The Israeli-American Council (IAC) has announced its unprecedented bid to compete in the World Jewish Congress (WJC) elections, marking the first time an Israeli-American organization seeks representation in Zionism's central democratic institution. This strategic move aims to amplify the Israeli-American community's voice in shaping Jewish-Zionist policy and reinforcing the critical Israel-US relationship.

Led by Elan Carr, former US Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, the IAC has established a significant presence across the United States with operations in 58 college campuses and over 100 communities nationwide. The organization offers comprehensive programming serving diverse demographics from children to business leaders.

The IAC has built an impressive track record of advocacy achievements, including organizing America's largest pro-Israel conference and creating the powerful "Hostage Table" installation in New York's Times Square – a visual reminder that dramatically increased global awareness about Israelis held captive. The organization has also taken a leading role in countering campus antisemitism by providing crucial support networks for Jewish students facing harassment and intimidation.

Working through its advocacy arm "IAC for Action," the organization has successfully championed 39 anti-BDS laws across multiple states, alongside fourteen pieces of legislation incorporating the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism and nine formal resolutions addressing related concerns. Current initiatives focus on expanding anti-BDS legislation to specifically target academic boycotts while advocating for similar protections in additional states.

The IAC's grassroots approach includes collaboration with city governments to block boycott initiatives and coordinating nationwide public information campaigns supporting Israel. Simultaneously, the organization remains committed to strengthening Jewish education and fostering Zionist identity among younger generations.

Danny Alpert, one of the IAC's founding members, highlighted the significance of their congressional candidacy: "Since October 7, we have witnessed an unprecedented wave of antisemitism, alongside strategic challenges for Israel. The Israeli-American community has proven that it is not only connected to Israel but that it leads the struggle for Israel's image and place in the world. This is an opportunity for our community to influence the future of our children and grandchildren and strengthen the inseparable ties between the State of Israel and the US."

The post First ever Israeli-American organization to compete in World Jewish Congress elections appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The topic of Zionism often stirs up intense emotions and debates, especially regarding its historical context and implications. While some view it as a colonialist movement, others see it as a legitimate expression of a people's right to return to their ancestral homeland. This article explores the multifaceted history of Zionism, its connections to Jewish identity, and the ongoing discourse surrounding its impact on Palestinians and the broader region.

Understanding Palestinian indigeneity

When discussing Zionism, it's crucial to acknowledge the deep-rooted connection Palestinians have to the land now known as Israel or Palestine. This connection is intrinsic to their identity and history, and no one should question the legitimacy of Palestinian rights in this context. Palestinian identity has been shaped through generations, and their historical ties to the land are as significant as those of the Jewish people.

The origins of Zionism

To understand Zionism, we must look back in history. Although often seen as a modern political movement that emerged in the late 19th century, the roots of Zionism stretch back over 2000 years. Since the Roman exile around 70 CE, the Jewish connection to the land of Israel has been a central element of Jewish culture and religious practice. This longing for a return to Zion is reflected in daily prayers and religious observances, emphasizing the Jewish people's enduring bond with their ancestral homeland.

The Jewish kingdom existed for approximately 1000 years before the Roman Empire's conquest, which resulted in widespread exile and the loss of sovereignty. The Romans, in an effort to erase Jewish identity, renamed the region from Judea to Syria-Palestina, a name that would later become synonymous with the land. This renaming was part of a broader strategy to sever the historical and cultural ties between the Jewish people and their homeland.

The Jewish Diaspora

After the Roman exile, Jewish communities were scattered across the globe. Maintaining their identity in diaspora presented significant challenges, particularly as much of Judaism was tied to the land of Israel. This led to a profound cultural shift, where Jewish leaders reframed their identity and connection to the land as a divine promise. The belief was that they lost the land of Judea due to their sins, and the better Jews became as a people, the closer they would be to returning home, creating a cycle of resilience and hope amidst suffering.

The emergence of modern political Zionism

Fast forward to the late 19th century, where modern political Zionism began to take shape. Influenced by centuries of antisemitism and persecution, Theodore Herzl, an Austro-Hungarian Jewish journalist, published "Der Judenstaat," calling for a political solution to the Jewish plight through the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. This marked a pivotal moment in Jewish history, as it was the first widely circulated call for a return to their ancestral land.

The Balfour Declaration

In 1917, Herzl's vision gained international recognition through the Balfour Declaration, where the British Empire endorsed the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine. This declaration was a significant turning point, as it validated the Jewish claim to the land on a global stage. The subsequent League of Nations mandate and the San Remo Conference further solidified this support, but it also heightened tensions with the Arab population already residing in the region.

For many Palestinians and Arab nations, the British support of Zionism was perceived as a form of colonialism, mirroring historical practices of imperialism where external powers seized land and suppressed local identities. This perception has fueled the narrative that Zionism is a colonial project seeking to extend European influence at the expense of the indigenous Arab population.

Despite the criticisms, it is essential to recognize that when Herzl and other Zionist leaders spoke of colonialism, they did so in the context of establishing a homeland for the Jewish people. Their narrative did not inherently exclude Palestinians from their right to exist on the land. It articulated the desire for Jews to return home after centuries of exile and persecution, particularly in light of rising antisemitism in Europe.

The conflict and its consequences

As hundreds of thousands of Jews began returning to the British Mandate of Palestine, seeking refuge from persecution, tensions escalated between Jewish and Arab populations. The backdrop of World War II and the Holocaust further intensified the urgency for a Jewish state, as Jews saw Israel as their only sanctuary in a world filled with hostility. However, this aspiration led to a complex and often violent conflict as both groups staked their claims to the land.

In response to the growing Jewish population and the support of the British Empire, many Palestinians sought assistance from surrounding Arab nations. This reliance on external support reflected their political vulnerability and the challenges they faced in asserting their rights amidst the influx of Jewish immigrants. The convergence of these aspirations created a volatile situation that would ultimately lead to conflict.

The narrative surrounding Zionism is complex and layered, intertwining Jewish historical aspirations with Palestinian rights and identity. Understanding this multifaceted history is crucial for fostering dialogue and empathy between both communities. As we reflect on the past, it becomes evident that recognizing each group's connection to the land is essential for paving the way toward a more peaceful and just future.

The post Is Zionism colonialism? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Yet this longing for normalcy emboldened not peace-seekers, but rather our Palestinian attackers. It signaled to them that we sovereign Jews may be compelled to surrender entirely. And as our attackers made it clear that Israel giving them land would not lead to peace, many Israelis abandoned the Left's approach. They now sought to spare themselves and their loved ones from what they had come to deem a dangerous delusion.

Having detached itself from the imperative of self-preservation, the Israeli Left became marginalized. But while much of its voter pool evaporated, its desperate longing for normalcy did not. The only thing that changed was how the Left came to frame its longing.

