Introduction

sraelТs preoccupation with peace or security is a basic cause of its insecurity.а Moreover, IsraelТs greatest generator of insecurity is its own Government.а This Security Syndrome, I shall show, is rooted in Уsecularism.Фа If so, the ultimate solution to this syndrome is a Government headed by УreligiousФ statesmen as opposed to religious politicians.а Beforeа proceeding, however, definition of key terms is necessary.

*а *а *

There are three strata or dimensions of security:а national security, sociological security, and personal security.а The factors required for each stratum are interdependent.а Thus, national security requires a combination of intellectual, moral, and material factors that not only enables a people to deter or defeat foreign aggression, but endows them with a distinctive sense of national purpose.а Sociological security requires a structure of laws and institutions that enables the diverse individuals and groups of a nation to live in mutual harmony.а Personal security requires an enduring structure of beliefs and values that endows the life of an individual with direction and purpose.а (Not knowing with full confidence what our direction and purpose should be is the most energy-sapping element in a personТs as well as in a nationТs life.)[1]

These definitions of security, in particular the second and third, are far removed from the dissonance and anxiety, hence insecurity, prevalent in pluralistic democracies, especially those which are multicultural.а What does the term УsecurityФ signify in these democracies?а Because they are middle-class, consumer societies, they tend to identify УsecurityФ with Уcomfortable self-preservation.Фа The governments of such societies will therefore pursue a foreign policy of Уpeace.Фа A tension will then exist between this democratic or fourth definition of security and the above definition of national security.а A society preoccupied with comfortable self-preservation will be steeped in self-indulgence, which hardly conduces to the public spiritedness required for a nationТs security.а These four definitions of security should be borne in mind as we proceed in this inquiry.

 

 

The Secular-Religious Dichotomy

No serious discussion of the national, sociological, and personal dimensions of security in Israel can avoid the secular-religious issue (leaving aside the related Arab-Jewish conflict). The secular-religious issue is fraught with ignorance and lack of magnanimity among individuals on both sides.а It might help them to bear in mind that the concept of УreligionФ is foreign to Jewish law (Halacha).а As others have pointed out, the word УreligionФ (dat in Hebrew) does not appear in the Torah.а The illustrious Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch has even written that the term УreligionФ is the greatest obstacle to an understanding of Judaism.а The present author has written books to transcend the secular-religious dichotomy by showing that Judaism is not a religion, although it obviously includes certain aspects of religion.[2]а

The difference between УsecularФ and УreligiousФ Jews is largely one of degree, depending on the extent of their fulfilling the precepts or mitzvot of the Torah.а The term УmitzvaФ is closely related to atvvom Уtogetherness,Ф because a mitzva brings us together with God.[3]а The precepts of the Torah constitute a moral-intellectual structure that not only unites Jews as a people, but conduces to individual purpose and direction, hence to personal and sociological as well as national security.а УSecularФ Jews who give charity or who fight for Israel are performing the greatest mitzvot.а Zionist organizations that support Israel deserve the praise and gratitude of УreligiousФ Jews even if these organizations are headed by Уsecularists.Фаа

There is, however, one basic difference between secular and religious Jews.а The former sever the laws of the Torah and the teachings of its Sages from public law and statesmanship and thus relegate Judaism to the domain of personal or subjective belief.а The Torah is then perceived as УanotherФ religion as opposed to an all-embracing and verifiable system of truth, one that ought to guide statesmen.а For example:а As a consequence of its secularism, IsraelТs Government addresses the Arab-Jewish conflict almost exclusively in political terms and thereby obscures the more fundamental dimension of this conflict, which is religious.а This obscurantism is a basic cause and consequence of IsraelТs insecurity.а Contrast the Arab-Islamic attitude:а УThe propagandists of secularism, who leave out of account the religious factor in the Palestine problem, ignore the fact that this is the only bone of contention in the world which has persisted for thirty centuries.Ф[4]а MoslemsЧeven IsraelТs Moslem minorityЧdo not suffer from the Security Syndrome.а

 

Security and Statesmanship

lthough national security is a basic concern of every nation,а it is not the distinctive purpose of any nation.аа To be sure, a nationТs security is a precondition of its way of life, its abiding beliefs and values.а However, a nation that regards security as an end in itself will become the easy prey of an aggressive or imperialistic power.а The same may be said of peace (negatively understood as the absence of conflict).а Peace as an end in itself is a formula for national suicide.а In todayТs democracies, as well as in Israel, УpeaceФ and УsecurityФ are virtually synonymous.а

