Pesach: Moses’ Question

Hag sameach!

By R Lord Jonathan Sacks

The first question Moses asked God was Mi anokhi.  Not “who are you?” But “who am I?”

At a simple level Moses was asking a simple question. Who am I to stand before Pharaoh? Who am I to lead the Jewish people? What makes me worthy of this task? Moses was already showing that aspect of his character that made him the unique leader he became. He was modest, “more humble”, as the Torah later states, “than anyone else on the face of the earth”. He had no sense of personal grandeur, no driving belief in his own destiny. He led not because he thought he was great but because the task was real, the need undeniable, the hour pressing and the call inescapable. He led because God left no choice other than to lead. He had, in Shakespeare’s words, greatness thrust upon him.

But at a deeper level Moses’ query was a different question. Who was Moses? How would a biographer have described him at that point? He was found and adopted by an Egyptian princess, raised in Pharaoh’s palace and brought up as an Egyptian Prince. When, after the events that led to his flight to Midian, he rescued Jethro’s daughters, the report to their father was, “an Egyptian rescued us.” In appearance, manner, dress, speech he was an Egyptian – not Hebrew, an Israelite, a Jew.

Moses’ question, therefore, cut to the core of identity. Perhaps it is a question asked in some form or another by every adopted child. Who am I? Am I the child of those who brought me up? Or am I the child of my biological parents, Amram and Jochabed? Am I an Egyptian or an Israelite? A prince or a slave? Where do my loyalties lie?

In Moses’ case it was no ordinary question. The implications were vast. Was he one of the rulers or the ruled? One of the powerful or powerless? Did he belong to the prosecutors or the persecuted? The alternatives could not have been more extreme. Before him later, on the one hand, a life of ease and honour; on the other, an uncertain fate fraught with suffering and pain.

Nor was it made easier by Moses’ first experience of the Jewish people. Intervening to save one of them from the brutality of an Egyptian taskmaster, the next day he found himself pilloried by the very people to his defence he had come. The first recorded words spoken to Moses by an Israelite were, “who made you ruler and judge over us?” Not yet a leader, he already found his leadership being challenged. It was the first intimation of what was to become a recurring theme of the Mosaic books. The Jewish people is not an easy people.

Perhaps Moses thought he could avoid the question. His flight to Midian was an escape from physical danger. He had killed an Egyptian officer. He faced a capital charge and a warrant was out for his arrest. But it was also an escape from the psychological burden of choice. Midian was neutral space. In Midian you do not have to decide whether you are an Egyptian or an Israelite. Moses was simply – as he said at the birth of his first child – “a stranger in a strange land.” Not an Egyptian or an Israelite but an outsider, someone who could have been either, whose origins were obscure but perhaps no longer relevant.

What Moses discovered, alone with his flocks of the mountain, was that there are choices from which we cannot hide. Almost the first words God says to him are, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” God is not here telling Moses who God is. The answer to that question comes later, in one of the most haunting, enigmatic statements and religious literature: Ehyeh asher Ehyeh, “I am who I am.” Or, “I will be who I will be.” In his earlier speech God is not telling Moses who God is but who Moses is. He is the son of his father, the descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He is not a prince of Egypt child of Israel. And being a child of Israel, he cannot, may not, be indifferent to their fate.

In a very real sense, Moses is a symbol of our time. New Zealand is our Midian – a place untouched by the tyranny of the Holocaust, the Egypt of the 20th century. Midian is somewhere else, neutral space, where the question of identity is no longer so pressing, where in the fullness of time a Jew can forget that he or she is a Jew.

Can we? Can we forget and still be honest with ourselves? Today, in an age of post-modernism and deconstruction, there is an assumption that identity is no longer fixed, absolute, given. We can be whatever we choose to be, and for however long or short a time. Cultures are no longer monolithic. We inhabit diversity. We can try out any of the world’s literatures or cuisines or faiths. Already through the Internet – the so-called multi-user domains – we can embark on a series of relationships in fictitious or simulated roles. Virtual reality will make this an even more convincing experience. Post-modern identities, Michel Foucault argued, are not discovered but invented. We are who we decide to be.

But there comes a moment for each of us, as it did for Moses, when the question of Mi anokhi, “who am I?” Is inescapable. There is only one answer. Imagine Moses, having asked the question, hearing the following words by way of reply: “You are whoever you choose to be. You can be an Egyptian and live the life of a prince. You can be a Midianite and spend the rest of your days as a shepherd, untroubled and obscure. You can be an Israelite in exile, dreaming distant dreams. Or you can go back to Egypt and take your place among the slaves. Feel free to choose. Remember: nothing matters except what you want. Don’t let me influence you in any way.”

