Religiöse und geschichtliche Hintergründe des arabisch-israelischen Krieges

Die arabischen Nationen betrachten ihren Kampf gegen Israel als "Heiligen Krieg"(Jihad). Diese ihre Betrachtung hat geschichtlich-religioese Hintergruende:
1) Der Islam hat sich von seinem Anfang an, d.h. seit seinem Begruender Mohammed, als Abschluss und Kroenung aller Religionen verstanden. Heiden waren einfach zum Islam zu bringen, waehrend Juden, Christen und Perser zunaechst als Religionen angesehen wurden, die zwar ein "Buch" hatten (Bibel, Evangelium, Avesta), die aber das rechte Verstaendnis ihrer jeweiligen Buecher durch den Islam zu bekommen haetten. Bis sie eventuell zu diesem neuen Verstaendnis durchdringen wuerden, sind sie als "Dhimmis" zu behandeln, d.h. als Unverstaendige, die, soweit sie in islamischem Gebiet wohnen, an ihre islamischen Herren eine sog. Schutzsteuer zu entrichten hatten und haben.
2) Der Koran, das heilige Buch des Islam, ist in arabisch gegeben. Er kann und darf nur in arabisch gelehrt werden. Uebersetzungen werden offiziell nicht anerkannt. Aus diesem Grund wird von islamischen Laendern oft als von arabischen Laendern gesprochen (Marokko, Aegypten, Iraq usw sind im Grunde genommen keine arabischen Laender; sie haben lediglich durch den Islam viel von arabischer Kultur angenommen).
3) Eines der aus dem Koran abgeleiteten Prinzipien besagt, dass ein Gebiet oder Land, das einmal islamisch regiert wurde, fuer immer islamisch bleiben muss. Sollte es verloren gehen, sei es durch innere Revolution oder durch Krieg von aussen, muss es zum Islam zurueckgebracht werden, notfalls durch einen "Heiligen Krieg" seitens der gesamten islamischen Welt. (Von daher Col. Ghaddafis Nahziel, Sizilien und Spanien wieder unter islamische Herrschaft zu bringen).
Viele, jedoch nicht alle islamischen Gelehrten und Politiker halten die obigen Thesen auch hinsichtlich Volk und Land Israel fuer gueltig.
Das Land Israel, seit der Tempelzerstoerung im Jahr 70 unter roemischer und byzantinischer Herrschaft, war von 638 - l917 islamisches Gebiet, abgesehen von den knapp zwei Jahrhunderten der Kreuzfahrerinvasion. l917 wurde es von den Englaendern erobert, also von einer nicht-islamischen Macht. England hatte allerdings im Verlauf des I.Weltkrieges den unter islamisch-tuerkischer Herrschaft lebenden Voelkern die Unabhaengigkeit versprochen, falls sie auf englischer Seite gegen die Mittelmaechte (Deutschland, Oesterreich, Tuerkei) kaempfen. Gleichzeitig versprach es in der sogenannten Balfour-Erklaerung aber auch den Juden, nach gewonnenem Krieg bei der Errichtung einer juedisch- nationalen Heimstaette in Palaestina behilflich zu sein. (Von daher das gefluegelte Wort, dass Israel nicht nur das verheissene, sondern das zuviel verheissene Land sei). Nach dem I.Weltkrieg erteilte der neugegruendete Voelkerbund England das Mandat, Palaestina zu verwalten und die gegebenen Versprechen einzuloesen.
Dies alles fuehrte auf arabischer Seite dazu, von England nicht nur die Einloesung der den arabischen Voelkern gegebenen Versprechungen zu verlangen, sondern die Neu-Einwanderung von Juden nach Moeglichkeit zu verhindern (die bereits ansaessigen Juden sollten bleiben koennen, jedoch lediglich als Dhimmis).
Der Hauptagitator in dieser Hinsicht war Amin Husseini. Er argumentierte, dass juedische Einwanderung nur dazu fuehren wuerde, dass Juden die Mehrheit im Lande bilden und sie dann den Tempelberg wieder haben wollen. Dies muesse aber mit allen Mitteln verhindert werden; denn der Tempelberg (eigentlich der Berg Moriah lt. Gen.22:2, 2.Chron.3:1) ist ja seit der arabischen Invasion im 7.Jahrhundert zum drittheiligsten Platz des Islam gemacht worden (nach Mekka und Medina), auf dem nicht die Opferung Isaaks, sondern Ismaels stattgefunden haben und von dem der Prophet Mohammed in den Himmel aufgefahren sein soll.
Von solchen Motiven geleitet, organisierte Amin Husseini schon 1920 und 1921 Pogrome gegen bereits bestehende juedische Siedlungen (neben Jerusalem und Safed, die bereits seit vielen Jahrhunderten wieder juedische Bevoelkerung hatten, waren seit den 60er Jahren des vorigen Jahrhunderts eine ganze Anzahl neuer juedischer Siedlungen entstanden). Husseini wurde von den Englaendern inhaftiert, jedoch kurz darauf freigelassen und zum Mufti von Jerusalem gemacht. Damit torpedierte England wirkungsvoll das „Feisal=Weitzman Abkommen“ von 1919 in welchem Koenig Feisal (von Iraq) und Weitzman als Haupt der Zionistischen Bewegung uebereinkamen, letztere zum Wohl beider Voelker (Juden und Araber) zu foerdern. Die muslemischen Voelker, die sich von der Vormacht der Westmaechte befreien wollten (zu welchen sie auch die Juden zaehlten), liessen sich in zunehmendem Masse von Amin el-Husseini’s Hasstiraden und Kampfparolen gegen Juden beeinflussen.
Letzterer nannte sich sogleich Großmufti von Palaestina. Dieses einflussreiche Amt nuetzte er auf jede Weise, gegen juedische Einwanderung zu agieren. England, ohnehin nicht uebertrieben judenfreundlich, war vor allem darauf bedacht, die auf dem Seeweg nach Indien liegenden arabischen Laender nicht zu veraergern (Haifa war einer seiner Haupthaefen), und begraenzte die juedische Einwanderer- quote betraechtlich.
Anders gesinnte arabische Persoenlichkeiten, wie vor allem Koenig Feisal vom Iraq und Sheikh Abdallah von Transjordanien, die bereit waren Juden im Land - von den Englaendern Palaestina genannt – zu akeptieren, konnten sich leider nicht durchsetzen.
Mit der Begrenzung der Einwanderungsquote nicht zufrieden, inszenierte Mufti Husseini die grossen Pogrome von 1929, die in Dutzenden von juedischen Toten, der Vernichtung der juedischen Gemeinde in Hebron, und der Zerstoerung und Brandschatzung vieler juedischer Haeuser und Plantagen resultierten.
Inzwischen war die juedische Bevoelkerung langsam aber stetig gewachsen. In mindestens dem gleichen, wenn nicht in groesserem Masse wuchs aber auch die arabische Bevoelkerung; denn Englaender und Juden brachten in dieses darnieder- liegende Gebiet Arbeit und Brot, was viele Araber aus benachbarten Laendern veranlasste, ungehindert von den Englaendern einzuwandern.
Die neachste grosse Wende begann mit 1933: Die Nazi-Machtergreifung veranlasste viele Juden, aus Deutschland und auch aus anderen europaeischen Laendern auszuwandern. Da kaum ein Land der Welt bereit war, diese Fluechtlinge aufzunehmen, versuchten sie nach “Palaestina” zu gelangen, legal mit englischer Einwanderungsbewilligung im Rahmen der sehr begrenzten Quote, oder notfalls "illegal".
Dies war die Gelegenheit fuer Mufti Husseini, erneut grosse Unruhen anzuzetteln. Vor allem organisierte er den arabischen Generalstreik von 1936/38, durch den die Haefen und sonstige Verkehrsmittel blockiert wurden, um juedische Einwanderung zu verhindern. Gleichzeitig machten seine Banden regelrechten Kleinkrieg gegen bestehende juedische Siedlungen, aber auch gegen solche Araber, die er der Kollaboration mit Juden beschuldigte. Ueber 700 Tote auf juedischer Seite und an die 3000 (!) Tote auf arabischer Seite gingen allein in diesen beiden Jahren auf das Konto seiner Banden. Auf juedischer Seite fuehrte dies zur Bildung militanter Selbstverteidigungsgruppen, auf arabischer Seite zu einer zunehmenden Befuerchtung, sich irgendwie judenfreundlich zu zeigen.
Fuer England waren die arabischen Unruhen doppelt unangenehm: als Mandats- macht war es fuer Ruhe und Sicherheit des Landes verantwortlich; und angesichts des drohenden Kriegsausbruches in Europa befuerchtete es, dass eine arabische Unzufriedenheit, unterstuetzt von Deutschland, zu einer Bedrohung seines Seeweges nach Indien fuehren koennte. So berief es fuer Maerz 1939 eine arabisch-juedische Friedenskonferenz nach London ein. Sie wurde als "Round Table Conference" angekuendigt, um darzutun, dass keine der Parteien einen Vorsitz haben sollte. Die arabische Delegation jedoch weigerte sich strickt, mit Juden an einem Tisch zu sitzen.
Sie verlangte die Unterbindung jeder juedischen Einwanderung nach Palaestina und die Unterstellung des Landes unter arabische Herrschaft. Die Konferenz wurde schliesslich ergebnislos abgebrochen, zufaellig an dem Tag (15.3.39), an dem die deutschen Truppen die Restgebiete der zerstuemmelten Tschecho-Slowakei besetzten.
Der von den Englaendern aus dem Amt gejagte Mufti Amin Husseini war inzwischen in den Libanon gefluechtet, von wo er bei Ausbruch des II.Weltkrieges in den Iraq ging. Dort gelang es ihm, 1940 die grosse pro-Nazi und Anti-England Revolte anzuzetteln. Diese konnte von den Englaendern mit Muehe und Not niedergeschlagen werden. Husseini aber entkam nach Deutschland, wo er sich persoenlich mit den Nazi-Groessen befreundete. Aus der moslemischen Bevoelkerung der von Deutschland besetzten Laendern (Bosnien, Suedrussland usw) rekrutierte er zwei Waffen-SS-Divisionen in dem "gemeinsamen Kampf gegen die Juden als Weltfeind Nr. 1" und begann von 1943 an von Radio Berlin aus den "Jihad", den heiligen Krieg der Moslem gegen die Juden zu verkuenden. "Toetet die Juden, wo immer ihr sie findet, dies ist ein wohlgefaelliges Werk vor Allah", war einer seiner Hassparolen - und dies mehrere Jahre vor der Gruendung des Staates Israel!
1945 wurde er von den Franzosen im Schwarzwald gefangen genommen, aber kurz darauf freigelassen. Er ging nach Kairo, wo er schon 1946 die Arabische Liga zu einem Kampfinstrument gegen Juden und juedische Einwanderung nach Palaestina machte. Die Ueberlebenden aus dem Holocaust, die aus Europa flohen und im Land der Vaeter ihr neues Dasein finden wollten, wurden somit buchstaeblich, wie der Prophet Hezekiel es ausdrueckte, "in das Schwert getrieben zu der Zeit, da es ihnen uebel erging" (35:5).
Die zunehmende Feindschaft in den arabischen Laendern, gepaart mit der Hoffnung, dem "Dhimmi"-Dasein entrinnen und im Land der Vaeter ein normales Leben fuehren zu koennen, fuehrte aber auch zu grossen Auswanderungen von Juden aus den arabischen Laendern. Nach verlaesslichen Schaetzungen gab es Ende der 40er/Anfang der 50er Jahre mehr juedische Fluechtlinge aus den arabischen Laendern, die nach Israel kamen, als es in dem Buerger- und Unabhaengigkeits- kriegen 1947/48 arabische Fluechtlinge aus Palaestina gab. Zahlenmaessig bilden diese juedischen Fluechtlinge aus den arabischen Laendern die Mehrheit in Israel.
All dies fuehrte 1947/48 zu einem Buergerkrieg, dessen Ausmass die Englaender veranlasste, ihr “Mandat” aufzugeben und ihre Truppen aus dem Land abzuziehen.
Bekanntlich ist Israel in diesen Kriegen am 15.5.48 als selbstaendiger Staat entstanden - mit juedischer Unabhaengigkeit erstmals seit ca 1900 Jahren.
Es sei in diesem Zusammenhang daran erinnert, dass bis zu dieser Staatsgruendung alle Laendereien, die in juedischem Besitz waren - Staedte, Doerfer, Aecker, neugepflanzte Waelder usw - durch regelrechte Kaufvertraege gemaess den gueltigen Gesetzen erworben wurden. Auch nicht ein Quadratzentimeter Land war erobert, besetzt, enteignet oder widerrechtlich in Besitz genommen worden.
Dennoch gab es am 16.5.48 als "Geburtstagsgeschenk" den Angriff von Armeetruppen aus Aegypten, Saudi-Arabien, Transjordanien, Kuweit, Iraq, Syrien, Libanon, mit dem Einfall der Armeen dieser Laender. Waehrend alle anderen zurueckgetrieben werden konnten, gelang es den von den Englaendern ausgebildeten und gefuehrten Transjordaniern, die sogenannte Westbank und Ost-Jerusalem zu erobern. Sie vereinten diese Gebiete, die laut UNO-Beschluss vom 29.11.47 eigentlich ein selbstaendiges Palaestina neben Israel haetten werden sollen, mit sich und fuehrten von da ab den Namen "Koenigreich von Jordanien". Ausser von England und Pakistan wurde diese Annexion von keinem Land der Welt anerkannt (die Anerkennung durch Pakistan ist allerdings fragwuerdig). Im Sechs-Tage-Krieg verlor Jordanien dann diese Gebiete.