A statesman knows that a nationТs security depends more on morale than on military might (as Americans learned in Vietnam).а Hence he seeks to inspire his people with a due sense of national pride and solidarity on the one hand, while promoting laws and institutions to enhance their way of life on the other.а Such a statesman obviously requires great knowledge. He must have a comprehensive understanding of the historical experiences of his people, their triumphs and tragedies, their customs, convictions, and aspirations.аа He must relate their past to present concerns and circumstances, and in such a way as to preserve their national identity as well as to bolster their confidence in the future.аа I am speaking of statesmanship.

Statesmanship is the application of philosophy to action whose end is the common good, i.e., the material and spiritual well-being of a people. Jewish statesmanship is the application of Jewish philosophy to action whose end is the good of Klal Yisrael, meaning the Jewish People as a national-religious community.[5]а Authentic Jewish philosophy must be consistent with the heritage of the Jewish People whose distinctive purpose is elucidated in the Bible of Israel.а Any political or action-directed knowledge which is contrary to the Jewish heritage, or which even diminishes awareness of that heritageТs relevance to public affairs, cannot be conducive, in the long run, to the self-confidence and security of the Jewish People.а Statesmanship cannot exist in Israel if it is not Jewish statesmanship.

A statesmanЧthe more so if he is Torah-educatedЧgoverns by means of laws to which he himself is subject.а This is a precondition of sociological security or domestic tranquillity.а God Himself is bound by the laws prescribed in the Torah.[6]а The Torah is the source of what Western civilization calls the Rule of Law.а The Rule of Law provides rational methods by which to resolve disputes and public issues.а It restricts but also enlarges our freedom by prescribing norms of right and wrong for governors and governed alike.а The Rule of Law is thus essential to mutual confidence, to national unity and continuity, hence to the three basic strata of security discussed in the Introduction.

The Rule of Law does not exist in contemporary Israel.а Lacking a Constitution with institutional checks and balances, the Government of Israel (i.e., the Cabinet) can ignore established public opinion and even basic laws of the State with impunity.[7]аа The late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin once scornfully (and fatefully) declared:а УDonТt bother me with legality!Фа Even the President of IsraelТs Supreme Court, Justice Aharon Barak, displays contempt not only for Jewish law, but for those laws of the Knesset which he deems incompatible with the Уviews of the enlightened population.Ф[8]а By the Уenlightened populationФ he means IsraelТs radical secularists, a diminishing minority whose indiscriminate libertarianism and moral egalitarianism parrot the New Left of the 1960s.а The logical consequence of such political and judicial arrogance (by two self-proclaimed democrats) is autocracy or Уcourtocracy,Ф but in either case, official lawlessness.а Such lawlessness undermines personal as well as sociological and national security.

Nations are usually destroyed from within, not from without.а Hence the statesman must promote mutual trust and confidence among his people.а Obviously he must first win their trust and confidence.а To this end he must exhibit, inter alia, honesty and courage, respect for their heritage and consistency of purpose.а Unfortunately, and as can be abundantly demonstratedЧindeed, as is widely knownЧsuch qualities are lacking in IsraelТs political leaders.а There are two basic and related reasons for this degraded state of affairs. The first is this. IsraelТs Government has no positive goal, that is, no distinctively Jewish goal.а Because it is preoccupied with Уpeace,Ф it is ever reacting to events, to diverse and alternating pressures from abroad. аRetreat and national degradation follow.а Precisely because IsraelТs Government habitually reacts to changing external forces without any positive or Jewish goal of its own, its leaders inevitably succumb to inconsistency, mendacity, and timidity.а The quest for peace has made IsraelТs Government contemptible and Israel itself pathologically insecure.а

But why does IsraelТs government lack a distinctively Jewish goal?а The reason is obvious:а There is nothing decisively Jewish about that government:а It has ever been dominated by secularists.аа Let us be frank.а Most secularistsЧand of course this applies to many half-hearted religionistsЧare more concerned about narrow and immediate interests than about the purpose or function of a Jewish State.а As indicated above, the preoccupation of every secular democratic state is comfortable self-preservation or commodious livingЧthe democratic meaning of Уsecurity.Фа Although Israel is far from being a democracy, the mentality of its ruling elites is democratic as well as secular.а These elites, who distorted and have now abandoned the sacred name of Zion, never understood or respected its original imperative:а To reveal the TorahЧas is now being done by scientistsЧas the paradigm of knowledge and of how man should live.[9]а No secular party is committed to the goal of making Israel the example of a nation in which Freedom dwells with Righteousness, Equality with Wisdom, the here and now with love of the Eternal.