Before, the Left framed its longing as our only chance to achieve peace. After peace processes blew up in our faces, the Left repackaged its longing as our only chance at democracy. A dire warning over our essence replaced the failed promise of peace. Irrespective of peace, they argue, if we rule over millions of non-citizens, we forgo our status as a democracy.

Over the years, mainstream Israel learned to ignore the marginal Left on the topic of peace. The vast majority of Palestinians made this quite easy. They made it clear that they would not supply peace in return for concessions. But today, mainstream Israelis cannot afford to ignore the Left's repackaged longing for normalcy. Even a Left without political teeth can encourage foreign liberal audiences, who long for normalcy no less, to pressure Israel from the outside.

When former member of Knesset Yair Golan tells The Guardian that he is "not sure whether Israel right now is truly a democratic state… [because] the Right today in Israel is people who think we can annex millions of Palestinians," we should not dismiss this as Left-wingers venting to each other. Rather, we must confront such words head-on.

If a peaceful person is attacked with violence, does defending themselves mean they are no longer peaceful? Of course not. They maintain the label 'peaceful' because they are peaceful when given the chance to be. The same reasoning applies to a country that strives to be democratic. Such a country does not lose its democratic status when it rules over people who seek to destroy it.

The Jews whom Zionism made sovereign are overwhelmingly committed to democratic principles. We accepted the United Nations Partition Plan, which would have created two new countries from land that was under interim British rule. Partition would have preserved everyone's homes and would not have stymied anyone's democratic rights.

It was never implemented because opponents of Jewish sovereignty rejected it. They considered any Jewish sovereignty in their midst to be an affront to their own sense of dominance. So, under the banner of 'Palestine,' they waged a fateful struggle against such sovereignty. Far from accepting partition, proponents of this struggle promised a war of annihilation, and to this day, they try to eliminate Israel. They insist that they will kick, scream, stab, and shoot ("by any means necessary") until someone pacifies their rage by forcing the Jews to surrender.

When people attack Israel, it is right and wise for Israel to defend itself adequately, including through military rule. That Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip do not constitute an independent country is not an inevitable undemocratic feature of Israel's existence. It is rather the outcome of others' rage over Israel's existence.

Israel need not enfranchise those who seek to destroy it and kill its people. If certain individuals or groups cannot tolerate Jews being sovereign in their homeland, that should be their own problem. It is not on Jews or on anyone else to placate them. The moral onus is on those who are kicking and screaming and stabbing and shooting to stop. Adequate self-defense is good and right, and makes one responsible, not undemocratic.

People, countries, and world orders that insist unconditionally on normalcy in the name of liberalism will lose to illiberal attackers. If liberalism is to survive against illiberal attackers, it has to be willing to be abnormal when pushed against a wall.

Josh Warhit runs Warhit Media Services. He made aliyah from the United States in 2012 and served in the Nahal Brigade (infantry) in the Israel Defense Forces.

The post The danger of longing for normalcy appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Regardless of background or denomination, most Jews recognize the Star of David as a symbol of Judaism. Today, the symbol is practically ubiquitous in the Jewish world. The most iconic use of the star might be on the Israeli flag. But the Star of David wasn't always a universal symbol for Judaism. How did two overlapping triangles come to be the most universally recognizable symbol associated with Judaism?

In ancient times, the Star of David – or the Magen David – wasn't an exclusively Jewish symbol. It was a common geometric symbol, just like the five-point star and even the swastika.

The oldest record of the six-point star as a Jewish symbol was around the second or third century. Archeologists found Stars of David on the walls of the Synagogue of Capernaum near the Sea of Galilee. However, most experts think that these stars were used for decorative purposes and didn't hold any significant Jewish meaning.

Nearly a century later, the star appeared on the now famous Leningrad Codex, the oldest known manuscript of the Hebrew Bible dating from 1008 CE. However, it's unclear if it was used merely for decoration or had a deeper religious purpose.

Experts like German-Israeli academic and philosopher Gershom Scholem theorize that the star gained more meaning in Judaism in the mysterious teachings of the Kabbalah. The 13th and 14th centuries saw a growing movement of Jewish sages in Spain, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East writing kabbalistic texts that explored the foundations of Jewish mysticism.

These texts were the first sources to ascribe meaning to the six-point star. The Book of Boundary, written in Spain in the early 14th century, contains several depictions of the six-point star, which is identified as being on the Shield of David. According to the legend, King David's protective shield had magical powers and could ward off spirits and demons. Other works of the time make similar references to the king's magical amulet with a six-point star emblazoned on it.

But the earliest known particularly Jewish usage of the Star of David wasn't tied to a kabbalah scholar. In the mid-14th century, Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV gave Prague's Jews the right to bear a flag. Under the red flag, with a yellow Star of David on it, Prague was the world's first Jewish community to use the star as its official emblem.

The Star of David was on flags and books in Prague at the time and in surrounding Jewish communities, but it didn't go viral until the 18th century. It started in Europe, where everywhere Jews looked, they saw the symbol of Christianity: the cross. Seeking their own distinctly Jewish symbol, communities turned to the Star of David. This struck a chord with Diaspora Jews and spread to synagogues across the world.

The star was cemented as the Jewish symbol in 1897 at the first Zionist Congress in Basel, which was chaired by Theodor Herzl. There, the Star of David was chosen over icons like the menorah as the official Zionist symbol for two reasons. First, Jews everywhere already knew it, thanks to the widespread use of the star during the 19th century, when it became splashed on synagogues, prayer books, tombstones, and more. Second, it didn't carry the religious significance that other symbols did.

By the mid-20th century, no symbol was more tied to Judaism. Zionist leaders embraced the six-point star, arguing that it didn't evoke memories of the past and could represent a brighter future. But in Nazi Germany, hopes of a brighter future dimmed. To pervert the symbol of the Jewish people, Hitler decreed that all Jews under the Third Reich wear a yellow six-point star as a badge of shame. The yellow Star of David is one of the most enduring images of the Holocaust. But the Jews who survived would not let Hitler decide their symbol's legacy. On the heels of World War Two, they reclaimed their star with the establishment of the State of Israel.

In the debate over what emblem would be featured on the young nation's flag, the flag of the Zionist movement already had strong support, but Israeli politicians like Minister of Foreign Affairs Moshe Sharett had reservations. He and others feared that Jewish communities in the diaspora could face dual loyalty charges if the flags of the Zionist movement and the Israeli flag were the same.

Therefore, in June 1948, the Israeli government's designated committee announced a public competition calling for flag designs. Though it wasn't a requirement, entries were encouraged to include a menorah and seven gold stars – a design dreamed up by Herzl and sketched in his diary in the late 19th century. During the two-week-long competition, 164 people participated, submitting a total of 450 designs.