Der Krieg aber ging weiter. Die arabischen Staaten lehnten eine Anerkennung Israels und Verhandlungen mit dem neuen Staat rundweg ab. Vor allem verweigerten sie die von Israel 1949 vorgeschlagene Loesung des Fluechtlingsproblems. Waehrend Israel die juedischen Fluechtlinge aus Europa und aus den arabischen Laendern, die ja auch ohne jedes Vermoegen kamen, aufnahm und eingliederte, pferchten die arabischen Regierungen die palaestinensischen Fluechtlinge in Elendslagern zusammen, unterbanden jede Eingliederung in die arabische Volksgemeinschaft, und machten die UNO fuer die Versorgung dieser Fluechtlinge verantwortlich, mit der Begruendung, dass das Problem des europaeischen Anti-Semitismus nicht auf Kosten der arabischen Welt geloest werden koenne. So bildeten sich in diesen Elendslagern mit Unterstuetzung der arabischen Regierungen sehr schnell Freischaerlergruppen.
Als deren Hauptfuehrer entwickelte sich Rauf el-Kodbi el-Husseini, besser bekannt als Jassir Arafat, ein Verwandter und Schueler von Amin el-Husseini. Den Namen Arafat legte er sich Mitte der 50er Jahre selbst zu. Arafat ist der Name eines Huegels bei Mekka, dessen Ersteigung den kroenenden Abschluss der Pilger- fahrt jedes Moslem bildet (s. Koran Sura "Die Kuh", 194). Der in Tunis ums Leben gekommene "Kriegsminister" Arafats trug den Namen Abu Jihad, d.h. Vater des Heiligen Krieges. In diesen beiden Namen offenbart sich den arabisch Sprechenden das ganze Kriegsziel: Heiliger Krieg gegen Israel als kroenender Abschluss der moslemischen Religion.
Arafat auf sich allein gestellt waere nichts, oder allenfalls ein oeder Huegel in der Wueste. Erst mit Mekka hinter sich gewinnt er Bedeutung. Das heisst, durch die finanzielle, politische usw Unterstuetzung seitens der islamischen Welt, vornehmlich von Saudi-Arabien, bekommt Arafat seine Stellung und Macht. Er ist in den Haenden der arabischen Regierungen wie ein Bauer auf dem Schachbrett der internationalen Politik, den sie vorschieben koennen, ohne sich selbst als kriegstreiberisch zu entbloessen, der ihnen bei aller sonstigen Uneinigkeit aber auch dazu dient, in ihrer Jihadpsychose zusammenzuhalten.
Es ist nicht ohne bittere Ironie, dass Arafats Gruppen unter dem Namen PLO = Palestine Liberation Organisation (Palaestinensische Befreiungsorganisation) laufen. Das Wort Palaestina ist die ueber das Lateinische in die westlichen Sprachen gekommene Bezeichnung fuer das Land der Philister, also der von der Bibel oft erwaehnten Hauptfeinde Israels. Das Land, das in der Zeit des Zweiten Tempels Land Israel hiess (vgl. Matth. 2:20), wurde von den Roemern, um diesen Namen auszumerzen, in Palaestina umbenannt. Der Voelkerbund und die Englaender griffen diesen Namen wieder auf, und so hiess das Land von 1921 - 1948 das britische Mandatsgebiet von Palaestina. Wie gesagt, Arafat und seine Leute, die sich urspruenglich "El-Fatah" nannten (nach dem Namen der Eroeffnungs-Sura des Koran) haben 1964 den Namen "PLO" angenommen. Er passt ihnen wie massgeschneidert.
In zunehmendem Masse operierten solche Fatah- bzw PLO-Gruppen von Aegypten und Jordanien aus und drangen nach Israel ein, um hier ihre Ueberfaelle zu verueben. Dies, zusammen mit einer ersten aegyptischen Blokade des Seeweges nach Eilat, fuehrte 1956 zum Sinai-Feldzug, mit anschliessender UNO-Kontrolle dieses Gebietes. Im Mai 1967 wies Aegypten die UNO-Truppen aus dem Sinai aus, liess seine Armee darin aufmarschieren und blockierte erneut den Seeweg nach Eilat (ueber den Israel damals das lebenswichtige Erdoel einfuehrte). Dies, zusammen mit laufenden syrischen Ueberfaellen auf israelische Siedlungen im Norden des Landes, fuehrte zum "Sechstage-Krieg", in den auf Draengen Aegyptens auch die Jordanier eingriffen. Zehn Tage nach Abschluss dieses Krieges bot Israel die Rueckgabe des Sinai an Aegypten und der Golan-Hoehen an Syrien sowie die Loesung des Fluechtlingsproblems an als Gegenleistung fuer Entmilitarisierung dieser Gebiete und Friedensabschluessen. Die offizielle Antwort erhielt Israel auf der sogenannten Khartum-Konferenz mit ihrem beruehmten "Dreifachen Nein”: Keine Verhandlungen mit Israel, keine Anerkennung Israels und kein Friede mit Israel".
Statt dessen wurden die Grundzuege des arabischen Jihad gegen Israel, in dem Arafat als Symbolfigur fungiert, auf der "Vierten Konferenz der Islamischen Forschungsakademie" festgelegt. Diese Konferenz wurde nach dem Sechs-Tage-Krieg von dem damaligen aegypischen Staatspraesident Nassr einberufen. Sie fand im September 1968 in der Al Azhar Universitaet in Kairo statt, unter Teilnahme von hohen geistlichen Wuerdentraegern aus 24 islamischen Laendern. Die Protokolle dieser Konferenz wurden 1970 vom Government Printing Office, Cairo, in arabisch und englisch offiziell herausgegeben1). Die Hasstiraden, die einem daraus entgegenschlagen, sind erschutternd (sie uebertrumpfen in manchem noch den "Stuermer" Nazi-Deutschlands). Verschiedene Konferenzteilnehmer, u.a.Shaikh M. Abu Zahra, Mitglied der Kairoer Akademie, forderten auf, durch unaufhoerliche Attaken das Land fuer seine juedischen Bewohner zu einer Hoelle zu machen statt zu dem erhofften Land von Milch und Honig. Schlimmer aber noch sind die von Shaikh Abdullah Goshash, dem Oberrichter des Koenigreichs Jordanien, vorgetragenen Lehren, wonach Moslem die mit dem Feind (Israel) geschlossenen Vertraege brechen duerfen; dass Luegen an sich verboten, jedoch dann erlaubt sind, wenn sie dem Vorteil der Moslem dienen; und dass Allah die Moslem liebt, wenn sie im Kriegsfall arrogant sind. Sheikh Nadim Al-Jisr (Libanon) meinte, dass der anti-Semistismus der Christenheit die westlichen Voelker letztlich mehr an die Seite der Araber als an die Seite Israels bringen wuerde ר).
Damit wird jedem, der hoeren will, gleich von vorneherein gesagt, dass sich die moslemischen Staaten vorbehalten, im Rahmen des Jihad mit dem Feind (Israel) geschlossene Vertraege zu brechen, je nachdem wie es vorteilhaft erscheint (also auch eventuelle Vertraege im Rahmen einer "internationalen Konferenz"!).
Hat das Camp-David-Abkommen, der Friedensvertrag zwischen Aegypten und Israel, den Jihad beendigt? Nein. Nicht nur, dass bedeutsame Vertreter des Islam ihn weiterhin propagieren und damit zu Hass und Kampf gegen Israel aufstacheln - man denke in diesem Zusammenhang nur an die Moslemische Bruderschaft, Hizbullah,Hamas, neben Arafat und Abu Jihad - koennte auch in Aegypten eine fundamentalistisch-fanatisch gesinnte Regierung bei opportuner Gelegenheit dieses rein politische Abkommen fuer null und nichtig erklaeren und Israel wieder offen angreifen. Diese Gefahr ist umso weniger von der Hand zu weisen, als sich in Aegypten eine zunehmmende anti-juedische Propaganda breit macht, die soweit geht, Israel als Verkoerperung des kosmischen Uebels zu bezeichnen! Abgesehen davon verweigert die aegyptische Regierung die Erfuellung weitgehender Teile des Camp-David-Vertrages.
Man muss sich in diesem Zusammenhang auch vergegenwaertigen, dass Laender wie Iraq und Saudi-Arabien seit ihrer kriegserischen Handlung gegen den neugeborenen Staat Israel am 16.5.48 sich weiterhin im Kriegszustand mit Israel befinden, sondern es noch nicht einmal ein Waffenstillstandsabkommen mit ihnen gibt (wie z.B. mit Jordanien und Syrien), und dass die saudischen Kadetten bei ihrer Vereidigung zum Offizier sich verpflichten, ihr Leben fuer die Rueckeroberung Jerusalems an den Islam einzusetzen.
Damit erscheint auch das Leid der palaestinensichen Araber in einem anderen Licht: sie befinden sich wie zwischen Hammer und Amboss, zwischen dem mit aller Tuecke und Grausamkeit gefuehrten Jihad einerseits und dem Existenzwillen des juedischen Volkes im Land der Vaeter andererseits. Solange sie oder ein Grossteil von ihnen mit Arafat oder Sadam Hussein sympathisieren, muss Israel sie als eine enorme Fuenfte Kolonne oder als ein Trojanisches Pferd beargwoehnen.
Gibt es eine Loesung dieses unter religioesen Vorzeichen gefuehrten Krieges?
Zunaechst, von den realen Gegebenheiten her gesehen ist er mindestens ebenso sinnlos wie es der iraqisch-persische Krieg war. Das Land koennte ohne weiteres eine doppelt oder dreifach so grosse Bevoelkerung tragen wie die gegenwaertige. Voraussetzung dafuer waere allerdings, dass man die Unsummen, die der Krieg verschlingt, in den Landesaufbau steckt, vor allem in Erziehung und in Bewaesserungsanlagen (einschliesslich Meerwasserentsalzung, die zwar teuer ist, aber dnnoch viel billiger als Kriege). Das Land samt den angrenzenden Laendern koennte fuer alle ein Paradies werden - wie z.B. Jes.ll:1-9, 10:23-25 es vorhersieht.
Der Schluessel hierzu liegt allerdings nicht in politischen Kompromiss- Formeln, sondern, so paradox dies momentan klingen mag, im Koran beziehungsweise in dessen urspruenglichem Verstaendnis. Die Moslim muessen dazu weder zu Juden noch zu Christen noch zu Atheisten gemacht werden; denn auch Ismael, der Ahnherr der Araber, hat die Verheissung, ein grosses Volk zu werden mit 12 Fuersten (Gen. 17:20; 21:13; 25:16). Die Frage ist also nur die der rechten Beziehungen zwischen Ismael und Israel – und dies kann aus dem Koran abgeleitet werden.
Der Koran enthaelt allerdings viele Verse, in denen das Volk Israel wegen verschiedener Suenden scharf geruegt wird. Solche Verse koennen und werden tatsaechlich dazu missbraucht, zum Hass und Fanatismus gegen Israel aufzustacheln (aehnlich wie selbstgerechte, hasserfuellte Menschen auch gewisse Verse aus den Propheten oder den Evangelien herauspicken und zum Dolch gegen Juden machen). Aber daneben enthaelt der Koran auch viele positive Aussagen ueber Israel, und vor allem stellt er nirgends Israels besondere Berufung, Verheissung und Verbindung zum Land in Abrede. Im Gegenteil. Zu wiederholten Malen wird betont, dass die Bibel ("Das Buch") als von Allah gegeben weiterhin verbindlich bleibt, auch fuer die Moslem (z.B. in Sura "Die Kuh", 172; "Der Tisch" 48, 52; "Jonah" 38; "Der Glaeubige" 56; u.a.). Auf die besondere Verbindung Israels zum Land wird hingewiesen in "Der Tisch" 24; "Jonah" 93; und auf Israels Rueckkehr in das Land in "Die Nachtreise" 8, 103. Koenig David - der Begruender Zions! - wird ganz besonders hervorgehoben und unter anderem als Khaliph (goettlicher Stellvertreter) und Gerichtsherr bezeichnet, dem Allah die Psalmen gegeben hat ("SAD" 16, 19, 25, 28). Den Moslem wird nahegelegt, mit Mose und den Vertretern Israels nur freundlich zu reden ("Sandduenen" 8,9; "Die Verbuendeten" 69; "Die Spinne" 45)2).
Der Koran laesst also gerade das Gegenteil von dem erkennen, was momentan in vielen Kreisen des Islam gelehrt und praktiziert wird. Man kann diese Situation vergleichen mit der, in der sich das Christentum bis vor wenigen Jahren befand. Die Ablehnung des Judentums und seines Buches, der hebraeischen Bibel (sog. AT), fuehrte den Islam zu seinem gegenwaertigen "Anti-Zionismus" und Israel-Hass, waehrend dies im Christentum zu Anti-Semitismus und handfester Judenfeindschaft gefuehrt hat. Angestossen durch Auschwitz und die Gruendung des Staates Israel im gleichen Jahrzehnt, hat im Christentum bereits ein Umdenken und eine Neubesinnung begonnen. Ein aehnlicher Prozess muss auch im Islam kommen. Die moslemische Welt wird dann erkennen und sprechen: "Unser HErr, siehe wir gehorchten unseren Herren und Grossen, und sie fuehrten uns einen Irrweg..." ("Die Verbuendeten" 67). Ja, "Es mag sehr wohl sein, dass Allah zwischen euch und denen, mit denen ihr in Feindschaft seid, Liebe setzt. Denn Allah ist maechtig und Allah ist verzeihend und barmherzig" ("Die Gepruefte" 7).
Ohne eine solche auf dem Koran fussende Gesinnungswandlung bleiben alle politischen, wirtschaftlichen oder sonstigen Loesungsversuche nur ein Stueckwerk, das die Lage eher verschlimmert als verbessert. Jedes Nachgeben wuerde den Jihad-Fanatikern und ihren Anhaengern nur neuen Auftrieb geben, der schliesslich nicht mehr zu bremsen waere. Ein Sieg dieser Fanatiker waere ein Unglueck nicht nur fuer das juedische Volk, sondern fuer die Welt insgesamt. Von daher die Notwendigkeit von Israels Sicherheit und Staerke. Ziel wahrer Friedensstiftung muss also die Herbeifuehrung dieses Gesinnungswandels sein. Nur ein solcher kann den Weg zur Loesung all der aus der Feindschaft entstandenen Probleme (Gebiete, Fluechtlinge, usw) ebnen. Wir koennen nur hoffen und beten: "Moege dies bald geschehen, in unseren Tagen".
Jerusalem, Maerz 1992 Dr. Asher Eder

