Mezuzah

mezuzah

By: Rabbi Meir Kahane

From the book Priest and Prophet Part 1

mezuzah

There is no mezuzah at the Nablus Gate, one of the Old City gates. It is important for every Jew to understand why other central gates of the Old City, such as the Jaffa Gate, have mezuzahs, while this gate does not; why there was once a mezuzah at the Nablus Gate (it was taken down by Arabs, and was never put back up by Mayor Teddy Kollek); and why the "League" ("The League for the Defense of the Jewish People in the Land of Israel" before its name changed to the "So Movement"), which demanded that it be allowed to re-establish the mezuzah, was refused and several of its members were even arrested.

The Old City of Jerusalem is surrounded by that famous wall, which is so attractive to all tourists. Entry to the Old City is possible from several gates, of which the Jaffa Gate and the Nablus Gate are the two most famous and busiest. After the Six-Day War, mezuzahs were placed on all the gates, including the Nablus Gate, and Arabs removed the latter. The Israeli government preferred not to pay attention to this, and let the desecration remain uncommented. Why? The answer to this is also the answer to the question of why the "League" decided to do such a thing, assuming that it is very possible - because of the Arab majority living inside the Old City - that it is actually exempt according to Halacha from the obligation to have a mezuzah.

The Israeli government has been pursuing a policy of caution for over five years (since the Six-Day War until the time of writing the article, 11th Kislev 1973), in order not to upset the Arabs. This involves Israel's refusal and unwillingness to stand up for Jewish rights, as well as its de facto willingness to accept Arab claims that conflict with those rights. Part of this policy includes the refusal to allow Jews unlimited settlement anywhere in the parts of the Land of Israel that were captured in the Six-Day War; the refusal to allow Jews to live anywhere, except in limited parts of the Old City of Jerusalem; and, of course, the refusal to officially declare that the liberated areas are part of the Jewish state.

The policy also found expression in things like a soft-handed policy and collaboration with notorious Israel-haters like Hebron Mayor Ja'abari (whose share in the massacre in Gush Etzion and Hebron ranges from ugly to dark), and in government funding and support for an Arab university in Judea and Samaria, which would produce the Arab terrorist and national leader of the next decade.
The policy was considered a success, with Dayan declaring that the quiet in the liberated territories over the past five years and the relative absence of terrorism proved the wisdom of this policy. In short-term terms, it is right; in the long term, this policy is a disaster.
Not only does it oppress basic Jewish rights; but it also sends a message to the world, and worse, to Israeli youth, that there really are no such rights. Should we decide, in the future, to demand these rights, our credibility will be undermined, and we will find ourselves facing strong opposition from people within us who will rightly ask: "But if "We really deserve this - why didn't we demand these rights earlier? And why did you stand up for those who did demand them?"

For five years, we allowed Arabs preferential rights in the Cave of the Patriarchs - what message does this send to Israeli youth? That it is truly a Muslim place, and that only the "fanatic" Jews want to receive more than their allotted share in the cave. For five years we prevented Jewish settlement in the cities of Judea and Samaria, such as Hebron, Nablus, Bethlehem, Ramallah, Jenin, etc. What message does this send to Israeli youth? That these cities are Arab cities, not Jewish. For five years we had different laws and rules, in relation to the small Israel before the Six-Day War and in relation to the liberated territories. What does this mean to any reasonable person? That these territories are not truly Jewish, but that Israel sees these territories only as a bargaining chip in negotiations.
What will happen when Israel decides to demand some of these rights, or comes up with a "compromise" plan whereby it agrees to return a large part of the territories while, on the other hand, keeping another part in its hands for security reasons? The answer is simple. All the enlightened and liberal Israeli youth, all the Israeli intellectuals, the writers, the professors, will stand up and say: But we have no right to hold this land, because it is not ours, and the best proof of this is your refusal, from day one, To declare them ours. This shows that you yourself, Dayan, do not believe that these territories are Jewish, and if so, your desire to hold even a small part of this territory is also still considered theft.
But there is more to it than that. The refusal to label public areas in Israel as Jewish is an attempt not to anger the Arabs too much, and to give them the feeling that they are citizens with equal rights in the State of Israel. This is also a short-term success but a disaster in the long term - not to mention the glaring unfairness of this position.

No matter what the sophisticated propagandists say - an Arab does not have equal rights in Israel. As long as Israel remains faithful to the Zionist dream on the basis of which it was established as a Jewish state; as long as the original logic of the return to Zion remains unchanged (and if it changes - we have no right to the Land of Israel); as long as Israel belongs to us because it is the home of the Jewish people, where they can live in freedom, protected from physical holocaust and from spiritual-cultural assimilation; as long as Israel has a Law of Return that applies only to Jews and not to Arabs - Israel is a Jewish state (and it is not a state that ignores nationalism and religion), and in any case the Arab does not have equal rights.

The Arab is aware of this, and the fact that he now accepts Jewish rule is no indication that he is happy and that he has resigned himself to the situation. All it means is that five years is a very short period in the Middle East; that the Arabs are now making some money; that a generation of young Arab intellectuals who value nationalism and ideals more than this money is not yet mature enough; and that we are facing a terrible conflict of the Northern Ireland type in the coming years. And in this conflict, we will find thousands of Jews on the Arab side who will support them, because of Moshe Dayan who, in his short-sighted wisdom, chose to refuse to stand firm for Jewish rights immediately.
What a difference it would have been if - immediately after the Six-Day War, when the whole world still stood behind it, knowing that Israel was almost destroyed, and only miraculously it was saved - Israel had declared: All of the Land of Israel is ours, historically; The land has been Jewish since the time of the Bible; we officially announce that the land is ours and will never be returned. How much more powerful our claim could have been, morally and legally - than the current cunning and diplomatic game. But that is not what we did! That is not what we did and we never said: Israel is a Jewish state, the home of the Jewish people, a place where Jewish sovereignty is dominant, and where Arabs can live as individuals - and only as a demographic and cultural minority.

And this is why the "League" wants a mezuzah on the Nablus Gate. Not that there aren't other things that are just as important, or even more so - but because the reason there is no mezuzah there is the fundamental mistake that stands behind Israeli policy: our unwillingness to cause a sense of alienation among the Arabs, our unwillingness to declare clear Jewish sovereignty over a gate located in a part of Jerusalem that is populated only by Arabs. What we don't want to establish is both a mezuzah and Jewish sovereignty!

And this is the basis of the League's intention in this act. Not just the imposition of a mezuzah - but the imposition of the name "Jewish" on the city of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is not an Arab-Jewish city. It is a city where Jews and Arabs live, but the city is Jewish, the sovereignty is Jewish, and Arabs live there with individual rights, in contrast to the national rights that Jews have in the city. For this, and to save Israel from the short-sightedness of its leaders, it is worth fighting for the mezuzah on the Nablus Gate and even going to jail. At least, when Israeli youth rise up in the years to come, and demonstrate for Arab rights and say to the judge: But you yourself never applied Jewish rights and thus recognized Arab rights - we will be able to say: True, but we fought for this from the beginning; we wanted to tell you back then that this city and this state are Jewish and not joint, and we were even willing to go to jail so that there would be a mezuzah on the Nablus Gate, and for a settlement in the city of Nablus