There is one statement that drives me mad during almost every lecture. Invariably, someone stands up and says something along these lines, “I know a little about Judaism, but the one thing I know for sure is that we should love our neighbors and not oppress strangers. That’s the entire Torah.” That’s what they were told by incompetent teachers and progressive rabbis. Love your neighbor and throw out the other 612 commandments and the heap of halacha. Don’t forget to baptize, too.

Exodus 23:9: And ger, [him] you shall not oppress – you, too, know the soul of ger, for you were gerim in the land of Egypt.
Exodus 23:31: And I will set your limits from Reed (“Red”) Sea to Philistine (“Mediterranean”) Sea, and from steppe (“Sinai Desert”) to the river (Euphrates), for I will give in your hand the yeshvei [of] the land, and you shall displace them (gerashtamo) from yourself.

What is the difference between yeshvei and gerim, those who must be displaced and those who must not be oppressed? The root i-sh-v means, to stay, such as in settlement. Thus yeshvei are the natives. The natives must be cleansed out because their hostility is inherently implacable: they, even their remote generations will always remember that Jews took away their land. This is not an issue of land ownership, but of sovereignty: the country belonged to Canaanites or the Palestinian Arabs, but now the state is Jewish. Modern Jewish rulers believe that Arabs will ignore the insult in return for generous aid, but the Torah’s author was infinitely wiser: if Jews want to be sovereign on this land, they must cleanse it from yeshvei.

The Torah economizes suffering: yeshvei have to be evicted (Exodus 23:31), ravaged (Deut20:17), but not necessarily killed. After the Jews cleared a country for themselves and uprooted yeshvei, security issues become less pressing and Jews can take measured risks. Deuteronomy 20, therefore, speaks of the wars which the Jews start voluntarily rather than by the divine commandment to take Canaan. In such wars, the natives need not be uprooted if they agree to submit to Jewish rule. If they did not defend themselves against the advancing Jews, such natives are allowed to remain, performing “labor duty for you and shall work for you” (Deut20:11). That law applies only to the towns far away from the Jewish population centers (Deut20:15).

The conquered people lack the high status of gerim, who are not to be abused. The labor duty in question was likely the border defense, or perhaps public works in Jewish towns. Other than labor conscription, the conquered populations remain free and enjoy all the property rights. Their major difference from gerim is that the conquered populations may continue their pagan worship, as they do not live in the Land of Israel proper and so do not pollute it by their idolatry.

Now back to gerim. The Torah, particularly the section of Laws (Exodus 23 is a part of it) is not laid down in chronological order. Exodus 23:9 applies to the situation later than 23:31. How do we know that? Exodus 23:10 speaks of Shmita, seventh-year rest for agricultural land. Settled agriculture was the last stage in Jewish conquest of Canaan, after the land was taken from its original inhabitants. So gerim appear after yeshvei are displaced.

Who are gerim? They are not natives, as the natives are exterminated or evicted already (yes, Jews are not nice). In the Biblical Hebrew, the cognate gur has an unquestionable sense of, to huddle together, to reside timidly. That sense is very far from the toneless Modern Hebrew, to live. Even in the most aggressive sense, Psalm 56:6-7: “… all their thoughts are against me for evil. They iaguru secretly (or, from north – the left side in ancient coordinates)…” Likewise Psalm 140:3-4: “Who think evil things in their heart, every day iaguru conflicts. They sharpened their tongue like a serpent.” The main theme about gerim is timidity, submissiveness.

In modern terms, gerim must absolutely accept Jewish sovereignty. In ancient Judea, gerim were not oppressed, but neither had they have political rights. It is in this sense that the Torah speaks about Jews: “… for you were gerim in the land of Egypt.” Whether the Jews were slaves or ate meat from full pots, they lacked political rights in Egypt.

Rabbis traditionally understood gerim even stricter, as converts to Judaism. Such reading is semantically (though not etymologically) correct, as foreign religions were banned in Judea, and resident aliens had to practice Judaism. In particular, not even slaves or gerim were allowed to work on Sabbath, erect altars, worship idols, sacrifice to foreign deities, or eat blood; they adhered to the restrictions of Pesach and Yom Kippur. They submitted to the laws given to Jews on the Sinai, and acted like Jews in all practical matters except marriage.

