David Brooks has written an interesting column in the New York Times here.  He discusses Jewish accomplishments in the world and notes that

“No single explanation can account for the record of Jewish achievement. The odd thing is that Israel has not traditionally been strongest where the Jews in the Diaspora were strongest. Instead of research and commerce, Israelis were forced to devote their energies to fighting and politics.  Milton Friedman used to joke that Israel disproved every Jewish stereotype. People used to think Jews were good cooks, good economic managers and bad soldiers; Israel proved them wrong.  But that has changed. Benjamin Netanyahu’s economic reforms, the arrival of a million Russian immigrants and the stagnation of the peace process have produced a historic shift. The most resourceful Israelis are going into technology and commerce, not politics. This has had a desultory effect on the nation’s public life, but an invigorating one on its economy.”   

“Tel Aviv has become one of the world’s foremost entrepreneurial hot spots. Israel has more high-tech start-ups per capita than any other nation on earth, by far. It leads the world in civilian research-and-development spending per capita. It ranks second behind the U.S. in the number of companies listed on the Nasdaq. Israel, with seven million people, attracts as much venture capital as France and Germany combined.”

All well and good but then Brooks over-reaches to claim that “Israel’s technological success is the fruition of the Zionist dream.”

What a limited view of the Zionist rationale for Israel, and its achievements!

One letter pointed out “While praising Jews and Israel, you seem to have missed a point that Israel drives home every day. Jews, are no longer a wandering people. We have a homeland. A place to hang our hat…. Neither kings, nor popes, caliphs, sheiks, or mullahs, can send us packing at a whim. Mere animosity and ‘divine right’ can no longer consign us to second-class citizens, dhimmi’s, or persona non-grata.  Israel’s place in the world, as the only Jewish state, allows Jews a global focal point, for honor, prosperity, education, religious insight, and protection. It is our birthplace and our birthright.  And no mobility or threat, will change that.” 

…. Now that starts to add to Israel’s significance in a more meaningful way than can Israel’s technological achievements, however impressive and important they may be.

Greg Tepper, an internet editor at the Jerusalem Post, has described the various stages of aliya that he passed through.  It makes for thoughtful and inspiring writing.

He concludes: 

Breathe. Release. Accept.  And then, and only for a moment, ….. there is nothing more wonderful than living in Israel, freedom-loving, separation-of-powers-believing, line-wanting, falafel-eating American that I am.

Greg has brought his love of American sport to Israel, as in this piece From the Hills of Jerusalem, let freedom swing

Brenda Katten from WIZO has written a succinct but important personal perspective on Zionism - see here. 

Katten correctly identifies the need for ongoing pride in Israel as the Jewish people’s national home, in the face of ongoing efforts at delegitimization.  “We are a people, a nation, not just a religion. Zionism is Jewish nationhood.”

We need to learn where we’ve come from,  …. where we are and how much Israel has already achieved, ….. and where we are going. 

Knowledge is an important ingredient that is rarely present in the Israel and Zionism-bashers who typically parrot standard lines from their group-think playbooks.

Israel has a major role to play in our world’s health.  Quite apart from its high tech approaches to the greening of the world, highlighted at a recent conference,  Tu Bishvat and its emphasis on the importance of trees should become a global day of renewal… maybe that’s something the Israeli delegation to Copenhagen could propose - a global Tu Bishvat.

The JNF plays a major role in improving the environmental health of Israel.  Their  website mentions that Israel was the only country with more trees at the end of the 20th century than at its beginning.

We have much to be proud of when remembering Zion.

The recent visit of the Pope to Israel, has resulted in much discussion about the relationship between Christianity and Judaism. While the relationship is clearly complex and multilayered (Isi Liebler explains his positive response to the Pope’s visit), one supportive and influential pro-Israel group, at a time when the more friends Israel has the better, are broadly called the Christian Zionists.

An example of the strength of their commitment and loyalty to Israel is shown in this comprehensive and fascinating website from a Christian Zionist which contains political interviews as well as videos of Israel, including recent archeological findings in the City of David.

Prior to the Netanyahu-Obama meeting, which seems to have gone as well as could be expected, the author of the site proposed a prayer for Netanyahu and his advisors “We call on you to join us for earnest prayer coupled with fasting for the sake of Israel at this perilous time, especially concerning the upcoming visit of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Washington DC. We know that massive pressure is poised to be brought to bear on him in the name of nearly all the nations of the world - led at this time by President Barack Obama - to forsake Israel’s G-d-given everlasting inheritance.”

