Conference taveng::bagels

    re: .0
    
    No one should deny that the Jewish people need a spiritual component. 
    However there was a lot of needless baiting of the kibbutz movement
    that contained much misunderstanding of it, and why some of the younger
    generation has decided to try other lifestyles.  
    
    First of all the kibbutz movement will not go away, much as the writer
    would like it to.  Secondly if it wasn't for that dreaded movement,
    people like Rav Schach wouldn't have the ground to stand on that
    they are standing on today.  Third, there is a "religious" component to
    Yerida today, maybe not Haredi, but certainly anashim adukim.
    
    --David

    IMHO, there is absolutely no ideal in this world worth dying for. My
    wife, my children, my family, yes. But an "ideal", no.
    
    Rejectingly yours,
    
    Chris

>>>    IMHO, there is absolutely no ideal in this world worth dying for. My
>>>    wife, my children, my family, yes. But an "ideal", no.

Sometimes it's hard to say where "dying for an ideal" ends and "dying
for your family" begins.  People who fought in WW II for example died
to help defeat Hitler.  Is that an "ideal" not worth dying for?

How about the students in China who stood up to the tanks and died for the
chance of freeing their people?

I have to say that on the face of it, I find your statement a little offensive
and also naive.  Your freedom to say it exists partly because there were
people who didn't agree with you.

Sid

P.S. What does this have to do with the topic?

I generally agree with .1 but would like to stress some points.

The article touches an extremely raw nerve regarding the essence of the 
Jewish values and State of Israel, and I'm kind of agree with some of the 
ideas and disagree with the others. 

But, we have to remember by whom the subject was brought up and under what 
circumstances.

It was said as part of a political campaign of the Ashkenazi Litai sect of 
the Ultraorthodox stream against the Labor Party. 

It was expressed by sect and a person who carried in the past the torch of 
Anti-Zaionizm (among the Ultraorthodox group) and suddenly has become a 
"lover of Zion" .

It was aimed against those who ,regardless of their Jewish religious customs,
accomplished by their daily deeds and sacrifice some of the most important
values of Judaism.

>It was expressed by sect and a person who carried in the past the torch of 
>Anti-Zaionizm (among the Ultraorthodox group) and suddenly has become a 
>"lover of Zion" .

   You and Rav Shach have different definitions of Zion(ism).

.4> It was expressed by sect and a person who carried in the past the torch of 
.4> Anti-Zaionizm (among the Ultraorthodox group) and suddenly has become a 
.4> "lover of Zion" .

.5>   You and Rav Shach have different definitions of Zion(ism).

For many years, Agudat Yisrael classified itself as anti-Zionist, in
that it opposed the ideology of the Zionist movement.  Over a long
period of time, they have changed their philosophy to "non-Zionist".

When Begin became prime minister, Aguda decided for the first time that
it was OK to become part of the ruling coalition, though they did not
request Cabinet portfolios.  As of the goverment that was formed
following the 1988 elections, they took positions as deputy ministers,
but still no portfolios.  Some people think that this change in Aguda's
tactics has a lot to do with the amount of government money going to
their institutions, rather than reflecting a serious philosophical
change.

My personal opinion is that there definitely are many values within the
haredi community that deserve admiration.  Haredi politicians, on the
other hand, generally operate at the same moral level as secular
politicians.  Rav Shach, whatever positive qualities he may possess, is
now very much a major leader in a political party. and I think that it's
starting to show.

    re. SID "what does this have to do with the topic?"
    
    In .0, it is stated that the Haredic are ready to die for their ideals.
    The statement alone, without any concrete challenge at hand, seems to
    be an indication for this group of people being extremist.
    
    Usually, this claim without challenge also is an indicator for a group
    of people intending to impose their view upon others by sometimes
    violent and undemocratic means.
    
    Re. Hitler and the people fighting him: the Allied soldiers fighting
    Hitler died 1.st because they were "opposing" the Nazi Ideals. 2ndly,
    they died because they did not wish themselves or their families being
    subject to the nazi rules. 3rd, because they were human enough to free
    oppressed people from the nazi dictatorship.
    
