Be a player, not a spectator!

It's been a couple of weeks since the Likud primaries, and most of the dust seems to have settled.

In summary, the Likud membership selected a powerful array of candidates who have declared and demonstrated loyalty to Eretz Yisrael. Only through the dirtiest machinations and abuses of democracy did Netanyahu manage to shunt Moshe Feiglin from 20th place to 36th. At this writing it is still unclear as to whether Michi Ratzon's appeal against his demotion (collateral damage with Feiglin) will bear fruit; either way, Feiglin won a huge moral and PR victory. For a solid week, he was the top news item in Israel; every news agency was filled with interviews and quotations from Feiglin.

And most importantly, once given the opportunity to present his own case, Feiglin was outstanding at winning over people's hearts and minds. Just reading the talkbacks to every article that dealt with him, whether on Haaretz, Ynet or NRG, it was staggering to see what proportion of people support him! Well over 50% of talkbackers have been supportive of Feiglin - and this on the most left-wing of news sites!

I sense that a major sea change has come over Israel. The people are finally getting access to a point of view that to date has been blackballed by the mainstream media - and they like it! It may well be that Moshe Feiglin does not get a seat in the coming Knesset, but this is of secondary importance. What really matters is that the media embargo of Feiglin and his views has been broken, and the people of Israel, when presented with an alternative to the suicidal path of Oslo, "land for peace" etc., are ready for the change.

But it's not going to happen in these elections.

The Israeli Knesset elections of 10 February 2009 are not so much a referendum on the direction of the country, as a vote on which bunch of losers is the least likely to accelerate Israel towards the abyss. Barak, Livni and Netanyahu do not disagree about the paradigm of leadership, only about the price at which they are willing (and desperate) to sell off Israel's strategic and historical assets. Whoever wins these elections, my most likely scenario is that, like the last n governments, the coming one will disintegrate in a matter of 2 years or so.

And that, dear friends, is what we need to start preparing for - now.

When the next government falls, there will be new primaries in the Likud, to choose the leader of the party. Around 100,000 people - the membership of the Likud - have the right to choose what face they will present to the Israeli electorate. Only about 50% of those people actually vote, meaning that 50,000 people will select the prime ministerial candidate and Knesset list, for whom (I'm guessing) roughly 3,000,000 people will have to option to vote.

Let that sink in: about 3,000,000 voters are only entering the political game at the stage when the candidates have already been chosen. If you don't like the options on display, tough noogies - you just gotta hold your nose and vote for the least bad option. Moreover, each individual's vote is a tiny fraction of the total electorate. On the other hand, a mere 100,000 Likud voters are going to have the option of choosing, for the first time in history, a leader of the Likud who is Yarei Shamayim, who believes in the justice of the cause of the Jewish people, who views Jewish history as having started with Avraham Avinu and not Theodore Herzl - and who will be able to lead our nation in the spirit of the Torah.

This is not just a nice-to-have. It's all very well voting for your favorite sectoral party and hoping that they'll be able to influence the government - but while the splinter religious and right-wing parties are bickering and haggling over their little patch of turf, the leadership of Israel is continuing to accelerate our national train towards the precipice of disaster. We are in the midst of a national emergency, and if we are to survive we desperately need leadership, not self-interested kingmakers.

If you really care about the future of Israel, and you really want to make a practical difference to the direction that this country is taking, then stop being a spectator and become a player. Join the Likud. It costs all of 96 NIS a year for a couple, or 64 NIS for one person. You can only vote once you've been a member in good standing for 16 months, so now is the time! If you sign up now, you will be in a position to vote when the next primaries come around... and you will have the power to determine the future of Israel by selecting a worthy leader for Israel's ruling party. With enough like-minded people joining the party, we can realize this dream.

Don't let your yetzer hora start making excuses for you. This is a time for action, and you can be a part of the revolution that will change the face of Israeli leadership.

Click here, print out the form, fill it in and fax it to the number provided.

Eis laasos laShem. Do it now.

Speed as an expression of hashkofa?

Let me start by admitting that I'm not the fastest davener in the world.

Actually, that rather understates the point. I think I must be well slower than the median, because I don't remember the last time I actually got to answer physically to a kedusha rather than relying on shomeia k'oneh, unless it's been at my home kehilla, Shivtei Yeshurun, where we do give people considerably more time to finish their silent amida.

I can understand that different people will daven at different speeds, and I don't expect everyone to cater to my preferred pace. But as one who is more sensitive than most to slight variances in the speed at which the shaliach tzibur davens, I am a little disconcerted by what I perceive as a tendency specifically among "dati leumi" communities to pray at a much faster pace than "charedi" shuls. I don't understand why this is, because it doesn't seem to fit into any of the classical philosophical or political areas that are under dispute between the DL and Charedi communities: it's not about Medinat Yisrael; it's not about "Chadash asur min haTorah"; it's not about tz'nius; it's not about relating to the non-frum world. Tefilla (and kavana during prayer) is about our relationship with Hashem, and that's an area where it shouldn't make any difference whether you believe that the State of Israel is holy or evil incarnate.