Their role , composition and motivations have been described in several articles, including the important pro-Israel sentiment of English Christians such as Lord Balfour and Lord Palmerston 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

There has also been Christian resistance and opposition to the Christian Zionists 1, 2 particularly emanating from the Sabeel Centre in Jerusalem.

The numbers of Christian Zionists have been estimated as up to 20-30 million in the U.S. While they tend to be more aligned politically with the U.S. Republican party, they remain a powerful and passionate support for Israel at all times. . and a welcome reminder that while not all Jews are Zionists, not all Zionists are Jews.

While Zionism means different things to different people, as examplified in a series of articles collated here for the centenary in 1997, can we at least ascertain the organised Zionist world’s definition of what Zionism actually is?  Consider the following…

In August 1897 in Basle, the First Zionist Congress laid the formal foundations and step by step plan for the establishment of the Jewish State. The idea of course was the establishment of a home for the Jewish People wherein Jews would determine the fate of Jews - an idea that for 2,000 years had seemed to be an unachievable dream. This was known as “The Basle Program”.

One can trace the development and maturation of contemporary Zionism by following the 3 later modifications of the Basle manifesto as versions of “The Jerusalem Programme”.

Zionism is a dynamic movement which has changed and continues to change according to the circumstances of the day. But it took 54 years for the first modification to appear.

In August 1951, three years after the establishment of the State, the World Zionist Congress met in Israel for the first time (it was the 23^rd Congress) and made several major changes to the Basle Program. This Jerusalem Program focused on the Land itself, on agricultural development, on the Hebrew language, Jewish values and democracy.

In June 1968 at the 27^th World Zionist Congress in Jerusalem, the next revision of the Zionist manifesto was passed against the background of the previous year’s 6 Day War.

And this time the changes were historic. Ideas were formalised including the centrality of the State of Israel in Jewish life; the concept of a “prophetic vision”; and Israel’s role in “protection of Jewish rights everywhere”.

This Jerusalem Program began the move away from a Herzl philosophy in regards to Zionism to one of Achad Ha’am.

Herzl viewed Zionism as the complete solution to Jewish continuity and identity and saw no Jews who wished to remain Jews living in the Galut, other than small pockets of Orthodoxy. He did not see Israel just as the centre, but as the whole, and saw no need for the Jewish State to be concerned with protecting Jews outside of Israel. In fact, he foresaw no task for the State of Israel for Jews outside her borders at all.

Asher Ginsberg (Achad Ha’am) however saw an Israel as the cultural and spiritual centre of the Jewish world.

June 2004 saw the Executive of the World Zionist Organisation, as summarised here, formalise the end of Herzl’s vision of the Jewish world outside of Israel and the triumph of the views of Achad Ha’am. 

It also elevated the nature of the Jewish State in religious terms. It referred to the “historic homeland Eretz Yisrael”; emphasised the importance of Jerusalem both as Israel’s capital and for the Jewish nation; reiterated Israel’s determination to be a democratic society, and a just and moral one with a spiritual dimension; that the State of Israel should be the vehicle for Jewish continuity wherever Jews may be located; and declared one of Israel’s role to be that of fighting anti-Semitism around the world.

Achad Ha’am’s triumph was complete. An Israel confident of itself with a sufficient critical mass, taking on for itself the continuity of the Jewish people and protection of world Jewry, against a background of a declining Diaspora in relative power and absolute numbers

The upcoming 61^st Yom Ha’atzmaut will deepen Achad Ha’am’s vision.  As then Prime Minister Olmert declared in June 2008, until now the Jewish People had built the Jewish State whereas from now it was the turn of the Jewish State to build the Jewish People. That is also why the choice of the Prime Minister of Israel, and how he or she acts is so critical to life to the Jewish Diaspora.

For further related discussion, Gil Troy, a Professor of History at McGill University in Montreal, has written excellent articles, including a video and written piece on Why I am a Zionist, and has additional Zionist related links. He also recently penned an article, strongly supportive of Israel with the theme of Don’t cry for us, New York Jewry (and elsewhere).

The author of the enjoyable and instructive website Balashon is currently discussing the Hebrew Linguistic aspects of nuts ( Who could forget the Egozi Bar!).  The author also mentions the etymology of the walnut, known as Egoz Hamelech (the king’s nut) or the more visual  Egoz Hamoach (the brain nut) complete with comparison picture of a walnut and a brain.  Earlier in the month,  for Tu Bishvat, the Shaked (almond) was contemplated .. Shaked also means “to work diligently”.

