A pictorial record of the Neturei Karta's historic Mission to Iran
Beginning on Thursday June 8 and concluding on Sunday June 18 a four man delegation of Neturei Karta International visited Iran. Their goals were to lesson anti-Jewish sentiment among the Islamic population, bring chizuk to the Jewish community and alleviate the plight of thirteen Iranian Jews charged with espionage. This visit elicited an emotion charged critique, "That Infamous Road Paved With Good Intentions", in the 20 Sivan edition of the Yated Ne'eman. NKI has been denied the opportunity to respond to this article in the Yated. What follows is an attempt to correct the errors of that article and explore some of the underlying issues which it touches on. Much of the discussion to come explores topics that are often subject to more heat than light. It is the author's hope that the reader will approach this work with objectivity and a willingness to examine questions that the dominant forces of our age have long since declared answered.
Introduction
The Yated Ne'eman strives to perform an important function in the Torah
community. It allows its readers to keep abreast of developments in the
Torah world and the world in general without having recourse to other
media sources whose philosophies and standards are antithetical to Torah.
In addition, it alerts its readers to assorted forms of heresy or quasi
heresy which stalk the Jewish community in this trying period in our people's
history. Lastly, it provides inspiration via mussar and tales of
the righteous in order to spur us on in G-d's service.
It comes as no surprise, historically, that the Yated's editor has served
ably to spread the above mentioned messages. It was in the tale end of
the nineteenth and early parts of the twentieth century that his ancestor,
R. Yaakov ha-Levi Lipschitz (1838 - 1921), was in the forefront in the
struggle against assorted heresies in Lithuania.
One of the foremost dangers which R. Lipschitz pointed out was Zionism,
a new movement at that time, but one which he saw had great potential
to do bad. A scholar and writer of renown, he worked together with the
likes of R. Chayim Soloveichik of Brisk, R. Eliezer Gordon of Telz, R.
Eliyahu Chayim Meisels of Lodz, R. Chayim Ozer Grodzinski of Vilna and
the Lubavitcher Rebbe, R. Shalom Dov Ber Schneersohn (may their memories
be blessed), to combat the early flowerings of Zionist thinking.
It is thus particularly disturbing and painful to note that the Yated
frequently evidences a profound lack of understanding as to what Zionism
is and what danger it represents. The editorial memory of the Yated seems
quite short and, hence, incapable of remembering the very ideals and first
principles which motivated the Torah leaders and journalists of a century
ago.
Our spirit in what follows is not contentious. We respect what the Yated
has accomplished in the Jewish community. We hope, with Hashem's help,
to offer a bit of respectful reproof.
The "Paved Path"
The Yated of 20 Sivan 5760 featured a lengthy article denouncing a group
of Jews who traveled recently to Iran on a mission of mercy. The group's
aim was to lesson anti-Jewish feeling in Iran and to attempt to achieve
some degree of mercy for the thirteen imprisoned Jews accused of espionage.
None of these intentions, however, impressed the article's author, Mr.
Avi Yishai. His writing was vicious in its uniform criticism of the group.
Words were not spared. The trip was "something evil", "malignant", "ill-fated"
"doomed" and "bizarre".
The writer, Mr. Avi Yishai, leaves little room for doubt in his readers'
minds. Although he acknowledges the possibility that the delegation's
"intentions were good" the "evil" they worked and "damage" they did can
only be erased by "rachmei shomayim." In the title of the article, "That
Infamous Road Paved With Good Intentions," we may infer that the delegation
is, indeed, headed for eternal punishment.
The Torah Opposition to Zionism
In order to understand the basic assumptions of Mr. Yishai it is necessary
to first analyze the traditional Torah approach to Zionism. The past half
century has created much confusion in this area and we must have a look
at the first principles involved.
There were many reasons why the Torah leaders and masses of G-d fearing
Jews opposed Zionism down through the decades. In the rush to avow and
disavow party grouping and labels some of the most elementary have been
forgotten.
We will not concern ourselves with the fears Torah Jewry had of Zionists'
irreligiosity. Those were, of course, legitimate and have been born out
by history. However, the Torah view of Zionism went far deeper than this.