While deciding on the final design, Sharett wanted input from the diaspora. So, he reached out to Zionist leaders abroad. The response was clear. They and their constituents overwhelmingly preferred to have the Zionist flag become Israel's national flag. On October 28, 1948, the Provisional Council voted unanimously to adopt the Zionist flag as that of the State of Israel.

But the star can also be controversial. Is it a symbol for a people or a country? The Jewish people predate the modern State of Israel, and so does the symbol. The legacy of the star lives on almost everywhere in Jewish communities throughout the world.

Whether this symbol dates back thousands of years or a few hundred, it's an emblem woven deeply into the fabric of modern Jewish history and serves as a powerful image that binds the Jewish people together today.

The post The contested history of the Star of David appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

In recent years, the concept of Zionism has become a topic of significant debate and controversy. Judaism is inherently Zionist as the book of Jewish faith, the Bible, says the Jewish people belong in the land of Israel. But one does not need to be Jewish to be a Zionist. There are more Christian Zionists in the US (30 million) than Jews in the entire world (15 million). This article aims to explore the historical roots of Zionism, its evolution, and its relevance in contemporary society.

A historical perspective

Zionism is often defined as the belief that Jews have the right to govern themselves in their ancestral homeland, a notion deeply intertwined with Jewish history and identity. The roots of this belief stretch back over four thousand years to the biblical narratives that depict Israel as the promised land for the Jewish people. Despite the historical complexities and periods of exile, the connection to the land has been a constant theme in Jewish prayers and cultural expressions.

The modern political movement of Zionism emerged in the late 19th century, catalyzed by a wave of nationalism sweeping across Europe. Jews faced widespread persecution, particularly in Eastern Europe, where pogroms and antisemitic laws were rampant. This environment fostered a renewed interest in returning to the land of Israel, which many Jews began to view as a real possibility rather than just a distant dream.

The role of Theodor Herzl

Central to the establishment of modern Zionism was Theodor Herzl, a Viennese journalist who became disillusioned with the prospects of Jewish assimilation in Europe. The Dreyfus Affair in France, where a Jewish army officer was wrongfully convicted of treason, served as a wake-up call for Herzl. He recognized that antisemitism was pervasive and that Jews needed a state of their own to ensure their survival and self-determination.

Herzl's vision was not merely about escaping persecution; he believed that establishing a Jewish state would ultimately eliminate antisemitism. He envisioned a society where Jews could live freely and proudly without fear of discrimination. This vision laid the groundwork for the Zionist movement, which sought to create a sovereign Jewish state in then-Palestine.

Streams of Zionism

As the Zionist movement gained momentum, various factions emerged, each with distinct ideologies and visions for what a Jewish state should look like. Six primary streams of Zionism can be identified:

1. Political Zionism: Advocates for a Jewish state modeled after other nations, emphasizing the need for political sovereignty.
2. Labor Zionism: Focuses on socialist principles, advocating for a state that prioritizes agriculture and labor rights.
3. Cultural Zionism: Emphasizes the revival of Jewish culture and identity, seeking to create a vibrant cultural hub rather than a strictly political entity.
4. Revisionist Zionism: Calls for a strong, independent Jewish state with a focus on self-defense and military strength.
5. Religious Zionism: Views the return to Israel as a divine mandate, emphasizing the spiritual significance of the land.
6. Non-Zionist religious Jews: While they long for a return to Zion, they oppose the establishment of a secular state, believing that only God should determine the time for the Jewish return.

The impact of antisemitism on Zionism

The rise of antisemitism in Europe played a crucial role in solidifying the Zionist movement. As Jews faced increasing violence and discrimination, the urgency for a safe haven grew. The horrors of the Holocaust further highlighted the need for a Jewish state, where Jews could find refuge and safety from persecution.

In the aftermath of World War II, the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 marked a pivotal moment in Jewish history. It was a realization of the long-held dream of self-determination in their ancestral homeland. However, the creation of Israel also led to complex geopolitical issues, particularly regarding the Palestinian population that had been living in the area. These tensions continue to shape the discourse around Zionism today.

Zionism today

In contemporary society, the relevance of Zionism is often debated. Some argue that with the establishment of Israel, the primary goal of Zionism has been achieved, and thus it is no longer necessary. Others contend that the principles of Zionism remain vital, as they advocate for Jewish identity, continuity, and a safe homeland for Jews worldwide.

Critics of Zionism often conflate it with nationalism and imperialism, leading to accusations of injustice against Palestinians. This has led to a growing anti-Zionist sentiment, which some argue can cross the line into antisemitism. The distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism is crucial, as it informs the conversation around Jewish identity and the legitimacy of Israel as a state.

In conclusion, Zionism is not merely a historical movement but a living concept that continues to resonate with many Jews today. It embodies the struggle for survival, identity, and a sense of belonging in a world that has often been hostile to Jewish existence. The journey of Zionism is far from over; it is a narrative that is still being written, one that reflects the complexities and challenges of contemporary Jewish life.

The post What is Zionism? Not what you think it is appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Twenty-three years ago today, my dear friend Daniel Lewin fell victim to al-Qaida terrorists aboard American Airlines Flight 11 – the first casualty of the September 11 attacks.

At just 31, Daniel's life was tragically cut short. The 9/11 Commission report suggests he was stabbed by a hijacker seated behind him, likely while attempting to confront another terrorist in front of him, unaware of the danger at his back. Knowing Daniel as I did, I have no doubt he fought against the attackers on Flight 11. It was simply in his nature.

Our families both immigrated to Israel in the summer of 1984, settling at the integration center in Mevaseret Zion near Jerusalem. The Lewins arrived shortly before us, and Daniel and I quickly formed a close bond. We played in a rock band together, shared shifts at a local pizza place, explored Jerusalem's Old City, and traversed the country side by side. I vividly recall the night Daniel met his future wife – within moments of their first dance, it was as if they were the only two people in the room.

For years, I declined to speak publicly about Daniel's life. It wasn't until after I joined the ranks of bereaved families myself, following my father Richard Lakin's murder by Hamas, that I felt able to address such loss.

Much has been written about Daniel over the past 23 years, including a biography. Most accounts capture his essence accurately. Daniel was truly larger than life: more brilliant, stronger, more determined, more charismatic, and more energetic than anyone I've ever encountered. His intellect was so formidable it likely defied measurement, and he possessed enough drive to fuel an entire team of professional athletes.

Daniel was a force of nature, combining the stature of a giant with the raw power of a brontosaurus. His achievements speak volumes: an officer in the IDF's elite special forces unit Sayeret Matkal, top of his class at both the Technion and MIT, and the tech visionary who built Akamai Technologies into a multi-billion dollar enterprise that revolutionized internet speed and reliability.

While Daniel's public legacy is well-documented, one crucial aspect often goes underemphasized: his unwavering Zionism. Despite his success in Boston, Daniel's heart remained set on returning to Israel.

