Category: Thought

Posted on

Israel, Trump, and the End of the Neoconservative Agenda

Whether Trump wins or loses, his focus on neutering what has become a foreign policy dedicated to interventionism and regime change maybe the Donald’s lasting accomplishment. No where else has Trump succeeded in proving to various constituents that interventionism is a failed policy of the neo-conservative elite from both parties.

Many Israel observers are wrong when they suggest that an American policy shift away from actively intervening in foreign conflicts will ultimately be bad for Israel.  The assumption is that a non-engaged America leaves Israel without protection.

The truth is quite the opposite. neoconservative is about projecting American power in ways that ensures a lopsided relationship with allies. In 2005, the Bush administration, with neoconservative principles forced Israel to give up the Gaza strip and was intent on using a weak Olmert to pull Jews out of their historic heartland in Judea and Samaria. For the neocons that ran Bush’s adminstration, it was far better a small Israel dependent on the USA than a larger and stronger Israel that could stand on its own two feet.

Although one can blame Obama for much of the chaos in the Middle East, neocons in both parties pushed an agenda of destabilization in order to assert control.  This has backfired and so has interventionism in general.  One, because it does not work and two, because of the steep price tag attached.

Trump may not grasp the finer points of foreign policy.  He doesn’t have to.  Foreign policy is often times just good common sense.  Perhaps the most intelligent thing America can do is stay out of their allies’ business.

Posted on

Israel is No More Mr. Nice Guy

(Originally published on Israel Hayom)

Israel always plays nice. For decades, we have been allowing those who demonize and delegitimize Israel to cross our borders and do their dirty work against us on our own soil.

The Palestinian village of Bil’in has become one very real symbol of this kind of “activist tourism,” where anti-Israel foreign activists gather to provoke fights with the Israel Defense Forces in order to gain propaganda footage for the international media.

The reasoning behind Israel’s welcoming policy is that we are a democracy, and we will allow even those who wish us nothing but harm to benefit from our democratic policies. But the real reason is more likely a fear of the international backlash that denying entry to Israel-haters would elicit. Whatever the case may be, the policy has always been a big mistake. As a sovereign nation, Israel should be free to turn anyone it wishes away at the border.

However, the policy finally appears to have been put to rest, at least as far as the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement is concerned. On Sunday, Israel’s Interior and Public Security ministers declared that they planned to establish a taskforce aimed at expelling BDS supporters and preventing their entry into Israel. According to the press release, dozens of organizations inside Israel are actively collecting information to promote boycotts and international isolation. The new taskforce will be responsible for identifying such efforts and combating them.

Much like the NGO law, which is compelling NGOs to divulge any foreign funding, this effort is likely to outrage the usual suspects in the international media and NGO community. Israel’s answer to this should be a polite “mind your own business.” Israel owes no one any explanations for defending itself against those who wish to destroy it. As Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan said: “We must not allow boycott activists to enter Israel. This is a necessary step given the maliciousness of these delegitimizing activists who work to spread lies and to distort the reality of our region.”

This is a logical and natural move, and it should have been implemented as soon as the BDS movement surfaced. We have bent over backward so far to accommodate the so-called international community and its “concerns” that frankly our backs are about to break.

We should also expect an outcry from the European Union and several of its individual member states. Many of the organizations that promote BDS are sponsored to a lesser or greater degree by the EU, one or more of its member states (particularly Germany and the Scandinavian countries), or both, bringing into serious question whether these organizations are truly non-governmental in the first place.

It will doubtless be embarrassing for the EU to see its activists expelled and returned home. And rest assured: Those who will scream the loudest will be those who wished most fervently for the destruction of Israel. Thus, the new policy is likely to have the welcome side effect of outing those European nations that have truly been working against us by funding organizations that are deeply hostile toward Israel.

The presence of foreign, hostile activists operating on Israeli soil collecting information to use against us in the international arena is not only unique to Israel (show me one other country where such operations are systematically put into place with substantial financial backing from foreign governments), but also an embarrassing disgrace for these foreign, mainly European, governments, that are betraying their obligations under international law to engage with Israel only through diplomatic and legal channels.

Israel must demand a clear answer as to why these supposedly friendly nations support anti-Israel efforts. Is it customary for countries that cooperate and enjoy full diplomatic relations to engage in hostile activities against each other behind each other’s backs? The question is simple and has an even simpler answer.

