Klezmer + Funk = Gooooood !!
To get you in the Purim party mood.
From 2008. But I just came across it now.
A collections of my thoughts on Israel, Judaism, Politics and other stuff
R. Samuel b. Judah said: Esther sent to the Sages saying, “Commemorate me for future generations.” They replied, “You will incite the ill will of the nations against us.” She sent back a reply: “Am I not already recorded in the chronicles of the kings of Persia and Media?”The Rabbis writing circa 400 CE imagine a time when the feast of Purim has not been officially sanctioned. Esther wants to obtain a permanent place in our liturgy. She pleads her case to the sages. But she is told that her request is inopportune.
“Do the Rabbis already think that the Purim affair, in which the Jews had no choice but to fight to avoid extermination, will saddle the Jewish people with the reputation of being imperialists, and ruthless conquerors if the memory of the failed genocide and our resistance to it is perpetuated…? Or do they, perhaps, foresee the future indignation of sensitive souls, who in our time are wearied of our commemoration of the Shoah?”
Rab and R. Hanina and R. Johanan and R. Habiba said [some say R Jonathan and not R Johanan] … Esther sent to the Sages saying, “Write an account of me for posterity.” They sent back an answer, “ ‘I have given you three writings’ [Proverbs 22:20 ] — three writings and not four?”
“The first part of the passage is concerned with establishing the names of those who transmit the account of Esther’s appeal to the religious authorities of her time. I have often insisted … on the importance given in the Talmud to knowing who taught, who stated and who transmitted such and such a truth. I have spoken of the importance … of the person of the author in relation to the words. This is not only to stress the … subjective character of all truth, but also to avoid losing, in the universal, the marvel … of the personal [of the particular]: to avoid transforming the domain of truth into the realm of [objective] anonymity.”And what does Esther ask for this time? Not a sanctified holiday, but a sanctified book: a new piece of Holy Scripture. Isn't this a more chutzpahdik request than her first one?
[They refused] until they found a verse written in the Torah, “Write this, a memorial, in a book” [Exodus 17:14] [which they expounded as follows]: ‘Write this’, namely, what is written [in Deut 25:17] … ‘for a memorial’, namely, what is written in the Prophets [1 Samuel, 15]; ‘in a book’, namely, what is written in the Megillah.Ah! But now the Rabbis discover that they are not so sure that the three required telling are in the Tanach without the addition of the Megillah. It seems the three telling must be distinct types, namely: the story itself, the memory or echo of it, and “a book” – a full length analysis of a similar event but in a different context. Do these three types in fact exist in the Tanach without the story of Purim? We certainly have three sections about Amalek: In Exodus (the original incident), in Deuteronomy (today’s maftir portion), and in Samuel (today’s haftarah). But isn’t the story in the book of Samuel not merely an echo of the original story of Amalek’s threat to the Jewish people. No new threat is presented in Samuel, and no new salvation. It is just a failed attempt to follow up on the commandment to blot out Amalek, which was given in the original Torah story.
[But others said, we already have three.] ‘Write this’, what is written here. [Exodus 17:14] ‘For a memorial’, namely, what is written in Deuteronomy. ‘In a book’, namely, what is written in the Prophets. So says Rabbi Joshua. [who argues against the canonization of the Book of Esther] But Rabbi Eliezer of Modi'in countered, says: Write this’, namely, what is written in Deuteronomy; for a memorial’, namely, what is written in the Prophets; ‘in a book’, namely, what is written in the Megillah.
Rab Judah said in the name of [the Amorah] Shmuel; [The scroll] of Esther does not make the hands unclean. [as do other books of holy scripture.] Are we to infer from this that Samuel was of opinion that Esther was not composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit? How can this be, seeing that [elsewhere] Samuel has said that Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit? — Rather the Holy Spirit recommended that it be told, but did not consecrate its writing.First we need to understand the phrase “makes the hand impure”. Without going into details of why, let me just say that touching a holy scroll – hand written by a scribe on parchment – causes the hand to be unclean. This is why we use a “yad” – a pointer – when we read from the Torah scroll. So asking if the Scroll of Esther makes the hands unclean, is tantamount to asking if it is a canonized text. We learn from this passage, that Shmuel, a leading scholar of third century Babylonia is not convinced. He accepts Purim as a holiday, and accepts that we should recount the story of Esther and Mordecai and the Jews endangerment and their salvation in the days of Shushan. But he thinks we should do it in an informal way: perhaps as we recount Hannukah, or Holocaust Memorial Day, or Israel Independence Day – with no fixed texts, and no guidance re the lessons to be learned. Shmuel denies the holiness of the Megillah, and rejects its inclusion in the Tanach.
