24 January 2017

Generals Mattis and Kelly Confirmed in Trump Government

Gen. James Mattis, Gen. John Kelly Confirmed For Trump Cabinet Spots

General Mattis: A Warrior Diplomat

Gen. James Mattis was confirmed as Secretary of Defense and Gen. John Kelly was confirmed as Secretary of Homeland Security in a pair of Friday evening votes.

Mattis was approved by a vote of 98-1. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., was the lone vote against. Kelly was approved 88-11. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., did not vote on either Kelly or Mattis. Sessions has been nominated to be Attorney General.

Trump signed the commissions for Mattis and Kelly later Friday. Vice President Mike Pence swore in both Generals.

Read more at General Mattis Confirmed and yeranenyaakov 

Gen. Mattis is known as an intellectual in the military ranks, and was once called a “warrior monk.” He reportedly has a library of 7,000 volumes, is fond of reading diplomatic cables, and has carried with him on all his deployments a 

The legend of Antoninus (Marcus Aurelius) begins with his earliest youth. The mother of Rebbi exchanged her son soon after his birth for Antoninus—the child of an intimate acquaintance. In this way she and her child managed to escape the officers of Hadrian, who were persecuting the woman because she had her son circumcised. As a consequence Antoninus imbibed with his milk a love for Jews and Judaism (Tos. 'Ab. Zarah, 10b); and it was Rebbi, the son of this vicarious mother, who served as the guide and friend of Antoninus; succeeding finally in getting him to embrace Judaism (Yer. Meg. i. 72b; B. H. vi. 130, 131).

He is called "the father of "(Severus) by the Babylonian Talmud, but which Roman emperor is actually meant by this name can hardly be determined. He has in turn been identified with Marcus Aurelius (Rapoport and Bodek), Septimius Severus (Graetz, who identifies Rebbi with Judah ha-Nasi.)

[…] In like manner Antoninus could not see why the Jewish law appointed certain hours for prayer, since the latter should be offered at any time that the impulse to devotion was felt (Tan. ed. Buber i. 196); Rabbi accordingly showed him by an apt illustration. But sometimes, on the other hand, it was Antoninus who instructed Rabbi, making, for instance, the statement that while the unborn child receives its vital principle at conception, the germ of mentality and its concomitant, evil inclination, are received at birth only (Sanh. l.c.).


§ § § § §

The father, the previous emperor Antoninus Pius was known as a man of exceptional kindliness […] His adopted son (and son-in-law) is still famed for his philosophic work, “Meditations of Marcus Aurelius”. “He exceedingly loved to engage in the study of wisdom (Dio Cassius 71,1) and it is certain that he read the Greek version of the scriptures and was inspired. Rabbi Judah the Nasi (“Rebbi”) probably met him at Rome.

Marcus Aurelius resided for a time in the Land of Israel at Caesaria, when Rebbi was at Zippori (where he spent the last 17 years of his life, e except for a short time before his death when he resided at Beth Shearim), and a most unusual episode in history transpired at that time.

The Roman emperor became the devoted disciple of the Nasi. By means of one of the underground tunnels (which abounded in the Land of Israel and which were famous in the war of Betar), Antoninus visited his teacher frequently and sought his counsel not only in matters of mind and soul, but also in the affairs of government. The relationship between these two was a perilous secret which was never divulged to anyone (except Rebbi’s closest disciples) during the lifetime of the two participants.

Now was fulfilled the *true function of Esav as foretold: “The elder shall serve the younger” (Bereshis 25:23). Had Esav been subservient to his greater younger brother, the history of Mankind would have been very different. Here, something of the kind took place. The ruler of the mightiest nation of the gentiles became a loyal disciple of the greatest Jew of the time, and thereby was accomplished an achievement of the very greatest magnitude: the Closing of the Mishnah.

Source: Exalted People [History of Am Yisroel from Destruction of Second Temple down to the Sealing of the Talmud], by Rabbi Avigdor Miller zt”l (5744)

His Alleged Conversion

The earlier legend sees in Antoninus only the Godfearing non-Jew, so well inclined toward Judaism that he erected an altar to the Jewish God, without actually becoming a Jew (Yer. Meg. i. 72b; thus also probably Midr. Teh. xxii. 24). The later legend, however, regards him as the type of the true proselyte, , and it is affirmed that at the resurrection he will arise and be the leader of all proselytes (Yer. Meg. l.c., Lev. R. iii.). The cause of his conversion is said to have been his inquiry of Rabbi whether he would be entitled to partake of Leviathan in the future world. Rabbi assured him he would be considered worthy, but Antoninus would not believe him, because the law concerning the paschal lamb (Ex. xii. 48) states distinctly that no uncircumcised one shall partake of that.