We know, without having to be told, that this cannot be the voice of God. It is the voice of fantasy, in which nothing exists except our desires. Increasingly we are building a cultural fantasy. Reality is not fantasy. It is that which exists regardless of our choices. Objects are real because they impede our movement. People are real because they have wills of their own. Reality is the world we did not choose to enter. And we discover our place in it, ultimately, by learning who did choose that we should enter it, and why; by reflecting on who our parents are, and where they came from, and what their story is.

That is why Jewish identity is a given at birth – and why Pesach is the oldest and most profound answer to Moses’ question, “who am I?” For I learned who I am by hearing my ancestors’ story and knowing that I am one of its characters. I enter it midway, and whatever I choose will itself be part of that story, and I can opt out of it only at the cost of being false to my past and to myself.

That is the fundamental significance of the Haggadah, and why the seder service begins with questions asked by the child. On the surface, the Haggadah answers the question, “what is this?” What is Pesach, matzoh and maror? But beneath the surface the real question is, “who am I?” The greatest gift we can give our children is to tell them the story of where we came from and who our ancestors were. For we discover who we are, not by an outward journey into the culture and society that surrounds us, but by an inward journey into who gave us birth, and who bore them, and what happened to them to make them what they were.

God gave Moses his identity when he told him that he was a child of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The story was his, and the time had come to write a new chapter. In that – no less – is what we give our children on Pesach. “This is your people and it story. Take it and make it yours. A hundred generations have each added their chapter. And there is one which bears your name, and only you can write. This is the past which you are the future. This is who you are.”

Source

Regulating the Lulav | Tablet Mag

After Sukkot ends, most Orthodox Jews keep their lulavs in storage until six months later; there is a custom to use the dried-out lulav as kindling on the eve of Passover, when Jews burn all their leftover leavened products. However, in one tiny Jewish community this has never been the custom. In New Zealand, as soon as Sukkot is finished, all lulavs and etrogs are surrendered to the Ministry for Primary Industries, where they are destroyed with liquid nitrogen.

New Zealand has some of the tightest biosecurity laws in the world. There are huge signs at the airport noting that upon arrival, one must declare the presence of any organic material that is brought into the country: seeds, food, animal byproducts—even an apple you packed for the flight. Bringing any organic material into the country without declaring its presence and obtaining permission can result in serious fines, or in severe cases, even jail.

Read more

Juliet Moses and the Anti-Terrorism Hui Controversy | Zoom Meeting

You may have heard of the controversy surrounding the comments of Juliet Moses, the spokesperson for the NZ Jewish Council, at the recent anti-terrorism hui.

Here is the transcript of her address, so you can judge for yourself as to whether her remarks conflated terrorism with Islam as members of the Islamic community have asserted.  Click this link to read the full transcript.

Furthermore, here is an opportunity to meet Juliet herself and ask your own questions, via a Zoom meeting.  Thanks to our friends at the Israel Institute of NZ for organizing this event.  Zoom meeting details follow:

Join Dr David Cumin and Juliet Moses for a Zoom Talk on Thursday 24 June, 7pm

Ms Moses is an Auckland based lawyer and spokesperson for the Jewish Council of New Zealand. She was invited to speak at the recent Hui on Countering Terrorism and Violent Extremism. In one session, there was open support for Hamas and Hezbollah, whose military wings are designated by NZ as terrorist groups. There was no challenge from the officials or leaders in the room. We will discuss this and more.

Please spread the word.

Topic: The Israel Report: David Cumin talks to Juliet Moses
Time: Jun 24, 2021 07:00 PM Auckland, Wellington

Join Zoom Meeting
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86476677914
Meeting ID: 864 7667 7914

Everything you need to know about the Israeli government that will replace Benjamin Netanyahu | JTA

Naftali Bennett (Left) and Yair Lapid (right)

After 12 straight years as Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu is losing power — and the government that’s about to replace him is remarkable in its own right.

Netanyahu’s ouster is a huge deal on its own. Over the past decade-plus, as the country’s longest-serving leader, he has become nearly synonymous with Israel — shaping its foreign and domestic policy as well as its international image, and personally guiding its relationship with the United States.

Over the past two years, his desire to hold onto power — even as he stands trial on corruption charges — along with his opponents’ desire to oust him, have driven Israel’s political system into crisis. He has become so personally polarizing that a range of ideological allies turned against him — and are on the verge of replacing him.