The following objection was raised: ‘Rabbi Meir says that [the scroll of] Koheleth does not render the hands unclean, and that about the Song of Songs there is a debate. Rabbi Jose says that the Song of Songs renders the hands unclean, and about Koheleth there is a debate. Rabbi. Simeon says that Koheleth is one of those matters in regard to which Beth Shammai were more lenient and Beth Hillel more stringent, but [we rule that] Ruth and the Song of Songs and Esther do make the hands unclean’! — Shmeul [in the previous passage] concurred with Rabbi Joshua [who was in the minority in ruling that the Megillah was not meant to be written.]
It has been taught: Rabbi. Simeon b. Menasha said: “Koheleth does not render the hands unclean because it contains merely the wisdom of Solomon [and was not divinely inspired.” They said to him] “Was this then all that he composed?” Is it not stated elsewhere, And he spoke three thousand proverbs [1 Kings 5:12] ...
It has been taught: Rabbi. Eleazar said: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, “And Haman said in his heart.” [Est 6:6] Rabbi Akiba says: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, “And Esther obtained favour in the eyes of all that looked upon her.” [Est 2:15] Rabbi Meir says: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, “And the plot became known to Mordecai.” [Est 2:22] Rabbi .Jose … said: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, “But on the spoil they laid not their hands.” [Est 9:27]Here we come to the heart of the matter, as I see it. Four Mishna era Rabbis – all major figures – give their reasons for the inclusion of the Book of Esther in the Tanach. But what exactly are they saying? Is it trivial or is it profound?
Shmuel said: Had I been there, [among the Tannai Rabbis discussing the matter] I would have given a proof superior to all, namely, that it says, “They fulfilled and they accepted” [Est 9:27] [This means] they [God] fulfilled above what they [the Jews] took upon themselves below.”Here we have Shmuel again – the die-hard Amorah who still argues for only the acceptance of the Purim holiday, but not the canonization of its book – making light of the earlier Rabbis arguments. This is a bold move within the Talmudic tradition. Interestingly he chooses to defend Purim, not based on value propositions of the Mishna Rabbis, but on a sort of proto-Reconstructionist quasi-sociological argument. He bases his comments on the seeming difficult of a verse in the Megilah telling us that the Jews of Shushan “fulfilled and accepted” the precepts of Purim. How, he asks, can one fulfill a mitzvah before having accepted it? The verse should read “they accepted and they fulfilled.” But it doesn’t. Therefore, Shmuel argues, the verse must be talking about two different parties – God and the Jews. God confirms above - what the Jews have done below. In other words, the obligatory nature of Purim flows not from Heavenly commandment to Jewish practice, but from Jewish practice to Heavenly commandment - and then back again to future Jewish practice.
Raba said: All the proofs [offered above] can be refuted except that of Shmuel, which cannot be refuted. [Thus,] against Rabbi Eleazar it may be objected that it is reasonable to suppose that Haman would think so, … . Against the proof of Rabbi Akiba it may be objected that perhaps … to every man she appeared to belong to his own nation. Against Rabbi Meir it may be objected that perhaps … Bigthan and Teresh were both from Tarsis [and spoke Aramaic between themselves, thinking no one in Shushan would understand.] Against the proof of R. Jose … it may be objected that perhaps they sent messengers [to observe.] But against the proof of Shmuel certainly no objection can be brought. Said Rabina: This bears out the popular saying, Better is one grain of sharp pepper than a basket full of pumpkins.
Rabbi Joseph said: [That the Book of Esther is divinely inspired] can be proved from here: “And these days of Purim shall never cease among the Jews.” [Est 9,28] R. Nahman b. Isaac said, “[We learn it] from here: “nor the memorial of [Esther and Mordecai] perish from their descendants.” [ibid]
“Words of peace and truth.” [Est 9:30] R. Tanhum said: … “This shows that the Megillah requires to be written on ruled lines, like the true essence of the Torah.”The end of this passage makes a remarkable claim: That not only is the Megillah canonized scripture – but it is on par with the Torah itself, which is the only part of our scripture which must be written neatly and on ruled lines. One letter out of place invalidates the entire document.
Esther Chapter 9 ...
