Tomorrow is Shavuot, one of the biggest Jewish holidays.
Here is a link to a wonderful article about it
Shavuot
It is about recieving Torah - law, teaching, aiming at (translations from Hebrew). Interestingly enough one of the words for sin means "missing the sign" Torah being THE sign.
I just wanted to add that while in New Testament, in acts, there is described this wonderful moment when Holy Spirit descends few people ask why were all the apostoles in Jerusalem? Why were there crowds in Jerusalem? Why so many Jews speaking so different languages and arriving from so many places afar. Well, it was Shavuot. That was the reason for them to come on pilgrimage to Jerusalem. And of course apostoles - observant Jews - were celebrating it either.
What better occasion to celebrate than recieving God's word!
Saturday 26 May 2012
Wednesday 23 May 2012
Hamtanah
This Hebrew word means "waiting" and generally refers to one very special period of waiting in Israeli history - 3 weeks before 6 Days War when it was decided if the war can be avoided and how should Israel prepare and act.
In April there were daily raids of Syrian troops - most notably Fatah ones - on Israeli territory and practicaly daily exchange of fire. Syria has been backed up by Soviet Union (as the whole episode was inbedded in cold war being something of a crossing between cold war and Arab hostility towards Jews). It was Soviet ambassador to Syria who most visciously pursued UN condemnation of Israeli response to Syrian aggression. Levi Eshkol proposed to take him for the tour along the Syrian border - ambassador declined offer and worked towards condemnation of Israel.
There were few more incidents with Syrians - putting mines on roads in Israel, firing at the kibbutz in Galilee and so on.
On 13 May, Nasser already a leader of Syrian-Egyptian coalition against Israel into which he also coopted Jordan, Egyptian troops moved into Sinai that - after 1956 war - was demilitarized area with UN troops guarding the truce. But in contrast to e.g. truce line between Koreas they weren't very much involved in the task.
Nasser said (absolute lie) that Israel intended to invade Syria on 17 May and on 16th May he himself ordered UN troops to leave Sinai. To complete surprise not only of Israelis but of Nasser as well Secretary General ordered troops to leave Sinai without even calling counsel and in 3 days Egypt was in sole possession of Sinai peninsula. Israel had to get started for war.
With Egyptian saber rattling and Nasser's speeches ("we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel"; "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel."; "This is our chance Arabs, to deal Israel a mortal blow of annihilation, to blot out its entire presence in our holy land" ; "The Arab people is firmly resolved to wipe Israel off the map" - all quotes from Nasser) there was nothing but preparation for war. It was decided that as long as Gulf of Acaba will remain open for Israeli ships there is a chance to avoid war, but on 23rd of May Nasser closed it for all Israeli traffic.
This is how historian Michael Oren describes last days before the war:
"Throughout the country thousands were hurrying to dig trenches, build shelters, and fill sandbags. In Jerusalem... schools were refitted as bomb shelters, and air raid drills were practiced daily. An urgent request for surgeons... was submitted to the Red Cross, and extra units of plasma ordered from abroad. Upwards of 14,000 hospital beds were readied, and antidotes stockpiled for poison gas victims, expected to arrive in waves of 200. Some 10,000 graves were dug".
Doomsday scenario never materialized.
Why do I write it today?
For few reasons:
1. It is kind of anniversary - 45 years to the day it was the first act of war, the closing of Straits of Tiran by Egypt.
2. I want you to imagine people., many of whom have survived Holocaust, lost everything, their citizenship rights were denied to them who again confronted threat of annihilation. Try to imagine what it meant to them - it was not the war for terrain or border, it was desperate fight for survival.
3. Israel is a small country, to get ready for war it had to mobilise all citizens leaving country and economy at standstill - all ceased work and were mobilised. You can't go on like that very long, waiting. Something that Nasser was perfectly aware of. Closing Straits of Tiran, calling for annihilation of Israel, ordering UN troops to leave Sinai and making Israel mobilise all people available were acts of war - Israel had to respond while there were still some resources. And according to international law the act of war was indeed committed by Egypt.
4. But most of all I want you to imagine this tiny piece of land, so valuable for those rejected by other countries, doomed, nearly annihilated in Europe merely 20 years previously. A country one forth size of Ireland threatened by armies of 3 other countries. Here you have it map - Sinai alone is just as big as the whole Israel and it was just demilitariased zone remilitarised by Egypt just before the war. Imagine how would it be for you had you been there with your family hearing threts, seeing international community backing away, feeling you are all alone and it is your survival at stake
In April there were daily raids of Syrian troops - most notably Fatah ones - on Israeli territory and practicaly daily exchange of fire. Syria has been backed up by Soviet Union (as the whole episode was inbedded in cold war being something of a crossing between cold war and Arab hostility towards Jews). It was Soviet ambassador to Syria who most visciously pursued UN condemnation of Israeli response to Syrian aggression. Levi Eshkol proposed to take him for the tour along the Syrian border - ambassador declined offer and worked towards condemnation of Israel.
There were few more incidents with Syrians - putting mines on roads in Israel, firing at the kibbutz in Galilee and so on.
On 13 May, Nasser already a leader of Syrian-Egyptian coalition against Israel into which he also coopted Jordan, Egyptian troops moved into Sinai that - after 1956 war - was demilitarized area with UN troops guarding the truce. But in contrast to e.g. truce line between Koreas they weren't very much involved in the task.
Nasser said (absolute lie) that Israel intended to invade Syria on 17 May and on 16th May he himself ordered UN troops to leave Sinai. To complete surprise not only of Israelis but of Nasser as well Secretary General ordered troops to leave Sinai without even calling counsel and in 3 days Egypt was in sole possession of Sinai peninsula. Israel had to get started for war.
With Egyptian saber rattling and Nasser's speeches ("we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel"; "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel."; "This is our chance Arabs, to deal Israel a mortal blow of annihilation, to blot out its entire presence in our holy land" ; "The Arab people is firmly resolved to wipe Israel off the map" - all quotes from Nasser) there was nothing but preparation for war. It was decided that as long as Gulf of Acaba will remain open for Israeli ships there is a chance to avoid war, but on 23rd of May Nasser closed it for all Israeli traffic.
This is how historian Michael Oren describes last days before the war:
"Throughout the country thousands were hurrying to dig trenches, build shelters, and fill sandbags. In Jerusalem... schools were refitted as bomb shelters, and air raid drills were practiced daily. An urgent request for surgeons... was submitted to the Red Cross, and extra units of plasma ordered from abroad. Upwards of 14,000 hospital beds were readied, and antidotes stockpiled for poison gas victims, expected to arrive in waves of 200. Some 10,000 graves were dug".
Doomsday scenario never materialized.
Why do I write it today?
For few reasons:
1. It is kind of anniversary - 45 years to the day it was the first act of war, the closing of Straits of Tiran by Egypt.
2. I want you to imagine people., many of whom have survived Holocaust, lost everything, their citizenship rights were denied to them who again confronted threat of annihilation. Try to imagine what it meant to them - it was not the war for terrain or border, it was desperate fight for survival.