It was an opposition to the doctrines of Zionism not merely the actions
of Zionists.
It was rooted in the belief that Zionism, by advocating a political and,
eventually, military end to golus, was violating the Divinely ordained
terms of exile. Exile was always viewed by the Jewish people as a punishment
for sin. Efforts to escape the state of exile by this worldly strategies
are inherently doomed to failure. The only proper means of ending the
exile were Torah, prayer and penance.
On every yom tov during the Mussaf prayer we recite, "Because
of our sins we were exiled from our land. . ." The desire to end this
state by recourse to politics or arms is indicative of a lack of faith
in the Divine Governance of human affairs. It is for this reason that
the Zionist ideology was conceived among non-believers, far removed from
their faith.
In the words of Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch, "We mourn over that which brought
about that destruction (of the Temple - author), we take to heart the
harshness we have encountered in our years of wandering as the chastisement
of a father, imposed on us for our improvement, and we mourn the lack
of observance of Torah which that ruin has brought about. . . It (this
mourning - author) obliges us to allow our longing for the far away land
to express itself only in mourning, in wishing and hoping; and only through
the honest fulfillment of all Jewish duties to await the realization of
this hope. But it forbids us to strive for the reunion or possession of
the land by any but spiritual means." (Horeb, 1981: 461
The opposition to Zionism was further concerned that this violation would
inevitably lead to conflicts with other nations and (as foretold by Chazal)
these struggles would often be quite bloody. Human affairs are forever
governed by Divine Providence. In the end, as the Psalmist tells us, "There
are many thoughts in the hearts of men but the Counsel of Hashem -- it
shall stand." Hence, whether it pursues a path of war or peace the state
of Israel is doomed to a never ending agony of violence. Events have validated
this sentiment of chazal over the past fifty two years.
Again Rav Hirsch, "During the reign of Hadrian when the uprising led by
Bar Kochba proved a disastrous error, it became essential that the Jewish
people be reminded for all times (emphasis added) of an important, essential
fact, namely that (the people of) Israel must never again attempt to restore
its national independence by its own power; it was to entrust its future
as a nation solely to Divine Providence." (Hirsch Siddur, 1969: 703)
On the most profound level -- besides destroying the Torah view of golus
and leading the Jewish people into fifty two years of war with Arabs and
Muslims around the world -- Zionism replaced G-d's service as the central
purpose of Jewish existence with a notion of peoplehood divorced from
G-d. Thus, the guide map of Jewish conduct, the Torah, would now take
second place to the excesses and emotionalism of secular nationalism.
Questions concerning life and death matters would be weighed by the secular
desires of a land and soil patriotism with little or no concern for
halachic standards.
Doubtless, the Yated's editor would claim that he is in agreement with
all the above. However, as we examine his high tempered denunciation of
those who visited Iran it will become painfully obvious that his world
view has suffered much, albeit subconsciously, at the hands of an ideology
that his ancestors fought so valiantly against.
Approach to an Enemy
For example, Mr. Yishai asks, "How can Jews present gifts to a sworn enemy
who has just called for the annihilation of Israel and all its inhabitants?"
We leave for the moment who and what this "sworn enemy" is opposed to.
We leave also whether the quotes in question about "annihilating)"
Jews are accurate. Let us assume them all to be true. The answer to Mr.
Yishai is that by presenting gifts to an "enemy" we are merely following
the path laid down by our forefather Yaakov in his approach to Esau the
wicked, which serves, according to Chazal, as a model for exilic
Jewish conduct. Examples of this approach abound. One of the most famous
is that of R. Yochanan ben Zakai who, in order to save the Torah sages,
humbly entreated Emperor Vespasian, surely a Jew hater.
Indeed, the only standard to be used in assessing whether one should visit
a "Jew hater" and bring him gifts is whether or not it can alleviate Jewish
suffering. And, we know that in exile this is the proper and most effective
tactic.