It is ironic that IsraelТs secular elites, so preoccupied with Уsecurity,Ф know little or nothing of what is required to preserve a people.а How can they when they harbor or display little knowledge or respect for the heritage of their own people, a heritage even Gentiles have spoken of in superlative terms?[10]а Examine the pronouncements of IsraelТs secular elites.а Clearly, Jewish ideas are not the quintessence of their mentality or the sine qua non of their political and judicial decisions.а In a profound sense, the Jews of Israel have more to fear from their Government than from their Arab enemies.

And so Israel is devoid of statesmanship, certainly of Jewish statesmanship.а The country resembles a ship without a rudder, the plaything of chance, of shallow and confused politicians reacting to hostile forces abroad.а Statesmanship is impossible in Israel so long as Israel is not an authentic Jewish commonwealth.а But what party in Israel devotes itself to making Israel an authentic Jewish commonwealth?а Even the religious parties are confounded by secularism, and use the Torah for politics rather than politics for the Torah.а But what is УpoliticsФ?ааа

 

Politics and Political Science

odern political science, which originates in Machiavelli, defines politics as a mere struggle for power, more precisely, a struggle between individuals and groups for control of government and the enjoyment of its perquisites.а The late Professor Harold Lasswell of Harvard, one of AmericaТs most influential political scientists, defined politics in the title of his widely read book:а Politics:а Who Gets What, When, How.а Which means that politics is the art of self-aggrandizement on a national scaleЧhardly conducive to sociological and related strata of security.а Of course those engaged in this struggle couch their self-serving motives in such honorific terms as the УpeaceФ or УdemocracyФ or the Уnational interest.Фа Only the naïve are deceived by this rhetoric.а The vast majority of people living in democracies regard politics and politicians with contempt.

But if politics is contemptible, what shall we say of political science?а Modern political science is morally neutral hence thoroughly secular.а It denies the existence of any objective standards by which to determine whether the way of life of one individual, group, or nation is intrinsically superior to that of another.а By generating moral egalitarianism and cultural relativism, modern political science undermines individual self-confidence as well as a nationТs confidence in the justice ofа its cause.а Any Jewish politician tainted by relativism will be more readily inclined to appease Arab despots.аа Which means that Jewish politicians influenced by the secularism and relativism of modern political science are incapable of statesmanship as defined above.а Indeed, such politicians can only undermine a nationТs security.

 

Stated another way:аа Unlike classical political science, which denies the possibility ofа genuine peace between just and unjust regimes, modern political science denies the distinction between УjustФ and УunjustФ regimes.а This is why political scientists today can speak so blandly of Уconflict resolutionФ between democracies and dictatorships.а This morally neutral concept tends to disarm democracies if only because democratic politicians are more prone than despots to compromise and make unilateral concessions for the sake of Уpeace.Ф

 

It should be obvious that a government that constantly intones a commitment to peace can emasculate its own people and thereby increase foreign pressure and the likelihood of war.а This is certainly the case in Israel, whose Government, whether led by Labor or the Likud, is steeped in the Уpolitics of peace.Фа I am referring to politicians who use the rhetoric of peace to gain or retain power.а The Уpolitics of peaceФ is utterly mendacious and even subversive.а Here two insights of Winston Churchill, a statesman-historian, are pertinent:а (1) УThe history of mankind is the history of warФ; and (2) УThe Koran is the Mein Kampf of war.Фа No government of Israel has acted consistently with ChurchillТs understanding of history and of Islam.а But then Churchill was not a cultural relativist.а Indeed, he regarded the Bible of Israel and classical Greek philosophy as the two guiding lights of mankind.

