Friday 2 January 2009

PARSHAT VAYIGASH: JOSEPH IN EGYPT



In this week’s Torah portion we read about the powerful encounter Joseph experiences with his older brothers, who still remain clueless that the ruler they stand before is in fact Joseph, their younger brother. After two decades since Joseph was sold into slavery by these very same brothers, he can’t hold back his emotions any longer and must speak the truth, and he tells them “…I am Joseph…” [Genesis: 45: 3] If one were to look at the verse immediately before this confession, a question may be raised, the verse says:

“He (Joseph) gave forth his voice in weeping. Egypt heard, and Pharaoh’s household heard.”
Isn’t it obvious that if the entire land of Egypt heard this weeping, surely Pharaoh’s household would be included in this hearing!? Why was it necessary to superfluously mention “Pharaoh’s household”!?

As the Torah continues the moving dialogue between Joseph and his brothers, Joseph tells his brothers not to feel ashamed about how they wronged him and he assures them that this was all a divine plan. He tells them that God has placed him “…as a master of his (Pharaoh’s) entire household, and as a ruler in the entire land of Egypt” [Genesis: 45: 8]

We see clearly that Joseph plays a dual role in Egypt; he is involved with the trials and tribulations of the nation itself, and he also cares for his boss (Pharaoh) and his personal affairs.


Normally, one would imagine that Joseph would show an extra amount of diligence and care in his service to his boss than in his service to the people, for Pharaoh is the only one who truly has power over him. However, Joseph didn’t act this way; he gave more of himself to the people and their problems, than to Pharaoh and his problems. Joseph believed that his job entailed a higher purpose which was to take care of a nation and solve their thousands of issues, and never felt the need to “suck up” to Pharaoh. Therefore, Joseph maintained a closer relationship with each and every Egyptian citizen than with Pharaoh and his household.

So when Joseph was going through this tough time with his brothers, it was the people of Egypt who understood (Note: The Hebrew word for “hearing” is very often translated as “understanding”) and showed their support first, and only then Pharaoh and his household.

This idea can even be seen when Joseph tells his brothers to send their father a message saying that “…God has set me (Joseph) as a master to all Egypt…” [Genesis: 45: 9] Why didn’t Joseph also include his other job as “master over Pharaoh’s household” in his message to his father? It’s because he wanted the first thing his father to hear was that, although he has been away in the highly cultured and corrupt society of Egypt for such a long time, he still remains a moral individual with righteous values.


Joseph’s character can really teach us something, especially in our day and age. For those of us who work, and for those of us who are still deciding what profession to pursue, it’s important to ask ourselves: “Am I working in order to serve a higher purpose?”

Good Shabbos
taken from : Tzipiyah.com

Life in Israel: How far are you from Gaza?

Life in Israel: How far are you from Gaza?

DID ISRAEL USE "DISPROPORTIONATE FORCE" IN GAZA ?

Did Israel Use "Disproportionate Force" in Gaza?


Dore Gold

Israeli population centers in southern Israel have been the target of over 4,000 rockets, as well as thousands of mortar shells, fired by Hamas and other organizations since 2001. Rocket attacks increased by 500 percent after Israel withdrew completely from the Gaza Strip in August 2005. During an informal six-month lull, some 215 rockets were launched at Israel.

The charge that Israel uses disproportionate force keeps resurfacing whenever it has to defend its citizens from non-state terrorist organizations and the rocket attacks they perpetrate. From a purely legal perspective, Israel's current military actions in Gaza are on solid ground. According to international law, Israel is not required to calibrate its use of force precisely according to the size and range of the weaponry used against it.

Ibrahim Barzak and Amy Teibel wrote for the Associated Press on December 28 that most of the 230 Palestinians who were reportedly killed were "security forces," and Palestinian officials said "at least 15 civilians were among the dead." The numbers reported indicate that there was no clear intent to inflict disproportionate collateral civilian casualties. What is critical from the standpoint of international law is that if the attempt has been made "to minimize civilian damage, then even a strike that causes large amounts of damage - but is directed at a target with very large military value - would be lawful."

Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, explained that international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court "permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur." The attack becomes a war crime when it is directed against civilians (which is precisely what Hamas does).

