Junior Thesis - Part One

“On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable. This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State.” Israeli Declaration of Independence, May 14^th, 1948

In 1947 the UN voted to partition the ancient land of Palestine. The British officially withdrew on May 14^th, 1948 and the Jewish National Council proclaimed the State of Israel, recognized soon after by the United States. The next day, Arab forces from Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq invaded the new nation. After the cease-fire on Jan. 7, 1949, Chaim Weizmann and David Ben-Gurion became Israel's first president and prime minister - this new government was admitted to the UN on May 11, 1949. Since then Israel has been a focal point of terrorist attacks, controversy, disagreements and conflict.                                                                                                                                “Abbas declares that he would never deny the Jews’ right to Israel.” “Some question insistence on Israel as a Jewish state.” “Israeli cabinet has approved passing of a new law requiring all non-Jews to swear loyalty to Israel.” “Palestinian father reaches out after racist attack kills son.” These are a mere few of many current headlines all related by one dominant theme – the legitimacy of the Jews’ right to Israel. From this question stem all arguments against Israelis concerning the Palestinian conflict, terrorism in the Middle East and the continual peace process attempts between Middle Eastern leaders.

However, the general question which must be settled before the specific case of Israel comes to trial is, why does any nation own a land? What constitutes a “right” of a people group to possess a plot of soil which they deem “their” country? No one contests the right of the English to the isle of Britain nor that of the Americans to make their home upon the northern continent of America. Yet from the very day of its birth, dissenting voices have opposed the right of the Jewish people to own the land of Israel, consisting of a total 8, 019 square miles of desert bordering the Mediterranean. These arguments take many forms, valid and invalid, and the accusation that the Jews are the illegitimate owners of Israel is mainstream, held by Muslims and non-Muslims alike. It is a claim found everywhere, on jihadist websites, in the media, in the newspapers and on television. It is propagated by use of photos, articles, videos, essays, and speeches. Its roots are anti-Semitic and its effects are bias and prejudice against the Jewish people. Yet the accusations, if valid, are weighty ones – if true, the Jews have much to answer for.

There are, generally speaking, four universal laws widely accepted that constitute the right of a nation to own a land. These are; right of military conquest, right of merit, legal right, and historical right. Israel has proved throughout the past and continues to prove to the world today that she fully possesses all four of these major rights and that any contrary argument is based in prejudice or ignorance. 

Contemplating Crime and Caesar

                                                                                                            

            Is it right to commit a crime for what one believes to be a higher good? In 44

B.C., the Roman Senate named Julius Caesar, former dictator and present political master of Rome, as “dictator perpetuo”, effectively making him emperor for life. His friend Brutus, along with about forty other senators, saw in this act the death of the Roman Republic. They therefore conspired together and, on March 15^th, in Pompey’s Theatre at a Senate session, they attacked Caesar, stabbing him twenty-three times. After his death, rioting and chaos broke out in Rome and five civil wars ensued. Caesar’s nephew Octavian emerged the victor and became emperor of Rome on January 13th, 27 B.C.

           Everyone agrees upon these facts – however, some believe that Brutus should have assassinated Caesar and some do not. But Brutus should not have assassinated Caesar for three reasons – Rome would have benefited from his leadership, it is wrong to murder and the results of the assassination were disastrous for everyone involved

           First of all, Rome would have benefited from Caesar’s leadership. Indeed, it had already done so during the short time he controlled Rome. He was a skilled politician, as illustrated by his visionary policies, the order he established in the city, the tax laws he effectively revised and the citizenship he granted to communities. He was also a skilled military leader, having risen to prowess through his military achievements. He was in no way unread or uneducated.

           Secondly, Brutus should not have assassinated Caesar because it was wrong to do so. Caesar was defenseless. He trusted Brutus as a friend – during Caesar’s battle with Pompey, Brutus and Cassius were on Pompey’s side. Yet when Caesar had defeated Pompey he forgave both Brutus and Cassius and gave them prominent government positions. Moreover, the Torah commands us not to murder, as do most ethical codes of man.

           Lastly, the results were disastrous for Rome. The assassination created chaos – Rome was like a tossing turbulent tempest as her citizens rioted, as her citizens plundered and her citizens murdered. Brutus and Cassius committed suicide and five civil wars followed. The outcome was the very opposite of what the assassins had intended.

Some people claim that Brutus should have assassinated Caesar because he was a threat to the Roman Empire – if he became king, Rome would become a monarchy. However, the outcome was even worse than what the Senate had feared from Caesar – Octavian became complete dictator of Rome after he defeated Antony and Cleopatra. Moreover, assassination is certainly not the answer. The Senate still held enough power to prevent a tyranny and the Roman people, whom the Republic was supposed to represent, were in favor of Caesar’s leadership.

