Is this the end of Mashiach ben Yosef?

The ruling elites, the sacred establishers of Israel’s bureaucracy are coming with their knives sharpened – closing in on Bibi Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel. After all it is their state – their establishment and not his. This was made clear to Menachem Begin, the man who Bibi’s father served as secretary, when David Ben Gurion ordered Yitzhak Rabin to fire on the Atalena destroying it, the ammunition in it, and killing many passengers – most of whom were Holocaust survivors. The real target had been Begin who made it out alive.

Israel Eldad had warned Begin not to trust the Mapai, the forerunner of the Labor. “Menachem, do you really think they will just let you walk in with enough weapons to take control? It is their state not yours and they rather destroy it than hand it over to you.”

Eldad was right of course. The destruction of the Altalena led to the fall of Jerusalem since the ammunition and weapons Begin was bringing in would have led to its capture.

Why Netanyahu?

When Avichai Mandebilt declared his intention to indict the Prime Minister, he essentially paved the way for the leftist super-structure, Israel’s Deep State to begin the process of finally wresting control of the country from the street it lost it to when Begin surprised the parochial classes and Laborites in 1977.

True, there have been right wing leaders before, but each eventually bent to the will of the courts and the media, but not Netanyahu – he has always been smarter than the left. The street, the disadvantaged, the religious, the settler, the sefardi, they have all sensed Netanyahu was different.

True, Netanyahu has not always acted the way any one group would want, but changed the face of Israel, steering it away from failed policies and turned it into a powerhouse – a true global leader. The Prime Minister has been a thorn in the side of the Left, because he mainstreamed positions that were at one time unthinkable, steering a shaky ship after Olmert went down and turned the State around in the face of tremendous systemic opposition .

The Rise of Mashiach ben Yosef

At the End of Days, a leader will arise that will be a forerunner to Mashiach ben David. This forerunner is dubbed Mashiach ben Yosef, whose whole aim is to safeguard the Jewish people in the Land of Israel in a material sense. His power and ability is to utilize the physical vessels available and harness them for the good of the Nation of Israel while protecting the nation from harm.

The Mashiach be Yosef is also a concept or a movement, represented by thousands of “redeemers” since the birth of the Zionist movement. This movement has been encapsulated by the State – the one which has been uplifted by the current Prime Minister in a way never previously imagined.

Along with Mashiach ben Yosef, there is the Erev Rav named for the mixed multitudes that left Egypt with the Nation of Israel. At the End of Days, it is said that these mixed multitudes will be control of the Land of Israel and ultimately destroy the Mashiach ben Yosef, which is both the leader himself and the physical restoration of the Nation of Israel in the Land of Israel.

Sometimes we think Redemption and we feel the End of Days is sometime in the future, but it seems now we are at that point.

Predicted in the Bible

“And I will pour out upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplications. And they shall look to me because of those who have been thrust through [with swords], and they shall mourn over it as one mourns over an only son and shall be in bitterness, therefore, as one is embittered over a firstborn son.On that day there shall be great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the Valley of Megiddon.” Zechariah 12:10-11

The first Ashkenazi chief rabbi of British Palestine Rav Kook wrote the following in 1904 as a eulogy on the occasion of Theodor Herzl’s death:

The characteristics of nationalism was prominent in Ahab, who had great love for Israel. He followed in the footsteps of his father, Omri, who founded a city in the land of Israel. Scriptural commentators said: Everyone receives a portion in the world to come. ‘Gilead is mine’ refers to Ahab, who fell in Gilead. At the height of battle, despite being shot through with arrows, Ahab hid his injury so as not to alarm his soldiers. Such courageous spirit is derived from tremendous, abundant love. He also honoured the Torah, for he outwardly preserved the nations dignity in the eyes of Ben-Haddad. Nonetheless, he did not recognise the value of the Torah and of God’s unique holiness, in which Israel’s entire advantage lies. Therefore, he followed the ways of Jezebel and the despicable customs of other nations to the degree that they then prevailed over the Zeitgeist. 