Thinking locally, the word Shaked is a reminder of Shkedia Coffee Beans coated in Bittersweet Chocolate from Shkedia Geva - a highly recommended Sydney supermarket purchase.

Balashon also has a good take on words associated with Purim.    I was interested to learn that  “hamentaschen did not originally refer to Haman (and therefore the Hebrew אוזני המן oznei haman - came much later.) These pastries were originally called “mahn-taschen”. Mohn means “poppy” in German, and tasch is a pocket. When you add the Hebrew definitive article ha, they become ha-mahn-taschen, which is easy to associate with Haman.  Further, the word “tasch” comes from Middle High German tasche, and earlier from Old High German tasca. Tasca is related to the English word “task”, and both are related to “tax”. What’s the connection between task, tax and pocket? The Online Etymology Dictionary explains as follows: “amount of work imposed by some authority,” to “payment for that work,” to “wages,” to “pocket into which money is put,” to “any pocket.” According to Balashon “A connection between Haman and taxes can be seen in the more recent custom to boo at the reading of the word mas מס - tax in the Megila, the same way as Haman is booed.”  (nb even not on Purim, some might boo at the mention of taxes!) Read about Purim

For any discussion on the modern Hebrew language, it is important to include  Eliezer Ben Yehuda, the father of modern Hebrew, and an important early Zionist leader.
He was born in 1858 in Lithuania, where his witnessing of the struggle of the Balkan nations for liberation planted in his mind the idea of the revival of the Jewish people on its ancestral soil. He felt deeply that if the Bulgarians, who were not an ancient, classical people, could demand and obtain a state of their own, then the Jews, the People of the Book and the heirs of historic Jerusalem, deserved the same.

He maintained that the Jewish people, like all other peoples, had a historic land and a historic language.  What was needed was a national movement that would restore Israel to its land and its language.  In a preface to his dictionary he wrote – “in those days it was as if the heavens had suddenly opened, and a clear, incandescent light flashed before my eyes, and a mighty inner voice sounded in my ears: the renascence of Israel on its ancestral soil.”

Ben-Yehuda felt that the Jewish people should learn from the oppressed European peoples that were fighting for political freedom and national revival, and stated that the Jewish people must establish a community in Eretz Israel that would serve as a focal point for the entire people, so that even those Jews who would remain in the Diaspora would know that they belong to a people that dwells in its own land and has its own language and culture.

In Paris, he enrolled in a teaching college where he was inspired by the lectures of Joseph Halevy who, as early as the 1860’s, had advocated for the coinage of new Hebrew words.  He also met the Jerusalem scholar AM Luncz, who spoke Hebrew with Sephardi pronunciation and told him that the various Jewish communities in Jerusalem were able to converse only in Sephardi Hebrew.  These contacts reinforced Ben-Yehuda’s opinion that the Jews could only be united people in their own land if their children revived Hebrew as the spoken language.

In 1881 he arrived in Jaffa where, famously, he announced to his new wife, Deborah, that henceforth they would only converse in Hebrew. They established the first Hebrew-speaking home, and their son, Ben-Zion (later called Itamar Ben-Avi) was raised as the first modern Hebrew Speaking child. According to Ben-Yehuda, this was an important symbolic event for the revival, because, with a child in the house, parents and visitors would have to speak naturally to him on the most everyday topics, all in Hebrew. And when the child would finally begin to speak on his own, Ben-Yehuda would have living proof that a complete revival of the language was, indeed, possible.

Ben-Yehuda was said to have refused to let his son be exposed to other languages during childhood, and once reprimanded his wife, after he caught her singing a Russian lullaby to the child. The fact that there was a child in the house accentuated the need to find appropriate Hebrew words for the mundane things of everyday life. Thus, new Hebrew words were coined by Ben-Yehuda for objects such as doll, ice-cream, jelly, omelette, handkerchief, towel, bicycle, and hundreds more. As the child grew, so did Hebrew, both in vocabulary and in naturalness of expression. Indeed, Ben-Yehuda and his Hebrew-speaking family became a living legend, an embodiment of the revival for others to emulate.

Ben-Yehuda adopted several plans of action. The main ones were three-fold, and they can be summarized as “Hebrew in the Home,” “Hebrew in the School,” and “Words, Words, Words.”
He helped ensure that lessons in school were taught in Hebrew.  After writing for a few years in the local paper, Hahavatzelet, he also began to publish his own newspaper Hatzvi, in 1884, to serve as an instrument for teaching adults, through  its content and its language.

