"Confrontation" Revisited: Rav Soloveitchik's Classic Treatise

In these trying times when ignorant, unlearned, and unprincipled Jewish "leaders" align with evangelical missionaries for their purported support of Israel, it behooves decent Jews to revisit Rav Soloveitchik's classic works on interfaith dialogue. What we are saying today reflects the vacuum of Jewish leadership of our times. Not only are those engaged in these dangerous relationships violating the most basic aspects of the Rav's position, but most of them are frighteningly ignorant (and largely disinterested) of the issues involved. Dark times indeed.

• Confrontation
• Addendum

Monsters Exist: Judaism’s Cognizance of Evil

“To most of us nothing is so invisible as an unpleasant truth. Though it is held before our eyes, pushed under our noses, rammed down our throats-we know it not.”-Eric Hoffer, “The Passionate State of Mind, and Other Aphorisms (1955)

“The soul that has conceived one wickedness, can nurse no good thereafter.”-Sophocles

The Moral Lies We Tell

Torah is truth personified. Yet some truths cannot be said. We recognize that lying is odious. Yet some lies are permitted, such as the lies we tell to shield people from embarrassment or to protect the innocent. When we occasionally lie to our children to insulate them from things that no child should know about, we do so with a clear conscience. Lies of omission, lies of calculation. All for the good of the child.

To assuage their fears when they are very young, we assure them that there are no such things as childhood monsters with horns, fur, and teeth. In time, we teach them that while there are indeed wild creatures in this world with teeth and hearty appetites, civilized societies don’t have predatory animals roaming about. But what about the true monsters in this world, the human monsters who exist? How do we broach these topics?

We don’t. We avoid the question of those products of nature and nurture who commit acts as terrifying as any imaginary construct. The developing child approaches us with their ever expanding brains and the consequential concerns. We counter their inquiries. They bring it to us. No normal rational parent introduces these concepts.

Children first have a notion of robbers, and this often becomes the first anxiety relating to the real world. The killers, the rapists, the human predators, these are extensions of the first fear. The man who enters the home. The man who creeps about in the night while we sleep. When this first fear is articulated, we evade difficult questions with comforting solutions, to assure them of their safety, and help them mature into functional people, without the handicap of excessive anxiety. We pray to G-d that they will never meet such people, neither in childhood nor their adult lives. We tell them lies. We protect them as best we can. But life can be ugly.

Monsters in Our Midst

“You gave me a present and now I am returning it to you.”-Hallel’s mother Rena Ariel; at her murdered daughter’s funeral

A teenage girl’s bedroom should be the safest place in the world for her, a haven of privacy and seclusion. And in the normal world, it usually is. But not in Kiryat Arba, where the Jewish populace is surrounded by Arab barbarians. Home may be a man’s castle in his mind, but unguarded castles are easily stormed. Even within the illusion of gated communities, and electronic fences, and security patrols, these measures are only as good as the people maintaining them.

And when the mythology of security is shattered it is devastating. An insane image, impossible to fathom: a child’s bedroom drenched in her own blood. Portrait of Hallel Yaffa Ariel’s bedroom on June 30, 2016, courtesy of a 17-year-old Arab monster named Muhammad Tarayrah, who climbed through her bedroom window and stabbed her to death as she slept.

May G-d avenge Hallel’s blood. And may Hashem teach the Arabs of Kiryat Arba, the environs, and of Greater Israel the justice of the ancient city of Shchem.

Outside the realm of hasbara fantasy, most Israelis are unarmed and vulnerable, and although many people oppose the draconian laws which permit only the elite to obtain a legal weapon to protect themselves, many are not even bothered. In such a society, the terminally enlightened concern themselves with “restraint,” the rights of murderers, and perpetuating the system of apprehending terrorists. Such a society breeds weakness, because it denies the common man the most basic right of all, the right to live. The kind of society where the worst of humankind terrorize the innocent.

Whether maimed or murdered, or damned to witness the former, when people encounter human monsters their lives are ruined. In the same way that no one who survived the Holocaust can truly ever be “normal,” how can one who saw his parents gunned down or stabbed to death or hacked to bits, ever know normalcy? Can a society forced to endure endless Arab atrocities even appreciate the concept of normalcy?

There is no dearth of monsters in Israel. Man-beasts who resemble man but act less human than carnivores. Men who cast away their humanity and choose the evil. Arabs nursed on ideations of suicide/homicide martyrdom and are given every opportunity to actualize their madness. Arabs who stab babies in cribs and detonate themselves in the marketplace to attain said “martyrdom” and the depraved fantasies of Islam’s sexual pathology. Those Arab “passion-plays”, obscene Arabs theater featuring school children who reenact the slaughter of Jews. And Arabs who stab teenage girls in their bedrooms.

And still the left and clueless governments continue to perpetuate the myth of good Arabs. Of reasonable Arabs. Of Arabs who want to live in peace with Jews. These same politicians have the nerve to attend Jewish funerals and pay shiva calls. They speak of protecting Jews and yet Jews are sitting ducks in Israel. On many roads, Jews are targets for Arab snipers or cinder blocks. Or firebombs to burn his wife and children to death or destroy a little girl’s face. Even crossing the street in Jerusalem or buying milk can become an ordeal, should the Arab knife frenzy return, or the Arabs rediscover their predilection for crushing Jews with automobiles.

The government never calls for vengeance. Social media outlets for military and government speak of the murdered “of blessed memory”, the tamest of words suggesting that a murdered Jew slipped away in the night from old age. “May G-d avenge her blood” is considered the refrain of extremists. Netanyahu blasts Abbas and the “PA” for incitement. If as the sages of old taught us, the wise man is one who foresees the future, then the fool pokes out his own eyes and sees nothing. What on G-d’s earth did Bibi think he would accomplish? Compel Abbas to repent?

Thank G-d the latest Arab terror attack in Jerusalem was thwarted. But in Israel, the positive is laced with negative. Averted bloodshed doesn’t preclude the possibility of future bloodshed. On the contrary. Israel’s ethic of “do-the-least harm was on display. The terrorist was apprehended rather than having his head blown off. He will sit for a time, and as sure as the day is long, he will be part of a future prisoner release, as one with ‘no blood on his hands’. And when he is released, he will attempt to rectify his failure.

In Israel, the uncompromising warrior is often treated like a fiend, or a lawless vigilante. A soldier such as Elor Azaria who kills an Arab terrorist is a hero, and any "Jewish" government that punishes such a warrior is reprehensible. I don't care if the creature was trussed up like a Thanksgiving Turkey. Or whether or not the ghoul had an explosive. A bullet to the head is the Jewish response. You can bet your last shekel that King David would have agreed. The witch-hunt against Azaria shrieks of Jewish degradation. Such actions are the antidote to Jewish funerals.

The double standard is jarring. The Left gets away with incitement to murder. Academics, journalists, activists, etc. They can say anything on twitter, Facebook or in a prominent paper. Military men can compare Israeli society to the society that birthed the disease of Nazism. Without any consequence. All during a “right-wing” government. Several months ago, the morally defective leftist editor of Walla News Roy Baharir Perl called for Arab terrorists to attack a “right-wing” Jewish concert. While this incitement was spread all over social media, our government tortured and imprisoned innocent Jews, on a witch-hunt to seek out supposed "Jewish terrorists". If Perl was a right-winger, he would have been hanging upside down within the hour while Shabak agents pummeled him.