==========
Anmerkungen:

1) Siehe “ARAB THEOLOGIANS ON JEWS AND ISRAEL”, Proceedings of the FOURTH CONFERENCE OF THE ACADEMY OF ISLAMIC RESEARCH, September 1968, Cairo.
Ein Auszug hieraus – photokopierte Seiten – wurde 1976 von D.F.Green herausgegeben, bei “Editions de l’Avenir”, Geneve/Suisse.

2) Ausfuehrliches dazu in meinem Essay “Peace is possible between Ishmael and Israel according to Koran and Tanakh”, mit einem unterstuetzenden Vorwort von Prof. Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi, dem moslemischen Mit-Vorsitzenden unserer “Islam-Israel Fellowship”. Zugaenglich ueber www\\rb.org.il

From Anti-Semitism to Anti-Zionism

The question of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism seems to be very timely, this the more so as there is much confusion about it, in general and due to the claim of the Arabs that they cannot be blamed for anti-Semitism as they themselves are Semites.
Well, the term Anti-Semitism is relatively new, dating back to the middle of the 19th century. When scientists discovered different language groups and related cultures - e.g. the Indo-Germanic one with its sub-groups - they also found out a common origin of "Semitic" languages, as e.g. Assurian; Canaanite; Arabic; and Hebrew. Consequently they spoke of the Jewish people as a Semitic race – a term which is incorrect from the biological point of view, and is as absurd as if someone would speak of a "Catholic race," or a "Moslem race."
The people of Israel developed from Jewish as well as from non-Jewish mothers (e.g. Joseph had his two sons Ephraim and Menashe from an Egyptian mother; Judah begot children from a Canaanite lady. Similar Jacob’s other sons who may have married daughters of “souls made by Abraham and Sarah” (converts, in modern language). Then, there is the “’erev rav” = mixed multitude which left Egypt together with Israel. Moreover, Israel absorbed many proselytes throughout history – including Ruth the Moabite lady; or the numerous peoples mentioned in Est. 8:17. All of them joined Jacob/Israel’s family but that does not forge them into a race from the biological point of view. A visitor in Israel will not detect common racial characteristics of its people: Israel is the people of the Divine Covenant, based upon the “twelve tribes” which derived from Jacob.
The term "Semitic" traces back to one of Noah's three sons, called Shem, from whom the "Semites" came forth. The Hebrew word "shem" (pronounced Sem, in English), means "name," and is often referred to as the "Name of the Lord," or "Name of Names". Christians know that from the Lord’s Prayer “Hallowed be thy name (=shem)”; and Arabs know it from the common blessing “Bism’Allah”.
From Noah's son Shem derive indeed also the Arab tribes, as well as Assur, while the Canaanites according to the genealogy of the Bible (Gen. chap. 10) derive from Ham, another son of Noah. The Torah (Pentateuach) restricts then the term Shem to the people of Israel: the Cohanim (priests), when pronouncing the Divine blessing upon the people of Israel, do instantly "put the Name (shem) of the Lord upon them" (Numb.6:24-27).
Eventually, "all peoples will know that you (=Israel) are called by my Name = S(h)em" (Deut. 28:10), and will become known as the "People of the [Divine] Name”: Semites. That is, the term "Semites," coined as a racial designation in the middle of the 19th Century, happens yet to hit the mark - except that Arabs may be Semitic by biological origin but not by Divine call, i.e. the Divine Covenant. Consequently, anti-Semites are against that Divine call of Israel, but they are not against other peoples of the Semitic language group. (Nazism made an exception by degrading everyone who was not "Arian," according to their fashion).
The Book of Genesis (chap. 10 & 11) shows Nimrod as the prototype of anti-Semitism: His name, literally translated, means "Let us revolt"; and in building Babel, he devised "Let us make a name [=shem] unto ourselves, and build a tower with its top in the heavens." His revolt was directed against Noah's son, S(h)em and his descendant, ‘Ever, the Father of the Hebrews, ordained by Noah as the priestly tribe for the mankind after the Flood. He decreed: “Blessed be the God of Shem” (Gen. 9:26). Opposing that dictum, Nimrod aspired to establish Bab-El (liter. a direct Gate to God), without the God of Shem, and without Semites and Hebrews; and take the Name of God, S(h)em, upon themselves, in disregard of God's revelations and instructions which were given for the welfare of all mankind.
Interestingly enough, the Book of Genesis in its record of the coming into existence of the 70 nations after the Flood, does not mention Nimrod neither as father nor as founder of one of them. This may indicate that his enterprise is not confined to one people or nation. In comparison, Egypt is Egypt, Assur is Assur, Greece is Greece, Canaan is Canaan, etc. While each of them may exert a certain cultural influence on other peoples or nations, it remains always itself. This is apparently not the case with Nimrod: he seems to be an archetypal figure whose traits can be adopted by any nation, people, or culture.
Were, then, Pharaoh; Assurbanipal; or Nebukadnezzar anti-Semites? In case they were merely conquerors and slaveholders for the sake of conquests and slaves’ work, we can hardly count them as anti-Semites (except we would call anything anti-Divine as anti-S(h)em = anti- Semitic, but doing so we would deprive that term of its specific meaning). In case they were motivated also by hostility against the Divine principles Israel stands for, they would certainly have to be counted as anti-Semites. In comparison, figures like Haman or Antiochus Epiphanes were definitely anti-Semites. From that point of view, the majority of the Christian Churches are plainly anti-Semitic, at least by their self-styled theologies of superseding the “Israel of the flesh”; and in underpinning that claim by spuriously accusing us as Christ-killers. That kind of “theology” translated often into blatant Jew-hatred – as e.g. Crusaders, Inquisition, pogroms, theatre games; and culminated in the gas chambers (the nazi leader wrote in his book “Mein Kampf” that there is no need to invent anti-Semitism as it is ready-made at hand). - On the other hand, Jews who joined the ranks of the Church(es) were highly welcomed, and can even be nominated Cardinals.
Likewise, modern Islam with its frantic hatred of Israel (in which they depict her as the “embodiment of the cosmic evil”) is plainly anti-Semitic. The call of the Mufti Amin el-Husseini (in 1943 from Radio Berlin!) to “Kill the Jews wherever you find them – this is pleasing to Allah,” is widely followed by killing Israelis and Jews all over the world, by blowing up synagogues, buses, etc; and by vilifying the Jewish people as an embodiment of the “Cosmic Evil” of which the earth has to be purged..
All this, in plain contradiction not only to the so-called "Old Testament" but to the so-called New Testament, and in the case of Islam, to the Koran as well. Here, we should bear in mind that the Greek word "anti" means basically "instead of" (cf. The Concise Oxford Dictionary. It gives as an example the medieval episode of the anti-Pope who was not against Papacy but rivaled the ordained Pope).
The Church rivals Israel by claiming that she is the "New Israel of the Spirit" superseding the "old Israel of the flesh”, as said. This claim of hers found its legal expressions in the "Codex Justinianus," with the Inquisition, the Crusades, the various pogroms, and now the "even-handedness" in the Arab/Israel Conflict as subsequent aftermath. While “Nostra Aetate” of the Catholic Church, and similar declarations by some Protestant Churches, can be seen as a remarkable change, their theological views of salvation remain unchanged.
Seen from that ankle, the Arab/Muslim hostility against independent Israel is candid anti-Semitism not less than that of the medieval Church. While Islam’s expectation to convert eventually all Jews to its established religion could be rated as anti-Semitic as it would void Israel’s specific call, the present hostility is even more fierce and more gruesome than that of the medieval Church. Heeding the battle cry shouted by Mufti Amin el-Husseini (mentioned above), the "The Fourth Conference of the Academy of Islamic Research" (September 1968 at Cairo's Al Azhar University) had Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahra, a member of the Academy, charging: "Jihad is not confined to the summing of troops… there should arise a group of people reinforced with faith, well equipped with means and methods. And then, let them out to the usurpers [=Israel], harassing them with incessant attacks until the land they had seized turns to be for them an abode of everlasting torments, instead of being the country they had intended to be flowing with milk and honey." In the final "Resolutions and Recommendations issued at the end of the first session," the Conference urges (p.924): "Against them [=Israel] make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of God and your enemies, and others besides them ye may not know, but whom God does know." (Quotations from pp 103 and 924 of the Proceedings of that Fourth Conference, published and distributed by the "General Organization for Government Printing Offices", 1970, Cairo). The various "Jihad"-groups –- Islamic Jihad, Hamas, el-Qaida, etc. -– are merely putting those calls into practice.
Is the UNO anti-Semitic? On the 29th of November, 1947, its majority voted for the establishment of the State of Israel, alongside an Arab/Palestinian state. Then, in 1975, it passed its ill-famed resolution equating Zionism with racism (rescinded several years later), followed by numerous one-sided anti-Israel resolutions. As the Arab and Moslem countries muster the biggest bloc of nations, and as numerous other nations depend on Arab oil, a majority voting against Israel is assured from the start. Longstanding anti-Semitism of some Christian countries as well as of former communist/atheistic countries may well play its role, too. Indeed, how can the coming into existence of the State of Israel be explained without referring to the vilified "Old Testament"? The problem is aggravated by the fact that the existence of the People of Israel is dealt with in schools at best within the frame of anti-Semitic religions, never as a subject of history. In Christian education, the existence of "ancient Israel" ends with the last book of the Bible (Prophet Malachi, in most translations), and Islam prides itself to be a-historic. Consequently, Arab propaganda depicting the Jewish return to the ancient homeland as an invasion similar to that of nazi-Germany into Russia, falls upon hearts ready to absorb that ruse...
Here, we should have a look also at Communism / Bolshevism which pretended to improve the world situation under the motto “Proletarians unite”. Yet, by its very proclamation of “Materialistic Atheism” it was plainly anti-Semitic and consequently also anti-Zionist (and likewise anti-Christian and anti-Muslim), but it did not preach nor practice hatred against Jewish, Christian, or Muslim citizens – quite in contrast to nazi-Germany which preached and practiced anti-Semitism and Jew-hatred to the extreme, with the Holocaust surpassing all other anti-Semitic / anti-Jewish hostilities.
Summing up, we should discern here between “pagan anti-Semitism” and “theological anti-Semitism”: Both of them are simply different branches sprouting from the same tree, namely, the unwillingness to incorporate Israel’s call and existence into their respective world views. Well known representatives of the former are
*Antiochus Epiphanes (mentioned above);
*Imperial Rome – which could tolerate Jews in the Diaspora but not Israel living independently in Judea and Jerusalem;
*Nazism which thrived on Christian anti-Semitism but reduced it to “scientific” racism;
*communism/bolshevism which pursued atheistic materialism.
“Theological” anti-Semitism is represented by those Churches which claim superseding Israel; and by conventional Islam in-as-much as it aspires –similar to the former- converting all Jews to its prevalent creed. Newfangled Jihad [Hamas; etc] thrives on it, is in fact an obsessive expression thereof.
The “new” anti-Semitism of Europe we see now thriving, is in fact a blend of its longstanding anti-Semitic “Christian” brand and of a neo-pagan liberalism not much different from that of Antiochus Epiphanes, or of the Roman Empire. There, Jewish individuals and small communities may be tolerated, even officially be protected against violent outbursts – but when it comes to the quests of Jerusalem and of Israel in her ancient homeland, the latter gets pressed to give way to the pagan ideas and ideals of peace.
So, what about Jewish anti-Zionists? Doesn’t their stance vindicate the before-mentioned anti-Zionism of which brand whatsoever? While that may seem so at first glance, in its core it does not. Ultra-orthodox Jewish anti-Zionists expect the restoration of Zion, however to be brought about by the appearance of the Messiah, not by the hands of ordinary men. However, the latter base upon Prophet Ezekiel’s famous vision of the revival of the “dry dead bones” [i.e. Israel in the Diaspora]: only after their return to the ancient homeland of Israel will they be renewed also in the Spirit Divine (cf. Ezek. chpt, 36;37): the (re)building of the physical body is a pre-condition for the latter.
Summing up, we can conclude that all the different brands of anti-Semitism come under Nimrod’s motto to make a name unto one’s self – consequently however each of his followers with his own “tower with its top in heavens” and the aspiration to get all peoples along therewith; or else try to subdue rivals – attempts which necessarily lead to confusion; vying; violence, and eventual collapse.
Anti-Semitism often entails Jew-hatred, as is now especially the case with the Jihad fanatics. In contrast, the Catholic Church, after Vatican II, remains anti-Semitic (in the above sense of that term) but has dropped Jew-hatred, even condemns “racial Antisemitism” (what about “theological” anti-Semitism?], and claims sympathy for the Jews as their “elder brother” (Esau?), hoping, of course, that the latter would find the way into her bosom.
On the other side of the spectrum, there might be Jew-haters who are not anti-Semitic. Maybe they hate Jews because of indoctrination, or because of a bad experience with a Jew, or simply because Jews don't mingle with them but remain a "suspicious" outsider group with different dress and customs, etc, but in all these rejections of theirs they do not object Israel's specific call (which they usually don't even know). Some of that anti-Jewishness can be compared to the "natural" - and despicable - animosities which exist e.g. between "whites" and "blacks," between British and French, Japanese and Chinese, Huttis and Tutzis, etc. (It would be interesting to learn whether such anti-Jewishness exists in societies which were not exposed to “Christian” or Moslem theologies, as e.g. the Chinese or Japanese peoples). In any case it had been one of the tasks of the Churches, and of the Islamic establishment as well, to stem such “natural animosities”, and establish brotherhood and peace based upon the respective scriptures -Epistles; and Koran- which are in line with Noah’s dictum mentioned above1).
The above shows that anti-Semitism is not a matter of races but of attitudes – and in the latter also Semitic peoples can be anti-Semites and/or anti-Zionists.
We human beings cannot see what's in the heart of another one, and consequently often mix up anti-Semitism with Jew-hatred (although they go hand in hand more often than not). But wherever possible, we should discern, and draw the conclusions.
-----------------------------
1) See my articles: “Parable of the Olive Tree” (in Epistle to the Romans, chpt 11)
“Peace is possible between Ishmael and Israel according to Tanakh and Koran”
Dr. Asher Eder
(available http//rb.org.il; or avrason@netvision.net.il