In case anyone has misunderstood me, let me be clear: yes, this is a gross generalization. I know plenty of "dalim" who daven way slower than I do, and I know plenty of "charedim" who go so fast that I cannot believe they are actually saying all the words. But the general rule is that "dalim" daven fast and "charedim" daven slow. I don't understand why this is, and I'm hoping that you will illuminate me with your comments.

Likud Primaries Dilemma

I am wavering on who to vote for in the upcoming Likud primaries.

Obviously I will be supporting Moshe Feiglin and all the other Manhigut Yehudit affiliated candidates. But I have 10 national votes + 1 regional + 1 oleh (I think - pls correct me if I'm wrong), and AFAIK there are only 4 actual MY candidates:

1. Moshe Feiglin
2. Sagiv Asulin (youth)
   
3. Asya Entov (olah)
4. Shmuel Sackett (oleh - competing with Entov? Or is he regional - Yo"sh?)

If you're wondering why there aren't more MY candidates, it's because the remainder of the MY supporter base's votes are being used as trading chips by the MY top brass, in exchange for support from other candidates and their supporters. Thus, for example, MY is supporting Keti Shitreet from Beit Shemesh for the Jerusalem regional slot, and she in turn is punting Feiglin among her supporters (we hope).

This political vote-bartering is pretty much what used to happen in the Likud merkaz, when that body used to select the Knesset list. Now that it's in the hands of the party rank and file, our votes are going to be a lot harder to control.

This, I think, is especially so in Manhigut Yehudit, where the membership by its very nature is very independently minded and doesn't just do because it's told to. An example of this is the little brouhaha caused by the Keti Shitreet deal, which has alienated Freddy Moncharsh, a longstanding and dedicated MY activist who had previously announced his intention to compete for the Jerusalem spot. I'm not going to get into the politics of who said what, who's in the right and who backstabbed whom - it is sufficient to note that we in the Jerusalem region now have a choice of voting for, inter alia, a non-MY person who has the endorsement of the MY top brass, or a MY person whom we know shares our values and will promote them in the Knesset.

I expect there will be similar conflicts of interest surfacing before Dec 8. I doubt MY will do any deals with the likes of Dan Meridor or Asaf Hefetz, but it is entirely probably that they will support mediocre candidates and not come to terms with top class people like Benny Begin and Moshe Yaalon. I'd like to vote my conscience, but then I also don't want to undermine MY's bargaining ability next time around, if people realize that they don't have any control over their voting members.

Another little complication - Rambam in Hilchos Melachim states clearly what the criteria are for appointing someone to public office: male Jews-from-birth who are shomer Torah umitzvos. I'd love to vote for Ayub Kara, given his almost embarassingly vehement pro-Jewish, pro-Eretz Yisrael views - but he's not even Jewish! I'm not sure just how frum Begin and Yaalon are, and Asya Entov is a woman. I don't even know if there are 10 candidates competing who meet Rambam's qualifications!

I'd love to hear what you think, even if you're not a Likud member. Please leave your comments!

The Great Lerner-Abutbul Debate

Insomniac post follows.  Since my thoughts on the hastily (and very well) organized debate between Shalom Lerner and Moshe Abutbul at Beis Tefilla last night are keeping me awake anyway, I may as well share them with you...