A government who refuses to protect the Nation and imprisons those who do, sends a message that 1) Jewish lives aren’t valued. 2) Jewish deaths are acceptable if the threshold of “acceptable losses” doesn’t remarkably change the status quo. 3) that Rabin’s perverse notion of “karbanot” for an impossible peace is pragmatic. A government and a society which spurns the gift of Jewish strength and holds its fire has blood on its hands. Jewish history will recall these sins born of weakness and self-loathing, whose consequences destroy lives and those of the survivors. Orphans and widows and parents who bury their young. Of sons and daughters who shriek “Abba”, as their beloved father is interred into the earth. Of a mother who one day drove her girl to dance class, and the next day spills tears stands over her murdered corpse.

Given Israel’s torturous form of government where a hodgepodge of groups usually forms a coalition, the question remains: How precisely to coordinate and implement the proper framework for genuine change? There are no easy answers, since yesterday’s best tactics are not necessarily feasible and today's are useless. We need to use the best resources of our age. However, short of an undeserved miracle, nothing short of mass civil disobedience will make a dent in the government's armor. When society wakes up and takes to the streets in unprecedented numbers, we will see the possibility for change. Articles and videos will not bring about change, no matter how provocative, powerful, or reasoned. They may cause people to think. They may inspire people, but nothing short of authentic societal grassroots effort on the ground, can rehabilitate our collective Jewish soul.

The pernicious effect of havlaga can only be cleansed with Jewish strength and unrelenting power. There is no place on earth for mercy with the Arabs. Truly, they are the Am Lak-a nation that laps Jewish blood. The company of man-eating lions is preferable. When Arabs kill Jews it is perverse to celebrate our humanity with assurances that “we love while they hate”. Of course we are not like them. And that is precisely why the Torah demands that we destroy the wicked. The failure to do so, results in OUR slaughter. It is time to scream and demand that our government deals with the Arabs once and for all, before the next round of Jewish funerals.

Those terrible funerals. Those horrifying images of parents clinging and shrieking over the small inanimate bodies of their children all dressed in shrouds, awaiting the final journey. I prefer the funerals of my enemies. And every Arab funeral where the blood-crazed jinn celebrate their shahid is a G-d given opportunity to bomb them to smithereens. Whole villages of Arab terror can be obliterated this way.

When Moshiach arrives, he will be pressed to identify Amalek. I am convinced that this most noble of men (may we see the redemption in our times) will open his eyes wide with puzzlement: “Are you serious”, he will say? “They are all around you!”

“Pour out YOUR wrath against the nations, who know YOU not.” During the joy of the Passover seder, we call for vengeance against the evil nations. Some distorted modern commentaries try to minimize the significance of this powerful refrain in the Haggadah. It is significant and provocative. Unabashed and unapologetic. The wicked deserve punishment, and unlike petty revenge against a fellow Jew which is forbidden, this is something we long to see. Jewish outrage as a counter to apathy and indifference. Strength and dignity to repair the degradation, and self-respect for Torah and Halacha, rather than a systematic attempt to explain away halachic obligations. With such a mindset, we can finally deal with the Arabs.

We need more of the teachings of torat Moshe Rabbeinu, and less of the arrogance of Moshe Dayan. More of the glory of King David and less of David Ben Gurion’s Ghandi-esque havlaga. And truth be told, we need more of Shimon and Levi whose righteous zeal for their sister brought the city of Shchem to its knees. And lastly, we need more of Shimshon Hagibor, who terrified and terrorized the Philistine enemy. 

The Jewish People: Zero Commonality With Indians

Contrary to the ill-informed claims of self-appointed "hasbara" indigenous rights activists, "native-Americans" have little (if any) commonality with Jews. The analogy is ridiculous, and only one devoid of knowledge of Jewish history and Torah would ever make the comparison.

There is a  reason "Indian rights" activists align with Arabs and their war with Israel. As angry malcontents with no future and no reasonable demands, they have an interest in disseminating myth as history and living the fantasy of a revolution that will never happen. And they have embraced antisemitism for self-interest:

1. As Jews we have a legacy and a mandate of bringing the knowledge of the One true G-d to the world. Indians were animistic pagans.
2. Jewish law is predicated on the sanctity of human life. Biblical wars (and halachic wars were necessarily brutal) offered the enemy an opportunity to repent. They had a limited window to do so and to extricate themselves from the fate of their people. Native Americans were masters of collective mass slaughter, torture, rape, all sorts of depredations, physical, sexual assault, etc. A code of barbarism and savagery.
3. Indians fled their origins in Siberia to find a new place to live- out of necessity. G-d GAVE us our land. And Jews have always yearned for the one place sacred to us, Eretz Yisrael.
4. Jewish tribes were mandated to maintain unity and brotherhood, despite the unfortunate reality of factionalism that existed throughout the history of the monarchies. Indians were defined by their brutal violence towards each other long before any European came to the land.
5. Judaism appreciates nature as the creation of G-d. Indians venerated and worshiped nature. And contrary to the mythos of the ecological native, many tribes were destructive to nature. Judaism has a balance where man must conserve the world but still retain dominion over it.
6. Indian society was cruel by any standard, and the violence they often meted out towards the ill and infirm was shocking. Judaism repudiates the cruel personality.
7. Judaism is intellectual. Our halachic system is based on logic. Indians were creatures of impulse, even if it was contrary to their best interests. 
8. Judaism has never shied from documenting our less than stellar moments in history. The Torah and Talmud often record events that portray as us sinful, ungrateful, and generally belligerent to Hashem. Truth is never sanitized. Indian history is defined by pseudo-history and her advocates all have one narrative. White raping exploitative Europeans. Good noble Indians.
9. While the Indians certainly contributed to our knowledge of fauna, flora, agriculture, building, hunting, their contributions pale to the contributions of the Jewish people, both in the realm of the sacred knowledge of Torah and individual contributions of Jews in general to medicine, education, arts.
10. The Indian world is gone. The Jewish people will live forever.

There is one important commonality. Neither Jews, nor Indians, nor any people's, are indigenous to anywhere in the world, since people are not frogs or plants. People are not indigenous. People conquer or they are conquered. People migrate. Like "native American" who came from Siberia. As Jews we differ because our conquests were Divine mandated and that is our claim to Israel. 

Some people get upset because religious arguments offend them. The lowest of these shills have made a career selling these exotic stories of "indigenous Jewry".  They never engage in discussion because theirs is not a rational claim. So they pout and scream and hurl obscenities. Too damn bad. Those self-serving arrogant hasbarites who don't like it, can go beat on a tom-tom to mollify their frustration or take some peyote and go on a lonesome vision quest.

Indigenous rights activists have nothing to say to Jews about identity. They know nothing of Torah and thus they are irrelevant to any Jew who believes in Divine claims. The essence of Judaism is the rejection of the primitive and the pagan. Native American culture embraced and cultivated these things. The Am Kadosh has no commonality whatsoever with those who worshiped nature. And it is perverse to make this foolish comparison.

We have Torah, they have totems.

Guest Post: Nathaniel Feingold - "On Korach"

Guest Post: Nathaniel Feingold's thoughts on Korach. Thank you Nathaniel, for allowing me to feature it here. 

Korah belonged to Am Yisrael, which was set apart from the rest of the peoples of the world.

Korah belonged to the tribe of Levi, which was set apart from the rest of the tribes of Yisrael.

Korah belonged to the family of Kehat, which was set apart from the rest of the families of Levi.

But none of this satisfied Korah, the son of Kehat's second son, Yitzhar.