Before his wife, Deborah, died, she encouraged her sister, Hemdah, to marry Ben-Yehudah.  Hemdah did so, and helped him greatly in his work (see photo - Ben-Yehuda and his wife Hemdah).  At first, Ben-Yehuda tried to befriend the religious Orthodox Jews, but they sensed that for Ben-Yehuda, Hebrew was not a holy tongue, but a secular, national language.  They began be suspicious and more critical, especially when he later wrote columns against traditional customs.

Ben-Yehuda prevailed upon Herbert Samuel, the British High  Commissioner, to declare Hebrew one of the 3 official languages of the country.

Ben Yehuda’s  major achievements included:
1. The revival of spoken Hebrew.  He was convinced that a living Hebrew, spoken by the people in its own land, was indispensible to the political and cultural rebirth of the nation. Indeed, the Hebrew language revival can be considered one of the truly outstanding socio-linguistic events of modern times.
2. The creation of a simple, popular style in Hebrew literature – he fought against inflated rhetoric, and demanded simplicity and concreteness.  To this end, he translated some stories into this Hebrew style.
3. He was the first to make a regular, systematic practice of coining Hebrew words..this was a constant demand.
4. His dictionary complemented his revival of the Hebrew language, and it was arranged in the manner of modern European language dictionaries.

Cecil Roth said that before BenYehuda, Jews could speak Hebrew;  after him, they did.  It was certainly not true, however, that Hebrew was not used.  Indeed, at the time of Ben-Yehuda’s first article in 1879, it was estimated that “over 50 percent of all male Jews were able to understand the Pentateuch, the daily prayers, etc. and some 20 percent could read a Hebrew book of average difficulty, allowing for a much higher proportion in eastern Europe, north Africa and Yemen, and a very much lower one in western countries.”

To help him with his dictionary, and to solve problems connected with the form and type of Hebrew and problems of terminology, pronunciation, spelling and punctuation, Ben-Yehuda founded the Hebrew Language Council in 1890. The Council was the forerunner of today’s Hebrew Language Academy, the supreme arbiter and authority on all matters pertaining to the Hebrew language. Recently there were complaints that funding to the Academy has been reduced as a cost cutting measure.

Eliezer Ben-Yehuda died from TB at the age of 64, and was buried on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem. His funeral was attended by 30,000 people.  Through his revival of the dynamic Hebrew language, his legacy very much lives on as one of the modern day giants of Israel and the Jewish people.

References include: Jewish Virtual Library, article by Jack Fellman;  Encyclopedia Judaica; Wickipedia.

This year, Bnei Akiva בני עקיבא‎ celebrates its 80th anniversary. Formed in early 1929 in Israel by Yechiel Eliash, Bnei is the largest religious Zionist youth movement in the world, active in 37 countries, with 75,000 members in Israel and 54,000 in the rest of the world, including strong Australian representation in Sydney, Melbourne and Perth.

Ynet recently presented a snapshot of Bnei Akiva showing from other countries the different faces of Bnei Akiva

At this anniversary, it is worthwhile to learn more about Bnei Akiva and its origins, in part because it provides insight into the pioneers of Israel, and the role of religious Zionism. Bnei Akiva’s aim was to have “one total Judaism…one which retains the Torah as its soul, the nation as its body, with its place in Eretz Yisrael.” (Rav Javetz). This principle of “the Jewish people in the land of Israel living according to the Torah of Israel” lies at the core of Bnei’s beliefs.

The other philosophy of Bnei Akiva is ‘Torah v’Avodah’, a phrase coined by Rav Shmuel Chaim Landau (Shachal). Torah is viewed as not just a set of laws to which each Jew must adhere but also “the spirit of our nation, the source of our culture and the essence of our souls”. This nationalistic element of Torah is the reason for our rebirth of the Jewish people in Israel and all Zionism must stem from it. Meanwhile, Avodah is an aim to make the Jewish people productive as a nation by rebuilding the land of Israel. Rather than just being a group of individuals, Avodah calls for the nation to begin to rebuild itself through creativity and physical labour. Bnei Akiva’s twin ideals of Torah and Avodah loosely translate to religious commitment/study and work on the land of Israel.

Bnei Akiva believes in the importance of Aliya and maintains that the future of the Jewish people is tied to the state of Israel. Bnei Akiva feels that Jewish youth in the Diaspora should be educated to realize that the Israel needs them, and that they, in turn, need it. In the early years of pioneering, Avodah was clearly understood as meaning agricultural work, however in more recent years, there has driven a shift in ideology towards a broader definition of working for the development of the country. Further, up to the 1980s many Bnei Akiva members joined religious Kibbutzim in Garinim (groups). Since the 1990s a wider view of how to contribute to Israeli life has become accepted. Bnei Akiva members now typically settle in development towns, settlements etc. They are active in all areas of Israeli life including security, hi-tech, education, academia etc.