    I'm sure I'm going to be mistaken on this one too.
    
    Simply yours,
    
    Chris

a brief history of religious anti-zionism might be in order
(warning: this is off the top of my head, so feel free to correct any mistakes)

when political zionism was born (Herzel circa 1860-70) many Torah leaders feared
that jews might substitute a secular "zionist" way of life for a life dedicated
to Yiddishkeit.  no one denies that eretz israel is a central part of judaism,
but it is not the *most* important part.

alas, the torah leaders were right; a huge segment of israeli society is remains
ignorant of, if not hostile to, torah and yiddshkeit.

the above, of course, is not referring to the neturai karta (lit guardians of
the land in aramaic), who hold that any jewish domination over eretz israel
before the arrival of the messiah is inherently evil. (there are, by the way, 
midrashic precedents of their point of view, which i wont get into here).

re .7:

>    I'm sure I'm going to be mistaken on this one too.

    You're right -- you're wrong.

    When we talk about Jews dying for their beliefs, we mean that they
    are ready to die to prevent imposition of others' beliefs on them,
    not to impose their beliefs on others.

    Is this the crux of the problem?
    How can a Jewish state with Non-jewish citizens prevent the imposition
    of belief?  
    
    Andrew, NOT being sarcastic.

    (My imperfect explanation:)
    
    re .10
    
    Andrew, there are two points worth observing:
    
    1. "Jewish state" is not the same as "Judaic state".
    
    2. Jewish state imposes no more Judaic belief on non-Jewish citizens
       (e.g. Christians and Muslims), than for example (primarily Christian)
       Great Britain imposes Christian beliefs on non-Christians (e.g. Jews
       and Muslims).
    
    Of course there are certain Judaic "inconveniences" (e.g. state holidays,
    Friday and Saturday days off instead of Sat. & Sun., less public transport
    on Shabat, etc.). But aren't all non-Christians subject to the same
    inconveniences in the traditionally Christianity oriented states?
    
    Alex

    Thank you for your reply, Alex.
     
     I recently saw a movie , fiction. It was about the Russian invasion
    of Afganistan. There they talked about revenge, something else I
    forget, and refuge as being 3 things Muslims must do.
     It showed the Muslims as being peaceful , except when they are
    wronged. Then revenge. But the Muslim here must offer refuge, even to
    an enemy. So, being uninformed, I wondered about the conflict in
    Israel.   I just don't understand why the Arabs and Israelis are killing
     each other off. One strikes the other, the other strikes back. In my 
    uninformed view I thought perhaps the refuge Muslims must offer has never 
    been asked for.  Would it be so wrong to do so just to stop the killing?
    Is it so stupid a thing to ask?   
    
     In the ole USA, more - so here in old Massachussetts there are old
    laws prescribed to curtail activity on Sunday. These are under constant
    attack from retailers and businesses who would prefer conduct business.
     
    In the grade schools here it has been long an issue to remove prayer
    from the public classroom, teach Darwin, teach science and avoid 
    religious intruction judiciously.  Therefore I think the
    US goverment in it's attempt to separate church and state has taken the 
    default posture of athiesm and science theory. It should not be long,
    perhaps my life that there will be no residue of religion in any 
    goverment action. 
    
    
    One of my more vivid recollections of a few years ago was a course I
    took at Harvard Summer school ( Anybody can go there, open enrollment.)
    I was standing in a line and an 18-19 year old wanted me to read some
    communist literature which was piled high on a table next to the line.
     I forget exactly what I said, but made it clear I had no love for his
    ideology, and we just about started a fight. Later on there I found
    myself working with the student president of the Hillel there, and
    he said 1/3 of the undergraduate college was Jewish. So I came to
    understand the theological struggle there, something like
    Athiests VS Jews, with pretty clear front lines between the sects.
    The school started out as a protestant theological school!
    
    Of course the place is HUGE and what I saw in the old square didn't
    amount to much. 
    
    

Re: .0

The author of the article is actually expressing what many secular
Israelis are too fearful to consider - that nationalism alone is not
enough to keep a sophisticated, cosmopolitan population committed to
living in and defending a country in which harsh conditions prevail,
particularly in the face of alluring opportunities abroad. 