During a visit to the US in 2000, Daniel and I took a long walk along the Charles River, followed by lunch at a quaint Cuban restaurant. Afterward, we stood gazing at the Akamai building – a former MIT structure Daniel had commandeered for his company's headquarters. His eyes gleamed with pride and possibility as we discussed the future – both his own and Israel's.

Our conversation turned to the pressing need for electoral reform in Israel, which we both viewed as critical to the nation's long-term viability. We lamented how the current system rendered the government nearly dysfunctional and predicted the problem would only worsen.

While I expressed concern, Daniel outlined his solution with characteristic confidence: he would eventually return to Israel, we would establish a new political party, and he would personally fund an unprecedented campaign. His goal? To become prime minister and lead a new ruling coalition.

"It's simple," he asserted. "We'll adopt a constitution, overhaul the electoral system, and then tackle all of Israel's other challenges."

Daniel spoke with an unwavering determination uniquely his own. I have no doubt that had he not perished on September 11, Daniel would have returned to Israel and ultimately ascended to the role of prime minister. That day, I lost a cherished friend. And Israel lost precisely the kind of leader it so desperately needs today.

Micha Avni is a businessman and public activist who lost his father to a terror attack.

The post Daniel Lewin: The brilliant leader Israel lost on 9/11 appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The New Communist Party of Italy has published a list of more than 150 Italian Jews, including well-known figures in politics, media, and business, labeling them as "Zionist agents" to be "condemned and fought" for supporting Israel, reports Jewish News Syndicate.

Titled "Zionist Organizations and Agents in Italy," the list categorizes individuals and companies across various sectors, including finance, industry, technology, and military. It names prominent figures such as Senator Ester Mieli, former Italian Ambassador to Israel Luigi Mattiolo, and journalists Maurizio Molinari and Emanuela Dviri.

Although the New Communist Party is considered a marginal political force, the publication of this list has garnered widespread attention and condemnation from across the Italian political spectrum.

The right-wing Brothers of Italy Party strongly denounced the list. Senate President Ignazio La Russa, a co-founder of Brothers of Italy, stated, "I find it very serious that the New Communist Party has published on its website names and surnames of politicians, journalists, and entrepreneurs 'guilty' of having supported Israel. This is a serious and unacceptable attack on freedom of thought and a worrying threat to the safety of the people involved."

La Russa called for "unanimous condemnation" of the list. The center-left Democratic Party joined in denouncing it, demanding a parliamentary inquiry. In a statement, the party described the list as "the umpteenth episode in a long series of antisemitic acts."

Rome's Jewish community also condemned the list, characterizing it as the latest in a string of incidents pointing to a "resurgent antisemitism that increasingly raises its voice and the level of its threats."

The New Communist Party defended the list, claiming it was retaliation for a "smear campaign" against Gabriele Rubini, a former semi-professional rugby player and TV personality known as Chef Rubio, who has posted numerous antisemitic and anti-Israel remarks on social media since Oct 7.

The post Italian far-Left party publishes list of Jews to be 'condemned and fought' appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

In a powerful demonstration of commitment and Zionism, Dr. Eugene Rapaport, a 58-year-old anesthesiologist from California, has realized his decades-long ambition of immigrating to Israel. Despite the current conflict, Rapaport arrived in the country two weeks ago, eager to contribute his specialized medical skills to Israel's healthcare system during this crucial period.

For three decades, Rapaport, an accomplished anesthesiologist at Californian hospitals, harbored a dream of moving to Israel. That dream became reality two weeks ago when he landed in the country with his daughter, Shira, who is thrilled to celebrate her bat mitzvah in the Jewish homeland. His other daughter, Rebecca, had already made the move to Israel about three months prior. "This is an extraordinary time to be in Israel, and I'm elated to be fulfilling a 30-year dream," said Rapaport.

Rapaport's connection to Israel runs deep. He studied medicine at Tel Aviv University until 1993, a period he remembers vividly for its geopolitical tensions. "It was during the time when Saddam Hussein was threatening to destroy half of Israel," he recalled. After completing his studies, Rapaport moved to the US to establish his career, but the aspiration to return to Israel never faded.

In 2017, Rapaport began the arduous process of getting his medical credentials recognized in Israel. Twice he nearly gave up, discouraged by the bureaucratic hurdles. However, the outbreak of war galvanized his resolve. With assistance from Nefesh B'Nefesh and in collaboration with the Ministry of Aliyah and Integration, The Jewish Agency for Israel, KKL, and JNF USA, Rapaport finally made the move. His goal now is to secure a position as a physician at Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center (Ichilov Hospital).

When hostilities broke out, Rapaport immediately sought ways to help. He volunteered as an anesthesiologist at Hadassah Hospital for about two weeks. "I was added to a WhatsApp group called 'Volunteers for Israel,' managed by a Hadassah doctor," he explained. "On October 7, I believe many Jews worldwide were asking themselves what they could do to assist. The anesthesiology community is small, and my greatest contribution is my expertise in anesthesia, particularly in cardiac-thoracic procedures, which are critical and in high demand."

Rapaport described his volunteer stint at Hadassah as "an incredible opportunity." He added, "As a senior physician in Los Angeles, I wanted to ensure that those defending Israel would receive care from a skilled doctor." He recounted a particularly poignant experience: "We treated a soldier whose hand was injured by an RPG. When he complained of post-operative pain, I administered a nerve block to ensure his comfort. That moment alone made my journey to Israel worthwhile. This soldier had risked his life fighting for Israel. If I can help those who put their lives on the line for this country, it's an honor for me as a physician."

Ofir Sofer, minister of aliyah and integration, praised Rapaport's decision: "Dr. Rapaport and his daughter Shira have immigrated to Israel with the express purpose of strengthening the nation during wartime and saving lives. In partnership with the Jewish Agency, the Zionist Organization, and Nefesh B'Nefesh, we are actively working to bring Jews who wish to contribute to Israel's strength, with a particular focus on recruiting medical professionals to bolster our healthcare system."

Co-Founder and Executive Director of Nefesh B'Nefesh Rabbi Yehoshua Fass shared his personal encounter with Rapaport: "I had the privilege of meeting Dr. Rapaport a year ago at our MedEx event, which helps doctors expedite their licensing and job search processes. I was struck by his impressive character, strong principles, ambition, and exceptional skills. It's inspiring to see Eugene's long-held dream of moving to Israel and contributing as a doctor finally come to fruition, even after 30 years. We warmly welcome him!"