Why then the rage on the part of Mr. Yishai? Why does propitiating an
"enemy" bother him so? Is it not because he has absorbed willy-nilly the
Zionist notion that it is somehow demeaning for Jews to be humble before
their enemies? Has he not, in effect, absorbed the Zionist dogma that
the correct response is always to fight - verbally, economically, politically
and, if need be, militarily?
Continues Mr. Yishai, "The painful truth is that the visit of the delegation
was akin to shaking hands with the devil, for a most unworthy cause."
But, Mr. Yishai should we not "shake hands with devil" to lessen anti-Jewish
sentiment and possibly save Jewish lives? Is there any indication that
the demonization and ostracization of Iran since the 1979 revolution has
lessened anti-Jewish sentiments in that country? Hasn't the Zionist approach
made things far worse? Why are you emotionally linked to the policy of
never speaking to an "enemy"? Was that the approach of your illustrious
ancestors to the Czarist government?
Iranian and Islamic "Hate"
There is, of course, a certain degree of animosity built into the very
fabric of group relations as Chazal tell us. Nonetheless, that animosity
varies throughout history depending on a host of factors.
By and large the record of Arab and Islamic countries throughout the centuries
towards their Jewish populations has been far better than those of European
lands -- not perfect but far better. The hostility in this century among
Moslems is the direct result of Zionism. A careful examination of the
attacks and pogroms of the pre-1948 era inevitably reveals that they were
in response to Zionists plans and eventual actions to wrest political
sovereignty from the Turks or the English by immigration and force of
arms.
Thus, we have witnessed the fulfillment of that which were foretold by
Chazal. A violation of the letter and spirit of exile has led to endless
bloodshed and hatred.
How better to lesson this hatred than by proclaiming to the world that
Zionism and Judaism are not identical? How better to lesson Islamic hatred
for all Jews than by telling the Islamic world that Judaism, in fact,
condemns Zionism?
Let us turn once again to Mr. Yishai. The Iranian government is accused
of "implacable hatred for the Jewish nation." Hasn't the editor fallen
prey to the foundation stone of Zionist ideology that the Zionists are
the Jewish people and that modern Israel is "the Jewish nation"?
Among the sins he accused the delegation of is that they functioned as
a tool of those who would "deligitimitize Israel", that they explained
to the Iranians that "Judaism and Zionism are not synonymous'" and that
"Jews have no rights to Israel."
Mr. Yishai, do you think that the Brisker Rov, Reb Chaim Ozer, Reb Elchanan,
Rav Hirsch and hundreds of others would have legitimized Israel? Would
they have wanted the nations of the world to think that the atheistic
creed of Zionism was synonymous with Judaism? Would they have claimed
pre-Moshiach that the Jewish people have political and military "rights"
to the land?
Let us listen to Rav Hirsch. "For this (Messianic) future which is promised
to us in the glorious predictions of the inspired prophets as a goal of
the exile, we hope and pray, but actively to accelerate its coming is
prohibited to us." (Nineteen Letters, 1960: 108)
What would Rav Hirsch have said had a group of heretical Jews "actively"
accelerated that which "is prohibited to us"? And killed tens of thousands
of Jews and Gentiles in the process? And were committed to continuing
their scheme?
And publicly desecrated G-d's name every time they entered the public
forum by presenting themselves as the leaders of the Jewish people without
acknowledging the G-d of Israel?
Hasn't Mr. Yishai been duped into forgetting the cause for the turmoil
in the Middle East? Hasn't he forgotten the effects of violating the terms
of exile? Hasn't he simply forgotten the history of Jews in Arab lands
and how the terrible events of recent decades actually came about? In
essence, isn't his reading of history essentially that of Zionism?
Indeed. Mr. Yishai quotes in a critical vein an article which appeared
in the "Iranian News Agency" (the actual title is Islamic Republic News
Agency) describing the views of the delegation as those who "consider
the Zionist state of Israel a violation of the basic tenets of Israel"
and have "strongly opposed Zionism since the day this satanic cult started
taking shape in Europe."
What is there to criticize in this portrayal? Doesn't Mr. Yishai see the
spilling of Jewish blood over decades in order to establish Jewish political
rule over the Holy Land as a "violation of the basic tenets of Judaism"?