Moshe was the youngest son of Kehat's firstborn son, Amram. He was chosen by God to be leader of the entire people of Yisrael. He was the closest thing Yisrael had to a human king at the time.

Aharon was the firstborn son of Kehat's firstborn son, Amram. He was chosen by God to be the Kohen Gadol, and for his sons and descendents to be Kohanim.

Elitzafan was the middle son of Kehat's youngest son, Uziel. He was appointed Nasi of the families of Kehat.

While Moshe and Aharon were the sons of Kehat's firstborn son, Elitzafan was a son of Kehat's youngest son.

Perhaps one could argue that Korah might have been satisfied not to lead Yisrael or to be Kohen Gadol if he had just been made Nasi of Kehat.

Perhaps it would not have been so unreasonable to Korah that the sons of the firstborn son of Kehat receive the first two offices, but to skip over him for the office of Nesi Kehat? Maybe this contributed to his discontent?

Yet Korah was already a Yisrael, he was already a Levi, he was already a Kehati, all special in their own way, and none of that satisfied him.

What reason is there to think that being Nesi Kehat would have satisfied him? Or being Kohen Gadol? Or even leading the entire nation?

What can possible satisfy someone who already has so much, and is nonetheless ready to rebel and attempt to overthrow the whole system over what he does not have?

Moshe, on the other hand, refused on at least two occasions for he and his descendants to be made "le-goy gadol" at the cost of the destruction of the rest of Am Yisrael.

One has to look very hard and carefully (Divrei HaYamim A' 23:14-17, 26:24-28) even to find out that Moshe's sons went on to make up two of the twenty-four divisions of the Levi'im.

And how easy would it have been for Aharon to assert that, being the firstborn of Amram, he should be leading the nation of Yisrael instead of his younger brother, Moshe?

We see shades of the rebellion of Korah later, in the days of Yarovam ben-Nevat.

While the tribes may have had legitimate gripes about the kingdom under Shelomo and Rehavam, Yarovam used their support as an opportunity to usurp the kingship from David, the priesthood from Aharon, the services from Levi, and the capital and chosen place from Yerushalayim and the Mikdash. And all of Yisrael who followed and supported him and his successors suffered from it.

How "fair" and "equal" of Yarovam to open up the kingship, priesthood, and service of the Levi'im up to any Yisreelite.

Yet it was God Who commanded the Levi'im to be set apart and carry out their services. Who decreed that Aharon and his sons be set apart as Kohanim and Kohanim Gedolim and to carry out their services. Who chose David and his descendents to be the legitimate kings of Yisrael. Who chose Yerushalayim and the Mikdash to place His name and for offerings to be brought.

Moshe did not choose himself to lead Yisrael. Moshe did not choose Aharon to be Kohen Gadol. Moshe did not choose the tribe of Levi. Just as David did not choose himself to be king of Yisrael.

What individual or group can decide what is "more fair" or "more equal" in Yisrael than the God, Who formed Yisrael and decreed these things? Everyone has their mission to carry out.

Korah had a mission to carry out within Am Yisrael, but he was not content to be Korah, and to do what Korah was meant to do for Am Yisrael.

Korah's descendant Shemuel HaNavi, on the other hand, spent his entire life serving HaShem and following His commands.

As Shemuel, the descendant of Korah, said when addressing all of Yisrael when they made Shaul king of Yisrael: "It is HaShem Who made Moshe and Aharon, and Who brought your fathers out of the land of Mitzrayim."

The War For Halachic Judaism

Disclaimer: I don’t like labels as it pertains to Torah identity. I don’t love the term “orthodox Jew”, modern-orthodox, etc. Personally, I would prefer the term halachic Jew, but some of the most aggressive religious innovators insist that they are acting in an halachic manner. On the other hand, I have zero patience for those who nit-pick with ridiculous semantics. In this article I use the term orthodox Jew, because sometimes terms become deep-rooted in a communal identity, and the desire to shake the root free is both wasteful, unnecessary, and sometimes counter-productive. I use the term when referring to religious rabbis who believe in the absolute Divine nature of Torah, and the mass revelation at Sinai.

Once upon a time, there were giants of Torah. Men with wisdom to combat the modern idols of secularization. Men who defended the integrity of the Jewish synagogue and the Jewish family from goyish modernization. Men who spoke with deep wisdom in defense of the deepest truths. Men who understood that modern definitions of feminism, woman’s rights, and similar minded ideologies spoke more of the faulty psychology of their respective advocates, than of any new-age modern revelation designed to liberate women from being women. Once upon a time, great men of Torah fought for yahadut.

Today, there are few if any prominent vocal voices. And so, whenever the new radical voices in the Torah community (who speak in the name of Torah) speak violence to the system, there is deafening silence. On issues that should transcend all labels and factions, and appeal to everyone concerned with protecting Halachah, one hears the void.

Ironically, some of the most blatant outrages occur in Israel, where unbridled Jewish messianic fervor renders many Jews vulnerable to aberrant belief systems. Consider the spectacle of orthodox rabbis giving a kosher seal to evangelicals and missionaries in Israel because of a distorted notion of achalta de'geula. Consider how one prominent Rabbi in the heartland of liberated Samaria opened up his community to evangelicals in order to benefit from their free labor. Today, these evangelicals have transitioned from living in tents to dwelling in cottages.

Consider that Tommy Waller, the leader of these evangelicals from the volunteer group "Hayovel", once infamously admitted in a promotional video that such opportunities will give him a chance to missionize (video):

"As we're working with these people, we'll be able to share with them this...this Jesus that we know." 

Further on in the video, a family member elaborated:

"Our family has begun a ministry called Hayovel. The vision of Hayovel is to develop a network of individual, families, and congregations who are ready to labor side by side with the people of Israel. To bless them, to stand with them, to share with them a passion for the soon coming jubilee in yeshua messiah. We extend the invitation to you, to join us."

Interfaith-Dialogue

And what of the growing number of religious rabbis who swim in the dangerous waters of interfaith dialogue? Perhaps most outrageous of all is that easily the most prominent individual involved in this lunacy repeatedly treads upon his deceased Rabbi’s famous stringent halachic ruling which prohibited such actions. (See Rav Soloveitchik's famous essay "Confrontation" and follow-up Addendum.)

On a more general level, how is orthodoxy supposed to cope with the following?

• Rabbis with kipot and beards who reflect on a morality independent of Halacha? Rabbis whose readings of Torah verse and Talmud require a torturous misreading of the written and articulated meanings? 
• Rabbis whose usage and defense (if only for application regarding what they believe to be “antiquated” injunctions, and not every day Halacha) of this tactic remind me of the perverse attempts of “Jewish Renewal”. 
• Religious Rabbis whose interpretations of of Divine injunctions mirror the tactics of maskilim new and old. Rabbis who see metaphor in the biblical injunction to destroy Amalek and the 7 Nations of Canaan.
• Rabbis who believe in a “new Halacha”. Rabbis who opine that Rambam and others spoke for their age alone.
• Religious Rabbis who advocate for homosexual marriage. 
• Rabbis for Hillary Clinton and her leftist anti-Torah positions. 
• Rabbis who engage in biblical criticism. 
• Rabbis who wish to free Spinoza from his well-earned excommunication.
• Rabbis for "open-orthodoxy" and the ordination of women.
• Rabbis whose well-intended but misguided notions will surely lead the next generations on the path to a new reform movement.