In contrast, Josiah elevated the spiritual aspect as no king before or after him. As the text testifies, “And before him there was no king like him, who returned to the Lord with all his heart and soul and might, in accordance with the entire Torah of Moses; nor did any like him arise after him.” To that end, he wanted Israel to have no relationship with the nations of the world. He therefore did not heed the words of Jeremiah, who advised him in God’s name to allow the Egyptians to pass through Israel’s territory.

Thus, Ahab and Josiah combine the two aspects of Joseph and Judah, the power of the Messiah’s of the House of Joseph and the House of Judah. When the people are ready, the distortion of each separate dynasty will be removed, for in the times of the Messiah the two kingdoms will join together and come to fully realise the full potential of their power as a chosen nation. At that time, with this reunification, the mourning [in Jerusalem] will also reach a climax, for what was lost and the distance from true fulfilment will finally be recognised, and the mourning for both Ahab and Josiah will combine and grow exponentially. [This great mourning] will serve as a moral that [both kingdoms] must combine their powers in order to create the balance that will lead to the greatest general good.”

What we are witnessing now is the tearing apart of an approach to make way for something far bigger. After all, Bibi and those within the Revisionist Zionist movement tried to balance between a redemptive vision of the state and an out of date nationalism that relied on secular concepts rather than the Torah and Jewish faith. In this case, the Erev Rav were never done away with because in order to destroy them, the Revisionists would have to rely on a force beyond their cognitive abilities. This force is the light of the Mashiach ben David, which is above time and space.

At the End of Days Mashiach ben Yosef falls, which leads to the next stage of the Redemptive process. Of course this comes with chaos and fear, because all of us no matter what camp we have been in, understand that what has been in existence cannot truly continue as is. Netanyahu’s fall is the fall of the State as we know it.

How the road to the final Redemption will play out now is anyone’s guess, but one thing is certain – it will be a surprise.

Do you like this article? Make sure it reaches more people and donate below!

PACKER’S CORNER: Coalition Woes, Syrian War, and Near Assasination of PA Prime Minister

Fireworks in the Israeli coalition government this week! For the first time since anyone can remember, there was a real crisis within the government coalition this past week. The reason: the potential draft of yeshiva students and/or the Prime Minister’s alleged desire for elections based on Likud’s strong showing in recent election polls.

Without going into tremendous detail, basically, the Supreme Court recently invalidated the current system of exempting yeshiva students from the army. Therefore, a new law has to be passed to replace the old one. The Haredi/ultra-orthodox parties wanted this done before they would vote for the budget. There was a set deadline to vote for the budget, so time was running out. Majorly complicating things was Avigdor Lieberman’s party’s virulent and vocal opposition to the law being proposed without coordination with the defense ministry. They promised to vote no, Netanyahu would then fire those that voted “no” and disband the government for elections in June.

The conclusion: the conscription law was read in the Knesset and passed a first vote. This was done with the approval of the Rabbinical council that directly the ultra-orthodox parties as to how to vote. It must pass others to become law and that won’t happen until the next session of the Knesset – after Pesach. The budget was passed and the coalition is fully intact. Remains to be seen what will happen next session – probably won’t be smooth sailing like it had been up until this most recent crisis. There still another year and half until scheduled national elections – looking doubtful right now if this government will make it to then.

President Trump fired his Secretary of State – Rex Tillerson – and replaced him with the former head of the CIA – Mike Pompeo. Unclear how this will effect US policy in the Middle East, but Pompeo is said to very much oppose the Iran nuclear deal. Will be interesting to see how aggressive he is about that opposition, which he shares with President Trump. (Trump also appointed the first woman to lead the CIA, but no one on the right is surprised and no one on the left seems to care. go figure)

War rages on numerous fronts in Syria. Death toll for civilians way over 1000 in Eastern Ghouta, just outside of Damascus. Turkey continues to gain ground in the northwest of Syria against the Kurds. Not clear what will happen if Afrin does fall to Turkey – both to the civilians and the fighters. Could be the same fate…

Oh, and the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority was almost assassinated in Gaza this week. Seems the attackers blew up the wrong car as the convoy made its way into Gaza. There were injuries, but only to security. Of course, this does not bode well for PA-Hamas reconciliation.

