Evolution versus Einstein

Last week's TIME magazine featured a fascinating debate between the well-known atheist biologist Richard Dawkins and the famous mastermind of the human genome project Francis Collins, entitled "Science versus G-d". In shule last Friday night, I summarized the debate while adding a few insights of my own.

On further review of the article, I found Dawkin's concluding remarks of great interest:

"When we started out... I provided what I thought were cogent arguments against a supernatural intelligent designer. But it does seem to be a worthy idea. Refutable - but nevertheless grand and big enough to be worthy of respect. I don’t see the Olympian gods or Jesus coming down and dying on the cross as worthy of that grandeur... If there is a G-d, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed."

So even the atheist Dawkins is ready to believe in G-d if He is grand and incomprehensible enough. This reminds me of something I once heard in the name of the Kotzker Rebbe, "I cannot believe in a G-d that any Tom, Dick and Harry could understand." Or to quote Groucho Marx: "I don't wish to belong to any club that would have me as a member!"

In the future, I hope to write a series of articles on this intriguing subject. In the meantime, I am reprinting an article that I wrote in 1989 in the South Head publication, "From the Rabbi's Desk". It was titled "Evolution versus Einstein".

As a rabbi, I am often asked, "Does Judaism jell with the Theory of Evolution?" Note: Not does evolution jell with Judaism, but does Judaism jell with evolution.

One wonders: where from this certainty about a theory that has never been scientifically proven?

Fortunately, to answer this question, we need not look far. The famous scientist and philosopher, Aldous Huxley, provides us with the answer:

"I had reasons not to want the world to have meaning, and as a result I assumed the world had no meaning, and I was readily able to find satisfactory grounds for this assumption ... For me , as it undoubtedly was for most of my generation, the philosophy of meaninglessness was an instrument of liberation from a certain moral system. We were opposed to morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."

And he wasn't the only one. Professor August Weisman, one of the founders of modem genetics, had this to say:

"Though we may never be able to determine the process by which a new species was generated by means of natural selection in the struggle for survival, we are nevertheless obligated to accept the principle of natural selection because it offers the only explanation of a diversified natural living world, without our having to assume that it was created by a force that desired and created it intentionally..."

One could be forgiven for thinking that the Theory of Evolution has less to do with science than it has to do with the quest for liberation from conscience and morality.

If one accepts Creation, one is bound to accept a Creator. This in turn points in the direction of purposeful existence and concomitant moral responsibilities. Enough to cause more than a little discomfort to the self-centred hedonists.

So, to justify their pursuit of pleasure, they devised a theory in which G-d is conveniently absent.

"So what?" you ask. "Why begrudge them the ability to pursue their little pleasures?"

Unfortunately it is not as easy as that. The atheist does not merely sin against G-d. Of far greater concern is his attitude to Man. One who truly believes in G-d respects man as having been created in the image of G-d. To the atheist, however, man is but a link in the evolutionary chain, an animal like all other animals, homo sapiens - an intelligent ape, but an ape nonetheless.

The bankruptcy of this approach was never more clearly demonstrated than in the prelude to the Holocaust. Here is what Hitler, yemach shmo wrote in Mein Kampf.

"In nature there is no pity for the lesser creatures when they are destroyed so that the fittest may survive. Going against nature brings ruin to man ... It is only Jewish impudence to demand that we overcome Nature!"

Jews and Judaism were an anathema to Hitler precisely because, in their belief in G-d, they represented the uncompromising dignity of each and every human being no matter what his station in life. It was this desire to destroy the G-dly in man which led him to become obsessed with the annihilation of the Jews.

On another occasion he wrote:

"It is true we are barbarians. That is an honored title to us. I free humanity from the degrading suffering caused by the false vision called conscience and ethics ... They are Jewish inventions. The war for the domination of the world is waged only between the two of us ... the Germans and the Jews... "

In essence he was no more than giving practical application to the theory of evolution, the law of the jungle, where might is right. Radical as it may seem, by accepting evolution, we grant our arch-enemy a posthumous victory!

(Please note: We are not addressing the issue of whether Torah can be interpreted to include at least some aspects of evolution. There are, in fact, various opinions on this matter. Although I personally do not accept the necessity of interpreting Torah in the light of Evolution, I accept that there are believing Jews who wish to accept that G-d "managed" the evolutionary process. It is with those who omit G-d from the process that I take issue.)