• Overall I have been very impressed with the decorum and civility between two serious candidates in a very close contest for the mayorship of Beit Shemesh.  At least these two appear to be keeping themselves above the disgraceful smear campaigns that have been conducted by some other interested parties, some of whom I would have expected to know and observe a little bit more about hilchos loshon hora.  'Nuff said.
• The candidates had to field some very tough questions, and well done to the organizers for not pulling any punches!
• On the qualifications for mayor, I scored a tie.  Both men have a long and impressive track record of public service, and both were able to present adequate administrative resumes.
• On who will be able to unite the city more, I think Lerner got the edge.  True, Abutbul can point to his shadow coalition with Labor, Dor Acher, Gimmel and Shas, but that attests more to his ability to wheel and deal politically than his ability to reach out to people who are different to him.  I think Lerner is more accessible personally to more different types of people.  
• Abutbul played down the issue of the extremists, suggesting that the conflict has been largely instigated by the outgoing mayor for political reasons, and with him (Abutbul) as mayor, he would be able to ease the tensions significantly.  My concern is that he intends to do so by conceding to the biryonim and gently persuading the others that it's all in their best interests.  Lerner is much more aggressive on this point; he made it clear that while everyone's views will be respected and taken into consideration, there will be zero tolerance for violence.  I made that a big score for Lerner.
• Abutbul's idea of a separate minhelet for RBS is interesting, though not compelling.  I like the idea of having a more personal branch of the iriya, but I'm not hung up on it.  I don't think Lerner had given it much thought; he dissed it by presenting himself as the person to speak to, rather than a decentralized call center of sorts.  Abutbul was very quick to point out that this is exactly what Vaknin did with his "mayor's open line", but  I didn't catch exactly why this was a bad thing.
• On the youth - well, everyone agreed that it was a high priority, and the debate was more of a "your word against mine" as to who had been more involved and effective in dealing with youth at risk.  Here the debate got a bit caustic from both sides, which I thought was uncalled for.  I have no idea who really has a better track record here, but I thought Abutbul sounded more sincere on this point.  Put it this way: if I was a teenager having an existential crisis and I could choose who to go to for a warm embrace, I'd choose Abutbul.
• There was a little exchange where Lerner criticized Abutbul for having dished out jobs in return for political support, to such an extent that he had nothing left to offer the Gerrer Chassidim.  Lerner, by contrast, has a practically clean slate, and will be able to appoint people on merit.  Abutbul retorted by saying, "Whoever gets on the bus last has to stand."  This elicited a spontaneous round of laughter and applause from his supporters, but in retrospect it left me cold.  That was basically a public admission that he's planning to be running the same kind of gravy train that Vaknin did.  You support me, I give you a job.  That's pretty cynical, and I thought it was a major gaffe on his part.
• "Where's the money going to come from?"  Lerner disappointed me here.  While he said all the right things about fiscal responsibility, he came down hard on Abutbul for promising a hospital in Beit Shemesh, which he said was unrealistic given the budget constraints.  That, IMHO, displayed a scarcity mentality and a lack of imagination.  Abutbul responded by citing the example of Teddy Kollek, who supported Jerusalem's budget by fundraising overseas (though I can't remember the figures he quoted).  I don't know if he's right about Kollek, and I don't care if the world is in financial crisis - what struck me here is that Abutbul appears to have vision, creativity and the will to achieve, and all Lerner could do was nay-say it.  Analogies to Obama came to my mind here.  Big score for Abutbul.
• There were a list of smaller issues, like the Ma"ar, Route 10, techonological development, parking, etc. on which the candidates basically agreed with each other on all points.
• Abutbul's closing remarks were ordinary to positive; Lerner's were a shocker.  Up until then, the debate had been basically respectful - then Lerner played the race card.  Basically he said that we cannot elect Abutbul - because what will everyone say if a Shasnik becomes mayor?  I actually physically squirmed, because I could not believe he had said that - and nor could a large portion of the audience, who started clicking their tongues disapprovingly.  His intention was to say that it's bad PR for a city to get a Charedi mayor, because non-charedim will get scared off and either move out or not move in.  And you know what - he may be right, but to say it outright like that was in despicably bad taste.  Can you imagine John McCain telling people that they shouldn't vote Obama because a black man is too scary a thought for some people to countenance?  By me, that ranked as the dirtiest comment of the evening - far worse than Abutbul's self-incriminating comment about the first-come-first-served, seats-for-supporters gravy train.  

Overall, I'm now thrown into confusion.  I walked in a Lerner supporter and I walked out undecided.  I guess that means Abutbul won the debate as far as I was concerned.

In summary: Lerner wins on the tough stuff, like dealing with miscreant biryonim and clean governance.  I think he would serve my personal interests better, being that I believe he would develop Beit Shemesh a lot more aggressively in the direction that I envision it - plus he has a strong pro-Eretz Yisrael record and deserves recognition for that.  OTOH, Abutbul is a more  inspiring candidate, who seems to have a lot more of a personal touch, charisma and creativity.  I like the fact that he is willing to dream a bit, because those kinds of visions can become reality.

Right now, I'm still inclined to vote Lerner, despite his closing remarks, and despite his lack of creativity.  I think he'll be a competent mayor, certainly better than the current one, though I have no great expectations of him.  While Abutbul is the more exciting of the two, I'm not comfortable with the company he keeps, and I don't have the warm, fuzzy feeling that his vision for Beit Shemesh and mine are fully aligned.

At the very least, what this debate has done is persuade me that having Abutbul as mayor would not be the worst thing in the world.  I'm voting Lerner, but if Abutbul wins, I won't be too upset, and I'll be watching with great interest to see how he performs.

Don't ask my Rabbi, ask me!

I think I'm going to take a lot of flak for saying this, but this attitude of having to ask your rabbi for his instructions of who to vote for truly gets up my nose.

Last election Rav Shteinman allegedly paskened a chiyuv on every G-d-fearing Jew to vote Gimmel, which placed me in a dilemma, because Rav Ovadia Yosef had already allegedly promised me a chelek in Olam HaBa for voting Shas. And the previous elections I knew that voting for Rav Kaduri ZTzL's flash-in-the-pan party would bring me such unbelievable segulos for mazal, brocha and hatzlocha - how could I not vote for them?  

So now I'm reading the comments on Rafi Goldmeier's Life In Israel blog about how these Rabbis say not to vote for Tov, but others say it's OK, while another bunch privately endorse Tov but feel they can't come out publicly and tell anyone to vote for anyone other than Gimmel.

Marei d'chulei alma! What is this narishkeit?! You have a group of good, koshere Yidden who want to influence the city in a positive direction - but you are paralyzed and unable to exercise your own judgement until the Rebbe has told you what to do! Do you not have a brain of your own? Are you simply a robot who will not act without input from The All Knowing Rabbis? Do you also check with the Rebbe what color granite to use in your new kitchen, or what brand of printer you should buy for your home office?