I worry about the future of Judaism. Not for its ultimate survival, since our tradition is stronger than any threat we face. But the war will come at a cost. The cost of souls lost to heresies new and old. Once upon a time, giants of Torah fought for truth against the reformation of Torah. Today the Torah community is as weak as ever. Not in terms of over-all Torah study. In that context, there is more Torah study today than ever before. But with the rise of social media, and the new movements pandering to all sorts of foolishness, Torah Jewry is intellectually susceptible. We lack sophisticated courageous Torah leadership to stand up for unpopular truth.  Even the RCA has shown an inability to reign in radical thought. How long did it take for them to take a stand against the growing clamor of the new “orthodox” to ordain woman?

The great men are gone. The classic men of past generations who fought critical battles for the preservation of Torah. Today’s religious rabbis shirk their duty to protect their flocks. Worse yet, many lead their flocks astray.

Factionalism render’s certain camps relatively insulated from some of these heretical voices. For the time, at least. One attraction of these new voices which will appeal to the disaffected of every community, is that some of these new prophets raise valid points about institutionalized rabbinical abuses which represent a chillul Hashem. These real issues act a springboard to hoist radical ideas. The fact that a stopped clock tells accurate time twice a day does nothing to change its general status as a broken instrument. 

Yet the willingness to admit abuse speaks of a candor which people find impressive. The answers are usually less impressive, and are usually more grounded in feelings than Jewish law. But one cannot ignore the real issues, and the attraction of those who address them. One must find better solutions reflecting Torah positions. “Orthodoxy” doesn’t need to change, despite the popular insistence that it must. Corruption is by definition contrary to Torah. If it is corrupt, then it cannot be orthodox despite the identification as such by the corrupt. We need to aggressively return to the truths of Torah.

Where are the giants who fought for halachic integrity? These great men are gone. Today we have silent men. Fearful men. People afraid to confront those who seek to ordain female rabbis in the name of orthodoxy, and those who would rather create a new Halacha to free chained women, rather than call for Jewish men to break open the heads of recalcitrant men. Today, we have Rabbis who in the name of compassion, will create leniency where none can be found, and in turn, will create mamzerim. The greatest and most sensitive poskim of the past, were sometimes hamstrung by halachic reality. They understood that non-halachic compassion will destroy the Jewish people.

In the name of political correctness, some may opine that the Rambam’s words were for his age alone, and that the Nesher could never have imagined a Jewish state in a modern age. My understanding of the Rambam is that he foresaw much more than his modern day detractors ever could. Unlike others, he wrote about biblical wars precisely because he understood that the process of redemption will occur, and war will be necessary. 

In the name of religious tolerance, many distort the Meiri in a way that he could never have imagined, as a source for all sorts of prohibited activities. The Meiri never could have fathomed a prominent religious America rabbi in America entering a national church for Obama’s initial swearing in ceremony. No one puts a gun or a sword to a Rabbi's head in America, and yet he entered  a forbidden place of his own volition.

Political correctness has infiltrated orthodoxy, and many of her supposed proponents are becoming increasingly susceptible to liberal sensibilities. Now is a time for intellectual zealousness for Hashem. Men of Torah need to face the new heresies and radical innovations, and intellectually combat the religious proponents of these foreign notions. 

An orthodox Judaism which fails to heed today’s call, will suffer in the coming years. The impact will affect even the most insulated communities. 

One day, the orthodox will awaken from their slumber and cry out for action. What will they do? They will create conferences to deal with the new “crises”. But by then, the bleeding will be copious.

Friendly Foes: The Subtle Missionary

In our war with the Arabs, the Jewish Achilles heel is personified by the neurotic need for gentile friends, and the desire to create such friends where there are none. In a world where too many Jews ignore the timeless truism, “Esau hates Jacob” we should ask ourselves the following: Who are our true gentile friends? Perhaps a better question would be: can Jews truly have friends whose views are contrary to Torah and the ideal values of a Jewish Israel? All too often, Jew label others as friends, even when these same groups have ulterior motives. Here are a few of my thoughts on such friendships and how to discern the validity of a friendship.

#1: True friends don’t have agendas. That’s the litmus test to determine if one has a true friend. True friends gain and benefit from the friendship itself, and require nothing in return. The friendship isn’t a forum for their own causes and agendas, or a platform to define their vision for Israel on our behalf. Nor is it a vehicle to profit and fund-raise for themselves. If a supposed friend is creating a false association to perpetuate an agenda, he may not be a friend. Not every person has the most nefarious motives. Oftentimes self-interest alone defines the supposed friend. An important note. A true friend has no interest in molding you, patronizing you, or defining you.

#2: Friends don’t have ulterior motives. Certainly not theological ones. The Jew has few if any real gentile friends in the world. I say few because there are gentiles who support Israel without dark motives. Yet the evangelical is not one of them, despite the millions of dollars pouring into Israel, and the sea of Christian pilgrims happy to take a dip in the Yardenit. The definition of evangelism precludes this possibility. One who desires to see Jews embrace Jesus can never be a friend. The Jew in Israel thinks he has a friend in the evangelical. The evangelical would not give a shekel (or a half shekel!) to Israel if his shekel didn’t earn him entrance. The millions thrown at Israel come with a heavy price. A foothold in the land. Without the latter, they would abandon Israel for other targets. If Israel’s missionary laws had any teeth, the evangelicals would love us from afar.

#3: True friends don’t associate with missionaries. Friends don’t align with those who openly declare their intent to convert Jews. And friends don’t ignore a telling honest website because of a smiling face, and the pastor’s ability to discuss the NBA, or a shared appreciation for American conservative values. The first and second degrees of separation are telling enough. “Woe to the wicked, woe to his neighbor.” Associations define us. If your parve evangelical friend has ties to missionaries, it means you didn’t heed Rule #2.

This should be obvious to any self-respecting person, but the lure of cash and benefits is enticing for many Jews. True friends aren’t interested in land deals or real estate in Israel. True friends don’t desire Israeli citizenship or long-term visas. Certainly, they have no interest in building missionary centers in Jerusalem. Those Jews who think evangelicals are our friends betray their ignorance of what it means to be evangelical.

The most dangerous missionaries in Israel today are not the coarse street missionaries (dangerous as they are) whose aggressive tactics are apparent. The clever ones are far more dangerous because they have a foothold and respectability. They are in our communities. They are even in our vineyards praising “The Father.” Torah Jews need to open their eyes. Stop fixating solely on the lightning rod of “Jews for Jesus.” The subtle ones are more dangerous.

We have enough problems in Israel with a skewed law of return, and the complicated problem of proper conversions. Our missionary laws are toothless, and yet they are the only tools to stop the predators. The spiritual dangers facing Am Yisrael threaten our spiritual integrity, and ultimately our physical survival as a Divine consequence, as surely as the Arab Amalekites who want to slaughter us.

The evangelicals have gotten Rabbis to declare that their presence is a sign of prophetic fulfillment. Social Media is inundated with more than a few Jews defending “Christian Zionists” and accusing those of us who oppose them as hateful, liars. The evangelical has learned that he can get away with murder if he tempers his word and his exuberance, and is quick to remove the occasional problematic video that an overzealous pilgrim posted. If he learns to constantly change the lingo for more parve semantics, he can go very far. Don’t say Jesus. Say “the Father”. Don’t talk about the new covenant. Say “Restoration".

The evidence is all around us in Israel, in every park with a CUFI plaque, and every interfaith-conference and prayer service comprised of Christian and Jew. Today, there are evangelicals living in Israel in a prominent Torah community, all with the collusion of religious Jews & rabbis. The few Jews who opposed them were cast out of the community. The hope of 2000 years? This is a veritable nightmare.

