Soldiers Made from Steel‚ Leaders Made from Putty - MK Dr. Michael Ben Ari – Eretz Yisroel Shelanu

It had become routine. U.S. government treats the government of Israel and its branches as if they were clerks. When it comes to routine, there is no discomfort level.

In recent weeks, we have witnessed several such rude and coarse interventions. One was the incident in which Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin disqualified my speech in the Knesset after the American envoy Mitchell demanded an answer from Rivlin "until the afternoon" as if he was the last of Mitchell's subjects. This entire give and take was carried out amidst full media exposure. And that is only one of the events where they have demonstrated their intervention, even in matters that seem worthless.

Apparently Obama's envoy to the Middle East refers to the internal conduct of the Knesset's as if he was appointed to this as part of his job. That's why the referendum law to the Golan Heights, which was supposed to be put up for vote, was suddenly removed from the agenda without any logical explanation. The U.S. government occasionally sprinkles admonitions about building homes for Jews at Pisgat Zeev, and about the master plans of Giloh. Our pitiable response is reminiscent of a child caught doing mischief and tries to explain: "I did not understand", "I did not know", "I will not do it any more."

Crossing this line would not occur was it not that we ourselves broke all the boundaries. It began coordinating positions with the big American brother, and moved forward to total subjugation to American lordship and absolute flaccidity of our leadership.

We could have let desperation set in, if we were not exposed in recent weeks to the steadfastness of the brave soldiers. Brave young teenagers, for once, do not suffer from diseases of subordination or existential complexes.

Soldiers who had enlisted in the military service this week, were asked by a Channel 10 reporter if they would refuse an order to expel Jews. The question was asked a few minutes after the Chief of Staff talked with them about the refusal, including explanations and threats. The young soldiers who had just enlisted answered the reporter without hesitation, in this fashion:

A soldier from Migdal Haemek: "I will refuse an order, because I'm going with everyone, that's why. With friends, we're brothers, so I would refuse an order. If he refuses I will also refuse a command". A soldier from Kfar Vradim explained: "We are all Jews, there is nothing to do. You can not do this to Jews. I probably will not obey command because those are my values."
A soldier from Rechovot, enlisted today to the infantry brigade: "There are minimum values. We came to protect, not to expel. I protect my brothers, do not turn them out. I am now enlisting to protect and not to drive out."

Those who have seen the pictures of young soldiers see that they are not yeshiva students, none of them wore a skullcap, and none had a religious appearance. To the sorrow of those seeking to go against us, there isn't any Rosh Yeshiva you can point a finger at. The threats, intimidation and explanations that their refusal to expel Jews will allegedly dismantle the army - all these did not work for them. Their words were sharp and clear: We came to protect! We came to fight! Not to fight our brothers! They also renewed something our leadership lost long ago; they claimed that will not expel because "we have values."

Netanyahu and Barak's leadership may unfortunately be made of putty in the hands of haters of Israel. But the youth are made of natural steel, honesty and love of Israel. So who said there was no hope?

Who is Manhigut Yehudit - The Jewish Leadership Movement?

We are simply Jews, with no added definitions. We do not call ourselves Orthodox, Conservative or Reform - neither "right-wing" nor "left-wing." Like the overwhelming majority of Jews, we believe in G-d, Who has brought us back to our Jewish home; the Holy Land of Israel. In Israel, the natural predisposition of the Jewish People to illuminate the world with God's light is brought to perfection, enabling us to perform our task in the most consummate way.

Our aim is to create a genuinely Jewish consciousness in the Land of Israel, motivated by the awareness that our faith and our country are intrinsically woven together. An Israeli society predicated on Jewish faith - the Torah - is an ethical and loving society whose ultimate goal is to illuminate the entire world with God's benevolence.

The Modern State of Israel in Crisis
The Zionist movement, which founded the modern State of Israel, was a product of the millennia of longing for return to the Land of Israel. However, it was also a product of the times in which it was born. Basing itself on secular 19th century Western values, Zionism came to fill the need for a safe haven for the Jews of the world. Miraculously, the Zionist movement succeeded in building the complete infrastructure of a modern state - replete with a strong army, high tech, immigration absorption etc. out of the wilderness.
In its essence, though, the secular Zionism on which Israel was built negates holiness. In doing so, it has stripped itself of the tools necessary to reflect the Jewish nature of Israel and its ultimate holy purpose.