The terms ger and i-sh-v converge in some situations, as when Abraham pleads with the tribe of Heth to allow him burying his wife who died in Kiryat Arba (in our days, the place of notorious Jewish settlement which “took the Arab land”). Genesis 23:4: “I am a ger and toshav with you.” Abraham, a great legal mind, is precise here: he is a submissive resident (ger) now, but will settle (toshav) this land. So Abraham insists on buying a cave for the burial instead of accepting the offer of receiving it free. Israel abandoned that cave, Mearat a-Mahpela, to Arab jurisdiction.

Even toshav, a status higher than ger, relates inferiority. He is not allowed to partake of Pesach sacrifices (Exodus 12:45) unless he converts to Judaism and circumcises (12:48). He is just a bit higher than a slave (Leviticus 25:35, 40). His right to live in the Land of Israel is unquestioned, but his status is far below Jewish freeman.
There is not a single instance in the Bible where ger lacks the clear sense of submissiveness.

What, then, is the meaning of “oppress”? We can only marvel at our lawgiver who preceded every political theorist. The Torah differentiates between natural law and special rights. Oppression means depriving a person from what is inherently his: life and ownership. Political rights, the rights to change or influence Jewish character of the state - he doesn’t have them.

Jews were oppressed in Egypt where we were slaves (Exodus 3:9). Syrians oppressed us so that we needed a deliverer (2 Kings 13:4-5). To our lawgiver, oppression was tremendously more severe than mere absence of voting rights.

The parallel prohibition in Exodus 22:20 clarifies, “And ger, you shall not squeeze (toneh) or oppress him.” The word toneh (i-n-h) has a root cell cognate i-n-k (to suck), testifying to the reading, to squeeze out. What can be squeezed out of a person? Surely not his political rights, but life and property.

The important sense of l-h-tz root for oppression is its communal character: in the word’s common usage, one polity oppresses another. When the oppression is between individuals, it is referred to as a-sh-k, such as, “You shall not trample upon (taashok) your neighbor” (Leviticus 19:13).

Long before Christians adopted this commandment as their major tenet, Jews were told, “You shall love your fellow [man] just as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18). Not to the extent that you love yourself, but the way you do. Your love to fellow man should be in the likeness (cmo) of your love to yourself. An alternative reading is that you should love a man who is like you, your fellow man.

The common translation of r-y-h as “neighbor” does not relate the word correctly. In Psalm 45:15, for example, the virgins in the king’s wife’s train are definitely not her neighbors. The translation friends also falls short, as Leviticus 19:13 won’t prohibit trampling upon one’s friend. The r-y-h sense has to do with following, going in the same direction. That sense makes for the double meaning of r-y-h: evil (to bend someone, to steer away) and friend (to bend together with someone, to have a common path unlike the others’).Thus, r-y-h is not an abstract neighbor, but someone sufficiently close that you “bend the rules” together, deviate from the others’ road. For example, the Tower of Babel builders are described as r-y-h, fellows. Rather than neighbor, the proper translation of r-y-h is compatriot (with co- relating the sense of sticking together) or fellow.

The critical difference between us and Christians is who to consider a fellow man. Modern Christians unrealistically pronounce all people fellows, and surely fail to treat them as such. But their own parable of the Good Samaritan is instructive: even a despised Samaritan could be one’s fellow if the Samaritan helped him. Fellow is the one from whom help is expected. Such a definition surely excludes Canaanites and Palestinian Arabs from the commandment to love your fellow.

What is the love enjoined to our fellows? The context clarifies: “You shall not oppress your fellow” (19:13), “You shall not hate your brother” (19:17), and the 19:18: “You shall neither take revenge, nor restrain [yourself to take revenge later] at the children of your nation.” This, by the way, refutes the claims that human vengeance is prohibited in Judaism, but is the power of God only. Revenge is prohibited only against fellow Jews, on the double presumption of their general goodwill and efficient law enforcement. In such a society, revenge on the personal level was superfluous. But taking revenge on the enemies of Jews (even their distant offspring) is not merely a right, but an often-reiterated obligation: “a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace” (Ecclesiastes 3:8).