           Those in favor of Caesar’s assassination also argue that Caesar was corrupt. Some claim that he was gay, while others claim that he was corrupt. Again, assassination is not the answer. If he was corrupt in his private life, it had nothing to do with the way he ruled Rome. Historians also cannot prove anything -there is no evidence to support this charge of corruption.

           Thus the arguments that Caesar was a threat to the Republic and that he was corrupt are inadequate. There were other ways to prevent Caesar’s tyranny if the Senators saw it as a threat. Also, there is no proof for the charge that Caesar was corrupt. In either case, murder was the wrong way to deal with the problem, if there even was one.

           Brutus should not have assassinated Caesar because Rome would have benefited from Caesar’s leadership,  it is wrong to murder and the outcome was disastrous. In 44 B.C., it would have mattered to everyone in the city of Rome, citizens and politicians alike. But murder mattered most to Brutus and Caesar, who were affected more than anyone else by their decisions. 

Judaism in "Paradise Lost"

            “Not by destroying Satan, but his works in thee and in thy seed; nor can this be, but by fulfilling that which thou didst want, obedience to the law of God…”                          
              Many are familiar with Milton’s seventeenth century epic poem, Paradise Lost. The story of the man’s fall and subsequent redemption, written in the poet’s beautiful, graceful prose, are well-known events to Christians and non-Christians alike. However what is not so widespread is the fact that many sources which Milton draws upon to retell the drama come from Judaism and rabbinical midrash. Taking a close look at his masterpiece we find many similarities between Milton and the rabbis, many Jewish sources and names, and many rich ancient traditions taken from the Chosen People.                       
           This may seem odd at first glance, for Milton was a devout Christian, living in an anti-Semetic England of the 1600s, during a period of pietism. His contemporaries were predominantly Protestant or Catholic – it was an age where Jews were branded as heretics and outsiders who had killed the Christians’ Jesus. Moreover, Paradise Lost is rife with mythological characters of Greek and Roman origin – in other words, paganism. How could this kind of man coming from this historical background and religion, use Judaism in his most famous poem already containing numerous Gentile inventions? Yet he did with astounding success, creating a timeless work, famous for its beauty and scholarship.                                                                     Obviously since Milton’s account comes from the Jewish Torah, all his characters and geography are Jewish. The Garden of Eden is Gan Eden and the Devil is Hasatan, well-known figures in rabbinical thought. Milton also appears to have a wide knowledge of the “Old Testament” – that is, the section of the Bible containing the five books of Torah, writings and prophets. He displays a broad knowledge of Judaic tradition, for example, when he describes one of Hasatan’s angels:                  
"First Moloch, horrid King besmeared with blood
Of human sacrifice, and parents tears… him the Ammonite,
Worshiped in Rabba and her watery plain,
In Argob and in Basan, to the stream
Of utmost Arnon. Nor content with such
Audacious neighborhood, the wisest heart
Of Solomon he led by fraud to build
His temple right against the temple of God,
On that opprobrious Hill, and made his Grove
The pleasant Valley of Hinnom, Tophet thence
And black Gehenna called, the Type of Hell”…                                                                         
          Milton spoke Hebrew and seemed familiar with all these places and people, unlike many other Christians. This is in part because he was a Puritan who predominantly identified with the Jews– moreover he used Mosaic laws many times in his arguments in politics.                                                                                    There are also similarities between Milton’s midrashes and those of the rabbis. Paradise Lost contains many stories such as conversations between Hashem and the Messiah and between the angel Michael and Adam. These types of “elaborations”, so to speak, follow the same structure as the midrashes of Rashi. A Jewish author Golda Werman even contends that “Paradise Lost can be considered as a modern midrash; it is largely a midrashic commentary on a few brief Biblical passages. Milton turned and turned the Biblical text to derive every possible meaning from it as a midrashist would have done.” For instance, Adam’s pleading with Hashem for a partner in Paradise Lost parallels the Jewish midrash from Genesis Rabbah. In Paradise Lost the story of Adam’s naming "each Bird and Beast. . . Approaching two and two,"… ending with his entreaty to God ("In solitude/What happiness, who can enjoy alone, Or all enjoying, what contentment find!”)  is very similar to the midrash; "Hashem brought all the living creatures before Adam in pairs. Adam said, 'For each one there is a partner, but there is no partner for me!’”                                                                                                                                                                             Many of Milton’s sources are Jewish as well – his main one seems to be the Pirke-de-Rabbi Eliezer of the 700s, who wrote midrash composed primarily of the Jerusalem Talmud and the Targum – it is quoted by, among others, Rashi and the Rambam.                                                                                                                                                 Milton’s use of Judaism in his masterpiece may on the surface, seem to be inappropriate or strange – however, taking a close look, it becomes apparent that this is what makes the poem so epic and realistic. After all, the “Christian” account of the Fall and Redemption is a Jewish one and its midrashim and Jewish commentators are its supreme authorities. Milton’s masterful combination of Hellenism, Christianity and Judaism color the pages of Paradise Lost like no other author has done before nor will be able to do again.