Yes, there are halachic considerations, and for this the Rabbonim are there to advise us on whether or not Caesar Stone can be kashered for Pesach - but beyond that, the choice is yours as to what color scheme you want to use in the kitchen. Likewise the requirements for someone to be chosen for public office are matters of halacha - and it seems to me that the slates of several parties competing in the Beit Shemesh municipal elections conform perfectly to halacha. In no particular order, the lists of Gimmel, Shas, Beyachad (Mafdal), Chen and Tov all consist entirely of upright, koshere Yidden who are all at least halachically qualified for office, and even the Likud list could arguably fit the definition.

Given that you have a halachically acceptable range of at least five or six choices, it's up to you to decide who will represent your interests best in the city council. Whom do you trust most? Who do you think will be most effective? Whose agenda do you agree with?

Asking the Rabbi for instructions on decisions like this looks like piety, but IMO it is a willful abdication of responsibility. Life is so much simpler if you don't have to make tough decisions yourself and you just leave it up to the Rabbi. Then after 120 years if HKBH asks you, "Why did/didn't you do such-and-such?" you can simply shrug and say, "I just did what my Rebbe told me." And if your Rebbe was wrong or misinformed (am I allowed to suggest such a thing?) you expect that Hashem will say, "Oh well, that's all right, then, I'll punish him instead. You move along to your chelek in Olam Haba now."

I don't believe in self-abnegation and abdication of responsibility; I believe in self-esteem and accountability. Hashem gave us faculties of rational thought, not so that we could delegate our thinking to others, but so that we could use it to understand His Torah and apply it to our daily lives. If we realize that we do not know enough to make an informed halachic decision (and that happens plenty to me!) then we are forced to turn to someone else whom we trust and who is likely to be able to advise us correctly. That's the role of the Rabbi - your trusted spiritual advisor whose advice you rely on to make sure that your Olam Haba is safe. But ultimately, whether or not you choose to follow his advice, only you are accountable for your actions, and after 120 years you will not have your Rabbi shielding you from the Heavenly court; it's just you, your mitzvos, and your non-mitzvos.

I asked one of my trusted spiritual guides recently, "How do I know whom to trust as a spiritual guide?"

His answer, in short, was, "It's very difficult... but I will tell you one thing: if anyone uses the phrases 'Daas Torah' or 'The Gedolim Say' - run a mile! Run a mile, because these are conversation stoppers used by insecure people to squash debate."

There's a lot more space to develop on this theme, but I'll leave it for a later blog entry IY"H. Meanwhile I think I'll hang a Chen poster next to the Shalom Lerner ones on my mirpeset. If I burn in hell for not voting Gimmel, at least it's because that was my choice.

No cholesterol?

Is it just me, or does anybody else out there get really upset about the nutritional labels on food?

I just saw a tub of humus, with 29% fat, of which 4.5% saturated, and in large bold font: 0% Cholesterol!

I saw the same on a packet of crisps: 37% fat, 11% saturated fat, and - you guessed it - no cholesterol!

This is complete rishus! The cholesterol content of food is one of the most insignificant markers of whether or not it's safe for a person with hypercholesteremia to eat; saturated and trans fats are the big villains. Yet the food companies present this 0% cholesterol as if it's some kind of major achievement - deliberately attempting to mislead people with cholesterol problems into thinking that it's OK to eat potato chips! It's like marketing a 100g slab of chocolate to Weight Watchers with the slogan, "This slab of chocolate will only make you 100g heavier!"

I can understand cereal companies using manipulative marketing, trying to get kids to kick and scream and demand the cereal with their favorite cartoon character. All's fair in fair competition. But marketing "0% cholesterol" foods to people with hypercholesteremia is a dangerous and cynical deception that could cause - and is intended to cause - ignorant people to endanger their health.

Yes, we *should* recognize Hamas!

It may seem a bit strange for this Bible-thumpin', gun-totin', Arab-hatin', knuckle-draggin' right wing Zionist settler to say, but lately I have been developing a certain respect for JPost's columnist Larry Derfner.

It all started when he penned a column throwing his support behind John McCain for the 2008 US presidential elections. That really wasn't what I had expected from someone who was, I thought, a standard knee-jerk liberal. Turns out Larry really applied his mind to the issues, and had the guts to come out touting a very contrarian position that probably made most of his colleagues at the NY Times and Haaretz choke on their granola bars. It probably cost him an invitation or two to the high society gatherings where support for the Democratic Party goes without saying, and sticking up for the guy from the Godawful Other Party is practically treasonous. So kol hakavod to you, Larry, for having the intellectual honesty to stick up for what you believe is right, against all conventional wisdom.

Well, seeing as Larry started leading the way by challenging the Conventional Wisdom (CW) of the Left, I thought it fair to do the same for the conventional wisdom of the Right. In truth, I've always tried not to take the standard right-wing positions on any issue without further analysis, but being human, I sometimes do get lazy, and without even realizing it, I find myself advocating and opposing things just because it's what everyone else in my "camp" is doing. (This, by the way, is one of the reasons why I'm such a fan of Moshe Feiglin: he has a knack for flipping right-wing CW on its head and arguing with complete clarity for things that you would never expect from a "right-winger".)