The commandment of love concludes a list which parallels the Decalogue, and is therefore comparable to the prohibition of jealousy (Exodus 20:13).

The prescribed love to one’s fellow is the absence of hatred, vengeance, oppression, and jealousy. While gerim must not be oppressed, fellows must also not be hated. The Torah distinguishes between several circles of people: the closer is the circle, the more rights are accorded to it. Extended family, a closer circle, enjoys still more rights: one must respect his parents. One’s own family, the closest circle, awards generous rights to wives. Later on, when Hebrew society became strong and gerim were fully integrated, the commandment of love was expanded onto them (Deuteronomy 10:19); converts became treated strictly on par with native Jews.

The Torah prescribes, “The ger who resides among you in your land shall be for you like a native, and you shall love him just as you love yourself” (Leviticus 19:34). You cannot be more compassionate than that. But why the Torah, so short on words, reiterates, “in your land”? So that the ger absolutely recognizes the land as ours. And indeed the parallel Exodus 12:48: “And if a ger will reside with you, and will keep the Pesach to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised… he shall be like the native…” In order to be like a Jew, ger must be like a Jew: he must circumcise, keep Jewish customs, and to all purposes become a Jew. Then, sure enough, we must love him just as we love any Jew, including ourselves.

To summarize: In “You shall not oppress strangers” the Torah enjoins us against arbitrarily taking life or property of the submissive resident aliens who are loyal to Judaism. In “You shall love your fellow just as yourself” the Torah enjoins positive attitude toward one’s compatriots, the like-minded people only.

And [Moses] said unto them: 'Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel: Put you every man his sword upon his thigh, and go to and from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his fellow, and every man his relative.'
And the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses; and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.
And Moses said: 'Consecrate yourselves today to the LORD, for every man has been against his son and against his brother; that He may also bestow upon you a blessing this day.'
Exodus 32:27-29

The atheist rabbis love the concept of pikuah nefesh which is so refreshingly liberal: life is valuable above other things. The other, educated rabbis understand how nonsensical is that interpretation but adhere to it, as it allows them to abstain from political action, ostensibly in order to save lives. Even Meir Kahane partially conceded to that view, and declared he won’t impose too much Jewish values on Jews for a fear of civil war.

The problem of Gaza we face today has a historical precedent. About thirty five centuries ago, when we left Egypt, "God led them not by the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said: 'Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt.'" Not that the modern Arabs have anything to do with ancient Philistines, but the analogy holds. Here lies the death of misapplied pikuah nefesh: "Lest the people repent when they see war." War, by its nature, takes precedence over lives. That is true not only for the wars directly sanctioned by God, but for every war Jews choose to wage, even the wars of expansion, like King David’s. God hardly observed the pikuah nefesh when slaughtering the Egyptian firstborn, or the Jews did when slaughtering the already harmless Babylonians on Purim and liberal Jews in the civil war we celebrate on Hanukkah.

If life is above values, then Jews should convert to Islam (which is definitely not idolatry) and save themselves from wars with Arabs. Joshua bin Nun was somehow oblivious to pikuah nefesh when he told the Hebrews to cross River Jordan and fight the Canaanites. And sometimes, not killing the Arab enemies means allowing them to murder Jews, if in the future. It doesn’t matter whether the enemies are right; Amalek was surely right to defend his territory against Hebrew refugees streaming from Egypt. In terms of saving lives, our only objective is to save the lives of reasonably righteous Jews – but they must establish their righteousness by killing and risking their lives to further Jewish values.

Ignorant rabbis allude to the view that one only endangers his life to abstain from idolatry, incest, and murder; never mind they commit idolatry continuously and sanction the assimilation which is no better than incest. That rule applies to observant Jews. Jewish tradition economizes on words; written down explicitly, the rule would run as follows, “An observant Jews should endanger his life only when forced to commit idolatry, incest, or murder.” Non-observant, apostate Jews are executed as usual. When the apostasy is public, executing them is a major religious obligation; no court verdict is required. Pinchas merited eternal blessing for his descendants when he killed a Jew who peacefully married a shiksa.