He accordingly entered the covenant of Abraham and became a Jew (Yer. Meg. l.c.). This is also in the Talmud, Sanhedrin, Cheilik, Ch 11, page 91a, in a discussion of Antoninus and Rebbi; also in footnote (37) on same page.

Source: JewishEncyclopedia/article 1617


Let us hope we see similar good relations between “warrior monk” General Mattis and the Jewish Nation, who stated:

“Every action we take will be designed to ensure our military is ready to fight today and in the future,” Mattis said. “Recognizing that no nation is secure without friends, we will work with the State Department, to strengthen our alliances. Further, we are devoted to gaining full value from every taxpayer dollar spent on defense, thereby earning the trust of Congress and the American people.” Matzav

23 January 2017

Special Announcement


I have been wondering for some time now, and on Shabbat my husband and I discussed it. Now I know what was penetrating my thoughts, min HaShamayim:

"Yered (ירד), implying “descent.” According to one opinion, Miriam gave him this name, for because of him she went down (yarad) to the Nile to see what would become of him. Alternatively, Moses was called this name because he brought the Torah down to the Jewish people, and the Divine Presence back down to this physical world."


IY"H that Jared, Yered, is 
Mashiach ben Yosef"!!

My last comment on Dov bar Leib’s blog was:

There is a reason that Hashem is showering this beautiful young couple with grace, chein, riches, and a powerful government position. The world is changing, and as we know all that happens in the world is only because of His children, Am Yisrael. There should be excitement in the air, despite all the negative noise – the same noise we hear on Yom Kippur – to confuse the Satan.

And now the matter is known to me:

The “noise to confuse the Satan” was the bringing into power Donald J. Trump, and the noise was the opposition which truly confused the evil, but in His Infinite Wisdom, created the foundation for the entrance into the realm of specialness, his son-in-law.


With all my heart I hope this is the Will of Hashem. Time will tell, we need to keep an open mind and heart in this matter.

The IDF MAG – Being the Last Stronghold of the Leftist Anti-Israel Ideology

The JPOST Article Headline Reads: 
 The IDF’s Judicial Empire in Judea and Samaria
by Moshe Dann

What Does This Mean?

Israel cannot claim to be a democracy as long as nearly a half-million of its citizens are under the IDF’s anti-settlement judicial dictatorship.

In response to calls from the international community and anti-Israel organizations to “end the occupation,” referring to the presence of Jews in Area C of Judea and Samaria, aka “the settlers,” supporters of Israel respond: “We are not occupying someone else’s land; this land belongs to Israel and the Jewish people by law and by history.”

But the IDF’s judicial system in Area C, aka “the occupied territories,” which represents the state, composed of the Military Advocate General (MAG), the IDF Prosecutor’s Office, and the Civil Administration takes a position in line with Israel’s critics and the international community. As MAG’s website states, Area C, in which all settlements are located, is “subject to belligerent occupation,” which means “the occupation of territory belonging to another country.”

The young soldier recruits are being held hostage by the Military Advocate General, the IDF Prosecutor’s Office and the Civil Administration on one hand, and their moral courage and defense of Israeli citizens on the other hand.

"MAG’s decisions have led directly and indirectly to the murder of Israeli Jews"

According to this law, territory gained as a result of a war, any war, including a defensive one, is not legitimate. It implies that “the sovereignty of the occupied territory is not vested in the occupying power and is essentially provisional,” but it does not assign sovereignty to any country.

Israel’s High Court also takes the position that Israel is in “belligerent occupation” of the “occupied territories.” Although it maintains that the status of the territories is unclear, it has never ruled on the question. This issue is examined by Prof. David Kretzmer, in his study, “The law of belligerent occupation in the Supreme Court of Israel” (International Review of the Red Cross, 2012).

"To whom, then, does Judea and Samaria belong?"
"MAG applies Jordanian Law"

[…] Jordan invaded Judea and Samaria in 1948 as part of genocidal war against the newly established state, committed war crimes and established an illegal and brutal regime that was not recognized by the international community.

[…] MAG decided that Jordanian law prevails in Area C, as it does in the Palestinian Authority-controlled areas. MAG’s decisions not only deny the rights of the Jewish people to their homeland, they seem to be contrary to what most of the Israeli government believes.