After 9/11, when the Western alliance united to collectively topple the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, no one compared Afghan casualties in 2001 to the actual numbers that died from al-Qaeda's attack. There clearly is no international expectation that military losses in war should be on a one-to-one basis. To expect Israel to hold back in its use of decisive force against legitimate military targets in Gaza is to condemn it to a long war of attrition with Hamas.


Israel is currently benefiting from a limited degree of understanding in international diplomatic and media circles for launching a major military operation against Hamas on December 27. Yet there are significant international voices that are prepared to argue that Israel is using disproportionate force in its struggle against Hamas.


Israeli Population Centers Under Rocket Attack

There are good reasons why initial criticism of Israel has been muted. After all, Israeli population centers in southern Israel have been the target of over 4,000 rockets, as well as thousands of mortar shells, fired by Hamas and other organizations since 2001.1 The majority of those attacks were launched after Israel withdrew completely from the Gaza Strip in August 2005. Indeed, rocket attacks increased by 500 percent (from 179 to 946) from 2005 to 2006.

Moreover, lately Hamas has been extending the range of its striking capability even further with new rockets supplied by Iran. Hamas used a 20.4-kilometer-range Grad/Katyusha for the first time on March 28, 2006, bringing the Israeli city of Ashkelon into range of its rockets for the first time. That change increased the number of Israelis under threat from 200,000 to half a million.2 Moreover, on December 21, 2008, Yuval Diskin, Head of the Israel Security Agency, informed the Israeli government that Hamas had acquired rockets that could reach Ashdod, Kiryat Gat, and even the outskirts of Beersheba.3 The first Grad/Katyusha strike on Ashdod, in fact, took place on December 28. There had been no formal cease-fire between Israel and Hamas, but only an informal six-month tahadiya (lull), during which 215 rockets were launched at Israel.4 On December 21, Hamas unilaterally announced that the tahadiya had ended.


Critical Voices

On December 27, 2008, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesmen issued a statement saying that while the Secretary-General recognized "Israel's security concerns regarding the continued firing of rockets from Gaza," he reiterated "Israel's obligation to uphold international humanitarian and human rights law." The statement specifically noted that he "condemns excessive use of force leading to the killing and injuring of civilians [emphasis added]."5

A day later, Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights "strongly condemned Israel's disproportionate use of force." French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who holds the rotating presidency of the European Union, also condemned Israel's "disproportionate use of force," while demanding an end to rocket attacks on Israel.6 Brazil also joined this chorus, criticizing Israel's "disproportionate response."7 Undoubtedly, a powerful impression has been created by large Western newspaper headlines that describe massive Israeli airstrikes in Gaza, without any up-front explanation for their cause.


Proportionality and International Law: The Protection of Innocent Civilians

The charge that Israel uses disproportionate force keeps resurfacing whenever it has to defend its citizens from non-state terrorist organizations and the rocket attacks they perpetrate. From a purely legal perspective, Israel's current military actions in Gaza are on solid ground. According to international law, Israel is not required to calibrate its use of force precisely according to the size and range of the weaponry used against it (Israel is not expected to make Kassam rockets and lob them back into Gaza).

When international legal experts use the term "disproportionate use of force," they have a very precise meaning in mind. As the President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, Rosalyn Higgins, has noted, proportionality "cannot be in relation to any specific prior injury - it has to be in relation to the overall legitimate objective of ending the aggression."8 In other words, if a state, like Israel, is facing aggression, then proportionality addresses whether force was specifically used by Israel to bring an end to the armed attack against it. By implication, force becomes excessive if it is employed for another purpose, like causing unnecessary harm to civilians. The pivotal factor determining whether force is excessive is the intent of the military commander. In particular, one has to assess what was the commander's intent regarding collateral civilian damage.9

What about reports concerning civilian casualties? Some international news agencies have stressed that the vast majority of those killed in the first phase of the current Gaza operation were Hamas operatives. Ibrahim Barzak and Amy Teibel wrote for the Associated Press on December 28 that most of the 230 Palestinians who were reportedly killed were "security forces," and Palestinian officials said "at least 15 civilians were among the dead."10 It is far too early to definitely assess Palestinian casualties, but even if they increase, the numbers reported indicate that there was no clear intent to inflict disproportionate collateral civilian casualties.