Contrary to pikuah nefesh, the Torah values not every life, but only the lives of reasonably righteous people: they are defended with a brutally efficient "a bruise for a bruise." The Torah doesn’t hesitate at dispersing capital punishments for criminal acts, Shabbat violation, religious immorality, and other types of un-Jewish behavior. Talmudic sages greatly expanded the number of capital offenses. Sensible rabbis detailed hanging, asphyxiating, burning, decapitating, and stoning the offenders. They would have been not a bit surprised to know that "saving lives is the major commandment in the Torah." Strictly speaking, there’s no such commandment at all. In recent times, the absolutely authoritative Orach Chaim (ch.329), based on the Talmud, mandates that Jews fight even on Sabbath if the enemy asks for just for "straw and hay." The libertarian rabbis should read this: Jews must kill the enemies in any conflict whatsoever, down to “straw and hay” dispute. Jewish religious authorities from Moses to Rambam to Rav Kook established that lives hold no value at all when Jewish national interests are at stake.

God concurs. He could save plenty of lives by planting in the Canaanites' hearts the idea of abandoning the land; he did so in 1948. God, however, commanded that Hebrews liberate a space for themselves, losing many of our own and killing many Canaanites in the process. God, who has told us to annihilate Amalek – does he care of lives? Striving to emulate him, should we care?

In Hebrew, rasha means profane, ungodly, and hamas refers to violence and destruction.

The peace process must put even die-hard atheists to shame. Nothing short of a miracle explains that every time Israel is ready to cede Judea and Jerusalem, Palestinians preclude the Jewish defeat. Arafat turned off Barak’s offer which included just everything the “moderate” Palestinians demanded. Now Hamas undermines Fatah’s efforts at chipping the Palestinian state out of Israel. Unless the wildest conspiracy theories are true and Israel’s security services manipulate the Palestinians away from statehood, there is no other explanation: God doesn’t want Jews to give the Promised Land away.

This chance is our last. The Almighty created the situation where the options are crystal-clear and Jews need no crystal ball to see them. The entire Jewry outside of Israel is annihilated: European Jews perished in Holocaust, American Jews are lost to assimilation, and Arab Jews were uprooted and resettled into Israel. God tells us in the most straightforward manner that now we must decide: would the Jews live or die out. Zechariah’s prophecy is fulfilled: the two-thirds are lost, and it’s up to the Jews whether the last third would be refined as silver or burn out.

Jews, of course, have free will and can rebel against the divine injunction. Israel received every sign she could hold on to the Sinai: four wars with Egypt won, and the Yom Kippur war even extended Israel’s foothold. Jews, nevertheless, abandoned the Sinai; now we’re tourists there, Egyptians – the owners. Similarly, Jews can transfer Judea to Arabs rather than Arabs out of Judea. Such act, however, would be equal to conversion. There is no practical difference between Jews’ converting to Christianity and consciously rejecting the commandments. Once the commandments are rejected, Jews can become anything.

Jews don’t live in the Land of Israel because of some stupid historical rights. If Jews can return after 1,900 years, all the more Arabs can return after sixty years. Jews were sovereign on this land for perhaps four centuries; the rest was a protectorate. Muslims governed this land for much longer. Jewish national right to statehood? What nonsense! Ask Chechens, Basques, Uighurs, or Bretons, and listen carefully to their reply: there is no such right. There is a single basis for Jews to conquer and settle this land: God have told us so.

Cleansing the land God gave us is a major commandment. It is arguably the major political commandment. Jews must drive away the inhabitants of the land. There can be no coexistence. Amalekites, Canaanites, or Palestinians would never be loyal citizens of Jewish state. Cleanse first, build later. To build a Jewish state in the land populated by Arabs is impossible.