3. Israel is a small country, to get ready for war it had to mobilise all citizens leaving country and economy at standstill - all ceased work and were mobilised. You can't go on like that very long, waiting. Something that Nasser was perfectly aware of. Closing Straits of Tiran, calling for annihilation of Israel, ordering UN troops to leave Sinai and making Israel mobilise all people available were acts of war - Israel had to respond while there were still some resources. And according to international law the act of war was indeed committed by Egypt.
4. But most of all I want you to imagine this tiny piece of land, so valuable for those rejected by other countries, doomed, nearly annihilated in Europe merely 20 years previously. A country one forth size of Ireland threatened by armies of 3 other countries. Here you have it map - Sinai alone is just as big as the whole Israel and it was just demilitariased zone remilitarised by Egypt just before the war. Imagine how would it be for you had you been there with your family hearing threts, seeing international community backing away, feeling you are all alone and it is your survival at stake
Tuesday 22 May 2012
Fate of petition
AVAAZ - provider in making petitions decided to remove petition not to boycott Israeli goods as it is against their standards (!!!!). They did it after it has reached more than 1,000 signatures.
They have broken the right to express opinion and freedom of speech - I encourage you to share the story and NOT use this firm as provider of your petitions (you may discover just like my friend did that after you're being succesful they will remove it as they don't support your cause and God alone knows what they want to support, they are just dishonest and cheating)
Here is a message from my friend who started the petition
They have broken the right to express opinion and freedom of speech - I encourage you to share the story and NOT use this firm as provider of your petitions (you may discover just like my friend did that after you're being succesful they will remove it as they don't support your cause and God alone knows what they want to support, they are just dishonest and cheating)
Here is a message from my friend who started the petition
Monday 21 May 2012
Ancient infaticide - Hellenistic and Jewish worlds
So many of the values all the western culture, as we know it, are based on Jewish law and history and social norms. It should not be surprising as Christianity was originally a branch of Judaism and even after the connection was severed by early church it was not before absorbing lots of Jewish culture.
Biblie is Jewish sacred book - God's word - and although for centuries Christian churches were trying to hide this connection they couldn't destroy essentials of Christianity and those are in Judaism. And no matter how much the hellenistic values were added into it after Christianity became official Roman religion the essence was already there. Centuries passed before we started going back to source but the source is and always was there.
One of the very self-evident examples is Western culture's approach to infanticide.
We take it for granted (at least most of us) that babies are precious, we should protect them, care for them. We feel angered reading about throwing away newborns for certain death or disposing through abortion from female foetuses or killing babies because they are girls or because they have been born against "one child policy" or for any other reason. I do not intend to start discussion on abortion here but I am sure most of us feel offended at least by pictures of baby girls lying in severs in China (for example).
But where does our reverence for life from the birth (or sometimes earlier but let's stick to this) come from? Why do we recognise right to live (so obvious nowadays) of human being? How did it start?
Well, it started with Jews.... In anticity in Europe hellenistic world was all in favour - philosophically and practically - of disposing of unwanted children. Unwanted for various reasons. If the baby in Greece or specially in Rome was born tiny, weak, demaged, ill or just a girl instead of awaited boy it was left to die. It was - according to Roman law - family father's prerogative to decide if the baby is to be kept or to be disposed off. Yet the social values of the society ruled in favour of getting rid of the unwanted babies. Let me give you few examples:
Roman citizen, Hilarion, wrote in a letter to his pregnant wife to Rome in 1 CE: “Know that I am still in Alexandria. And do not worry if they all come back and I remain in Alexandria. I ask and beg of you to take good care of our baby son, and as soon as I receive payment I will send it up to you. If you deliver a child [before I get home], if it is a boy, keep it, if a girl discard it…”
Aristotele in his Politics writes: “There must be a law that no imperfect or maimed child shall be brought up. And to avoid an excess in population, some children must be exposed. For a limit must be fixed to the population of the state.” (Politics VII.16)
Children with even minor defects were abandoned in woods, thrown into rivers or down the wells. Archeology gives us quite few examples e.g. in Athens when the well from the time of Polis with remains of 175 newborns was found not so long ago.
Another practice - if the unwanted babies were left alive - was maiming them to allow them to beg more efficiently, their legs or arms or eyes were removed and those that survived made better beggers. It was morally justifable for Romans. Here is what Seneca writes about such practices:
“Look on the blind wandering about the streets leaning on their sticks, and those with crushed feet, and still again look on those with broken limbs. This one is without arms, that one has had his shoulder pulled down out of shape in order that his grotesqueries may excite laughter ... Let us go to the origin of those ills—a laboratory for the manufacture of human wrecks—a cavern filled with the limbs torn from living children ... What wrong has been done to the Republic? On the contrary, have not these children been done a service inasmuch as their parents had cast them out?”
So where do we take our reverence for life and for not hurting babies from? Well, listen what Tacit had to say about Jewish customs:
In his major work, the Histories, Tacitus attacks the Jews as "wicked," stubborn," and "lascivious." Turning his attention to the Jewish religion, he notes that:
Among the Jews all things are profane that we hold sacred; on the other hand they regard as permissible what seems to us immoral.
Tacitus then lists a number of these Jewish moral perversions. Among the beliefs he found particularly "sinister and revolting" was the fact that, for Jews, "it is a deadly sin to kill an unwanted child."
So for one of the most famous Roman historians one of the main sins of Jews was their reverence for life. Jews were keeping all babies who made it into this world. True enough, infant mortality was horrendous, both among Romans and among Jews, but there was no purposful killing of babies who seemed not fit. On the contrary, they were taken care of (as were all baby girls, while to the Romans disposing of them, even healthy ones, was "natural"; it was explicite stated by Roman law in early Republic and did not change until very late empire when Christianity took over). Torah had forbidden killing and life was regarded as God's gift, blessing, it would have been madness and sin to dispose of such a gift, it would mean rejection of blessing.
And, as Roman philosopher and senator, Deo Cassius, has written expressing his disapproval “The Jews are distinguished from the rest of mankind in practically every detail of life. In particular ... they do not honor any of the usual gods, but show extreme reverence to only one God.” So they could NOT go against this God's given law even if it meant going agains the dominant culture to the extent of clashing with it in the most bloody way.
BTW the excess of young male adults, who could not grow families (as there were not enough women) was one of the reasons responsibles for Roman wars and expansion. They had to push them out of Rome to avoid revolt and thus the empire has started.
So, our reverence for individual life, recognition of individuality that in time gave way to ban on slavery and on torture and was the origin of recognition of individual rights as "natural" all that is taken from Judaism. We think about it as a part of western culture pointing that in many other cultures it was family or clan that mattered and not individual. We think with pride about individual approach, reverence for life, human rights. Yes, it is something to look at with pride but only as long as we will remember when do those values origin from.
Let me remind the quote from John Adams, the 2nd president of the USA and one of the fathers of American constitution:
“I will insist that the Hebrews have done more to civilize men than any other nation ... fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations.”