Wasn't Zionism which "started taking shape in Europe" a movement advanced
by Satan? Didn't it destroy tens of thousands of souls? Hasn't it endangered
and caused the physical deaths of thousands? Is that not Satanic? Do the
Gedolim of Agudas Yisroel disagree with this analysis?
Perhaps, what has occurred here is that decades of participating in the
affairs of the Zionist state has rendered Mr. Yishai a bit forgetful of
these basic notions?
Historical Pedigree
Mr. Yishai is very concerned that the delegation to Iran proceeded without
sanction of Rabbonim. He accuses the group as "in no way reflect(ing)
the ideology of mainstream Yerushalmi Neturei Karta leaders such as the
esteemed Rav Aharon Katzenellenbogen zt'l." He further asserts that "this
bizarre venture (was) launched without the guidance or blessing of any
recognized Rabbinic leader and disavowed by the main body of Neturei Karta
in Eretz Yisroel."
It is, of course, difficult to respond to the asserted "disavowal" devoid
of attribution. Perhaps, the Yated will eventually reveal its source from
"Neturei Karta of Eretz Yisroel" for this is the second time in less than
a year that this wild accusation has been made without supplying any source.
However, the rest of the statement is simply untrue. Both Rav Katzenellenboegn
and Rav Amram Blau zt'l were on record as having supported efforts to
spread the message that Zionism and Judaism are distinct amongst all peoples
and particularly among Islamic peoples. In fact, in a letter cosigned
by both Rabbis on the 17th of Iyar in 5731 (1971) they wrote, "Those who
are concerned about the Honor of G-d's name should know that the Jewish
people has no connection with the Zionist heretics and their state has
no connection with am Yisroel. It is proper to give these words the greatest
amount of publicity possible that they should be heard throughout the
world in every land and among every nation."
We are encouraged that the Yated editor does not limit his respect to
Agudah leaders. He also regards these earlier Neturei Karta sages as "esteemed"
and worthy of citing in order to denounce the current mission of mercy
to Iran. We are, thus, happy to inform him of their true convictions.
Suerly future editions of the Yated will print a retraction and clarification.
Actually, in Jerusalem the newspaper of the Aidah haChareidis, Ha-Aidah,
which represents those "moderate" Jerusalem "Neturei Karta" as well as
the largest body of anti-Zionist Jews in the Holy Land waxed eloquent
in its praise of every aspect of the mission to Iran in its 27 Sivan lead
editorial. Similarly HaChomah, organ of Neturei Karta worldwide, has enthusiastically
endorsed the trip.
Indeed, they were merely repeating that which was obvious to all anti-Zionist
leaders in Jewish history. For example the Satmar Rov zt'l declared, "In
sum, the hatred against the Jewish community is because it is said that
those who are not Torah observant, who are heretics are the leaders of
Jewry. The nations of the world are misled by them and acquire a hatred
of Jews. One of the greatest commandments there is, to be observed with
utmost self-sacrifice would be to make known to the nations of the world
that they (Zionists and irreligious leaders) are not the representatives
of the Jewish community. (And to tell them) that observant Jews have no
connection with them." (Dibros Kodesh, 1986: 210-11)
Lastly, the trip was undertaken with Rabbinic consultation and support.
Among those who supported the trip were HoRav R. Avrohom Leitner, HoRav
R. Yecheskel Gold, HoRav R. Yoel Morgenstern, HoRav R. Lazer Chaim Blum,
HoRav Simchah Yisroel Blum, HoRav Mayer Yehudah Tannenbaum and many others.
We await the Yated's publication of the names of those of "Neturei Karta
in Eretz Yisroel" who "disavowed" the pidyon shavuim effort.
Selective Quotation
It is worth noting in passing that Mr. Yishai was working under a double
disability in composing his article. First, he failed to contact the participants.
Their names were known to him yet he never called them to inquire about
the trip. He writes, "Without the benefit of a briefing from the five
(four - author) man delegation we are left in the dark regarding the specifics
of their intentions with the Iranian authorities."
Quite so. But, why, then, did you not inquire?
Why did you not attend the press conference held at a Manhattan hotel
by the delegation despite having been informed by fax that it was to occur?