Who cares about Jewish unity?

There are four important aspects to the government’s decisions on Sunday relating to egalitarian prayer at the Western Wall and the conversion bill. The first is that by and large, the headlines of the stories distort rather than explain what the government decided.

The second is the nature of the American Jewish community’s response to the government’s moves.

The third important aspect of the story is what the government’s decisions tell us about how the government perceive Israel’s relations with the American Jewish community.

Finally, the aftershocks of the decisions tell us something important about the prospects for Jewish unity today.

To the first issue. From the headlines in the newspapers, it is easy to assume that the government just struck a blow at egalitarian prayer at the Western Wall plaza and changed for the worse the status of non-Orthodox conversions in Israel. But neither is the case.

Build Jerusalem Fund Banner

As far as the Western Wall is concerned, the government decision doesn’t harm the egalitarian prayers at the holy site. For the past several years, egalitarian prayer services have been taking place regularly at Robinson’s Arch along the southern wall of the Temple Mount Plaza, just outside the archeological park.

The area, easily accessible from the Dung Gate, is easier to reach by car and foot than the regular Western Wall complex.

In January 2016, after protracted negotiations with progressive American Jewish groups, the government agreed to connect the Robinson’s Arch complex to the Western Wall complex. The government also agreed that management responsibility for the egalitarian prayer area would be transferred from the ultra-Orthodox-controlled Western Wall Foundation, to a new body that would include representatives of Reform and Conservative Judaism as well.

On Sunday, the government reversed that decision.

People have every right to be angry about the government’s move. It just reneged on its agreement, and that isn’t right.

Substantively, though, the government didn’t change the status quo. It just chose not to change it.

While wrong, it doesn’t justify the vitriol being leveled at the government by American Jewish leaders threatening to rethink their support for Israel.

As for the conversion law, the government’s decision on Sunday should make the members of the American Jewish community angry, but not for the reasons they claim. The draft conversion law the government just approved doesn’t change the status of converts who were converted by non-Orthodox religious courts outside of Israel.

Twenty years ago, the Neeman Commission decided, with the agreement of the Reform and Conservative movements, that people who converted in Reform or Conservative conversions outside of Israel would receive citizenship if they chose to make aliya under the Law of Return. They would not, however, be registered as Jews for the purpose of marriage, divorce or burial by the state rabbinate.

This would remain the case under the proposed law.

The people who are harmed by the conversion law are the more than half a million Israeli citizens from the former Soviet Union who made aliya under the Law of Return because they have Jewish lineage, but are not halachicly Jewish because their mothers are not halachically Jewish.

As Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, the chief rabbi of Efrat and noted conversion expert, explains, “According to great halachic authorities like the former chief rabbi of Israel Rav Ben-Tzion Uziel, although [these Israeli citizens] are not formally Jewish and must undergo a formal conversion, ‘it is incumbent upon the Religious Court to convert them because they have Jewish seed (zera Yisrael).’” Riskin adds, “Of course, we must always encourage observance of the commandments, but the bottom line must be to love and embrace them; they are living in Israel and their children will be going to the IDF.”

Uziel’s ruling informs the conversion policies of religious-Zionist rabbis and conversion courts, but it is rejected by the ultra-Orthodox religious authorities who today exercise absolute control over state conversions.

When the Neeman Commission reached its accord with the Conservative, Reform and Orthodox Jewish authorities in 1997, the Orthodox authorities included both ultra-Orthodox and religious-Zionist, or Modern Orthodox, rabbinic authorities.