The answer, I believe, is that we have been programmed, nay brainwashed, from a very impressionable age into believing in science and scoffing at religion. This can be the only reason why otherwise intelligent people will laugh when it is suggested that Adam and Eve actually existed as described in the Bible, yet will blindly accept (on the word of "scientists") that one species can evolve from another species in the total absence of any proof.

It is not that true science is in any way evil. Quite to the contrary, it is only through science that we can truly appreciate G-d. The Zohar, that master-work of Jewish mysticism, equates the development of science with the development of our understanding of G-d. As an example of this we need go no further than Albert Einstein. Few men throughout history have revolutionised scientific thought in the manner of Einstein. Yet what lead him to his discoveries? Let us listen to the man himself:

" I have no interest in learning a new language, or in food, or in new clothes ... I want to know how G-d created this world. I want to know His thoughts. The rest are details."

And on another occasion:

"... to know that what is impenetrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and most radiant beauty whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our purest faculties ... this knowledge, this feeling...is the core of true religious sentiment."

Or in the words of his biographer, Banesh Hoffman:

"Einstein's search for a unified field theory was sustained by his profound conviction that there ought to be such a theory that, as the ancient Hebrews put it, the L-rd is one."

As did our father Abraham before him, Einstein saw a beautiful, ordered world and peering through the shades saw the Master of the House staring down at him.

True, Einstein did not confess to a belief in a personal G-d. For that, one requires a tradition of revelation. And, not having been brought up in a family which bore that tradition he was not privy to It.

(To me, it would seem, that in not having had that opportunity he missed an important link in his unified theory; the fact that not only the celestial spheres but the actions of man, too, must reflect the universal unity.) Be that as it may, Einstein was a scientist for whom, in the tradition of the great Jewish thinkers, science and G-d were a symbiotic whole: science led to G-d and G-d led to science.

The Baal Shem Tov taught us that Creation was not a one-time occurrence. Rather G-d's creation of, and involvement with, His world continues every single moment. He also taught us that we can learn something of G-d in everything we hear and see. Science is no more than the microscope, the listening device, through which we extend our senses to see what is otherwise hidden. As such science enables us to see more of G-d.

There is one prerequisite however. Like Einstein we must believe that G-d is there to be discovered. More than Einstein, however, we must also believe that we too are worthy of G-d's love, care and concern.

The Great World Cup - South Head Division - Debate

A few days ago a congregant wrote saying that there had been a family discussion regarding the appropriateness of praying for one's national team and wondering whether I had an opinion on that.

Well, as a Jew I decided to answer with some questions of my own, "First you tell me why everyone is getting so excited about a bunch of people fighting over an inflated piece of leather. Is this a reason for a good Jewish boy to go without sleep for an entire month? And this team sport euphoria I really don't understand - what's this tribal thing about my team winning? Does it make you feel like you are part of the winning team? Would you want to be - judging by the low-life behaviour of some famous sports teams?"

Well, I got more than I bargained for. Instead of a single response, I got, you guessed it, a team response. Each of the Kalish team members took the opportunity of lobbing a reply. And to be honest, they were good. Then off I went to my dentist, Dr David Rutner, an avid soccer fan and veteran coach for Maccabi indoor soccer. In between drilling, fitting a post and cutting through my gum, we managed to discuss, albeit briefly, the issue occupying the minds of at least half of all humanity - the World Cup.

So I thought I would share some of these discussions and responses with you, and see if anyone else would like to weigh in to the World Cup - South Head Division debating event.

On international soccer:

Peter Kalish: Team sport, particularly soccer, is a fascinating study as it has literally become a religion in many parts of the world - it was said that Pelé, the greatest footballer of all-time from Brazil, was idolised and revered more than JC. Losses in the world cup have almost brought down governments because of their interference in the team selection or coach appointments that go wrong. It is a passive manifestation of competition or war between countries and soccer has the largest following of any sport in the world.

David Rutner: In poorer countries soccer is the great equalizer. Countries not renowned for their advances in medical science or technology hit the world stage through their prowess at soccer. It's the only arena in which Third World countries can dominate First World countries. If not for soccer, how many people would even know where Brazil was?