With Bnei Akiva turning 80, it is of interest to examine the time around its formation in the late 1920’s. At this period of the British Mandate, the Jewish pioneers were struggling to succeed economically and to build their homeland. However, there was another concern as well: the need to redefine the spiritual-cultural identity of the Jewish nation.

At a time when the secular labourers gaining power, the “Hapoel Hamizrachi” workers movement, part of the Mizrachi movement (established in 1901), was founded. Its goal was to organize and unify the few religious labourers into a stronger entity. The movement’s first leaders consolidated a new philosophical perspective, intended as a counterweight to the secular-socialist ideology of other workers’ groups. Hapoel Hamizrachi saw itself as the active realization of the Religious-Zionist ideals of the Mizrachi movement: “The Land of Israel, for the People of Israel, according to the Torah of Israel”. It dedicated itself to engaging in all aspects of life in Israel, religious and secular, including labour and settlement of the land.

The Hapo’el Hamizrachi movement encountered many difficulties. The Histadrut and many Workers’ Committees incited against Hamizrachi members and prevented their employment. Keren Kayemet, which was responsible for allocation of land, gave land to other settlement associations, but not to Hapoel Hamizrachi. In addition, while Hapo’el Hamizrachi met with hostility from non-Zionist religious Jews, secular society disapproved of Hamizrachi’s devotion to religion. Although the ones who suffered most from this attitude were the workers who belonged to Hapo’el Hamizrachi, it also had a decisive influence on the youth.

In the wake of the ostracism and economic difficulties encountered by Hapoel Hamizrachi members, many of their youth chose to join secular social groups. They were drawn to socialist/workers’ youth movements or others such as Maccabee and Betar. This situation presented a threat to the new religious movement.

In the beginning of 1929, Yechiel Eliash, then an officer of the Brit Olamit shel Torah Va’avoda (“National Alliance of Torah and Labor”), suggested to Hapoel Hamizrachi the establishment of a religious youth movement, with the purpose of strengthening young people’s spirit and organizing them within a proud social framework.

This proposal was met with a lack of enthusiasm. However, Yechiel Eliash did not retreat, and later stated that “we believed that a youth movement would have to engender faith in its own strength and power to erect a religious Judaism with great accomplishments. Not individual creative Jews, but organized religious Judaism. The opponents, including leaders of Hapoel Hamizrachi feared rebellion and contended that a religious movement, intrinsically, cannot be oppositional and must be traditional. Some worried that the conduct of study in school would be impaired; others disparaged young people’s ability to stand at the head of a youth movement. Impressive educators, they argued, must hold this position. However, despite all this opposition, I decided to found the youth movement…”

Concurrent with the establishment of the movement in Israel, organizations of religious youth operated in the Diaspora. Some of them adopted the name Bnei Akiva and others had appellations such as Hashomer Hadati. Twenty-five years later (1958), the Israeli and Diaspora groups merged and the Mazkirut Olamit (World Secretariat) of Bnei Akiva was formed.

Today, the ideals of Bnei Akiva continue to emphamise the objectives of Religious Zionism - to combine the concepts of the Nation of Israel (AM Yisrael), the Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael), and the Law of Israel (Torat Yisrael) into one ideal.The wide range of programs are therefore designed to foster personal, familial, and communal commitment to the ideal of “Am Yisrael, Be’Eretz Yisrael, Al Pi Torat Yisrael.”

Bnei Akiva is a dynamic Religious Zionist Youth Movement run by youth for the youth, in order to keep the philosophy of Religious Zionism modern and active. It is dedicated to bringing the messages of Torah Va’Avodah and Aliyah to the Jewish youth. Torah Va’Avodah is an outlook on the world which synthesizes a religious life of Torah with the labour and production in order to bring about a national renaissance of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel. For further local information, you can read more about Bnei Akiva Sydney.

We hope that Bnei Akiva continues to go from strength to strength in the next 80 years.

Rabbi Uri Dasberg also wrote further about the life of Yechiel Eliash, the founder of Bnei Akiva ..
Eighty years ago, a young man, twenty years old, woke up one morning and decided that the religious youth deserved to have a youth organization of their own. This was Yechiel Eliash, born in a small town in Poland. He had studied in the yeshiva in Lomza and then in Novardok. After he arrived in Eretz Yisrael with an immigration “certificate” obtained for him by Rabbi A.Y. Kook, he studied in Rabbi Kook’s yeshiva, Merkaz Harav.