30 . And he [Mordecai] sent the letters to all the Jews, to the one hundred and twenty seven provinces of the kingdom of Ahasuerus, in words of peace and truth,
31. To confirm these days of Purim in their times appointed, according as Mordecai the Jew and Esther the queen had enjoined them, and as they had decreed for themselves and for their seed, with regard to the fasting and their lamenting.
32. And the decree of Esther confirmed these matters of Purim; and it was written in this book.
Esther Chapter 10
1. And the king, Ahasuerus, laid a tribute upon the land, and upon the islands of the sea.This is how the Megillah ends. With Mordecai the Jews accepted by all the peoples of the vast multi-ethnic Persian empire, ruling for good and pursing peace. Not seeking further redress or revenge. Not proselytizing to the Gentiles and not imposing his will on others: neither Jew nor gentile. Not seeking to expand Jewish privileged or influence, and not seeking sovereignty nor establishing a dynasty. Peace and prosperity are achieved primarily by political means. The violence of Purim, once used, and used only once, is put aside.
2. And all the acts of his power and of his might, and the declaration of the greatness of Mordecai, to which the king advanced him, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia?
3. For Mordecai the Jew was next to king Ahasuerus, and great among the Jews, and accepted by the multitude, seeking the good of his people, and speaking peace.
| Tractate Megillah 7A |
A | R. Samuel b. Judah said: Esther sent to the Sages saying, “Commemorate me for future generations.” They replied, “You will incite the ill will of the nations against us.” She sent back reply: “Am I not already recorded in the chronicles of the kings of Persia and Media?” |
B | Rab and R. Hanina and R. Johanan and R. Habiba said [some say R Jonathan and not Johanan] … Esther sent to the Sages saying, “Write an account of me for posterity.” They sent back answer, “ ‘I have given you three writings’ [Proverbs 22:20[1]] — three writings and not four?” |
C | [They refused] until they found a verse written in the Torah, “Write this, a memorial, in a book” [Exodus 17:14] [which they expounded as follows]: ‘Write this’, namely, what is written [in Deut 25:17] … ‘for a memorial’, namely, what is written in the Prophets [1 Samuel, 15]; ‘in a book’, namely, what is written in the Megillah. |
D | [But others said, we already have three.] ‘Write this’, what is written here. [Exodus 17:14] ‘For a memorial’, namely, what is written in Deuteronomy. ‘In a book’, namely, what is written in the Prophets. So says Rabbi Joshua. [who argues against the canonization of the Book of Esther] But Rabbi Eliezer of Modi'in countered, says: Write this’, namely, what is written in Deuteronomy; for a memorial’, namely, what is written in the Prophets; ‘in a book’, namely, what is written in the Megillah. |
E | Rab Judah said in the name of [the Amorah] Shmuel; [The scroll] of Esther does not make the hands unclean. [as do other books of holy scripture.] Are we to infer from this that Samuel was of opinion that Esther was not composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit? How can this be, seeing that [elsewhere] Samuel has said that Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit? — Rather the Holy Spirit recommended that it be told, but did not consecrate its writing. |
F | The following objection was raised: ‘Rabbi Meir says that [the scroll of] Koheleth does not render the hands unclean, and that about the Song of Songs there is a debate. Rabbi Jose says that the Song of Songs renders the hands unclean, and about Koheleth there is a debate. Rabbi. Simeon says that Koheleth is one of those matters in regard to which Beth Shammai were more lenient and Beth Hillel more stringent, but [we rule that] Ruth and the Song of Songs and Esther [certainly] make the hands unclean’! — Shmeul [in the previous passage] concurred with Rabbi Joshua [who was in the minority in ruling that the Megillah was not meant to be written.] |
G | It has been taught: Rabbi. Simeon b. Menasha said: “Koheleth does not render the hands unclean because it contains merely the wisdom of Solomon [and was not divinely inspired.” They said to him] “Was this then all that he composed?” Is it not stated elsewhere, And he spoke three thousand proverbs [1 Kings 5:12] ... |
H | It has been taught: Rabbi. Eleazar said: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, “And Haman said in his heart.” [Est 6:6] Rabbi Akiba says: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, “And Esther obtained favour in the eyes of all that looked upon her.” [Est 2:15] Rabbi Meir says: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, “And the plot became known to Mordecai.” [Est 2:22] Rabbi .Jose … said: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, “But on the spoil they laid not their hands.” [Est 9:27] |