Lance Kalish: With its global appeal, it has become one of the only feasible and non-violent methods for social groups, cities, states or countries to compete on an even-handed ground without dire or lethal consequences (although unfortunately this is not always the case!). A hundred years ago, if a nation or people wanted to exert dominance over another nation, they would enter into war. The winner would be the side with the most people still alive! Through soccer and other sporting competitions, you have a winner and a loser, no loss of life, and temporary dominance over your competitor until the next meeting - it is the civilized world's remedy to the age old human qualities of aggressiveness, egotism, and dominance. What I find most incredible is that the World Cup is a competition that brings every country into equilibrium. When the players get onto the field, it doesn't matter how rich or poor their respective countries are, how developed or undeveloped they are, how big or small their populations are- all that matters are the 11 players representing your nation and how best they can apply their skills at the same game with the same rules.

Rabbi Milecki: If I understand this correctly, soccer at this level is a proxy for the "male" need to wage war and conquer territory. There doesn't have to be any purpose in it; the thrill of conquest is what it's all about. And just like in war, you get a big kick out of your side winning, because they are "our" soldiers, etc. so also in sport. It is all about identifying with the group, which is another deep human need. But what is so positive about the World Cup is that it channels potentially negative human traits into something far more benign while at the same time bringing the whole world together, certainly a positive value in itself.

Lance Kalish: Correct, the World Cup strives to bring the nations of the world together in the most peaceful of means on the most even handed terms - even if it is on the lowest common denominator of sport. It may just one day lead to something greater.

On Identification with teams and sportsmen:

Stacey Kalish: When people support a team, whether it be a local soccer club or the national representatives, it allows them to feel a sense of identity. I support 'X' team therefore I am part of 'X' group, therefore this makes me an 'X'. I have a sense of self and more importantly, a sense of purpose. If i am a part of a collective, I become an extension of a greater body that is trying to achieve this goal. Therefore, I feel a sense of that purpose. And as we know, this is truly what people are looking for in life. If i cannot be the single greatest player in the world, then i can support that person/team, wear their colors, pledge my allegiance, pour my time, energy and emotion into them and feel like I am a part of achieving that dream and mission. I am apart of a greater cause. Something that is greater than myself.

Lance Kalsih: I can best explain the belonging feelings with a real life example I experienced when I traveled for the first time to England to watch Manchester United (whom I have supported since childhood) play in a finals in London. After the game when I got onto a train packed with drunk football supporters, I was squeezed up next to a guy who was built like a gorilla and looked like he had just stepped out of prison prior to coming to watch the game. He looked me in the eye with a cold, scary glance and I was actually nervous just standing next to him. Then I noticed a bold tattoo on his shoulder emblazoned with the Man United emblem. To break the ice I complimented him on the tattoo, which led to a short conversation about where I was from, how I had followed Man United since I was a child, and that I was heading next to Manchester to visit Old Trafford- the home of Man United for the last 90 years or so. All of a sudden this supposedly terrifying hooligan's face lit up with excitement and joy that he had met an Australian that supported his beloved team from his home city of Manchester. He was so overjoyed that he immediately gave me his contact details and cordially invited me to call on him when I get there so he could show me around Old Trafford and Manchester town. Through a quick chance meeting and confirmation of allegiances, I had had an experience that I could only describe similar to meeting a fellow Jew when you are traveling the world and think you know no one. I never actually took up the offer (he still scared the living daylights out of me) but it gave me a first hand experience about the strength of following a team and the sense of belonging.

David Rutner: Within poorer countries especially, soccer is a great inspiration. Many soccer greats, for example Pele in Brasil and Maradonna of Argentina, came from poor backgrounds. Kids whose only asset were their feet were inspired to know that there was a chance that they too could make it; at the very least, they could live through their hero who came from very similar circumstances to their own.

Rabbi Milecki: OK, so if I understand this correctly, identification with a team or sportsman enables the individual to step out of his small world and become part of something far greater than himself.

Could there perhaps be something negative in this level of identification?

Rabbi Milecki: I think that most people probably feign far more interest in their national team than they really have, just because everyone else is doing the same and they want to be part of the group. I also think that those people who really do take it very seriously, the die-hard fans and groupies, have got serious insecurity problems.