How did he get to this yeshiva? While he was still in Lomza, Eliash saw a small advertisement asking students to join the worldwide central yeshiva in Jerusalem. He obtained a reference from his rabbi in the yeshiva, an immigration “certificate” from Jerusalem, and a loan from his father. The rest of the money that he needed he obtained by selling his coat. He then had enough money to travel to the port of Haifa. In order to continue on to Jerusalem, he obtained some money from the branch office of Hapoel Hamizrachi in Haifa. And so, in the end, he arrived in Jerusalem.

He called the youth movement that he established “Bnei Akiva.” Later on Rabbi Maimon, the leader of the Mizrachi movement (not to be confused with another movement, Hapoel Hamizrachi, which was the patron of Bnei Akiva), would claim that the new movement was appropriate for Akiva under the age of 40, before he had learned anything. But Eliash purposely choose a name for his movement that implied youth and vigor. He wrote about Rabbi Akiva: “He was a laborer, a shepherd, a national warrior, and a Torah scholar… We are the students of Rabbi Akiva, we are Bnei Akiva!” Perhaps he copied the structure, with such elements as a “sheivet” – an age group – and “chevraya aleph and bet” from the yeshiva at Novardok, where he learned ethics before he came to Eretz Yisrael.

A youth movement can be expected to have characteristics of revolution and severance of contacts with earlier tradition. For this reason, the Mizrachi opposed the new youth movement. However, only such a movement could organize a group of young people who were willing to burst onto a soccer field in Jerusalem, in order to protest the desecration of Shabbat. Later on Eliash commanded the “security detail” of Hapoel Hamizrachi, establishing the principles for setting up military units which would observe religious requirements (Shabbat, kashrut, etc). These basic concepts are still applied by the Benish yeshiva students, the Chareidi Nachal units, the Chaplaincy of the IDF, and others. All of this took place during the time of the British Mandate, when military and semi-military organizations were forced to operate in secret. Eliash established the “Elitzur” sports union, which was used as a cover for the Ha’apalah, bringing in new immigrants by boat in spite of British opposition.

The establishment of the State of Israel did not curtail Eliash’s activities in support of religious participation in the government, and he centered his activities on the Interior Ministry and the Kupat Cholim Medical Fund of the Histadrut labor union. The result was the basis of what is known as the “historical covenant” between religious Zionism and the nonreligious sector. Here is an example of this covenant: Laborers who volunteered to take part in the Hagannah could perform their military exercises on Shabbat without missing any work, but religious laborers who exercised on Friday were required to make up for the lost work with extra hours every other day of the week. But the leaders of the Histadrut insisted that the religious workers should not be forced to make up for the lost time – we put in a large effort to limit the work week to eight hours. If religious laborers are forced to work extra, all of our efforts will have been in vain!

Yechiel Eliash, the founder of Bnei Akiva, passed away on the seventh of Tishrei 5758 (1997).

Info from Bnai Akiva sites, Wickepedia and Ynet.

Driving past Balfour Road in Rose Bay, provides a daily reminder of the Balfour Declaration.  As with most aspects of the Middle East Conflict, the declaration is misunderstood.  As it recently turned the ripe age of 91 years ago, it is useful to examine some of its aspects - from an article in the Jerusalem Post of Nov 1, 2008 21:34 

Happy Birthday, Balfour!

By ASHLEY PERRY

 Today, November 2, the Balfour Declaration is 91 years old. It was the crucial first official recognition of Jewish national aspirations. 

Although the declaration itself had little legal status, it was later incorporated into the Sèvres peace treaty with Turkey and the Mandate for Palestine, adopted unanimously by the League of Nations in the San Remo Resolution of 1920. This lent Zionism a legitimacy enjoyed by few national movements before or since.

Perhaps most astonishing today, the leader of the Arab movement, King Faisal, supported the declaration when it was referred to in the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement of 1919.

Although many have since attempted to deny the central nature of the document and its relationship to the Mandate, that’s not how its British drafters saw things. In fact, as stated in the 1937 Royal Commission Report, “the primary purpose of the Mandate, as expressed in its preamble and its articles, is to promote the establishment of the Jewish National Home.”

The initial drafts of the Balfour Declaration spoke of the desire “that Palestine should be reconstituted as the National Home of the Jewish people.” Clearly, Palestine as a whole was to become this Jewish national home.

