In a previous article, I questioned why a religious zionist (modern orthodox) congregation such as Mizrachi would apparently not permit Moshe Feiglin to speak at Shalosh Seudos, prior to his main talk the next day at the Werdiger Hall. In response to some who have suggested “why don’t you ask your brother-in-law”, which is a valid question, my answer is simple: Whilst he is President of Mizrachi, and has been for many years, and from what I have witnessed has done a sterling job (I might be biased),
- I suspect it would/should have been a committee decision
- He may have a personal opinion which he may not wish to share
- Simply because he is married to my sister ought not mean that my questions shouldn’t be asked in my blog
- I don’t particularly want to put him on the spot, as he is משפחה at the end of the day
Now, Moshe Feiglin is certainly not the most controversial figure to speak in Melbourne at a Jewish Organisation. The left seem to be able to bring any and every type of anti-Jewish, questionably Zionist, type here with impunity. Ironically, the Holocaust generation, would have nothing of such people, but their tree hugging, reformulated Judaism as תיקון עולם not necessarily with the מלכות שד׳י that follows it, children are exactly those who are comfortable sitting with those who want to make Israel like “all the nations”.
Israel will never be like “all the nations”. As long as it follows the constant הלכה of והלכת בדרכיו where we are meant to emulate God, through his values, his published traits, his wishes, and his admonishments, we will share lots with many good countries, but we will depart on various issues. Indeed, this is why Jews and Judaism have survived. A Talmud that allows an Amora to say אין משיח לישראל doesn’t strike me as a Talmud that is afraid. Yes, I’m aware of the different explanations for this statement, my point being that, and not leaving it out, דרוש וקבל שכר …. listen and learn and understand and you will at least be rewarded for that.
The annual learnathon conducted in Melbourne has included people with views far more radical (of course to the left, never to the right) than Moshe Feiglin. Moshe Feiglin is above all a libertarian. I would now describe him as a radical libertarian. He has his own unique views on the crises facing Israel, and that Zionists, religious or otherwise basically abandoned him at the Werdiger Hall on Sunday night, is a blight on their Zionism.
The people happiest about such a phenomenon are the Benedict Arnold movements, Ameinu and J-Street, both of whom pander to left wing Western “sensibilities and politics” in the arcane belief that this will solve or should I say dissolve the problems.
I heard first hand what Moshe proposed, and although I was unwell and unable to attend, none of it shocked me or made me think he was a radical. We as a community need to ask ourselves some questions:
- Is the view that the Oslo Accords are dead, and that a two state solution is not the answer, that of a Zionist heretic? Is it necessarily the view of someone who is violent? Can one be a pacifist and subscribe to the notion that there already is a Palestinian State and its name is Jordan
- Is it anathema for someone whose Rabbi permits them to go to parts of the Temple Mount (note the Jewish Temples which preceded Al Aqsa) to be forbidden to pray! What sort of (Western) democracy is this? How do the magic words “status quo” which we see right at this minute with the lying induced violence conjure up an “Abracadabra” spell on thinking people? Why? Is it because we will lose American support? That’s the only reason I can think of. Surely thinking people would recognise that it makes no sense that a Jew cannot pray but someone from another religion can throw rocks, create fires, and destroy archeology?
Moshe Feiglin has his views. He was asked by an Arab MK when he was Deputy Speaker, and still a member of Likud, “What are the borders of Israel” and Feiglin replied quoting the Chumash, implying a wider, larger Israel. Is he not entitled to have or express such a view? The two state solution is the biggest lie we have seen. There is no partner, there is nobody serious on the other side. They are just a group of bickering tribesmen who are politically at each others throats and far away from even having a semblance of freedom.
I saw an article in the paper that was “shocked” because kids as young as 5 were shown programs about carrying guns in ISIS and their “friends”. Well, hello. Anyone who follows memri.org and I highly recommend it, will know that Palestinian Arabs have done this for decades. It is in an Australian paper because Australians have unfortunately also suffered at the hands of “radicalised ones”. Someone define what non radicalised means? Is that 1/2 Sharia or is it Australian Law?
Feiglin’s philosophy is very similar to that of many Australians. In fact, I read Prime Minister Turnbull make the same statement. There is Australian Law. There may be other legal systems. If you are uncomfortable with living in a country under an Australian legal system, then by all means go to a country that conforms with your definition of law.
Let it not be concluded that I necessarily agree with Moshe Feiglin’s views willy nilly. I’d need to read more and then form my own views. However, not allowing him to speak, is to me a great בזיון for this community which people like Isi Leibler laud as huge Zionists. Unfortunately, Leibler is long gone and doesn’t realise how that the old boat is sliding to the left more and more, while the sanguine views of the previous generation, are buried in Springvale and Lyndhurst.
If anyone felt that Feiglin said something that should preclude him from speaking, or from being granted a Visa, pray tell me why.
3 thoughts on “So how controversial was Moshe Feiglin of Zehut?”
I have a sense that you have an innate genetically programmed bias against tree-huggers. May I remind you that hugging a tree is an act of love for the Eybeshter’s creation and is a great therapeutic tool to elicit one’s positive emotions. Who knows? Today a tree, tomorrow… Also the Eitz HaSodeh is a well worn metaphor in tehillim and for good reason as trees are often ‘greeners’ when they start off and then get ‘browned off’ by life’s vicissitudes (and critics). I must admit that at my Yom Toivim Spiritgrow ‘Chill’ service we have a session talking to trees, well, sort of – we say the Teffilo Nishmas Kol Chai, under our favorite Caulfield Park tree. But should a member of our Minyen be overcome by a rush of emotional attachment and embrace the tree, not only do we not discourage such practice but applaud loudly. Anyway, may i humbly suggest and offer that your anathema to showing loving emotions to trees bespeaks a deeply seated condition that needs to be looked at and tree-ted.
Nice to hear from my Grade 6 Gemorah Teacher 🙂
No, it’s not what you think, and I suspect you know that. There are specific Halachos regarding trees, especially fruit bearing ones, which are not up for debate. They are protected. One also can delve into Shmitta. Personally I have four trees in our garden, two of which I probably need to hug. These two are lime trees (real limes) which are rather stubborn bringing forth their delicious limes; the one’s which really finish a good Gin and Tonic. We also have two trees that I call our “Cousin It” or is it “Cousin id” trees who shed their leaves and regrow these regularly. I love them for their individuality. I do admit though, I’m not a hiker, and will often suggest someone look at google earth if they want to “see” something, so perhaps I was born with a non perennial proclivity.
No, as I’m sure you have guessed, I use the term, as it is used in the populist press, and I accept you don’t like it. Mind you, mindfulness never worked for me anyway, so I might be strange
Great blog: kindly note that I have had a series of contributions published on Jwire.com.au. Much of it sadly, unaccountably censored. I may post on my blog and here one day soon: there are so many things to do…
Here are merely 2 links on the Moshe Feiglin chimera.
I responded to The Australian via a letter to the editor re Henry Herzog herein link:
Notable also is an earlier item on Jennifer Huppart
Sorry for cryptic comments: am out of time.. GS