Peter Kalish: There are the pure gang-like attitudes where lost soles seek security in “belonging” to the supporters' club and this is one of the reasons behind the hooliganism that is rife in Europe, particularly England.

Lance Kalish: The die hard fans and groupies you find generally come out of countries that are lacking something - I find the worst of them are countries like England and Germany where the anglo wasp culture has to be one of the driest and dullest existences on earth - so no wonder these people are craving for a sense of belonging - in this case the football teams literally become their religion and they use this context to express all their personal feelings which includes those violent and discriminatory qualities.

What's with the great Jewish interest in the World Cup? Jews have never enjoyed war, so why do they need this proxy for war? And they are certainly not trying to achieve "completion" through the sporting conquests of others?

Peter Kalish:The skill involved in soccer is admirable and I think can only be appreciated once one has tried to play the game - the recognition of the popularity of the game and the skills required are manifested by the huge salaries paid to the players - the top players all earn around $150,000 per week.

David Rutner: I enjoy the skill and I enjoy analyzing a game, but the salaries are obscene. Although many of the soccer greats do charity work, including training and encouraging their young countrymen, much of the ridiculous salaries they are paid are squandered by unscrupulous "friends" and "relatives" to the extent that they die in poverty.

Rabbi Milecki: I think that this is a) part of Jewish assimilation into the general culture and our need for acceptance; b)perhaps more importantly I think that many Jews do really get enjoyment viewing the "skill" of the game more than just the ego trip of "my team wins" and finally c) when real life is too hard to cope with, people do seek to live their lives through others, and this includes Jews. It's why we go to the movies, it's why we watch sport. It's certainly better than taking drugs or turning to drink. It's a diversion and an escape.

I think that in moderation it cannot do much harm. But we ought to keep in mind that there really are other human, Jewish and G-dly endeavours that can give us a sense of fulfillment and mentally stimulate us. By immersing ourselves in these we can minimize the time we invest in alternate escapes.

Should we pray for the Socceroos?

Peter Kalish: I enjoy it immensely and am patriotic but not enough to include it in my davening or ever contemplate doing so - I believe that would ridicule and belittle my faith and after all, it still remains a game and nothing more and should never be regarded as anything more.

Rabbi Milecki:With regard to praying I agree with Peter. It trivializes prayer, G-d and the person praying. I don't think I am lacking in a sense of humour, but composing prayers for the socceroos by rabbis is ridiculous. What kind of G-d is going to favour your team over another team just because you prayed for it? Is there more justice or righteousness in one team over the other? And how do you come to shule to pray for your team, when the person next to you is praying for their sick child? It's obscene.

Lance Kalish: Re the prayer, I do agree with your statement there, although I can still understand why someone would want to pray for the socceroos- not because of the justice surrounding it, but because of the immense consequences that can result from winning the World Cup (once again, you have to understand the world cup and its economics to really appreciate this argument- for example, the Brazilian national pride almost entirely is built through its global dominance in soccer- without it I don't think most of the world would even know where Brazil was!). Countries like Australia do not spend hundreds of millions of dollars on elite sporting academies and individual sportsmen because they want Australians to be more recreational, its because they are investing in national pride and a branding of Australia around the world. Yes, believe it or not, the most common international “language” around the world is not mathematics or science, its sport and in particular soccer!

Which brings me to my final point about prayer- if someone can say a prayer for the queen (a complete figurehead with no real influence or power) why cant they say a prayer for their national representatives on the world's greatest stage, without trivializing prayer in general?

Rabbi Milecki: Good question! But there is a difference. We pray for the Queen not as an individual but as the embodiment of the Government. She is the Head of State, and it is in her person that the concept of the State lives. This is why it is only when her representatives - the Governor General or Governers of the States - ascent to legislation that it becomes law. The Talmud tells us that we must pray for the State - "Pray for the peace of the sovereign for without it anarchy would reign supreme".

One can and should pray for the economic welfare of the State. Prayer is a very powerful tool that humbles us before G-d when we realize that it is He and only He in Whose hands lie success or failure. But I don't think it is our business to tell G-d how to enable the state to prosper. Perhaps it will be through the victory of the national sport team, perhaps through other means. It is hard enough for us to negotiate through the variables in our own lives; let's leave running the world to G-d.