During the Second Lebanon War, Professor Michael Newton of Vanderbilt University was in email communication with William Safire of the New York Times about the issue of proportionality and international law. Newton had been quoted by the Council on Foreign Relations as explaining proportionality by proposing a test: "If someone punches you in the nose, you don't burn down their house." He was serving as an international criminal law expert in Baghdad and sought to correct the impression given by his quote. According to Newton, no responsible military commander intentionally targets civilians, and he accepted that this was Israeli practice.

What was critical from the standpoint of international law was that if the attempt had been made "to minimize civilian damage, then even a strike that causes large amounts of damage - but is directed at a target with very large military value - would be lawful."11 Numbers matter less than the purpose of the use of force. Israel has argued that it is specifically targeting facilities serving the Hamas regime and its determined effort to continue its rocket assault on Israel: headquarters, training bases, weapons depots, command and control networks, and weapons-smuggling tunnels. This way Israel is respecting the international legal concept of proportionality.

Alternatively, disproportionality would occur if the military sought to attack even if the value of a target selected was minimal in comparison with the enormous risk of civilian collateral damage. This point was made by Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, on February 9, 2006, in analyzing the Iraq War. He explained that international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court "permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks [emphasis added] against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur." The attack becomes a war crime when it is directed against civilians (which is precisely what Hamas does) or when "the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage."12 In fact, Israeli legal experts right up the chain of command within the IDF make this calculation before all military operations of this sort.


Proportionality as a Strategic Issue

Moving beyond the question of international law, the charge that Israel is using a disproportionate amount of force in the Gaza Strip because of reports of Palestinian casualties has to be looked at critically. Israelis have often said among themselves over the last seven years that when a Hamas rocket makes a direct strike on a crowded school, killing many children, then Israel will finally act.

This scenario raises the question of whether the doctrine of proportionality requires that Israel wait for this horror to occur, or whether Israel could act on the basis of the destructive capability of the arsenal Hamas already possesses, the hostile declarations of intent of its leaders, and its readiness to use its rocket forces already. Alan Dershowitz noted two years ago: "Proportion must be defined by reference to the threat proposed by an enemy and not by the harm it has produced." Waiting for a Hamas rocket to fall on an Israeli school, he rightly notes, would put Israel in the position of allowing "its enemies to play Russian Roulette with its children."13

The fundamental fact is that in fighting terrorism, no state is willing to play Russian Roulette. After the U.S. was attacked on 9/11, the Western alliance united to collectively topple the Taliban regime in Afghanistan; no one compared Afghan casualties in 2001 to the actual numbers that died from al-Qaeda's attack. Given that al-Qaeda was seeking non-conventional capabilities, it was essential to wage a campaign to deny it the sanctuary it had enjoyed in Afghanistan, even though that struggle continues right up to the present.


Is There Proportionality Against Military Forces?

And in fighting counterinsurgency wars, most armies seek to achieve military victory by defeating the military capacity of an adversary, as efficiently as possible. There clearly is no international expectation that military losses in war should be on a one-to-one basis; most armies seek to decisively eliminate as many enemy forces as possible while minimizing their own losses of troops. There are NATO members who have been critical of "Israel's disproportionate use of force," while NATO armies take pride in their "kill ratios" against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Moreover, decisive military action against an aggressor has another effect: it increases deterrence.14 To expect Israel to hold back in its use of decisive force against legitimate military targets in Gaza is to condemn it to a long war of attrition with Hamas.

The loss of any civilian lives is truly regrettable. Israel has cancelled many military operations because of its concern with civilian casualties. But should civilian losses occur despite the best efforts of Israel to avoid them, it is ultimately not Israel's responsibility. As political philosopher Michael Walzer noted in 2006: "When Palestinian militants launch rocket attacks from civilian areas, they are themselves responsible - and no one else is - for the civilian deaths caused by Israeli counterfire."15

International critics of Israel may be looking to craft balanced statements that spread the blame for the present conflict to both sides. But they would be better served if they did not engage in this artificial exercise, and clearly distinguish the side that is the aggressor in this conflict - Hamas - and the side that is trying to defeat the aggression - Israel.