Posted on

Jews Living In a Palestinian-Arab State. What?!?

Ron Dermer Two-State Solution

“There is no reason, concretely and in principle, why Jews should not be able to live in a future Palestinian state”–  Ron Dermer, Israel’s Ambassador to the United States, July 28, 2016.

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former  – attributed to Albert Einstein

I realize of course that juxtaposing these two excerpts might seem to some to be an overly caustic castigation of our esteemed envoy in Washington. But things are getting out of hand.  In recent weeks, the Israeli public has been subjected to a barrage of imbecility from its leaders – with each statement/declaration/proposal attaining new levels of naked absurdity. It is an absurdity that must be exposed and expunged from the political discourse in Israel.

Cavalcade of the crackpot and the crazy

In past columns, I have discussed some of the more demented ideas that have been raised in the national discourse by prominent individuals and/or organizations as allegedly serious policy proposals.

For example, in “Gaza: A port is no panacea for poverty” (May 27, 2016), I dealt with the harebrained and hazardous proposition made – among others, by Israel Katz, Minister of Intelligence(!) and Transport, to build a detachable port for Gaza on an artificial off-shore islet.

In “Imbecility squared: Parts 1 & 2” (June 10 &17, 2016), I wrote of the perils inherent in the “plan” advanced by a group of over 200 former senior security officers  called “Commanders for Israel’s Security” to convert the areas of Judea-Samaria into a giant South Lebanon, unilaterally transforming “disputed territories” into “occupied” ones.

Likewise,  in “Utterly unconscionable”,  (July 1, 2016),  I detailed the fatal folly of the so-called “reconciliation” accord, concluded by the Netanyahu government with Erdogan’s Turkey, warning of its many ill-advised  defects – particularly giving the increasingly theocratic and tyrannical Islamist regime, closely allied to the Muslim Brotherhood, a firm foothold in Gaza.

So in some respects, Ambassador Dermer’s staggeringly stupid remark was merely another component in the continuing cavalcade of the crackpot and the crazy that has become the depressing norm in the conduct of Israeli politics.

Core essence of Zionism

But in some respects it was even more disturbing and detached from any grasp of reality.

Made at an event held by the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, the remark highlighted the impossible dilemma in which Likud-led coalitions have been trapped since Netanyahu’s ill-advised Bar Ilan Speech, in which he declared his willingness – in violation of his electoral pledges – to accept the possibility of Palestinian statehood.  Moreover, Dermer’s remark also reflected the dismaying degree by which the core values of Zionism have been obscured, eroded and forgotten

Sadly – but not unpredictably – the latter is an inevitable product of the former.

In its barest essentials, Zionism comprises conveying Jews from living under alien sovereign rule to living under Jewish sovereign rule This is particularly true for Jews living under an inhospitable alien sovereign authority. That is the verysine qua non of the Zionist ideal, enshrined in the words of the national anthem, Ha’Tikva:

“Our hope of two thousand years will not be lost.

 To be a free people in our own land, the land of Zion…”

Absent this component, the notion of Zionism is left bereft of any substantive content.

But this is precisely what Dermer’s remark is prescribing—and worse.

Perversion of Zionism’s essence

For it is not only suggesting that this core element of Zionism be set aside, but that, in fact, it be inverted. Perversely, this prospect of the sacrifice of Zionist essence is to be made at the altar of the disproven -but somehow never discredited, and certainly never discarded -political deity of “Two-States”.

So Dermer is utterly wrong—on all counts.

There is every reason – both in principle and concretely – why the notion of Jews living in a Palestinian-Arab state, under Palestinian-Arab sovereignty would be unacceptable. Indeed, his envisioned outcome was made all the more preposterous – even grotesque – by his raising the possibility that “settlers living deeper in the West Bank should, in the event of Palestinian statehood, be given the option of gaining citizenship in that state”.

It is unacceptable, in principle because it entails not only the annulment – but the antithesis – of the quintessential Zionist aspiration. Not only does it not entail bringing Jews living under non-Jewish sovereignty to live under Jewish sovereignty, it entails the precise opposite – abandoning Jews living under Jewish sovereignty to life under non-Jewish sovereignty.

But when we move from the realm of “principle” to that of the “concrete”, the notion that Jews should live in a future Palestinian state becomes even more bizarre and unthinkable.