[…] In the absence of a government decision to extend Israeli law to Area C, therefore, the “rule of law” is whatever MAG and the High Court decide. MAG has sole and exclusive power and jurisdiction and it dictates what rules apply in disputes over land ownership.

Ironically, even bizarrely, the IDF’s legal system in Area C, the High Court and thus the Israeli government are legitimizing the claim that Israel is occupying Palestinian territory, and that Israelis/Jews are stealing private Palestinian land.

"When cases are brought against Jewish farmers, homeowners, or even IDF security measures, MAG provides misinformation to the High Court, which orders the destruction of Jewish property and changes in security infrastructure."

[…] Instead of protecting Jews, MAG seeks to destroy Jewish property and Jewish communities, such as Amona and parts of Ofra, while promoting fraudulent and non-existent Arab land claims. MAG squanders millions on destroying Jewish property, while allowing Arabs and Beduin to take over state-owned land, aided by the European Union and other anti-Israel organizations. The IDF’s legal system in Judea and Samaria is directed by high-ranking officers who oppose the settlement movement.

"We are being stabbed in the back by our own."
"We need to 'drain this swamp.'”

Read the full article HERE


In my post on Amona, An Assessment … of Private Land (from Regavim), I outlined Six Errors of the establishment concerning the governance of the Land. The above article on the IDF MAG lays out the anti-Israel strategy to destroy ….
Read more about Regavim HERE and HERE and HERE.

The Philosophical Division is between the Israelis who go by the International Anti-Israel UN Nations vs. the Israelis who abide by the First Rashi in the Chumash:

"In the beginning: Said Rabbi Isaac: It was not necessary to begin the Torah except from “This month is to you,” (Exod. 12:2) which is the first commandment that the Israelites were commanded, (for the main purpose of the Torah is its commandments, and although several commandments are found in Genesis, e.g., circumcision and the prohibition of eating the thigh sinew, they could have been included together with the other commandments). Now for what reason did He commence with “In the beginning?” Because of [the verse] “The strength of His works He related to His people, to give them the inheritance of the nations” (Ps. 111:6). For if the nations of the world should say to Israel, “You are robbers, for you conquered by force the lands of the seven nations [of Canaan],” they will reply, "The entire earth belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He; He created it (this we learn from the story of the Creation) and gave it to whomever He deemed proper When He wished, He gave it to them, and when He wished, He took it away from them and gave it to us." Chabad: Bereshis with Rashi

22 January 2017

The Real Impact of 2334 – Totally Territorial

The below article was a link from a commenter on Reb Dov bar Leib’s blog: End of Days, (the days of which are quickly tightening its noose around the borders of the Land – Eretz Yisrael)

The *Real Impact of 2334 Has Yet To Come

UN Security Council resolution 2334 caught Prime Minister Netanyahu off guard. Out of the clear blue sky. From a territorial perspective, which is the heart of 2334, the Security Council resolution represents an escalation in the way the international community relates to Israel’s borders and its settlements in the West Bank.

The Israeli prime minister read the resolution carefully. Netanyahu’s fiery response — as if the United States was part of some conspiracy and abandoning Israel — is the other side of the strength and surprise of the resolution.

From its first line, the Security Council resolution ties itself to one of the most important resolutions relating to the Middle East: Security Council Resolution 242 of November 1967. Resolution 2334 opens by citing and reaffirming the most important pillar of 242: the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war — a rejection of unilateral annexation. From here on out, the international community’s authoritative interpretation that Israel’s legitimate borders are the pre-1967 lines will be based not only on Resolution 242, but also on 2334. The Security Council drew a line in the sand, or rather, a border: the border between the State of Israel and the State of Palestine.

In order to prevent any misunderstanding or a repeat of Israel’s attempts to play down this interpretation, as it did with 242, paragraph 3 of Resolution 2334 spells out that Israel’s borders should be understood within the context of the June 4, 1967 lines. The world will not recognize any unilateral changes to the ’67 lines. The resolution also makes clear that the settlements have no legal validity (paragraph 1), and that they are a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-state solution (paragraph 4).

Resolution 2334 further adopts the European Union’s approach and builds on the “Mogherini Doctrine” of labeling settlement products and applies it to diplomacy, economics, finance, and science fields. Paragraph 5 explicitly calls on states to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.