Sarah and Hagar and their offspring

S A R A H a n d H A G A R
and their offspring
by Dr. Asher Eder ©
1) The Biblical/historical background
After the birth of Isaac and his weaning, his mother Sarah demanded from her husband, Abraham:
"...cast out ["divorce"] this handmaid and her son; for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac” (Gen.21:10).
Abraham was then told:
"...everything that Sarah says to you, listen to her voice..." (v. 12).
Abraham was not being told to execute automatically what her words were telling him to do, but rather to listen to her voice. He was to understand what she meant to say, and then act in accordance with this deeper understanding. He had to incorporate into this deeper understanding what he was told by the Almighty when he pleaded for Ishmael (Gen. 17:18):
"And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: I have blessed him, and will
make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly..." (Gen. 17:20).
How was Abraham to bring Sarah's demand (to which he was to listen) in line with this Divine blessing, which is then repeated and rephrased in Gen. 21:13:
"And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed"?
Abraham's solution is implied in the verse which follows. It tells us that:
"...Abraham rose up early in the morning ... and sent her out..." (21:14).
There is a substantial difference between "sending her out," and a divorce, casting her out. This "sending her out" implies a sending out to a mission. (Cf. when Adam, after having forfeited the Garden of Eden, was "sent out to cultivate the soil", Gen. 3:24).
However, Abraham was told “in all that Sarah has told unto thee, hearken unto her voice…”
The term “in all” includes Sarah’s reasoning – indeed a prophetic one: Two sons, or two peoples, cannot inherit the very same thing, or land. God’s word to Abraham stressed that point:
“…for in Isaac shall thy seed be called” (vs. 12).
(Bequeathing the land to Isaac and his seed does not mean that sons of Ishmael, and for that matter also other stranger, could not live therein, too – provided, of course, that they abide by the rules of the house. See Appendix “Ps. 87”).
We also have to bear in mind that Ishmael is frequently called "son of Abraham" (e.g. Gen. 25:12; 1.Chron. 1:26); that his seed shall be multiplied exceedingly (Gen. 16:10); that he is taken up in the Abrahamic Covenant by his circumcision (Gen. 17:23); that he carried a special blessing, as mentioned; and that “he gave up his ghost [= " [ ויגוע when he died – a term which, according to Rashi, the Torah uses only in connection with righteous men (Gen. 25:17). In this context, we should notice that the Hebrew term for exceedingly (in "I will multiply him exceedingly) is "b'me’od me'od. Its gamatria (numerical value of the Hebrew characters) is 92, the same as that of the name Muhammed (מחמד). True, the term b’me’od me’od occurs also in describing the great multitude of the people of Israel (e.g. Exod. 1:7) – perhaps indicating a counterbalance.
When taking all these points into account, it seems at first glance somewhat astounding that Abraham sent her –Hagar- out. Why did he not send them out –Hagar and Ishmael; or why did he not send him –Ishmael- out? Wasn’t the latter taken into the Covenant of Circumcision, with the mission implied therein? Apparently, Abraham saw that Ishmael needed still the guidance of his mother who had conversed with the angels. Besides, she was an Egyptian princess: The people and the land of Egypt derived from Mizraim, the second son of Ham, i.e. the son after Cush from whom came forth Nimrod, the founder of Babel (Gen. 10:6,8,9. Note: In English, the people and the Land of Mizraim are called Egypt). That may indicate that Ishmael’s mission is foremost among the Hamite tribes. Indeed, Hagar got her son Ishmael married to an Egyptian lady, Gen. 21:21 – see also below).
2) Kethurah
After Sarah had passed away, "Abraham took a wife, and her name was Kethurah" (Gen. 25:1). She was, according to our sages, none other than Hagar. If he had previously "divorced" her, or "cast her out," he could not have taken her now as a wife. In other words, this confirms the interpretation that she was sent out, not cast out. It also indicates that Abraham must have appreciated her and her character. Her value is already reflected in the name Kethurah, related to Hebrew kethoret = "incense".
Then, after Abraham took Kethurah as his second wife, he got from her six sons, besides Ishmael (Gen. 25:2).
The Torah then states: "And Abraham gave all he had unto Isaac. And unto the sons of the concubines ... Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, into the east country." Our sages hold that these “sons of the concubines” were in fact those six sons from Kethurah. If so, they certainly they took along with them much of Abraham’s faith and conduct of life (besides the material gifts he gave them) - which we find now reflected to quite some degree in the cultures of the East; and most likely they brought there also from that fire which he took on his way to Mount Moriah, Gen. 22:6,7 – and which may have become the “holy fire” in ancient Persian and Indian rites. Now, they stimulate us to reflect on our own call, as probably intended by Abraham when he in his high age, and after Sarah’s death, begot those six children with Hagar.
Ishmael is not mentioned here, probably because he had already been "sent out." What did he get from Abraham? According to Muslim tradition, Ishmael's father, Abraham, established for him the Kaaba in Mecca. (I see no reason to reject this tradition: Abraham may have done so on occasion of his second travel to visit Ishmael spoken of in Midrash Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer 30).
In our context, more challenging are the questions: How did Ishmael relate to Abraham, his father? How did he relate to Sarah – who felt despised by Hagar his mother? And how did the two half-brothers, Isaac and Ishmael, relate one to the other? The Torah does not answer directly that question, but after recording the burial of father Abraham, it tells us that the sons of Ishmael “dwelt from Havilah unto Shur” (25:13,18) – and “Isaac sowed in that land”, and dug wells (26:12, 18-25). That begs the question, what was going on in Ishmael’s heart and mind when he attended together with Isaac the burial of Father Abraham at the very Machpelah (Double-Cave) where Sarah was buried? Was he reconciled with her dictum that “he –Ishmael- shall not be heir with my son”, Isaac? Or did he bear grudge in his heart, waiting for an opportunity to reverse that crucial dictum of hers? The Torah does not tell us, probably intentionally so: The Torah is a Divine Instruction for the benefit of man/mankind but it is not meant to be a straightjacket. The question “Whose Land?”, i.e. who is the legitimate heir of that land, the “Land of Canaan”, became the paramount issue in our times. Realizing that, we have to specify our question about Ishmael’s thoughts and feelings in the Machpelah, i.e. in front of Sarah’s tomb: Did he still bear some grudge, hidden deep in his heart, ready to burst out any time? Or was he himself fully reconciled? If so, did/could he pass on that reconciliation to his descendants, the “Ishmaelites”? Or did the latter question that reconciliation? If so, when; why; on what occasion? In the following, we will have to reflect on that.
3) Reviewing some commentators.
Many commentators, referring to Rashi on Bereshit 21:9, hold that "Ishmael threatened to kill Isaac" when he was playing scornfully with his little brother (Gen. 21:9). Such an interpretation seems questionable:
a) Rashi interprets the Hebrew word metsahek (= played, in the sense of misbehaving) as engaging in idolatry, but does not say anything about killing, or threatening to kill. True, in commenting on verse 17, Rashi refers to the mistreatment of Israel by the Ishmaelites later on when the former were on their way to exile in Babylon. On the other hand, Rashi stresses that Ishmael in his affliction (vs. 15,16) was declared a tsaddik, righteous one, by the Lord.
Rashi, who lived in the times of the Crusades and saw the fierceness of the Catholic/Muslim wars for possession of the "Holy Land", and relying on earlier sages, may have foreseen that a similar war might be waged by the Ishmaelites against Israel when the Jews would return to the Land of the Fathers. He may also have had in mind the fact that the early --and major-- Caliphs were slain either in battle or in internal rivalries (except for Abu Bekr), and that the sword plays a major role in Arab culture (cf. the flag of Saudi Arabia). Yet none of this justifies speaking about Abraham's son Ishmael as being born for the sake of revenge.
b) The Ramban, in his comment on the above episode, says that "… G-d saw [liter. heard] her [Hagar's] affliction and gave her a son who was to become a פרא אדם [usually translated wild man; or lawless man] to afflict the seed of Abraham and Sarah with all kind of chastisements". Revenge on future generations for the sins or failures of ancestors? That idea, apparently current in ancient times, was already rejected by the Prophets Jeremiah (31:29), and Ezekiel (18:2).
c) The Hebrew term metsaheq could and perhaps should be understood in the sense of laughing at, mocking at, that latecomer who was to take up the position of the spiritually firstborn – and would thus take his, Ishmael’s, respective natural hoped-for rights.
All in all, taking the term פרא אדםas wild or lawless man, contradicts the Torah which tells us that
Abraham loved Ishmael, too (cf. Gen. 17:18: 21:11,26);
Ishmael was blessed in his ways (17:20);
“he gave up his ghost” (25:17, mentioned above);
"God was with the lad" (=Ishmael; 21:20) - a very rare statement in the Torah!
The Torah would not say all this about a person born to be wild and lawless.
We should also bear in mind that Ishmael's eventual religion, Islam, can certainly not be described as a religion of wildness, or lawlessness. True, the Torah conveys more commandments than does the Koran, but that is mainly due to Israel's vocation as the "Kingdom of Priests" among the nations, with the Land Covenant as an integral part thereof. The Koran has its own strict precepts and ordinances, many of them tailored to mend Ishmael's Abrahamite/Hamite double nature (see below); and to straighten what went wrong especially in Christianity. We should also bear in mind that present Islam is not always in line with the Koran – not to speak of the wildness of the Jihadists.
c) Even more objectionable is an utterance of a contemporary rabbi by comparing the Arabs to snakes which God must have regretted creating! It may well have been prompted by the incitement and murderous deeds of Jihad fanatics. Nevertheless it is by no means for us humans to tell the Almighty what He should or should not have done.
Let us remember in this context that Ishmael is one of the very few Biblical personages (besides Isaac and Solomon) whose names were ordained before their actual birth. That means there is a Divine intention expressed in these names and their bearers. Regarding Ishmael, this may find its support in the Midrash haTehilim: Commenting on Ps. 1:3, we read there: “…that yields its fruit in its season – this is Ishmael; …and the leaf of which does not whither - this is Isaac”. Then, commenting on Ps. 49:2, that Midrash relating to the term “both”, says that it refers to the sons of Ishmael and the sons of Kethura.
4) Afflictions upon Sarah's children?