We are now witnessing a complete unraveling of the fabric of Israeli society. The very Zionist ideology that built the modern state of Israel has now turned against itself as it seeks to counter its Biblical roots and Divine purpose. This self-destructive bent is the ultimate conclusion of the secular ideology upon which Zionism is based.

The Essential Question: Is Israel a State of Jews - or a Jewish State?
Until now Israel has been a state of the Jews. It is vital to our future to transform Israel into a Jewish state. Israel's elected officials must lead the country with policies based exclusively on Jewish identity, values and ethics.

An Alternative
In 1994, Moshe Feiglin began the Zo Artzeinu ("This is Our Land") protest movement that opposed the self-destructive Oslo Accords with a massive civil disobedience campaign.
It became clear, though, that it was not enough to protest; we had to offer a fundamental alternative - a new strategic objective - in place of the process of collapse that gave rise to the Oslo Accords. Such an alternative would need to be based on both an alternative ideology that would inspire the nation and possess the means for implementation.

Faith-Based Leadership
There is only one way to truly imbue the State of Israel with the meaning it deserves and needs: to promote an alternative leadership for the State of Israel that is based on Jewish belief. Only leadership motivated by an authentically Jewish vision will be capable of meeting all the challenges currently facing the State of Israel and the Jewish People. Only leadership of this kind will be capable of reinvigorating the State of Israel and the Jewish People and leading it towards the realization of the vision of the prophets.

Leadership of the Likud
In 1998, Manhigut Yehudit (The Jewish Leadership Movement) was established as the successor to Zo Artzeinu. Our aim is to register thousands of believing members in the Likud - the ruling party of the National Camp - and to elect a party leader who will be motivated by Jewish ideals and values. As the Likud's candidate for Prime Minister, this candidate would be the natural leader of the national camp and would be elected as the Prime Minister of the State of Israel.

What began as a dream has become a reality. Already today, Manhigut Yehudit (The Jewish Leadership Movement) has the largest bloc inside the Likud's Central Committee. In a very short time we became known as the group that "does not come with a price tag." Our weapon is our ideology and tens of thousands of supporters have already joined our ranks. Many Israelis throughout the political spectrum believe that we are the future of Israel's political life and the path we have chosen is correct and viable.

Our Future
With firm faith in the God of Israel, Manhigut Yehudit (The Jewish Leadership Movement) is confident that our future is bright. Indeed the totality of our strategic goals could be summed up in a single phrase from the traditional Aleynu prayer recited daily:

To perfect the world in the kingdom of the Almighty

2009 Elections Prove Israel Ripe for Belief-Based Leadership

Playing on the theory that Israel is not yet ready for a belief-based leader, Moshe Feiglin's opponents claimed that his election in the 2009 Likud primaries would mean that the Likud would lose 6 mandates; ostensibly of those people who would not identify with belief-based leadership. But when Feiglin was elected to the 20th place on the Likud roster, just the opposite occurred. The Likud immediately began to gain in the polls, reaching 36 projected mandates. After Moshe Feiglin was forced down to 36th place on the Likud roster, the Likud's standing in the polls began to decline.

The following graph clearly shows the patterns that led to the Likud's slow but steady decline over the election campaign.

Conclusions:
A. There is complete symmetry between the decline of the Likud and the rise of Lieberman's party, and later of the National Union.

B. The Likud's decline begins when it loses its rightist/nationalist hue as a result of Netanyahu's battle against Feiglin.

C. From the beginning of December and until the elections, Lieberman and the National Union gained 11 mandates at the Likud's expense. The Likud with Moshe Feiglin could have won at least 38 mandates in these elections.

D. Israel voted Right because it is thirsting for leadership based on Jewish values and ethics.

Insubordination Can Save Israel

By Moshe Feiglin

5 Kislev, 5770 (Nov. 22, '09)


As a result of my attempts to halt the Oslo collapse, I was put on trial for "sedition." I asked the judges to allow me to read a short piece from a book that I had brought with me. The judges agreed, and to their surprise, I removed "The Little Prince" by Antoine de Saint Exupיry from my briefcase:

"Sire--over what do you rule?"