* * *

Notes

1. For numbers of rockets, see Dore Gold, "Israel's War to Halt Palestinian Rocket Attacks," Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 7, No. 34, March 3, 2008, Institute of Contemporary Affairs/Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=442&PID=0&IID=2049&TTL=Israel's_War_to_Halt_Palestinian_Rocket_Attacks. See also December 2008 publications on www.intelligence.org.il.

2. Robert Berger, "Israeli Official Warns of Growing Hamas Military Threat," Voice of America News, voa.com, May 17, 2008, http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-05/2008-05-17-voa23.cfm?CFID=85151341&CFTOKEN=44257801.

3. "News of Terrorism and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict," Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Israel Intelligence Heritage and Commemoration Center (IICC), December 16-23, 2008, http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/ipc_e006.pdf.

4. "Intensive Rocket Fire Attacks Again Western Negev Population Center and the Ashqelon Region after Hamas Announces the End of the Lull Agreement," IICC, December 21, 2008, http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/hamas_e018.pdf,

5. "Secretary-General Urges Immediate Halt to Renewed Israeli-Palestinian Violence," UN News Service, December 27, 2008, http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=2425&Cr=Palestin&Cr1=.

6. "World Reacts to Israel Strikes in Gaza," Deutsche Welle, dw-world.de, December 28, 2008, http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,3905288,00.html.

7. Brazil Criticizes Israeli Attack on Gaza: Special Report: Palestine-Israel Relations," China View, http://www.chinaview.cn/, December 28, 2008, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-12/28/content_10570016.htm.

8. R. Higgins, cited in "Responding to Hamas Attacks from Gaza - Issues of Proportionality Background Paper," Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, March 2008, http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Law/Legal+Issues+and+Rulings/Responding%20to%20Hamas%20attacks%20from%20Gaza%20-%20Issues%20of%20Proportionality%20-%20March%202008.

9. Abraham Bell, "International Law and Gaza: The Assault on Israel's Right to Self-Defense," Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 7, No. 29, January 28, 2008, Institute for Contemporary Affairs/Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=442&PID=0&IID=2021&TTL=International_Law_and_Gaza:_The_Assault_on_Israel's_Right_to_Self-Defense.

10. Ibrahim Barzak and Amy Teibel, "Israeli Assault on Hamas Kills More than 200," Associated Press, December 28, 2008, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081227/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians/print.
11. William Safire, "Proportionality," New York Times, August 13, 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/13/magazine/13wwln_safire.html.

12. Office of the Prosecutor, International Criminal Court, The Hague, February 9, 2008, http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/organs/otp/OTP_letter_to_senders_re_Iraq_9_February_2006.pdf.
13. Alan Dershowitz, "The Hamas Government Has Declared War Against Israel: How Should Israel Respond?" Huffington Post, March 14, 2008, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/the-hamas-government-has-_b_91630.html.

14. Richard Cohen, "...No, It's Survival," Washington Post, July 25, 2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/24/AR2006072400808.html.

15. Michael Walzer, "How Aggressive Should Israel Be? War Fair," The New Republic Online, July 31, 2006.

* * *

Dr. Dore Gold, Israel's ambassador to the UN in 1997-99, is President of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and author of Hatred's Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism (Regnery, 2003) and The Fight for Jerusalem: Radical Islam, the West, and the Future of the Holy City (Regnery, 2007).

FIDDLER ON THE ROOF - UM VIOLINO NO TELHADO - NOW ON STAGE IN OPORTO - SOME IMAGES









UNIVERSAL TORAH : VAYIGASH

UNIVERSAL TORAH: VAYIGASH

By Rabbi Avraham Greenbaum

Torah Reading: VAYIGASH Gen. 44:18-47:27; Haftara: Ezekiel 37:15-2.

"AND JUDAH STEPPED FORWARD."