The final draft was altered to contain the proviso, “it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

Many have argued that the term “Jewish national home” falls short of Zionist aspirations, and suggest that the declaration never meant to encourage the creation of a state. This interpretation fails because the major players in the drafting of the agreement thought otherwise.

It would have been diplomatically impossible for the British government to promise a state at that time, primarily because the territory was not even in its hands. The term national home was used as a first step on the path to statehood. Lloyd George, who was prime minister at the time, laid the onus for the transforming of a national home to a state on the Jews themselves:

“It was contemplated that when the time arrived for according representative institutions to Palestine, if the Jews had meanwhile responded to the opportunities afforded them by the idea of a national home, and had become a definite majority… then Palestine would thus become a Jewish commonwealth.”

General Smuts, a member of the Imperial War Cabinet when the declaration was published, said in 1919 that he could see “in generations to come, a great Jewish state rising there once more.” Influential figures like Lord Robert Cecil in 1917, Sir Herbert Samuel in 1919 and Winston Churchill in 1920 also spoke about the resulting Jewish state.

Churchill also told the Royal Commission regarding the Palestine White Paper of 1922, for which he had been responsible, that those who felt the Balfour Declaration or the Palestine Mandate precluded a Jewish state were mistaken. “There is nothing in it,” the commission found, “to prohibit the ultimate establishment of a Jewish state, and Mr. Churchill himself has told us in evidence that no such prohibition was intended.”

There are also those who look at the language of the declaration and the Mandate to claim that they give equal weight to Jewish national aspirations and the rights of various non-Jewish communities. This is erroneous simply because the main purpose of both the declaration and the Mandate, as expressed above, was to “promote the establishment of the Jewish National Home.”

Nonetheless, during the early days of the Mandate there were voices in the British government which felt an equal obligation to the Jewish and non-Jewish communities. Many politicians wished to ensure that the Arab population was placated. This was rebutted by those who felt that not only was this incorrect, but that the text of the Mandate made Britain “responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home.”

The wording clearly points to active intervention on the part of Britain.

“Merely to sit still,” wrote Churchill, “and avoid friction with the Arabs and safeguard their civil and religious rights and to abandon the positive exertion for the establishment of the Jewish National Home would not be a faithful interpretation of the Mandate.”

Possibly the greatest argument is the fact that the text describing the rights of “non-Jewish communities in Palestine” appeared only in the preamble of the British Mandate; the actual text was replete with references to actions that would be taken to ensure the rise of a Jewish national home. The British administration was required to “facilitate” Jewish immigration, and “encourage” the settlement of Jews on the land.

There can be no denying that the Balfour Declaration was unique, not only in Jewish history, but possibly in the history of national movements. For a short period, all the major powers, the leader of the Arab world and most interested parties created a mechanism to fulfill the Zionist dream.

This should not be overlooked or understated as Zionism fights an enduring battle for legitimacy. Few national movements in the world have such a legal declaration in their arsenal.

The writer is an editor at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs for the Middle East Strategic Information project.

www.mesi.org.uk

Comments:  The Balfour declaration itself had no legal status however a powerful legal status was provided when the declaration was incorporated into resolutions voted unanimously on 24^th July 1922 by all 51 members of the League of Nations.  The US joined in as the 52^nd nation.  Britain was appointed as Mandatory for implementing the Jewish national home in Palestine.  The League recognised the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine.  Its important to note that this League of Nations resolution was no different from the other promises of independent statehood made to other nations e.g. Poland, other Arab countries.  Only the legitimacy of Israel is questioned.

“Why the Jews” by Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin - published 1983, provides some helpful illumination of the nature of Judaism, even though the book focuses on anti-Semitism.  The role of Jewish nationhood and the state of Israel is particularly well discussed.

According to the authors “Judaism consists of 3 components: G-d, Torah (laws and teachings) and Israel (Jewish nationhood).  Throughout Jewish history, the Jews’ affirmation of one or more of these components has challenged, often threatened, the gods, laws, and nationalism of non-Jews among whom the Jews have lived.

Jewish nationhood as source of antisemitism

The 3rd component of Judaism is Israel, the biblical and historical name of the Jewish nation, and the name of the modern Jewish state.  Between 70 and 1948, Israel the nation existed while Israel the state did not exist.  To non-Jews and even to many Jews, the nationhood of the Jews is usually the most perplexing aspect of Judaism.