Re: .1

>    However there was a lot of needless baiting of the kibbutz movement

If kibbutzim are singled out as representative of the bankrupcy of secular
nationalism vis-a-vis the Jewish people, this is quite understandable. After
all, where if anywhere, would you expect idealism to exist in perpetuity
more than in a movement founded by and for pioneers, whose highest ideal
was the tilling of the long-neglected soil (rather sand!) by the long-
unsoiled Jewish hand, with nary a thought given to individual profit or
comfort. As much as this idealism can never be denied, it appears more and 
more to be a thing of the past. Most of my secular relatives are _kibbutznikim_,
and the transformation is undeniable. The younger generation is in a state
of crisis, able to articulate no better reason for remaining not only on
the kibbutz, but in the LAND itself than the accident of their being born
there. The older generation, in no less a state of confusion, ask the
same question countless American Jewish parents mouth: where did we go
wrong?

>    that contained much misunderstanding of it, and why some of the younger
>    generation has decided to try other lifestyles.  

Enlighten us, David - why have they rejected the ideology and idealism of
their parents?

>    First of all the kibbutz movement will not go away, much as the writer
>    would like it to.

Whether the author has such a desire or not (I sensed no such bias), the
phenomenon cannot be denied. 

> Secondly if it wasn't for that dreaded movement,
>    people like Rav Schach wouldn't have the ground to stand on that
>    they are standing on today. 

Needless defensiveness comes through here. No one who examines history
can deny the contribution of the _chalutzim_ to the founding of the
Jewish State. What is being called for is a reassessment of the situation
in the light of changing times and needs (that's a switch, eh?)

> Third, there is a "religious" component to
>    Yerida today, maybe not Haredi, but certainly anashim adukim.
 
Check on those figures again, David. The figures are disproportionate
to the Israeli population. Likewise, _Aliya_ from the West consists
of actually a *majority* of religious (sorry, Orthodox) Jews, although
their numbers are proportionately miniscule. Correct me if the number
has been updated, but I know of only one Reform settlement in the 
country and only token Conservative representation - avowed Zionists 
every one! 

Re: .4

> It was expressed by sect and a person who carried in the past the torch of 
>Anti-Zaionizm (among the Ultraorthodox group) and suddenly has become a 
>"lover of Zion" .
  
Surely you're not ignorant of the two-thousand-years-plus *uninterrupted*
settlement of Jews in _Eretz_Israel_ under the most horrendous of conditions.
How many of those (to whom in great measure we owe our modern claim to the
land) were "secularists"? If you use the "sudden" argument, you play right 
into the hands of the Mustafas and Jamals. Love of Zion is anything but 
sudden. Perhaps you were referring to the abrupt discovery of a deep-seated
love of Palestine by certain Middle-Eastern peoples coincidental (and
*purely* coincindental) with Jewish creation of jobs, agriculture and
vitality in that G-d-and-man-forsaken wasteland. (Arabs and their 
sympathizers may flame away, but this will do little to change historical
fact.) 

>The article touches an extremely raw nerve regarding the essence of the 
>Jewish values and State of Israel,

And hence, its very existence. Let's hope the Arabs never wake up and
realize what a service they're providing to the country in terms of forced
cohesion, by their constant external threat.  :-|  (tongue-n-cheek)
						V  


Jem

> It was expressed by sect and a person who carried in the past the torch of 
>Anti-Zaionizm (among the Ultraorthodox group) and suddenly has become a 
>"lover of Zion" .
  
.13> Surely you're not ignorant of the two-thousand-years-plus *uninterrupted*
.13> settlement of Jews in _Eretz_Israel_ under the most horrendous of
.13> conditions.

Probably not.  But that settlement remained at a very, very low level
throughout those 2000 years.  This "love of Zion", among the Jews during that
time, was mostly an example of "absence makes the heart grow fonder".

re: .13
    
>>    that contained much misunderstanding of it, and why some of the younger
>>    generation has decided to try other lifestyles.  

>Enlighten us, David - why have they rejected the ideology and idealism of
>their parents?