As a result, the assumption of the commission members was that the state conversions would be conducted in an atmosphere that reflected a plurality of views represented in the Orthodox Jewish world, including the view of Rav Uziel, which informs the judgment of religious-Zionist rabbinic authorities.

This assumption ceased to be correct however in 2004.

That year, then-prime minister Ariel Sharon’s coalition began unraveling. Sharon’s decision to adopt the policy of the Left and unilaterally withdraw from Gaza while destroying the Israeli communities in Gaza and northern Samaria and forcibly expelling their 10,000 residents tore his party and government apart. Sharon fired the ministers from the National Religious Party and the National Union.

To survive in office, Sharon had to retain the support of the ultra-Orthodox parties. To this end, he acceded to their demand to kick religious-Zionist rabbis out of the state rabbinate and replace them with ultra-Orthodox rabbis. Sharon’s move gave the ultra-Orthodox total control over all state conversions.

Since then, the ultra-Orthodox rabbis have used their absolute to cancel the conversions performed by the most senior rabbis in the religious-Zionist community. Some of the converts affected have been Jews for decades and raised Jewish children.

Their Judaism and that of their children was retroactively denied by the rabbinate.

The ultra-Orthodox rabbinic courts subject half a million Israeli citizens who made aliya under the Law of Return to humiliating and drawn-out conversion processes even though many of them have lived their entire lives as Jews in Israel.

Rather than be given consideration as Rav Uziel and the national-religious religious authorities prescribe, they are treated as though they never had any relationship with the Jewish people of which they have always considered themselves members.

Due to the progressive American Jewish groups’ enthusiastic support for the withdrawal from Gaza and the destruction of the Israeli communities in Gaza and northern Samaria, they did not object to Sharon’s move.

And now, by mischaracterizing the government- backed conversion bill as a slap in the face to Reform and Conservative converts, they miss the real reason they should be fighting the legislation.

They should be fighting the bill because a large majority of the members of their communities are intermarrying. The children of many of those marriages who want to make aliya will be subjected to the same humiliating conversion processes undertaken by the ultra-Orthodox state rabbinic courts as the half a million Israelis who are not registered as Jews with the Chief Rabbinate face.

The fact that this doesn’t seem to be a concern for them indicates two things. First, their anger over the proposed law is not substantive. The contents of the bill – from their perspective – do not change the status of their converts. They have been living at peace with that status, which they agreed to, for 20 years.

At the same time, the American Jewish leaders who threaten not to speak to or host Israeli politicians who support the bill, ignore the fact that the current law would doom the children of their intermarried community members to second-class status in Israel if they try to convert halachically in the framework of aliya, rather than ensuring that they are treated with the love and respect their deserve.

Along these lines, and in relation to the Israeli citizens from the former Soviet Union, Rabbi Riskin notes, “The entire fabric of Israeli society would be torn asunder if a division were made between Israelis and halachic Jews. The religious courts must do their utmost to expose them to basic Shabbat, festivals and kashrut observance, but the most important goal must be to bring them into the Covenant with the Jewish people. After all they have gone through because of their ‘Jewishness’ under the Communist regime, it behooves us to incorporate them within our Jewish collective as part of the miracle of the ingathering of the exiles.”

So both in the case of the government’s decision regarding the Western Wall and in relation to its decision regarding the draft conversion law, American Jewish leaders are reacting with fury unhinged from the substance of the decisions themselves.

They cry foul to perceived, but largely imaginary, slights while ignoring the real problem with the conversions bill.

This then brings us to the government, and what apparently motivated it to take action that so provoked the American Jewish leadership.

In an interview with The Jerusalem Post, Rabbi Julie Schonfeld, vice president of the Conservative Rabbinic Assembly, accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of preferring momentary political advantage to the interests of the Jewish people. In her words, “The prime minister will do what he sees as beneficial for the next five minutes of his political life… There’s no possible way that the prime minister and his officials can argue they’re acting in the best interests of the State of Israel. They are betraying the citizens of the State of Israel in order to keep themselves in power for the next five minutes.”