The idea mentioned above that Ishmael was "destined to be a lawless person who would bring suffering on the seed of Avram/Abraham and Sarai/Sarah with all kinds of affliction", begs the question: Bringing suffering and afflictions upon Sarah's children to revenge on them their mother's mistake of hoping to be “built by her” (Gen. 16:2); and then her hard treatment of Hagar? This does not sound logical: it contradicts the Prophets’ sayings that each one shall be taken to account for his/her own sins (e.g. Jer. 31:29). True, all of us will have to pass the cleansing “revolving flaming sword” before re-entering the Garden of Eden with its “Tree of Life” (Gen. 3:24). Ishmael may have to play his part in that process – “as a man sharpens the countenance of his neighbour” (Prov. 27:17). Ishmael, like any other person or group, may choose to become lawless and murderous – similar to Cain; or to Amalek – but that is not a destiny from birth.
5) Why did Abraham had to have those two sons, Ishmael and Isaac?
Before answering that question, we should first consider Abraham’s faithfulness to Sarah throughout the many years of her barrenness; and this in a time in history where childless women were divorced mercilessly; for, the aging peoples depended on their children for taking care of them. In addition, Avram/Avraham had built an altar publicly proclaiming the Creator of the world as the only true God – the God who had promised him that all mankind would be blessed in his seed! How should that come true? Shouldn’t we see Sarah’s suggestion to be built by a son from her maid, Hagar, as motivated not by egotism but by true love for her husband and his mission? For, didn’t the peoples around already mock at her husband, Avram, as a barren mule whose much proclaimed God didn’t even allow him to have a child (as some commentators suggest)? Couldn’t the promise that his own son shall be his heir (Gen. 15:4), be brought to its fulfillment with the birth of a son from the maid, Ishmael (Gen. 16:15); and thus to be built be her? In addition, wouldn’t that proof that he is not a “barren mule”, but is still virile even in his high age? And, on top, would proof the faithfulness of God?
With that background in mind, we should delve more deeply into the question why, then, Abraham had to have two sons, one from Hagar and one from Sarah? In other words, why did the Almighty keep Sarai/Sarah barren (Gen. 16:2) until Ishmael was born, causing suffering to both women and their respective sons?
In order to answer this question, we have to take several seemingly unrelated points into consideration:
a) Isaac’s unusual birth.
If the son of promise had been born in a prevalent and well known way, he could not have been called Isaac (meaning: he will laugh), with all this implies. He was born in an unusual way, pointedly expressed in the Lord’s rhetoric question to Abraham (Gen. 18:16): “Is anything too wonderful for the Lord [to do]?” And the son of promise was to be given the name Isaac for the sake of different kinds of laughter, and thus of testing men’s hearts:
--God-fearing people would laugh for joy and gladness in their realization that "there is nothing impossible for the Almighty" (Gen. 18:14);
--the worldly-minded and the wicked, would laugh a laughter of mocking at Isaac and what he stands for (Gen. 21:6);
--then, when asked by them (mockingly): “What is your name?”, he would answer: “Isaac” meaning “HE will laugh” – i.e. at you (cf Ps. 2:4);
--Isaac himself would in the end laugh a laughter of release and thankfulness for the final fulfillment of the Divine ordinances and promises. [Note: many prophecies evolved from this point, as e.g. Ps.118:26; 126:2,6);
--the final fulfillment of the Divine Covenants with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel, and of the Promises involved, would eventually show the nations that there is indeed a Creator of All Who is not subject to the laws of nature, but is in command of them (cf. Ps. 104:2-4); and the nations “that cannot discern what is left and what is right” (Jonah 4:11) will come to joyfully praise the Lord God of heavens and earth (Ps.117);
--The playful laughter of couples in love can be found in any of these three types of laughter, but ultimately all of us human beings should be aware that even such a natural act as reproduction is subject to the Divine blessing, and should be asked for.
Being born in an unusual way did not make Isaac into something or someone other-worldly. On the contrary, of all the Patriarchs he was the most earthly one: he never left the country; he harvested a hundred fold; he dug wells; his wealth increased so much that the locals (Philistines) envied him. To be sure, this earthly-ness of his was not for its own, material sake; it was guided by the Divine spirit – as King David summed up: “”Both riches and honor come of Thee…” (1.Chron. 29:12). In that spirit he cultivated the soil, in compliance with Man's mission as ordained for him by his Maker: "...and the Lord God sent him forth to cultivate the soil" (Gen. 3:23). By the way, it is for this reason that Isaac is identified in Kabbalah with the Sephirah DIN on the left side of the Kabbalistic “Tree of Life” representing the Divine emanation of Law, and of form as part thereof. In the Divine spirit, Isaac adhered to the Divine Law including the Law of Nature, and consequently he mastered nature by being in harmony with it.
This fact is also pre-figured in his unusual birth: the Divine power did make use of the laws of nature in an unexpected way: "and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women" (Gen. 18:11), but it did not do away with these laws: “Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son…” (Gen. 21:1-3). The left side of the Kabbalistic "Tree of Life" which represents Form, or Law, as said, comprises the "manner of women”. They are expressed in the feminine side, the female aspect of mankind, headed by Eve, the Mother of all Life, in the Sephirah “BINAH” above the Sephirah “DIN”. In Isaac we may see the apex of males who can be symbolized by the Sephirah “DIN”.
b) Avram/Abraham between Sarah and Hagar
Here, let’s have a look at Avram vis-a-vis Sarai, his wife, and Hagar the handmaid who was with child from him. Why did he not take the latter to account when she despised Sarah, her mistress (Gen. 16:4)? Two explanations for this atypical behavior of his come to mind:
aa) There was the Divine promise “Unto thy seed will I give this land” (Gen. 12:7; 14:4,18). Did the term “thy seed” by necessity include his wife Sarai as the bearer of that seed? Should her barrenness be taken as an indication that she was not meant to be that bearer? But perhaps Hagar was? Hagar, an Egyptian princess (see Rashi on Gen. 16:1), not merely a deserted girl picked up from a street corner. True, Sarai/Sarah was faithful to him all the way long, and even suggested to him: “… go in unto my maid, it may be that I may obtain children by her…” - that is, we could build our family upon the children from her (instead of letting Eliezer, the faithful servant and “son of the house” in accordance with the custom of those times, become the heir, Gen. 16:2,3). “And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai” (Gen. 16:2), and “he went into Hagar, and she conceived” (vs.4). Was he then charmed by her so much that he didn’t see her anymore as the maidservant but as an equal; and as the woman who bore him finally the child promised and expected since long?
bb) When Sarai was outraged about Hagar’s haughtiness, and complained to Avram, he told her: “Behold, thy maid is in thy hand, do to her what is good in thine eyes…” (vs.6). Was he indifferent to her grief; or did he mean to say “you cooked it up, now you take up responsibility, and do what is good in your eyes”?
Whatever the case, we may sense Avram (Avraham) somewhat bewildered, even uncertain of the meaning thereof. He had to be guided further on.
c) The change of names – from Avram to Abraham, and from Sarai to Sarah.
After Ishmael’s birth, Abrams’ and Sarai’s names were changed into Abraham, and Sarah respectively. In gamatria, the letter yod (here the end letter of the name Sarai), equals 10; and the letter heh equals 5. That is, the gamatrical value of the letter yod, 10, got split into two equal parts, 2x5, with each one of the couple receiving so-to-speak an equal share. While the gamatrical value of both names remained the same (753), the change with its introducing the letter heh elevated the spiritual/vocational value immensely: The Torah, in its Hebrew text, tells us (in Gen. 2:4): “…… with heh did he create them (=earth and heavens)”. That is, the change of their names must have indicated to Abraham and Sarah that they, as a couple, would be instrumental in the Lord’s creating earth and heavens anew in his spirit (indicated by the letter heh, an essential letter of the Lord’s name, the tetragrammaton), after the heavens and the earth had already been created as outlined in Gen. chpt.1. It is most significant that they received the son of promise after that change of their names! Thus we may perceive Ishmael as being born in the common natural way; and would remain therein; while Isaac representing the Divine promise and working with its heh-aspect would act in nature for the sake of elevating it. Yet, also Ishmael is frequently called “son of Abraham” (Gen. 17:25; 25:12; 28:9)’ and thus can open to that heh-aspect.
Seeing this background gives us a better understanding of Sarah’s demand: “The son of the handmaid cannot inherit together with the son of promise”. The son born of the flesh may – as the firstborn – well be entitled to the heritage allotted to him, but will have to recognize the Lord’s choice of the spiritually first born and what that entails (the Tanakh brings many examples thereof, as e.g. Jacob vis-a-vis Esau; Yehudah vis-a-vis Reuven; David the eighth of Ishai’s children; Israel vis-a-vis the nations, Exod. 4:22; etc).


6) Reviewing the “great feast the same day that Isaac was weaned” (Gen. 21:8).
While it seems very natural that Abraham made a “great feast” to celebrate the late and very unique birth of his son Isaac from his wife, Sarah, on occasion of his weaning, we should consider some more aspects:
Some commentators observed that no such feast was made, or at least not mentioned, after Ishmael’s birth. Celebrating now, and in such a grand style, the birth of Isaac might well have contributed to the Ishmael’s attitude – scornful play; mocking; or whatever -toward his new half-brother.
Yet, there is another point, usually overlooked: Who was invited to that “great feast”; and took part? The first, and natural, answer coming to mind, would point at the “many souls” Abraham and Sarah hade made so far. Then, also faithful servants, like Eliezer, would surely have been invited.
But there were also Abraham’s relatives - the forebears who were still alive: Amazing as it sounds, S(h)em, one of the three sons of Noah; as well as Selah, and ‘Eber “The Father of the Hebrews” (Gen. 10:21-25), were still alive, even outlived Abraham; and, needles to mention Abraham’s father Terah (see file attached “Time Table – The Age of the Patriarchs”). While they lived most likely in some other parts of the region (“Near East”, in modern terms), it is certainly not too far fetched to assume that they came to partake in that “great feast” to celebrate not merely the birth of another child but of the “Son of Promise” born in such an unique way. The “great feast” itself was held a few years after Isaac’s birth, on occasion of his weaning, apparently to allow for the time needed to bring the good news of Isaac’s birth and circumcision to the invited relatives; and for them to make the travel from the respective places of their residence to Abraham’s tent. Can we imagine the “family talk” on that unparalleled celebration not only of the birth of a son but above all of the verification of the unique Divine intervention and promise which lead to that birth? And, can we imagine the impression the mocking of Ishmael –by then 16 or 17 years of age- made upon them? Most likely, Abraham counseled also with his honored ancestors how to handle the situation.