Two, he deliberately omitted from his report quotations from the same
articles of IRNA (Islamic Republic News Agency) which he referenced because
they wouldn't fit into the image he was trying to create.
In the quote which begins his article Mr. Yishai attributes the following
to the "Iranian News Agency": "Hasidic and other Jewish sects have strongly
opposed Zionism since the day this Satanic cult started taking root in
Europe . . ."
Surprisingly, when reading the actual release we discover that the quote
is not from IRNA. It was IRNA quoting the Tehran daily Kayhan International.
The latter paper was, in fact, criticizing the error of their own nation's
leaders in ignoring anti-Zionist Jews!
Here is the quote in full as it appeared in IRNA: "Drawing a distinction
between Judaism and Zionism, the paper praised Rabbi David Yisroel Weiss
for emphasizing this important point in his talks with Iranian media this
week. 'Weiss was not saying anything new,' it pointed out."
"In fact, 'he was only repeating certain obvious facts which the Muslim
world has been slow to grasp,' it added."
"It moreover shows the 'inability in our political and diplomatic circles
to focus on the reality of Hasidic and other Jewish sects which have strongly
opposed Zionism since the day this Satanic cult started taking shape etc.,'
"
So enthused was Kayhan as reported by IRNA that it hoped that " 'the arrival
of the Rabbis in their traditional robes and the headlines they have made
should not be relegated to the background as those influenced by the U.S.-Zionist
propaganda are trying to do.' "
What was significant in the visit? Kayhan wrote and IRNA reported, "the
visit has 'busted the myth that Judaism and Zionism are synonymous with
each other.' "
Mr. Yishai actually describes his quotation fragment, extracted from the
middle of the IRNA report as follows: "So begins a June 13 report published
by the official Iranian news agency . . ."
A simple untruth and a most significant one for it omitted entirely the
respect accorded Judaism in both Kayan International and IRNA and their
criticism of the Islamic world for not distinguishing between Judaism
and Zionism.
We find a similar resort to selective quotation by Mr. Yishai in his report
of the delegation's visit to the Ayatollah Taskhiri. We will deal with
what is accurately quoted later. At present let us present the words of
IRNA that the Yated left out.
"Expressing satisfaction with the visit made by the intellectual Jewish
clerics to Iran, he said that it was his hope that a unifying movement
as well as greater cooperation can be achieved for the benefit of mankind.
. ."
This statement was of no significance to Mr. Yishai.
Nor was the following: "He told the visiting guests that their movement
is a noble and a sacred one which can open doors to greater understanding
between the two religions."
Indeed the Ayatollah's exact words appeared twice in the article. Mr.
Yishai chose one and ignored the other. The latter read: " 'Judaism is
a divine religion and its teachings are divine,' remarked the Ayatollah,
adding that the numerous crimes of Zionism have distorted the image of
Judaism."
Of course, offering the Yated readers these quotes would have made for
a more complicated and nuanced article and wouldn't have fit the image
of Iranian "bottomless cruelty and irrational hatred' of Mr. Yishai's
imagination.
Or, is the imagination Mr. Yishai's? Is he not actually parroting the
clich?s and stereotypes that Zionism has advanced for the last century
instead of examining the facts?
From a Tactical Perspective
The fundamental thesis of Mr. Yishai's attack is that the delegation's
presence in Iran made things worse for Iranian Jewry and also endangered
Jews living in Eretz Yisroel. It "severely heightened the danger for the
Iranian Jewish community" and it encouraged the Iranians in a "fundamental
Islamic article of faith that Jews have no right to Israel." Further it
"forment(ed) more of what the Iranians regime is so adept at -- implacable
hatred of the Jewish nation."
First, the minor inaccuracies: 1) There is no "fundamental Islamic article
of faith" which governs contemporary geopolitics in the Middle East. Clearly,
unlike the stereotypes of Mr. Yishai's creation, there is much disagreement
among Muslims throughout the world on this matter. We would be most interested
in the Yated's source for this bit of information on Islamic theology.
2) Does the Iranian government have a "hatred for the Jewish nation"?