While nasty, her criticism is not without foundation.

But what was Netanyahu’s alternative? If the American Jewish community flies off the handle and declares war against the government, threatening to blackball the elected leaders of the Jewish state when they adopt measures that while impolite have little substantive effect on their positions, then why should Israel take their views into account? If everything that the government does is terrible, then dialogue is reduced to recrimination. Sitting with progressive Jewish leaders from America means being subjected to a lecture about how terrible Israel is by people who do not live here and are not interested in having a serious discussion about what is actually on the table.

The fact that they are not interested in having that sort of discussion, and that they have no interest in making Israel their home, is demonstrated by their indifference to the real implications of the draft conversion law. Leaders truly invested in the future of both their communities and of their communities’ ties with Israel would be appalled by the retention of monopoly control over conversions by rabbinic authorities who refuse to recognize the difference between children of intermarriage and non-Jews with no relation to Judaism and the Jewish people.

They would insist that religious-Zionist rabbis be reinstated in the state rabbinate, and work avidly to ensure that conversions once approved cannot be overturned.

The real problem here is that while everyone involved speaks of the need for Jewish unity, no one involved in the conversation seems to be motivated to work toward that goal.

Jewish unity isn’t achieved by mutual recrimination.

And it isn’t achieved by one-upmanship. It is achieved through compromise based on mutual respect and love for fellow Jews. Absent that, nothing good will come from negotiations or laws or agreements. Absent that, nothing good will come at all.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

The Problem With Israeli Politics

Consider the following remarkable facts regarding Israel’s parliamentary history:

1) For 20 of the 28 years between 1977 (when Likud first won the elections on a platform of “Greater Israel”) and 2005 (when a Likud government withdrew unilaterally from Gaza in stark contradiction to its electoral pledges), the Israeli government was headed by a prime minister from Likud.

2) When Likud came to power, not only was the entire Sinai Peninsula under Israeli control, but any suggestion that Israel might evacuate the Jordan Valley was virtually unthinkable, any thought of dividing Jerusalem was tantamount to blasphemy, and any hint of withdrawal from the Golan was almost akin to treason.

3) Yet today, over a third of a century since Menachem Begin’s dramatic electoral victory over the hitherto hegemonic Labor party, all the above are either already widely accepted — even recommended — outcomes by much of the political mainstream in the country. Astonishingly, even the question of the strategically vital Golan Heights, which for several years disappeared from the political agenda because of the gory internal war in Syria, has recently reemerged as an issue for debate, despite the war in Syria.

Win elections; never get into power

These developments clearly demonstrate that, although the parties designated as the “right wing” regularly win elections and manage to form a ruling coalition, they somehow never really get into power, in the sense that they cannot — or dare not — implement the policies they were elected to implement. Worse, they appear coerced to adopt, with varying degrees of reluctance, the policies of their defeated “left-wing” rivals, which they were elected to prevent.

This is a phenomenon that can only be rationally accounted for by the existence of some influence, extraneous to the political system, which imposes on it outcomes that diverge dramatically from those that should be expected from the regular unhindered operation of that system.

Thus, Yitzhak Rabin, who, in 1992 was elected on the basis of a series of hawkish “nays” regarding negotiations with and concession to Yasser Arafat’s terrorist PLO, radically switched his policy mid-term, transforming them all to dovish “yeas,” which begot the Oslo fiasco.

Even more dramatically, Ariel Sharon, elected on a platform of vehement opposition to any notion of unilateral withdrawal, adopted precisely such policy, advocated by his Labor party rival, and rejected by the electorate.

It is difficult to overstate the implications of this phenomenon, which, for all intents and purposes, drains the Israeli democratic process of any significance. After all, it clearly negates the purpose of casting a vote at the ballot box — since, even if one’s preferred party prevails at the polls, the policy soon adopted is that which voters chose to renounce.

