Month: May 2016 – י״ד באייר תשע״ו

Come, Let’s Renew the Kingdom!

Could Israel have a king?

BY ON

Elections have come and gone, yet there always remains talk of changing the electoral system in Israel. So what about the monarchy proposed in the Torah- is it relevant today? And how would we implement it given that we no longer have prophecy? Could we hold elections for a king?

During election season and after, between all the politics, there often arises the question of changing the electoral system in Israel. One or more parties promise to change the system in some way while other parties propose more but different changes. Often times these proposals are positive (assuming they’re not just empty rhetoric), yet all this talk should raise the question of what is the preferred governing method according to the Torah. It’s time we discuss not only who we should vote for within the current system, but also to think about a new system entirely.

Government and its power is a very large topic in Halacha, but for now let’s focus on the idea of a king. Instinctively we assume that the idea of monarchy belongs in the distant past. In the past we had kings but for thousands of years talk about kings has been relegated to stories and legends. Overcoming this presupposition is crucial in order to have a serious discussion about a king as a practical alternative.

Understanding the difference

The idea of a king brings many questions with it, most of which are based on a comparison with historical monarchies of the world both from the past and present (yes, even today there exist monarchies in many Western countries such as England).

This comparison is not necessarily wrong and the Gemara clearly states, “A person should rush to greet Jewish kings. And not only Jewish kings, but even non-Jewish kings, for if he merits to see them he will understand the difference between Jewish kings and non-Jewish kings” (Brachot 9B). This statement has clear halachic implications (as explained in the Gemara itself), but the general point is that we are obligated to study the idea of monarchy and government (“political science”) through comparisons to the non-Jewish world.

With that knowledge, we would like to explore the question of how to choose a king and more precisely the connection between prophecy and appointing a Jewish king. This question has clear implications to our modern world. While it is possible that a prophet could arrive tomorrow, in our current situation where we don’t have prophecy, the question arises of if it is even possible to appoint a king and what are the limitations of such a king.

Who chooses a king

The idea of a king is first mentioned in the Torah “When you arrive in the land… and you say ‘I will place a king above myself as all the nations around me.’ You will surely place a king whom G-d has chosen, from among your brothers you shall choose a king. You shall surely not appoint a foreigner, who is not your brother, over you” (Deuteronomy 17). The Torah speaks about a king “chosen by G-d,” yet how are we supposed to know who G-d has chosen? The Rabbis explain “chosen by G-d through his prophet.” But what happens if we don’t have a prophet to tell us?

The answer is in the words of the Ramban. At first, the Ramban interprets the words “chosen by G-d” to mean selection by a prophet, yet immediately he raises difficulties with this. “If that is the case [the prophet is selected by G-d through a prophet]then why do we need the warning ‘do not place a foreigner over you’? G-d will simply not select a foreigner.” In other words, why are we commanded not to select a foreigner if the entire process is out of our hands and only comes from G-d through a prophet? The Ramban continues, “Our Rabbis understood that there is a deeper explanation. You shall surely appoint a king chosen by G-d, if you can do so, i.e. if G-d has told you through a prophet, but either way you can never place a foreigner over you.” In other words the Torah is describing two different ways of appointing a king. The first is a clear appointment by G-d through a prophet and the second is if there is no prophet, for us to choose. For the case where we are given the power of choosing, we are warned who we are forbidden from selecting.

According to the Ramban, a king chosen by the people (if there is no prophecy) has the same power as any other king. The Ramban himself counts “appointing a king” as a mitzvah, and we are obligated to perform this commandment even without a prophet.

The choice is in our hands

In simple terms, it is clear that there is a strong preference for G-d to choose the king as was done in the case of King Saul and King David, who were chosen by the prophet Samuel. In such a situation we are exempt from the difficulty of selecting a king and instead the optimal choice is revealed to us.

However there is also an advantage in the case where there is no prophet. One can imagine the representatives of the people gathering and struggling together to decide who should lead the nation and pave the way forward. In such a reality we are forced to align our own will with the will of G-d and ‘guess’ who G-d would have us select. In truth, this is a Jew’s struggle in his daily life- to align our own will with the will of G-d.

If the Ramban’s description is our current reality, then our disadvantage is really to our benefit. Specifcally because we do not have a prophet are we able to reach closer to G-d by aligning our will with His and thus come closer to the Divine.

From Hakol Hayehudi, here.

משענת קנה לבית ישראל

“ידידתנו ובעלת בריתנו” – ארצות הברית

אין מנהיג ישראלי שלא השמיע אמירה זו בתורו, כחלק בלתי נפרד מהתבטאויות הנאותות הדיפלומטית – האומנם כך?

דר’ הנרי קיסינג’ר, יהודי מוכשר וחריף שכל, יליד גרמניה, שימש כיועץ בכיר הלוחש לאזנם של הנשיאים קנדי, ג’ונסון, ניקסון ופורד. קיסינג’ר היה גם ראש המועצה לביטחון לאומי ושר החוץ של ארצות הברית. לקיסינג’ר מיוחסת האמרה: “לאמריקה אין ידידים או אויבים, אלא אינטרסים בלבד” “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”. (אין לו זכות יוצרים על האמרה שצוטטה כבר לפניו).