This confusion about Jewish nationhood is understandable.  For one thing, one normally associates a national group with a land and a state, and for nearly 2000 years, the Jews have lived without their state and almost all Jews lived in exile from their land.  A second source of confusion is that the Jews constitute the only group in the modern world that is both a religion and a nation.  For both these reasons, they are unique, which of itself often renders the Jews suspect in the eyes of others… the Jew is a member of both the Jewish nation and Jewish religion, and this has been so since the beginning of Jewish history.  To deny that nationhood is a component of Judaism is as untenable as to deny that G-d or Torah are components of Judaism.  This is particularly evident today, since Jewish nationhood is the one component of Judaism with which both religious and secular Jews identify.

There was one attempt by a group of Jews to eliminate the national component of Judaism.  During the 19th and early 20th centuries, Reform Jews in Germany and the US, fearing that any mention by the Jews of their peoplehood would offend non-Jews, called for the elimination of the national component of Judaism.  But even these radical reformers never denied that nationhood had always been a part of Judaism, they simply wanted it removed.  The attempt failed.  Judaism cannot survive without nationhood, since without this component it is by definition not Judaism but a new religion.

On the other hand, Jewish nationhood cannot survive the elimination of the religious components of Judaism. For the Jewish nation is defined by the Jewish religion.  The only way a non-Jew can become a member of the Jewish nation is by converting to Judaism.   The Jews are therefore the only nation that an outsider can join irrespective of geographical considerations…. As a consequence, the Jews are the only transnational nation, and this has been and continues to be a major source of antisemitism.

Jewish nationhood became an additional target of non-Jews animosity the moment the modern age of nationalism began.   Following the French revolution, in 1789, Count Stanislas de Clermont-Tonnerre declared “The Jews should be denied everything as a nation, but granted everything as individuals .. there cannot be one nation within another nation.”   In 1789, French Jews were told what virtually all European Jews would eventually hear: the price of individual emancipation is national extinction. .. In the age of religion, the Jews were offered equality on the condition that they abandon their religion and convert to the majority religion.  In the new age of nationalism, the Jews were offered equality on the condition that they abandon their national identity and adopt the majority’s national identify onlyl.  In both cases, opponents of the Jews have delivered the same message: cease being Jews.

Today as in 1789, the refrain of opponents of the Jews is “The Jews should be denied everything as a nation, but granted everything as individuals” The Soviets say this (written in 1983!) the Muslims and Arabs say this.  The United Nations in deligitimizing Zionism says this.  They all deny opposing Jews as individuals: they wish only to destroy Jewish nationhood.  This is why they do not call themselves antisemites but rather “antiZionists”

Among the most ardent enemies of Judaism today is the Left.  Marxists, for example, are theoretically opposed to all religions.  But from Marxism’s earliest days, its adherents have tended to be particularly anti-Jewish.  Among other reasons, Judaism, unlike other religions, incorporates nationhood, and basic to Marxist theory is the tearing down of national as well as religious allegiances.  In practice, however, Marxist parties have been intensely nationalistic wherever they have attained power, and the combination of chauvinistic nationalism with marxist theory produces a particularly dangerous strain of antisemitism.  Neither can tolerate the Jews.  Thus for example, Soviet Jews who are committed to the G-d and Torah component of Judaism provoke antisemitism for Marxist reasons (quite apart from traditional Russian orthodox antisemitism), and those who affirm the national component of Judaism provoke Jew-hatred for Soviet nationalist as well as Marxist reasons.  ..

This same intensity of Jew-hatred also holds true for any country that combines religious fundamentalism, nationalist chauvinism, and Marxist rhetoric.  each alone is antisemitic.

..  For both Islam and the Left, it is Judaisms 3rd component, nationhood, as embodied in the state of Israel and Zionism, which elicits the greatest hostility.  Nationalism and Communism .. have been antisemitic from their births primarily because of the national component of Judaism.  This was true before the modern Zionist movement was born, and it has been true ever since.

It would be valuable to discuss the oft-raised issue of “Jewish dual-loyalty”  Does the fact of Jewish nationhood mean that Jews outside of Israel have more than one loyalty. . If we are asking whether Jews outside Israel are loyal to 2 governments, the government of the country in which they reside and the government of Israel, the answer is no.  Jews who affirm the national component of Judaism, both in fact and Jewish legal obligation (the law of the land is the law, according to the Talmud) live as every other good citizen in accordance with the constitution and laws of the country in which they reside.

Does not the fact that of Jewish nationhood still mean that Jews are members of 2 nations - the Jewish nation and the nation among whom they reside?  .. yes, but so long as moral rather than national values are held supreme this should trouble no one.  And if this fact in and of itself should provoke certain indiviuals to antisemitism, that, is the price a Jew pays when nationalism becomes a god.”