Spurious ’causes’

Three claims frequently raised to account for such blatant disregard for electoral pledges must be summarily rebuffed.

The first is that they were the result of international — particularly American — pressure. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

In the case of Oslo, the entire unfortunate process was covertly conceived exclusively by Israelis and Palestinians in remote Scandinavia, without any international coercion. Indeed, deep into the negotiation process, the PLO, cosignatory to the accords that emerged from this ill-considered initiative, was still classified as a terror organization by the U.S. government.

Neither can the disastrous Gaza disengagement be attributed to American, or other sources of external, pressures. Quite the reverse, Washington, initially highly skeptical as to the prudence of unilateral initiatives, had to be actively convinced by Sharon as to the merits of the idea.

The second claim that needs to be dispelled is that these mid-term policy reversals reflect some far-sighted wisdom in dovish policies of territorial concessions and political appeasement that make the post-election abandonment of more hawkish political platforms inevitable. Indeed, one of the most astonishing aspects of the Israeli political system is of ostensibly “hawkish” politicians adopting, once in power, “dovish” policies they previously repudiated. After all, these policies have consistently and continuously proved disastrous failures — making continued adherence to them utterly incomprehensible.

The third spurious claim is that because of Israel’s allegedly dysfunctional electoral system, elected coalitions cannot govern coherently and, to prevent their disintegration, are coerced to make concessions to recalcitrant partners.

However, internal coalition pressures and the exigencies of coalition preservation cannot account for the aforementioned policy decisions, since there were no internal coalition pressures to adopt them. Quite the opposite. Several coalition members, in fact, resigned in protest against them.

Unholy trinity?

So if the most dramatic political initiatives over the last two decades cannot be attributed to international pressure, to the far-sighted “wisdom” of Israeli leaders, to domestic political pressures or the preferences of the Israeli electorate, to what can they be ascribed?

The answer to this critical conundrum is to be found more in Israel’s sociological structure, rather than its political mechanisms.

More specifically, it lies in the composition of its civil society elites: the ones who dictate the tone of Israel’s legal establishment, dominate much of its mainstream media and hold the sway in the country’s academia (particularly in the social sciences and humanities — where the politically correct regularly overrides the factually correct).

These groups comprise an interactive “trinity of influence” that, in effect, dictates much of the socio-political discourse in Israel, which in turn determines how politicians perceive their policy constraints and possibilities. This allows them to set the overall tenor and direction of the national agenda at the strategic level. They manage to inculcate their worldview into the decision-making processes of elected politicians with impressive effectiveness and manipulate the perceptions of the general public as to the prevailing political realities the country faces.

Accordingly, from their unelected position of privilege, power and prestige, this trinity of elites has both the ability and the motivation to impose on the elected incumbents an agenda that diverges significantly from electoral pledges — and from the promotion and preservation of the long-term national interest.

Seeking approval of peers abroad

Thus, for example, the legal elite can impede any assertive initiative that the elected polity may wish to implement. Similarly, the media elite can promote any concessionary initiative that the elected polity may be loath to implement. And when the stamp of professional approval is required for either, the amenable and biased academic elite is ever-ready to provide it.

It requires little analytical acumen to identify that these were the mechanisms that, in large measure, generated — or at least facilitated — most of the major political processes over the last two decades. Accordingly, the ability to understand the political realities in Israel is contingent on understanding the worldview and the cost-benefit analysis of these powerful and influential elites.

For them, the approval of peer groups abroad is far more important in determining their agenda than the approval of Israeli citizens at home. Invitations to deliver keynote speeches at high-profile conventions, sought-after appointments as visiting scholars at prestigious institutes and lucrative grants for research projects are far more forthcoming if one is identified as empathetic to the Palestinian narrative rather than as committed to the Zionist one.

Far-reaching effects

This reality has far-reaching effects.