“…there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him…”

For when Dermer envisions Jews being left to live in a “future Palestinian state”, we are not talking about some benign Judeo-philic – or even Judeo-neutral – sovereignty, but a regime nurtured by decades of Judeo-phobic hatred and filled with Judeo-cidal intent.

Indeed, both the Hamas Charter and Fatah Constitution call for the eradication of all the Jews and the elimination of every vestige of Jewish life between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea-by force of arms.

So foremost among the “concrete reasons” for discounting the prospect of Jews living in some future Palestinian-Arab state is the rather “prosaic” one: The very tangible probability of them being torn limb from limb by some incensed mob, enraged by the very sight of their mere existence.

Indeed, the thought of leaving Jews – and Israeli citizens – to the tender mercies of a regime, that has demonstrated its true and heartless colors, is so appalling that it must be removed from the realm of acceptable debate before it gathers any currency.

Two things make raising this perverse possibility even more vexing. The first is that it was a clear slap in the face for the pro-Israel elements in the Republican Party, who had expunged the idea of the two-state formula from their party platform. The second was that it apparently was intended to mollify less supportive Democrats, still mindlessly obsessed with the macabre dogma of establishing yet another homophobic, misogynistic Muslim-majority tyranny as the panacea for all the ills of the Middle East.

Contorted politically-correct gobbledygook

It is a sad spectacle to see Israeli diplomacy so mired in the two-state morass of its own making that it has lost any semblance of coherence, thus inevitably resulting in the kind of anti-Zionist declarations made by Dermer.

Instead of channeling all efforts into removing the idea of Palestinian statehood from the discourse, Israeli diplomacy insists on sustaining it. By paying formal lip service to the doctrine of two-statism Israel  has ensnared itself on an irresolvable contradiction – committed to the establishment of a Palestinian state, on the one hand; yet unable to make the perilous concession to allow its implementation, on the other.

It is this impasse that begets the kind of outlandish utterances made by Dermer. Instead, of making it clear that—absent some wildly implausible best-case scenario, with no realistic basis in fact – a Palestinian state is incompatible with its the long-term survival as the nation state of the Jews, Israel finds itself scrambling to square the circle – trying to defend an indefensible policy with indefensible arguments…

Instead of conveying to the world—and the Democratic Party – that Israel cannot relinquish – “in principle or concretely” – any portion of Judea-Samaria to Arab sovereignty, Dermer is forced into contorted politically correct gobbledygook – attempting to justify the construction of Jewish communities not on the basis of moral and historical rights – but on the basis of their possible future transfer to Arab rule.

Only the most fevered of minds  

Today, only the most fevered mind can suggest that the establishment of a Palestinian state in the hills that command the heavily populated coastal plain is even remotely in Israel’s national interest.  Not only would the Jews left behind in the Palestinian-Arab state be in deadly danger, so would those inside the shrunken Jewish state.

To grasp the veracity of this caveat, all one needs to do is look at the outcome of the failed experiment of trying to foist self-rule on the Palestinian-Arabs in Gaza.  After three large scale military campaigns against Arab aggression since relinquishing the territory, and removing any remnant of Jewish presence there, Israel is again bracing for a fourth encounter.

Indeed, as time passes, instead of threats dissipating they intensify. Today, Israel is planning on surrounding Gaza not only with a 10 meter high wall above ground but a 10 meter deep one below it, to contend with the threat of attack tunnels. It not only recently completed a project to fortify over 10,000 homes in the communities adjacent to Gaza, providing them with newly constructed bomb shelters, but in the case of renewed fighting, plans to evacuate the civilian population in a 7 km swathe around the Strip.

Hmm!! Remember how they told you Israel had to leave Gaza because the “occupation “was… expensive??

“Fraying Palestinian Political Entity in ‘West Bank’…”

Now imagine having to duplicate that effort, if like Gaza, Judea-Samaria were surrendered to Arab sovereignty.

Imagine if, instead of having to build a 10m barrier above and below ground along a 50 km. front, as in Gaza, Israel would have to do this along a 400-500 km front in Judea-Samaria.

Imagine if instead of having to fortify 10,000 homes, Israel would have to fortify hundreds of thousands…

Imagine if instead of planning to evacuate the civilian population in the sparsely populated largely rural South adjacent to Gaza, Israel would have to plan on evacuating the heavily populated largely urban areas adjacent to Judea-Samaria…

But if the sheer-physical parameters are daunting, the socio-political processes inside Judea-Samaria are, if anything, more so.

