Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Daniel Greenfield article: The Progressive-Traditionalist War

Sultan Knish

Daniel Greenfield article: The Progressive-Traditionalist War


The Progressive-Traditionalist War
Posted: 18 Jun 2012 09:34 PM PDT
The main weapon that progressives wield against traditionalists is their ability to break down the values that make up their worldview by challenging norms of behavior and thought, with the goal of using cultural friction to slowly replace traditional values and mores with their own.
This is a weapon that progressives have explicitly disavowed using against Islam. In Europe there are some hesitant attempts at promoting integration, but it's a fitful self-doubting effort that consists of the authorities telling everyone who listens that integration is moving along smoothly, while the No-Go Zones grow, black ghosts haunt the alleyways of major cities and the mosques go on crying Jihad from minaret loudspeakers rising above European capitals. There is the occasional burqa ban, a nervous ban placed on the most extreme of the extreme clerics, an occasional investigation of a school that teaches that infidels are animals to be killed, and a cautious warning from some putatively conservative politician to the Muslim community that things have to change. But none of them adds up to anything. The left, which excels at attacking traditional values, has signed a pact with Islam. Not only does it refuse to undermine its religion and
traditional values, the way that it undermines those of everyone else, but it actively promotes Islamic values and traditions as morally superior to those of its own society. The reason for this is simple strategy. The progressives of the left in each society are at war with their own traditionalists. American liberals are at war with American conservatives. European liberals are at war with European conservatives. Liberal Christians are at war with Conservative Christians and Progressive Jews are at war with Traditional Jews. This war isn't always as overt as it was in the Soviet Union, or as it is in Cuba or Sweden. It's a quiet war marked by "artistic statements", by the school curriculum and the late-night newscast, by laws that transform public spaces into government spaces and private spaces into public spaces, and put the whole thing under government regulation whose overriding purpose is behavior modification. Despite their many victories,
the progressives have numerous disadvantages in this war. They are a minority dependent on front groups and divide-and-conquer politics. Rarely are they able to openly state their agendas and beliefs, because, if they did, they would be stoned on the spot. Instead, they have to worm their way in, presenting a false front of moderation, and slowly move their agenda through its outer stages to its inner core. The left is up against common sense, which is just shorthand for the traditional way of thinking. And traditions exist because they are natural; right or wrong, they are organic, embedded in human nature and the way that people live their lives and draw their conclusions. Its Utopian schemes put it up against the human animal, so that the left has to ride the body politic like a bronco buster fighting to stay on a mutinous steed. Much of its rank and file doesn't know this, but its leaders and planners are well aware of how precarious their position
is. But there is also a more practical angle. Demographics. The progressives tend to have a lower birth rate than traditionalists. If values were transmitted on a generational basis, by now they would be deader than Disco. To compensate for their demographic disadvantage, the left reproduces by insinuating itself into the educational system. The Cuckoo's reproductive strategy is to plant its eggs in the nests of other birds to be raised by those birds, but the reproductive strategy of progressives is to raise someone else's young as a member of their species, while getting paid for it by the taxpayers. This demographic disadvantage makes it vital for progressives to attack tradition, because it is also the only way that they can reproduce. Their reproductive strategy is entirely dependent on disrupting the ability of fertile groups to pass on their values to their offspring. There are parallels in biology to this behavior. A number of species compete
for territory by interfering with the reproduction of another species. The fertility limitations of liberals make it an ideological imperative to disrupt the reproduction of more traditional species. The progressive attack on a society's values, when successful, leads to a national disintegration and a splintering into an apathetic middle and a traditionalist right. Fertility rates fall across the board, but are still fairly high in traditionalist circles. The left, facing a demographic threat, redoubles its attack on the values of the traditionalists. They are invariably painted as savage, backward, violent and a threat to society. They are depicted as abusing their children, all the better for the progressives to take away their children or closely monitor their educational practices. Progressives may succeed in converting some traditionalist children into their own kind, but traditionalists are, especially after a generation or two of the left's
cultural imperialism, much more hardened to this sort of campaign than their ancestors were. They are purposefully intolerant, unwilling to listen and contemptuous of the greater culture around them. They have also learned that if they don't insulate their children, that they will almost certainly lose them. Human beings adapt. Sheep may always go on being eaten by wolves, but humans who are preyed upon learn defensive strategies. And offensive strategies too. As all good leftists know, revolutions produce their own reaction. A polarized society split between progressives and traditionalists is a conflict that the left cannot win without dealing with the demographic angle. And there is no way to deal with it, without either a One Child program or importing an even higher-reproducing population that is allied with the progressives.