For example, it prevents Israeli public diplomacy — largely under the sway of these elites — from portraying the Arabs in general, and the Palestinians in particular, as they truly are. After all, such an assertive portrayal would make the dominant elites’ worldview look outrageously irresponsible. They are thus compelled to depict the Arab/Palestinian side in a far more favorable light than reality warrants, while portraying the Israeli side in a far more negative one — otherwise there would be no justification in handing over areas of vital strategic importance to Arab/Palestinian control.

After all, to acknowledge Arab brutality and backwardness, to focus on the repression of women, the suppression of dissidents, and the oppression of homosexuals; to draw attention to the harassing of critical journalists and the hounding of political opponents, would gravely undermine the prudence of any policy advocating the establishment of a Palestinian entity barely a mile from the Knesset, overlooking Ben-Gurion International Airport, and adjacent to the Trans-Israel Highway.

Danger to democracy

The gravity of the consequences that the imposition of elite political preferences has on Israeli policy, and the debilitating effect it will inevitably have on the democratic process, cannot be ignored. These dramatic minority elite-induced policy reversals constitute a powerful disincentive for taking part in the electoral process — indeed, for even considering it of any worth at all.

After all, what is the point of voting any party or person into power if they end up implementing precisely what was rejected by the voters? And once the electorate loses faith in democratic governance, what is there to prevent the onset of “alternative” forms of governance?

(Originally Published on Israel Hayom)

The Quiet Revolution

Darkness feels like it’s everywhere these days.  From ISIS, Iran, and Hezbollah on our borders and the slow motion Palestinian Intifada within, our enemies are literally surrounding us.  Old friends are in disarray and our new partners are untrustworthy. The government in Israel seems almost wishful in its outlook on our geopolitical situation and far too fixated on political gain by locking up young settler activists without trial.

The government has gone seemingly mad.  One day they are building an alliance with Greece, Cyprus, and Egypt and the next they are entertaining the idea of rapprochement with Turkey.

So why the confusion?

The State of Israel was born out of two conflicting historical movements. One was the 19h century nationalist movement that had swept the European continent and inspired European Jews to build for themselves a National Homeland in their historic home located in the Land of Israel.

The second movement popped up after the Holocaust and before National Independence in 1948. It what an international movement by the world to give the Jews a State a sort of amelioration for the slaughter that was purpotrated by the Nazis and their supporters during WW2. This movement came at the tailend of the Revolt in which the three competing Jewish paramilitary units in the Holy Land were attempting to push out the British. It is no accident that the British would have have saved millions of Jews if not for their whitepaper and yet despite the loss to the Jewish Nation, the Jews of the Palestinian Mandate pushed on against the one of the World’s strongest Nations.

Before the British could be embarrassed the amelioration movement, which had nothing to do with Zionism came in and saved the British. On the 29th of November 1947 Resolution 181 was passed by the UN and despite its never being implemented the Resolution cemented in the World’s mind that the State of Israel, (which would have been born with or without the UN) was birthed exclusively by the United Nations as a reaction to the Holocaust.

The sad irony that it was in fact Britain whose policies kept Jewish immigration to the mandate at near standstill while Jews were being slaughtered by the Nazis by the millions standing behind the fledgling Jewish State is not accidental. The young state would not last against the British trained Arab forces and in due time would have to invite the British back in. Of course the opposite happened and yet the colonial mentality persists and pervades the ruling elite in Israel.

The idea that Israel is a creation of the UN buries the gains the Zionist Revolution made within the hearts of the masses before the partition plan was drafted.  After all it was not us with the Almighty at our backs that pushed the British out, it was they they British who gave us our State. This causes a yearning to be loved by the Nations and creates an incoherent geopolitical strategy.