Anyway, the fact is that as much as we ridicule the classic knee-jerk liberals, who will always take predictable positions on any issue from international terrorism to abortion to the death penalty to the Middle East to environmentalism - there is also such a thing as a knee-jerk conservative, who will always take the predictably opposite position to his KJL counterpart. You will see all these people on the talkbacks for Derfner's articles on JPost, all spouting the same rhetoric and ad hominem insults, and refusing to relate in an intellectually sincere way to his arguments, which I have to concede, are usually pretty cogent.

Now that's not to say that I agree with the man on all issues - far from it! But I respect his thought process, and often enough I do wind up agreeing with him, against the CW of right-wing circles.

Take for instance his May 14 column, advocating removing the taboo on negotiations with Hamas.

Standard CW: "But they're terrorists dedicated to the destruction of Israel! How can you ever negotiate with them?!"

Larry's response: "But we are already. And everyone knows we are. And yes, they are a bunch of bastards - but they are the power in control of Gaza, and they are the ones who can make the missiles stop and give back Gilad Schalit."

And thinking the issue over, I realize that this is another issue where I've lazily accepted the standard CW. Of course, the first warning sign should have been when I realized I was agreeing with Ehud Olmert on something. Doh! I forgot Rule of Thumb #1: any stand Ehud Olmert takes should be treated with suspicion, even if you've believed it for years. For example, if Olmert visits Sderot and compliments the citizenry on their stoic behavior, taking it on the chin, not complaining and carrying on their lives as normal - you should immediately realize that the best thing for the citizens of Sderot to do would be to stop life as normal, evacuate their children (as the British did during the London Blitz), close down the city, storm the Knesset and throw this band of despots into the street. This is why Olmert doesn't like unruly citizens; if people get too worked up over a mere drizzle of "shmassams", they might do something nasty like breaking up one of his cocktail parties with some international celebrity. So he makes a personal appearance, soothes the nerves of the hapless Sderotniks, lulls them with flattery of their heroism and convinces them that the true Zionist response is to just shut up and get used to life under a constant barrage of Kassams.

Back to Gaza and Hamas. Olmert says we will not negotiate with Hamas. Why not? Because the only people we will negotiate with are Fatah, because they say they will make peace with us, and Hamas won't.

OK, let's flash back to August 1945. After a good, solid 5 years of doing everything he could to kill as many American servicemen as he could, Emperor Hirohito had probably earned himself a very deserved reputation as an enemy of the American people of the worst kind. And he wasn't about to give up fighting, either, even after his Nazi allies had been defeated - he was good to the last drop. Now, let's imagine at this juncture that through forces heretofore unknown by mankind, the spirit of Ehud Olmert suddenly possessed Harry Truman, while James Byrnes (Truman's Secretary of State) started channeling Tzippi Livni. Here's what would happen:

Truman (Olmert): You know, James, there's just no military solution to this Japanese problem.

Byrnes (Livni): That's what I've been saying all along, Mr President. Every day we're losing more and more soldiers. We can't go on like this. Public pressure is just to great to bear. We're going to have to cut some kind of a deal with them.

T: But how? Hirohito is a lunatic, believes he's on a divine mission to wipe us out! How can you cut a deal with him?

B: I have an idea, Mr President, and it's just crazy enough to work... I know a certain Japanese fellow - Wishi Washi is his name - a very good man...

T: What about him?

B: Well, he says that he's in favor of peace with America.

T: That's great! What is he - president, prime minister, what?

B: Umm... well, he's the leader of an alternative movement in Tokyo. I think they're some kind of socialist group; they do stuff like redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor. Sort of like Robin Hood. Only they're obviously very poor themselves, because they keep all the stuff they take from the rich. And they're very organized and efficient - they have a whole co-ordinated network of people all over Japan who are synergizing to achieve their goals. They're very influential and even the Japanese legal establishment is in awe of them.

T: You mean he's the leader of the Japanese mafia.

B: Well, really, I wouldn't put it quite like that. It's true he may have a few personal failings - but he's someone you can talk to, and most importantly, he's indicated that under the right conditions he might well be prepared to enter into positive consideration of American overtures for a cessation of hostilities, and breaking the cycle of violence.

T: Hmm, interesting idea. And what's his track record? Is he a man of his word? Is he pro-peace?

B: Umm... well, he did allow his supporters to wipe out an entire rival family after having just shaken hands on a non-aggression pact with them, but what could you expect? His supporters were angry, and he was really powerless to stop them. I'm sure he meant for the pact to be honored; it just didn't work out so well on the ground. And it's true that in Japanese he gives all sorts of wild speeches about killing Americans and bathing in their blood - but you can't take that kind of stuff seriously. It's all the rage in Japan now, and that's what his supporters expect; this war has really got them angry at us. Besides, listen to his English speeches and you'll see how erudite and cultured he really is. I'm sure that given the right deal he'll make peace with us. And he really hates Hirohito, really hates him.

T: Just hang on a second. What about Hirohito? He's the guy with the guns, the bombs and the Kamikaze pilots. What are we going to do about him?

B: Well, you just can't talk to him, can you? He's crazy! Here's what we'll do: let's supply Washi with a whole bunch of weapons and tanks, train his men for him, and so on, and then he'll fight Hirohito for us and then we can make peace with him!

T: Sounds like a plan. Any idea what his terms for peace are?

