxy that they want to paint in the least favorable light. Something like Theodor Berkman and Emma Goldman being exemplar Democrats.

So, Kahane still packs a charge and the governments decisions such as the expulsion of the Gaza communities – Gush Katif- which was followed by missile launched from the evacuated land as well as the glass clinking elite nature of the Oslo accords foisted on the public without due discussion serves the ruling class well to whip out the Kahane ghost as cloud cover for the undemocratic nature of their near control over the state apparatus as well as state sanctioned monopolies over most sectors of the economy such as the media. This entrenched and reinforced elite perhaps should have been the focus of Kahane’s known work, “They Must Go” instead of the Palestinians. However, his existence allowed a smearing of the entire nationalist movement whether liberal or conservative and to dismiss Zionist revisionism, Peter Bergson, Jabotinsky and Benzion Netanyahu as marginalized radicals.

---Image credit: A blind boy feels a relief of a map of Israel by David Rubinger---Read More:

Meir Kahane was a compelling speaker and charismatic leader but he was in, the main, a demagogue, and dead wrong in aligning his views, rather synthetically and conveniently with the Torah. His views on citizenship, deportatation, reproductive rights seem based on arbitrary and autocratic considerations, rhetoric even encouraged by the left, but nonetheless unproductive.  His lack of toleration of  dissent and recourse to  severely  attacking opposing views was legendary. At heart of Kahanism was the assertion that  democracy is contrary to the Torah and that if  an elected public determines the law, it can  establish legislation that deviate from the Torah . His view is that while this may please the public, it does not concord with plan for a Jewish nation.This has been disproved by some learned scholars and rabbi’s given to a less selective and ingenious parsing of the texts that effectively disputed Kahane’s view that democracy is a foreign import, a gentile- another misunderstood term- idea incompatible with Judaism.  Kahane’s thesis was fallacious and his preference for monarchy was equally imbibed with the same scalding tone that provided no safeguards for government misconduct as well.

Image: Read More: ---Religious Zionists, on the other hand, were ready to speak in defense of the secular Zionist and the national enterprise in which he was engaged. They did not interpret the secularists' actions as simply a rebellion against the ancestral heritage but also as an act involving a return to his roots—to the Holy Land, to the Sacred Tongue, a return from assimilation to Judaism. The First Chief Rabbi of the Land of Israel, Abraham Isaac Kook, whose writings have exercised a decisive influence in recent decades, developed a dialectical interpretation of the phenomenon of secular Zionism. According to this interpretation, secular Zionism is recognized not simply as a spiritual degeneration but, rather, as a necessary dialectical crisis—"descent for the purpose of ascent," a national revolution en route to a religious renascence. Darkness and light are here inextricably intertwined, with transgressors being the ones to lay the foundations for the religious redemption. This conception lends the reestablishment of the state a definite, positive, religious meaning. In recent years there has even been a growing tendency to present the history of Zionism and the State of Israel as a definite Messianic phenomenon: the realization of the vision of redemption as an irreversible and inevitable process.---

In the end, there is not much difference between the Far Left, the Israeli atheists, the Peace-Now , the land for peace advocates and Kahane’s Kach. They divert attention from unifying a population and their tactics of affirmation may actually endanger Jewish lives which is clearly contrary to the Torah.

( see link at end) …The government must “keep its promise to terror victims and to the Israeli public that it would send terrorists released in the Shalit deal back to prison immediately if they returned to terrorism,” said Almagor head Meir Indor. Several PA terrorists in Israeli prisons are hunger striking in an attempt to force the Prison Service to release them. Among them are some who were re-arrested in recent weeks after being released in exchange for captive IDF soldier Gilad Shalit.

Among the most prominent is Hana Shalbi, an Islamic Jihad terrorist from the village of Burkin near Jenin. Shalbi was arrested recently based on “completely certain” intelligence that she had assisted in planning a terrorist attack that was to involve kidnapping an IDF soldier. She had been released in the Shalit deal just months earlier….Critics, however, note that several prisoners released in exchange for IDF soldier Gilad Shalit – all of whom signed similar agreements – have been rearrested after returning to terrorism….Read More:

Hans Memling. Scenes from the Passion of Christ. Read More:

( see link at end) …One of R. Kahane’s frequent rhetorical devices is to label views with which he disagrees as gentile attitudes. Because of his rhetorical style, I would not point it out in our context if not for the irony. The only government system that the Bible explicitly calls gentile is monarchy: “And you will say, I will appoint on me a king like all the nations around me” (Deut. 17:14). Calling democracy a gentile form of government when the Torah applies that label to monarchy, and failing to address that issue, is in my opinio

serious lacuna.

However, even more significant is the failure to address the prophet Shmuel’s criticism of the Jews when they asked for a king (1 Sam. 8). If monarchy is the ideal form of government and divinely mandated, why did the prophet object when the people wished to appoint a king? This is not an obscure question. The literature surrounding it runs deep in our commentarial tradition….