Or has the Yated once again fallen into mouthing the fundamental article
of Zionist faith, that the state of Israel and the Jewish nation are one
and the same?!?
As regards the vital question of the effect the trip had on Iran's Jews,
Mr. Yishai is once again operating from the self imposed disadvantage
of failing to pick up the telephone and call those who were there. In
the first place the group were frequent visitors in the synagogues of
the country. These were always highlighted by a talk given by one of the
guests given to the Jews who invariably flocked to the shuls. The subject
matter was the same -- basic Judaism, Sinai, Torah and mitzvos, Shabbos,
kashrus and the like. Everywhere the people couldn't get enough of their
esteemed guests.
Specifically, on the morning of Thursday June 8th they davened at the
Abrishami Synagogue in Tehran which filled to overflowing in honor of
their visit. After shacharis a member of the delegation addressed the
masses assembled. Thereafter they visited and spoke freely with the Jews
at Tehran's Jewish Community Center and were shown by their Jewish hosts
the library and computer center. In the afternoon they toured the Dr.
Sapir Jewish hospital and spent time with the patients, Jewish and non-Jewish.
Late afternoon found them at a conference with Rabbi Yousef Hamedani,
Chief Rabbi of Tehran, where they discussed at length matters of halacha,
world and Iranian politics.
On Shavous night (Thursday the 8th) they davened at the Pesyan synagogue
in Tehran and spoke afterwards to the tsibur. Including questions and
answers after the talk this event took over four hours. Once again on
Shabbos they spoke in the Pesyan Shul.
The following week they visited Isfahan City, where they prayed with the
tsibur, spoke to a full and enthusiastic shul and went to the community
mikveh.
Lastly, on their final motzei Shabos of the two week tripin they visited
at the Pesyan synagogue where a gala farewell was prepared for them. They
spoke yet again and the Iranian Jews entertained them with having many
of their children recite their recent selections from Chumash, Ani Maamin
and aseres ha-dibros. This last event which began at midnight was attended
by over six hundred Jews.
Besides these religious visits and talks the group also met at length
with the Iranian Jewish members of Parliament, assorted communal and student
leaders with whom they had wide ranging discussions concerning the spiritual
and material situation of the nation's Jews.
At no time did the government tell the delegation what to speak to the
Jewish community about. Their remarks, all of which emphasized the need
to maintain loyalty to the Torah, were allowed and encouraged by the government.
There was no censorship either before or after the delivery. This writer
has seen video tapes of all the non-Shabbos visits and can verify that
the visitors brought the message of Torah to thousands of Jews eager to
hear it.
Only the most preconceived spirit of resentment could judge this unprecedented
kiruv mission as in some way endangering Iranian Jews. The entire visit
was an enormous source of chizuk emunah for thousands.
Mr. Yishai, of course, knew none of this and evidenced no interest in
finding it out. To him "what we do know (about the trip) is enough."
And, what precisely did he know? "We know that the unfortunate visit took
place, and that it was pounced on and exploited by the Iranian propaganda
machine."
Here we arrive at the heart of the Yated critique. Even if Mr. Yishai
now knows that the trip was a great source of chizuk for Iran's Jews and
that it in no way endangered that community he would still maintain that
it was bad because it endangered Jews living in Eretz Yisroel.
Let us analyze this proposition. There is little doubt that the overall
effect of the visit on Iranian attitude to towards Judaism and Jews was
positive. The delegation pointed out that the aspect of "Jewish" behavior
which has alienated the Iranians over recent decades, namely, the actions
of the state of Israel are not those of Jews loyal to G-d and Torah. They
welcomed this message and proclaimed that there was and is no quarrel
between Islam the religion and Iran the state with the Jewish people.
Let us imagine for a moment that a large group of non-believing Jews elsewhere
in the world was fighting needlessly with a non-Jewish people. This, in
turn, had led to animosity and violence directed at all Jews, not just
those responsible for the trouble. Wouldn't Mr. Yishai grant that it is
a high priority to inform that nation that the real Torah people have
no quarrel with them and that the negative acts are those of a group pledged
to anti-Torah values. Why shouldn't non-Jews identify Jews and Judaism
with the peaceful and G-d fearing non-Zionists? Will this heighten or
lessen anti-Jewish thoughts?