And the repercussions of these harmful unions are not monolithic. Those of us who are privy to the problem recognize that the infection will spread in unforeseeable ways. The day will come when Israel gives hundreds and perhaps thousands of evangelicals’ honorary citizenship as righteous gentiles. Jews will shake their heads and kvetch when the issue becomes a problem. They will say “you cannot do anything today; they should have done something then”. Today is tomorrow’s “then”. 

There is still time to rectify the mistakes. However, we need to get aggressive in exposing this multifaceted threat. As long as Likud leadership cozies up to evangelical money, then we have no recourse via the government. And as long as kipah wearing Jews shill for these predators, and Rabbis are blinded by a modern form of false messianism, things will only get worse.

The Heartland of Israel is riddled with missionaries who want Israel to retain every inch of our liberated land for a theological agenda. Jews who turns to Esau to fight Ishmael, has simply exchanged the armed crusader for the olive branch of evangelism. This is no victory.

I’ve heard more than a few of these Jewish enablers denying the danger of these groups, and assuring the public that neither they nor these groups have any association with missionaries. A proper search of the web reveals that these same individuals have on many occasion been caught on camera with overt missionaries. And their “parve” friends aren’t shy either when it comes to associating with the crudest missionaries. These self-appointed Jewish leaders recognize no boundaries. In truth, they are a byproduct of the collective rabbinic silence and reticence to discuss what they often bemoan in private.

In truth, the Jew has few genuine friends who come in the name of religion. The Bnai Noach represent the lone gentile community that can genuinely call himself a friend, since they desire the sanctification of Hashem’s name in the framework of the Torah. Of course, gentiles identified as Bnai Noach are hard to find, small in number, and they aren’t as well financed.

Choosing the hand of Esau to defeat the sword of Ishmael is suicide. The scourge of missionizing both classical and clever, and Heaven forbid the eventual likelihood of Jewish apostasy, idolatrous admixtures, deceptive conversions, and even Christian Jewish unions resulting from such poison alliances, will ensure Divine punishment. In the war with Amalek, we don’t arm ourselves with idolatry.

If we ignore the problem, and Jews today are ignoring the problem, our children and grandchildren will pay the price. And it will be a heavy price for the Jewish people. If we learn anything from the zealous Maccabees, it is that we Jews never traded Jewish blood for the Jewish soul. We fight for the latter with our dying breathe.

#withfriendssuchasthese

We Are Jewish, Not Jebusite.

A reminder for those who may have forgotten. Or for those who never knew. A few general ruminations to identify the self-serving hasbara snake-oil salesmen.

Blogging about "Jewish indigenous rights" is the domain of today's career social media jackass, both jewish and gentile. An expression of Irrelevant, irritating braying, which detracts from logical discussions Jews should be having, and creates false proofs for our Jewish reason for being. One who has zero knowledge of Torah or Jewish history should stick with issues he understands. One who does not, should shut his mouth and mind his own damn business. Seriously. HIS business, is not OUR business.

One example of this perversity is the chutzpadik tendency of outsiders to tell good dedicated Jews how they need to "find their true identity". These ugly people denigrate the long rich history of Ashkenazic Jewry which perpetuated some of the most vital, creative expressions of Judaism throughout our continuing exile, and enriched Judaism with a universe of Torah. To the Jewish frauds who run with this diseased way of thinking, I encourage them to study Torah and keep their naked ignorance to themselves. To the outsiders I say: find your own tortured identity (such as it is), and clean up your own dysfunctional house. Start with the withered tree out front, and ask it the critical questions.

There are real issues out there affecting Jews, both in Israel and the diaspora. In Israel, we have many physical and spiritual threats, and we don’t need those who align with missionaries and are anti-Torah to lecture us. Our own repressive government is more concerned with looking decent and appeasing anti-Semites than protecting Jews. While Arabs prey on Jews with knives, guns, stones, and explosives, our "Jewish government" continues the systematic abuse and incarceration of innocent Jews. Even an heroic soldier is punished for doing his job and destroying an Arab terrorist. These are the things that should inspire outrage. Not folk biology and pseudo-history.

In truth, the attempt to make Jews appear more exotic or native by presenting foolish arguments makes no sense to anyone with his head screwed on straight. It is a distracting ploy for hasbara shills to exploit foolish Jews. And it does nothing to help Israel. On the contrary, it merely lowers the collective Jewish I.Q. And we need every brain-cell at our disposal.

G-d gave the land of Israel to B'nai Yisrael. If you like this, or agree with this concept, good for you. Stick with it. If you don't, that's too damn bad. Go start your own indigenous country comprised of the descendants of savages who ate one another, but were displeased (hypocrites!) when the gun crushed their native forms of violence. Or go to a comic book convention and indulge in other fantasies. Or get a decent job and settle down. Find a good woman to love and live with. But mind your own damn business.

#wearenotaztecsnorincasnorcommanches

Hasbarite Syndrome (Guest Post) by Moshe Schwartz

In this guest post for "The Judean Hammer" Blog, my friend Moshe Schwartz shares his thoughts on the phenomenon he has coined as the "Hasbarite Syndrome". Click the link: https://www.facebook.com/notes/moshe-schwartz/hasbarite-syndrome/10154181330628534 and find out more about this pernicious malady.

Make sure you don't have the symptoms, and that you don't associate or support those who do. At the end of the day, most hasbarites are not interested in Zionist sweet potatoes.

He Picked The Wrong Jew To Murder

Torah demands that we slay human monsters who have no regard for humanity, not subdue or neutralize them. The notion of detaining a murderer and then releasing him in a few Ramadan cycles to prey again is beyond perverse. The Jewish response to total corruption is a bullet in the head, and the most basic fundamentals of Judaism confirm this. Judaism does more than assure the right of self-defense. Halacha requires that we pre-emptively strike before an attack.

Unfortunately, Israel’s politicians and the ever-growing “hasbara machine” are always touting Israel’s willingness and commitment to endanger Jewish soldiers to protect Arab civilians. We will never have a total count of how many precious Jews were lost to this mad philosophy. The same Judaism that abhors misplaced violence, demands and celebrates the application of proper use of force against the enemy.

The Arabs continue to prey on Israel’s Achilles heel, knowing that they can get away with an extraordinary tally of murdered Jews without a proper Jewish response. And even when Israel’s thresh-hold is reached, they know that any response will be muted. After all, they understand that even armed Jews are afraid to use their guns, lest the government imprison them for over-reacting. Even when assaulted, many armed Israelis have shown a reluctance to pull their weapon. 

And in urban areas, the timing is terrible. An Arab armed with a kitchen knife will always have the element of surprise over an armed citizen or soldier. The famous experiments are tragically replicated in Israel, where highly trained security personnel are gutted by Arabs with knives, who close the distance before they can unholster their weapons and fire. And far from the reputation abroad of Israel being a “gun friendly” country, anyone who lives here knows that the laws are extremely draconian. Only the elitists and an ever shrinking populace can legally obtain guns today, and those who are given guns are given a small leash.

Fortunately, not everyone in Israel is affected by these corrupt notions of self-restraint. Consider the heroic action of Yonatan Azarihab last week, a true Jewish warrior, with a beard and kipah to boot. An Arab Amalekite stabs him in the neck and leaves him for dead. On this occasion, the terrorist chose the wrong target. This beautiful Jew reacts in a most extraordinary fashion. He pulls the knife out of his neck, against the most rudimentary basics of street survival (for fear of bleeding out). He proceeds to chase down his would-be-murderer and kills the Amalekite beast with his own weapon.