B: (blushes) Well, I've actually taken the liberty of putting out feelers to Washi's people. Just exploratory stuff, you know, nothing binding. I said that if he'll make peace with us it'll be worth his while, and we'd be prepared to make very significant concessions for peace, maybe even give them Singapore, a chunk of mainland China and shared sovereignty over Hawaii.

T: WHAT! You offered them Hawaii?!

B: No, no, no! I didn't offer them anything! I just said that these would all be negotiable points, to be finalized under the terms of a formal peace treaty!

T: And what are they asking for?

B: Singapore, a chunk of mainland China and complete sovereignty over Hawaii.

T: Your negotiation skills are a wonder to behold. Good heavens, man, how are we ever going to sell that to the American people?

B: Oh, really, that's easy. Already the media are crying about all the casualties. People are tired of this war; they just want it to end already. And here's a guy who's willing to make it end. The people will recognize the need to compromise. Giving up Hawaii will be painful, but if we want peace, we're going to have to give something in return.



And so it was, that while Emperor Hirohito kept on bombing the US Navy with kamikaze fighters and attacking US targets all over the Pacific with deadly regularity, Ehud Truman and Tzippi Byrnes began negotiating peace terms with Wishi Washi, a Japanese mafia boss with little public support and neither the power nor inclination to deliver that elusive peace. While the US continued to make gestures for peace such as withdrawing its forces and strengthening Washi against Hirohito by providing him with weapons and armor, Hirohito simply moved into the vacated positions and used those as bases to attack the Americans further. Strangely enough, most of the shrapnel found in the destroyed US vessels indicated that the weapons themselves were of US manufacture. When the US forces would counterattack Hirohito's forces, Washi would decry the injustice against the Japanese people, and threaten to call off all peace talks, whereupon the Americans would immediately freeze all military action. Little by little, America withdrew further and further, all the time losing ground and deterrence, while the Japanese, emboldened with each successive American concession, continued relentlessly to demand more and more, without ever delivering anything in return. But it was OK, because peace was just around the corner.

Fortunately it wasn't really that way. Truman didn't go for the "let's pretend" line, nor did he shy away from the ugly necessity of finishing the war off. Whether or not he needed to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to achieve that is a different point - but the fact is, he knew who the address was for negotiating with Japan, and when he did, it was with the Big, Bad, Mean and Nasty Emperor Hirohito. And he wasn't suing for peace; he was dictating Hirohito's terms of surrender.

So once again, back to Larry Derfner and Hamas. You're spot on, Larry: refusing to deal with Hamas is a stupid and dangerous exercise in self-deception. But here's where we diverge. You have correctly identified who the power in Gaza is - but your mistake is in wanting to appease them. Hamas is a cruel, relentless enemy, and it is not interested in living in a cold peace next door Israel. Any ceasefire is merely an opportunity for them to regroup, rearm and prepare for the next round of warfare. It's called Jihad, Larry, and your secular mindset has yet to wrap itself around the concept of a religious war. They don't stop when they get tired. They're not fighting for the sake of any political or territorial gain. Fighting is the end in itself. Killing Jews is an end in itself. That is what these people are living for; their greatest desire in life is death as a shahid. Don't believe me - ask them! Why don't you surf over to the Hamas website, or watch a few clips of Palestinian TV? It's an ugly truth, but if you don't recognize it, you are playing a very stupid and dangerous game of "Let's Pretend", just as stupid and dangerous as not dealing with Hamas at all.

Yes, we have to recognize Hamas. They are the ruling power in Gaza, and we have no choice but to deal with them. But that doesn't mean negotiation. When you have an implacable enemy such as this, whose sole reason for living is to kill as many of you as possible, you have no choice but to fight back; you cannot negotiate anything with him other than the terms of his surrender. You fight militarily, with every inch of your resources, spirit and determination. Not pinpoint strikes, but conquest. Driving the enemy, men, women and children, out of every inch of land you conquer, because an implacable foe fighting a religious war will fight you to the last drop of his blood. And when you are done, you don't hand it over to the Good Terrorist Wishi Washi or whoever his current incarnation is. You keep it, you settle it with your own people, and you never, ever even fleetingly consider that you might give it back.

I'm sorry. It's ugly, it's nasty, it hurts the Yiddishe neshoma to think of doing such brutal things. But war is hell, and we have no other choice.

On South African Jews and Aliyah

As a Jew, it is my belief – and I think a pretty non-controversial one – that, all else being equal, G-d wants Jews to live in Israel. I choose my words carefully: "all else being equal"; sometimes there are very good reasons why a Jew should live in Chutz LaAretz (Chu"l), e.g. if he can't make a living in Eretz Yisrael (E"Y), or if he's doing a mitzvah like honouring his parents or teaching Torah in Chu"l. But the default state of a Jew is that he should be living in E"Y, unless he has a valid reason not to.

Let me stress again: I'm not a gung-ho "everyone-get-on-the-next-plane-to-Israel" advocate; there are tons of very valid reasons for a Jew not to live in Israel, and I do not stand in judgment of anyone who chooses not to live here. But I do think that even for someone who has such a reason, they should at least have a feeling of lacking, of missing out on something really big. It shouldn’t be a relieved, "Well, Boruch Hashem, I have a heter to stay in Chu"l, so I don't need to go to Israel," but rather a heavy-hearted, "I wish I could be in E"Y – but what can I do; my duty is to be in Chu"l right now."