"Over everything," said the king, with magnificent simplicity.

"Over everything?"

The king made a gesture, which took in his planet, the other planets, and all the stars.

"Over all that?" asked the little prince.

"Over all that," the king answered.

For his rule was not only absolute: it was also universal.

"And the stars obey you?"

"Certainly they do," the king said. "They obey instantly. I do not permit insubordination."

"I should like to see a sunset . . . Do me that kindness . . . Order the sun to set . . ."

"If I ordered a general to fly from one flower to another like a butterfly, or to write a tragic drama, or to change himself into a sea bird, and if the general did not carry out the order that he had received, which one of us would be in the wrong?" the king demanded. "The general, or myself?"

"You," said the little prince firmly.

"Exactly. One must require from each one the duty which each one can perform," the king went on. "Accepted authority rests first of all on reason. If you ordered your people to go and throw themselves into the sea, they would rise up in revolution. I have the right to require obedience because my orders are reasonable." (The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint Exupיry, Chapter 10).

It is a mistake to think that the state works within the boundaries of laws. The public does not obey laws. It obeys rules within the boundaries of a triangle, the first side of which is the law. But the triangle has two other sides: common sense and ethicality.

What if the Knesset would pass a law requiring drivers to drive in reverse all winter? That would counter the logic side of the triangle. The public's subsequent refusal would be the fault of the government, not of the public. In other words, the fact that we obey the law is not because of the law itself, but because it is logical enough to warrant our adherence.

The third side of the triangle is ethicality. If the government would order us to drive our elderly and infirm out onto the frozen tundra, as per Eskimo custom, we may agree that it would logically enhance the economy. But nobody would obey, because it would be patently immoral. The party at fault for the insubordination would be the government that enacted the law and not the citizens who refused to obey.

How are the boundaries of this triangle determined?

The law is obviously determined by the government. A government has unlimited power to enact and enforce laws. The government, with its Knesset majority, can enact a law that would postpone elections for fifty years. Why doesn't it do so? For only one reason. Because it knows that the public would not accept it and the government would subsequently lose its credibility. In other words, just like Exupיry's king, the government enacts laws within the boundaries that it assumes the public will accept, both logically and ethically.

Power always strives for more power and the government will always attempt to test the boundaries of common sense and ethicality. But fortunately, it is not the government that determines these boundaries, but the public. How does the public accomplish this? By using its right and sometimes, its duty – to refuse to obey the law. That is how the logical and ethical platform for the healthy functioning of society is created.

In order to increase its power, the government tries to convince us that insubordination will cause the state to collapse. But that is completely false. The greatest crimes in human history were perpetrated when citizens ignored their duty to delineate logical and ethical boundaries for the rule of law. The societies in which this took place by and large collapsed.

"Good men must not obey the laws too well" (Ralph Waldo Emerson).

Emerson understood what the disengaging Israeli tyranny no longer wants to hear.

Those soldiers who obeyed the Expulsion law in Gush Katif despite the fact that they knew that it was illogical and unethical, brought the Hamas missiles to Be'er Sheva, the resulting Cast Lead Operation, Goldstone and the international anti-Israel demonization campaign that is gaining momentum by the day. In short, our eager-to-obey soldier has endangered Israel's very existence.

The writing on the wall of Netanyahu's office is clear: Destruction of the Golan Heights, of the settlements in Judea and Samaria and the division of Jerusalem. Public delineation of clear, logical and ethical boundaries for the law can prevent Netanyahu from carrying out his plan.

In the past few weeks, soldiers from two separate units in the IDF expressed their civic responsibility by refusing to obey orders to expel Jews from their homes. These brave young men are positioned to save Israel from collapse.

Feiglin on Netanyahu: Writing is on the Wall

8 Kislev,5770 (Nov. 25, '09)

Following the cabinet decision to freeze construction in Judea and Samaria, Jewish Leadership Head, Moshe Feiglin, said that "the writing on the wall is clear, Netanyahu is working to surrender the Golan, destroy the towns of Judea and Samaria and divide Jerusalem."

"Anyone who supports this move proves he has not learned anything from the crime of the expulsion from Gush Katif. I urge everyone to whom Israel and the future of the state are important to them, to join the Likud in order to replace Netanyahu with a leader that has a God".