The Bible promises the nation of Israel a huge country from Nile to Euphrates. Such country was unsustainable and utterly unnecessary for Jews in antiquity. “From Nile” includes Sinai, but even Egypt didn’t govern the Sinai in the times of old except for a narrow strip. The Promised Land was a technical impossibility and a burden to maintain. The land wasn’t prized, but consisted of deserts and steppes. If seducing Hebrews with a promise, a takeover of Egypt would be much more attractive.

Only in the late twentieth century did we understand the rationale behind the Promised Land. Israel critically needs the Sinai for depth of defense against Islamist Egypt. If not for Sinai and the Negev, the initial thrust of the Yom Kippur war would have drowned the Jews in the sea. Now that Egypt acquires missiles and cutting-edge aircraft, the depth of defense the Sinai accords to the Jewish state becomes all the more important.

The Promised Land includes a Frankenstein state of Lebanon. Jews so far failed to realize the commandment and conquer that land, driving the ever-fighting Lebanese tribes away to Syria – and the Lebanese tribes prove a perpetual source of trouble for Jewish Galilee.

Likewise with Euphrates. Jordanian monarchy won’t last long. Palestinian majority will take over that desert state and, unable to create a viable economy there, will turn to nationalism and militancy. Jordan will become a huge Gaza, rife with terrorist training camps. Jordanians will extend their influence to those Arabs whom Israel failed to expel in violation of the commandment, and they became “a trap for you,” “sore in your eye,” and “masters over you.” In order to establish security, Israel would have no choice but to extend toward Euphrates, relocating the hostile Arabs to Iraq. As if prompting Israel to fulfill the commandment, a strong and militant state of Iraq was invaded for no reason and destroyed; now the way for relocating Palestinians and Jordanians is cleared.

Israel also needs a huge territory to disperse her population. The hi-rise buildings in Israeli cities will become a death trap in a major earthquake – and Israel is located on the two lines of tectonic activity. Jews must live in light, single-story houses. Dispersing the population is also the best way to avoid or mitigate Islamic nuclear strike. Pakistan, besieged by the Islamists, has an unknown number of nuclear bombs, probably more than fifty. Saudi Arabia likely hoards some of the Pakistani nukes in return for financing its nuclear program. Iran, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, and Morocco have the critical know-how in nuclear technologies, and North Korea stands ready to help them. There is absolute certainty that Islamic terrorists will lay their hands on nuclear weapons fairly soon. Crude nukes are not that apocalyptic: a primitive bomb detonated at the ground level in Tel Aviv would kill something like 10,000 Jews – a sorrowful but statistically insignificant number. Looking at Nagasaki, the long-term effects of nuclear bombing are also tolerable. So instead of panicking, Jews should disperse into a single-storey society interconnected by the latest communication networks rather than Tel Aviv’s promenades. And that why we need the Promised Land in its entirety.

It’s great to live in peace. Persecuted for millennia, exterminated recently, and embattled for decades, Jews long for peace as no other nation does. We were ready to kiss Sadat when he came to Israel, signaling the peace. We accept hard choices and concessions for peace. Unfortunately, among the sea of Muslims, Israel will never live in peace. It is a heart-rending assertion, but true nonetheless.

And so the Torah instructs us to fight for safety.

Most of the commandments are eternal. Some commandments reflect the eternal truths, but must be viewed in the context. Such is the commandment of marrying a rape’s victim to the rapist. There is not much information about the crime rate in ancient Judea, but violent crime was rampant in Roman suburbs and in the feudal Europe. It is reasonable to assume that rural Judea was a violent place, too. Women had to venture outside the city walls to tend the flocks, bring water home, and to travel. The violent crime was unavoidable. Societies until the modern age ostracized the victims of rape, and primitive societies still do. They did so for sensible reasons. Rape often resulted in pregnancy, incurable STD, or even damaged the child-bearing functions. The victim was often utterly negligent (thus the Torah allows for blaming her for the crime), and so didn’t make a good wife.