The key to the dramatic encounter between Judah and Joseph with which our parshah of VAYIGASH begins is to be found in the Haftara our sages attached to this parshah: Ezekiel's vision of the joining of the two sticks. One stick the prophet was to inscribe with the names of Judah and the Children of Israel his friends -- the kingdom of Torah Law and spirituality under David. The other stick he was to inscribe "to Joseph Tree of Ephraim and all the House of Israel his friends" -- secular, assimilated Israelite might: economic, political, military, involvement in the material world. The prophet was to join the two sticks and make them one, signifying that they will become --


"One nation in the earth in the mountains of Israel, and one king will be over all of them as King, and they will no longer be two nations and they will no longer be split into two kingdoms. And my servant David will be king over them and one shepherd will be for them all [King Mashiach]. And they will go in My laws and guard My statutes and do them. And they will dwell in the land that I have given to My servant Jacob in which your fathers dwelled, and they and their children and children's children will dwell upon it forever, and David My servant will be Prince to them forever. And I will cut for them a Covenant of Peace, an eternal Covenant will be for them. And I will give them and multiply them and I will put My Holy Temple within them forever. And My Dwelling will be upon them and I will be G-d for them, and they will be My People. And the Nations will know that I am HaShem who sanctifies Israel that My Sanctuary should be among them forever " (Ezekiel 37:28).


The encounter in our parshah between Judah and Joseph is the paradigm of this necessary joining between the two aspects of Israelite being in the world, spiritual and material. For its own existence, the Torah "kingdom" depends upon the successful material presence of Israel in the world, be it in the Land of Israel or in "Goshen". ("Goshen" would include all historical and present-day centers of Jewish sojourn in exile and dispersal east or west.) For "if there is no flour [bread to eat], there is no Torah". Likewise, material Israel cannot survive without true Torah leadership -- Melech HaMashiach. Jacob saw this, which is why "he sent Judah ahead of him to Joseph to rule before him to Goshen" (Gen. 46:28). It is the Torah leader who must rule over Israel, and Torah leadership must direct Israeli worldly power to the nation's prophetic mission of being worthy of building the Temple in the Land of Israel from which the Law will go forth to all the Nations.


* * *


THE POWER OF WORDS


Judah's heart-rending appeal to Joseph (standing there before him as a hard-hearted Egyptian tyrant) is the prototype of the Tzaddik (which may be any one of us) facing MIDAS HADIN (the aspect of G-d's harsh judgment) and using prayer to turn it into RACHAMIM (compassion). Judah appealed to Joseph's heart and to a fundamental sense of FAIRNESS that exists everywhere in the world including among the Gentiles (see "Rabbi Nachman's Wisdom" #78 for a profoundly insightful discussion of this subject.) At some point there is a universal loathing for blatant unfairness


This is because even the Seventy Nations are at root vitalized by a spark of G-dliness deriving from KETER, the "Crown" of G-d's will, which gives life and sustenance to the side of evil, as represented in Egypt. For the duration of history, this vitalizing root is contained in the Seven "Crowns", the seven Commandments of the Son's of Noah, which come to rectify the Seventy Nations as exemplified in Egypt (Ham) under the rule of Joseph (Shem).


Judah's appeal to Joseph is a heart-to-heart appeal, man to man. Judah is willing to sacrifice his entire life and submit himself to slavery in order to save his younger brother Benjamin. Judah is the true AREV ("guarantor") for his brother - the ultimate in loving your fellow as yourself.
From the way we appeal to the heart of a fellow human, we are to learn how we should to appeal to G-d in prayer. This must be "face to face", as to a friend, even all seems clothed in MIDAS HADIN, the power of strict judgment. From Judah's appeal to Joseph we are to learn how in prayer we are to plead and offer to sacrifice our very selves in servitude to G-d, in order to turn G-d's DIN, strict judgment, into RAHAMIM, mercy.


Judah's eloquent appeal to Joseph's sense of fairness can serve as an exemplar to all of us in the art of prayer and entreaty, particularly in times of stress and danger. Eloquence in prayer is a good trait for all of us to cultivate -- it comes by speaking from heart to heart. We need to be bold and speak out our complaints and requests to G-d from our hearts.