First of all you are assuming that they have rejected ideas and idealism.  Do 
you make a habit of painting people with a wide brush?  The kibbutz can be a 
physically limiting place to people in their early 20's.  They may have the 
desire to go on to higher education and/or travel before making further 
career decisions.  Even if they don't decide to return than this should not 
be considered a rejection of an idea, although that wouldn't fit your rigid 
definition.
 
>>    First of all the kibbutz movement will not go away, much as the writer
>>    would like it to.

>Whether the author has such a desire or not (I sensed no such bias), the
>phenomenon cannot be denied. 

I question why he had to use the kibbutz as an example unless he had some 
"death wish".  He could have pointed to secular Israelis in general.

>> Third, there is a "religious" component to
>> Yerida today, maybe not Haredi, but certainly anashim adukim.
 
>Check on those figures again, David. The figures are disproportionate
>to the Israeli population. Likewise, _Aliya_ from the West consists
>of actually a *majority* of religious (sorry, Orthodox) Jews, although
>their numbers are proportionately miniscule. Correct me if the number
>has been updated, but I know of only one Reform settlement in the 
>country and only token Conservative representation - avowed Zionists 
>every one! 

Orthodox people have made Yerida, I can't give you any figures, but I know 
from personal contact.  As to Aliya from the west, the Orthodox "pioneers" 
that you describe only have the West Bank as their destination, and they 
don't ever intend to do any "pioneering" (they can this up to the hired 
help).  The thought of settling in the Negev or the Galil isn't a factor, if 
Judea and Samaria were still part of Jordan than they'd probably remain in 
Borough Park.
    
    How can the Reform & Conservative movements establish more settlements
    in a land where they are not considered Jews and their rights are
    denied by the reigning "Khomeiniest" religious authorities?
     
--David

    Actually, there are two reform kibbutzes in the southern Negev (Yahel
    and Lotan) and a free-enterprise settlement (name I forget at the
    moment) in northern Galilee.  There are indeed lots of what I would
    term annoying problems that these settlers face (most of the population
    on the kibbutzes are new arrivals from the US; I believe the other
    settlement is mostly from South Africa) because of the status of
    non-Orthodox rabbis in Israel when weddings and other life-events take
    place in these settlements, and I am not sure how they have been
    handled.
    
    /Charlotte

Re: .14

>.13> Surely you're not ignorant of the two-thousand-years-plus *uninterrupted*
>.13> settlement of Jews in _Eretz_Israel_ under the most horrendous of
>.13> conditions.
>
>Probably not.  But that settlement remained at a very, very low level
>throughout those 2000 years.  

According to the sources I've seen, over the 1800-odd-year period from
the Dispersion until the early 19th century, there was an average Jewish
population upwards of 10,000 in Eretz Israel, never dipping below 5000.
This, in an all but lawless region, where marauders ruled, where anyone
who wished set up roadblocks (AKA "tollbooths"), where Jews were treated
as so much chattel, fit at best for pillage and murder. 

And what of the journey to the Holy Land in the first place? Do you fancy
the traveller being offered a choice between first class and coach? Pirates
ruled the high seas; thieves and murderers waited for Jewish arrivals at
Jaffa port.

And yet the Land was never bereft of Jews, because those who were there
did not leave, and those not yet there never gave up their dream of
returning home, a representative stream of whom steadily flowed there.

And what of the myth of Arab habitation of Palestine? Read of Mark Twain's
1867 visit there, where he found a desolate, dreary, and lifeless land,
"its fields withered and its energies fettered." Read John William Dosson,
who writes, as late as 1888:

	Until today, no people has succeeded in establishing national
	dominion in the land of Israel... No spirit of nationalism has
	acquired any hold there. The mixed multitude of itinerant tribes
	that managed to settle there did so on lease, as temporary 
	residents. It seems that they await the return of the permanent
	residents to the land.

Many more such travelogs are extant, all echoing the same deafening silence
and desolation which the authors encountered during their visits.

> This "love of Zion", among the Jews during that
>time, was mostly an example of "absence makes the heart grow fonder".

