Take your blood pressure meds before reading the article by Philip Weiss that I quote here:

Alissa Wise

On the eve of Nakba remembrance day, a young rabbi led an observance of the catastrophe “that cannot be denied, ignored, or wished away” in Union Square in New York last night before a largely-Jewish group. She said that four rabbis in four other American cities were also marking the event.

Alissa Wise, who is about to graduate from rabbinical school, told the Jews who had gathered that they had made a “courageous choice,” to face the truth that “Israel’s founding is inextricably bound up with the dispossession of hundreds of thousands.” She seemed charged with an awareness of Jewish history when she said that four other rabbis were leading similar remembrances in the Bay Area, Chicago, Boston, and Philadelphia.

She then led the group of about 60 people in a ceremony that echoed the Passover seder, or liberation festival of Jewish tradition, including the ritual reading of the names of Arab villages that were removed from the Israeli map in the early days of the Nakba, May 9-16, 1948.

“These are 63 of the 531 villages that were destroyed,” Wise said, “the violence that began in 1948 continues to this day,”

As the names were read aloud, to the bang of a drum, you could hear New York Jewish voices struggling with Arabic, and Arab-Americans pronouncing the names with authority.

Wise led a reading of the Jewish litany, Dayeinu, or “Enough,” which is chanted at Passover, but these “Enough”s marked signal events of the Nakba, like the massacre at Deir Yassin and the expulsions of Palestinians from the cities of Haifa, Lydda, and Jaffa. [my emphasis]

Dayeinu indeed!

Enough of Jews who exploit their Jewishness to lend authority to the propaganda projects of the enemies of the Jewish state and people.

Ms. Wise thinks that she understands enough about the history of Jews and Arabs in the land of Israel — not to mention the politics of the region today — to take the positions that she does.

She does not.

Ms. Wise is very concerned about justice for all peoples, which is an important qualification for a rabbi, so she really should study the actual history of the region so that she can be sure that she is not shortchanging her own people. She should consider

  • The historical connection of Jews to the land
  • The origins of the Palestinian Arabs resident in 1948
  • The behavior of said Arabs toward Jews before the founding of the state
  • Who started the war in 1947-48
  • The various reasons that Arabs abandoned their homes in 1948
  • The reasons that few of the actual refugees were able to return
  • The behavior of the Arab world toward the state of Israel since its founding, and particularly that of the Palestinian Arabs and their leader, Yasser Arafat
  • The real facts behind the atrocity stories that she hears from Palestinians
  • The attitudes of today’s Palestinians, their support for Hamas, their adulation of Samir Kuntar, etc.
  • The present security situation, in which the Palestinian Arabs comprise the point of the Iranian spear aimed at the Jewish state
  • What it would be like for Jews if there were no Jewish state

In addition, I suggest that she should be a little more cynical about the intentions of her Arab friends when they say that all they want is justice.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

6 Responses to “Dayeinu”

  1. Shalom Freedman says:

    There is a worldwide campaign to deligitimize Israel. . One major element in that campaign is giving the American political leadership the sense that the Jewish community is actually divided fairly evenly in its support of Israel. This is the JStreet Soros option which these anti- Israel Jews are supporting.
    I find the actions of these people treasonous and abominable.

  2. DALevit says:

    Female rabbi’s…

  3. pavelaw says:

    Let’s assume, hypothetically, that we Zionists bought some of the land, some was given to us by those in lawful control of it (who exercised title to the land) and we dispossessed some Arab occupants of Israel in order to get the rest. Notwithstanding, we took the land (still following my hypothetical) openly and hostilely and with force of arms; we have defended the land against all comers, publicly and notoriously; after 61 years, we still have dominion and control of the land; according to law, the land is ours. This is how countries have been created throughout the years. It’s called the doctrine of Adverse Possession. [How were some 100 other countries created since 1948? The inhabitants either ceded from a parent country or followed our method.]

    To prove adverse possession under a typical definition, the person claiming ownership through adverse possession must show that its possession is actual, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile, under cover of claim or right, and continuous and uninterrupted for the relevant statutory period.

    Isn’t that the way the USA was created? We Americans bought some of it from France and Russia, some was given to us by England after we defeated it in open warfare and some we conquered and took from its inhabitants. Isn’t that the way most countries have been created? It’s the established tradition on our Earth. We have it, we own it, it’s ours. Simple as that… if you don’t like it, register a complaint during our usual business hours.


  4. pavelaw says:

    Oh,… by the way, to Rabbi Alissa Wise and the other four other rabbis celebrating the Nakba: stay far away from me; I don’t want to see you or hear from or about you; you come around me and I’ll tell you off in a manner that you’ll never forget!


  5. Vic Rosenthal says:

    Adverse possession may win your case, but it doesn’t make you popular. Of course, huge, powerful countries like the US don’t have to care if they are popular.
    We should point out that 1) before 1948, Jews purchased the land they occupied, 2) the Palestinian Arabs participated in the war — indeed, they started it, before the invasion of the Arab states — which the Arab side lost.
    He who starts a war and loses it should expect adverse consequences.

  6. ME says:


    The difficulty with the Adverse Possession theory in either your Zionist approach or with respect to America and the USA territories (for the most part), is that it depends on a title theory of land.

    In the instance where no existing title system is present, the Law of Conquest applies.