7) Ishmael’s pedigree. A glimpse on Noah’s descendants.
Here, let’s have a look into the development of the nations after the Flood.
Noah’s three sons: S(h)em; Ham; and Yephet, portrayed in Genes. chpt 10 as the ancestors of the nations after the Flood, can also be understood as archetypal figures. The qualities represented by them may be dominant in the respective nations but can be found in every human being to some degree.
Noah’s son Yephet, with Greece as the outstanding representative, stands for beauty and intellect, in their positive as well in their deceptive qualities.
From S(h)em, literally “Name” derive the peoples of the Semitic languages and cultures. The Torah, however, applies this term then solely to the people of Israel, as the people, or bearer, of the Divine Name (cf. Numb. 6:27; Deuter. 28:10). Adversaries are consequently called anti-Semites, even if they belong to a people of the Semitic language group.
The Hebrew word Ham means warm. It is the root for warmth, heat, and also for the color brown. In the genealogy of Noah's offspring, Ham is depicted as the ancestor of the Hamite peoples --usually identified as the dark-skinned peoples, or the peoples of the earth's tropical belt. In ancient times, Egypt and Babylon were their outstanding representatives.
Ham, warm(th), may represent feelings in general. All of us have so-called good feelings (affection, empathy, joy, love, sympathy, etc.) as well as evil feelings (envy, greed, hate, licentiousness, etc). One of Ham's offspring, Canaan, represents the lower, or so-called evil, feelings. These lower feelings, however, are not something separate in themselves (as, for instance, intellect which can stand on its own, even though it can be influenced by feelings). The darker emotions are seen as characteristic part of Ham: "...and Ham is the father of Canaan" (Gen. 9:18). While Ham saw the nakedness of his father, Noah, and in his gloating informed S(h)em and Yephet (v. 22), Noah declared Canaan to be cursed (v. 25). At first glance, this seems very odd. Why did he not speak out against Ham the tale-bearer? Why did he pick Canaan from among Ham's sons (the other three being Cush; Mizraim [=Egypt]; and Phut)?
The word Canaan derives from Heb. can'a, low. It hints at the low, evil part of our feelings, and this specific trait is cursed, not feelings altogether. (Note: Noah did not put a curse upon Canaan; rather he declared him and what he stands for as cursed. That is, these lower, evil feelings bear in themselves the curse, and consequently the one who is ruled by them is cursed). They find their redemption when they are linked to, and guided by, the higher propensities (Gen. 9:26,27). This may be exemplified by the Canaanite lady married to Yehudah (Gen. 38:2); and by Tamar who was most likely of Canaanite origin, too.
Ishmael combines in himself the character traits of the Divine Spirit he inherited from Avram/Avraham, a descendant from S(h)em; and those inherited from Hagar the Egyptian princess (Note: what is called Egypt, in English, is in Hebrew Mizraim, a descendant from Ham) .
Those two traits made up for Ishmael’s disposition to be פרא אדם (pere adam; Gen. 16:12). This term is mostly translated “wild man”. The term “wild” in this context, should be understood in the sense of being enthusiastically devoted to something; rash; reckless; easily excited – while the Hebrew term adam describes Man, Mankind, in their noble, Divine traits, as Rav S.R.Hirsch explains ad loc. It is indeed the “rash nobility” which characterizes Ishmael’s descendants, the Arabs, till our days. Which trait in this double nature of theirs would get the upper hand? “… his hand against everyone, and everyone’s hand against him, and in the face of all his brethren will he dwell”, the angel continued to predict. Or, would the noble – “Adamic” –trait prevail? Ishamel cannot be tamed by men. What is more, “And G-d was with the lad” (=Ishmael), the Torah relates after he and his mother were evicted – and then “he became a master of archers” (liter.: bow shooter, 21:20). In this archery of his he remains deeply devoted to G-d – or to what he at times understands as pleasing G-d. (In the following we will have to look deeper into the meaning of the Hebrew term keshet, rendered here as archer).
As an outcome, his nephews and their descendants – Israel; Esau; as well as Abraham’s other 6 sons from Hagar/Kethurah, his mother – will enjoy his “Adam” trait as long as they walk in the fear and love of G-d; or else meet Ishamel’s archery if they try to repress him, or lean toward idolatry and licentiousness. Or, if he deems himself to be the “Master of the Bow”, he might get inclined to rule and subjugate them…
In fact, Abraham’s descendants are each to the other like “iron that sharpens iron” (Prov. 27:17), not for the sake of violence and dominance one over the other; rather that eventually we may “emulate in good works” as the Koran enjoins so aptly (Surah “The Cow”, 143; “The Table”, 53; “Pilgrimage”, 66).
Ishmael’s double nature finds its expression even in his pre-ordained name. It can be rendered “G-d will hear” (namely him when he is in distress); and “He will hear G-d”; i.e. in the end he will hear, and submit to, God’s decree. In that he will be reconciled, and be healed of the two traumas he suffered in young age: his removal from the country given by the Almighty to Isaac and his seed; and his near death experience in the desert near Beer Sheva (Gen. 21:14-16), understood by Moslem scholars as the “Aqedah [sacrifice] of Ishmael” (e.g. Bukhari; Ibn-Arabi; Al-Ghazali). - Of course, a death experience as such does not yet make up for an “Aqedah”.
8) Avraham’s mission in the land of Canaan.
Now we begin to understand why Avram/Avraham was sent into the "land of Canaan," or to be more accurate, into the land which "was then inhabited by Canaan" (Gen. 12:6); and why he had to have two sons. The "tikkun ha'olam,"--the restoration of the world to its Divine order--begins with the purification of the emotions, the lifting of all feelings --including the lower ones-- into the realm of the Divine; for their source –Ham- is good, not less than in any other human being. Lower feelings are only misdirected impulses, perhaps comparable to a mistuned radio.
The term "Land of Canaan" is applied to the land [Hebrew eretz, which also means earth] in its corrupt state; while originally, in the language of the Torah, it is the "Land of Moriah" (Gen. 22:2), that is, the land of the Divine emanation and manifestation. Consequently, Joseph termed it the "Land of the Hebrews" (Gen. 40:15). The land is attached to, and belongs to, Mount Moriah, colloquially known as the Temple Mount. There, Isaac was shown his miraculous rescue (known from the aqedah story); and it is there that Israel will find its redemption; and that eventually all mankind, is to be freed from the lower propensities betokened by Canaan. This may also explain why the Canaanites had to be driven out from that land; and why they could not be given another land in exchange: the lower feelings are not to rule anywhere. They will be redeemed by serving the higher propensities (Gen. 9:26,27). Hence: “…and in that day there shall be no more Canaanite in the house of the Lord of Hosts” (Zechar. 14:21).
The question arises: why was Abraham sent to this specific land? Why not to Babylon, Egypt, Greece, India, or any other country? The peoples living there are also not free of lower feelings. The common answer that the "land of the Moriah" is located at the hinge of the three continents (and cultures) of Africa, Asia, and Europe, is only partial. Another, not less important aspect is the fact that the Land of Israel comprises fertile parts (in the north and west) and wilderness (in south and east). The former gave rise to civilizations of farmers and towns, the latter to shepherds and nomads. These two different civilizations, with their divergent, often clashing interests, meet and confront here.
Later on in history, the sown land and the desert became the cradles of Christianity and Islam respectively, now adding "theological" arguments to the strife, and vying over the country and its capital, Jerusalem, which, significantly, is located right at the frontier between fertile lands and desert. It is Israel's ultimate mission as the “Kingdom of Priests” (Exod. 19:6) to balance and pacify those two contradicting and age-old dispositions (symbolized by Cain and Abel), and establish the "Peace of Jerusalem" (Ps. 122:6), with the Sanctuary as the “House of Prayer for all nations” (Is. 56:7), the house of peace and brotherhood in the spirit of the Divine.
9) Hagar’s offspring facing Sarah’s offspring
This analysis leads to a deeper understanding of our earlier question, why Sarai/Sarah was kept barren by the Almighty, and why Abraham first needed to have a son from Hagar, the princess of Hamite origin. While Isaac is --so to speak-- fully endowed with the Divine, it is in Ishmael, Abram's physical and natural son, that the extremes of human psyche are lumped together: the Divine, Abrahamite, aspect, as well as the wide range of darker Hamite feelings.
While all of us, Israel as well as the nations, are continually in danger of falling into the trap of the lower, Canaanite, feelings; the Mizraim [Egypt] aspect of Ham is Ishmael's main pitfall. This the more so as his Egyptian mother Hagar was a daughter of Pharaoh, as said. (The Pharaoh of that period should not be confused with the "new king over Egypt who knew not Joseph," Exod. 1:8). Her royal lineage may thus have given her natural feelings of superiority toward barren Sarai/Sarah (v. 4) an additional boost.
When Hagar married Ishmael to an Egyptian woman (Gen. 21:21), his offspring gained an additional potent Egyptian component. Yet here we must remember that Ishmael inherited spiritual qualities not only from Abraham. His mother Hagar must also have been highly evolved spiritually: She conversed freely with the angels (Gen. 16:7-14; 21:17,18), Furthermore, she is one of the very few human beings in the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) who introduced a name to G-d (El Roi, “God sees me”, Gen. 16:13), a name accepted by G-d and men (Gen. 24:63; 25:11). Howbeit lateron, balancing that expression, Jacob established the name El Elohei Israel = God the God of Israel (Gen. 33:20).
While the word Canaan, as we saw, derives from a root meaning "low," Mizraim derives from the root word zar --narrow, constricted, tight. This characterizes accurately the land of Mizraim (Arabic El-Misr. The name Egypt is a later European term): its fertile and habitable part, the Valley of the Nile, is a narrow strip between the deserts in the west and east, the high mountains in the south, and the Mediterranean Sea in the north. It can be seen as a corollary for our basic human nature, which is liable to constrict and rule our Divine spirit.
No other country in the ancient world identified so closely with its ruler as Mizraim/Egypt did with its Pharaoh. The Nile dictated the people's rhythm of life absolutely, and Pharaoh had to implement these dictates. (Israel could not accept these dictates of nature and its representative Pharaoh as primary values. The social and religious values of the ancient Egyptians had been shaped by the laws of nature--dictated by predictable rhythms of sun and Nile, accepted ultimate gods, with Pharaoh as their representative. Israel could not take up this attitude as its ultimate values: the "13 Divine attributes" are above them.
While in foreign affairs Pharaoh occasionally had trouble with his neighbors in the west and south, characteristically his main interest and thrust was the looting of the land of Canaan (Israel). Since Assur, and then Babylon, had similar interests, clashes with them were inevitable (and Israel fell prey to them). Historically, each and every superpower has needed to control the land of Israel in order to attain and retain its position--or at least to prevent other super powers from ruling it.
Ishmael and his descendants attained, in the form of Islam, the position of a leading world power, and incorporated the Land of Israel into its realm (termed Dar-es-Salam--the "abode of Islam"). Just as Israel was not meant to remain under Pharaoh's rule in ancient times, in modern times --with the termination of its exile and submission under the rule of the nations-- Israel is being re-established in the land of its destiny, the “Land of the Moriah”, or colloquially "Land of the Fathers”. This event puts Ishmael's descendants --Islam and the Arab nations-- to the test as to whether they will yield to their inherited Egyptian/Pharaonic trait, or to Abraham's heritage. Zion is the "test stone" also in this respect (Cf. Is.28:16, where the Hebrew word even bohan means test stone, not tested stone).
In perfect keeping with this, the Koran, the book of the religion of Ishmael, warns its adherents duly and repeatedly not to go in Pharaoh's way (e.g. Surah 73, "Enwrapped," v. 15ff.). The Koran even takes this one step further: it has Pharaoh, when he saw his army drowning, doing repentance, and confessing: "I believe that there is no god but He in Whom the Children of Israel believe; I am of those that surrender" (Surah "Jonah", 92). This is not to be taken as a recommendation to postpone repentance until after the army’s drowning. Rather, it is foremost upon us, the descendants of Abraham via Isaac as well as via Ishmael, to acknowledge the Lord’s supremacy and His statutes; and consequently to recognize our respective vocations for the sake of the benefit of all.
It was for the sake of this end, i.e. in view of the “end of days” [“aharit ha’yamim”], that Sarai/Sarah was kept barren till Ishmael was born; and that Hagar and Ishmael had to return to her, and submit to her, before they could be sent out (as said above).
10) Isaac / Israel
With all this background in mind, let us have again a look at Isaac. Now, we may perceive him not merely as one of the three Patriarchs by line of ancestry; rather, he prefigures Israel’s peculiarity also in so far as its very coming into existence and continuance against all odds are as uncommon as Isaac’s birth and aqedah (“sacrifice”, liter. binding of Isaac): Israel’s exodus from Egypt which was Hagar’s homeland; crossing of the sea; standing at Mount Sinai; 40-years desert roaming; acquisition of the land; survival in the Diaspora; the revival in the country after the Holocaust (like the proverbial phoenix from the ashes); Israel’s growth and prosperity in spite of Arab hostility and boycott, are cases to the point. Some may see in them natural events; some others may try to take issue with them; and there will be also those who “see God’s hand in it, and believe” (cf. Exod. 14:31). This coming to “see, and believe”, is obviously the main reason for, and purpose of Isaac’s aqedah (binding; i.e. binding to the Land of the Moriah); of the Exodus from Egypt then; and now of the “exodus from the lands of the north and from all the lands” (Jer. 16:15): these are visible signs, at least for those who are willing to admit them as such.
While the aqedah story –- significantly told right after Ishmael’s removal and near-death experience as an outcome of his eviction from the country which he was not meant to inherit together with Isaac and his descendants; and after Abraham’s dispute with the local Philistines, Gen. 21:22-33; 22:1 -- is usually depicted as Abraham’s greatest and final test: It culminates after Isaac’s miraculous rescue actually in:
a) the designation of the Moriah as the place where “the LORD will see”, and where “He will be seen” – namely through his rescue of Isaac (Gen. 22:14) which foreshadows the ultimate redemption and elevation of Israel;
b) the eventual reconciliation between Isaac/Israel and Ishmael – after their respective death experiences, as said – a reconciliation foreshadowed by their joining in the burial of their father Abraham in the “Machpelah” (Gen. 25:9-11), i.e. next to the tomb of Sarah who had demanded that Ishmael be “cast out” from the Land which he was not meant to co-inherit with Isaac. Indeed, the Torah informs us that Isaac was living in the land [of Israel]; and Ishmael was “dwelling from Havillah unto Shur”, as said;
c) consequently, in a new attitude all the nations of the earth who
“will bless themselves in thy (=Isaac’s) seed” (Gen. 22:18;
26:4). There, the Hebrew termהתברכו , is a reflexive form
which describes an active attitude of the nations for attaining
the blessing through Isaac’s seed on Mount Moriah, in clear
distinction from the niphal (=passive) form נברכו in Gen. 12:3
which tells us that Abraham was sent unto them for a blessing
without any active involvement of theirs. Prophet Isaiah gives
expression to that new attitude of the nations at the “end of
the days”, in his famous prophecy: “…and many people shall go
and say [[to Israel]], Come ye, and let us go up to the
mountain of the Lord, to the House of the God of Jacob, and he
will teach us his ways…” (Is. 2:2-5).