Now, Netanyahu’s opponents have announced that they have succeeded in defeating him. And when they get sworn in later this month, unless Netanyahu somehow manages to scuttle that, the government they form will itself break boundaries. It will be an unprecedented alliance of political right and left, Jews and Arabs, all dedicated to one goal: ending the Netanyahu era. At the same time, there are ways that, even under new leadership, Israel is unlikely to change.

Here’s what you need to know about Israel’s incoming government.

Read more

SHEIKH JARRAH: THE FACTS | CAMERA

A long-simmering controversy over the fate of Jewish-owned land and Palestinian tenants in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of Jerusalem has once again become frontpage news after yet another court decision reaffirming the pre-1948 Jewish ownership of the land and the obligation of the Palestinian tenants to pay their rent or be evicted.

At the same time, false claims have been made that the Israeli laws are unfair because Jews can recover property in the West Bank, but Palestinians can’t recover property in pre-1967 Israel.

Read more

The photo which tells all you should know about the Israel-Gaza conflict | SMH

The photo that tells it all

Sky News host Rowan Dean says everything people need to know about the history and future of the current conflict in Gaza and Israel can be condensed into a single photo.

The conflict in the Middle East has continued to broaden with violent clashes between Palestinians and Israelis spreading across the West Bank.

“On the right-hand side of the photo, you can see the deadly rockets being fired out of Gaza in an aggressive and deliberately offensive act of war, designed to kill and maim as many innocent everyday Israeli citizens as possible,” Mr Dean said.

“On the left-hand side of the photo, looking like something out of Star Wars or Close Encounters, you see the Iron Dome, a technological miracle that allows Israel to shoot those Iranian and Hamas rockets out of the sky in a purely defensive act designed to save citizens’ lives.

“That is the story of the Gaza conflict and the history of Israel and Palestine. Pretty much everything else you will hear is obfuscation, distortion and lies, laced with the insidious moral relativism of the left.”

Mr Dean said the rockets were supplied by Iran and funded in part by the Obama-Biden administration.

“The story of the last 70 years of Israel is summed up in this one photo – a small technologically advanced democracy constantly having to defend itself from vicious assault sponsored by the Arab regimes and Islamist fanatics that surround it encouraged and funded by globalist bodies.”

See video

Frequently Asked Questions for Teens

The Zionist Federation has kindly prepared a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) resource suitable for teens who may be confronted by pro-Palestinian relatives, friends and acquaintances.

You can download it from here.

Feel free to share it with friends and family.

Sheikh Jarrah: A legal background | JNS

Iron Dome missiles rise to intercept Hamas rocket attacks

NZFOI: Most NZ media mention the Sheik Jarrah property dispute as “the Sheik Jarrah evictions” as if they had come out of nowhere and implying they were just an Israeli abuse of power and a demonstration of all that is unjust about Zionism. In fact it is the subject of a long running legal dispute that has been through several layers of the legal system over nearly forty years. Here is a background article to help put some perspective on those who have open and enquiring minds.

(May 10, 2021 / The International Legal Forum) The case of Sheikh Jarrah is a complex and long-running legal matter, subject to competing property claims by Jewish owners and Palestinian tenants over a small area of land in Jerusalem. The affair also incorporates the area’s religious significance and spans a history dating back to the pre-1948 British mandate era. The case has been subject to legal proceedings since 1972 and is currently before Israel’s Supreme Court, where a final decision is expected in the next month.

This particular case has garnered unprecedented attention in the wake of the recent Human Rights Watch (HRW) report accusing Israel of engaging in “apartheid” practices, the International Criminal Court (ICC) investigation of alleged Israeli war crimes and a concerted campaign by the pro-Palestinian BDS and NGO network, as well as the Palestinian leadership, to exacerbate and inflame the currently tense situation in and around Jerusalem.

Where is Sheikh Jarrah?

Sheikh Jarrah is a predominantly, though not exclusively, Arab neighborhood of Jerusalem, located about a mile and a half from the Old City.Subscribe to The JNS Daily Syndicate
by email and never miss
our top stories

What is the historical significance of the area?

Jews refer to the area as “Shimon Hatzadik,” “Simeon the Just,” a revered third-century BCE Jewish High Priest whose tomb is located there. The neighborhood is often visited by Jewish pilgrims.

Palestinians claim the area derives its name from Sheikh Jarrah, a physician to Saladin, the Islamic military leader who fought the Crusaders in the 12th century. His body is believed to be buried there.

What is the claim against Israel?

The pro-Palestinian community is claiming that Israel is unjustly evicting four Palestinian families from their homes in the neighborhood and that this exemplifies accusations against Israel in the context of the broader conflict with the Palestinians. 