--- Title Crusaders Thirsting near Jerusalem Date between 1836 and 1850. Source WIki

…The demand for the denial of the Israeli Arabs’ civil rights; calls for their removal from the territory of Greater Israel; encouragement of violence and terrorist activity against them.—The demand for separation between Jews and non-Jews in residential areas, educational institutions, bathing beaches, etc.; the demand that sexual relations between Jews and non-Jews be prohibited by law (on pain of imprisonment).—The negation of a democratic regime in a Jewish state.—The rejection, in a Jewish state, of secular, leftist or liberal Jews (all labelled “Hellenist”) as partners in dialogue; at times there have been implicit or even explicit references to the effect that secular leftist leaders deserve to die.—Abuse and revilement; provocation of Arabs in their settlements; the fomenting of nationalist, communal and religious hatreds; exploitation of the helpless families of terror victims.Read More:

---Destruction de Jérusalem par Titus. Wilhelm von Kaulbach. XIXe.---Read More:



( see link at end) …In one of the two articles he contributed to the book, Netanyahu wrote: “This is a policy that in effect tells the terrorists that we will not give in to your demands. We insist that you free the hostages. If you do not do so peaceably, we are ready to use force. We are offering a simple exchange: your life for the lives of the hostages. In other words, the only ‘deal’ we are prepared to do with you is this: If you surrender without a fight, you will stay alive.”

Today, when explaining how he, of all leaders, could sign the agreement that marked a new record of acquiescence to a terrorist organization — the release of 1,027 prisoners, many of them with Israeli “blood on their hands” — Netanyahu falls back on the policy that was laid down by Rabin in the deliberations leading up to Entebbe: the intelligence and the operational circumstances left him no alternative but to make a deal. Read More:

a separate people, set aside, isolated and different, living apart from all the rest, without the defiling contact with the abomination of a culture conceived in uncleanness and born in profane vanity.”  The reference here is to Western culture, as well as—in fact, more so—to the Arabs residing in our midst. Here, an utter demonization of the stranger is called for, and it is to this target that the barbs of Kahane’s social propaganda are directed: the great majority of Arabs are base murderers, they seduce our Women and rape them, they rob us of our livelihood. The expressions used at public rallies are “vermin,” “dogs,” “foxes;”  and “We will deal with them,” “We will extirpate them,” and the like.

If the state, the land, as well as the society, are judged in this light, no wonder that this will be the focal point in other domains as well—economics and finance, labor and welfare, moral rectitude. Then, too, there is the obsessive preoccupation with the issue of sexual relations between gentile men and Jewish Women. In Kahane’s words: “Day after day the Ishmaelite adds to the desecration of the Name, roaming around the country, looking for Jewish girls so as to have intercourse with them.” 9 Kahane has demanded legislation that would impose long prison sentences upon any Arab having sexual relations with a Jewish woman.

In the light of all this, it is clear that the clash with the gentile, the stranger, is not primarily a product of political or security Concerns; rather it is a substantive matter, one of cognizance and Consciousness. It is no wonder that this clash did not first rise here in Israel in the conflict with the Arabs. It began in the United States, in a confrontation with the Blacks and, later, with the Soviets. After that, in Israel, Kahane turns his attention to the Black Hebrews in Dimona, to the Christian missionaries,10 and only then to the Arabs. All along the way he is busy fanning the flames of every possible confrontation. It would appear that only in this fashion, in the face of confrontation, the “I” comes into its own, achieves its full identity.Read More:

But the religious views, when properly calibrated make a fundamental sense for amy. If these internal dramas were flaring in some backwater of South America or East Asia, it would not register on the radar, but in the Middle East with all the dry powder looking for a context…

( see link at end) …Wolpo said that he and Marzel, a follower of Rabbi Meir Kahane, would probably join forces. He said that he decided to establish a party after “all other parties abandoned the fight to maintain a whole Land of Israel.” “Habayit Hayehudi [the former NRP-NU] refused to promise that it would not join any government that plans to make territorial compromises,” said Wolpo. “They are embarrassed to talk openly about the Land of Israel.” Wolpo said that if Habayit Hayehudi made such a promise, he would scrap plans to field a separate list. Meanwhile, Peace Now secretary-general Yariv Oppenheimer, who is vying for a place on the Labor Party list, said that his organization would appeal the registration of Wolpo’s party. “A party that does not respect the law should not be allowed to become a parliament member,” said Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer cited public statements by Wolpo calling on IDF soldiers to refuse orders to evacuate Jewish homes and calls to populate illegal settlements. Oppenheimer said that Peace Now, a group that calls for the immediate withdrawal from all parts of Israel conquered during the 1967 Six Day War, would complain to either the Parties Registrar or to the Central Election Committee against Eretz Yisrael Shelanu. Rabbi MK Benny Elon, one of four candidates vying to chair Habayit Hayehudi, said that Wolpo’s party would weaken the Right. “It is a syndrome of the Right that no matter how hard we try to unite there are those who feel the need to have their own party,” said Elon, referring both to Wolpo’s party and to MK Aryeh Eldad’s Hatikva party. Regarding Habayit Hayehudi’s decision to emphasize Jewish education and Jewish identity more than the Greater Israel message, Elon said, “we want to reach out to a larger constituency. “I do not belittle the importance of the Land of Israel but we want to grow beyond the narrow framework of settlements.” In past elections small, more extreme right-wing parties have generally failed to pass the minimum electoral threshold, but have diverted votes away from larger right-wing parties. For example, in 1992 Tehiya and other small parties, including one headed by Rabbi Moshe Levinger of Hebron, all failed to obtain the minimum needed votes to enter the Knesset. In the last election in 2006, both Herut and Marzel’s Jewish National Front failed to pass the threshold. Wolpo has made controversial statements bordering on incitement against politicians. Just recently he said that the Jewish people’s real enemy is the State of Israel. Clarifying his comments, Wolpo said that he meant the present political leadership. “I don’t mind repeating what I said. Any leadership that is willing to destroy the house of Noam Federman but refuses to destroy the homes of Palestinian terrorists is an enemy to the Jewish people,” said Wolpo.Read More:

Related Posts

This entry was posted in Feature Article, Ideas/Opinion and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>