פרופ’ עזרה זהר הוציא לאור ספר בשנת 1994 – “פילגש במזרח התיכון” – על יחסי ישראל ארצות הברית. לקראת יום העצמאות נצטט מספרו (ציטוט מקוצר וערוך) את מערך היחסים לפני ואחרי שנת הקמת המדינה, 1948.

פרנקלין רוזוולנט כיהן כנשיא ארצות הברית ממש במקביל לעידן הנאצי בגרמניה (1932 – 1945). אין ספק שהנשיא וממשלו ידעו על השתלשלות ההתעללות ביהודים מליל הבדולח ועד ל”פיתרון הסופי” בשנות הארבעים. הנשיא ג’ימי קרטר העניק שי למנחם בגין, תצלומי אוויר מפורטים של מחנה אושוויץ. האמריקאים נמנעו מ”לבזבז” פצצות על האטת מכונת השמדת היהודים בטיעונים שונים והמשיכו בקו ש”היהודים לא מעניינים”. ערב המלחמה הורה הנשיא רוזוולנט להחזיר לאירופה את אוניית הפליטים היהודיים, “סנט לואיס” שהגיעה לחופי אמריקה, ארץ המהגרים. חלקם נספו בשואה.

עם מותו של רוזוולט ב-1945 הושבע הארי טרומן כנשיא עד 1952. משרד החוץ האמריקאי (“מחלקת המדינה”) מאמצת כמעט באופן עקבי, מאז ועד לימינו, עמדה פרו-ערבית. עמדת משרד החוץ שהתנגד להקמת מדינה יהודית, ולאחר הקמתה דרש להצר את שטחה – השפיע רבות על עמדתו הפתלתלה של טרומן.

כל ראשי הצבא האמריקאי אמרו לטרומן שליישוב היהודי בארץ ישראל אין כל סיכוי מול מדינות ערב ותמיכה בהקמת מדינה יהודית עלולה לסבך את ארה”ב. טרומן הודיע במכתב לרבנים אמריקאים (ערב הבחירות ב-1946) על תמיכתו בחלוקת ארץ ישראל ובעליית פליטים יהודיים לארץ ישראל, אך מיד הודיע לבריטים שארצות הברית לא תהיה מעורבת מעשית.

בכ”ט בנובמבר 1947 הצביעה ארצות הברית בעד תוכנית החלוקה, אבל מיד לאחריה הטילה אמברגו על משלוח נשק “למזרח התיכון”. זהו הצעד החמור ביותר שאמריקה נקטה אי פעם נגד ישראל. “המזרח התיכון” זה ישראל! כי לכל מדינות ערב שסבבו את ישראל היו צבאות סדירים מצוידים בטנקים ובמטוסים. לרשות ה”הגנה” היהודית עמדו בעיקר רובים, חלקם מיושנים. כל זאת על רקע הערכות אמריקאיות שצפויה “שואה” שנייה בארץ ישראל. נראה שמשרד החוץ האמריקאי פעל כדי שתחזיותיו על “תבוסת היהודים” יתבררו כנכונות.

בתחילת 1948, בעיצומו של המאבק מול ערביי ארץ ישראל, לחץ משרד החוץ האמריקאי שהמנדט הבריטי יוחלף במנדט של האו”ם במקום חלוקה לשתי מדינות. טרומן סרב בתוקף להיפגש עם נשיא ההסתדרות הציונית פרופ’ חיים וייצמן. טרומן נאות לפגישה רק לאחר שידידו ושותפו לשעבר לעסקים, יהודי בשם אדי יעקובסון, שכנע אותו. הפגישה החטופה (וייצמן הוכנס לבית הלבן מכניסה עורפית) לא הועילה וארצות הברית בעצם נסוגה מתמיכתה בתוכנית החלוקה ובהקמת מדינה יהודית ואף הביאה הצעת החלטה ברוח זו למועצת הביטחון של האו”ם. עקב התנגדות ברית המועצות ומדינות אחרות ההצעה לא הועלתה להצבעה.   

עד למאי 1948 הופעל לחץ אמריקאי כבד על בן גוריון, גם באמצעות ארגונים יהודים אמריקאים, להימנע מהכרזה על הקמת המדינה. אליהו אילת שהיה נציג הסוכנות היהודית בוושינגטון, ולאחר מכן השגריר הישראלי הראשון בארה”ב, כתב בספרו שבכירי הממשל האמריקאי היו האיום החמור ביותר למפעל הציוני וראו בהקמת מדינה יהודית, בחלק קטן של ארץ ישראל, סכנה לאינטרסים האמריקאים.

הניצחונות הצבאיים של ישראל בשלבים הראשונים של מלחמת השחרור יחד עם שנת הבחירות באמריקה שכנעו את טרומן להכיר במדינת ישראל שהוכרזה בהא באייר. גם הכרה זו הייתה מסויגת: ארצות הברית הכירה במדינת ישראל דה-פקטו אך לא דה-יורה. הכרה כעובדה קיימת אך לא מכוח זכות וחוק.