In response, the owners of the property (a private Israeli NGO, Nahalat Shimon), claim they have the legal title to the property in question and that, in the absence of rent being paid by the tenants, the tenants ought to be evicted for breaching the law.

What is the chronology?

Sheikh Jarrah is an Arab neighborhood that developed outside the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem in the 19th century. 

According to Israel’s Supreme Court, the land in question was purchased by the local Ashkenazi and Sephardi communities from its Arab owners in 1875, primarily because of the area’s religious significance in housing the tomb of “Simeon the Just.” The property was registered in the Ottoman land registry as a trust under the name of rabbis Avraham Ashkenazi and Meir Auerbach.

A small Jewish community lived there peacefully in co-existence with the local Arab community until 1948, when the War of Independence broke out.

The Jewish owners had tried to register ownership of the property with the authorities of the British Mandate in 1946.

When the War of Independence broke out in 1948, the Old City of Jerusalem and its surrounding area, including Sheikh Jarrah, was captured by Transjordan (now Jordan) and the Jewish families were forcibly evicted. Custodianship of the property was transferred to the Jordanian Custodian of Enemy Properties. In 1956, the Jordanian government leased the property to 28 families of Palestinian “refugees,” while maintaining ownership of the property. 

After the Six-Day War in 1967, when Israel regained control of Jerusalem, it passed a law allowing Jews whose families were evicted by Jordanian or British authorities in the city prior to 1967 to reclaim their property, provided they could demonstrate proof of ownership and the existing residents were unable to provide such proof of purchase or legal transfer of title.

In 1973, ownership of the property was registered by Sephardic Community Committee and the Knesset Israel Committee with Israeli authorities pursuant to the above law.

Subsequently, in 2003, the owners sold the property to “Nahalat Shimon,” an Israeli NGO that seeks to reclaim property for Jews evicted or forced to flee as a result of the 1948 War of Independence.

Beginning of legal proceedings

In 1982, the Jewish owners (Sephardic Community Committee and the Knesset Israel Committee) sued the Palestinian families residing in Sheikh Jarrah and demanded their eviction on the basis that they were squatters on the property. The Magistrate Court determined that the Palestinian families could not demonstrate their ownership of the property, but that they enjoyed Protected Tenant Status. As protected tenants, they would be able to continue living on the property as long as they paid rent and maintained the property. This arrangement was agreed upon mutually in an agreement signed by the parties, in which the tenants recognized the trusts’ ownership in exchange for protected tenant status.

Beginning in 1993, the trusts began proceedings against the residents based on their non-payment of rent and of illegal changes to the property.

In 1997, Suliman Darwish Hijazi, a Palestinian man, attempted to challenge the trusts’ ownership of the property, based on a kushan (Ottoman title) that he allegedly purchased from a Jordanian man, al-Bandeq, in 1961. The court ruled that Hijazi failed to demonstrate that the kushan refers to the claimed property in Shimon HaTzadik, and that forensic evidence raised the likelihood that the kushan had been altered or forged. Furthermore, Hijazi failed to prove that al-Bandeq had ever owned the property and thus had the right to sell it.

Finally, Hijazi had never acted to protect his property rights, both during the Jordanian and Israeli periods, by registering it, charging rent, or paying property tax.

Prior court rulings

Key points:

• The residents are protected tenants and must pay rent to the property’s owners.

• The residents never paid rent and carried out illegal construction on the property. The court previously ordered the residents to pay the outstanding rent and to immediately evacuate the illegally constructed additions.

• The court rejected claims that the Jordanian government had committed to transferring ownership to the residents and that this commitment never came to fruition due to the outbreak of the Six-Day War. The only document ever provided as evidence was a copy of an unsigned standard Jordanian Department of Housing form, that did not contain any agreement regarding the transfer of rights.

• The court rejected claims that a resident purchased ownership rights from a man named Ismail. The claimant could not demonstrate that Ismail had been the property’s owner, that he had purchased the property from him or that the claimant had ever been a protected tenant at the time of the alleged sale.

The current state of legal proceedings

Following the judgment of the Jerusalem District Court in February 2021, upholding an earlier court decision that, in the absence of payment of rent, the Palestinian residents must vacate the premises, the tenants appealed to the Supreme Court, with a final verdict expected in the next month.

Arsen Ostrovsky is chairman and CEO of the International Legal Forum, an Israel-based legal network of more than 3,500 lawyers and activists in 30 different countries committed to the fight against anti-Semitism, terror and the delegitimization of Israel in the international legal arena.