Famous Last Words:

Rabbi Milecki:The Rebbe once used soccer as a metaphor for life. The two goal posts on each side, represent the Gates to Gan Eden and the Gates to Hell. The round ball represents the world. The teams represent the collaborative effort to drive the world to where it really belongs - Gan Eden - and keep it away from where it doesn't - Hell. Now that sounds like a game of soccer that we can all identify with!

Convergence: Julia Roberts and the New Israel

On Shavuot night I participated in a panel comprising Chemi Shalev (Associate Editor Australian Jewish News & Ha'aretz writer), Jeremy Jones AM (Director AIJAC) and David Bierman (Former Director Israel Govt Tourist Office), on the subject of "The New Israel andi its Future Borders". The following is the text of my presentation:

I have been asked to speak tonight on the subject of “The New Israel and its Future Borders”. When presented with the topic, the first thing that occurred to me was that we are living in an era of Orwellian Double Speak. The New Israel and its Future Borders! The borders that are now being contemplated are those of the Old Israel, the Israel of pre-1967, or worse, the Israel of the UN partition plan. These are the borders which then Foreign Minister Abba Eban was fond of calling the “Auschwitz borders” because they left Israel with a waist of no more than 10km—making Israel easy prey for the Arab armies keen on “driving the Jews into the sea”.

But this of course is not the worse of the double-speak. The doctors of spin are in a wild race to see who can create the most outlandish terms—those that transform snails into delicacies worthy of the finest French restaurant. Or as Jackie Mason once said concerning cockroaches, “Just call them Coche Roché, put them on the menu, and then see how much you can charge!”

Instead of simply saying that Israel is unilaterally withdrawing under pressure (the nature of which will be discussed later) the more sanitized “disengagement” was used. But even disengagement has negative connotations, so it too has been replaced by the more positive sounding—you may even say scientific—term, “convergence”.

Now in this post-modern world, who on earth could be against convergence? Isn’t that what is happening all around us—Palm Pilots, iPods, still cameras, video cameras and telephones all converging into one device. Isn’t that what we all want?

You really have to give it to the Prime Minister. He really is a master of spin.

In 1989, Prime Minister Olmert visited his friend, movie producer Arnon Milchan, in Hollywood. The two sat at a Warner Brothers’ sound studio with the film’s director Gary Marshall and listened to the soundtrack for a new romantic comedy starring a 23 year-old unknown actress (Roberts) and a movie star whose fame has already began to fade (Richard Gere).

After about half-an-hour of listening to the soundtrack, an old song by Roy Orbison called “Pretty Woman’ started playing. Olmert, who was listening to the music with his eyes half-shut, suddenly turned to Milchan and Marshall and said: “Listen, I have an idea for you – why don’t you call the movie ‘Pretty Woman,’ after the song?”

“Forget it,” Marshall replied, “it’s too kitschy.” Milchan, on his part, also had his doubts. But Olmert, already an experienced politician, managed to convince the two his idea was not so bad.

The rest, as everyone knows, is history. ‘Pretty Woman,’ which debuted in 1990, earned USD 463 million across the world and marked the starting point for Roberts’ meteoric rise to stardom.

You have to admit that when it comes to spin, the Prime Minister really does have what it takes!

So it’s not surprising that Prime Minister Olmert has managed to convince much of the world, even those parts of the Jewish world that should know better, that he is doing something fantastically new and original. And hence the topic of tonight’s panel discussion is not the “Return to the Auschwitz Borders” but “The New Israel and its Future Borders”. And it’s not “unilateral withdrawal” but “convergence”.

Viva La Holliwood! Viva the power of spin!

We are told that we have to “converge” because of the demographic threat. We are told that if we don’t converge—meaning unilaterally withdraw into a smaller Israel—then by the year 2020 or thereabouts there will be an Arab majority in the area between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. And so, in order to ensure a Jewish democratic state we have no choice other than to make these “painful” concessions.

We are told this by the Prime Minister based on statistical data supplied by Israeli demographers including University of Haifa’s Arnon Soffer and Hebrew University’s Della Pergola.