High-reproducing groups tend to be traditional, so that the only way for the left to outmaneuver the traditionalist reaction it helped create, is by importing other traditionalists. Islam isn't the only group on this list, but it is the leading group, especially in Europe. Its asset is that it has a high birth rate and it votes left-of-center. It may be innately traditionalist, but that doesn't matter to the Eurocrats because they don't care what Muslims do in their own communities and they don't think that it will apply to them. The United States armed the Mujahadeen against the Soviet Union. European progressives use Muslim demographics against European traditionalists. And their American counterparts, who are less dependent on Pakistanis and Algerians to pad out their voting rolls, are beginning to get with the program. What would be the quickest way to get a border fence between the United States and Mexico? If in the next election, 70 percent of
Mexicans in America voted for the Republican Party, there would be a 100-foot-high concrete fence across the border, topped with poison-spiked barbed wire and at the foot of it, rabid dobermans prowling around. And it would be up, with the acclaim of the media, no matter who was in the White House. Want to end Muslim immigration to the UK? Just get a stunning majority to cast their ballot for the Tories, while chanting that they support the monarchy, want lower taxes, drastic cuts to everything and an end to all global warming regs. And in a day The Guardian would be running columns denouncing Islam. And the same is true across Europe and around the world. Including Israel, where the left-wing parties are hopelessly dependent on Arab votes-- often on a pay-per-vote basis. Progressive parties depend on Muslim votes. Their immigration policies selectively import groups that they have a high confidence rate of voting for them. Higher-reproducing alien
traditionalist populations can demographically compete with or even out-reproduce native traditionalists, which helps keep the progressives in power and even seduces them with a vision of a country where they will always be in power for all time. Slave owners in the Caribbean would release snakes to kill escaping slaves. But snakes have a mind of their own, and they don't just bite the people they are expected to bite. Soon they had taken over the island, and the plantation owners were dying of snake-bites. So they imported mongooses to kill the snakes. Then, when the mongooses proliferated and became a pest, they had to import more snakes to kill them. The Red-Green alliance is a pact between low-fertility leftist reds and high-fertility Muslim greens. But what happens when there are so many greens that they don't need the reds anymore? What happens when they actively begin to prey on the reds, instead of only casually, as they do now? The
progressives tried to solve their demographic problem by making a pact with traditionalists from outside their culture, region and religion. They didn't mind that they were filling their cities with a feral population because their own reproduction strategy didn't depend on numerical survival, but on ideological control over the surviving population. Losing a few hundred or thousand of the natives a year to snakebites would make the rest more compliant. Chaos would strengthen the authorities and make their divide-and-conquer politics easier to implement. A feral population requires a police state and stirs up constant conflict that can be manipulated and exploited in a hundred different ways. But what happens when the snakes take over the island? To stave off domestic traditionalists, the left relied on an alliance with traditionalists with higher birth rates and beliefs that were much less compatible with the progressive way of life. The imported
population was much less susceptible to conversion, much more violent and bound to eventually take over. And they were doing it all with the tireless aid and patronage of the progressives who had dealt with their escaped slave problem by filling Europe and America with snakes. What kind of people, you might ask, do things like this? The kind who run up trillions in debt and insist that they are spending their way out of a recession. The kind who starve the peasantry and then force the survivors into collective farms, where they barely have enough food to get by... and expect a bountiful harvest. The kind who use unions to show off their own power, stage strikes for political influence, drive the companies overseas, then unionize government workers, demand unsustainable benefits, and watch the economy implode.
The kind who shoot or imprison every independent thinker and then wonder why their society is stagnant and entirely dependent on technological and cultural leftovers from free societies. The kind who outlaw firearms and self-defense, dismantle law enforcement, celebrate riots and then spend millions analyzing why the cities are decaying. The kind who build windmills where there is no wind, who destroy rights to protect rights, who fight wars in the name of peace, who build international communities that are somehow supposed to possess more decency and law than its individual constituent members, and who drill holes in boats because they are more environmentally sound that way. Evil destroys itself because it carries the seeds of its own destruction. It is not just destructive, it is also self-destructive. Evil is cunning, but it is also stupid. It is ruthless, but it is also cowardly. It loves plans, but it cannot distinguish its own fantasies from
actual events. Like an unstable element, it is forever at war with the forces threatening to tear it apart, until they eventually do, but not until the damage has spread. Evil cannot survive naturally, only unnaturally. It destroys itself, so that it cannot naturally reproduce, but instead it has to infect others. It can only survive by spreading the disease of its own instability. And it will do anything to survive, even as its attempts at survival not only doom it, but everyone around it as well. Progressives tried to balance out the instability they created by importing alien traditionalists to battle their traditionalists. But the demographic growth of traditionalists, alien and native, leads us to two kinds of societies. The kind run by native traditionalists and the kind run by alien traditionalists. And which one it will be almost entirely depends on how much power the progressives have had and for how long. The longer the progressives have
been in power, the likelier the country is to fall to alien traditionalists, who will have no mercy on them.