In a new study, graphically entitled “The Fraying Palestinian Political Entity in the West Bank”, veteran Arab affairs analyst, Pinchas Inbari, paints a gloomy picture of socio-political realities in Judea-Samaria, and of the direction of the developing trends there.

He describes a society descending into inter-clan rivalry and gang violence against the backdrop of declining authority of any semblance of centralized governance. He cautions: “The Palestinian Authority is failing to control extensive parts of the West Bank. As a result, some districts of the West Bank are developing in different directions…accelerating the process of the PA’s disintegration…”

Stop already!!!

So there you have it.

Both bitter experience of past precedents and the dismal prospects of future trends portend ill for the two-state paradigm. To understate the case, its chances of success are slim and the cost of failure, grim. It therefore seems inexplicable that the Government of Israel persists in the shabby charade of supporting it.   Perversely, many holding senior office today built their political careers on opposition to Palestinian statehood. Yet now that their positions have been vindicated, they persist in feigning support for it.

The time has come to stop this masquerade

Instead of trying to artificially sustain the dangerous delusion of a future Palestinian state, coexisting in peace and prosperity with a Jewish state, instead of nurturing this ill-fated illusion among overseas audiences, Israeli diplomats should be engaged in efforts to apprise them of the fatal flaws of the failed doctrine of two-statism.

That – and not consigning Jews to Arab governance – is the true challenge of Israeli diplomacy today.

Posted on

REDEMPTION WATCH: Rav Eliezer Schick about the war of Gog U’Magog

Rav Eliezer Schick, ZTL, shares some of Rebbe Nachman’s ‘Hidden Scroll’ which explains what will happen before Moshiach comes

For around 200 years’, the Megillat Setorim, or hidden scroll, written by Rebbe Nachman has been one of the best-kept secrets of Breslev chassidut. Until recently, very few people had even heard of it, and even fewer had access to its secrets.

The scroll was written in code by Rebbe Nachman before his death in 1810, and it contains secrets pertaining to what will happen in the world before Moshiach comes, that only one in a generation is initiated into.

In the last generation, as the footsteps of Moshiach have come closer, more and more of the contents of the ‘hidden scroll’ have been leaking out. Before his untimely death last year, Rav Eliezer Schick, ZTL, wrote the following about the contents of Rebbe Nachman’s ‘hidden scroll’ in his book, Paolot HaTzaddik.

Rav Shick revealed that there would be a terrible ‘war’ prosecuted against the nation’s leading Tzaddikim, as part of the preparations for Geula. He wrote (my translation):

“There are the wars of Gog and Magog, which will include all the machloket (disagreements) and the accusations that will be made against the true Tzaddikim, those who uncover the true will of Hashem Yitborach.

“Because there are those who want to eat them alive [these Tzaddikim], God should have mercy, and who say every forbidden thing against them, and mock them a lot. And by doing this, they greatly distance Jewish souls from coming near to them, and also lengthen the duration of our bitter exile, God forbid.

“And because they do this, woe to them! Woe to the souls of these people, who have a share in the machloketand disagreements involving the true Tzaddikim, and who reveal Hashem’s true will in the world.

“And they are the brazen-faced of the generation, the people with the face of a dog [note: in the language of the gemara], the soldiers of Gog and Magog, who conceal the truth, and they are the wicked people of the generation, as written in, (Bava Metzia, 83): “As this one is exceptionally contemptuous, one may deduce that he is a wicked person.” [This was a statement made by Rabbi Elazar the son of Rebbe Shimon Bar Yochai, in relation to a mocking comment that was made to him by a laundryman, who it was later discovered WAS a very wicked person.] I.e, the man was so insolent and brazen towards one of the leading Rabbis of the generation, he had to be a wicked person.

“It’s written in the Midrash (BeMidbar Rabba, יח:י): ‘He who is brazen-faced, and who is not ashamed in front of those who are bigger than him, and he who is a baal machloket (troublemaker), you’ll see that he is the wickedest of the wicked.”

“And if I would have known, my dear brother, what was written in the Megillat Setorim regarding these soldiers of Gog and Magog, and the people who cover over the truth, you would fall on your face from fear and dismay, about how this bitter exile would be lengthened by them.

“And it was already written in the Yerushalmi, (2a) that ‘the insolent one will win-out over the kosher one’, in order to maintain free will and spiritual tests.