I | Shmuel said: Had I been there, [among the Tannai Rabbis discussing the matter] I would have given a proof superior to all, namely, that it says, “They fulfilled and they accepted” [Est 9:27] [This means] they [God] fulfilled above what they [the Jews] took upon themselves below.” |
J | Raba said: All the proofs can be refuted except that of Shmuel, which cannot be refuted. [Thus,] against Rabbi Eleazar it may be objected that it is reasonable to suppose that Haman would think so, … . Against the proof of Rabbi Akiba it may be objected that perhaps … to every man she appeared to belong to his own nation. Against Rabbi Meir it may be objected that perhaps … Bigthan and Teresh were two men from Tarsis [and spoke Aramaic between themselves, thinking no one in Shushan would understand.] Against the proof of R. Jose … it may be objected that perhaps they sent messengers [to observe.] But against the proof of Shmuel certainly no objection can be brought. Said Rabina: This bears out the popular saying, Better is one grain of sharp pepper than a basket full of pumpkins. |
K | Rabbi Joseph said: [That the Book of Esther is divinely inspired] can be proved from here: “And these days of Purim shall never cease among the Jews.” [Est 9,28] R. Nahman b. Isaac said, “[We learn it] from here: “nor the memorial of [Esther and Mordecai] perish from their descendants.” [ibid] |
| Megilah 16b |
L | “Words of peace and truth.” [Est 9:30[2]] R. Tanhum said: … “This shows that the Megillah requires to be written on ruled lines, like the true essence of the Torah.” |
[1] Full text in Proverb reads:
CAP 22:
…
19. That your trust may be in the Lord, I have made known to you this day, even to you.
20. For your sake I have given to you sovereign, [Hebrew “Sheleshim” also superior, governing, or maybe three] writings as teachings and knowledge,
21. That I might make you know with certainty the words of truth; that you might answer words of truth to those who question [send] you?
[2] The full context in the Book of Esther reads:
30 . And he [Mordecai] sent the letters to all the Jews, to the one hundred and twenty seven provinces of the kingdom of Ahasuerus, in words of peace and truth,
31. To confirm these days of Purim in their times appointed, according as Mordecai the Jew and Esther the queen had enjoined them, and as they had decreed for themselves and for their seed, with regard to the fasting and their lamenting.
32. And the decree of Esther confirmed these matters of Purim; and it was written in this book.
Chapter 10
1. (K) And the king Ahasuerus laid a tribute upon the land, and upon the islands of the sea.
2. And all the acts of his power and of his might, and the declaration of the greatness of Mordecai, to which the king advanced him, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia?
3. For Mordecai the Jew was next to king Ahasuerus, and great among the Jews, and accepted by the multitude, seeking the good of his people, and speaking peace.
"Say with confidence that Israel will never give up its hope for peace."or
"No Arab or Palestinian State ever existed in the Land of Israel"
Deficient in statesmanship - made more obvious each day by Israel’s foreign minister whom the prime minister seems unable, or unwilling, to tame - the Government of Israel has clearly erred by not cooperating with Judge Richard Goldstone when he was compiling his now notorious report. ...
I surmise that government supporters are embarrassed and want to divert attention by finding scapegoats “on the left.” Perhaps that’s why an obscure group, described as Zionist and rumored to have been financed by American evangelicals (!), has turned on the New Israel Fund (NIF) and its president Naomi Chazan because the NIF supports agencies that may have cooperated with Goldstone and/or now favors his findings.
The intention may have been that, as the NIF is on the margin of pro-Israel philanthropy in the Diaspora, Jews would turn against it to “explain” why Goldstone went wrong, whitewash government ineptitude, and celebrate why they don’t support the NIF. In some instances it may have worked; e.g., Chazan’s visit to Australia has been cancelled. In general, however, it has been the other way around: the NIF has gained new, almost unprecedented, far and wide recognition and encouragement.
Not only have many and diverse Jewish organizations in the Diaspora – including the American Reform movement – issued strongly worded statements in favour of NIF, but Israeli papers carry full-page ads signed by many of the country’s writers, artists, actors, academics, some business people, and the chair of the Israeli Reform rabbis condemning the vilification of Chazan and praising the NIF.
The attacks have been vicious. One cartoon, for example, in a lame attempt to exploit the double meaning of keren, both “fund” and “horn” in Hebrew, depicts her in a way reminiscent of Der Sturmer. But they’ve misfired. A lot of people have come to pledge renewed support for the NIF, which should probably now be grateful to the group that attacked it, and perhaps even make a contribution to its budget.