The post US doctor fulfills 30-year dream, moves to Israel appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Shalom Boguslavsky's new book boasts probably the longest book title you have ever read: "The Unlikely and Oft-Overlooked Story of the Rise and Fall of Jewish Eastern Europe." The first sentence in this highly popular history book, written by the tour guide, lecturer and blogger, who has a strong passion for Eastern Europe, proudly tells us that, "It is a ridiculous feat to recount five hundred years of history in one book."  But Boguslavsky was forced to tell this story in one book as it is precisely this 500-year period from the 15th century to the Holocaust that creates a clear narrative arc: at the start of the 16th century (the period of the Expulsion of the Jews of Spain, the growing strength of the Ottoman Empire and the conquest of America by the Europeans) there were only a few tens of thousands of Jews in Eastern Europe; by the mid-18th century (prior to the American War of Independence and the French Revolution) this number had already grown to 750 thousand; and by the end of the 19th century (the birth of Zionism, the eve of the First World War, against the backdrop of a tremendous wave of emigration to America), there were some 6.5 million Jews there.

But Boguslavsky's book does not necessarily deal with these relatively well-known global events, which accompanied the rise of Judaism in Eastern Europe, but actually focuses on the no less interesting but much less remembered (or "oft-overlooked" in his words) developments of that particular area. Who are the people and the cultures who shared the Eastern-European domain with the Jews? What is the connection between the Jewish mythology of that period – the shtetl, the incessant battles between the Hasidim and the Litvaks (the Misnagedim or "opponents" who later took on the term Litvaks as they came from Lithuania) and so on – and the reality of the other surrounding nations and states? Our inability to perceive the conditions leading to the development of such a major force in world Jewry, does to a large extent underscore the importance of one of the maps presented at the beginning of the book: that large land of two kingdoms Poland-Lithuania, which at the time encompassed Ukraine, Poland, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia, and Kaliningrad. This is an immense swathe of land that has changed over the years, it expanded and was later downsized, it was partitioned and then reunited, and for the duration of those hundreds of years it was plagued by revolutions no less than those occurring in Western Europe. This certainly had an impact on the Jewish population.

Boguslavsky's interest in the Jews of Eastern Europe began as a necessary part of his profession. "I began to travel to Eastern Europe, mainly to Ukraine, due to personal circumstances, and also as I was extremely interested by it," recounts Boguslavsky. "The more I traveled the more I became captivated with it, and I thought: I travel in any event and deal with guiding and tourism, so why shouldn't they pay me for those trips? So, I began to take groups of tourists with me. I obviously needed to engage in an orderly effort to learn the relevant material so as not to talk garbage when providing commentary on the sites in question. When I learned the general history of those places, it cast Jewish history in a completely different light, and gave me the broader context that I had been missing until then, and that people usually are not aware of. The second thing that happened is that I was overly critical of certain images that had been traditionally associated with the Jews of Eastern Europe. They still remained firmly implanted in my head, but then, gradually I began to see things that did not really fit in with those images."

The first thing that Boguslavsky noticed, which contradicted those preconceptions that had "been implanted in his head," he claims was the number of Jews spread across the lands of Eastern Europe. "There were simply masses of Jews there," he says. "At some point, more than three-quarters of world Jewry were concentrated in that region. This was information that was already available, but it became much more present and tangible when I was there and saw the little that remained of it with my own eyes. It is still possible to feel the prominent presence of the Jews in that region to this day. The first example that caused me to understand this was one of the remains of the synagogues that I saw. Even the little that remained of it was extremely grand and majestic. I thought to myself that it is from the literature written about that period, rather than the academic research, that we always tend to gain the impression of the small, shabby and pitiful shtetl with the non-Jews on one side of the river and the Jews on the other side, and everything is so small and abjectly impoverished. And then, all of a sudden, you see a synagogue hewn from stone in the center of the town, a magnificent edifice built by the King of Poland's own personal architect. Thus, a number of factors began to accumulate that did not correspond with the image that I had entertained, and so I began to delve into this subject a little more.

"In the beginning, I thought to myself, 'Wow, how smart I am, I have unearthed completely new ground here,' but as soon as I began to read I immediately grasped that I had not uncovered anything at all. Everything that I thought I understood – the world of academic research already knew. Prof. Majer Bałaban, Prof. Israel Heilperin and all the leading lights in this field have already written everything there is to write much more eloquently than I could write. But it transpires that there is a gap between what is known to the world of academic study and the popular perception of things. And I, in my profession, am supposed to give this out to people who do not hail from an academic background or who have been dealing with such issues for their entire lives. And so, this is how I decided to take the leap and try and bridge that gap."

Where did the Cossacks come from?

The book weaves the general history of the region with the local Jewish history and the Jewish memory, or the Jewish mythology of Eastern Europe. Familiarity with the broader view of the story, says Boguslavsky, sheds a different light on our story, that of the Jews. "If you ask historians dealing with Jewish history what was the greatest event that occurred in the last third of the 18th century, the rise of the Hasidic movement will always stand out together with the bitter split between the Hasidim and the Misnagedim, Boguslavsky points out. "Ostensibly, this is an internal Jewish theological-ideological dispute, a fight for the spiritual leadership of the Jews, and similar issues. However, when you study the wider picture, you come to understand that all this took place in parallel to the Civil War, revolutions, invasions, and severe internal political strife in the Polish-Lithuanian kingdom. The Jews were involved in all these affairs. At that time, the historic Four-Year Sejm (Parliament) discussions were well underway, which were intended to determine the fate of the kingdom, and the Jews sent their emissaries to it, took part in the rebellions, and played an important role in the wars – both as victims but also as fighters, here and there. So, to what extent did the Jews who lived at that time really regard the halakhic disputes, such as the question of whether it is permitted to stand on your head during prayers, as a central issue? I don't know and there is no way of checking this. But we really should not be telling our story without the broader context."

How does that context have a specific impact?

"The issue of the denunciatory letters sent by opponents of Hasidism to the Russian government is a central pillar in the conflict between the Hasidim and the Misnagedim. I have heard this story more times than I care to remember, and I have never come across anybody who mentions that there is a wider context to the use of such a tool: the Russian government in those areas, which were given over to Russia following the partition of the Polish-Lithuanian kingdom, was completely new, it had just materialized there. So, everybody was trying hard to prove to the new administration that they were loyal to it and that the other side was full of treachery and plans to undermine it. This is also a government, and once again it is important to mention here the wider context, which until that point had not come across any Jews at all. Until that time, there had been no Jews in Russia so that its government had absolutely no idea who these people were and what was happening among the Jews. So now, each side was convinced that it had been presented with a golden opportunity to go to the new administration and present to it the reality of the situation as it saw it, and in a manner that would support its own cause.

"This is not the only context. This dispute is also connected to the processes of modernization that were just beginning to take shape at that time. The leadership crisis in the Jewish world that led to the rise of Hasidism is a direct outcome of the crisis of modernity. The Enlightenment is not the only thing that was born out of that crisis. Hasidism too, as well as the Misnagedim movement, along with the Enlightenment, are modern phenomena. These are three distinct movements that appear at the same time, against the same background, and under the same circumstances. I believe that this puts the whole story in a much more interesting context than the purely internal Jewish theological and sociological aspect that it has been customary to talk about."