Unfortunately, I think most people don't even get to the lesser of those two levels; for the most part when a Jew lives in Chu"l it's not because they've made a conscious choice to do so, but rather because it's never even entered their minds that living in E"Y is actually a Jewish value, and one that might require some degree of personal sacrifice. But again, that's not for me to judge; each individual Jew must be intellectually honest with himself in determining whether his continued sojourn in Chu"l is because he is there on a mission, or because he has rationalized away the value of living in E"Y for the sake of preserving his own comfort zone.

Even so, I find it very interesting to observe in this light developments in Israel, compared to the situation in my old country, South Africa.

For non South African readers, a bit of background: SA is a very special community, particularly the Jewish community. It boasts the highest per capita rate of baalei teshuva in the world, and in general the Jewish affiliation of the community is very strong, even among the non-observant. The lifestyle of Jewish South Africans is generally very luxurious compared to other parts of the world. Once you've gotten used to living in a 300 sq. metre house or more with an even bigger garden, a live-in maid whom you can get away with paying what would be slave wages in any first-world country, two cars, Daddy working a 42.5-hour work week, and Mommy free to paint her nails, go shopping and have tea with her friends at leisure, it takes a lot of convincing to make you believe you should be anywhere else.

Obviously that's a very simplistic picture. The fact is, for as long as I know, there has always been a steady trickle of Jewish emigration from South Africa, for many different reasons: ideological opposition to apartheid; fear of a black revolution; economic pessimism; crime; affirmative action, etc. Most of this emigration has been to other countries in the Anglosphere: Australia, the USA, the UK and Canada. Proportionally very little of Jewish South African migration has been to Israel.

And there have been a lot of good reasons for that. Since its birth nearly 60 years ago, Israel has been in existential danger. Many South African Jews answered the call and went to fight for the fledgling state, and some even stayed. But for decades Israel was under physical threat, and the lifestyle was several orders of magnitude beneath what South Africans were accustomed to. The economy suffered from hyperinflation, and basic facilities and products were in short supply. It took a really motivated ideologue to make Aliyah then.

But amazingly enough, Israel pulled through. Whatever your feeling about the so-called "peace process" currently underway, I think it is pretty unarguable that in terms of existential threats, we no longer have enemy armies massing at our borders, making preparations for the unthinkable. So why not make aliyah now?

"You gotta be kidding!" says the South African. "The economy is a shambles, and I'll never be able to make a living there!"

Think again. Israel's economy is now the regional powerhouse, inflation is almost negligible, unemployment is at record lows - and we even have a budget surplus! Jobs are staying open for months on end because there isn't enough qualified manpower.

"OK", says the South African, "but even if you have low inflation and low unemployment, the lifestyle still stinks. I could never live in one of those dingy little 3-bedroom Israeli apartments on the fifth floor with a 4 square metre balcony and my washing hanging out in full view!"

Not so. The once stereotypical dingy Israeli apartment is no longer the mode of living. Take a look at any of the towns with high concentrations of English speakers: Raanana, Netanya, Modiin, Gush Etzion, Maaleh Adumim, and of course my own Beit Shemesh, and you will see spacious houses, gardens, parks, and an aesthetic beauty that can rival anywhere in Chu"l. Even Jerusalem is developing higher quality living spaces in its newer neighbourhoods.

"Really? But still, to support your lifestyle you need to have both parents working!"

The point may be valid that for the most part you need to have two working parents in order to come out every month - but the single working parent was a luxury of South Africa that is now not as prevalent as it used to be. The cost of living in SA has gone up appreciably in the last few years, especially for families who are sending their children to private schools.

"OK, but I hate the Israeli culture. It's just too Middle Eastern for me - I like the Western, cultured way of life, and I don't feel comfortable with the Hebrew language."

Well, here's some news for you. The last 6 years have seen a surge in immigration from the USA and UK. Towns like Beit Shemesh, Modiin and Yad Binyamin are so full of English speakers that it's becoming a running joke: "Ramat Beit Shemesh - a beautiful town only 5 minutes from Israel"! Consequently an entire sub-economy has sprung up in English-speaking services and businesses - a sub-economy that has a completely different salary scale than the regular Israeli job market. I myself work in English, for a company that services the US economy. It's almost embarassing - I speak English at home, I speak English to my friends and neighbours, my Rabbi delivers his Shabbos deroshos in English, and I work in English. I might find those calls from telemarketers annoying, but at least they serve as a reminder that there actually are some people out there who speak Hebrew!

And if that's not enough, the Sal Klita has since 2003 been opened to every new immigrant - a sizable cash grant given to all olim, which gives you the breathing space to go to Ulpan and otherwise acclimatize for the first few months of your Aliyah.

"Yeah, but still - it's difficult to move from South Africa. Our currency is practically worthless and you're starting off with a really small capital base, and having to buy a really expensive house..."