It is true that Resolution 2334 includes East Jerusalem as part of the occupied territories, but the international community has always treated Jerusalem and its holy places separately (starting from its designation as a corpus separatum in the 1947 partition plan). With regards to Jerusalem, the international community (and the Palestinians, it appears) have accepted the Clinton Parameters: East Jerusalem’s Jewish neighborhoods to Israel; its Arab neighborhoods to Palestine.

There are those in Israel who attempted to diminish the importance of Resolution 2334. They hung their hopes on President-elect Donald Trump overturning the UN resolution. It’s not clear how they think Trump could somehow pull back a document that enjoys such international consensus. People close to Netanyahu seem to believe everything will be resolved when, in the Israeli prime minister’s first meeting with soon-to-be President Trump, the two will renew the Bush-Sharon letter of 2004.

The exchange of letters between then-President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has gained almost metaphysical status among those Israelis who believe in annexing the West Bank, and the right wing regularly waves it around. As far as they are concerned, renewing the Bush-Sharon letter would put Israeli-American relations back on the right track — by giving tacit American approval to annexing the “settlement blocs.” That amorphous catch-all, “settlement blocs,” could be interpreted to include most of the Israeli settlements in Area C (60 percent of the West Bank) — leaving only non-contiguous Palestinian enclaves. The problem with this argument: there is no factual foundation for a U.S. policy that allows Israel to annex “settlement blocs” that would stay under Israeli control in a final status agreement. And there is no such promise in the Bush-Sharon letter.

Relying on the Bush-Sharon letter as if it declared once and for all that Israel can unilaterally expand its borders is shaky logic at best. In his letter to Sharon, President Bush mentions the United States’ commitment to an independent Palestinian state no fewer than six times. “[T]he United States supports the establishment of a Palestinian state that is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent,” is the exact quote. President Obama made a nearly identical statement in his 2011 speech at the State Department, and it constitutes the first parameter of John Kerry’s speech explaining Washington’s support of Resolution 2334.

In fact, the Bush-Sharon letter mentions neither “settlement blocs” nor the annexation of any blocs to the State of Israel — not even the Jordan valley. The paragraph that talks about borders actually notes that they should be resolved in accordance with UN Resolution 242. In the same paragraph, President Bush clarifies that, “in light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.” In other words: the armistice lines from Israel’s War of Independence, which defined the State of Israel until June 1967, are the basis for Israel’s recognized borders.

The term “population centers” can be interpreted in different ways to include, inter alia: urban population centers, neighborhoods in East Jerusalem and settlements. But not “settlement blocs” that eat up large swaths of land in the West Bank. President Bush made clear — and President Obama reiterated this position — that the inclusion of such population centers will be part of a final status agreement that “will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.” Unilateral annexation is not an acceptable option.

Secretary Kerry’s parameters speech reiterated the American interpretation of the Bush-Sharon letter. It included no indication of granting legitimacy to unilaterally annexing settlement blocs — quite the opposite. Certain settlements are likely to become part of Israel only as part of negotiations leading to an agreement between Israel and Palestine on the basis of pre-’67 lines with mutually agreed land swaps. That is how the United States has expressed its clear and absolute objection to unilateral annexation. One can presume that even clearer messages have been delivered via diplomatic channels.

Presidents Obama and Bush held nearly identical positions on the territorial issues. It’s difficult to assume that President Trump will turn that stance on its head — it is a position that Washington has held consistently since Resolution 242 and the 1969 Rogers Plan that included minor territorial adjustments. From the American standpoint, the two-state formula based on 1967 lines is the only solution that can prevent a one-state apartheid model (the main part of Kerry’s speech) and which can bring about peace accords between Israel and the Arab world (the Arab Peace Initiative). Secretary Kerry indicated that there can be no regional peace accords made by taking shortcuts and bypassing the creation of an independent Palestine.

Security Council Resolution 2334 is territorial by nature, and it fits the United States’ approach to territorial matters in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It represents the basic American stance with regards to territory and borders. It is because of that alignment that the United States allowed it to pass.

There are also operative aspects. The new Security Council resolution also links itself to the Paris Peace Conference, which according to its mandate adopted in June 2016 is meant to “fully [end] the Israeli occupation that began in 1967.” Along with Kerry’s parameters speech, Resolution 2334 is meant to serve as an outline and platform for the Paris Conference, which is meant to reconvene on January 15, 2017, in order to advance the French initiative.

The obligation to report back to the UN secretary general about the settlements and to issue progress reports every three months (paragraph 12 of Resolution 2334) will ensure that the matter doesn’t drop off the global agenda. Likewise, we can expect the innovative use of technology to monitor settlement growth. Instead of maps by Peace Now, you can expect satellite imagery to be used. The difference in impact will be huge.