Lion's Den: Islamism 2.0 - an even greater threat

Nov. 24, 2009
Daniel Pipes , THE JERUSALEM POST

To borrow a computer term, if Ayatollah Khomeini, Osama bin Laden, and Nidal Hasan represent Islamism 1.0, Recep Tayyip Erdogan (the prime minister of Turkey), Tariq Ramadan (a Swiss intellectual), and Keith Ellison (a US congressman) represent Islamism 2.0. The former kill more people but the latter pose a greater threat to Western civilization.
The 1.0 version attacks those perceived as obstructing its goal of a society ruled by a global caliphate and totally regulated by Shari'a (Islamic law). Islamism's original tactics, from totalitarian rule to mega-terrorism, encompass unlimited brutality. Three thousand dead in one attack? Bin Laden's search for atomic weaponry suggests the murderous toll could be a hundred or even a thousand times larger.
However, a review of the past three decades, since Islamism became a significant political force, finds that violence alone rarely works. Survivors of terrorism rarely capitulate to radical Islam - not after the assassination of Anwar Sadat in Egypt in 1981, nor the 9/11 attacks, the Bali bombings of 2002, the Madrid bombing of 2004, the Amman bombing of 2005, or the terrorist campaigns in Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Terrorism does physical damage and kills and intimidates but it rarely overturns the existing order. Imagine Islamists had caused the devastation of Hurricane Katrina or the 2004 tsunami - what could these have lastingly achieved?
NON-TERRORIST violence aimed at applying Shari'a does hardly better. Revolution (meaning, a wide-scale social revolt) took Islamists to power in just one place at one time - Iran in 1978-79. Likewise, a coup d'état (a military overthrow) carried them to power just once - Sudan in 1989. Same for civil war - Afghanistan in 1996.
If the violence of Islamism 1.0 rarely succeeds in forwarding the Shari'a, the Islamism 2.0 strategy of working through the system does better. Islamists, adept at winning public opinion, represent the main opposition force in Muslim-majority countries such as Morocco, Egypt, Lebanon, and Kuwait. Islamists have enjoyed electoral success in Algeria in 1992, Bangladesh in 2001, Turkey in 2002, and Iraq in 2005.
Once in power, they can move the country toward Shari'a. As Mahmoud Ahmadinejad faces the wrath of Iranian street demonstrators and bin Laden cowers in a cave, Erdogan basks in public approval, remakes the Republic of Turkey, and offers an enticing model for Islamists worldwide.
Recognizing this pattern, al-Qaida's once-leading theorist has publicly repudiated terrorism and adopted political means. Sayyid Imam al-Sharif (b. 1950, also known by the nom de guerre Dr. Fadl) was accused of helping assassinate Sadat. In 1988, he published a book that argued for perpetual, violent jihad against the West. With time, however, Sharif observed the inutility of violent attacks and instead advocated a strategy of infiltrating the state and influencing society.
In a recent book, he condemned the use of force against Muslims ("Every drop of blood that was shed or is being shed in Afghanistan and Iraq is the responsibility of bin Laden and Zawahiri and their followers") and even against non-Muslims (9/11 was counterproductive, for "what good is it if you destroy one of your enemy's buildings, and he destroys one of your countries? What good is it if you kill one of his people, and he kills a thousand of yours?").
Sharif's evolution from theorist of terrorism to advocate of lawful transformation echoes a much broader shift; accordingly, as author Lawrence Wright notes, his defection poses a "terrible threat" to al-Qaida. Other once-violent Islamist organizations in Algeria, Egypt, and Syria have recognized the potential of lawful Islamism and largely renounced violence. One also sees a parallel shift in Western countries; Ramadan and Ellison represent a burgeoning trend.
(What one might call Islamism 1.5 - a combination of hard and soft means, of external and internal approaches - also works. It involves lawful Islamists softening up the enemy, then violent elements seizing power. The Hamas takeover of Gaza proved that such a combination can work: win elections in 2006, then stage a violent insurrection in 2007. Similar processes are possibly underway in Pakistan. The United Kingdom might be undergoing the opposite process, whereby violence creates a political opening.)
In conclusion, only Islamists, not fascists or communists, have gone well beyond crude force to win public support and develop a 2.0 version. Because this aspect of Islamism undermines traditional values and destroys freedoms, it may threaten civilized life even more than does 1.0's brutality.
The writer (DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.