Sunday, June 17, 2012

Particularism and Cosmopolitanism

Prof. Paul Eidelberg,President
Israel-America Renaissance Institute

Unlike Christianity and Islam,
Judaism synthesizes Particularism and Cosmopolitanism. This
unique quality of Judaism is developed in depth by the Italian Rabbi Eliyahu Benamozegh,
a philosopher and theologian whose magnum opus, Israel and Humanity, was
posthumously published in 1914.

To begin with,
Rabbi Benamozegh mentions some of the ethnic and parochial aspects of the
Mosaic Law, such as those that depend on the seasons and geography of Eretz
Israel. For example, the Passover is
linked to the Israel spring, and the Great Sanhedrin can only function on the
Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

Moreover, God
promises that He will establish His dwelling place in Eretz Israel, where the
Jews will obtain salvation. But what about the salvation of the Gentiles, who
are also created in the image of God? Benamozegh answers:

If there were
no way to salvation available to Gentiles outside the Mosaic Law, we should
expect to see in Judaism a much more pronounced tendency to proselytism, and
not only a peaceful proselytism which exhorts more by means of the word than by
act, and still more by example than by word, but also an ardent proselytism of
conquest, which would never tire or promising eternal damnation [as in
Christianity and Islam] to all who fail to convert to the only true religion. What we find, however, is something radically
different. The cautious reserve with which Israel addresses the Gentiles is
incompatible with the conviction that it alone possesses the means of
salvation. Its respect for other beliefs
may seem even to verge on indifference …

Of course,
Israel, the bearer of ethical and intellectual monotheism, cannot be
indifferent to other beliefs. Its monotheism is intimately linked to man’s
creation in the image of God, that verse of Holy Writ which allows us to speak
of the idea of the human community—a verse rejected by Islam as blasphemous! In
the light of that verse, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch says that “Jews are obliged
to deal more fairly with non-Jews. A wrong committed against a fellow-Jew is an
ordinary sin, but a wrong committed against a non-Jew is in addition the
capital sin of profaning the name of God, the sanctification of which is
Israel’s mission and destiny.”