New Zealand’s Sovereign Wealth Fund damages its reputation by divesting from Israeli banks| FDD

David May, Research Analyst, Foundation for Defense of Democracies

New Zealand’s $36 billion sovereign wealth fund divested $4 million from five Israeli banks last month because of their West Bank operations. This could cause reputational and financial problems for New Zealand and for companies managing its sovereign wealth fund.

Flawed information and analysis spurred the fund’s decision. In a letter explaining the move, the Guardians – the government entity that runs New Zealand’s sovereign wealth fund – cites concern about Israel’s plans to annex portions of the West Bank. However, Israel agreed to suspend its annexation plans in September 2020 as part of its peace deals with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. Subsequently, UAE-based Abu Dhabi Islamic Bank signed a memorandum of understanding with Bank Leumi, one of the Israeli banks subject to divestment.

The letter erroneously describes United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334, which declared that Israeli settlement activity “has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law,” as “binding.” However, the council passed that resolution under the non-binding Chapter VI.

The Guardians’ letter also relies on reports by the UN Human Rights Council, a body composed of numerous autocracies that has passed nearly as many resolutions criticizing Israel as the rest of the world combined. This reality undermines the credibility of the council’s reports.

Thanks to the Guardians’ decision, Israeli companies now comprise 11 of the fund’s 53 divestments not related to tobacco or cannabis. Two of these are Israeli construction companies from which New Zealand divested in 2012 for building West Bank settlements. The Guardians excluded the others for manufacturing certain weapons or for alleged labor or unethical-conduct issues.

Yet even as they condemn Israel, the Guardians invest in one of the world’s leading human rights abusers. The fund holds nearly half a billion dollars’ worth of investments in 625 Chinese companies, including two companies blacklisted by the United States for violating the rights of ethnic minorities. China has detained up to 1 million Uighurs from Xinjiang province, suppressed pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong, and continues to occupy Tibet.

Likewise, while the fund divested from Israeli banks, it invests in companies extracting natural resources from another disputed territory. On March 15, New Zealand’s High Court upheld the sovereign wealth fund’s right to invest in companies operating in Western Sahara, a non-self-governing territory occupied by Morocco.

Two New Zealand companies included in the fund import around $30 million worth of phosphate from the disputed territory annually. Morocco’s alleged facilitation of the extraction of natural resources from an occupied territory appears to contravene Article 55 of the 1907 Fourth Hague Convention.

Israeli banks have faced divestment in the past. In January 2014, Dutch pension firm PGGM announced it was divesting from the same Israeli banks that New Zealand’s fund excluded. The Financial Times reported that several senior PGGM executives later regretted the decision because it inadvertently thrust the company into the politics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In the same month, Denmark’s Danske Bank terminated operations with Israel’s Bank Hapoalim, prompting Illinois’ Investment Policy Board to bar investment in Danske.

Accordingly, U.S. states such as Illinois that impose restrictions on the investment of public funds in companies boycotting Israel should prohibit investment in financial management firms implementing the Guardians’ anti-Israel divestment policy.

On their website, the Guardians state that avoiding reputational damage is one of their guiding principles. The fund’s exclusion of Israeli companies while continuing to invest in problematic businesses elsewhere could damage the fund’s reputation if members of Congress voiced their displeasure. This would carry significant weight, since the United States is New Zealand’s third-largest trading partner.

David May is a research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), where he also contributes to FDD’s Center on Economic and Financial Power (CEFP). For more analysis from David and CEFP, please subscribe HERE. Follow David on Twitter @DavidSamuelMay. Follow FDD on Twitter @FDD and @FDD_CEFP. FDD is a Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.

Source

The man who survived Dr Mengele | Newsroom

Benjamin Steiner

Benjamin Steiner died in Auckland last week at the age of 81, and as Mark Jennings writes, his life story was unique in many ways

Benjamin Steiner cut a distinctive figure with his dapper clothes, trilby hat and twinkly eyes. But belying that appearance, his body covered in scars and the number A-421734 tattooed on his left forearm, was a terrible truth.

Steiner was a survivor of Auschwitz, and the subject of the notorious Dr Josef Mengele’s experiments.

The small, softly-spoken man lived in New Zealand most of his life. He was a professional and passionate saxophonist and worked as chief purser for the airline that became Air New Zealand.

Born in 1935 in Budapest, he was 8 years old when he was transported to Auschwitz – Birkenau in a railway wagon. By 1944, 12,000 Jews were being delivered to Auschwitz on an average day.

Winston Churchill once described the treatment of Hungarian Jews as the “greatest and most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world…”.

Read more