But what happens if this data is wrong?

In a study prepared by the Begin and Sadat Centre for Strategic Studies, and presented to the US House of Representatives, an American and Israeli team of demographers found that the current figure of 3.8 million Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza is an obscene exaggeration based on false data supplied by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. They also found that in doing their future population projections, the Israeli demographers were relying on this faulty data. That instead of 3.84 million Palestinians there are only 2.49 million Palestinians—a difference of some 1.3 million people!

The main figures included in the condensed BESA report to the US House of Representatives can be found in the side bar. The full report is well over one hundred pages long, so I will include a few salient points from the study as quoted in an article by Caroline Glick in the Jerusalem Post in January 2005.

· “Indeed, the total fertility rate of Palestinian women has been trending downward in recent years. Palestinian women in Judea and Samaria averaged 4.1 children in 1999 and 3.4 in 2003. Palestinian women in Gaza averaged 5 children each in 1999 and 4.7 in 2003. The multi-year average of Israel’s compound growth rate from 1990-2004 is 2.5 percent.”

· “The report also shows that while the Israeli Interior Ministry announced in November 2003 that in the preceding decade some 150,000 residents of the Palestinian Authority had legally moved to Israel (including Jerusalem), these 150,000 residents remain on the Palestinian population rolls. Parenthetically, this internal migration is largely responsible for the anomalous 3.1 percent annual growth in the Israeli Arab population. Absent this internal migration, the Israeli Arab natural growth rate is 2.1% – that is, below the Israeli Jewish growth rate.”

· “The study, which has been accepted by prominent American demographers Dr. Nicholas Eberstadt and Murray Feshbach, shows that contrary to common wisdom, the Jewish majority west of the Jordan River has remained stable since 1967. In 1967 Jews made up 64.1 percent of the overall population and in 2004 they made up 59.5 percent.”

These facts are backed up by Yoram Ettinger. Ettinger is a former Israeli Consul General for the Southwest U.S. and consultant to Israeli cabinet members, Knesset members and various Israeli and US organizations on US-Israel Affairs. He is also chairman of Special Projects at the Ariel Center for Policy Research in Israel.

Ettinger rejects the demographic theory advocated by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his Kadima party, which now serves as the premise for his “Convergence Plan,” that calls for the removal of nearly 100,000 Jews from Judea and Samaria, thus creating the contiguity for a future Palestinian State. The Olmert plan is predicated first and foremost on the premise that in order to retain a Jewish majority and a democratic state, Israel must apply the “convergence plan” that would remove Jewish settlements and settlers from most of the West Bank and relocate them in Settlement Blocks adjacent to the Green Line (June 4, 1967 lines). In Olmert’s view and that of his advisors, refraining from implementing his plan would cause Israel to lose its Jewish majority.

“At this stage” Ettinger argues, “the Jewish demography is more robust than it has been in recent years. Contrary to conventional wisdom, we have today between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, a durable Jewish majority of 60%. To put it in perspective, in the year 1900 Jews accounted for only 8% between the River and the Sea, in 1947 the percentage was 33% Jewish minority, in 1949 the Jewish accounted for 45% of the population.” “This sustained growth, Ettinger maintains, “indicates an enhanced Jewish majority between the River and the Sea.” Ettinger is ready to prove that there is an increase in Jewish birthrates and a continuing Aliyah. “The evidence, since 1995, has shown a sustained annual decline in Palestinian fertility rates and birthrates” and, he asserts, “this will continue for the foreseeable future.”

What’s really interesting is that although Prime Minister Olmert has come up with a new meaning for convergence, the real meaning of convergence in demographic terms is quite different. It means that over the past hundred years all developed countries and developing countries, including the Arabs, are converging to similar birth rates.

According to Ettinger, a March 17, 2006 Gallup Poll, suggested a convergence in fertility rates between Palestinian-Arab and Israeli-Jewish women within just a few years. Currently, the fertility rates for Palestinian women average at 4.7 per women, while the average among Jewish women is 3.7. Jewish birthrates are on the rise whereas those of the Palestinians are declining. He pointed out that this pattern of decline is pervasive throughout the Arab-Muslim Middle East. “In Iran,” Ettinger pointed out, “the fertility rate for women has declined to 1.98 births per woman, down from 10 births per woman only 20-25 years ago, and, “In Egypt it is 2.9 births per women compared to 8-9 in the past.” Ettinger said that in Israel, among the immigrants from the Former Soviet Union, the fertility rate has increased from what it was in Russia (1.0) and that they are now having 2-3 children and, the orthodox Jewish community is catching up with the ultra-Orthodox.