 

*аа *аа *

Twenty years of living and learning in Israel as well as personal contacts with various Israeli Prime Ministers convince me that it is precisely their secular mentality that enfeebles them.а Their lack of Jewish wisdom, pride, and fortitude prevents them from acting consistently with the obvious and deeply ingrained hostility of their Arab neighbors.а (Bear in mind they exempt their own Arab citizens from military service for security reasons!)а Aware of the ArabsТ unrelenting hostility, they nonetheless engage in the Уpolitics of peaceФ otherwise known as the УPeace Process.Фа Such inconsistency is fostered by the cultural relativism that permeates and enervates the secular-democratic world.а Relativism prevents them from taking Islam and the implacable enmity of Arab-Islamic rulers, seriously.а

 

Indeed, IsraelТs secular elites periodically convince themselves that they can buy peace from these despots by means of landЧa pretty insult to Islam!а Trading Jewish land for peace, however, can only further diminish and degrade the people of Israel, long afflicted by insecurity, now a national syndrome. This syndrome has its root in secular Zionism, whose superficial understanding of Judaism astonishes even many Christians.а Let us pause a moment and recall the origin and goal of secular Zionism, whose dominant stream was УpoliticalФ in contradistinction to УculturalФ Zionism.

 

Political Zionism

olitical Zionism is a derivative of nineteenth-century European nationalism. Nationalism should be understood as a secular movement that sought to remove Christianity, hence religion, from the domain of politics and public law.а Identification with the nation or nation-state was to become secular religion of its citizens.аа The Jews, however, were a nation without a state.а Enter political Zionism.

 

It was never the intention of political Zionists to establish an authentic Jewish State, but rather a state for Jews.а They had not the slightest inclination, let alone the ability, to restore the grandeur of Jewish civilization as embodied in Jewish law and institutions.а Their primary goal was security, that is, they wanted to found a state in which Jews would be secure from the pogroms, persecutions, and humiliations of the Gentile world.а The most prominent political Zionists were atheists, among which Marxists like David Ben-Gurion rose to the top of the Zionist movement.а They were committed to the goal of forming a thoroughly classless or egalitarian society.а This entailed the establishment of a paternalistic state or top-down leadership.а These unique atheists established such a state in Palestine, a state they (ironically) called УYisrael,Ф one meaning of which is Уhe shall serve God.Фаа

Another ironic thing about this secular elite is that their egalitarianism complicated the task of establishing a Zionist or ostensibly Jewish state in the midst of a then predominantly Arab population.а Egalitarianism required these elitists to confer citizenship on the Arabs living within the armistice lines following the War of Independence.а This could render precarious the eliteТs power or voting strength in the Knesset.а Needed was a large Jewish majority in the Land of Israel.а Needed was a great influx of Jews especially from Africa and Asia.а But this posed another dilemma.а The vast majority of these immigrants were religious and thus constituted a threat to the eliteТs political power.а The secular elite needed these Jews to counterbalance the Arab population, but the addition of hundreds of thousands of religious voters with large and close-knit families would eventuate in the eliteТs political decline.а If the socialist elite was not to commit political suicide, it had to secularize these Sephardic and Oriental Jews.а

This it did to no small extent, and in drastic ways.а Immigrant parents who sent their children to religious schools were denied employment unless they transferred their children to secular schools.а Thousands of Yemenite children were herded into kibbutzim and other anti-religious institutions.а Meanwhile, immigrant transit camps were the scenes of anti-religious propaganda designed to turn youth away from their parents.а Thus, by means of coercion, segregation, and indoctrination, the secular elite undermined the structure and intense loyalties of countless impoverished Sephardic and Oriental Jews on the one hand, and their dedication to Jewish beliefs and values on the other.[11]а The consequences may be seen in IsraelТs prisons.а Nor is this all.

The state established for Jews is spewing out tens of thousands of secularists every year from the Land of Israel.а Contrast this remarkable data:а In 1990 there were 250,000,000 Americans, of whom less than one million were living abroad.а That year IsraelТs Jewish population was 4.2 million, yet more than one million Israelis were living abroad, most in the United States.а The vast majority are secularists, and few have any intention of returning.аа Hardly anyone attributes this appalling data to the fact that Israel has ever been ruled by secularists.а From its inception in 1948, Israel has had only secular prime ministers.а IsraelТs economy and mass media as well as its educational and cultural institutions have ever been dominated by Left-wing secularists.а Yet secular Jews are leaving the country in droves, while the only voluntary immigration to Israel is primarily by religious Jews.[12]а Now ponder the following.