Another example is that of the Khmelnytsky Uprising in the mid-17th century, clearly one of the more severe traumas that is indelibly etched in Jewish historical memory – but without any context. "The story usually goes something like this: people called Cossacks, known by and familiar to only a handful of people, suddenly appeared from nowhere, and they slaughtered us because they are antisemites with a deep-rooted hatred of anything Jewish," says Boguslavsky. "The truth is that this is correct, as who did not hate Jews during that period? Having said that, when you zoom out from what was clearly a horrific series of pogroms, you see a historical event in dimensions that are reminiscent of the Thirty Years' War, one of the longest and most destructive conflicts in Western European history, which was just coming to an end when the Khmelnytsky Uprising began. We are talking about several decades of wars resulting in millions of dead and wounded, with a whole spectrum of factors involved. An epic drama of which we remember an episode that lasted for a year and a half and which was not necessarily the most fatal event for the Jews at that time, but regarding which the most eloquent text was written, which also survived, the book "Yeven Mezulah" or the "Abyss of Despair", written by Rabbi Nathan Nata ben Moses Hannover. What would have happened had this book not been written or had it not survived? We might have completely forgotten about this event or not even known about it."

A highly selective memory

The book is replete with figures we have heard of, but also brings to life from the 'abyss of despair' colorful characters, who might not have left a personal stamp on history but their stories are no less riveting. One of these figures, whose story to a large extent is the story of the entire period, is Fabus Abramovich of Kraków. "A rogue and a con artist who took over the community in Kraków at the end of the 18th century. This is an amazing story. He was the leader of the opposition in the community. In the Jewish communities of that period, an oligarchy comprising just a few families was able to rule all the community institutions for more than a hundred years on occasion, even though elections were actually held annually. In terms of the situation in those days, this was one of the most democratic forms of government that existed on Earth, but such an oligarchy also gives rise to opposition, which is usually composed of those people who were not given the jobs that they believed they ought to have been given. In the 18th century, when the initial buds of mass politics were just beginning to sprout, the opposition began to portray itself as ostensibly being the force that represents the 'simple people' against the 'arrogant elite'. Of course, had they succeeded and risen to power they would have acted precisely as those preceding them did. These struggles were always a sordid affair, but the events in the community of Kraków were especially sordid and violent.

"Our man, Abramovich, took advantage of the fact that Kraków was conquered time and again by various forces during the period of the partition of Poland-Lithuania. Against the background of this tumult, he succeeded in creating a devious bureaucratic manipulation that would appoint him as a dictator to rule over the community. Jewish communities in Europe were run for hundreds of years by a joint leadership of four 'parnasim' (heads of the community), each one running the community for one month at a time on a rotation. Underneath the parnasim were the 'tovei ha'ir', the good (elder) citizens, who themselves were above the rest of the community. This form of government, which has roots in the Hellenistic-Roman world, ensured decentralization of power, creating checks and balances. The community rabbi too had his own form of power. Abramovich left this entire structure in place in Kraków but then placed himself above it all as a sort of dictator. He managed to convince the community that the governor had appointed him to this position; while he persuaded the governor that the community had asked him to assume that position. He relied on the fact that both sides would fail to uncover the deception.

"In the end, it failed, and the deception was indeed exposed. This story, apart from the fact that it is extremely entertaining, reflects the fact that the leadership structure of the Jewish communities, which worked so well for hundreds of years, had ceased to function by the end of the 18th century. Due to its inherent weakness, all sorts of issues began to crop up, such as the Hasidic takeover and manipulations such as that of Abramovich.'"

One of the declared goals of the book is to change the image of Jewish Eastern Europe. "The image that we have is of a later period, the end of the 19th century and the turn of the 20th century. The period about which authors such as Sholem Aleichem and others wrote, the era of mass emigration to America, was one rife with crises. People tend to emigrate when bad things occur. The Jewish town was old and decrepit at that point, and the majority of the Jews were living under the rule of the Russian Empire, an extremely despotic and antisemitic form of government. This is the period addressed by the literature with which we are familiar and these are the memories that people carry with them.

One of the declared goals of the book is to change the image of Jewish Eastern Europe. "The image that we have is of a later period, the end of the 19th century and the turn of the 20th century. The period about which authors such as Sholem Aleichem and others wrote, the era of mass emigration to America, was one rife with crises. People tend to emigrate when bad things occur. The Jewish town was old and decrepit at that point, and the majority of the Jews were living under the rule of the Russian Empire, an extremely despotic and antisemitic form of government. This is the period addressed by the literature with which we are familiar and these are the memories that people carry with them. They are not historians, they do not have an overall perception of the periods from the 15th century onwards, in some of which life was better and in some it was much worse. They are familiar with what they remember, and the tendency is to assume that the reality with which we are familiar is the fixed, permanent situation. This picture is not completely baseless, although it is somewhat exaggerated, and this is the death knell. But we are interested in the entire period, not only the demise but also the ascendancy and the golden period of prosperity.

"To all of this, we need to add the existing image that we have regarding Poland, Ukraine, Belarus and the rest of the places that make up the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. We regard these as being extremely antisemitic areas, where the local inhabitants are breastfed on antisemitism. This has always been a matter of concern for me. Could the Jews be such complete idiots who specifically went to those places where they were so hated? That is simply not logical. If so many Jews chose to live there of all places, this must mean one of two things. Either the fact that there were so many Jews there led to the hatred of our people, and this is not very flattering for us as Jews, or that the situation there was not as bad as in other places.

"And lo and behold, just as it was clear to anybody living throughout those eras, it was indeed not as bad there. In other places, where we do not regard the local inhabitants to be antisemites from birth, they simply did not allow the Jews to settle among them. The best method of not being attributed the current image of an antisemite was prevalent already back in the Middle Ages, by expelling all the Jews, and in this manner, nobody would accuse you of antisemitism. This is the reason why nobody accuses the English of being antisemitic. They threw out all the Jews back in the 12th century and since then, everything there has been just 'peachy keen'. The Jews lived in Eastern European countries and thus they were subject there to the best things and the worst things too. And it is from here too that we have the most historical sources and memories."

The fact that masses of Jews lived in this region distorts the perception as to the actual scope of persecution of the Jews. "If a war is being waged – and wars at the time were without intervention from the High Court of Justice or human rights groups such as B'Tselem, with armies massacring civilian populations without any remorse, just for the fun of it – then in a place that was home to tens of thousands of Jews, then it is a predictable consequence that hundreds and thousands of Jews would be killed. If the same type of war occurs elsewhere, where only a few thousand Jews were living, then a few dozen or perhaps a few hundred Jews would be killed. Clearly, thousands of Jews being killed leaves a much more lasting impression, but this does not necessarily mean that the warlords and the soldiers in those places with a much denser Jewish population were more antisemitic. We remember one event, and the other, smaller event, we have never heard of – and this is what shapes the story."