Biblie is Jewish sacred book - God's word - and although for centuries Christian churches were trying to hide this connection they couldn't destroy essentials of Christianity and those are in Judaism. And no matter how much the hellenistic values were added into it after Christianity became official Roman religion the essence was already there. Centuries passed before we started going back to source but the source is and always was there.
One of the very self-evident examples is Western culture's approach to infanticide.
We take it for granted (at least most of us) that babies are precious, we should protect them, care for them. We feel angered reading about throwing away newborns for certain death or disposing through abortion from female foetuses or killing babies because they are girls or because they have been born against "one child policy" or for any other reason. I do not intend to start discussion on abortion here but I am sure most of us feel offended at least by pictures of baby girls lying in severs in China (for example).
But where does our reverence for life from the birth (or sometimes earlier but let's stick to this) come from? Why do we recognise right to live (so obvious nowadays) of human being? How did it start?
Well, it started with Jews.... In anticity in Europe hellenistic world was all in favour - philosophically and practically - of disposing of unwanted children. Unwanted for various reasons. If the baby in Greece or specially in Rome was born tiny, weak, demaged, ill or just a girl instead of awaited boy it was left to die. It was - according to Roman law - family father's prerogative to decide if the baby is to be kept or to be disposed off. Yet the social values of the society ruled in favour of getting rid of the unwanted babies. Let me give you few examples:
Roman citizen, Hilarion, wrote in a letter to his pregnant wife to Rome in 1 CE: “Know that I am still in Alexandria. And do not worry if they all come back and I remain in Alexandria. I ask and beg of you to take good care of our baby son, and as soon as I receive payment I will send it up to you. If you deliver a child [before I get home], if it is a boy, keep it, if a girl discard it…”
Aristotele in his Politics writes: “There must be a law that no imperfect or maimed child shall be brought up. And to avoid an excess in population, some children must be exposed. For a limit must be fixed to the population of the state.” (Politics VII.16)
Children with even minor defects were abandoned in woods, thrown into rivers or down the wells. Archeology gives us quite few examples e.g. in Athens when the well from the time of Polis with remains of 175 newborns was found not so long ago.
Another practice - if the unwanted babies were left alive - was maiming them to allow them to beg more efficiently, their legs or arms or eyes were removed and those that survived made better beggers. It was morally justifable for Romans. Here is what Seneca writes about such practices:
“Look on the blind wandering about the streets leaning on their sticks, and those with crushed feet, and still again look on those with broken limbs. This one is without arms, that one has had his shoulder pulled down out of shape in order that his grotesqueries may excite laughter ... Let us go to the origin of those ills—a laboratory for the manufacture of human wrecks—a cavern filled with the limbs torn from living children ... What wrong has been done to the Republic? On the contrary, have not these children been done a service inasmuch as their parents had cast them out?”
So where do we take our reverence for life and for not hurting babies from? Well, listen what Tacit had to say about Jewish customs:
In his major work, the Histories, Tacitus attacks the Jews as "wicked," stubborn," and "lascivious." Turning his attention to the Jewish religion, he notes that:
Among the Jews all things are profane that we hold sacred; on the other hand they regard as permissible what seems to us immoral.
Tacitus then lists a number of these Jewish moral perversions. Among the beliefs he found particularly "sinister and revolting" was the fact that, for Jews, "it is a deadly sin to kill an unwanted child."
So for one of the most famous Roman historians one of the main sins of Jews was their reverence for life. Jews were keeping all babies who made it into this world. True enough, infant mortality was horrendous, both among Romans and among Jews, but there was no purposful killing of babies who seemed not fit. On the contrary, they were taken care of (as were all baby girls, while to the Romans disposing of them, even healthy ones, was "natural"; it was explicite stated by Roman law in early Republic and did not change until very late empire when Christianity took over). Torah had forbidden killing and life was regarded as God's gift, blessing, it would have been madness and sin to dispose of such a gift, it would mean rejection of blessing.
And, as Roman philosopher and senator, Deo Cassius, has written expressing his disapproval “The Jews are distinguished from the rest of mankind in practically every detail of life. In particular ... they do not honor any of the usual gods, but show extreme reverence to only one God.” So they could NOT go against this God's given law even if it meant going agains the dominant culture to the extent of clashing with it in the most bloody way.
BTW the excess of young male adults, who could not grow families (as there were not enough women) was one of the reasons responsibles for Roman wars and expansion. They had to push them out of Rome to avoid revolt and thus the empire has started.
So, our reverence for individual life, recognition of individuality that in time gave way to ban on slavery and on torture and was the origin of recognition of individual rights as "natural" all that is taken from Judaism. We think about it as a part of western culture pointing that in many other cultures it was family or clan that mattered and not individual. We think with pride about individual approach, reverence for life, human rights. Yes, it is something to look at with pride but only as long as we will remember when do those values origin from.
Let me remind the quote from John Adams, the 2nd president of the USA and one of the fathers of American constitution:
“I will insist that the Hebrews have done more to civilize men than any other nation ... fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations.”
Thursday 17 May 2012
What an idea! Let's say "no"
Eamon Gilmore wants to impose ban on some Israeli products
Eamon Gilmore is the Irish Foreign Affairs Minister. And the above article depicts his new idea of imposing ban on Israeli products originating from PA territory from entering EU.
I don't know what Mr Gilmore wants to achieve, possibly vote from pro-Palestinian lobby in Ireland, but I see this initiative as very sad, and let me tell a little bit why:
1. Everybody - as I have written in post about boycotting Israeli products and calling for such boycotts - is entitled to boycott whatever products and producers they wish. But imposing such boycott/ ban on others is taking away their freedom of choice. Not only the choice of a product but first and most importantly the freedom of opinion/ political or economical views/ right to express them. In this instance Mr Gilmore represents only those who share his strange idea telling the rest of his voters, and wanting to tell it to the rest of EU citizens, that only his ideas are valid and have to be pursued. This is taking away human rights of having opinions and right to express them. Nobody will make Mr Gilmore buy any Israeli product, but he has no right to prevent others from buying them!
2. Imposing such ban as a politician in charge he is breaking ALL democratic rules. Trying for a boycott by organizations in violent way (they may call for boycotts but with no threats and violence, as I said before) is bad enough. Trying in LEGAL way to impose on people what they are to think is totalitarianism. I may strongly believe in one or other idea but I have no right to impose them on others legally if they incapacitate their rights. Otherwise we are going the path of Franco or Pinochet without even calling into attention more sinister examples from recent past. And for Ireland, that so recently took for example children of protestant soldiers who perished in WWII fighting in British army to be brought up in institutional care in purpose of making them Catholics it is a very dangerous path to follow to try and impose believes and opinions on society. Not long ago it was being done and the price remains to pay, so, liking Ireland, I ask not to go there.