Convergence should lead to holding onto territory, not ceding it!

(You can find Ettinger’s website and associated articles here. I urge you to look at the source materials yourselves before listening blindly to the politicians or to me!)

It has been known for some time that Oslo’s Land for Peace formula was a sham. It now turns out that the demographic time bomb is also a sham.

The amazing thing about Jewish people is that although so many of us are independent thinkers with above average IQs when it comes to matters of our security and future we place almost blind faith in the politicians and the spin doctors. The figures included here have been around for over 18 months, but nary a word of debate can be heard in the Jewish community.

Furthermore, Yossi Olpher, writing in HaAretz, gives six indications of the failure of the Gaza withdrawal:

1) it did not bring security—the Qassams and suicide bombings continue (in fact, the IDF was forced to re-enter Gaza last week for the first time since the withdrawal and a Kassam rocket fell near Amir Peretz’s home in Sderot;
2) it did not relieve Israel of legal responsibility for the Gaza Strip under international law; (last week, the huge British teachers union and one of Canada’s largest trade unions voted to boycott Israeli academics);
3) it emptied Israel’s coffers without producing a “reward”—the United States in the end did not give Israel two billion dollars “for development of the Negev and Galilee”, generally understood as funding for settler resettlement;
4) it did not bring peace any closer;
5) it encouraged Palestinians to vote for Hamas, which trumpeted the withdrawal as its victory; and
6) it left many hundreds of Gazan settlers homeless and jobless to this day.

Israel’s security borders are to be seriously eroded, the IDF predicts increased terrorism (see here), 10,000 of Israel’s best have already been expelled from their homes, many of them until this day without adequate shelter, schooling or work prospects, and yet there is a serious plan on the table for further unilateral withdrawals.

Why?

Unfortunately, I have come to the conclusion that there is a reason for this. Perhaps it is not the only reason, but it is certainly a very powerful one. It is the deep-seated Jewish need to be accepted by the world at large, to be seen as normal. With all the bravado of saying that we will fight and not give into terror, we are a sovereign state that makes its own decisions based on what is best for us, etc. etc. there is a deep need among the Israeli leadership of all persuasions to be accepted in Washington, and even in the European capitals. To be considered part of the civilized world, even though no part of that civilized world would even think of making the concessions that are asked of Israel. It stems, I believe, from a deep-seated insecurity based on our numerical inferiority and our historical need to “negotiate” our way out when the odds were stacked overwhelmingly against us.

Of course the situation has changed. Israel is one of the most advanced nations of the planet. Although numerically small, we produce a quality that belies our numbers. Whether in military technology and know-how, IT, irrigation, or a host of other areas Israel surpasses Western nations many times it size. There should be no reason to accept the world’s double standards towards us. We should be able to laugh off the self-righteous moral indignation of a world that tells us to turn the other cheek, when they would never do the same. The same France that makes it illegal for a Muslim to wear a burka, has the audacity to claim that Israel should remain silent when attacked with rockets. But, although Israel may loudly protest France at the UN, subconsciously it absorbs the barbs, thinking yes, we too are to blame—we deserve what we get because of our sin of “occupation”, for our “ill-treatment” of those who would sooner see us dead.

Ben Gurion may have spoken of the new Jew and the new Israel, the Jew who, unlike the “exile” Jew, walks tall. But it takes more than a country, economic and even military success to make a Jew truly walk and feel tall. It takes an inner spirit. Yes, there were “exile” Jews who trembled when they saw a Russian anti-Semitic policeman. But there were also “exile” Jews who although they may have moved off the footpath when they saw him come—he could after all have them thrown in prison on some trumped up charge—held him in deep contempt. They were the Jews who around the Shabbos table knew that they were the most blessed people in the world—and no one could take that away from them. They were the Jews who when the Nazi asked them what they were praying as they marched into the gas chamber said with cold derision, “I am thanking G-d for not making me a gentile beast like you.” They were the true Jewish soldiers who like my wife’s grandfather, armed with nothing but a knife, risked (and ultimately gave) their lives not to kill, but to circumcise Jewish children in Soviet Russia.