The lawgiver, therefore, was solving the problems of integrating the victim back into the society, punishing the offender, and preventing the crime. He achieved all of those aims with harsh, no-nonsense means – and with the extreme efficiency. The Torah first cracks down on negligence and fearful submission to criminals. Rapists often intimidated their victims into silence where screaming would help. The Torah, accordingly, makes silence during rape into a capital offense. Before that law, the victims had a choice. They could scream and face the risk of being killed by the rapist, but also a chance of frightening him away. Or, they could keep silent, submit to the rapist, but assuredly save their (subsequently ostracized) life. The Torah took away that choice. The victim who doesn’t scream is executed. The rapist’s threat of killing a screaming victim became bleak in comparison with the assured judicial execution of a non-screaming victim. Rapists, therefore, knew that their victims will assuredly scream. By the exceedingly harsh measure of blaming the victim the Torah created a huge deterrent to rapists. (The same logic applies to the problem of terrorist kidnappings. Just like the rape victims are forbidden to cooperate with their assailants, so the government must not cooperate with kidnappers. Discouragement and prevention on the societal level take precedence over saving an individual.)

The rape endangers the victim’s life, and almost assuredly extinguished her social life. Following the “an eye for an eye,” the Torah proclaims rape a capital offense. Harsh, perhaps, but efficient. Even in the modern society, victims of rape and their relatives would gladly kill the rapist.

Integrating the victim back into the society is where the Torah’s practicality takes precedence over moralistic concerns. The rapist has to marry his victim, and is barred from ever divorcing her. Exceedingly wisely, the Torah allows the marriage option only to affluent criminals. There is little sense in marrying one’s daughter to criminal pauper. Before the marriage, the rapist has to pay the girl’s family a fine of fifty shekels – the amount equal to one’s Temple tax obligation for hundred years. As with any other monetary obligation, a failed debtor (essentially, a thief) was enslaved. The Torah, thus, implicitly allows the victim’s family to enslave the rapist.

Logical and thoughtful, the Torah differentiates between the cases of betrothed woman and the one who is not. In the last case, marriage to an affluent criminal makes sense when ostracizing is the only alternative. In the first case, making one’s bride to marry the rapist would be doubtlessly unethical. The rapist is executed, but what to do about the victim in that case? The Torah admits, there is no universal solution. The woman is considered a victim of accident; her situation is compared to “for as when a man rises against his neighbor, and slays him, even so is this matter.” In modern terms, the case of raped bride can be likened to the case of a bride who suffered heavy car accident. There is no single answer to the moral problem. The most the Torah can do is proclaim the victim without sin and enjoin others from harming her. The rest is up to her family and the bridegroom. Harsh? You bet. But realistic and practical now just as three thousand years ago.

The Torah doesn’t detail punishments for homosexual rape. Apparently, it was uncommon in Judea.

The Jewish equivalent of Christmas is inconvenient for the politically correct establishment. The merry festival glorifies a civil war.

Judea was a protectorate both before and after the Maccabean Revolt. The Jews were content with the occupation and revolted only when the Greeks outlawed Judaism. The Jews did not achieve independence - the only changes were religious. Fundamentalists exterminated progressive Jews who sought to relax outdated Sabbath and kosher food requirements. The Greek king wanted to turn the odd Jews into good members of the Hellenic commonwealth. He offered plenty of economic benefits for abandoning bizarre religious habits. The Jews fought and won. Modern Jews side with the king and choose the convenience of assimilation.

Mattathias started the war by killing a Jewish traitor. What was his sin? He made a sacrifice according to Greek customs. How many atheist Jews today would care?

Possibly the most famous account of the Book of Maccabees is of the Jewish mother who urged her seven sons to reject the Greeks’ demand to transgress the law. On refusal, each was tortured to death before his mother’s eyes; her execution followed. Jews who celebrate Hanukah today deride noble Palestinian mothers who encourage their children to die in suicide blasts.

An old man was ordered to eat pork and refused. His reasonable Jewish friends offered him beef, so he wouldn’t actually violate the commandment but only seem to. He refused, lest the youth follow his example and eat pork. He was executed. Jews who celebrate Hanukah today, who among them rejects pork in restaurants, let alone in the face of execution? They betray the hero’s memory.

A photo of a Jewish family celebrating Hanukah would make a perfect illustration for an encyclopedia article on hypocrisy.