In Iran, at least, it clearly lessened them. Dozens of Islamic groups
visited with the delegation. They spoke repeatedly to the media, at two
Universitys and with many government and religious leaders. Everywhere
the response was the same. "It is an honor that you are here." "We are
longing for dialogue with Jews." "Our quarrel is merely with Zionism."
"We respect the Jewish faith."
Now, it is true that the Iranian government and most of its people would
like to see the end of the state of Israel. It is false, though, that
they advocate "the annihilation of Israel and (italics in the original)
all its inhabitants."
The delegation to Iran believes, as did the Satmar Rov and many other
Gedolim that the state of Israel should and eventually will cease to exist.
Only then, when the proper Jewish approach to exile is followed, can we
hope for peace in the Middle East and for Jews throughout the world
In 1948 some leaders of Agudas Yisroel believed that participation in
the Israeli government would allow them to best serve the interests of
the Jewish people. They had no illusions about the appropriateness of
taking arms without Divine sanction, to kill and be killed.
And, what has been the record of 52 years of the state which the Yated
equates with the Jewish people? A perpetual war, never ending terror in
the Holy Land and around the world and an inability to ever make peace
have all resulted. This is the record of Zionism materially -- a failed
enterprise if there ever was one. Is there a land in the world today where
Jews fear for their lives as they do in the Holy Land? All this need not
surprise anyone for it is the inevitable result of abandoning the spiritual
tasks of exile. We, of course, make no mention of the thousands lured
away from Judaism due to this "faith."
What policy would the delegates and anti-Zionists Jews advocate toward
the state?
There is nothing that is original in their approach. They would emphasize
that we must go about the proper fulfillment of exilic task by sanctifying
Hashem's Name as we serve Him, that we inform Jews and non-Jew that deniers
of G-d cannot speak in the name of the Torah nation and that the hatreds,
wars and secularization caused by the Israeli state are simply a bizarre
distortion of Judaism.
They advocate that the state be dismantled. Of course, this does not seem
possible in the foreseeable future. Nonetheless, they pray that it should
happen and that no innocents be hurt in the process. In the hands of G-d
even this seemingly difficult task is possible.
Because of their efforts in Iran a nation of some sixty million now sees
Judaism in a new light and no longer has a monolithic hatred of world
Jewry.
The Iranian government also welcomes an end to the Israeli state. Here,
at least, the Yated correctly quoted Ayatollah Taskhiri who predicted
the "annihilation" (actually a parahrase) of Israel. However, it is clear
that he was not calling for the annihilation of all those living there
at present. "Annihilation" politically. Yes, the Iranians support those
engaged in the military struggle as well. Does this represent a danger?
Obviously. The key question, though, is how best to mitigate it?
Let us ask Mr. Yishai whether anything he or anyone else has done by way
of supporting Israel and identifying that government's deeds and very
existence with the beliefs of world wide Jewry has increased Jewish safety
in the Holy Land? Hasn't this policy truly endangered the Land's inhabitant
and Jews elsewhere as well.
Logically if one used to view all Jews living in Eretz Yisroel as Zionists
and therefore bad and then discovered that hundreds of thousands of them
are actually anti-Zionist would this realization make you more or less
apt to hate them as a monolith? Would it make one more or less apt to
engage it or support across the board military action?
Surely the point is, at very least, debatable? Mr. Yishai has chosen to
link our fate to the ideas and actions of the Shamirs and Baraks of the
world. May we not opt out of his alliance without being doomed to hell?
Clarification
There was one point in Mr. Yishai's article where he accurately reported
what had appeared in IRNA and was justly angered by it. However, here
IRNA misquoted Rabbi Weiss and in a later story retracted their original
report. The first report claimed that the Rabbi had said "any punishment
in the conviction of the 13 Iranian Jews . . . will deter the gullible
from falling pray to the Israeli bait. . ."