There’re reasons to be upset about the forces of darkness that appear at the slightest provocation in Jewish life in general and Israeli society in particular. But there’s no reason for despair, because there’re many good people around. They’ve been alerted to the new and compelling arguments for doing more for – and with – all groups that reflect the noblest values of Judaism, many of which the NIF encourages and supports.One the other hand, we have the opinion of Noam Sheizaf expressed in his PromisedLandBlog. Sheizaf is an Israeli journalist, clearly on the left - but the Zionist left to be sure;
Jerusalem 5.2.10 Dow Marmur
Something very big, and very deep, is going on in Israel. Human right and peace activists feel, maybe for the first time, real anxiety, even fear.
I tend to agree with Prof. Eyal Gross, which views these development as a “shooting the messenger” syndrome, which has to do with the growing pressure on Israel to end the occupation of the West bank and remove the siege on Gaza.
Since my feeling is that both the public and the government are not ready yet for real concessions, the public anger is likely to increase in the near future. No doubt, the tiny Israeli left and the Arab minority are about to face some very difficult months, probably even years.
Dear Friends and Supporters,
In light of the smear campaign being run by a group called "Im Tirtzu," ["If You Will It" from Herzl's famous quote about a future Jewish State: "If you will it, it is no dream"] it should be clear to all that we are engaged in a struggle for Israeli democracy. That is not an exaggeration. This is also a not to be missed opportunity, because many people are waking up and realizing the just how dangerous the situation has become. Please find below a description of the situation, a list of things that every one of us must do that was developed in an emergency meeting with the New Israel Fund and fellow Israeli human rights organizations on Monday, and helpful links. Many of the links in the body of this message are to Hebrew websites, but there are English language links below.
To paraphrase Mattathias the Macabee, "Everyone who is for democracy with us."
Many of you know that the de-legitimization campaign being waged against Israeli human rights organizations was taken to another level on Friday when Ben Caspit attacked the New Israel Fund (NIF) and many Israel NGO's (Including RHR) in the newspaper Ma'ariv and on the NRG news website. The attack was based on the vicious and inciteful report issued by the extreme right wing organization, "Im Tirtzu," claiming that most of the information in the Goldstone Report incriminating Israel was supplied by Israeli NGO's supported by the NIF. A second Ma'ariv/NRG journalist, Ben Dror Yemini, added an additional article in Maariv on Monday. On Wednesday the chair of the Knesset Constitutional Committee MK David Rotem threatened to set up a sub committee to investigate funding from abroad, and, during a special Knesset debate on the Im Tirtzu report, MK Otniel Schneller called for a Parliamentary Committee to look into what Israeli NGO's passed on to the Goldstone Committee.
On Channel B radio this morning (Thursday) MK Yisrael Hasson went so far as to say that he intends to check whether Israeli HR organizations are receiving money from enemies, and that if he were Hamas he would be setting up three organizations to do what Israeli HR organizations do.
The smear campaign has included expensive banners on the YNET and NRG websites (the banners are still on the NRG website), a full page ad in the Jerusalem Post, and who knows where and what else. The various statements in the ads, banners and on the Im Tirtzu website include an ugly caricatureof former MK Naomi Chazan (currently NIF chairperson) with a large demonic horn with "NIF" written on it is growing out of her forehead (In Hebrew, "keren" is both "fund" and "horn."). This caricature sends shivers up my spine as I recall the pictures of Yitzhak Rabin z"l dressed in an S.S. uniform at that infamous demonstration in Zion Square in Jerusalem not so long before he was murdered. A sampling of the texts accompanying the caricature include:
- "Now it is a fact: Naomi's fund endangers the State."
- "We love Naomi Chazan and hate the IDF" (Signs at an Im Tirzu demonstration outside her house dressed as Hamasniks with keffiyas.)
- "Fact: the NIF headed by Naomi Chazan is behind the Goldstone reports defamation of the IDF"
- "In the past three years Naomi Chazan's fund granted 8 million dollars to 16 anti-Zionist organizations that gave the ammunition to charge Israel with war crimes."
- "Naomi Goldstone Chazan"
True, it is difficult to know where to draw the line between harsh but legitimate criticism, and incitement. However, Im Tirtzu has clearly crossed red lines, lied and mislead. I find it very disturbing that YNET sold banner space to Im Tirtzu, but in December refused to run a "B'Tselem ad campaign on Gaza, saying that "they did not want to offend the public."