UN Security Council Resolution 2334, taken together with Resolution 242, lays out a new paradigm for the world powers’ approach to the question of what are Israel’s borders. The resolution reiterates the international consensus whereby the status quo in the West Bank cannot continue, and demands urgent steps in order to create a situation to enable a two-state solution along pre-1967 lines. 

Territory is the name of the game. 

All the other parts of a final status solution stem from it.

Shemuel Meir is a former IDF analyst and associate researcher at the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University. Today he is an independent researcher on nuclear and strategic issues and author of the “Strategic Discourse” blog, which appears in Haaretz. Reprinted, with permission, from +972 Magazine.

*Source : Lobelog


See Also: Breitbart: Five Anti-Israel …. 
as was covered by ShiratDevorah: Results of Declaration …. 
and TomerDevorah: The Real Problem ….

21 January 2017

The Value of Torah Learning

The Value of Learning Torah
Rabbi Yosef Mizrachi In Lev Aarons Yeshiva In Jerusalem: (Jan 2017)

20 January 2017

Parashas Shemos:  Easy Come, Easy Go?

Parashas Shemos
Rabbi Pinchas Winston

In your opinion, which was a more difficult exile for the Jewish people, the one in Egypt or the Babylonia exile that ended with the Purim miracle? I would have thought the Egyptian exile was the worst, given all the torture and death to which the Jewish people were subject. Babylonia ALMOST resulted in genocide, but never got that far.

To my surprise, the Zohar says that the Babylonian exile was worse, and the reason is both interesting and instructive. The Jewish people had been used to suffering for a while, between famine and all the years spent in Egyptian exile. When things got worse, the Zohar says, they just adjusted themselves and bore the burden.

It was different with respect to the Babylonian exile. The Jewish people had been on their own land for hundreds of years. They had prospered greatly and even had the Temple for a long period of time. They were used to God being among them. When they went into exile, they lost everything, and the change was extremely dramatic and difficult to bear.

That being the case, what does that say about our exile until now. After the Holocaust, the Jews rebuilt themselves and went beyond past levels of success. Our generations were born into prosperity and have enjoyed relatively universal acceptance compared to all the anti-Semitism from the last 1,000 years at least. Life and history has been good to us until now. We have grown accustomed and even more dangerous, attached to our way life.

Remember the story in the Talmud about the wealthy woman who had to fend for herself as the Roman invasion took its toll on Jewish independence and prosperity (Gittin 56a)? In the end, it wasn’t a Roman spear or catapult that killed her. It was her inability to overcome her pampered living and then suddenly being exposed to something filthy on the road that caused her to die. 

What can we say about our current exile? Even the word itself sounds greatly exaggerated. On one hand, we are not a unified nation living in Eretz Yisroel with a Temple as our centerpiece. On the other hand, life as a Jew has been amazing, for secular and religious Jews. The freedom to live and to practice Judaism is unprecedented in exile at least over the last 1,000 years. In a nutshell, the Jewish people have had it great post-Holocaust. 

Pampered? Tremendously. Dangerously so? We may yet find out. This is why we are fighting so hard to maintain the status quo. We know what life can be like for the Jew, and we dread it. We’d like to believe that the gentile world has moved on since the Holocaust, but many suspect it hasn’t. Now those fears are starting to appear substantiated.

“It is only fair for the Palestinians to have a state of their own,” the argument goes. “It is only right, and legal, that Israel vacate lands they annexed since 1967,” the proponents of a two-state solution argue. “Israel is the one holding up peace,” Israel’s detractors complain bitterly.

What about Gaza? Even though the Arabs never gave anything, Israel worked unilaterally and vacated the premises at great cost to her people and the economy. In the end, we received a terrorist state against which we have fought wars in the meantime, at great cost to the people of Israel and the economy. THE WORLD SAID NOTHING.
The Palestinian educational system has not changed to make possible peace and to make possible trust. This is because it is based upon an ideology that will not change until Moshiach comes. The same ideology is what has greatly increased the crime rate of Western nations that accepted Arab refugees with open arms and no conditions. THE WORLD SAYS NOTHING.

I could go on for pages about why giving the Palestinians their own state, especially with international support, is a bad thing, not just for Israel, but for the world. No need. It would not make the slightest difference to the situation, because the people responsible for slipping the noose around Israel’s neck and tightening it are not acting logically. Their perspective towards reality and the Jewish people, and certainly towards peace, is distorted, very distorted.

