What happens when the secular confronts the religious. Well, sparks fly. The secular create an artificial and contrived caricature of the religious as fanatical right wing ideologues whose criticism undermines the very nature of democracy. And the religious can counter that they have been given a sense of “inclusion” that is predicated on colonialist mentality, that they are at best, tolerated guests, and ultimately tied to the whipping post whereby their feeling of inferiority is reinforced when they get “uppity” and question their exclusion from the corridors of power. Such is Israel with the phenomenon of the Occupied Territories, the West Bank, or Judea and Samaria depending on point of view.
The political hard right that advocates “soft” versions of Kahanism blurs the waters since the Arab neighbors are simply unable to absorb the Palestinians. The political “awakening” of the religious jews is one of the below the radar stories of the past several years. They had always let those assume power who desired it most: the secular Zionist elite who felt they were granted the right to govern. The religious let themselves be “accommodated” which was really a form of self-colonization. They could become more Zionist, the tormented position of contradictory opposites, “religious-Zionism” or totally disengaged and removed from the activity of the state; tolerated, but separate stretching into the realm of the confrontational bohemian. But what happens when the colonized want to sit in the master’s living room? The dynamic is very Hollywood here, like Dancing with Wolves, or Avatar,or The Help, a kind of tolerable sympathy but lack of engagement, and the prime importance of an enlightened secular white to save them.
It has to be remembered that the secular elite controls all key non-elected institutions that comprise the state structure. That means state sanctioned monopolies regarding electricity, food, the media, judiciary, security of all types, and the handling and filtering of foreign aid from the U.S. Its a self-perpetuating ugly cycle with unique and insidious opportunities to enrich themselves and to close off any openings to those not willing to adopt their secular agenda; which means the religious and any other form of dissent that would cut into profits.
Politically, they bring a lot of good points to the table. And the negative experience of previous withdrawals from settlements and in particular Gush Katif which became a missile launching and practice school for Hamas, has proven them correct, making early visionaries like Rabbi Shalom Dov Wolpo appear prescient in an analysis which while not Zionist, places security of the Jewish people as central consideration including the use of Armed services; it is positive that an oppressed , but significant and fast growing minority is putting aside the narcissism of small differences as Chris Hitchens called it:
( see link at end) …A senior delegation of the Rabbinical Congress for Peace (RCP) met today with Ambassador Andrew Standley, the Head of the European Union in Israel to present the Torah view on the issue of giving up land to the Arabs.
The rabbis made it clear that the majority of rabbis in Israel and abroad are of the opinion that is absolutely forbidden to give up an inch of land to the Arabs based on the clear Halacha in the Jewish Code of Law Chapter 329 that the sanctity of life overrides all other considerations and giving up land has proven more than once that it leads to violence, bloodshed and INstability. “As rabbis we are committed to peace and promote peace but a true and lasting peace not one that will blow up in our faces before the ink often agreement has a chance to dry,” they told the ambassador
Rabbi Joseph Gerlitzky, the rabbi of Central Tel Aviv and Chairman of the RCP that although Jews are obligated to observe the Torah precepts even if we don’t understand their meaning but in the case of the above ruling that it is forbidden to give up land currently under Israeli control is understood by everyone. …
Rabbi Avrohom Shmuel Lewin, Director-General of the RCP asked the ambassador how long the EU will continue in this exercise in futility of supporting a “territory for peace” formula which has proven over and over again that it is really “territory for terror.” “The EU is urging
el to withdraw to the 1967 borders. We did that in Gaza and what did we get? 10,000 missiles. Do you want that to happen in Judea and Gaza too? Rabbi Lewin asked
Rabbi Moshe Havlin, Chief Rabbi Kiryat Gat and Sderot related how is own personal life and the lives of his family members, children and grandchildren have been disrupted and they are in constant fear of being attacked by missiles from Gaza.
Rabbi Shlomo Rosenfeld, the Rabbi of Shadmot Mehula in the Jordan Valley emphasized that precisely the EU that represents the European countries where the Holocaust took place must feel the responsibility for a secure Israel. “What is happening today in Israel is an extension of the Holocaust. The Jewish people are again being made a scapegoat for the lack of world peace while the Palestinian terrorists and murderers are depicted as innocent peace seekers. “I want to state in no uncertain terms that the EU’s one sided support of the Palestinian demands is an extension of the Holocaust,” he said….
Rabbi Abraham Shreiber, the rabbi of the fomer Kfar Darom in Gush Katif related that before the disengagement from Gaza local Gaza residents and the Jewish neighbors lived in peace and harmony. The vegetables and crops grown in Gush Katif were the best in the country and the Arabs learned how grow them too. We still get calls today from many former Arab neighbors complaining that situation has become much worse for the Arabs themselves as a result of the disengagement. “They are pleading with us to come back,” he said….
..Ambassador Standley listened attentively to the rabbis and thanked them for coming to present the Torah view. He said that it is hard to argue with the rabbis since they live in Israel and feel the heat on a daily basis while he is only here for a few years and then will move on to another country. However, the ambassador said that he understands that the Jewish people are bound by the Torah which is eternal but he and the EU are bound by international law which has not yet accepted laws of the Torah. …
…and support Israel’s inalienable right to live and build in every part of the Holy Land. “This is the only formula that will bring true and lasting peace to the region as delineated in the Torah “I will provide peace in the Land.” Read More:http://www.chabad.info/index.php?url=article_en&id=27202
( see link at end) …One of Rambam’s most well-known public letters is his letter to the Jews of Yemen , who were suffering during the “Golden Age,” as it is so often called, of Islam. Just as Rambam had been chased out of Andalusia (Spain) by marauding Muslim armies from the Maghreb, the Jews of Yemen were being persecuted by the Muslim mujahideen in the Arabian Peninsula. In this famous letter, Rambam terms Mohammed the psychopath (Meshugah) and describes the ugliness and the viciousness of the Muslims toward Jews as the worst the Jews had experienced since the Exile. Indeed, Rambam, who most certainly understood the theology of Islam, points out in this letter that Islam was theologically corrupt as well, having taken the Jewish Torah and effectively rewritten it for its own purposes.
Presumably, Yanklowitz did not mean to cite Rambam’s legal work or his epistle of encouragement to the Jews of Yemen, written in Rambam’s role as a Jewish leader. Maybe, when Yanklowitz tells us that Rambam thought we might gain something from Islamic thought, he was referring to Rambam as Jewish philosopher and, notably, as author of Moreh Nevuchim, or Guide to the Perplexed. But even here, Rambam has no good words for Islam or Islamic philosophy. What Rambam does appreciate and pay respect to are a handful of Muslim neo-Aristotelians, notably Alfarabi (especially as noted in Rambam’s letter to Ibn Tibbon. But the Muslim neo-Aristotelians — those who sought to apply Reason to Revelation — lost out. Islam thoroughly rejected such innovations and never adopted Reason. Thus the end of the “Golden Age.” Al Ghazili, Ibn Taymiyyah, and their progeny — the Muslim Brotherhood, the Wahhabis, and the Deobandis, among the Sunni — were the theological, legal, and social victors, especially as we scan the contemporary surveys noted above.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/a_response_to_rabbi_shmuly_yanklowitz.html#ixzz1vn6Fe9vu