Voting Rights for Israeli Expatriates and Diaspora Jews: By Moshe Feiglin

The State of Israel is a Jewish State. It is the state of all the Jews. Every Jew in the world should see Israel as his country - even if he does not yet physically live in Israel.

In most democracies, the right to vote is not contingent on actually living in the country in question, but rather on citizenship alone. Many Israelis who are also US citizens - even if they were not born in the US - vote in US elections. Israel's law that makes a citizen's right to vote contingent on his living in Israel deviates from the norm.

On the surface, this would seem like a positive way to strengthen the connection between Israeli citizens and their country. But just the opposite is true. The original Zionist platform called for the establishment of a new nation in Israel - the Israeli nation - to replace the Jewish nation. Azmi Bashara is an Israeli, while a Jew in London who would like to be an Israeli citizen while remaining in the Diaspora in the meantime - is not.

To grant Israeli citizenship to every Jew who requests it turns Judaism into the Israeli nationality. The founding fathers of Zionism wanted to cut the connection between the two. They preferred to leave the Jewish nation to die, either physically or spiritually, in the exile - to relegate Judaism to the status of religion and nothing more - and to establish a new nation here in the Land of Israel.

In the words of pioneer author and Zionist thinker, Chaim Hazaz:

Zionism and Judaism are not one thing, but two things, different from each other, two things that contradict each other. When a person cannot be a Jew, he becomes a Zionist.
Zionism begins at the place where Judaism is destroyed, from the place that the strength of the nation is sapped. Zionism is not a continuation, not a panacea for the blow. That is ridiculous! It is uprooting and destruction, the opposite of what was, the end. I believe that the Land of Israel is no longer Judaism. (The pioneer in Hazaz's book, "Hadrasha")

The generation of Hazaz attempted to turn the gates of the Land of Israel into the gates of the new Israeli nation. That is why today, a Jew cannot be Israeli unless he lives in Israel.

And what about the Israeli expatriates who have "descended" and live in the Diaspora?
While giving voting rights to Jews in the Diaspora is complex and would require intricate legislation and minimal criteria of connection with the Jewish nation and the State of Israel, there is no excuse for not allowing expatriates to vote. The reason why they are excommunicated from Israel is because Israeli citizens who leave Israel are proof that the New Nation Project of Zionism's "founding fathers" was a dismal failure.

Why should a Jew who doesn't live in Israel have voting rights here?
Because Israel is the Jewish State. As such, it is the state of the Jews outside of Israel just as much as it is the state of the commander of the most elite IDF unit.

True, the Jews in the Diaspora have forgotten that Israel is their real home. But when we established a state for Israelis instead of for Jews, we showed the world that we have also forgotten. It is our duty to change this situation. With G-d's help, we will propose legislation that will allow expatriates - and eventually Diaspora Jews - to vote in Israeli embassies throughout the world.

As a Jewish state that is secure in its eternal existence on the basis of G-d's promise to Abraham, we must give the Diaspora Jews the opportunity to connect to Israel, to care about what is transpiring here, to feel that they belong and to vote. It will be an excellent reminder that their homeland is Israel and encourage aliyah. Not only that, but it will be much more effective than all the excommunication methods that we have used until now to try to stop expatriates from leaving our Land.

Zionist Student Group: 'No Academic Freedom in Israel'

(IsraelNN.com) Earlier this week, it was revealed that many students at Tel Aviv University are afraid to speak out in class for fear that they will be punished for holding Zionist or right-wing views. Erez Tadmor, director of the Zionist student group Im Tirzu, believes that all Israeli universities are suffering from a similar problem, leading to a situation in which Israel lacks true academic freedom.

Tadmor spoke to Arutz Sheva's Hebrew news service, and began by praising Professor Nira Hativa, who revealed the issue at TAU. “She is a very courageous woman,” he said.

Hativa based her findings on feedback forms provided by students upon completing courses, Tadmor said. The forms revealed that students who found that their own political views were to the right of those of their instructors were intimidated into keeping their opinions to themselves.