I have demonstrated that this is quite far from the truth, that Jews
of faith were willing to, and often did, sacrifice all for the sacred
dream of living in the Land. But the issue here is rather one of,
"familiarity breeds contempt", on the part of those raised *there*,
on nothing but secular Zionism.

Re: .15

>First of all you are assuming that they have rejected ideas and idealism.

It is not my assumption, it is the premise of the author of the article,
backed up by statistics.

> The kibbutz can be a 
>physically limiting place to people in their early 20's.  They may have the 
>desire to go on to higher education and/or travel before making further 
>career decisions.

I think you're making too much of the "kibbutz" example. Certainly, rates
of yerida from the cities are at least as bad as those of the kibbutzim.
The author chose this example because it was once the paragon of idealism.
No such stereotype was traditionally linked to city-dwellers. *I* chose
this example because of personal experience, the same reason, I suspect,
why you resent it so much.

>  Even if they don't decide to return than this should not 
>be considered a rejection of an idea, although that wouldn't fit your rigid 
>definition.

Whether the "idea" is theoretically rejected or not, the author's point is 
that *in practice*, those of the secular ilk have not *carried on* those ideals.

>I question why he had to use the kibbutz as an example unless he had some 
>"death wish".  He could have pointed to secular Israelis in general.

I've just done so. Happier?

> As to Aliya from the west, the Orthodox "pioneers" 
>that you describe only have the West Bank as their destination, and they 
>don't ever intend to do any "pioneering" (they can this up to the hired 
>help).  The thought of settling in the Negev or the Galil isn't a factor, if 
>Judea and Samaria were still part of Jordan than they'd probably remain in 
>Borough Park.

Aren't you the one who was just decrying the use of a "broad brush"? Hmmm...

Re: .16

Thanks for the update.

Jem

>.13> Surely you're not ignorant of the two-thousand-years-plus *uninterrupted*
>.13> settlement of Jews in _Eretz_Israel_ under the most horrendous of
>.13> conditions.

.14>Probably not.  But that settlement remained at a very, very low level
.14>throughout those 2000 years.  

.17> According to the sources I've seen, over the 1800-odd-year period from
.17> the Dispersion until the early 19th century, there was an average Jewish
.17> population upwards of 10,000 in Eretz Israel, never dipping below 5000.

Sounds low enough to me.  Compare that with the population in, say, 1947.  The
Zionist movement had been active for several decades at that point,  but Jewish
immigration still was severely restricted by the authorities.  Despite that,
there were many hundreds of thousands of Jews here.


.14> This "love of Zion", among the Jews during that
.14> time, was mostly an example of "absence makes the heart grow fonder".

.17> I have demonstrated that this is quite far from the truth, that Jews
.17> of faith were willing to, and often did, sacrifice all for the sacred
.17> dream of living in the Land.

I stand on my statement in .14, though I wish to emphasize the word "mostly" in
it.  Comparing the past 100 years with the previous 1800, I would say that only
a small minority of very brave souls made it here during the earlier period.


I agree with your characterization of the situation during those 1800 years as
"horrendous".  But ask yourself whether the amazing improvement since then is
due more to the Zionist movement, with all of its faults, or to the handful of
brave people who were here before.

Re: .18

>Sounds low enough to me.  Compare that with the population in, say, 1947.  The
>Zionist movement had been active for several decades at that point,  but Jewish
>immigration still was severely restricted by the authorities.  Despite that,
>there were many hundreds of thousands of Jews here.

Please. It is absurd to compare the conditions pre-19th century to those
of the Zionist era, even during the Ottoman period. As mentioned previously,
for most of the first 18 centuries of the Common Era, lawlessness reigned
supreme. In the latter period, there were at least foreign consulates in
the country, to which Jews could turn for protection. The corrupt and
weak Turks could ill-afford to ignore foreign intervention, thus conditions
were vastly improved in terms of safety, although economic infrastructure
was still non-existent. Comparing the 10,000 courageous Jews who were spared
no hardship - in their desire to fulfill only ONE goal - to the multitudes
who arrived later, is like comparing a bank account of $10,000 in 1783 to 
the same sum today.  