 

The Real Purpose of УTerritory for PeaceФ

The heirs of IsraelТs secular founders, the Labor-Meretz coalition, represent only 35 percent of the countryТs Jewish population.а This coalition depends very much on IsraelТs Arab voters and parties, hence on Arafat and the PLO, to gain power.а Indeed, prior to the 1992 Knesset elections, Labor spokesmen held clandestine and illegal meetings with the PLO with the object of persuading Arafat to prompt Israeli Arabs to vote Labor.а ArafatТs price was the Israel-PLO Agreements.аа LaborТs policy of Уterritory for peaceФ must be viewed in this light.а

The central issue is not peace or territory; it is nothing less than Judaism.а The Rabin-Peres policy of exchanging territory for peace was in truth a Machiavellian strategy of exchanging Judaism for Left-wing power. аWhereas Rabin had the words УJudaismФ and УZionismФ deleted from the Soldiers Code of Ethics, Peres not only declared that Israel is the State of its citizens and not of the Jews, but applied for IsraelТs membership in the Arab League!а Is it any wonder that Israel is suffering from pathological insecurity?

Rabin and Peres transferred control of Gaza to Arafat and the PLO as a first step toward the withdrawal of the Israel army from Judea-Samaria where almost 150,000 Jews reside.а In pursuance of this УPeace Process,Ф these two ultra-secularists released thousands of Arab terrorists, some of whom subsequently murdered more Jews.а Moreover, to implement the transfer of Jewish land to the PLO, Rabin and Peres armed 40,000 Arab terrorists.а These Arabs, many experienced in killing Jews, were armed with automatic weapons, the better to provide for IsraelТs security!

Mr. Netanyahu is also a secularist, but one whose Уpolitics of peaceФ encompasses the ambiguities of the political center.а What is decisive, however, is not his location on the political spectrum but the fact that he is not religious.а This fact makes it easier for him to say, without a shred of reason or rectitude, that his Government is obligated to implement the Israel-PLO Agreements.аа He himself admitted, before the 1996 elections, that those agreements would lead to war and perhaps to IsraelТs annihilation.аа Be this as it may, surrendering Jewish land to a foreign entity violates Jewish law as well as basic laws of the State of Israel.[13]а (Besides, Jewish law, nay common sense, rejects the idea that Israel is obliged to abide by a contract violated by the other party to that contract.)а Moreover,а Jewish law would oblige Mr. Netanyahu not to betray his campaign pledge to stop the truncation of Israel.а Finally, Jewish law forbids Jews from arming non-Jews.[14]а Nevertheless, Netanyahu has not only relinquished control of Hebron, IsraelТs second most sacred city, to the PLO.а He capitulated to ArafatТs demand that Arab police in Hebron be armed with Ingrim sub-machine guns, and he even yielded on the issue ofа Уhot pursuitФ of Arab terrorists!аа

 

Can it be doubted that Israeli governments, dominated by secularists, are the greatest generators of IsraelТs insecurity?аа Is it not obvious that secular Zionism, whatever its original merit, has become a disaster for the people of Israel?

Inasmuch as secularism, more than any other single factor, has enfeebled Israel, the best way to strengthen Israel is to make Israel more JewishЧmeaning more studious and observant of the Torah.а One does not have to be religious or even Jewish to arrive at this conclusion given the monumental failings of IsraelТs secular dominated governments after IsraelТs victory in the Six Day War of June 1967.

Indeed, the virtual abandonment of Hebron should be understood as a consequence of the failure, on the part of IsraelТs secular elites to acknowledge the miraculous nature of IsraelТs victory in the Six Day War and to act consistently therewith.аа Gratitude for that stunning victory was given not to God, but to the Israel Defense Forces whose chief-of-staff was Yitzhak Rabin.а Mr. Rabin saw this unprecedented victory in purely military terms.а So far removed was IsraelТs ruling elites from recognizing the hand of God in the Six Day War, that only a few days after the war they offered to return all the fruits of that miraculous victory to IsraelТs unrepentant enemies for УpeaceФ!

 

 

The УPeace ProcessФ

The question arises:аа Would an Israel led by religious Zionists exacerbate Arab-Jewish tensions and increase the likelihood of war?а Before answering this question, certain facts should be noted.а First, Israel has a peace treaty with Jordan, yet it is still a capital offense in Jordan to sell property to a Jew.а Second, Israel has a peace treaty with Egypt, yet EgyptТs tourist maps portray all of Israel as УPalestine.Фа Third, even though no neighboring state endangers Egypt, that country has been engaged in a vast military build-up.а Fourth, both Egypt and Jordan are members of the Arab League, and their treaties with Israel do not take priority over the Arab LeagueТs standing commitment to IsraelТs destruction.