Purim approaches, and the mandatory reading of Parshat Zachor will compel us to revisit and our eternal war with our age old enemy, Amalek. It would behoove us to celebrate and internalize the actions of great Jewish gibborim (warriors) past and present who dealt with Amalek appropriately.

I only wish I could have seen the Arab’s face when his “victim” rose up and slaughtered him before sending his evil soul to face the true judgment. Clearly, this holy Jewish warrior is obviously made from something else. The kind of stuff that Samson was made of. A normal country would hire him and have him share his internal fire with young soldiers in training. A portrait of righteous zealousness and unrelenting ferocity (common sense and self-preservation be dammed) against our accursed enemies, may they all be destroyed. If more Jews had this tzaddik's DNA, the Arabs would run screaming towards the Mediterranean.

Yonatan is a new Jewish hero for our times, and his actions should inspire more opportunities for gevurah. May he live and be well. And may his mesirut nefesh be the catalysts to reawaken the fire of King David.

A few thoughts in response to “‘Response to “Jews are NOT indigenous’”

The Judean Hammer Commentary: From the incomparable Nathaniel Feingold.

"Avraham and his ancestors originated beyond the Euphrates River in the lands of Aram. Avraham and his earliest descendants sojourned in the land of Kena'an as strangers. Am Yisra'el received the Torah at Har Sinai and learned to observe much of it in the wilderness, all outside the land. Then Am Yisra'el conquered the land from the Kena'anim and established Torah law over the conquered lands and peoples. This is what the Torah, the Prophets, and the Sages unapologetically affirm.

The millennia of Jewish history as strangers before conquest and as rulers after, the centuries of Jewish kingdoms and Temples, the feeling of a deep connection to the land, Jews should know and be proud of these things, but none of it has anything to do with being indigenous. Jewish people, culture, language, etc. developed in Bavel no less than anywhere else, but that does not make Jews indigenous to Bavel either.

The idea that the Kena'anim were conquering Eretz Yisra'el from the descendants of Shem in the days of Avraham seems to find little support outside of Rashi's comment on Genesis 12:6, even elsewhere in his own commentary. For instance, in his commentary on Numbers 13:22, Rashi indicates that Hevron was built by Ham for Kena'an, rhetorically asking if it is possible that Ham built Hevron for Kena'an, his youngest son, before he built Tzo'an for Mitzrayim, his eldest.

More explicitly, in his commentary on Genesis 1:1 and Psalms 111:6, Rashi reminds us that HaShem, the Creator of the earth, gave the land to the Kena'anim before He took it from them and gave it to Yisra'el:

"Rabbi Yitzhak said, "It was not necessary to begin the Torah except from “This month is to you” (Exodus 12:2), which is the first commandment that Yisra'el was commanded. Now for what reason did He commence with “In the beginning?” Because of [the verse] “The strength of His works He related to His people, to give them the inheritance of the nations” (Psalms 111:6). For if the world should say to Yisra'el, “You are robbers, for you conquered by force the lands of the seven nations [of Kena'an],” they will reply, "The entire earth belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He; He created it and gave it to whomever He deemed proper When He wished, He gave it to them (the Kena'anim), and when He wished, He took it away from them and gave it to us (Yisra'el)." (Rashi on Genesis 1:1)

"When He gave them (Yisra'el) the inheritance of the nations (Kena'anim), He let them know His strength and His might. And Midrash Tanhuma (Buber, Genesis 11): He wrote for Yisra'el [about] the Creation to let them know that the earth is His and that it is in His power to settle in it anyone He wishes, and to move these out and settle others, so that the nations will not be able to say to Yisra'el, “You are thieves, for you conquered the land of the seven nations [of Kena'an].” (Rashi on Psalms 111:6).

This does not say that the nations will not say Yisra'el are thieves. They do, and will continue to say this. Just as they say it when it comes to the particular locations of the Cave of Makhpela, the tomb of Yosef, and the Temple Mount, which were purchased by Avraham, Ya'akov, and David. The point is that Yisra'el should know better than to be convinced by or get sucked into the arguments of the nations. Because it is to Yisra'el that HaShem relayed His creation of the world, and to Yisra'el that He chose to give the land with the conditions of the Torah.

That Avraham and his descendants dwelled in the land of Kena'an as strangers is explained in Rashi's commentary on 15:13: "It does not say, “[strangers] in the land of Mitzrayim,” but “[strangers in a land] that is not theirs,” and from the time Yitzhak was born (Genesis 21:34): “and Avraham sojourned, etc.” (Genesis 20:1): “And [Yitzhak] sojourned in Gerar.” (Psalms 105:23): “And Ya'akov sojourned in the land of Ham.” (Genesis 47:4): “To sojourn in the land we have come.” - [from Midrash Abchir]"

Ramban also explained that the Avot dwelled as strangers in the land in his commentary on Genesis 37:1: "The explanation for "and Ya'akov settled in the land of his father's sojournings" (Genesis 37:1) is that [Torah] is saying that the chiefs of Edom settled "in the land of their inheritance" (Genesis 36:43), the land that they took for themselves as an eternal inheritance, but Ya'akov dwelt as a stranger, as his fathers [Avraham and Yitzhak] did, in a land that was not theirs but Kena'an's. And the intention is to tell us that they [Ya'akov, Yitzhak, and Avraham] chose to sojourn in the chosen land. And it tells us that, "that your offspring shall be aliens in a land not their own" (Genesis 15:13) was fulfilled through them [Ya'akov and Yitzhak], and not Esav. For it was through Ya'akov alone that offspring was considered theirs [Avraham's and Yitzhak's]."

Contrary to the claim that Ramban explains the journey of Avraham's family to the land of Kena'an as a return to their homeland, Ramban explains in his commentary on Genesis 11:28 that Avraham and his fathers had always dwelled beyond the Euphrates River prior to Avraham:

"It is written, "Beyond the [Euphrates] River your forefathers always dwelled" (Joshua 24:2), and the word "always" (me'olam) implies that his forebears had always been there. And it is written, "I took your father Avraham from Beyond the River (me'Ever HaNahar)" (Joshua 24:3) ... Rather, the truth is that their native land was the land of Aram, in the area known as Beyond-the-River (Ever HaNahar), and that was [Avraham's] ancestral inheritence from antiquity. As Scripture says of the descendants of Shem, "Their dwelling place extended from Mesha going toward Sefar, the mountain to the east" (Genesis 10:30), the "mountain of the east" being a general name for a large area, as is written of the descendants of Shem, "in their lands by their nations" (Genesis 10:31). And it is written, "From Aram did Balak, king of Mo'av, lead me, from the mountains of the east" (Numbers 23:7). Thus you see that he (Avraham) and his fathers were from that land (Aram) from antiquity." (Ramban on Genesis 11:28)

And in his commentary on Genesis 14:18, Ramban brings up and dismisses Rashi's interpretation of Genesis 12:6 (that the Kena'anim were conquering the land from the descendants of Shem) based on the peshat of the Torah, which explicitly describes the land as belonging to the Kena'anim prior to Avraham:

"According to our Sages (TB Nedarim 32b), who say that Malki Tzedek was Shem ben-No'ah, he went from his land to Yerushalayim to serve HaShem there, and was a kohen to the Supreme God for them (the Kena'anim), because he was the venerated brother of their father (Ham), for Yerushalayim was always within the border of the Kena'ani. Rashi wrote above [regarding] "the Kena'ani was then in the land" (Genesis 12:6): "[the Kena'ani] was going and conquering the land of Yisra'el from the offspring of Shem, ancestor of Avraham, for it fell in the portion of Shem when No'ah apportioned the earth to his sons, as it says, "and Malki Tzedek, king of Shalem" (Genesis 14:18)." But this is not correct, for "the border of the Kena'ani extended from Tzidon [going toward Gerar, as far as Aza, going toward Sedom, Amora, Adma, and Tzevoyim, as far as Lasha]" (Genesis 10:19) encompassing all of the land of Yisra'el, while the border of Benei Shem was east of Mesha (Genesis 10:30), far from the land of Yisra'el. But if No'ah apportioned the lands to his sons, and gave the land of Yisra'el to Shem, it was as "one who apportions his possessions by his mouth [for distribution after his death]" (a phrase used in TB Bava Batra 126b), and Benei Kena'an would dwell in it until HaShem would endow it to the offspring [of Avraham] who loved Him, as I have mentioned [on Genesis 10:14]."

In other words, while HaShem always intended to eventually give the land to Shem's descendants, the land belonged to the Kena'anim in the days of Shem, Avraham, Yitzhak, Ya'akov, and his descendants, who went from their own lands to dwell in the land as strangers, until He brought Yisra'el out of Mitzrayim, and brought them into the land to conquer it from the Kena'anim. That Yosef refers to "the land of the Ivrim" in Genesis 40:15 does not change that he and his fathers all sojourned in the land as strangers, just as Yisra'el did in the land of Goshen, which was known to be their dwelling place in Mitzrayim.

But even if, for the sake of argument, the nations were convinced that Jews are indigenous to the land, what tangible results do those who push this argument envision? Do they expect these nations to then conclude that the descendants of pre-state and pre-modern aliyot non-Jewish communities are not indigenous, or are less indigienous than Jews? Do they expect the nations to accept the annexation of Yerushalayim and Golan? Do they expect the nations to expect continued military rule of Yehuda and Shomron?

A majority of voting nations supported the establishment of Jewish and Arab states between the Jordan and Mediterranean long before this indigenous fad, and they will continue to demand the establishment of an Arab state in Yehuda, Shomron, and Aza whether they argue that the Arabs are indigenous or not. No matter how you slice it, they demand an Arab state next to Israel, and will not be convinced otherwise by any argument. And those who demand an Arab state on Israel's ruins will not be convinced by any argument either."

We Are Not Indigenous

Featured in "The Jewish Press"

“When G-d began to create heaven and earth.” (Genesis 1:1)

“Abram passed through the land as far as the site of Shechem, at the terebinth of Moreh. the Canaanites were then the land. The L-rd appeared to Abram and said, “I will assign this land to your offspring”. And he built an altar there to the L-rd who had appeared to him.” (Genesis 12:6-7) - JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh

When it comes to serious Jewish matters, I have zero patience for stupidity. When “hasbara” (public relation) champions celebrate nonsense to curry favor with any group of non-Jews feigning friendship, it strikes a visceral cord. The Jewish failure to act logically and behave with self-respect is an affront to Torah. We cannot defeat the Arabs if we cannot understand what it is to be Jewish, or to appreciate what our correct reason for being is based upon.

The Indigenous Rights Movement

One of the more troubling fads of late is the hasbara version of the “indigenous rights” movement, which posits that Eretz Yisrael belongs to us Jews because we are somehow indigenous to the region. (What region, you may ask? The Levant? The Fertile Crescent?) Jews did not arrive at this novel notion by themselves, since those advocating for indigenous “rights” are generally activists and leftists who hate Jews and eagerly defend Arabs as supposed victims of Jewish aggression and Zionist imperialism. To date, the majority of such groups side with the Arabs. Only recently, have we seen the phenomenon where a handful of lone individuals representing “indigenous peoples” aligned themselves with popular hasbara movements.

Contrary to the assertions of many popular online “hasbara” champions, we Jews are NOT “indigenous” to Eretz Yisrael. An honest analysis of the term (always defined by those advocating for such a concept) reveals that to the extent that a definition of “indigenous” could theoretically apply to Jews, it could surely also apply towards other groups, including Arabs.

What is indigenous? The problem with defining the term is that those who advocate for indigenous rights created the definitions. They set down the definitions as divine revelations whose tenets are infallible. They tell us what indigenous means as it relates to their personal beliefs. Many Native Americans (indeed most) who advocate for “Palestinians” will interpret it one way to include Arabs. One particular prominent pro-Israel and “indigenous rights” activist, Ryan Bellerose, a self-identified Metis from Paddle Prairie Settlement in Canada, maintains the opposite. He asserts that Jews are indigenous, while Arabs are not. In any event, in his article, “Israel Palestine: Who’s indigenous?” Ryan sets down his accepted criteria for being an indigenous people:

“To begin, let us acknowledge that there is no rule that a land can have only one indigenous people; it is not a zero sum game in which one group must be considered indigenous so that therefore another is not. However, there is a very clear guideline to being an indigenous people. It is somewhat complex but can be boiled down to the checklist below, as developed by anthropologist José R. Martínez-Cobo (former special rapporteur of the Sub-commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities for the United Nations).”

Further on, Mr. Bellerose continues:

“Martinez-Cobo’s research suggests that indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system.

This historical continuity may consist of the continuation, for an extended period reaching into the present of one or more of the following factors:

·        Occupation of ancestral lands, or at least of part of them

·        Common ancestry with the original occupants of these lands

·        Culture in general, or in specific manifestations (such as religion, living under a tribal system, membership of an indigenous community, dress, means of livelihood, lifestyle, etc.)

·        Language (whether used as the only language, as mother-tongue, as the habitual means of communication at home or in the family, or as the main, preferred, habitual, general or normal language)

·        Residence in certain parts of the country, or in certain regions of the world

·        Religion that places importance on spiritual ties to the ancestral lands

·        Blood quantum – that is, the amount of blood you carry of a specific people to identify as that people. The concept was developed by colonialists in order to eventually breed out native peoples.”

Frankly, I am not interested in this general discussion since I cannot concern myself with the issues of the “indigenous peoples” of the world. Furthermore, the pseudo-academic ramblings of some leftist sociologist who writes statements for the United Nations has no bearing on my beliefs. Nor are they relevant to Jewish concerns. From a Torah perspective, the Arabs have no rights to Eretz Yisrael, nor do any non-Jews, even among the most noble and righteous of them. Mr. Bellerose is willing to grant Arabs “rights of longstanding presence.” I am not. Because the Rambam and the classical rishonim and acharonim say differently.

Fortunately, such concepts are both irrelevant and unnecessary for Jews who follow Torah. Eretz Yisrael belongs to us Jews exclusively, for one simple reason: G-d gave it to us. From a Torah perspective, the false claims of other groups who argue likewise are irrelevant, since their ideologies arose long after G-d revealed Divine truths at Mount Sinai.

Yet the indigenous rights movement as it relates to Jews is not only foolish, it is dangerous, since even the most well intended advocates harbor un-Jewish notions far removed from Torah values. They have become spokespersons for Jewish values, when their ideas are antithetical to Torah. They would like to see indigenous rights applied to other groups in Israel, not just Jews. From the Torah perspective, this is entirely incompatible with Halacha. Whether advocating for a purely secular Israel, or a pluralistic Israel allowing equal rights to all faith communities, none of these are in accordance with Halacha.