Noting the historical amnesia of the Jewish Nation, Rabbi Yehuda HaKohen, founder of Lavi Olami notes in a 2008 op-ed the following:

“Like the American Revolution, the Zionist Revolution succeeded in liberating a country from the mighty British Empire. And this was no small achievement for Jewish people who, only three years earlier, were being systematically butchered by the millions in Europe. Freedom was won in blood and fire by heroic young fighters willing to give their lives so that future generations would see a Hebrew flag over Jerusalem. But aside from this near-impossible feat, the Zionist Revolution also had – and still has – several more seemingly unattainable tasks to accomplish.”

Despite the setbacks and void in leadership at the national level, a quiet revolution is afoot. More and more people are recognizing that the path forward is to once again cultivate our roots. Silently and nearly methodically there has been an organic growth in young activists looking out at the regional landscape and seeing their own indigenous experience and wanting to hook back into it. It is this connection to the Land and Nation that young zionists within Israel are beginning to lay as the foundation for going forward.

More than this though, the Zionist Revolution calls on the people of Israel to elect and support leaders that partner with like minded indigenous nations in the region as well as economic and military policies that are independent from the needs of the interests of the global elites and neo-conservative elements entrenched in American foreign policy institutions.

A successful revolution means foreign organizations and global corporations who do not have the Jewish Nation’s best interests are to be kept out of decision making. Sadly our current leaders, from Naftali Bennett to Bibi Netanyahu at the very least believe the State of Israel has achieved its revolution and perhaps they have succumbed to the spirit that we were in fact born out of the ovens and gas chambers of the Holocaust rather than as a result of the immovable destiny of our ancient Nation.  

Thankfully, there are those who see things differently, who place the revolution still ahead of us. From the throngs of Temple Mount activists, to the young guard in the Likud as well Moshe Feiglin’s new party Zehut, Israel’s future is bright as the body politic across the country has begin to shed to darkness of the exile in order to embrace a far more expansive future.  

The challenges ahead are immense and in many ways the Nation of Israel has survived far more dire circumstances, but at the end of the day the leaders of our past were guided by the fears of the Holocaust without concern to the future. If Israel can embrace a complete faith in its cause and tap into the strength of its forefathers it will acquire the ability to deal with its enemies, while properly deciphering wrong from right. Only then will the Zionist Revolution have the ability to fulfill its true potential.

The world finds itself in a moment of chaos. Our leaders have been swept up by foreign ideals and goals.  Ultimately only a clear sighted vision based on truth and faith will lead us out of the darkness we are in.


Israel Behind the News [Nov 30, 2015]

Yinon Magal was brought into the Bayit Yehudi (Jewish Home) party by Naftali Bennett to put a less religious face on it. The party stalwarts had always been uneasy with Bennett for opening the party calling his move into question as it essentially erases the differences between Likud and Jewish Home.  now they have fodder for the next leadership fight.  It is no secret that Bennett believes his best shot to becoming PM is to merge his party with Likud and fight from within.  This puts a small monkey wrench into that plan.  Yet, despite that the new bill being proposed by Bibi to under the guidance of MK Levin to make it so the largest party automatically gets to form the government would almost guarantee a merger anyway.  This would be out of fear of the Left rising to power over a fractured right wing.


Once again Europe misses the point. Islam = Jihadist ideology.  The Koran espouses destruction of the unbelievers and dhimmitude of the “other people of the book.” Islam would have to essentially stop being Islam in order to be enlightened. It’s true there are sects like the Sufi’s who appear to be peaceful, but even they are easily fired up against the West:
At the end of the day, the World must come to a conclusion that it is really Islam itself that breeds violent hysteria into a way of life.


Just when we thought the “cycle of violence” was settling into a low flame reality, an Arab teen shot dead by security forces reignites tensions to a boiling point. Attacks had begun to be kept to Judea, Samaria, and “East Jerusalem,” but rage has a way of spilling back out into the rest of the country. Remember, that in most cases the security forces shoot Arab teens because they are in fact throwing rocks or Molotov cocktails. This is a prevalent past time in these neighborhoods.