аBearing these facts in mindЧand many others of no less ominous import could be mentionedЧlet us face some plain truths.а For Israel to seek the peace of Arab dictatorships whose state-controlled media, like those of Egypt, spew obscene vilification of Jews and even of the УOld Testament,Ф is indicative of Jewish self-effacement or infirmity.а This decrepitude can only deepen Arab contempt and encourage Arab despots to plot IsraelТs dismemberment, as Hitler did to Czechoslovakia by the strategy of Уterritory for peace.Ф

 

 

The Solution

hatever the shortcomings of many religious Jews, a Torah-educated Prime Minister could hardly do worse than the secular prime ministers mentioned above, and there are good reasons to believe he could do far better.аа

First of all, he would have a potentially larger constituency than his secular counterpart.аа It should be borne in mind that the Labor Party, at the height of its all-pervasive power, never won more than 42.5 percent of the 120 seats in the Knesset.а Studies indicate that 50 percent of the Jews in Israel believe in the divine origin of the Torah!а Approximately 25 percent are observant and another 40-45 percent identify themselves as more or less traditional.аа In addition, Jews with strong Jewish roots are well-represented in the Israel Defense Forces, in the countryТs academic institutions, in the professional sectors of IsraelТs economy, and in the settlement of the Land; and these Jews have family relations and influential friends in the Diaspora.а With this supportive background of talent and sense of Jewish awareness, conditions are now ripe for the assumption of national leadership by a Torah-educated and observant statesman.

ааааааааааа Second, such a statesman would never commit the criminal folly of arming of 40,000 Arab terrorists. The vast majority of religious Jews have no illusions about IsraelТs enemies.а Notwithstanding Mr. NetanyahuТs failings, by voting for him rather than for Mr. Peres, they displayed greater understanding of the suicidal УPeace ProcessФ than countless secularists.

Third, Torah-educated Jews, unlike so many secularists, are not moral egalitarians or cultural relativists.а They believe, and they have scientific reasons to believe, in the divine origin of the Torah.[15]а Precisely because they regard their Patriarchs and Prophets and Sages as exemplars of wisdom and righteousness, they would disdain Arab despots and be all the more disinclined than secularists to appease them.

Fourth, a Torah -educated and observant Prime Minister would be far more honored in the White House than his secular counterpart.а Indeed, whereas IsraelТs secular prime ministers invariably use the bogeyman of American pressure as an excuse for their own timidity and ineptitude, a Torah-observant Prime Minister would be more fearful of GodЧand of revered rabbisЧthan of Washington.

Such a statesman, it should be noted, would maintain the secular-religious status quo in Israel.а He would not impose Jewish law on secular Jews, for religious coercion is contrary to the Torah.а However, by his example as a Torah statesman, he would win the trust and confidence of more and more secular Jews, so many of whom are more Jewish in thought and practice than they realize.а Indeed, he would emphasize how much secular and religious Jews have in common.а Eventually he would overcome this pernicious modern dichotomy and thus foster national unity.

Finally, he would promote the adoption of a Jewish Constitution.а With such a Constitution, Israel would have a structure of laws and institutions that would secure the heritage and continuity of the Jewish People.а Security in its three basic dimensions would then follow.а The nation, like the individual, would have purpose and direction.а I dare say Israel would then be capable of attaining true peace.ааааааааа ааааааааааа

 

Epilogue

аcentury ago, Theodor Herzl, a secular and thoroughly assimilated Jew, wrote The Jewish State.а HerzlТs state possessed no laws or institutions that could secure Judaism as the stateТs paramount and permanent principle.а All due honor to Herzl, but we are witnessing in Israel the tragic consequences of his flawed vision.аа Hence the time has come for a Torah-educated and observant Jew to write a second Jewish State, for the first is approaching its nadir.а The second Jewish State must be based on a Constitution that prescribes a government of the Jews, for the Jews, and by the Jews.аа Do not respond, as so many did to Herzl:а УThis is impossible.Фаа With the Alter of Kelm, УAsk not if a thing is possible, ask only if it is necessary.Фааааааа а