Suddenly it is less pleasant for us to talk about the Land of Israel.
Suddenly it is not comfortable for us to be again the "strange people" from Naomi Shemer's song, who heard on their bed at night "the sound of a big bell ringing: The Land of Israel belongs to the people of Israel".
The discourse surrounding the American obsession with establishing a Palestinian state for us here in the heart of the country focuses entirely on security, on Hamastan B, on the danger of the rockets, on the "reversal of the reeds" scenario, on the evil and wickedness that lurks five minutes from Kfar Saba and seven minutes from Netanya;
In the existential dangers that such a country will impose on us.
A lot of talk has been thrown around the questions of if, when, and under what conditions this will be possible despite everything, and the implication internally, towards ourselves, and externally, in front of the world, is simple: if only we are convinced that our peace here is guaranteed, and that conditions can be created that will give us security, a Palestinian state in the Jewish state is a thing Acceptable. We will agree to him.
Not a word about the Land of Israel, about our connection to the land that is the homeland, the cradle of Jewish history and identity.
Not a word about the biblical districts, about our mandate over the Land of Israel, or about heritage and historical justice. Even the half million Jews who live today in Yoseh are not mentioned.
There is no longer an "Israeli option".
The discourse of rights seems to have been erased and our language has become poor and poor, hesitant and apologetic.
Security language only.
It may be that now, after the massacre of the new Nazis in Otef, the security is better known about our story in the world.
It may be that talking about rights now is a bit sentimental, trite, archaic and outdated - but not about security alone will the Jewish person live in the Land of Israel.
That's not our whole story here.
Security can be obtained in other places in the world.
The story of our base here, which precedes security, is a different story: even before this country became a land of refuge for refugees of riots, hatred and the Holocaust, it was a land of vocation.
We may be here today thanks to power, but even earlier - by the power of right.
Security is essential like nothing else, but it is only a tool to realize the right to live right here, and "right here" is not limited to the obvious, to the place of birth.
It is many times wider and deeper than the indigenous connection that exists anywhere else in the world.
He is far beyond "I was born here, my children were born here".
Corporal Sapir and the security thermometer
About five decades ago, a bit like today, a group of well-known generals, decorated with ranks, retired military personnel, authoritatively claimed that the settlements in Judea and Samaria have no security value.
The next day, under the heading "Affidavit" - the daily newspaper of the General Histadrut, "Davar", published the response of Corporal (Res.) Naomi Sapir, personal number 250567. Sapir, better known as Naomi Shemer, put the generals in their place:
"The Kinneret group (Shemer's birthplace, Israel) has no security value, only a Zionist value," the poet noted. Security, only for Zionist reasons.
It's lucky that there wasn't some champion running after him then, with his security thermometer.
The general would probably have kicked all three out of there, and then it is doubtful whether we even had the IDF, or generals in the defense who submit security affidavits."
Also, "Hadera, Ein Harod, Tel Adsim and Karkur have no security value, only Zionist value," emphasized Corporal Sapir, "and the same goes for Alon Mora, Ariel and Kfar Etzion."
"The Kinneret group has no security value, only a Zionist value," Naomi Shemer pointed out, "when an Israeli Bentsion came up to it with his two friends... he did not do it for security reasons. Only for Zionist reasons... It's lucky that some champion with the security thermometer didn't run after them His... must have kicked all three out of there"
The "fundamental principle" that she believed in, and which is now conspicuous by its absence from the discourse on a Palestinian state, is that the Land of Israel belongs to the people of Israel.
"An abstract principle," as she defined it, "but always true, regardless of the conditions or temporary ownership of territories, regardless of the essence of the transient government, or the question of how many Jews live at a certain moment in the Land of Israel" (Shemer to Maariv, December 1975).
And this, if you will, is the unwritten covenant between the State of Israel and the Land of Israel, the one that began with "Go away from your country and your homeland... to the land that I will show you", through the genetic code of "If I forget you Jerusalem" to "the hope of two thousand years".
Even the League of Nations recognized this genome about 100 years ago;
In "the historical connection of the Jewish people to Palestine", in "its right to re-establish its national home in Israel" and in the Jewish right "to settle anywhere in western Palestine, between the Jordan and the sea".
All the turmoil of the Palestinian state now lacks this foundation.
We are flooded with rivers of polemics about the security damages that will come upon us because of it, and stories about the peace with Saudi Arabia that stands at the door if we only agree to such a country, but we are not concerned with one thing: our roots and rights here.
take out of the boidem
The Palestinians, on the other hand, are only concerned with their rights.
They are not ashamed to kiss "the people of their land", to lie endlessly about their past here, to rewrite and falsify history, to hate us and kill us, and in front of them - our language has dwindled and become smaller.
Confidence is important, but it is not the be-all and end-all.
It is impossible to establish a claim for international legitimacy on Hebron, nor on Otef and Sderot and Menara and Avibim, and not even on Beer Sheva, without the fathers and mothers and the Temple Mount and the City of David;
Without Rachel's tomb on the way to Ephrath, and the Field of the Temple in Hebron and Hebal Gerer, and the angels ascending and descending the ladder in Jacob's dream, in Bethel.
The Gra students who immigrated to Israel at the beginning of the 19th century, and the Yemenite Jews who came to Kfar Shiloh at the end of the same century, did not come here because it was safe here, but even though it was less safe here. The pioneers who founded Petah Tikva - "a small Hebrew settlement between Large Arab villages, to the east and north and the Negev," as Moshe Smilansky described the mother of the colonies in its early days - were not concerned with Petah Tikva's contribution to military security. Nor was Ben-Gurion concerned with this when he insisted on continuing to hold remote settlements in the Jerusalem mountains, the Negev and the Western Galilee.
The concept of national security does not rely only on security-military components.
Security is a tool designed to serve Jewish existence, of which settlement in all regions of the Land of Israel is one of its clear manifestations.
But today the discourse of rights has been stored in Boidem, and we are only concerned with the quasi-technical question, which is vital in itself - how do we protect existence?
Without asking - why are we fighting for existence right here?
In order for us to return to this and speak the language of rights, there is a need for a national and Zionist consciousness to be present;
In the commitment derived from the vocation and the right, and not only from our native connection here and the security need.
After all, our personal-national past does not only extend over the days of our lives, and therefore - the deeper level of the foundation, the level of the roots, is super relevant to the discussion of the Palestinian state.
We have no reason to be ashamed of her.
exactly the opposite.
were we wrong
We will fix it!
If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us