3. You might have realized that so far there was not even mention about Israel - the good at stake is freedom and democracy. But yes, Israel has won the territory of PA in defensive war while being attacked. It has established autonomy there in accordance with Oslo rules and those rules are being constantly broken by PA authorities. Nevertheless autonomy IS the part of the country - in this instance Israel. The products from PA territory are Israeli products. And the main obstacle to peace or two state solution are no settlements but no will on Palestinian side - they could have their country long ago starting in 1947 but always wanted to destroy Israel more. Of course one has a right not to buy given or any Israeli products (or Chinese, Cuban, Iranian, Egyptian, British or whatever for that matter) but nobody has the right to tell others what to think.
4. Finally the ideas is to be put into action (trying for such ban) during Irish presidency in EU. Well, at a time when Greece goes bankrupt, Spain and Italy are in trouble (not to mention Ireland itself), Iran is threatening with nuclear weapon already being tested by North Korea and China can easily buy Europe for debt there is strong need for initiative what should we do, what steps should be undertaken, what path followed. It is populist and easy to gather people "against" something but gives little. The art is to show them what to support. And I would love to hear about Irish ideas - but for sth and not against.
My dear friend has written petition against (yes I know the irony) this idea of Mr Gilmore.
If I have convinced you but a little bit please sign it.
Thank you!
petition to Mr Eamon Gilmore
Eamon Gilmore is the Irish Foreign Affairs Minister. And the above article depicts his new idea of imposing ban on Israeli products originating from PA territory from entering EU.
I don't know what Mr Gilmore wants to achieve, possibly vote from pro-Palestinian lobby in Ireland, but I see this initiative as very sad, and let me tell a little bit why:
1. Everybody - as I have written in post about boycotting Israeli products and calling for such boycotts - is entitled to boycott whatever products and producers they wish. But imposing such boycott/ ban on others is taking away their freedom of choice. Not only the choice of a product but first and most importantly the freedom of opinion/ political or economical views/ right to express them. In this instance Mr Gilmore represents only those who share his strange idea telling the rest of his voters, and wanting to tell it to the rest of EU citizens, that only his ideas are valid and have to be pursued. This is taking away human rights of having opinions and right to express them. Nobody will make Mr Gilmore buy any Israeli product, but he has no right to prevent others from buying them!
2. Imposing such ban as a politician in charge he is breaking ALL democratic rules. Trying for a boycott by organizations in violent way (they may call for boycotts but with no threats and violence, as I said before) is bad enough. Trying in LEGAL way to impose on people what they are to think is totalitarianism. I may strongly believe in one or other idea but I have no right to impose them on others legally if they incapacitate their rights. Otherwise we are going the path of Franco or Pinochet without even calling into attention more sinister examples from recent past. And for Ireland, that so recently took for example children of protestant soldiers who perished in WWII fighting in British army to be brought up in institutional care in purpose of making them Catholics it is a very dangerous path to follow to try and impose believes and opinions on society. Not long ago it was being done and the price remains to pay, so, liking Ireland, I ask not to go there.
3. You might have realized that so far there was not even mention about Israel - the good at stake is freedom and democracy. But yes, Israel has won the territory of PA in defensive war while being attacked. It has established autonomy there in accordance with Oslo rules and those rules are being constantly broken by PA authorities. Nevertheless autonomy IS the part of the country - in this instance Israel. The products from PA territory are Israeli products. And the main obstacle to peace or two state solution are no settlements but no will on Palestinian side - they could have their country long ago starting in 1947 but always wanted to destroy Israel more. Of course one has a right not to buy given or any Israeli products (or Chinese, Cuban, Iranian, Egyptian, British or whatever for that matter) but nobody has the right to tell others what to think.
4. Finally the ideas is to be put into action (trying for such ban) during Irish presidency in EU. Well, at a time when Greece goes bankrupt, Spain and Italy are in trouble (not to mention Ireland itself), Iran is threatening with nuclear weapon already being tested by North Korea and China can easily buy Europe for debt there is strong need for initiative what should we do, what steps should be undertaken, what path followed. It is populist and easy to gather people "against" something but gives little. The art is to show them what to support. And I would love to hear about Irish ideas - but for sth and not against.
My dear friend has written petition against (yes I know the irony) this idea of Mr Gilmore.
If I have convinced you but a little bit please sign it.
Thank you!
petition to Mr Eamon Gilmore
Wednesday 16 May 2012
At the burning bush
We all remember the passage from Exodus 3:1 when Moses meets God at the burning bush.
Just a quick reminder of the beginning of this story:
"Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock to the back of the desert, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. 2 And the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed. 3 Then Moses said, “I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn.” (New King James version)
I find this story fascinating and I would like to share some of my fascination with me (and as always all comments welcome).
Desert is the place when one can hear God speaking, hear His voice in the middle of wilderness. We learn it from encounter between Hagar and God when she runs away from Sarah.
Moses in in the wilderness and he sees the bush in fire but not consumed. He has to turn aside to see it. The question is what is he turning aside from. It is his life as it was (and he was an old man with history and definitely some longing for peace). He was a shephard and yet he has turned away from sheep, from his life, from his flock, intrigued by the sight of bush burning and not consumed. Turning aside and approaching was really the first step to accept God's invitation.
Than, during the conversation at the bush he is virtually told what the rest of his life will be: he will go to pharaoh, confront him, lead the Hebrews from Egypt and take them to Kanaan (the land Lord has chosen for them). Wow! What a task! No wonder Moses is intimidated and he tries to find contarguments (which are many).
And during this exchange of arguments THE question is asked: what is God's name? The answer is translated "I AM WHO I AM" yet it is even more fascinating since Biblical Hebrew has no tenses per se. It has perfect and imperfect side of the verb but no tenses in a way we recognise them today in contemporary languages. Therefore the God's name YHVH - I AM WHO I AM - may be translated (as I was told and as was explained to me) "I was before the beginning, I am and I wil be after the end". And that is exactly what is so amazing! God's name is verb in this conversation. Time is restriction for people, obviously not for Master of the Universe, He has created time. And now we see His omnipresence and omnipotence. We can (hardly) try to imagine something present after the end however it does not sound understandable. There is no way even to start to imagine something that was before the beginning. And yet this is exactly when He was and will be. There is no barrier, no restriction, no beginning and no end for Him.
For me it is the most fascinating part of the conversation at the burning bush.
And one more fascination I want to share about this passage (and believe me, there are many, many more pieces of this chapter leaving me astonished) - it is in Exodus 4:18 and let me again quote after New King James:
So Moses went and returned to Jethro his father-in-law, and said to him, “Please let me go and return to my brethren who are in Egypt, and see whether they are still alive.”
And Jethro said to Moses, “Go in peace.”
Try to imagine the scene: Moses, fugitive from Egypt, an old man, a son-in-law tending the flocks of his father-in-law comes home and says: "Well, I had this amazing experience, I met Lord at the burning bush, he told me to go back to Egypt so here are your flocks and I leave through wilderness to the country where I may be persecuted and I want to find people I haven't had contact with for years. Bye." Do they say he must be carazy? That he stayed too long in the sun? No! The answer is imminent and expresses but deep understanding. What was there in Moses's face? How was he changed after the encounter at the burning bush? I don't know but he must have been powerfully changed and in a way so obvious that his father in law recognised it in an instant.