I'm appalled by those who flippantly dismiss the self-sacrifice of the
settlers of the old _yishuv_ as irrelevant to present-day Israel. My 
Great-grandfather( x 7) gave up a comfortable and fulfilling job as rabbi
of a small Hungarian town for that one goal. After several years, Rabbi
Yitzchak Adler died of *malnutrition*! He starved to death! R. Yosef
Chaim Sonnenfeld lost no less than 8 of his 12 children to pestilence
and cholera. My mother's parents both fell victim to tuberculosis when 
she was 4 years old. 

They all had one goal - to fulfill the ancient dream/Mitzva of returning
to their homeland. These were not pioneers? These did not lay the ground-
work for those who followed? These did not express by their actions the 
deepest, loftiest goals of the entire nation? And yet, some wish to write 
them out of history!

And make no mistake about it - this spirit still lives today. Those who
go there, and those who stay, will be cut of the same fabric as their
forebears, in ever greater percentages. These are people who are proud
of their heritage, and whose fondest dream for their children is that
they approach the piety and sincerity of their ancestors, whom others
hold in such contempt.

>  But ask yourself whether the amazing improvement since then is
>due more to the Zionist movement, with all of its faults, or to the handful of
>brave people who were here before.

Again, this defense of Zionist efforts on behalf of the Land and People 
is needless, and beside the point. The painful point that the author brings
out is that it seems, more and more, to be a thing of the past, and not
a vision for the future. People will not live under siege forever, will
certainly not *die* under siege, without an ideal worth living and dying for.

Jem

    I may have been guilty of using a "broad brush" in my characterization
    of the present day settlers of Judea and Samaria, but why is it that
    when any of these people are interviewed that they do happen to come
    from Borough Park and have the attendent accent?  Coincidence?  By the
    way, Jem, you should be careful of the same "brush", i.e., "weak
    Turks"??
    
    --David

Re: .20

>    I may have been guilty of using a "broad brush" in my characterization
>    of the present day settlers of Judea and Samaria, but why is it that
>    when any of these people are interviewed that they do happen to come
>    from Borough Park and have the attendent accent?  Coincidence? 

What exactly is your point? Should Brooklynites be barred from Aliya? 
Or should their tongues be cut out upon arrival to conceal their city
of origin? 

The defensiveness I detected earlier is becoming more and more pronounced -
why do you avoid the real issue here?

> By the
>    way, Jem, you should be careful of the same "brush", i.e., "weak
>    Turks"??

A sincere apology to all surviving representatives of the crumbling 19th-
century Ottoman Empire in Eretz Israel.

Jem

    David,

    >>of the present day settlers of Judea and Samaria, but why is it that
    >>when any of these people are interviewed that they do happen to come
    >>from Borough Park and have the attendent accent?  Coincidence?  By the

    Its just that they make better copy than other people. Actually, if you
    think about it, they are obvious contenders. If you had the choice of
    interviewing a person who spoke a natural English/American or one who
    spoke a very broken one, whom would you choose ??

    Bear in mind that in order to keep the average American's new report
    viewer's attention, the "interview" should not last longer than 30
    seconds :-) :-)

    							.... Monty

.19>         It is absurd to compare the conditions pre-19th century to those
.19> of the Zionist era, even during the Ottoman period. As mentioned previously,
.19> for most of the first 18 centuries of the Common Era, lawlessness reigned
.19> supreme. In the latter period, there were at least foreign consulates in
.19> the country, to which Jews could turn for protection.

Now who's belittling whose sacrifice?  To a great extent, the Jews here became
more secure only when they took their defence into their own hands.  The
"corrupt and weak" Ottoman Empire was unable to maintain law and order, even if
it had wanted to.


.19> I'm appalled by those who flippantly dismiss the self-sacrifice of the
.19> settlers of the old _yishuv_ as irrelevant to present-day Israel ...
.19>                ... These were not pioneers? These did not lay the ground-
.19> work for those who followed?

No one is being flippant about those who were brave enough to come here
throughout the centuries.  But they did not "lay the groundwork" for the mass
aliya of the last hundred years.  If they had, that aliya would not have been
delayed until 1800 years after the destruction of the Second Temple.