On a more troubling note, some of these indigenous rights activists have alliances and friendships with missionary groups and prominent messianic personalities. On their trips to Israel and across the U.S., they often meet and greet these individuals, and in doing so, betray that they are not people who have our best interest at heart. They are not a monolithic entity, yet it is fair to say that these activists all have their own agendas. Many sensible Jews support their campaigns, and the dangerous claim that our right to Eretz Yisrael is, at the very least, partially due to indigenous rights.

Racial Nonsense

“Indigenous rights” is a multicultural strain of thinking that ironically many normal Jews who usually reject such notions accept without question. They accept the definitions of indigenous activists, which always remain vague enough to avoid scrutiny, and are imbued with the kinds of racist, blood-based theories that would be rejected outright if suggested by any mainstream group. Anyone who cites “blood quantum” in any context, other than to provide a blood transfusion should trouble us. Such ideas certainly have no basis in Torah. Yet in this case, since a handful of activists are willing to apply this exotic term to Jews, many hasbara types enjoy the prospect of appearing native.

Historical Difficulties

“Most writers on American Indian subjects are bothered by changing intellectual trends and fashions, which dictate new mythologies. Anglo-Americans, above all, have been troubled by guilt feelings, morality, and hypocrisy, whether direct or in reverse. Any ideology tends to obscure perspectives and reality.” (Comanches: History of A People, Fehrenbach, T.R. Preface xiv)

“Every, as the lords of the conquered Mexica admitted to Cortez, it was the way of life for men to seize new lands with shield and spear. The Amerindian world of North America was rent with ancient festering hatreds. (ibid. 25)

Consider the situation with Amerindians in North America. Contrary to the tenets of politically correct history, the notion of indigenous rights as it is often applied to them is historically problematic. Never one to take unbridled political correctness sitting down, I reject the contemporary portrayal of all “native Americans” as peaceful environmentalists. Savagery was not the sole domain of “the white man,” since long before there were white men on the continent, Native Americans butchered one another. The archeological records attest to this fact; they expelled and killed one another.

As an example, one can look at the histories of the migration of Native American whose peoples originated in Asia and migrated towards North America. Given the origins of their people, the following questions are surely reasonable:

Ø  Did such people abandon their indigenous status to their original lands when they migrated? Did they retain indigenous statuses in both regions?

Ø  What is the indigenous natures of tribes who displaced and exterminated other tribes from different regions during the many brutal campaigns of warfare that tribal people’s engaged in with other Native Americans?

Ø  In the case of American Indians who earned indigenous claims through blood and warfare towards other tribes, might Europeans who came to North America not make the same claims? Those who came later simply bested those who lacked better weapons and resources. (I state simply in the interest of theoretical discussion, without opining on nuances of the morality of the overall conflict.)

Those activists who argue for Jewish indigenous rights ignore the historical record conveyed in the Torah of indigenous “First Nation” people who fell under our sword. Non-believers may question the authenticity of the biblical account, but even a bible denier cannot reject the historical record. They were here first. Most honest Native Americans see parallels with Jews who entered “Canaan” with colonizing Europeans, who “stole land” from the Indians.

From a Jewish perspective, the notion of a blood-based identity is an affront to Judaism, which accepts the genuine convert. Our connection to Torah is based upon adherence to the law rather than imagined notion of race. In a sense, the Jewish desire to argue “indigenous rights” is a reaction formation to absurd Arab assertions that they are the descendants of Canaanites.

G-d gave us the land of Israel, despite the presence of “indigenous” peoples who were there long before us. It did not matter, since The Almighty created everything. Upon entering the land, our mandate was clear. Clean the land of the “indigenous” inhabitants.

I understand that many secular Jews are uncomfortable with religious claims that contradict their worldview. I disagree with them, but I understand where they are coming from. In the absence of Torah knowledge, religious claims are meaningless. What I cannot fathom is that so many religious Jews latch on to un-Jewish theories to justify our Divine inheritance. I do not require an indigenous claim. I have the same claim that motivated the great Joshua to conquer Eretz Yisrael from the pagan Canaanites who were already residing there when we Jews first arrived.

We Jews are not Philistines, Canaanites, nor Jebusites. We were the conquerors of the former on a Divine mission. Indeed, our failure to purge Eretz Yisrael of these indigenous types is something the Torah repeatedly warned about, and is the direct cause of the land vomiting us out. Divine rights are the only arguments that have any meaning to me as a religious Jew.

A self-respecting Jew need never be ashamed to speak the truth of Tanach, which records our only true claim to Israel. Balfour Declarations and U.N. votes are of zero worth for the Torah Jew. A disconnected Jew may be ashamed of the religious claim. A genuine tragedy, since it is the only moral claim we Jews can hang our hats on. In the absence of that, we are merely one more example of colonizers who claimed a plot of land.

Indigenous Definitions

Perhaps the greatest response to Ryan Bellerose relates to the dilemma he raises at the conclusion of his article, “Israel Palestine: Who’s Indigenous?”:

“Now you might ask, why is this important? It is important to indigenous people because we cannot allow the argument that conquerors can become indigenous. If we, as other indigenous people, allow that argument to be made, then we are delegitimizing our own rights.

If conquerors can become indigenous, then the white Europeans who came to my indigenous lands in North America could now claim to be indigenous. The white Europeans who went to Australia and New Zealand could now claim to be indigenous. If we, even once, allow that argument to be made, indigenous rights are suddenly devalued and meaningless. This is somewhat peculiar, as those who are arguing for Palestinian “indigenous rights” are usually those who have little grasp of the history, and no understanding of the truth behind indigenous rights.”

Those Troublesome Canaanites
Therein is our Jewish answer. Based upon our biblical claims, we Jews cannot be indigenous, since we conquered the Canaanites. According to Bellerose’s definition, our Jewish biblical account renders us as conquerors. As such, those who believe in Torah cannot subscribe to his theories. Advocates for indigenous Jews can never answer these questions. What do we do with the Canaanites? Perhaps a better question is, what did we do, or what should we have done to the Canaanites?

The great biblical and talmudic commentator Rashi destroys the “indigenous rights argument” with his commentary on the first verse in the Book of Genesis. He cites Rabbi Yitzchak who questioned why the Torah began in this manner detailing creation rather than from the first mitzvah. This would make sense since the Torah essentially deals with Halacha. He answers that the Torah began with creation so that the nations in the future when they pointed out our conquest of the 7 Nations, the Jewish people could answer that the whole world belongs to Hashem. He can give it to whichever people He desires. At the time, he saw fit to give it to the Canaanites, and then he removed it from their control and gave it to us.

Case closed. The indigenous argument loses.

From a Torah perspective, the notion that we Jews have a claim to Eretz Yisrael based upon “indigenous rights” is absurd. We are not "indigenous" to Israel. Indigenous is a nonsense term which race obsessed multiculturalists use. Israel belongs to the Jewish nation, because G-d gave it to us. We conquered the Canaanites, and now it is ours. Our claim to Eretz Yisrael is Divine inheritance. Indigenous claims amount to pseudo-science, which in turn, would grant indigenous rights to practically every other minority group living in Israel today. In fact, this is the intention of many who advocate for such a concept.

Fellow Jews: leave the indigenous argument where it belongs. In the halls of the U.N. G-d gave us the land of Israel and that is enough.