Amazing, isn't it?
Just a quick reminder of the beginning of this story:
"Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock to the back of the desert, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. 2 And the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed. 3 Then Moses said, “I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn.” (New King James version)
I find this story fascinating and I would like to share some of my fascination with me (and as always all comments welcome).
Desert is the place when one can hear God speaking, hear His voice in the middle of wilderness. We learn it from encounter between Hagar and God when she runs away from Sarah.
Moses in in the wilderness and he sees the bush in fire but not consumed. He has to turn aside to see it. The question is what is he turning aside from. It is his life as it was (and he was an old man with history and definitely some longing for peace). He was a shephard and yet he has turned away from sheep, from his life, from his flock, intrigued by the sight of bush burning and not consumed. Turning aside and approaching was really the first step to accept God's invitation.
Than, during the conversation at the bush he is virtually told what the rest of his life will be: he will go to pharaoh, confront him, lead the Hebrews from Egypt and take them to Kanaan (the land Lord has chosen for them). Wow! What a task! No wonder Moses is intimidated and he tries to find contarguments (which are many).
And during this exchange of arguments THE question is asked: what is God's name? The answer is translated "I AM WHO I AM" yet it is even more fascinating since Biblical Hebrew has no tenses per se. It has perfect and imperfect side of the verb but no tenses in a way we recognise them today in contemporary languages. Therefore the God's name YHVH - I AM WHO I AM - may be translated (as I was told and as was explained to me) "I was before the beginning, I am and I wil be after the end". And that is exactly what is so amazing! God's name is verb in this conversation. Time is restriction for people, obviously not for Master of the Universe, He has created time. And now we see His omnipresence and omnipotence. We can (hardly) try to imagine something present after the end however it does not sound understandable. There is no way even to start to imagine something that was before the beginning. And yet this is exactly when He was and will be. There is no barrier, no restriction, no beginning and no end for Him.
For me it is the most fascinating part of the conversation at the burning bush.
And one more fascination I want to share about this passage (and believe me, there are many, many more pieces of this chapter leaving me astonished) - it is in Exodus 4:18 and let me again quote after New King James:
So Moses went and returned to Jethro his father-in-law, and said to him, “Please let me go and return to my brethren who are in Egypt, and see whether they are still alive.”
And Jethro said to Moses, “Go in peace.”
Try to imagine the scene: Moses, fugitive from Egypt, an old man, a son-in-law tending the flocks of his father-in-law comes home and says: "Well, I had this amazing experience, I met Lord at the burning bush, he told me to go back to Egypt so here are your flocks and I leave through wilderness to the country where I may be persecuted and I want to find people I haven't had contact with for years. Bye." Do they say he must be carazy? That he stayed too long in the sun? No! The answer is imminent and expresses but deep understanding. What was there in Moses's face? How was he changed after the encounter at the burning bush? I don't know but he must have been powerfully changed and in a way so obvious that his father in law recognised it in an instant.
Amazing, isn't it?
Tuesday 15 May 2012
Ma'alot massacre
Today it is 38 years to the day from one of the most horrific terrorist attacks.
Three terrorist from the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (connected to communist authorities in former USSR) crossed the border from Lebanon into Israel. They killed two Israeli Arab women, a couple and their 4-year-old child (mother was 7 months pregnant), wounded their 5-year old daughter and subsequently they entered the school in Ma'alot taking over 100 hostages, most of them children between 14 and 16 who slept in school during excursion.
Terrorists demended releasing from prison sentenced Palestinian terrorists and in the given situation Golda Meir's government pursuing policy of not negotiating with terrorists, was ready to change policy. After hurried Knesset meeting the will to negotiate was expressed but the terrorists - possibly on orders from Damascus - refused to give more time to negotiations and proceeded with killings.
IDF started rescue operation during which all 3 terrorists were killed but they managed to kill 22 children - the chief terrorist, Lini, thrown granades on group of hostages while wounded by Israeli fire, he continued to fire till the very end.
22 children were killed, over 50 wounded. It was one of the worst terrorist attacks involving children.
We should remember the victims, specially as perpetrators of this horrific crime are today praised as heroes :(
praising terrorists
Three terrorist from the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (connected to communist authorities in former USSR) crossed the border from Lebanon into Israel. They killed two Israeli Arab women, a couple and their 4-year-old child (mother was 7 months pregnant), wounded their 5-year old daughter and subsequently they entered the school in Ma'alot taking over 100 hostages, most of them children between 14 and 16 who slept in school during excursion.
Terrorists demended releasing from prison sentenced Palestinian terrorists and in the given situation Golda Meir's government pursuing policy of not negotiating with terrorists, was ready to change policy. After hurried Knesset meeting the will to negotiate was expressed but the terrorists - possibly on orders from Damascus - refused to give more time to negotiations and proceeded with killings.
IDF started rescue operation during which all 3 terrorists were killed but they managed to kill 22 children - the chief terrorist, Lini, thrown granades on group of hostages while wounded by Israeli fire, he continued to fire till the very end.
22 children were killed, over 50 wounded. It was one of the worst terrorist attacks involving children.
We should remember the victims, specially as perpetrators of this horrific crime are today praised as heroes :(
praising terrorists
Monday 14 May 2012
Bonjour Monsieur Chagall
Yesterday we have been to the Jewish Theatre in Warsaw to attand the play Bonjour Monsieur Chagall. And we absolutely loved it!
The concept of the play is based on Chagall's paintings - it comes to live, the heroes of the stories painted dance, sing, play..... It is as taken out of the fairytale. The play itself is in Yiddish with simultaneous translation into Polish but tell the true, the translation, though welcome, is not absolutely necessary and there were longish moments when I wasn't using it at all. As what IS important is this recreation of the world long gone, of the mix of fairytale and nightmare from Chagall's paintings, of Witebsk from the time of his youth....
Marc Chagall had a long life in this cursed, interesting, nightmarish XX century. Born and raised in tsarist Russia at the time of pogroms, coming from a very poor Jewish family, married into the wealthy one (and with love!), a witness to the revolution, its soon dying hopes, lucky to escape Bolshevik purges and settled in Paris, evacueted from there by Americans when Nazi treat became obvious he made it to New York through Spain.... But after the war he returned to Paris. All these stories from the world long gone, from the hopes long forgotten can be retrieved in his paintings. And it can be seen in this play (BTW in Paris it atracted few thousand people).
The additional strong impression is made by the word of introduction spoken by Simon Szurmiej, the author of the play and an elderly man who used to know Chagall, talk to him, discuss his paintings, his poetry, his attitudes, and the result is the play, coming back after 30 years (it was first played before Chagall's death). Listening to Mr Szurmiej's recollection of his talks with Marc Chagall, of the explanation of the paintings, anecdotes behind them, listening to his beautiful Polish and equally beautiful Yiddish I had this rare impression of touching important piece of history revealled in front of my eyes to stay in my memory for ever.