For the Torah to preserve its applicability, the human mentality must not have changed over the three thousands years. Indeed.

After the Church was no longer able to censor the books, the Left took its turn and censored everything from Tom Sawyer to hate speech. The three hundred Spartans who died at Thermopiles would have readily recognized Japanese defense at Iwo Jima or Russian defense of Moscow. The command to slew Canaanites reverberated with European settlers in America. The command to slew Amalek for ancient offenses finds approval among those Muslims who blame the West for the loss of Alhambra. The sight of French atrocities in Vietnam won't be unusual to ancient Hebrews returning from punitive expeditions; both nations, ideologically inspired, refrained from spoils. Children were sacrificed to Moloch; now parents send their children to die for national ideals. Human mentality didn't change but was exacerbated by technology. Fire-bombings of Coventry and Tokyo replaced stakes. Murder became unfashionable now that people can distance themselves from it and kill with a push of button. Affluent societies can afford sentencing criminals for decades instead of executing him; the efforts to prevent suicide in jails show that imprisonment is often worse than execution. Automatic rifles replaced swords, and soldiers don't need to do the grisly killing at close-up; killing is done from a distance. Mechanized, impersonal murder spells the absence of moral restraints; the twentieth century saw the history's largest massacres – many of them. From video game mentality of virtual murder to the screens of net-centric warfare, people are ready to wipe out those blips on the screens.

And the commandments apply to Ehud Olmert just as they applied to Joshua bin Nun.

"The sword [dedicated] to the Lord is filled with blood…. for [there is] sacrifice to the Lord in Bozrah, and a great slaughter in the land of Edom." Isaiah 34:6

Most rabbis divested from God. Their God is a subordinate who must be content with whatever attention is paid him. He is not expected to have any influence on current affairs, thus not feared. Had the rabbis feared God, they would follow his precepts, not government instructions. Why the rabbis did not call on the Jews to fight the government over the destruction of Gush Katif? Because the rabbis don’t see the commandment to conquer Canaan or establish a Jewish state as binding. They are skeptical about that ancient fellow, Joshua bin Nun who conquered the land. Maybe he received a commandment; they didn’t. Rabbis demand miracles, such as supernatural Messiah because they don’t believe the words of Torah. The commandments do not persuade them; rabbis know how readily the Talmud twists the commandments. De facto, Torah takes for them distant second place after the sages – whom they also reinterpret at will. Had the rabbis believed that the commandments are divine and the words passed to us intact – why demand a Messiah? But they don’t believe that the commandments are miracles – and demand that miracle happen before their eyes. God, however, tend to perform miracles without violating the laws of nature. Every miracle can be explained away. Pundits explain persuasively how the Red Sea parted naturally. Jewish survival in Holocaust is attributed to chance, and Israel's victories against behemoth Arab armies – to tactical superiority.

Meir Kahane conformed to the profile of messiah as close as one can imagine: a genius, charismatic leader, a man of religion and war, suffering, humiliated, condemned to death by Jewish leaders, and murdered by Edomite Arab. Talmudic rabbis called the Romans Edomites, too. If Messiah comes and is recognized, would the Jews follow him? The case is far from theoretical. Scores of Chabadniks consider the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Messiah. In clear violation of the commandment that prohibits images, they put the Rebbe’s photo in homes and offices, and revere him. They gather at his grave to ask for blessings and intercession. But Chabadniks ignore the Rebbe’s major injunction against ceding any part of the Land of Israel. Perhaps they consider the Rebbe a spiritual leader, not worthy consulting in earthly matters? That’s not so. Jews cheered Sharon’s, Netanyahu’s and other politicians’ visits to the Rebbe. Sharon specifically sought the Rebbe's help against Shamir’s plan of elections in Palestine. Chabadniks - presumably ready to die on stakes rather than forfeit their religion – were afraid to fight the renegade government over the Gush Katif destruction.