אליהו אילת כותב שאמריקה שלאחר מלחמת העולם השנייה יכלה בקלות למנוע את פלישת צבאות ערב לישראל ב-15 למאי, פלישה שהייתה צפויה. הערבים קיבלו חיזוק מצעדי האמברגו וההיסוס האמריקאי להכיר במדינת ישראל.

המשך לקרוא…

מאתר קו ישר, כאן.

The Indirect Compliment Bad Pays Good

Rav Sternbuch recently told a secular questioner that the current situation in this country with all the anti-religious legislation is reminiscent of Mordechai who refused to bow down to Homon. On the face of it, it seems difficult to understand why Homon paid any attention to this act on the part of a “mad” tzaddik of a Jew. Why should Homon have cared about it so much that this failure by Mordechai to honor Homon created a desire inside him to annihilate the entire nation of which Mordechai was a representative? The answer is that deep inside Homon knew that Mordechai represented the truth, and he was afraid of it.

Similarly, deep down the secular government knows that we represent the truth, and they cannot abide it. Their reaction is to attempt to cow us into submission, but, with the help of Heaven, they will not succeed.

  • From Rabbi Sternbuch’s English Parsha sheet

A Modern Student of Asa’s Treaty With Ben Hadad

Bye Bye Bogy: By Moshe Feiglin

May-19-2016

 

The best thing that has resulted from the political storm churning through Israel is the ouster of current Defense Minister Bogy Ya’alon. That was not Netanyahu’s original intent. He wanted to bring the Left into the government, and it is a good thing that Labor MK Shelly Yehimovitz prevented that from happening. My assessment is that the new government will not be qualitatively different from its predecessor and except for a change of style, it will be more of the same. But all of that is behind us now. The most important thing is that Ya’alon was ousted. We can only hope that it is not too late.

Bogy Ya’alon, trumpeted as the new savior by the Right and settlers, turned out to be (surprise, surprise) a strategic disaster for Israel’s security – and no less than that – for the state of its democracy and liberty. I believe Ehud Barak’s testimony that Ya’alon was the man who tipped the scales against an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Such an attack – even if it had failed to achieve its tactical goal – would have restored Israel’s strategic stance according to which the State of Israel was not established to once again rely on US or British pilots. Even if an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities had failed, it would have made it crystal clear that Israel’s strategy is based on the adage of our Sages, “If someone rises to kill you, kill him first” – whether the attacker is a powerful country overseas or a knife-wielding terrorist in Hebron. But Ya’alon preferred the strategy of containment upon which he was raised in his youth on a leftist kibbutz. He upgraded Iran’s world status and opened the door for its great victory over Israel.

Two years ago, during Operation Protective Edge, Ya’alon led the strategy of containment of the Hamas. The political-security echelon, headed by Ya’alon, emitted confused orders, laden with concepts that included everything – except victory. The result was that after almost two months of goal-less fighting, the IDF had suffered 70 casualties in the tunnels and alleyways of Gaza, left two bodies of Israeli soldiers behind – and retreated. Bugy Ya’alon is leaving behind an army that has become the most sophisticated junkyard of modern arms and advanced technology that exists. He leaves behind the largest, strongest and most inflated army that Israel has ever seen. But it is an army that is incapable of winning any battle. Except for the real battle that Ya’alon introduced: the battle against the settlers.

Under the instruction and with the encouragement of Ya’alon, a new stage in Israel’s history has unfolded. Under pressure from the media and the Left, tens of minors were arrested and severely tortured (with the full support of the Jewish Home party) for no reason other than to keep the Left happy with Bogy. The absolute majority of the youth were released without an indictment – but they did suffer serious emotional damage that will likely haunt them the rest of their lives. (Apparently, the house in Duma was burned by the Arab locals, as was the case before and after the event in question).

But worst of all was Ya’alon’s participation in the quiet ‘trend’ of the military coup that was beginning to take form in Israel.

The shooting of the terrorist in Hebron presented Israeli society with a choice between two approaches: The Jewish perspective, according to which the elimination of a terrorist willing to die in order to murder Jews is ethical and imperative –  and the European approach, lacking morality, seamlessly equating  between good and evil: The type of approach that turns Nazis into victims and the Jews into the new Nazis.

The upper echelons of the IDF, educated and advanced over the years on the basis of loyalty to these ideas, suddenly became the great hope of the Left. The soldier from Hebron was turned into a national enemy. The Chief of Staff explained that “If someone rises to kill you, kill him first” is not the IDF’s strategy. The Deputy Chief of Staff equated those who subscribe to that value with Nazis. The radical Left Ha’aretz newspaper rather openly called for a military coup and the Defense Minister, Moshe Bogey Ya’alon, backed up and encouraged this entire process on every stage and at every ceremony.

I have no great expectations of Lieberman. Rightist ideology and power bereft  of clear purpose always becomes  a double-edged sword. It would behoove us all to remember former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who was no less rightist and forceful than Lieberman. But all that we can say to Ya’alon is good-bye and good riddance.

From Jewish Israel, here.