In truth, Weiss never made that statement which implied that the 13 were
guilty. What he did say was a well thought out statement on the matter
of the trial which was a plea for mercy. He also submitted a lengthy staement
to the Judge, the Iranian President Khatami and the Ayatollah Khameni
in order to achieve this goal.
It is inconceivable that Mr. Yishai actually believed that Rabbi Weiss
welcomed convictions and punishments. Of course, if he had read the Iranian
press after his original article he would have seen the retraction. Alternatively,
he could have picked up the phone and called Rabbi Weiss.
Yet, he chose to do neither.
Why?
The inevitable conclusion is that Mr. Yishai has forgotten some the holy
traditions of the Gedolei Lita and their passionate opposition to Zionism.
He has, unwittingly adopted some of the basic assumptions of Zionist ideology.
He has subconsciously absorbed these teachings to the point where he is
incapable of understanding or even tolerating the traditional view. In
his zeal to promote his ideology he denies his adversary the courtesy
of a call and allows sloppiness and omission to color his reporting.
When the Yated was contacted by phone on some of the above distortions
and a request was made for the ability to reply this was refused by the
paper's editor. It is for this reason that we have chosen this pamphlet
as a means of reply.
However, unlike Mr. Yishai we are not so bold as to suggest the whereabouts
of his neshomah after it leaves this mortal realm (after 120 years). In
fact, we wish him well then and in this world as well. In fact, we are
confident that in the future the Yated will adequately reflect the mesorah
of Lita, the pursuit of truth, the spirit of fairness and the centrality
of Torah in all its writings.
Conclusion
We were called upon by the Creator at Sinai to function as "a kingdon
of priests and a holy nation." Part of our task as a people is to serve
as a "light unto the nations." This involves centering our actions and
thoughts on G-d's service via Torah study, prayer and kind deeds.
This imperative demands that we practice scrupulous honesty, exemplary
manners, embracing compassion and modesty in all our affairs.
We are to live first and foremost as "a people alone." Yet, our lives
will inspire others and glorify the Name of Hashem if we live up to the
Torah's standards.. Similarly our excursions into the public realm should
be to emphasize the G-d centeredness of all human endeavor and the need
to judge policies by the standards of Eternal Law.
In the words of Rav Hirsch: "Picture every son of Israel a respectful
and influential priest of righteousness and love, disseminating among
the nations not specific Judaism - for proselytism is forbidden - but
pure humanity. . . .How impressive, how sublime it would have been if
in the midst of peoples that adored only power, possessions and enjoyment
there had lived quietly human beings of a different sort, who beheld in
material possessions only the means for practicing justice and love towards
all, a people whose minds imbued with the wisdom and truth of the Law,
maintained simple, straightforward views, and emphasized them for themselves
and others in expressive, vivid symbolic acts." (Nineteen Letters, 1960:108-9)
We are ill suited for the role of perpetual antagonist in the Middle East.
The flowering of religion in the Islamic world is a challenge to a desacralized
West. We should be in a position to offer a conditional welcome to the
former and a grounded critique to the latter. Due to Zionism many in the
Torah community can do neither.
Modesty, honesty, prayer and Torah are our agenda -forever striving for
awareness of and closeness to the Creator is its purpose.
There is no room in this, the true agenda of the Jew, for endless violent
struggles with Palestinians, for shrill demands for reparations from all
European lands, for support of politicians who advocate the tidal wave
of immorality which inundates Western lands simply because they are pro-Zionist
or offer large sums of government money.
The call of "Kedoshim tihyu" demands an very different orientation.
In Iran there was a glimpse of this alternative path. The delegation visiting
and comforting the sick of all faiths was a view of something better than
that of soldiers ruthlessly policing Gaza. The sense that Orthodox faith
may serve as a basis for a common critique of modernity was a view of
something better than Jew and Moslem forever at war. The faces of the
hundreds of Jews who crowded the shuls to hear of their Torah heritage
was a window to somethng better than that of Orthodox political partys
groveling and jockeying for monies dispensed by heretics.
The Iranian trip was something better than Torah Jews hitching their wagons
to the failed Zionist enterprise.
Mr. Yishai, do you hear us?