The liberality of Mosaism stands in stark
contrast with prejudices about Jewish particularism (or parochialism). On the
one hand, says Benamozegh, the “local, ethnic quality of Mosaism and its nearly
total absence of organized proselytism are ample proof that the religion of
Israel is not destined to become the universal religion.” On the other hand,
“Israel insists on declaring that certain general principles are obligatory for
every human creature, a code of laws that cannot be evaded with impunity, whose
observance is required by divine justice.”

then asks: “Can we doubt that Israel believes itself in possession of a
religion which is universal in a way [complete] Mosaism is not, a religion
whose basic substance appears even in Scriptures? Can there be any doubt that
here is that other aspect of the Law, which addresses all men and all epochs
[namely, the Seven Noahide laws of Universal Morality]?

Now consider
the Temple Mount, whose significance is inseparable from Jerusalem. The site had been sanctified since the time
of Abraham:

HaShem said to Abram, “Go for yourself from your land, from your
relatives, and you’re your father’s house to the land that I will show you. And
I will make of you a great nation; I will bless you, and make your name great,
and you shall be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you; and him who
curses you I will curse; and all the families of the earth shall bless
themselves by you” (Gen. 12:1-3).

In the
political theology of Judaism, the Temple Mount is the avis mundi, the
exact point at which the terrestrial and the heavenly conjoin.

Jerusalem and
the Temple Mount are therefore of supreme political-theological importance in
Judaism. Jerusalem is mentioned more than 800 times in the Hebrew Bible. Jews
throughout the world turn in their prayers toward Jerusalem. In contrast,
Muslims, whose Quran never once mentions Jerusalem, turn in their prayers to
Mecca with their backsides turned toward Jerusalem and the Temple Mount!

Perhaps this
fact should be mentioned by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if and when he
next addresses the Congress of the United States?

¿Tú culpas o te haces victima de tus problemas? Por: Becky Krinsky e Iliana Berezovsky

"Una Nueva Mujer"

Cuando las cosas no andan bien existe una tendencia en general de tratar de encontrar culpables, victimarios, cómplices o jueces, todo con tal de no querer trabajar en uno mismo. Son muy veces se toma el valor para aceptar la responsabilidad y confrontar sus propios problemas.

Gracias a la época moderna donde la recompensa es casi inmediata, las respuestas automáticas y la poca paciencia, se ha logrado percibir las relaciones personales como relaciones desechables o pasajeras.

Rosita hoy en día es una mujer alegre, hábil y exitosa en su trabajo. Su esposo Fabián tiene un buen trabajo. Rosita y Fabián se tienen cariño, y tienen grandes sueños juntos. Fácil contar el final de un principio feliz. ¿Pero como comenzó esta historia?

Rosita, a punto de perder todo, al querer divorciarse, deprimida, con poca autoestima, pidió apoyo a su padre un hombre muy rico e inteligente. Su padre le negó la ayuda y le quito todo el apoyo económico que en algún momento tenia. Sin mayor explicación, le dijo a su querida hija: "Para divorciarte y deshacer tu familia necesitas ser autosuficiente y responsable" ¡aprende a trabajar a mantenerte y después haz lo que quieras!

Así fue ella busco trabajo, estaba convencida de que ya no podía seguir viviendo en esas condiciones ¡Qué sorpresa tan grande se llevó Rosita cuando comenzó a trabajar! Descubrió que ella era capaz, no era ninguna tonta ni tampoco una inútil como su marido le había hecho sentir. Por el contrario, era una mujer extremadamente hábil en las ventas, agradable y muy trabajadora que en poco tiempo logró acrecentar las ventas de la compañía y la promocionaron a socia de la empresa. Ella aprendió a valorarse y a respetarse. Cambió su forma de relacionarse con la gente y su arreglo personal. Se convirtió en una mujer asertiva, independiente y realizada.

Su marido, sus hijos y todos los que la conocían cambiaron la manera de verla. Se hacía respetar, sin reclamar ni culpar, sabía lo capaz que ella era.