This makes it sound as if I am saying that I know this because I have a good handle on reality. It is true, except that it has nothing to do with my IQ, EQ, or any other facet of me. It has to do with Torah. Torah is the most accurate vision of reality we have because it comes from the Source of reality, God Himself. Without Torah, even a person with the best of intentions cannot really fathom reality in any really accurate manner. You have to be an Avraham Avinu to have the ability to do that.

Of course, if you only learn the Written Law, you only get a part of the story. The gentile came to both Shammai and Hillel wanting to convert on the condition that he only have to learn the Written Law (Shabbos 31a). Shammai rejected him outright, and Hillel showed him how he could not properly convert without learning the Oral Law as well. 

This also includes Kabbalah. Torah is never “all or nothing,” but it does demand that a person not stagnate in his learning. As one progresses through Torah, he or she gets more of the big picture, a more accurate vision of reality and how to navigate it. The deeper one delves into Torah, the deeper a person’s version of reality will become.

Perception is a function of assumptions. There is a new book out about how the brain fools us into believing inaccuracies in life. I did not read the book, but I assume that what the author means is that incorrect assumptions about life result in distorted perceptions of reality. It is a person’s distorted perception of reality that leads to abuse, abuse of self, abuse of others, abuse of life.

There are two ways to pick up assumptions about life. They can be learned or they can be absorbed from life itself. The Torah, which is the word of God, teaches correct assumptions, in order to allow a person to develop correct perceptions and to choose a meaningful path in life.

We have an educational system because we have little faith in a child’s ability to assume correctly about life and its experiences. The idea is to pass on accumulated wisdom to the next generation to help them to avoid the mistakes previous generations have made. The trouble is that secular educational systems fall far short of the most important assumptions about life. This is why society can be so off in its approach and solutions to problems, such as the one in the Middle-East.

This is how it was supposed to work. The Jewish people received Torah from God, and were supposed to become experts in it. The Sanhedrin, the Jewish High Court, was supposed to exist to oversee the entire educational operation, and to make sure that the Jewish nation stayed on spiritual track.

The gentile world was supposed to learn Torah as well, but only as much as was necessary for them to be righteous human being (i.e., keeping the 7 Noachide laws). The Jewish people were supposed to educate and guide them, answering all questions that arose which they could not resolve according to the Torah framework in which they lived. 

This, of course, did not happen. Instead, the non-Jewish world educated itself. Some Torah concepts managed to make it into their societies, but they adapted them as they saw fit. They even used many against the Jewish people, forcing conversion or offering death as an alternative. 

This is the way it has continued until the world got to where it is today.  Torah is not only not held in high esteem, it is ridiculed. Jewish advisors exist, but not to impart Torah wisdom. Many stand with the gentile world today against the Jewish people, wondering what it will take to eliminate the distinction between Jew and gentile altogether. 

One of the reasons why Jews have always stayed in exile too long is because they have assumed that others would not do unto them what they would not do unto others. By the time they found out otherwise, the means to do anything about it were gone. By the time they realized how different their enemy’s assumptions about life were from theirs, they were already victims of their enemy’s mistaken perceptions.

Here we are, once again, late in history facing off against nations of the world whose assumptions about history are very different from ours. We keep trying to re-educate them, but they won’t be re-educated. We don’t have the credibility, and many don’t even have the credentials. Those who do are off to themselves waiting for Moshiach to make the world the way it is supposed be.

The question is, what can be done at this late stage? How do we protect ourselves against false assumptions and perceptions that are bent on reducing the size of Eretz Yisroel and endangering the Jewish people? The opportunity for preventative medicine is gone. The patient is already sick and in need of a cure.

There is only one. We see it in this week’s parsha. The same thing happened in Egypt. When we came to Egypt, we commanded respect. We had a chance to maintain that respect, and soften the exile. Instead, we abandoned the ways of our fathers, and instead let the Egyptians go their own direction. The result was all the harshness of exile that eventually followed.

By the time the situation became intensely bad, there was no way to reverse the trend. The only solution, one into which we were forced in the end, was to cry out to God, not our local congressmen. We became compelled to beg God for His help, not the leader of a superpower. After all, it’s God’s world, His history, created for man to come to recognize and acknowledge his Creator, not to reject Him.

You can be sure that whatever happens from this point onward will be to this end. The sooner we realize it, the sooner we can end the insanity that is backing the Jewish people into a very dangerous corner.