Chabad leaders vociferously condemned the flock in Kfar Chabad who voted for Baruch Marzel and his program of holding the Jewish land and expelling the Arab enemies. The leaders knew they act contrary to the Rebbe’s teaching and invented a flimsy pretext: Chabadniks shouldn’t vote for Marzel because he won’t pass electoral barrier and their votes will be lost. As if the votes are not lost on Shas and similar quasi-religious outfits committed to cooperation with the government – in return for money and promotion. Chabad leaders could have helped Marzel to pass the electoral barrier instead of campaigning against him.

Judaism is a religion of deeds. There is no gap between earthly and spiritual things. A religion of practical purity is hard, indeed. Religious Jews invented a parallel life. Judaism remains for them a religion of deeds – but of insignificant deeds, rites unrelated to real life. They tear toilet paper in advance of Sabbath and observe absurd rites without slightest basis in the Torah – but expunged God from practical matters. They disregarded the reformer’s warning, “Hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matter of the law: justice and mercy, and faith.” They followed his wrong advice, “Give therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
In Judaism, even the land we live in is God’s; nothing belongs to petty caesars from Israeli government.

Extensive prayers lead Orthodox Jews to place their hopes in God rather than act. They appeal to God hundreds of times a day, thus accepting his direct influence in routine events from defecation to politics. That’s primitive determinism. Sages taught that God made the laws of nature and let the world develop according to those laws. He even tends to work miracles without violating the laws of nature. God endowed humans with hands, legs, brains, and free will so that they could act rather than bug him on every occasion. Rabbi Akiva didn’t wait for messiah but proclaimed one. Maimonides was clear that Messiah would be a human leader who embarks on rebuilding the Temple. Modern Jews sheepishly pray for Messiah while ostracizing every potential messiah from Zhabotinsky to Kahane.

No wonder that their prayers are answered in negative. Rabbi Eliezer had a good reason to remark, "If someone lets prayer become routine, it loses its quality of supplication" (Berachot 28b). Speed-mumbling the same prayers day after day leaves no hope for a personal relation with God. The Torah wisely limited prayers to festivals and specific occasions and doesn't even demand prayers from laity. Judaism is about living through, not praying for.

Ultra-Orthodox leaders consciously withdraw their flock from the world where the leaders cannot compete. Haredim popularize the stories of Jewish observance in the face of death during the Holocaust – not the accounts of Orthodox resistance in the Warsaw ghetto.

Politicians are necessarily corrupt. Their road to the top is laid with promises and compromises. The era of illustrious lone players had gone with Yitzhak Shamir. Politicians conform to the lowest common denominator of their voters, and must be acceptable to political bureaucracy. By the time politicians arrive at the country’s helm, they are apotheosis of evil. Two types of people could change Israel: a mid-level IDF commander who stages a putsch or an authoritative, non-establishment rabbi who calls on religious Jews to fight the leftist collaborationists.

Lena Bosinova's self-immolation in protest against the Israeli government evicting Jews from Gaza is a case of sanctification of God's name. The destruction of Jewish settlements by Israeli government qualifies as idolatry: worship of democracy and submission to foreign sponsors. People die of physical wounds but also of moral wounds, in heart stroke. Some dishonor cannot be lived with: victims of rape sometimes commit suicide and soldiers who failed their missions perform hara-kiri. Suicide missions not only aim at killing enemies, but also at boosting one’s troops morality; Spartans famously died in the hopeless fight with Persians.
In the Book of Maccabees, Hannah urges her seven sons to die horrendous death in the hands of Graeco-Syrians rather than transgressing the commandments. Stand-alone transgression of kosher laws is generally recognized as less important than life; narrowly speaking, Hannah should have transgressed the law. But something more important than individual incident of observance was at stake: the example to the nation. Had Hannah and scores of other Jews like her transgressed under the threats, they would continue transgressing under the same threats day after and years after. Like Marranos, they would soon cease being Jews. Hannah's alternative was not her life vs a particular instance of observance, but her life vs the survival of Jewish people. She gave her life and the lives of her seven sons as an example for the nation. Her goal was preserving national dignity rather than merely observing kashrut in the particular case. Millions of Jews just like Hannah gave up their lives in crusades and pogroms instead of accepting Christianity. Lena Bosinova is a martyr of a similar stance.