El ejemplo de Rosita fue tan grande que sin querer, logro encontrar a la mujer que había perdido mucho tiempo atrás, pudo recuperar el respeto, sobretodo, afirmar sus valores como persona, mujer y madre. Rosita no se tuvo que divorciar, el problema no era la falta de trabajo o la incompetencia, sino la poca responsabilidad y falte de estima que sentía. Rosita con una nueva actitud pudo salvarse a si misma y al mismo tiempo conservar su matrimonio.

Hay veces que no necesario destruir un matrimonio lastimado, tan solo es necesario cambiar la energía y concentrarse en cosas constructivas. Aún en situaciones difíciles, no es imposible recuperar el amor y la confianza en la relación, hay que tener mucho compromiso con la vida y verdaderos deseos de salir adelante.

La Receta

Una segunda oportunidad


1 taza de Valor
1 taza de responsabilidad
2 manojo de determinación y tenacidad
1 chorrito de esfuerzo
3 cucharadas de confianza
1 puño de actitud positiva
Sazonar con:
Talentos desconocidos u olvidados, apoyo de personas queridas

Modo de preparación:

La vida puede generosa y abundante. Siempre hay otra oportunidad, una actitud positiva y una buena disposición son ingredientes básicos para encontrar una nueva oportunidad. Hay que recordar que siempre habrá luz al final del túnel.
Para superarse se requiere querer salir adelante. Aceptar la situación por mas difícil que sea, ponerse al contacto con los dolores mas profundos, las angustias y los miedos personales ínsita a reconocer que para mejorar hay que trabajar en uno mismo, dejar de culpar, justificarse o simplemente quejarse.
Cada quien tiene sus propias pruebas que superar. Los obstáculos y los inconvenientes realmente son oportunidades de crecimiento disfrazadas con dolor y preocupación, conquistar los miedos y las limitaciones propias es la victoria más grandiosa que se pueda obtener.
"Las segundas oportunidades solo le llegan a las personas que están dispuestas a luchar con todo su corazón para quererse superar"

Does the yarmulke make the man?

