JERUSALEM IS ISRAEL ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUES.

Recently, oral argument was heard in the United States Supreme Court concerning the fight of American citizens born in Jerusalem to have "Place of Birth" line on one's passport read Jerusalem, Israel. Federal legislation specifically authorize this. However, The State Department as a matter of policy refuses to follow this statute. The case has made it before the US Supreme Court.

It should be pointed out that the three branches of Government the executive, legislative and judicial. They are understood as being co-equal each which specific powers that do not overlap. Foreign Relations belong to the Executive branch exclusively and it is not Congress' place to dictate to the State Department how o do its job. so there is a legitimate separation of powers question for the Court to decide. However, what is outrageous is the assertion made by attorneys for the Administration through the Solicitor General's office that Israel has no more right to Jerusalem than Russia does to Crimea.

The cultural ignorance and insensitivity behind such arguments border on the Anti-Semitic. Jerusalem is where Jews face at prayer. During the week Jews pray for the return of the exiles to Israel and rebuilding of Jerusalem three times daily. The Passover Seder and Yom Kippur services conclude with the declaration "NEXT YEAR N JERUSALEM".

Though a secular and ethnically diverse society the modern state of Israel asserts its historic antecedents the Kings of Davidic Dynasty. The establishment of the State of Israel was widely heralded as the Return to Zion. Although ridiculed as racist the Law of Return mistakenly seen as unfair to Arabs displaced in 1948 seeking to return to pre-1948 residences misses the cultural aspect of the law.

The Law of Return canonizes  the cultural norm of Israel as homeland. The notion of Jewry's connection to the land of Israel and Jerusalem only eroded in the aftermath of Jewry's trending away from tradition during the 19th century. Even so a proposed Jewish state in Uganda or a  the Soviet Jewish republic of Birobidzhan went  for all intents and purposes, nowhere.

It is quite serious that the Administration actually believes an argument denying  a fundamental aspect of Jewish identity, shame on them.  And if Israel has no right to Jerusalem then where do Jews have a right to belong? 

MURDER IS NOT AN EXCUSE NOR WILL IT EXCUSE

It is becoming clear that the Arab boy who was murdered was killed by Jews. Part of me wishes to minimize this outrage, that the murder of the three Jewish teens overshadows this boy's death. However, murder is a crime that must be prosecuted to the extent of the law. Yet, there are some distinctions there is a difference between an act done by individuals contrary to society's educational infrastructure and its other institutions. Those who kidnapped the three boys were at best the product of a generation feed hate along with their mothers' milk, a culture encouraging violence against Jews that reaches within every echelon of Arab society in Judea, Samaria or Gaza. No one in the Israel's Jewish community is celebrating this young person's death unlike the three finger salute or passing out candies in celebration. Remarkably a murder denounced by the Israeli government within a short time suspects were arrested and face arraignment the system is working yet the Arabs respond with massive rocket barrages including desecration of Joseph's Tomb. Sorry, the death of the Arab teen is not justifies nor does this murder justify the Arab response. The murder of Eyal, Gilad and Naftali must be responded to not out of revenge. Revenge is exclusively G-D's department but there must serve as a deterrencee to discourage anyone from harming another Jew.

FOR KING DAVID'S HONOR

Israel National News/ Arutz Sheva  reported today about a virtual conquest of King David's tomb. Evidently Catholic Mass was celebrated not in the room of the Last Supper but in the room used as King David's tomb. Assisted by Police and  Yassamim, special police Jews were made to leave the holy place to facilitate the celebration of the Mass.


While respecting other people and their faiths may be necessary in a pre-Mashiach world but there must be limits. The Jews' presence in the Holy Land is not as European or Asian interlopers but as a returning people indigenous to the land. How else to seriously claim Jewry's claim of being native to the land after nearly two millennia but by asserting the connection between present day  Jewry and our ancestors. King David has present day descendants an individual  with some knowledge of Jewish law sees indicia of Jewish life going back to antiquity. Ceding any Jewish aspect of a Historic/ Holy site is in effect a ceding of Jewish sovereignty.


Openness and liberalism cannot be extended to the point of virtual suicide. King David despite being a Biblical figure, David was King over all Israel. Allowing Non-Jewish prayer services and ritual is disrespectful and acts as a repudiation of present day Jews in Israel being connected to King David and that present day Israel is the Kingdom's successor. How can the claim be made if the King's honor is not protected?


Respect for others is necessary for a civil society but at the expense of self respect is the price is too high .

DEMOCRATIC VALUES

Recently The Chief Rabbinate of the State of Israel repeated the opinion of their predecessors, prohibiting the enlistment of women in to the IDF. The Rabbis’ instead suggest girls serve in the national service program.

 

Finance Minister Yair Lapid posted on his Facebook page that the Rabbis’ opinion was a national scandal and in essence a tone of how dare these state employees who enjoy a good salary as well as other publicly funded perks speak against women serving in the Israeli Military. Minister Lapid railed against the Rabbis’ opinion as an insult to all women serving in uniform and in particular to those women serving in command or in educational roles. Minister Lapid is so enraged that he pledged an all out campaign to oust the Chief Rabbis.

 

Though there have been some efforts to smooth over the relationship between Minister Lapid’s Yesh Atid party and the Chief Rabbinate what remains is quite disturbing. In the interest of full disclosure this writer identifies with Haredi Jewish practice and ideology, however my issue with Minister Lapid’s posting is more rooting in my capacity as an attorney.

 

In essence Minister Lapid asserted that as State Employees Rabbis Lau and Yossef should not and indeed inappropriate to express an opinion on a matter of Jewish Law that is contrary to State policy.   Such an assertion offends basic tenants of democracy. Certainly Minister Lapid understands the independence of a democratic state’s judiciary is sacrosanct. An expectation that a Judge have his or her decisions be mere a rubber stamp of state policy, offends all principles of Justice... Among a Judge’s core duties is to tell the State when it is wrong. Indeed the notion of being a state employee as a basis for restraining a jurist’s judgments/legal opinions evokes images of tyranny, not democracy.

 

It cannot be denied a core function of the State Chief Rabbinate is the articulation of Jewish Law, Halacha particularly in public matters such as service in the IDF. To hold the Rabbis’ opinions hostage to their ideological compliance with those in power at the moment should be considered equally absurd being analogues to muzzling Supreme Justices’ in exercising their duties.

 

Further it is distressing that Minister Lapid has that profound degree of contempt for religion or complete ignorance about the fundamental aspects of any religion let alone Judaism. Perceiving the Chief Rabbis as being bought and paid for by the State and therefore they had better spin the Halacha to fit the State’s policies.  Such an understanding of the Chief Rabbis is reminiscent of the Former Soviet Union‘s official Chief Rabbinate. The thought that Minister Lapid could make such statements and threats seriously calls in to question how committed he is to democracy.

 

The larger question is on the Rabbis affiliated with Minister Lapid’s party how they could remain affiliated with someone who holds such deep seeded disdain for Judaism? How could anyone religious or devoutly secular with even a modicum of understanding of democracy allow the Minister’s outlandish posting to stand?