Ishmael and his descendants are included in the term “all the nations of the earth”, but it is upon him/them to choose between the blessing in Zion; or else to come to know the Lord G-d of Abraham in the harsh way (cf. Ps. 83).
In that context, let’s have another look into the term “master of archers”, roveh qeshet, by which Ishmael is depicted in Gen. 21:20. It comes right after the telling of his near-death experience in the wilderness, near Beersheva where his mother Hagar is recorded “as sitting a good way off as it were a bow shoot” [kemithaveh qeshet; Gen. 21:16]. “And God was with the lad [=Ishmael], and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer” (liter. “bow shooter”, Gen. 21:20). There, the term “a bow shoot” may indicate that Ishmael who was then at least already 13 years, may have concluded that his life in the “wilderness”, i.e. the deserts in the south of Israel, would have to be sustained by hunting – bow shooting – in all its varieties of hunting and wars. And “God was with the lad”: He would not abandon him, rather, would sustain him also there.
However, that was certainly not the final destiny of him as a son of Abraham who had taken him into the Divine Covenant of circumcision. Hence, it seems to me of significance that the term “qeshet”, bow, occurs here for the second time in the Torah, namely after its mentioning as the sign of God’s covenant with Noah after the Flood: “My (rain)bow = qeshet did I give in the clouds…” (Gen. 9:13): There, the (rain)bow rests on both its ends on the earth and points heavenwards and is a symbol of encompassing all mankind – while the bow (qeshet) of the archer has only one of its two ends upon or near the earth; and is directed against an enemy. That could indeed depict one aspect of Ishmael’s nature, and call. Yet, there is also another aspect: In the rainbow we see the spectrum of the seven colors from red to blue, with the other colors in between. In the course of history, the colors blue got affiliated with Israel (cf. e.g. Exod. 26:31; Numb. 15:38); yellow with the Church; and green with Islam. Green is not a basic color: we get it by blending yellow with blue. Could that indicate that Ishmael’s religion, Islam, is not meant to act perpetually as archer (“bow shooter”) against Israel and Christianity, but rather blend their respective good –Divine- qualities, and yet be distinctive in his own call? We may take a symptomatic saying of the Koran toward that end: “WE have appointed for every nation a holy rite that they shall perform … so be ye forward in good works; unto God shall you return, altogether; and He will tell you of that where you were at variance” (Sura “The Table”, 53; and others). The holy rites appointed for Jews, Christians, and Muslim, may differ, but that does by no means imply a license to transgress them: the one Divine original light should be reflected in purity in the respective colors of the rainbow. “God’s promise is true”; and “every nation shall be summoned unto its Book”, says the Koran (Sura “Hobbling”, 28, 31). That is, Israel will be judged according to the Torah; Christianity according to the Epistles; and the Moslem nations according to the Koran [[note: not according to willful interpretations of the respective Scriptures!]]. Trespasses by Israel and/or Christians might trigger Ishmael to act as bow shooter, but an overacting by the latter would not merely be unacceptable neither to Israel nor to Christianity: it may result in the breaking of his bow (Ps. 37:14,15). For, God “shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with His Truth” (Ps. 95:13). And: “He who sits in the heavens – laughs” (Ps. 2:4); and then also Isaac may laugh, as said.

Hence, let’s pray that the Divine original light will be reflected by all of us in purity and harmony, as in the rain bow.
The whole idea of Isaac’s and Israel’s peculiarity is pointedly expressed in several Psalms:
“HE has remembered his mercy and his faithfulness toward the house of Israel, [and] all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our G-d” (98:3);
“…for there [=in Zion] the LORD commanded the blessing, life for evermore” (Ps. 133:3; also 128:5; 134:3)
On the other hand: “…let them all be confounded and turned back that hate Zion” (Ps. 129:5)
“O praise the Lord, all ye nations,
praise him, all ye people,
For his mercy prevailed over us:
And the truth of the Lord is [then established] forever
Hallelujah” (Ps. 117)
Ishmael, like all the nations, may partake in the blessing of Zion. Indeed, some of his tribes are mentioned for doing so (e.g. Is. 60:7). It is upon Abraham’s descendants to reconcile each with the existence and specific call of the other; and eventually live up to the vision of Ps. 133:1 in an extended way:
“See how good and pleasant it is
sit brethren together also in unison”.
Not only the Tribes of Israel, rather all the sons of Abraham should see themselves as brethren one to the other, each in his respective call yet in peace and unison in the spirit of our Divine Father.

xxxxxxxxxxxx







Time table – age of Patriarchs
(Gen. 11:10ff)

Name of Patriarch born live span died

Noah 1056 950 years 2007

Flood 1656

Shem 1565 600 2165

Arphaxad 1658 438 2096

Salah 1693 433 2126

‘Eber 1723 430 2187

Peleg 1757 209 1996

Re’u 1787 207 1994

Serug 1819 200 2019

Nahor 1849 119 1962

Terah 1878 135 2013

Avram/Abraham 1948 175 2123

Avram left Haran 2023 ( = 367 years after the Flood)

Covenant of Circumcision 2048 ( = 391 years after the Flood)

Ishmael 2034 137 2171

Isaac 2048 180 2228

Jacob 2108 went to Egypt in 2238

-----------

a) many ancestors of Avram/Abraham saw his birth (in 1948);
b) the “great feast” on occasion of Isaac’s birth and circumcision could have been attended even by Shem, and ‘Eber [[our sages hold that Jacob attended their school]];.
c) note: Jacob went down to Egypt after all his ancestors had passed away

Zionism is not racism

Accusing Zionis of racism is not only a false precept - it is outright hypocrisy and willful distortion of facts:1) The Jewish people (and Israel) are composed of many types of "races" White Europeans; dark skinned Orientals; black Cochin Indians and black Ethiopeans; and many converts from all kind of backgrounds;2) "My House shall be called a House of Prayer for a l l peoples" says Prophet Isaiah, and so it is for every one who wants to adhere to the words of the Prophets. None would be excluded or rejected because of race or nationality.3) Going beyond this prophetic concept, every visitor of Jerusalem - Jew, Christian, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, whatever - can at any time approach freely the "Western Wall" (often spoken of as "Wailing Wall") and offer there his/her personal prayer. The only "restrictions" are that he/she is dressed properly; does not disturb others; and does not bring in idols for worshipping them; and that man and women would go each to his / her section.4) Compare this with the practices in Mecca and on the Temple Mount:a) No non-Muslim is allowed to enter the Mosque of Mecca;b) Non-Muslim who want to visit the El-Aqsa Mosque and/or the Dome of The Rock (a Moslem shrine) on the Temple Mount has to pay entrance fee and is strictly forbidden to pray, to meditate, to read Bible or any other book besides the Koran.5) In the State of Israel, there are Arab political parties; Arab members of Parliament; high ranking Arabs in governmental services. There is no Arab / Muslim country which would even come near to this practice. And these proud, haughty Muslim nations have the cheek, even audacity, to accuse Judaism/Israel of racism! In their countries it is perfectly alright to publicly write and shout "Kill the Jews (note: Jews; not merely Israelis or Zionists) wherever you find them, this is pleasing to Allah; and would hasten the redemption". (This battle cry of theirs is nothing new, it was invented by the then Grandmufti of Palestine, Amin el-Husseini, in his alliance with nazi-Germany during WWII), Outright anti-Jewish, anti-Semitic; yea racist in the most basic and base meaning of that word!And the nations, including the UNO, instead of castigating and reproaching these hypocritical accusers of Israel, bow before them (or before their crude oil), and let Israel down:Many many UNO resolutions and decisions could be quoted in that line - from the accusation that Israel was responsible for the arson of the El-Aqsa Mosque in 1970; via Israel's expulsion from the UNESCO in 1973 based upon the accusation that Israel's archaeologists are undermining the El-Aqsa Mosque in order to bring it to a collapse; the UNO resolution in 1984 which equated Zionism with racism; etc etc; down to the present judging of Israel for the "massacre" in Jenin. How could Israel trust their biased inquiry commission?Why are they so willing to listen to the willful lies of Arab propaganda? Why are these lies so soothing in their ears? Is that so because they have perhaps not yet overcome their own anti-Semitic heritage? In any case, what a shame, what hypocrisy! What crime!Dr. Asher EderJewish Co-Chairman, Islam-Israel Fellowship avrason@netvision.net.il