Well, lucky you. In the last few years, the South African property market has veritably exploded. The house that you bought 10 years ago for a few hundred thousand bucks with change is now worth a couple of million rand! You can sell your house for a handsome profit, and start off in Israel with a very respectable capital base. As for property in Israel, it's not uniformly expensive. Yes, places like Raanana and Netanya are pricey, both other, smaller and newer developments are very affordable, especially if you've just sold a South African house. Most Israelis can only dream of choosing a home and paying cash for it - most people pay off their houses over 20-25 years! - but a South African can buy a comfortable home in Israel with the change from selling his house in chu"l!

The whole progression is just exquisite to watch. Hashem is steadily whittling down the excuses why not to make Aliyah, by making it ever easier to come home to Israel. How much easier can it get?

Problem is, Hashem doesn't just send "nice" messages. I'm not saying I have a direct line to G-d, but based on my knowledge of Jewish hashkafa, I know that when He has exhausted all the "nice" ways of gently prodding us in a certain direction, the next thing is that He starts sending not-so-nice messages.

Since the early 1990s, crime has increasingly been a problem, though for many years it became background noise, as people became inured to the constant carjackings, robberies, home invasions and other contact crimes. Lately, however, it seems that the situation has been spiralling out of control, with horrific stories like that of the recent murder of Sheldon Cohen z"l becoming all too common. When I describe the situation in South Africa to my fellow Israelis, they invariably turn to me and ask, incredulously, "What are the Jews still doing there? Why don't they get out?"

I know why, because I lived there for 29 years. It is a beautiful country, an easy lifestyle, and if you can just blot the crime out of your mind, build yourself a gilded prison to live in, get used to driving your car with the constant vigilance of an Israeli foot soldier in Ramallah, and keep praying that "it" never happens to you or your loved ones, life is great.

But it just couldn't stay that way, could it?

The big talking point right now is Eskom's rolling power cuts, better known by the Orwellian euphemism "load shedding". Now it's not my place to level criticism at the South African government for failing to anticipate this crisis; there are plenty more eloquent and better informed critics to do that. My job is to observe the situation and ponder its meaning. And I see it in the overall context of all that I have described above.

Suddenly life is not so bright any more, if you'll pardon the cheap pun. When your electricity is cut off for 2.5 hours a day or more, and instead of roast chicken and steaming potatoes, you're eating cold spaghetti with ketchup and tinned mushrooms for supper, it really is hard to swallow - and I don't even mean that as a pun. When your business cannot operate during prime hours, because your area is taking its turn at power sharing, that cuts deep into your economicwell-being. When your Mom's hip replacement operation has to be postponed indefinitely because the hospital generators have only got enough power to support emergency cases and they can't take the chance of a life-threatening unplanned power cut, then it doesn't matter much whether you have the Discovery Essential, Classic or Select Comprehensive medical plan - you and your Mom will simply have to get used to the wheelchair and painkillers. All in all, it becomes a lot harder to look past the spiralling crime, rampant AIDS, shameless governmental corruption, punitive affirmative action, etc. when your very lifestyle that you were trying so hard to hang on to is crumbling before your eyes.

Look, I have to hand it to the South Africans - there's still a significant proportion of them who are adapting to the new reality, planning around the load shedding schedule, changing their spendthrift electrical habits and overall keeping up their positive attitude. What can I say against that? I salute their resilience and their positive, proactive attitude! On the other hand, though, there has to be a point where even the most diehard Afro-optimist has got to take an honest look at the situation, and say, "This is not normal, it is not acceptable, and I will not accept it."

Think it through: even the official line is that the status quo is not just a spike or a passing phase - it's going to be like this until at least 2013! If even Eskom and the government are saying 5 years, the reality is probably going to be 7 or more. And while you may be prepared to tolerate 7 years of darkness, international investors are not. Increasingly, local businesses are going to move abroad. Will FIFA withdraw the 2010 World Cup? That would be economically catastrophic for the country - but whether or not happens, those "disloyal" South Africans who are skilled enough to attract job offers from the USA, Europe and elsewhere, are going to be leaving the country in droves. Who will be left to turn off the lights, if indeed there are any left burning?

• The diehard Afro-optimists;
• those who are not healthy, wealthy or skilled enough to emigrate; and of course
• the bad guys.

South Africa is deeply embedded in my heart. I didn't run away from South Africa; I chose to make Aliyah because my passionate desire to live in Eretz Yisrael trumped my love for my birthplace. So for most of my 5+ years as an expatriate, I have been an apologist for my Jewish countrymen who have chosen to stay in South Africa. But I just can't do it anymore, and this breaks my heart.

How many more messages and messengers must Hashem send? The Golden Age of South African Jewry is over, finished and klaar. This is golus - exile - and like every other sojourn in the history of the Diaspora, the South African chapter in the story of the Jews is drawing inexorably to its close. If there's any reality worth coming to terms with, it's not the reality of "load shedding" - it's the reality that it's time to move on, and soon. There's not much time before the ruthless law of supply and demand starts reducing those 4-million-rand cluster houses back to the prices of the 1990s.

And when you do go, I urge you: consider Israel as your destination of choice. As I've said above, Israel is actually a very attractive place to live, and it probably represents your best chance at having your own children and grandchildren in the same country as you.

Most of all, we need you... here.