Michael Freund
Does the yarmulke make the man?
by Michael Freund
The Jerusalem Post
June 14, 2012
Send RSS Share:
Be the first of your friends to like this.
If you are looking for a sure sign that the Jewish people are as divided as ever, you need look no further than the top of men's heads.
Walking down a street in Jerusalem, it is hard not to notice the multiplicity of shapes, colors and sizes of skullcaps, or kippot, that adorn the domes of religious Jewish men.
Popularly known by the Yiddish term "yarmulke," which is said to be a contraction of "yerei malka," two Aramaic words that mean "fear of the King," this article of faith and clothing has rapidly taken on levels of meaning more dizzying than the variety in which it comes.
To the astute observer, a quick glance at the type and location of a person's yarmulke can provide a wealth of general information about the wearer.
A small, knitted yarmulke perched precariously at the top of the head is usually indicative of a more modern Orthodox Jew, while the large, soup-bowl type is generally preferred by right-wing religious Zionists associated with yeshivas such as Mercaz HaRav.
Black velvet is the choice of many haredi (ultra-Orthodox) Jews, though where it is placed and whether it has a rim or not can speak volumes about its owner.
Suede is said to be the most neutral, as long as it is black or navy blue. Any other color will immediately stand out, suggesting a more liberal adherence to Jewish law.
And the decision to use clips or pins to hold the yarmulke in place is rife with symbolism, as many in the yeshiva world view it as a sign that a person is more "modern" in their outlook.
Indeed, what ornithology is to birds and cosmology is to the universe, the study of yarmulkes – which I refer to as "yarmuthology" – is to the Jewish world.
And that is precisely the problem.
For as tempting as it is to revel in the assortment of yarmulkes as a sign of the diversity of Jewish life, the sad fact is that a person's choice of head-gear often turns into a label, leading others to jump to conclusions about them which may have little or no connection to reality.
The yarmulke a person selects says nothing about their awe of heaven, intellectual prowess or business integrity, let alone their meticulousness in the observance of the mitzvot. To judge other Jews based on the size or shape of their kippa is not only wrong but foolish.
It might indicate how they wish others to view them or to which faction or group they want to belong. But anything beyond that is pure speculation and nothing more.
According to the Talmud, a head-covering is supposed to instill a person with an awareness that G-d is above them. In tractate Kiddushin (31a), the Talmud states that Rabbi Huna the son of Rabbi Yehoshua "would not walk four cubits with an uncovered head. He said: 'the Divine Presence is above my head.'" Similarly, in tractate Shabbat (156b), the mother of Rabbi Nahman the son of Yitzchak warned him to "cover your head so that the fear of Heaven may be upon you."
In both cases it is clear that the head-covering is intended to uplift its wearer and not to serve as a form of party identification.
Nonetheless, we have taken the yarmulke and transformed it from a spiritual tool into a religious yardstick, demeaning and cheapening it and our fellow Jews in the process.
Somehow, I don't think that is what our sages had in mind.
I have always worn my yarmulke as a badge of Jewish pride and as a reminder of my obligations to my Creator.
And yes, it also helps to cover my growing bald spot.
But all that is between me and G-d. Why must others look at the knitted fabric and color patterns and draw all kinds of inferences? In today's world, the fact that a Jew chooses to self-identify as such by donning a yarmulke is an act of valor and even daring. There are plenty of places, from the streets of Paris to the thoroughfares of Vienna, where the sight of a proud Jew with a kippa still elicits icy stares.
So let's give our fellow Jews the benefit of the doubt, rather than tearing them apart and trying to stuff them in one category or another.
Does the yarmulke make the man? The answer, of course, should be obvious. In G-d's eyes it is not what is on your head that counts, but what is inside that matters.
It is time we started learning from His example.
Latest Featured Articles from the Pundicity Network
* Hess: College Rankings Inflation: Don't Be Dazzled by Faux Prestige
* Jacoby: A free market brings down health costs
* Ibrahim: A Tale of Two American Martyrs
You are subscribed to this list as

Thursday, June 7, 2012

-The Likud: A Dead Man Walking

The Likud is a dead man walking, and no one can enliven that intellectually sterile party. This means that political Zionism is dead. It died in May 1996 when Benjamin Netanyahu was elected prime minister and said his government would abide by the Oslo or Israel-PLO Agreement which the Labor Party had foisted on the nation in September 1993.

Unknown to the general public, Oslo presaged the establishment of an Arab-Islamic state in the Land of Israel, a state Netanyahu unlawfully sanctified on June 14, 2009 at Bar-Ilan University. Let us probe the little known perfidious nature of the Likud via political Zionism.

It never entered the minds of political Zionists that the return of the Jews to the Land of Israel was to culminate in the construction of the Third Temple and the restoration of Jewish law. The founders of political Zionism, such as Herzl and Pinsker, started from the failure of liberalism to solve the Jewish problem, but continued to see the solution in liberal terms, as a merely human problem. As Leo Strauss has written:

The terrible fate of the Jews was in no sense to be understood any longer as connected with divine punishment for the sins of our fathers or with the providential mission of the chosen people and hence to be borne with the meek fortitude of martyrs. It was to be understood in merely human terms: as constituting a purely political problem which as such cannot be solved by appealing to the justice or generosity of the nations ...

Accordingly, political Zionism was concerned primarily with nothing but the cleansing of the Jews from millennial degradation or with the recovery of Jewish dignity, honor, or pride. The failure of the liberal solution meant that Jews could not regain their honor by assimilating themselves as individuals to the nations among which they lived or becoming citizens like all the other citizens of the liberal states: the liberal solution brought at best legal equality, but not social equality; as a demand of reason it had no effect on the feelings of the non-Jews...

Only through securing the honor of the Jewish nation could the individual Jew's honor be secured. The true solution of the Jewish problem requires that the Jews become "like all the nations" (I Sam. 8:20), that the Jewish nation assimilate itself to the nations of the world or that it establish a modern, liberal, secular ... state.