Their rise and fall

The book paints the rise of Jewish Eastern Europe in bold colors along with the years of its glory and grandeur, but it also focuses equally on the long and hard years of its demise. Boguslavsky succeeds in persuading the reader of the existence of a strong bond between the overall geopolitical processes and the severe crisis experienced by the Jewish population. "In the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Jews developed into a status of their own within the feudal order, just like the classic classes of the nobility, the peasants and the bourgeois," he explains. "In Poland-Lithuania there were two parallel urban classes: A Christian urban class and a Jewish urban class, more or less equal in size. One of the issues that set the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth apart from Western Europe was that it was engaged in the conquest and settlement of non-developed lands, mainly in Ukraine and Belarus. In the process of the settlement and regulatory organization of these territories, the government and the nobility encouraged different types of people to settle there: urban dwellers, peasants, and Cossacks. The Jews had good reason to take an interest in settling down there, as they had been pushed aside and removed from other locations, and this led to a situation whereby they developed into an extremely important factor in these areas.

"Therefore, the entire system in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth became dependent on the Jews in relation to a number of matters – for example, in the mediation efforts between the nobility and the peasants, or in the field of public administration. Somebody had to manage the estates, postal services, fishponds, and forests. The concept of a 'leaseholder', which is very familiar to us from Jewish literature, comes from here. Leaseholding is the accepted method of management in the feudal regime – a type of privatization: the government or the noblemen who own the estate do not manage the day-to-day running of the lands on their own. They issue a 'tender' and then check to see who is ready to run everything and pass on the profits to them. This is privatization in its pre-modern form. The Jews were also responsible for the transportation of goods. The peasants would grow agricultural produce and the Jews would then export this. The local Jewish merchant purchased the goods from the peasants and then sold them wholesale at a regional fair, and from here the produce was then transferred to the next fair, and it would proceed from one fair to another until it was eventually shipped abroad. The imported goods would also be passed on via the Jews. The result is that large parts of the largest country in Europe were simply unable to function without the Jews.

"In other places, the Jews were not involved in leaseholding. In Medieval times, the Jews were traditionally involved in commerce, but here the commerce actually moved aside somewhat in favor of the leaseholding. This is based on the fact that the Polish nobility took control of the Jews in the 16th century: the Parliament of Nobles was much more powerful than the king, and the nobles simply succeeded in taking control of the asset that was called the Jews. They took it from the king for themselves, just as they took other assets, and in essence, they used the Jews for whatever they deemed to be important to them."

All this was turned on its head once modernity appeared at the doorway and the social order was undermined. "The nobility began to decline and the state became more centralized. During this modern era, the king was not made any weaker and actually gained power: suddenly there was no such thing as every nobleman doing whatever took his fancy. And so, the status of the Jews was undermined. Their unique role was eroded. And as soon as the Jews become like everybody else, then those selfsame 'everybody elses' no longer wished for the Jews to be part of them. And this is what leads to their demise. Prior to the rise of nationalism, society was divided up into groups – there were nobles and peasants, there were Catholics and Protestants, and there were also Jews. But, then when all of a sudden there is a collective identity, the question inevitably arises: Are the Jews really part of it? These questions arise and this is also the trigger for the revival of Jewish nationalism, which did not occur in a vacuum, disconnected from what was happening in the greater environment surrounding the Jews at that time."

Jewish Eastern Europe has become a genuine magnet for young Israelis these days. Do you understand why this is happening at this specific juncture?

"The truth is that I have no clear answer to this. I can however hazard a guess: This is a reaction to the dismissal of the Diaspora, which was an extremely acceptable approach in Israel until not so long ago. People who made aliyah from Eastern Europe preferred to leave behind what was there, but after a few generations there is no longer any sense of urgency to escape from this, and now, all of a sudden, they are beginning to show interest and they really wish to learn. This is part of a natural process of searching for your roots, even among today's youngsters. The discourse surrounding identities picked apart the liberal 'Israeli' identity, and so young people whose families came from Eastern Europe are now asking themselves why everybody has an identity apart from me. Suddenly everybody is looking for their own personal identity."

Boguslavsky (47), a resident of Jerusalem ever since he made aliyah at the age of five, is married with two children. Until a number of years ago, he was known to the followers of the blog entitled "Drop the Scissors and Let's Talk about it". Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, he became a social media influencer and even almost a media star. The strongly opinionated and well-reasoned analyses he published on social media regarding the war attracted considerable attention, turning him into one of the leading commentators in that field for some time, even though he is neither a journalist nor an academic researcher of the conflict.

"It became a part of my routine," he says. "I used to travel to Ukraine several times a year, I have friends there, colleagues, acquaintances, and relatives, and so when the war broke out, it naturally preoccupied me and is still doing so. Writing on that topic provided me with a form of escapism. This is a war that I felt was 'close to home' so that by writing about it on a more intellectual level, I was able to stand back and distance myself from it to some extent. Apart from that, I also saw that many people were writing nonsense about what was going on there and that really annoyed me.

"Truth be told, this is often the trigger that gives me the impetus to start writing: I see that someone else is writing absolute baloney and I feel a need to correct them. That's the reason that people write on the internet, no? And indeed, the knowledge that people in the West and in Israel have about Ukraine is sorely lacking, to put it delicately. I don't claim to be an expert on that country, but in view of the overall paucity in that field I am a genuine 'lily in a field of thorns'. The professional experts, almost all of them, are experts on Russia – and based on their expertise on Russia they tend to extrapolate and project their knowledge onto other post-Soviet states, usually looking at issues via a Russian prism. This is why what they said was hot air, and somebody had to portray a different picture of things and write less nonsense. I'm sure that there are those who will beg to differ but this is how I saw things."

You have recently ceased to write about this topic.

"I don't like repeating myself. If I have written something a number of times, then I get fed up. In addition, during the initial months of the war I spent long hours, often close to 12 hours a day, just going over all sorts of Telegram channels and other sources of information in a variety of languages in order to get my hands on the rawest of information available. It is not possible to go on living in that fashion for a long time. So today, I still try and keep up to date but not with the same intensity.

"And also – I wore myself out. There is a limit to the number of atrocities to which you can become exposed. When October 7 came round, I had already developed the ability, even before you actually see what is in the photo, to scroll down the feed as you know that this will be a trigger. Your finger knows to skip over it before your eye identifies what is in the image, because you really need to maintain your sanity."

The post Beyond 'Fiddler on the Roof': The untold story of Jewish life in Eastern Europe appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

1.