* * *


"NOT YOU SENT ME HERE BUT G-D"


After revealing himself to his brothers, Joseph provides them with a peace-making way of re-perceiving the past, even where negative, as part of a divinely-prepared plan -- in this case to draw the Children of Israel down into Egypt. "Not you sent me here but G-d" (Gen. 45:8) -- "for sustenance G-d sent me before you" (ibid. v. 5).


In all circumstances, understanding that all the various humans who surround us are in reality agents of G-d, Who is behind and within all phenomena, is one of the main keys to understanding our personal situation in the world.


As expressed by the great early-20th century Polish Breslover Chassid, Rabbi Yitzhak Breiter (in his "Seven Pillars of Faith"):


"Other people are also free agents, yet everything they do is ultimately controlled by God. If someone insults you or in some way harms you, know that this has been sent by God as a way to cleanse your soul. If things go against you, be patient. When you accept everything as God's will, this causes the veil of concealment to be removed, thus manifesting God's control over all creation..


"..,.Everything we experience is actually a communication from God. This includes our inner thoughts and feelings. Even negative thoughts and feelings - heaviness, lack of enthusiasm, depression and the like - are from God. Everything you hear, see, or experience in life, whether from people you know or from complete strangers, is a call to you from God. Even unclear or contradictory messages are sent with a purpose: to give us choice and free will in order to test us. The way to sort out which messages we should follow and which we should ignore is by evaluating everything in the light of Torah teaching Pillars #4 and #6).


* * *


FORCED BY THE MOUTH OF THE WORD


"Forced by the WORD OF THE MOUTH of G-d -- "ANOOS AL PI-HADIBUR" -- is a phrase from the Haggadah explaining why Jacob and his sons went into exile. Historically, exile was forced on the Jews as a kind of "rape" of the Shechinah, the Jewish Soul, by the material world, making it necessary to go out to "slavery" in the "Egypt" of the Seventy Nations for sheer survival. Again and again in Jewish history, economic needs ("famine") caused Jews to migrate.
G-d's plan in sending Joseph down to Egypt to prepare for the subsequent Israelite slavery and ultimate redemption may be seen unfolding repeatedly in the later history of Jewish exiles. For example, the Jews who spread wide in Poland and what was once its empire, the very centers of Ashkenazic Jewry, (Ukraine, Belorussia, Lithuania, Galitzia, etc.) were originally enticed there in the 11th Century and thereafter from Germany by Polish kings (Pharaohs) who wanted to enrich themselves with industrious Jewish managers (Joseph). The Jews of Germany had themselves been enticed there in better days from France, the original "Ashkenaz".


For centuries the Jews of the "Four Lands" of the Polish empire were practically an independent Torah kingdom within the kingdom, even after the dispersal of another Torah kingdom, the Jewry of "Sepharad" -- Spain, remnants of whom reached Israel. For Polish Jewry, the tide changed from the times of the Chmielnitzki Massacres of 1648-9 and thereafter, when Jewish worldly influence and actual Torah practice among the Jews of Russia,Poland and its former empire declined to the point of near extinction under communism. Meanwhile the Jewry of Europe was rapidly assimilating. For generations from the 1800's onwards, Jews were looking westwards, especially to America. The culminating points were the Pogroms, the Russian Revolution and the Holocaust, which annihilated European Jewry spiritually and physically. After the Second World War most of Sephardic and Oriental Jewry migrated to Israel or to the west. Thus the main world Jewish centers shifted to Israel and America, both of which contain an uneasy balance of "Judah" and "Joseph" Jews -- Torah observant and secular.


Israel was built up by the returnees to the Land from the East and from the West and is today the key to ultimate Jewish survival and victory -- Israel is LAND: it is THE Land. The holocaust appears to have been the "price" for the birth of the State of Israel, which today is confronted by an existential struggle for survival, under attack, directly or in disguise, by all of the Seventy Nations.


The key to Jewish survival today is the bond between "Israel" under the leadership of Judah -- Torah, Melech HaMashiach -- and "Joseph", "Ephraim", the main body of Jewry in Israel and throughout the world.


* * *


CONNECTION TO THE LAND


The concluding section of our parshah of VAYIGASH, recounts how in the years of famine in Egypt, Joseph "purchased" the Egyptians' land, their livestock and their very bodies for Pharaoh (Genesis 13-27).