Parable of the Olive Tree

Christian-Jewish relationshipaccording to theParable of the Olive Tree(Epistle to the Romans chpt. 11:16-24)
"...if the root be holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches were broken off, and thou being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree, boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, the branches were broken off that I may be grafted in. Well, because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not high minded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in goodness; otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again. For if thou were cut of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a goodly olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural ones, be grafted into their own olive tree?"
The parable brings a comparison with the practice of grafting known in horticulture and tree nursery. In order to understand the parable and its implications, we should first try to comprehend the procedure of grafting. Let's say we want to grow sweet almonds. If we put an almond kernel into the ground, and wait several years till the growing tree brings forth fruit, we could be unpleasantly surprised in case they are bitter almonds. There is no certainty in advance what variety fruit trees grown from seeds will bring forth. But if we take a twig from a tree whose fruit we like, and want to get; and graft this twig upon an existing, preferably wild tree of the same kind (e.g. a bitter almond), we will get exactly the variety of the tree from which we took the twig (e.g. sweet almonds). There are some more advantages to the practice of grafting: usually the wild tree has a stronger, disease resisting root and stem than the goodly variety; and the grafted twig can draw more sap from the strong wild root, and thus be able to develop more branches and fruits. However, the gardener has to watch the grafted trees that their roots would not grow wild shoots besides the grafted twig, for they would take over and strangle it. Now, our parable says that branches from a wild olive were grafted in the goodly olive tree "against nature", i.e. against the usual practice. Many say that Apostle Paul, by profession a tent maker, was not acquainted with tree growing; and made here a mistake. But by pointing out that something was done here "against nature", he tells us that he was well aware of what he was doing, and took into account that the wild twig(s) would bring forth few and small oil berries, but would grow an impressive foliage. Consequently, he warns his Gentile followers grafted against nature in the goodly olive tree, Israel, not to become proud and boast against the remaining goodly branches; for "not you (Gentiles) are carrying the root, but the root (Israel and its Torah) carries you". The parable is quite in line with fundamental sayings of the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible. Let's have a look at some of them: a) Noah, blessing his sons, established "God shall enlarge Japhet, and he shall dwell in the tents of Sem" (Gen. 9:27. Sem, one of Noah's three sons, is the "father of the children of 'Eber", i.e. of the Hebrews, Gen. 9:21. The word Shem [Sem, in English] means name, especially the Name of the Lord as in "hallowed be thy name", which the Cohanim (priests) were to put upon the children of Israel, Numb. 6:27; whence Semites. And "all the people of the earth shall see that thou [Israel] are called by the name [Sem] of the Lord", Deuter. 28:10).b) The Lord, in his covenant with Abram/Abraham, decreed: "... thou shall be a blessing; and ... in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed" (Gen. 12:3). An ensuing specification says: "...and in thy [Isaac's} seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed" [liter. bless themselves; Gen. 26:4].c) Gen. 49:10 speaks of Judah and his scepter that "unto him the gathering of all the peoples shall be".d) Exod. 19:6 designates Israel as a "Kingdom of Priests", that is, her very call implies a priestly function for the nations.e) When King Solomon inaugurated the First Temple, he prayed also for the strangers that the Lord might hear them when they pray in direction towards it (1.Kings 8:27-29, 41). In this train of thought, Prophet Isaiah speaks of it as the "house of prayer for all nations" (56:6); for, as Ps. 133:3 says, the Lord has commanded the blessing in Zion.f) Jer. 11:16 compares Israel to a green olive tree; and Hos. 14:6,7 sees Israel as the root of that “olive tree of his majesty” [=זית הודו] which is “casting forth its roots like the Lebanon". ((Obviously the Prophets are tracing back to a peculiar term in Deuter. 8:8. There, the Land of Israel is described as land of the goodly olive tree, liter. “land of the oil(giving) olive tree” [ארץ-זית שמן], apparently in distinction from other countries with olive trees; or from (wild) olive trees which do not grow oil berries)).g) Ezra, then. enjoined the people to bring for Succoth “branches from the olive tree and branches from the oil tree” (Nehem. 6:15)- probably understood by Paul as referring to the wild olive tree and the goodly olive tree.h) The vision that the nations would be on top for a certain time, i.e. would play the role of the head temporarily, is part of ancient prophecies: "...thou hast grafted [ordinary] men to our head" (Ps. 66:12).The passage is usually rendered "thou hast caused men to ride over [הרכבת] our heads", but the Hebrew word רכב which can mean to (cause someone to) ride, is often used in the sense of putting someone or something on top, as e.g. in 2.Sam. 6:3; 2. Kings 13:16; 23:30, where it is impossible to render it as riding. In fact, as we saw, the grafted twig, is above the root, or figuratively speaking, it rides the root.The same thought expressed in Lament. 1:5, and 2:17, reads: "Her [=Jerusalem's] adversaries became the head"; "The Lord has done that which he has devised, he has fulfilled his word that he has commanded in the days of old: he has thrown down, and has not pitied; and he has caused the enemy to rejoice over thee [Israel], he has set up the horn of thine enemies". At the time of the compilation of the Epistle to the Romans, Rome was indeed the head of the nations, even put over Israel. It ruled mercilessly – with the crucifixion of the Nazarene as "King of the Jews", besides many other crucifixions, as one of the demonstrations of its rule. Prof. Shalom Ben-Chorin said once to the point: Yeshua (Jesus) was born a Jew; he lived as a Jew; and he died as a Jew. The destruction of the Temple as the seal of this rule was pretold, too (e.g. Hes. 3:43; Luke 21:20-25); and Rome commemorated this fact matchlessly by minting a special coin, inscribed "Juda capta". All this shows that the destruction of the Second Temple and the Roman exile were not at all a punishment caused by the crucifixion of the Nazarene, as often alleged. Many argue that the natural branches were broken off because of their unbelief, and that instead of them Christianity is now grafted in. But the parable says plainly that only some of the natural branches were broken off, not all of them. Moreover, that argument contradicts plainly Apostle Paul’s assertion that “he was entrusted with the glad tidings for the Uncircumcision as Peter was for the Circumcision” (Gal. 7): the former were offered co-citizenship in the Kingdom of God (Eph. 3:6). Yet, Christianity developed from early times a novel interpretation of the term belief, in fact an interpretation which is not covered neither by the Hebrew of the Tanakh nor by the Septuagint, nor by the original Greek of the Epistles. The Hebrew word emunah, (from which Amen derives), as well as its Greek translation pistis, mostly rendered belief, convey the idea of trust, faithfulness (as in Ps. 33:4; 89:25,34; 119:86). That means to say both the Hebrew and the Greek word describe an attitude or behavior which result from one's certainty or conviction. The list of witnesses of faith in the Epistle to the Hebrews, chpt. 11, gives a clear picture of what is meant also in the NT as belief, or faith. Be it mentioned in this context that most of the modern translations of Hebr. 11:6, which brings a definition of faith, say improperly "... for he who cometh to God must believe that he is...", while the Greek text states that one has to believe (liter. be living it, be faithful) because God is. In Hebrew thinking, God's existence is the cause of belief, or faithfulness. He is not the object of philosophical or theological speculations, nor of considerations whether the Torah and its commandments can be altered or done away with through a resurrection or ascension. The list of witnesses of faith in Hebr. 11:17-32 may give an idea about the Apostles’ understanding of faith. The Jews, of course, had to reject these novel interpretations of belief. In turn, they were accused of unbelief, stubbornly sticking to the commandments of the "Old Testament"; and many Christians developed that kind of haughtiness with boasting against the root and its natural branches of which Romans 11:18,29 warns so severely. Paul, “entrusted with the glad tidings to the uncircumcised” (i.e. the Gentiles; Gal.2:7), felt the task to graft them as branches from the wild olive into the goodly tree. In that, he offers co-fellowshipx) with the goodly branches to those who even during the "Times of the Gentiles" stay in faith; and do not boast nor become haughty; do not change the rules of the housexx); and do not missionizexxx) goodly branches to novel concepts. “Nostra Aetate” of the Catholic Church, and similar declarations of some Protestant Churches after WWII, may well be seen as opening the way of return to the original scriptures, coming in line with the "glad tidings to Abraham" referred to in Gal. 3:8: "I will bless them that bless thee... and in thee all the nations shall be blessed". Eventually, the nations will “bless themselves” (=והתברכו) in Abraham (Gen. 22:18) and in his seed (Gen. 26:4). By using here the reflexive form “will bless themselves”, the Torah tells us that the nations, once they realize that all their crafts are of no avail, shall come unto Israel (cf Jer. 16:19), urging “Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob…” (Is. 2:3-4; also Zech. 8:20-23, 14:16,17; et al). Notes:X) cf. Eph. 2:19; 3:6 where the Greek text addressing the believers from the Gentiles speaks of them as co-citizens; co-heirs; co-body; co-partakers; that is, it depicts them as joint to Israel (not as superseding her!) through “the mediator Jesus, the man” (1.Tim.2:5). This joining to Israel is perfectly in line with Noah’s dictum quoted above: “Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and he [=Japheth] shall live in the tents of Shem” (Gen. 9:26,27 – echoed in the Lord’s Prayer: “Our Father in Heaven, Hallowed be Thy name, Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as in heaven..…”). xx) Indeed, the Gentile believers are enjoined "to abstain from blood" (Acts 15:20); not to touch anything unclean (2.Cor. 6:17); “not to eat flesh … by which thy brother stumbles, or is ensnared…” (Rom. 8:21; 1.Cor. 8:13); not to teach differently (1.Tim. 1:3); to herald the Kingdom of God (Jerem. 30:9; 1. Chron. 285; 29:11; Acts 28:31; et al).xxx) The "Great Commission" in Matth. 28:19, translated literally from the original Greek, reads: "Going, you will teach all the nations...". These words, addressed to Jewish disciples, say that by their going will teach the nations; i.e. their way of life (הלכה, halakhah), as well as the exile and the return to the country will be a teaching to the nations (cf. Ps. 98:2-4; 117; Ezek. 36:23,24; and others).





Ask for Jerusalem-Peace Jerusalem was known to the Jebusites as Salem but King David confirmed its present name.1. Salem (Hebrew: Shalem) means whole, wholeness; and thus also peace; while the term Jerusalem (Hebrew: Yerushalayim) means “They will establish peace”. Peace is -unfortunately- not an established fact; rather it is the hope of all, above all, of the people of Israel. Eternally linked to that city, its capital, the people of Israel finds itself more often than not in the middle of the storms raging over Jerusalem. King David, in one of his Psalms, tells us how to establish peace:Ask for Jerusalem-Peace שאלו שלום ירושלים (Ps. 122:6) This is usually understood as an encouragement to bring peace to Jerusalem. The Hebrew text, however, tells us to ask for the peace represented by Yerushalayim. The pronunciation of that word indicates a dual form2 , that is, it comprises-- so-to-say-- two Jerusalems, the earthly and the heavenly: they form one unit3 . Without its heavenly aspect, Jerusalem would be like any other city, or capital, in the world. King David gave this dual aspect expression in the term Zion:בשלם סוכו ומעונתו בציון “His tabernacle is in Salem and His residence in Zion” (Ps. 76:3) It is from and/or through Jerusalem/Zion that the Name of the Lord is to be blessed, and that mankind will find blessing and peace there:ברוך יי מציון שוכן ירושלים הללויה“Blessed be the Lord out of Zion, even He that resideth at Jerusalem. Hallelujah”(Ps. 135:21)יברכך ה' מציון עשה שמים וארץ “The Lord that made heavens and earth, bless thee out of Zion” (Ps. 134:3)על הררי-ציון כי שם צוה ה' את-הברכה חיים עד-עולם …“… for there [=Zion] the Lord commanded the blessing, even life for evermore” (Ps. 133:3) Prophet Isaiah, expounding on our subject “Ask for Jerusalem-Peace”, lined out the pre-condition for peace, namely the peoples’ “going up to the mountain of the Lord, to the House of the God of Jacob, that He will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem” … and then “they shall beat their swords into plough shares, and their spears into pruning hooks; and nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more”4 (Is. 2:2-4). This shows us that human beings – neither liberals nor Jihadists - cannot impose their respective concepts of Jerusalem and of peace upon that city; neither can. Jerusalem and what it stands for be subjected merely to political devices. Peace can, and should, be attained on the basis of the words of the Prophets. Prophets do not contradict one another. Misconceived theologies do. NT and Koran5 are perfectly in line with the Prophets of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible). A return to their original words would pave the way to peace, a way upon which politicians, economists, etc, could safely walk, for the benefit of all Notes: 1) Originally, Jerusalem was called Salem (Shalem): And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth…” (Gen. 14:18); In Judah God is known, his name is great in Israel and in Salem is his tabernacle…” (Ps. 76:2,3) In the time of the Jebusites the city was apparently simply known to them as Jebus: “… and [he] came over against Jebus which is Jerusalem” (Jud. 19:10). Apparently the town was called by this name during that Canaanite tribe’s rule (cf Jud. 1:7,21; and many others) until King David and the tribes of all Israel went up there: “And David and all Israel went to Jerusalem which is Jebus” (1.Chron. 11:4)“… and in Jerusalem he [David] reigned thirty and three years over all Israel and Judah” (2.Sam. 5:5). 2) Hebrew grammar has, in addition to singular and plural forms, also a dual form, as e.g. ידיים, yadayim, a pair of hands; רחיים, rehayim, a pair of the two mill stones; also מים, mayim, water[s], (i.e. the “waters under the firmament” and the “waters above the firmament”, Gen. 1:6). 3) The idea is expressed even in Jerusalem’s topography: the lower “City of David” and the higher Mount Moriah, or Temple Mount, are geologically and topographically one unit. 4)Applying the term “God of Jacob”, the Prophet forestalls novel concepts of God and of a “new Israel of the spirit” which would supercede “the old Israel of the flesh – Jacob”
4) See my essays:
a) Christian-Jewish Relations according to the
PARABLE OF THE OLIVE TREE
b) PEACE IS POSSILE BETWEEN ISHMAEL AND ISRAEL ACCORDING TO THE KORAN
Dr. Asher Eder
e-mail: avrason@netvision.net.il