It is. as Noam Arnon, spokesman for the much vilified Jewish community of Chevron, once told me, “Only one who truly believes can be Prime Minister of Israel”.

As for the settlers—they are the greatest heroes of the Jewish people today. But they made a serious mistake. In their tremendous faith, they believed that not only would they settle the land, but that the Holy People of Israel would in the end follow and support them. In their great belief they just didn’t understand that for those Jews with less belief than them, the world is a fearsome, overwhelming and perhaps even enticing place—a place worth the sacrifice of that which is most holy to us.

Together with the settling of the Land, there also needed to be, and now most certainly needs to be, a settling of the Jewish heart. A large movement aimed at bringing Jews closer to G-d and closer to Torah. Only such people will have the wherewithal to withstand the pressures of that “big and scary” and at times “overwhelmingly enticing” world.

And so, returning to the topic, the “New Israel and its Future Borders” needs to be a place where there are no longer borders between religious and non-religious. Most Jews, apart from the die-hard secularists, want to believe. We need but find the spark and ignite it. And this movement is not only relevant in Israel. It is also relevant outside Israel. Judaism must precede Zionism. Being Jewish must proceed being Israeli.

Indeed the Torah was given outside Israel, the Talmud was written outside Israel, most Jewish literary creativity took place outside Israel. The Jewish nation precedes in every sense the Jewish Land. And only with such faith can the Jewish Land continue to exist. Not as a value in itself, not as a political entity, G-d forbid, but as the outcome of a love of our heritage.

As a political entity, we are vastly outnumbered. As a spiritual entity, we are the most powerful idea that the world has ever seen. If we would only know this, nothing could ever scare us, nothing could ever defeat us.

---

BESA Report-Brief Synopsis

The 1997 PCBS beginning population base for de facto residents was inflated by:
* Inclusion of Non-residents: The 1997 PCBS Census base included 325,000 Palestinian Arabs living abroad, even though these individuals had lived outside the Territories for many years. This group comprised 13% of the PCBS' reported population base. This fact was fully acknowledged by the head of the PCBS when the Census Results were released in 1998. Reduction: 325,000;
* Inclusion of Jerusalem Arabs in West Bank Figures: Jerusalem Arabs who were already counted in Israel's population survey were also counted in the PCBS population estimate for the West Bank. Reduction: 210,000;
* Unexplained Increase over ICBS Records: The 1997 PCBS census included an additional 113,000 rise above the last ICBS figures for the Territories. Yet, PA Central Election Commission reports for adults voting in 2005 substantiated the ICBS population records from the mid-1990s. Reduction: 113,000;
Furthermore, the PCBS Model's projections with respect to births and immigration were not met in any year between 1997 and 2004:
* Fewer Births: According to reports current through January 2005, the PA Ministry of Health recorded fewer annual births between 1997 and 2003 than the PCBS had predicted for each of those years. These lower birth figures are consistent with PA;
* Ministry of Education figures for students entering school six years later. Reduction: 238,000
Alterations of Recorded Birth Data: In its more recent reports, the PA Ministry of Health retroactively raised the number of births it had reported prior to the release of the 1997 PCBS census. Using data at originally reported levels lowers the number of births even further. Reduction: 70,000;
* Net Immigration and Emigration Error: Instead of the large immigration originally forecast by the PCBS, the Territories experienced a steady net emigration abroad. The PCBS predicted 236,000 would move into the Territories between 1997 and 2003. Instead, 74,000 left. Reduction: 310,000;
* Migration to Israel: Many residents of the Territories moved to pre-1967 Israel and Jerusalem. No adjustments were made for unofficial immigration as there is little data on this group. However, immigrants who legally received Israeli IDs according to Israel Ministry of Interior reports from 1997 to 2003 were removed from the PCBS count. Reduction: 105,000.

The above is a brief summary of the BESA (Begin and Sadat Centre for Strategic Studies) report as presented to the House of Representatives and can be obtained here. The full report can be downloaded from here