“As we can see, my beloved brother, you must flee from all machloket and from all disagreements, and not get drawn into fights and arguments. And in particular, be very careful that you should have no part whatsoever in any mockery, disagreements or criticism of the true Tzaddikim, because you don’t know what the next day will bring. And you don’t know against who and against what you may be opposing or mocking.

“And even though they may want to try to destroy you [with their words], because for them it’s a ‘mitzvah’ to persecute kosher people, SAVE YOUR SOUL, my beloved brother, and run away from doing ‘mitzvahs’ like these, because otherwise ‘bitter will be you end’.

“And the opposite is also true: If you help the true Tzaddikim, then you will bring the geula closer, and you will merit to have all the good that has been set aside for the soldiers of the House of David. [Referring to Moshiach].”

Originally posted here.

Posted on

Jewish Sovereignty Over the Land of Israel, Zionism and Our Indigeneity

This week’s Torah portion is the Parsha of Mas’ei.

“You shall possess the land and you shall dwell in it, for to you have I given the land to possess it.” (BAMIDBAR 33:53)

The Ramban offers a lengthy explanation of this verse, asserting that the mitzvah for the Jewish people to conquer and reside within the Land of Israel is a positive commandment of great consequence to the overall Hebrew mission.

“In my opinion this is a positive commandment, in which He (HaShem) is commanding them (Israel) to dwell in the land and inherit it, because He has given it to them and they should not reject the inheritance of HaShem. Thus if the thought occurs to them to go and conquer the land of Shinar or the land of Assyria or any other country to dwell therein, they would be transgressing the command of G-D. And that which our rabbis have emphasized (Ketubot 110b), the significance of the commandment of dwelling in the Land of Israel and the prohibition against leaving it, and that they even considered a woman who does not want to ascend with her husband to live in the Land of Israel [as a ‘rebellious wife’] and likewise the man – the source of all these statements here (in this verse) where we have been given this commandment, for this verse constitutes a positive commandment. And this commandment is repeated in many places, such as ‘Come and possess the land’ (DEVARIM 1:8).”

The Ramban demonstrates the above verse to be primarily teaching the eternal mitzvah for the Jewish people to assert political sovereignty over the Land of Israel and to reside within its borders.

In his supplement to the Rambam’s Sefer HaMitzvot, the Ramban teaches that it is a Torah commandment in every generation that the Nation of Israel take control of and inhabit the entire Land of Israel.

“This (a war to liberate Eretz Yisrael) is what our Sages call milḥemet mitzvah (obligatory war). In the Talmud (Sotah 44b) Rava said, ‘Yehoshua’s war of liberation was an obligatory duty according to all opinions.’ And do not err and say that this precept is the commandment to vanquish the seven nations… this is not so. We were commanded to destroy those nations when they fought against us and had they wished to make peace we could have done so under specific conditions. Yet we cannot leave the land in their control or in the control of any other nation in any generation… Behold, we are commanded with conquest in every generation… this is a positive commandment which applies for all time… And the proof that this is a commandment is this: ‘They were told to go up in the matter of the spies: ‘Go up and conquer as HaShem, G-D of your fathers, has spoken to you. Do not fear and do not be discouraged.’ And it further says: ‘And when HaShem sent you from Kadesh Barnea saying, Go up and possess the land which I have given you.’ And when they did not go up, the Torah says: ‘And you rebelled against the Word of G-D, and you did not listen to this command.’” (Positive Commandment 4 of the Ramban’s supplement to the Rambam’s Sefer HaMitzvot)

The Ramban asserts that the conquest of Eretz Yisrael is a mitzvah for Israel in every generation and that we are forbidden from allowing any part of our country to fall into – or remain under – gentile control. It is found in the Shulḥan Arukh that all of the arbitrators of Torah Law (Rishonim and Aḥronim) agree with the Ramban concerning this issue.

“All of the Poskim, both Rishonim and Aḥronim, decide the Law in this fashion on the basis of the Ramban.” (Shulḥan Arukh, Even HaEzer section 75, Pitḥei Tshuva 6)

Although the Ramban (in his commentary to BAMIDBAR 33:53) acknowledges Rashi’s warning that Israel’s ability to survive and prosper in our homeland depends on the nation’s willingness to disinherit the gentiles who rule the country prior to our return, he offers a more lenient approach regarding the actions we must take against non-Jews merely inhabiting our land.