The concept of the play is based on Chagall's paintings - it comes to live, the heroes of the stories painted dance, sing, play..... It is as taken out of the fairytale. The play itself is in Yiddish with simultaneous translation into Polish but tell the true, the translation, though welcome, is not absolutely necessary and there were longish moments when I wasn't using it at all. As what IS important is this recreation of the world long gone, of the mix of fairytale and nightmare from Chagall's paintings, of Witebsk from the time of his youth....
Marc Chagall had a long life in this cursed, interesting, nightmarish XX century. Born and raised in tsarist Russia at the time of pogroms, coming from a very poor Jewish family, married into the wealthy one (and with love!), a witness to the revolution, its soon dying hopes, lucky to escape Bolshevik purges and settled in Paris, evacueted from there by Americans when Nazi treat became obvious he made it to New York through Spain.... But after the war he returned to Paris. All these stories from the world long gone, from the hopes long forgotten can be retrieved in his paintings. And it can be seen in this play (BTW in Paris it atracted few thousand people).
The additional strong impression is made by the word of introduction spoken by Simon Szurmiej, the author of the play and an elderly man who used to know Chagall, talk to him, discuss his paintings, his poetry, his attitudes, and the result is the play, coming back after 30 years (it was first played before Chagall's death). Listening to Mr Szurmiej's recollection of his talks with Marc Chagall, of the explanation of the paintings, anecdotes behind them, listening to his beautiful Polish and equally beautiful Yiddish I had this rare impression of touching important piece of history revealled in front of my eyes to stay in my memory for ever.
Saturday 12 May 2012
Hezbollah's threats, world's silence
article about Hezbollah's leader's words
The above is an article that has appeared in yesteday's and today's papers - but just some of them.
You won't find it in leading West European's papers. It won't make to the first pages, or even second ones, and it should.
There is this old saying - the awful things happen when good people keep silence and do nothing. That is all it takes. It - sadly - has been proven more than once but we people have never learnt.
I want to propose you an excersize in imagination: try to imagine Israeli official saying publicly that Israel is not only capable to strike any place on Westa Bank and Gaza and Lebanon and Syria but is also willing to use this ability and predicts that the era of Palestinians is about to end and they will cease to exist (presumably murdered). Can you imagine the scream and histeria in all media? And rightly so as nobody has right to call for genocide. But apparently some are allowed as nobody cares in mainstream media for those words. Presumably indicating them for what they are would be called "exagerating" and "Islamophobia" - first being insult to sound mind ("if somebody is telling you they want to kill you you better believe") the later is insult to all those Muslims who would like the world to see in them something definitely other than people craving for jihad or killing or delighted in hatred and who are ashamed about such links. Oh, BTW it is also patronising (so exactly what is so much avoided - theoretically - in, say, UK) as the lack of interest of media is presumption that it is "normal" for the speaker and "they can't do any better and know no better" - well, they should. And saying they are not capable (supposition I strongly reject) is patronising people in Lebanon, Arabs or Muslims, depending on the way you look at it.
I say - no double standards and no silence in response to such calls. It is totally INACCEPTABLE to say such words, it is equally INACCEPATABLE to be silent when presented with such words.
Being silent when confronted with hatred, calling for genocide, contempt for other people, trying to appease the haters (as did Chambarlain and Deladier with Hitler) only makes hatred stronger and more self-assured and causes anger in those who are left alone. I am sick and tired hearing another terrorist calling for genocide, another man calling for destruction of Israel and seeing no reaction in European media....
I say ENOUGH and encourage you to say "enough" with me - call your MPs and encourage them to do sth about it, try to write media, share the news, please. It is for good people in the world to do sth before it is too late......
The above is an article that has appeared in yesteday's and today's papers - but just some of them.
You won't find it in leading West European's papers. It won't make to the first pages, or even second ones, and it should.
There is this old saying - the awful things happen when good people keep silence and do nothing. That is all it takes. It - sadly - has been proven more than once but we people have never learnt.
I want to propose you an excersize in imagination: try to imagine Israeli official saying publicly that Israel is not only capable to strike any place on Westa Bank and Gaza and Lebanon and Syria but is also willing to use this ability and predicts that the era of Palestinians is about to end and they will cease to exist (presumably murdered). Can you imagine the scream and histeria in all media? And rightly so as nobody has right to call for genocide. But apparently some are allowed as nobody cares in mainstream media for those words. Presumably indicating them for what they are would be called "exagerating" and "Islamophobia" - first being insult to sound mind ("if somebody is telling you they want to kill you you better believe") the later is insult to all those Muslims who would like the world to see in them something definitely other than people craving for jihad or killing or delighted in hatred and who are ashamed about such links. Oh, BTW it is also patronising (so exactly what is so much avoided - theoretically - in, say, UK) as the lack of interest of media is presumption that it is "normal" for the speaker and "they can't do any better and know no better" - well, they should. And saying they are not capable (supposition I strongly reject) is patronising people in Lebanon, Arabs or Muslims, depending on the way you look at it.
I say - no double standards and no silence in response to such calls. It is totally INACCEPTABLE to say such words, it is equally INACCEPATABLE to be silent when presented with such words.
Being silent when confronted with hatred, calling for genocide, contempt for other people, trying to appease the haters (as did Chambarlain and Deladier with Hitler) only makes hatred stronger and more self-assured and causes anger in those who are left alone. I am sick and tired hearing another terrorist calling for genocide, another man calling for destruction of Israel and seeing no reaction in European media....
I say ENOUGH and encourage you to say "enough" with me - call your MPs and encourage them to do sth about it, try to write media, share the news, please. It is for good people in the world to do sth before it is too late......
Sunday 6 May 2012
Boycotting Israeli products
boycotts and artists
Above is the link to an opinion by Israeli artist about boycotting/ trying to impose boycott/ overcoming (or not) boycotts by artists.
During last so-many-years there have been numerous occasions when one organisation or the other was calling for boycott of Israeli goods/ artists/ films (see my former posts)/ anything. They were trying to connect sometimes the critics of Israeli politics (sometimes right more often wrong) with economic or artistic life (they have enough self-preservation instinct not to try it with scientific products and ideas). Today I would like (inspired by this article and my own many observations) write a little about those boycotts. First let me give you some examples:
1. Former Israeli ambassador to Ireland, while giving one of his speeches shortly before leaving the country, said that one of the things he will always recall when thinking about Ireland (and about warmth and beauty of Ireland he has spoken volumes) would be the policemen guarding Israeli potatoes in Dunnes (one of the biggest supermarket chains in Ireland). It was shortly after 2010 flotilla incident and after calling for boycott of Israeli goods few policemen were guarding potatoes imported from Israeli. It looked double funny to me when I thought that a country 1/4 Ireland's size (not that Ireland is that big :)) having nearly double the population of Ireland and consisting in 1/3 of desert was exporting food and what's more traditional Irish POTATOES for god's sake, to Ireland. That would have been funny enough. Having to put guard to protect them against big politics is definitely absurd.