The political elite that led this movement succeeded in establishing a secular state, but they failed to solve the Jewish problem or restore the honor of the Jewish people. Political Zionism could not solve the Jewish problem because of the narrowness of its original conception. This was understood by cultural Zionism, which saw that political Zionism lacks historical and cultural perspective. The community of descent "must also be a community of the mind, of the national mind; the Jewish state will be an empty shell without a Jewish culture which has its roots in the Jewish heritage." But as Strauss points out:

One could not have taken this step unless one had previously interpreted the Jewish heritage itself as a culture, that is, as a product of a national mind, of the national genius. Yet the foundation, the authoritative layer, of the Jewish heritage presents itself, not as the product of the human mind, but as a divine gift, as divine revelation. Did not one completely distort the meaning of the heritage to which one claimed to be loyal by interpreting it as a culture like any other high culture? Cultural Zionism believed to have found a safe middle ground between politics (power politics) and divine revelation ... but it lacked the sternness of the two extremes. When cultural Zionism understands itself, it turns into religious Zionism.

The Likud never took an honest step toward religious Zionism, indeed, never understood what Zionism is all about.

The term Zionism is obviously derived from “Zion,” one of the most sacred words in the dictionary of authentic Judaism. Zion is the dwelling place of God's glory. It is the Sanctuary of the Torah, the Holy City which surrounds it, the Holy Land of which Jerusalem is the eternal capital. From Zion, from Jerusalem, the word of God—the Truth—shall come forth.

Viewed in this light, the Likud has been a small-minded party conceived in falsehood. Consistent therewith, the Likud pursued the false and defeatist policy of “territory for peace.” It constantly deceived the nation by obscuring the truth about the implacable nature of Israel’s enemies and the fatal character of the Oslo Agreement. The Likud remains a dead man walking while its leader, “a man without chest,” continues to abide by that perfidious agreement.


Robin Ticker
Activist emails sent to my list are L'Ilui Nishmat Yisrael ben David Aryeh ob"m (Izzy - Kaplan) a great activist and lover of Eretz Yisroel, Am Yisroel and the Torah. Yehi Zichrono Baruch.

Most of these emails are posted on

Personal emails to individuals will not be posted to my blog.

Saturday, June 2, 2012

An answer from Ben Gurion / precious

In 1954, when Ben Gurion was prime minister, he traveled to the USA to meet with President Eisenhower to request his assistance and support in the early and difficult days of the State of Israel. John Foster Dulles who was the then secretary of state confronted Ben Gurion and challenged him as follows: “Tell me, Mr. Prime Minister – whom do you and your state represent? Does it represent the Jews of Poland, perhaps Yemen, Romania, Morocco, Iraq, Russia or perhaps Brazil? After 2000 years of exile can you honestly speak about a single nation, a single culture? Can you speak about a single heritage or perhaps a single Jewish tradition?” Ben Gurion answered him as follows: “Look, Mr. Secretary of State – approximately 300 years ago the Mayflower set sail from England and on it were the first settlers who settled in what would become the largest democratic superpower known as the United States of America. Now, do me a favor - go out into the streets and find 10 American children and ask them the following: · What was the name of the Captain of the Mayflower? · How long did the voyage take? · What did the people who were on the ship eat? · What were the conditions of sailing during the voyage? I’m sure you would agree with me that there is a good chance that you won’t get a good answer to these questions. Now in contrast – not 300 but more than 3000 years ago, the Jews left the land of Egypt. I would kindly request from you Mr. Secretary that on one of your trips around the world, try and meet 10 Jewish children in different countries. And ask them: · What was the name of the leader who took the Jews out of Egypt? · How long did it take them before they got to the land of Israel? · What did they eat during the period when they were wondering in the desert? · And what happened to the sea when they encountered it? Once you get the answers to these questions, please carefully consider the question that you have just asked me!”