While many authorities assert that upon our return home from exile, Israel must drive out the gentiles in possession of our land, the Ramban insists that peace could be achieved between Israel and these people under certain conditions so long as the Hebrew Nation possesses undisputed sovereignty over the territory. Rashi appears to dispute this position, noting the following verse:

“But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land before you, those of them whom you leave shall be pins in your eyes and a surrounding barrier of thorns in your sides, and they will harass you upon the land in which you dwell.” (BAMIDBAR 33:55)

On this verse, Rashi explains that “pins in your eyes” means “liteidot ham’nakrot eineikhem” – that sticks will be driven into your eyes, meaning that the wisdom of Israel’s leadership will be neutralized, such that they will be unable to see or understand that which a child can clearly see and understand. There will be a situation in which Jews protect themselves behind fences and walls, which “enclose and imprison them such that none can come in or leave.”

The holy Ohr HaḤaim supports Rashi’s explanation of this verse, commenting that: “Not only will they hold onto the part of the land that you have not taken, but the part which you have taken and settled as well. They shall cause you trouble regarding the part that you live in, saying ‘Get up and leave it.’”

The Ramban’s more nuanced distinction between peoples wielding dominion over the Jewish homeland and those who merely dwell peacefully in the country under Hebrew sovereignty helps account for the presence of Israel’s Kenite allies in ancient times. It also takes into consideration the Torah’s many references to the compassion we must display towards the stranger in our land, clarifying the special obligations Israel has to a Ger Toshav. By attempting to assert political control over portions of Eretz Yisrael, however, a gentile could easily move himself from one category to the other.

While Israel was clearly obligated, upon our return home in modern times, to fight a war of liberation to drive British Empire from our soil, the more contentious question remains how we should relate to the Palestinian national movement that professes to speak on behalf of all Palestinians while seeking to appropriate the Land of Israel from the Jewish people.

The Gaon of Vilna sheds light on this question in his commentary to ḤABAKUK, where he illuminates the concept of Peleshet and the uniqueness of its historic national role. The Gaon points out that the verse in BEREISHIT 10:14, which introduces the Philistines to the stage of history, does not describe their birth as the Torah describes the birth of other peoples.

“And Mitzraim begot Ludim, Anamim, Lehavim, Naphtuḥim, Patrusim, and Casluḥim, whence the Pelishtim (Philistines) came forth, andCaphtorim.” (BEREISHIT 10:13-14)

The Gaon explains that the birth of the Philistines, which is described in different language than the birth of other nations, was an unnatural occurrence and that they are entirely absent from the stage of world history with the exception of specific generations in which they serve their unique function. When the Nation of Israel enters our homeland in order to establish the Hebrew Kingdom – the vehicle through which all of humanity will be elevated to unparalleled blessings – the Philistines appear on the scene to try and prevent this kingdom from being established. This was the case when our patriarch Avraham first entered the land (there was a “land-for-peace” deal aggressively solicited by Avimelekh of Grar), it occurred when his son Yitzḥak was faced with Philistine aggression and it was true throughout the period of the Judges up until the secure establishment of the Davidic dynasty when Israel finally implemented full dominion over the country.

Peleshet then inexplicably disappeared from history until modern times when it once again attempts to obstruct the establishment of G-D’s kingdom. The Gaon explains that without the necessary force of Peleshet, Israel would be unable to rise up to our essential mission and realize the true significance of Jewish sovereignty in our homeland. HaShem places this force into our world as a catalyst for Israel to reach our full national potential.

The truth in the Gaon’s words is evident today. As a result of our difficult struggle with Palestinian nationalism – a nationalism that materialized largely upon our return home and solidified in reaction to misguided Israeli policies – we have failed to simply exist as a normal country but have instead been confronted with grueling questions of identity. The brutal conflict has forced us to examine who and what we truly are, as well as the core reason for returning home and establishing a state. The ostensibly legitimate claims of another people to our land forces us to question not only our innate connection to our soil but also the ideal place of a non-Jew in our society and Israel’s unique national function on the world stage. The grievances and accusations of another people against our state – often equating Zionism with racism or Western colonialism – compel us to embrace our indigeneity and authentic Semitic identity. By forcing out the bigger answers to the difficult questions they create, the force of Peleshet causes Israel to understand what it is that we are actually fighting for. And by the time we come to terms with our unique historic role and discover a genuine Hebrew approach for relating to the Other in our society, we will have already grasped the true purpose of the kingdom that will lead humankind to a world of total blessing.