2. Another incident I recall were protest agains Riverdance going to perform in Israel. There were oh so many protests from so called pro-Palestinian organisations. Finally Riverdance went to perform and few months later I heard from my Israeli friend (obviously unaware of the whole discussion) how beautiful that was. Her impressions were purely artistic, my reflections mostly of sociological nature
3. There were call s for boycott of Israeli Film Festival in Dublin (check plese my former posts about it if you haven't read them). The protesters were completly not interested in what the films were about, what problems they touched, who directed them. The only thing that mattered to them was that they were Israeli films.
4. Finally I remember (and this time from France) calls to make compulsive indicating if food produced on so called West Bank was made by Jews or Arabs. The calls never - as far as I know - succeeded - but they were purely racial and antisemitic (as one of the main arguments was to let people by only Arab-grown veggies) - unless somebody will show me the difference between olives growing 2 meters to the right or two meters to the left ;)
After those few examples I want to share few reflections, and those are much sadder than examples, which are - looked upon from some angles - rather homoruous.
1. Israel has healthy, capitalist economy based on private property. Boycotting this or that may (in some cases) affect the owner and his/ her employees but not the state, generally speaking. There are Jewish farms/ factories/ firms, Arab ones and joint-venture Jew-Arab ones in Israel. And for the most part if somebody is growing bananas or dates or produces new technologies or makes artistic performances it is NOT to demonstrate this or that political views but to make business. If one is concerned about policies of a big concern (say: Exxon Valdez after the Alaskan catastrophe) and they boycott its products - fine; if one is against values prophesied by this or that artist (artist group) and doesn't go to their shows or doesn't buy their products (understandable, nobody goes to theatre, or reads books to suffer) - fine; if somebody doesn't like policy of communist country like Cuba or China or former Eastern Europe and boycotts their goods - fine. If somebody wants to buy only fair trade goods of some kind if available (like myself) - I couldn't agree more.
BUT not buying Israeli made goods because we don't approve of government policy can (if affective at all) hurt only some businessman or business woman who may even share our views about this exact policy or doesn't have an opinion at all - so why do it?
2. Secondly boycotting something ourselves is our choice, calling for others to boycott (whatever made wherever by whomever) is our freedom of speech and is OK. Threatening somebody to use force or affect somebody's safety or trying to prevent somebody from making a choice for themselves and coming to their own opinion is - in my humble opinion - a felony. And steering towards totalitarianism, and depriving me of my freedom. I remember one of the Fathers of the USA constitution saying "I despise your opinion but I would die for you to be able to express it" - because it is our RIGHT and FREEDOM. And those calling for boycott, cancelling concerts or performances or imposing aggressively their opinions on us without giving us chance to create our own opinion - are trying to steal those rights and freedoms from us. I grew up in totalitarian country and I don't take freedom for granted. I cherish it. And I won't let somebody make my choices for me. It is mine and mine only prerogative. As much as everybody else's not to be taken away.
3. Israel is one of the leaders in new technologies and science. It is easy to boycott privately grown potatoes if one likes. How about not using medicines or medical equipment developed in Israel? How about not using technologies to desalinate water to make it potable? (again: Israeli made). How about not using insulin-pumps for our near and dear? (same story). Do those callers really want to deprive us of medicine/ medical equipment/ technologies/ cultural events because they don't like this or the other Israeli policy? I will recall again part of the former's Israeli ambassador's speech: don't try to beat Israeli papers in criticizing Israeli government - you stand no chance, but PUT THE FACTS RIGHT (caps lock mine). And I could add: let people make their own opinion about facts, honest facts. It is their right!
Above is the link to an opinion by Israeli artist about boycotting/ trying to impose boycott/ overcoming (or not) boycotts by artists.
During last so-many-years there have been numerous occasions when one organisation or the other was calling for boycott of Israeli goods/ artists/ films (see my former posts)/ anything. They were trying to connect sometimes the critics of Israeli politics (sometimes right more often wrong) with economic or artistic life (they have enough self-preservation instinct not to try it with scientific products and ideas). Today I would like (inspired by this article and my own many observations) write a little about those boycotts. First let me give you some examples:
1. Former Israeli ambassador to Ireland, while giving one of his speeches shortly before leaving the country, said that one of the things he will always recall when thinking about Ireland (and about warmth and beauty of Ireland he has spoken volumes) would be the policemen guarding Israeli potatoes in Dunnes (one of the biggest supermarket chains in Ireland). It was shortly after 2010 flotilla incident and after calling for boycott of Israeli goods few policemen were guarding potatoes imported from Israeli. It looked double funny to me when I thought that a country 1/4 Ireland's size (not that Ireland is that big :)) having nearly double the population of Ireland and consisting in 1/3 of desert was exporting food and what's more traditional Irish POTATOES for god's sake, to Ireland. That would have been funny enough. Having to put guard to protect them against big politics is definitely absurd.
2. Another incident I recall were protest agains Riverdance going to perform in Israel. There were oh so many protests from so called pro-Palestinian organisations. Finally Riverdance went to perform and few months later I heard from my Israeli friend (obviously unaware of the whole discussion) how beautiful that was. Her impressions were purely artistic, my reflections mostly of sociological nature
3. There were call s for boycott of Israeli Film Festival in Dublin (check plese my former posts about it if you haven't read them). The protesters were completly not interested in what the films were about, what problems they touched, who directed them. The only thing that mattered to them was that they were Israeli films.
4. Finally I remember (and this time from France) calls to make compulsive indicating if food produced on so called West Bank was made by Jews or Arabs. The calls never - as far as I know - succeeded - but they were purely racial and antisemitic (as one of the main arguments was to let people by only Arab-grown veggies) - unless somebody will show me the difference between olives growing 2 meters to the right or two meters to the left ;)
After those few examples I want to share few reflections, and those are much sadder than examples, which are - looked upon from some angles - rather homoruous.
1. Israel has healthy, capitalist economy based on private property. Boycotting this or that may (in some cases) affect the owner and his/ her employees but not the state, generally speaking. There are Jewish farms/ factories/ firms, Arab ones and joint-venture Jew-Arab ones in Israel. And for the most part if somebody is growing bananas or dates or produces new technologies or makes artistic performances it is NOT to demonstrate this or that political views but to make business. If one is concerned about policies of a big concern (say: Exxon Valdez after the Alaskan catastrophe) and they boycott its products - fine; if one is against values prophesied by this or that artist (artist group) and doesn't go to their shows or doesn't buy their products (understandable, nobody goes to theatre, or reads books to suffer) - fine; if somebody doesn't like policy of communist country like Cuba or China or former Eastern Europe and boycotts their goods - fine. If somebody wants to buy only fair trade goods of some kind if available (like myself) - I couldn't agree more.
BUT not buying Israeli made goods because we don't approve of government policy can (if affective at all) hurt only some businessman or business woman who may even share our views about this exact policy or doesn't have an opinion at all - so why do it?