One point found in the commentators is of special note in UNIVERSAL TORAH, which focuses on aspects of Torah that apply to all humanity. It is that Joseph worked assiduously for the benefit of Pharaoh and did not seek to use his position as Viceroy for personal enrichment. He could have sent sacks of silver back to store for himself in Canaan, but he did not. He worked diligently for his employer and was an exemplar of service.


The "purchase" by Joseph of the land and the very bodies of the Egyptians for an annual tax of 20% -- one fifth of all income -- institutes fundamental principles of the modern state. Military power is controlled by the "king" or government, who is expected to protect the population and alleviate "famine", providing everything necessary for general wellbeing ("health of the economy").


One of the features of modern history has been great migrations of people of all nations from country to country and continent to continent. This has tended to separate the population from connection to the land in the form of land-ownership, while urbanization has separated over 50 per cent of the world's population from direct connection with nature.


The only people on earth who have a continuous historical link with one and the same country going back thousands of years is the People of Israel and the Jews. Israel is the only country on earth that belongs to the Jews.


The Twenty Percent Tax Joseph instituted for Egypt alludes to the 20% of net income that a person should ideally separate for Tzedakah (just as Jacob said, ASOR (10%) A-ASRENAH (10%) "I will surely tithe" -- Genesis 28:22, Maaser Rishon ("the first tithe") and Maaser Sheni ("the second tithe").


"And Zion will be redeemed through justice and her returnees through charity" (Isaiah 1:27)
Shabbat Shalom!


Avraham Yehoshua Greenbaum


--AZAMRA INSTITUTEPO Box 50037 Jerusalem 91500 IsraelWebsite: www.azamra.org

CURIOSER AND CURIOSER



According to all the Israeli TV stations this evening, some time before Nizar Riyan's house was attacked, the IDF called him up and warned him of the impending attack. He refused to respond rationally, so that when the bomb arrived he, his family, and his aides were all still there, and most of them were killed.


We'll never know why he stayed put, since he can no longer be asked. I suppose he might have figured that it was a piece of Israeli psychological warfare, and he refused to be swayed knowing that Israel would never endanger his family. Or maybe he wanted them all to be shahids.


The stranger part of the story is the Israeli side of it. There's a war going on, against an enemy whose entire rationale is to kill civilians: as many as possible right now, on the road to destroying the entire country later. Facing this implacable enemy, Israeli intelligence has pinpointed the whereabouts of a top enemy leader. So someone sits down at a phone, dials his number, and tells him, in Arabic I assume, that they're about to kill him and it would be a good precaution to remove himself.


I have never heard of such a method of waging warfare in my life.


And, I assume, most people won't hear of it now, either, as the media probably won't carry it. It will be tagged as preposterous Israeli propaganda, and trundled off to the basement to be used as rat-feed.
taken from : Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations (http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com/)

Israel Matzav: 'Jews must be killed for redemption to occur'#links#links#links#links#links

Israel Matzav: 'Jews must be killed for redemption to occur'#links#links#links#links#links

Israel Matzav: US lacks confidence in Israel's ability to finish the job#links#links#links#links#links

Israel Matzav: US lacks confidence in Israel's ability to finish the job#links#links#links#links#links

Israel Matzav: IAF destroys underground rocket storage site#links#links#links

Israel Matzav: IAF destroys underground rocket storage site#links#links#links

Israel Matzav: Video: IAF hits rocket launcher#links#links#links#links#links

Israel Matzav: Video: IAF hits rocket launcher#links#links#links#links#links

Israel Matzav: Egyptian foreign minister slams Hamas again#links#links

Israel Matzav: Egyptian foreign minister slams Hamas again#links#links

Israel Matzav: Updates: IAF destroys another mosque ammunitions depot and more#links#links#links

Israel Matzav: Updates: IAF destroys another <strike>mosque</strike> <i>ammunitions depot</i> and more#links#links#links

Roadside Rambles: We Would Rather Forgo Their Sympathy

Roadside Rambles: We Would Rather Forgo Their Sympathy
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...