I have only quickly read through the section on RHR [Rabbis for Human Rights]in the Im Tirtzu report, but the "proof" that we are anti-Zionist and are responsible for the Goldstone report was the fact that the report mentions the letter we send to the Israeli attorney general calling for an independent and transparent Israeli investigation, the petition we published in HaAretz and on the mini-website we set up for our Gaza campaign and our High Court appeals and other activities on behalf of Palestinian human rights.
Nothing in our activities, those of the NIF, or in the activities of the other targeted organizations justifies Im Tirtzu's vicious and dangerous campaign. The Im Tirtzu campaign crosses so many red lines that even the controversial Christian Zionist Reverend Hagee is repudiating it. As I write, there are initial reports that Reverent Hagee has now announced that he will stop funding Im Tirtzu.
I could be content to simply issue a call to defend democracy and claim Lashon HaRa (slander). We could minimize our connection to Goldstone and disassociate ourselves from the NGO's who contributed information to the committee. However, that would be wrong. The struggle of RHR and our partners is just and essential for the future of Israel. Our struggle is a just and Zionist struggle. It is the struggle over "Who are we" and who we want to be. It is a painful struggle, and we pray that an independent investigation will prove that all of our suspicions were wrong. And yes, our struggle is faithful to what we and our partners have said consistently from the outset, "Citizens must not be targets - not Israelis in Sderot and not Palestinians in Gaza."
We care about every human being because, by virtue of being human, we are all created in God's Image. I am proud of all that we and our partners have done and are doing here in Israel to achieve an independent and transparent Israeli investigation. I only wish that we were doing more.
The de-legitimization did not begin on Friday. As always in these matters, evil grows when good people prefer not to know. At our Gaza conference in May, Im Tirtzu demonstrated outside with "Matza dipped in blood." We of course invited them in to be a part of the conversation. (A few came in, asked one question, and then left.)
Im Tirtzu's report cites Gerald Steinberg's "NGO Monitor," an organization which for years has smeared any NGO which Professor Steinberg defines as "anti-Israel" or "extremist," without ever giving the public a definition of these terms which they throw around. This is but one example of how The Monitor pretends to be holding NGO's to standards of reliability, but consistently violates these very same standards. I once asked Professor Steinberg how it is that they advertise themselves as an organization holding all Middle East NGO's to standards, but in practice only reports on NGO's that deal with Israeli HR violations. He answered that Israel is in a battle for her survival and that the real goal of his organization was to be a part of the PR battle. The Monitor has been working in the Knesset and abroad to dry up funding sources for Human Rights organizations, as well as left wing organizations.
We must take action along two lines:
1. All those who value Israel's democracy, especially those who do not agree with us regarding Gaza, must say as one, "Sharp public debate yes - Incitement no!"
2. We can not expect the entire public to defend our position calling for an Israeli independent and transparent inquiry into the Gaza War. However, we can not accept a situation in which all that is said publicly after this attack is "Well, you are right that what HR organizations did was controversial and we don't agree with everything either, but that is democracy." We must say loudly and clearly:
a. The positions taken by Im Tirtzu, NGO Monitor, Ben Caspit and Ben-Dror Yemini endanger the State and abandon our children.
b. A moral army is not handed to us on a silver platter, but is achieved through constant vigilance, willingness to investigate, ask questions, and educate in ways that make it clear that we do more than pay lip service to our declared values.
c. If former attorney Mani Mazuz had not waited until the day after he stepped down to support an independent investigation, but had ordered one a year ago when Israeli HR organizations first wrote to him, there might never have been a Goldstone Commission. If today the Government would not allow Defense Minister Ehud Barak (Perhaps the person with the most to lose if an investigation would sadly find that there had been systematic violations of international law and Jewish values.) to block an Israeli independent transparent investigation, we might yet avoid an international investigation.
d. We are Israeli patriots and Zionists who believe with all our heart that what we are demanding is not only the just and Jewish thing to do, but is what is best for our country.
The Talmud tells of Nahum Ish Gam Zo, who whatever ill befell him would say "Gam zo l'tova," (This is also for the good.) There is no pleasure to be gained from this threat to our democracy and the danger both to our society and to targeted individuals should in no way be dismissed. However, for too long, too many have been unaware of what is happening in our society. If history will record that this was the moment in which supporters of Israeli democracy and human rights united to defend those values they held most dear, then Gam zo l'tova.
B'Vrakha (In Blessing)
Rabbi Arik W. Ascherman
Executive Director Rabbis for Human Rights