More than eight months have passed since the October 7 massacre, a relatively short period in historical terms, even more so when it comes to the history of our people. On that day, the barbarians invaded our borders and massacred, raped, and burned alive women, children, and the elderly; they wiped out entire families and destroyed whole communities – communities where many had previously worked for the welfare of Gazans. They kidnapped hundreds of Israel, alive and dead, and murdered some of the hostages in captivity. Had they been able to, they would have continued their murderous path and killed all of us.

They didn't carry out these atrocities because of the "occupation" or due to "repression" or to economic problems. Today we know, despite the enemy's propaganda and lies, that there was no siege of Gaza. Via huge tunnels crossing into Gaza from Egypt, Hamas smuggled in everything imaginable. There was no occupation of Gaza: In the summer of 2005, Israel withdrew from Gaza taking with it even its dead who had been buried there. The only repression that existed in the Strip was that imposed by the Hamas reign of terror which used its citizens as human shields, hid arms and missiles in kindergartens, schools, mosques and hospitals, and, of course, in the offices of the UNRWA aid agency.  Over the past twenty years or so, all these places served as launching grounds for the tens of thousands of rockets fired at Israeli towns and communities during that time.

Hamas's motives are discussed in detail in the Hamas Charter, the group's founding document, where it speaks of a total commitment to the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews wherever they may be. The reason is explicit: their religious beliefs, which explains our longstanding blindness as we analyzed the motives of our enemies in terms of rational interests.

2.

The Gaza Strip was the biggest attempt at setting up an independent Palestinian state. What this attempt has shown is that territories that Israel vacates become terror fortresses and citadels of death both for Israel and for the residents of these territories. Moreover, evacuation of territory under pressure of terrorism was interpreted – and rightly so – as a display of weakness by Israel: Perhaps under pressure the Jews will abandon all the land. Compare this with Judea and Samaria where in 2002 in Operation Defensive Shield we restored security control and in the years that followed we methodically purged the territory of its terror nests and prevented the possibility that a terror entity would be established on the mountain ridge right opposite our population centers.

So little time has passed since October 7, yet already there are voices among us who call for an end to the war, for compromise, for the release of murderers from their jails and, most importantly, for the establishment of a Palestinian state. It is unbelievable how memory can fade and deceive us.

The current military campaign requires time and patience. We have to maneuver not just between terror tunnels and terrorist nests as we try not to inflict harm on the civilian population, but we also have to maneuver amidst enormous international pressure to end the war before we have achieved our goals. Even our most faithful ally pressures us with public statements against our military measures and with bureaucratic slow-downs of arms deliveries. And we must not forget that another campaign awaits us in the north, and we must also deal with the head of the octopus, Iran, which finances and supports Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as the Shi'ite militias in Iraq and Syria, the Houthis in Yemen, and other hostile elements.

3.

Sinking Europe is afraid of millions of its Muslim immigrants and is trying to gain a few more years of quiet by scapegoating Israel. The credit we received at the beginning of the war stemmed from the massacre we experienced. For a brief moment, we returned to our "traditional" role – eternal victims, crucified like Jesus. But as soon as we rose from the dust and fought back, global support began to erode: the deep antisemitic currents that are thousands of years old negatively influence how the world reacts when Jews refuse to be victims and refuse to be crucified, but instead slay their attackers. Jesus came down from the cross, wrapped himself in a prayer shawl and returned home to be a Jew in Galilee. This time he is no longer willing to be crucified; He has weapons, and he knows well how to use them.

As in the 1930s, Europeans will find themselves facing the bitter truth, and then we will see their moral standards as they fight for their lives in the streets of their cities. About one million Jews live in Europe. Why do they cling to a dream that is over? Why do they not come to Israel, what are they waiting for? Dear Jews, danger is already knocking on your door. Stop grazing in foreign fields, come home.

4.

Were someone unfamiliar with the situation to browse social networks or watch almost all the news channels, they would get the impression that the war with our external enemies is over, and in fact the real enemy is within us, in the form of a political rival, even though his sons too are fighting for the security of the people. A certain group, the same group that led the protests in the dreadful year preceding the massacre, is once again disseminating appalling messages against their brethren (even if they are political opponents), especially against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

A certain person who received a religious education, calls the prime minister "Satan," compares him to Saddam Hussein, and polishes off by saying, "We will erase the memory of Netanyahu." Shame on him. What blasphemy to quote the eternal biblical commandment [to erase the memory of Amalek] that is appropriate for the Nazis and the Hamas terrorists and apply it to those who lead the military and diplomatic campaign against our enemies and would-be murderers. Why didn't the media and the intelligentsia cry out that we must eradicate evil from our midst? And where is the Attorney General? After all, people were arrested on charges of incitement and sedition for far less than that.

5.

This Shabbat we will read about the spies that Moses sent to scout Canaan and gather intelligence ahead of its conquest. The spies returned from their mission and spoke in praise of the land, but instead of concentrating on the facts that Moses had asked for, they made themselves advisors and expressed reservations at what they had seen: "However, the people that dwell in the land are fierce, and the cities are fortified, and very great; and moreover, we saw the children of Anak there."Moreover, the land was full of might peoples, and they "spread an evil report of the land which they had spied out." The people were swayed by the spies' report, and they blamed the leadership for bringing them out of Egypt only to kill them in a war for "this land" (the land had become a hateful object). What use did they have for war and international pressure? The peoples of the region want to remove us from our land and the effort required amidst this reality to maintain a strong society with Torah and science, economy and education, cultural foundations, is enormous. We would be better off in the desert or in Germany, France or the United States, and live at the mercy of others, they say.

The people said: "Let us make a captain and let us return into Egypt." They had forgotten in little time that they had come from the House of Bondage, from the concentration and labor camps, from newborn males being thrown into the Nile, from the cruelties and the horrors they had suffered for so long. At that moment, fear dictated their thoughts. The night that the Children of Israel cried and despaired they would never enter the Promised Land has since been marked as the root of all our troubles; our sages noted the date, Tisha B'Av! (the 9^th of Av) Since then and throughout history, the sin of the spies hung as a sword over the people, disenchantment with the land our fathers yearned for, a poison chalice for the destruction of the first and second temples and for our long exile.

The great test was the atonement for this sin, returning from exile despite the dangers, and clinging to the land while settling in it and making it bloom. The test is not over. Hamas and Hezbollah, the Palestinian Authority and Iran and other enemies seek to expel us from our country. The war does not end with eradicating evil and destroying terrorists; it requires us to strengthen our hold on all parts of the Land of Israel and deepen our roots there. In the face of cries of despair, we repeat today the immortal cry of Joshua and Caleb: "The land that we traversed and scouted is an exceedingly good land."

The post For we shall surely overcome appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.