.19>                              These did not express by their actions the 
.19> deepest, loftiest goals of the entire nation? And yet, some wish to write 
.19> them out of history!

Yes, their actions did express those goals, and no one is trying to write them
out of history.  It is no insult to them to state that, for all the things that
they accomplished, paving the way for the more recent aliya was not one of
them.


.20>                                                      ... why is it that
.20>    when any of these people are interviewed that they do happen to come
.20>    from Borough Park and have the attendent accent?  Coincidence?

Not a coincidence.  Most foreign reporters covering this part of the world
understand neither Hebrew nor Arabic.  Since English is the third most widely
used language around here, that's what they use.  This greatly limits their
ability to gather information, of course, but that's not what they're here for.


.22>                             Should Brooklynites be barred from Aliya? 
.22> Or should their tongues be cut out upon arrival to conceal their city
.22> of origin?

Having to put up with the occasional Brooklyn accent is just one of the many
trials and tribulations that we olim have to put up with.  Hey, at least there
aren't too many here from Long Island!  :-)

re .24

> Having to put up with the occasional Brooklyn accent is just one of the many
> trials and tribulations that we olim have to put up with.  Hey, at least there
> aren't too many here from Long Island!  :-)

Hey! There are some of us out here who are from BOTH Brooklyn AND Long Island!!!

besides, i know plenty of people from LI who made aliya.  Trouble is, most of
them sound like they come from Brooklyn (if not the Bronx, or Hungry for that
matter) :-)

.25>There are some of us out here who are from BOTH Brooklyn AND Long Island!!!

Someday, someone is going to integrate DECtalk into VAX Notes, with a feature
that mimics the writers' accents as their notes are recited.  At that point,
I'll probably have to stop following this conference.  :-)

Re: .24

>Now who's belittling whose sacrifice? 

Please re-read my notes. I have not belittled anyone's sacrifice; I merely
point out that conditions in Palestine in the late 19th century were far
less barbaric than in the previous 4 centuries, making the time ripe for
mass Aliya.

> To a great extent, the Jews here became
>more secure only when they took their defence into their own hands.
 
I've got news for you, Eric. As early as the 1820s, there were *armed*
Jewish defense groups in Jerusalem, members of the "Perushim" sect, 
followers of the Vilna Gaon.

>No one is being flippant about those who were brave enough to come here
>throughout the centuries.  But they did not "lay the groundwork" for the mass
>aliya of the last hundred years. 

SPIRITUAL groundwork - get it? Did Ben Yehuda invent the word "Zion"? Could
you imagine the movement ever being successful had the religious longing
for the homeland not been burning in the bosom of every Jew for the previous
18th centuries, could anyone imagine the movement being successful? Why did
Herzl have to drop the Uganda plan? Why aren't there 4 million Jews in
Birobizhan?

> It is no insult to them to state that, for all the things that
>they accomplished, paving the way for the more recent aliya was not one of
>them.

We have finally come full circle - it is precisely those who do not view
themselves as spiritual heirs of those countless generations whom the
author is addressing when he speaks of those leaving the country in droves.
It is those Jews who understand the continuum of Jewish history and its
heros who will go there in the future.

Jem

    Well I was away on a business trip all week and now I'm catching up on
    notes.  
    
    I have to say that this discussion seems to have run it's glorious
    course.  I just want to comment on my comment re:"Brooklyn accents in
    Judea and Samaria".  The point that I was trying to make was that these
    present day "pioneers" wouldn't budge an inch from WHEREVER they come
    from if J & S were still under Jordanian rule.  There is no interest in
    settling in the Negev, Galil, etc. because the political interest does
    not appear to be as compelling.
    
    --David 

Re: .28

>The point that I was trying to make was that these
>    present day "pioneers" wouldn't budge an inch from WHEREVER they come
>    from if J & S were still under Jordanian rule.

You'd do best not to reach for straws, David. According to Tehilla, a
religious Aliya organization, a very small percentage of their Olim go
to "J & S". But what would this prove anyway? 

Jem