2. Secondly boycotting something ourselves is our choice, calling for others to boycott (whatever made wherever by whomever) is our freedom of speech and is OK. Threatening somebody to use force or affect somebody's safety or trying to prevent somebody from making a choice for themselves and coming to their own opinion is - in my humble opinion - a felony. And steering towards totalitarianism, and depriving me of my freedom. I remember one of the Fathers of the USA constitution saying "I despise your opinion but I would die for you to be able to express it" - because it is our RIGHT and FREEDOM. And those calling for boycott, cancelling concerts or performances or imposing aggressively their opinions on us without giving us chance to create our own opinion - are trying to steal those rights and freedoms from us. I grew up in totalitarian country and I don't take freedom for granted. I cherish it. And I won't let somebody make my choices for me. It is mine and mine only prerogative. As much as everybody else's not to be taken away.
3. Israel is one of the leaders in new technologies and science. It is easy to boycott privately grown potatoes if one likes. How about not using medicines or medical equipment developed in Israel? How about not using technologies to desalinate water to make it potable? (again: Israeli made). How about not using insulin-pumps for our near and dear? (same story). Do those callers really want to deprive us of medicine/ medical equipment/ technologies/ cultural events because they don't like this or the other Israeli policy? I will recall again part of the former's Israeli ambassador's speech: don't try to beat Israeli papers in criticizing Israeli government - you stand no chance, but PUT THE FACTS RIGHT (caps lock mine). And I could add: let people make their own opinion about facts, honest facts. It is their right!
Friday 4 May 2012
King David
King David was one of the most important figures in Jewish history. Born
in 907 BCE, he reigns as king of Israel for 40 years, dying at age 70 in
837 BCE.
He was the one to unite all 12 tribes of Israel (only during the reign of his and his son, Solomon, they will stay united, afterwards the kingdom will be divided and finally 10 tribes will be lost when Northern Kingdom of Israel will be conquered by Babilonia). He was chosen king and the only one to found a dynasty (BTW in XX century near Jerusalem there has been archeological founding of scripture in clay referring to the "house of David" and confirming the Biblical story). He was also the one to conquer Jerusalem - Jebusite stronghold - the Book of Samuel and the Book of Chronicles describe how David's general, Yoab, climbs up a tzinor (literally "pipe") enters the city and conquers it. Some archaeologists speculate that this might refer to the city's ancient water system -- whose source was the Gihon Spring -- which is a tourist attraction in "David's City," outside the walls of today's Jerusalem. He makes Jerusalem a capital of Jewish nation. One of the reasons suposedly was that it allowed to avoid disputes among tribes as the capital lied outside of each and every one of their cities therefore choosing Jerusalem was a wise and diplomatic move. But the main reason behind it was God's guidance.
He was the one to unite all 12 tribes of Israel (only during the reign of his and his son, Solomon, they will stay united, afterwards the kingdom will be divided and finally 10 tribes will be lost when Northern Kingdom of Israel will be conquered by Babilonia). He was chosen king and the only one to found a dynasty (BTW in XX century near Jerusalem there has been archeological founding of scripture in clay referring to the "house of David" and confirming the Biblical story). He was also the one to conquer Jerusalem - Jebusite stronghold - the Book of Samuel and the Book of Chronicles describe how David's general, Yoab, climbs up a tzinor (literally "pipe") enters the city and conquers it. Some archaeologists speculate that this might refer to the city's ancient water system -- whose source was the Gihon Spring -- which is a tourist attraction in "David's City," outside the walls of today's Jerusalem. He makes Jerusalem a capital of Jewish nation. One of the reasons suposedly was that it allowed to avoid disputes among tribes as the capital lied outside of each and every one of their cities therefore choosing Jerusalem was a wise and diplomatic move. But the main reason behind it was God's guidance.
After
David makes Jerusalem his capital, he buys the upper part of the hill
above the northern boundary of the city from its owner Aravnah, the
Jebusite. The purchase is recorded in the Bible in two places (2 Samuel
24:24 and 1 Chronicles 21:25).
This hill is Mount Moriah and what it may lack in physical size, it more than compensates for spiritual greatness.
From
the earliest period of Jewish history, the Patriarchs of the Jewish
people recognized the tremendous spiritual power of Mount Moriah. This
is where Abraham, sensing God's presence, went up to offer Isaac as a
sacrifice and later remarked as the Bible records:
"The Lord will see," as it is said to this day, "On the Lord's mountain, He will be seen." (Genesis 22:14)
This is where Jacob dreamt of a ladder going to heaven, and said:
"How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven." (Genesis 28:17)
No
wonder this is a spot that every major conqueror in all of human
history has wanted to own. (Jerusalem has been conquered or destroyed 36
times in 3,000 years.)
There will be a temple - David is aware of it and dutifully brings the Arc from Siloh, however he is not allowed to build it - he was a warrior and had a lot of blood on his hands - it will only be Solomon who will build it.
There are more places strongly connected to David and one that made a strong impression on me is En Gedi, the place of caves where David was hiding from Saul trying to find him and kill him and when he was confronted with a powerful test of his personality as the future king and as a leader of God's people. Saul has been delivered right into his hands, defensless and not aware that David and his warriors are in the same cave he has entered seeking privacy.
David's men have seen it as a clear sight of God's will - the enemy delivered straight to them. They advised David to kill Saul that seemed - from human and warrior's perspective - the obvious thing to do. But David hears the words "do with him (Saul) as is good in your eyes" - it is not right to kill the king, it is not right to kill God's chosen leader (and Saul was one inspite of his subsequent sins), it is not right to make the first passing from one king to the next (and Saul was the very first king of Israel) in a way of king's assassination. We may be sure David was (even if for a short while) entertaining a thought about killing Saul. Cutting a piece of Saul's mantel, that he repents so much a minute later, was in fact cutting the tzitzit - unfinished ridge of the mantel Saul was wearing accoring to the Law as all observant Jews did. What David really did was trying to cut the connection between Saul and God before killing the king. But right after that act he is horrified by what he thought about and repents. When he runs out from the cave and kneels before Saul fully expecting he may be killed this very minute he lets go the greatest gift he was given - the sword. From human point of view it makes no sense. From God's perspective - quite the opposite. David wins his whole future by NOT killing Saul and remaining God's chosen and obedient servant. Until fully understanding this moment of temptation, this moment when David tried to cut Saul's connection with God and NOT a piece of cloth there is no full appreciation of the scene.
In our lives many times we are confronted with situations clear from purely human and opportunistic point of view and equally clear (or close to) from God's point of view. But they are different points and different solutions and answers. Such situations are tests. David has passed his great test (and many others though, as we know from the story of Bat Sheba, definitely not all). He could recognise temptations and mistakes, not made before humans but before God. It is greatness that we should try to excersize in our lives when tests and trials come
(writing the story of conquering Jerusalem I partly used a piece written by rabbi Ken Spiro)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)