Hostage Situation -

This entry was written before the terrible news was released, that Naftali Frankel, Gilad Shaer, and Eyal Yifrah, of blessed memory, have been found brutally murdered. May the families never know such sorrow again. With the exception of the epilogue, the premises and conclusions of the piece remain unchanged.

It's never pleasant when a bad decision from the past comes back to haunt you. Knowing that you opposed that decision, and correctly predicted its terrible future consequences, is not much consolation. Many Israelis felt this trepidation during the process that culminated in the exchange of 1,027 Hamas terrorists, collectively responsible for the deaths of over 560 Israeli citizens, for one abducted Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit.

On June 30, 2009, Infantryman Bowe Bergdahl went missing from his base in Paktika province, Afghanistan. Members of his unit have stated their unequivocal conviction that he had deserted in order to join the Taliban. Correspondence between Bergdahl and his father, Robert Bergdahl, exhibited Bowe's sympathy for the Taliban. After five years in captivity, Bergdahl was swapped for five senior Taliban terrorists imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo), two of whom were involved in the 9/11/2001 bombings. Pundits and politicians alike referenced the Shalit prisoner swap as justification for the release of five members of the jihadist tactical elite.

The latest dividend of that terrible decision was paid out two weeks ago in Israel. Naftali Frankel (, 16, from Nof Ayalon), Gilad Shaer (, 16, from Talmon), and Eyal Yifrah (, 19, from Elad,) were hiking in the Judean hills near their homes when they were kidnapped by Arab terrorists. An additional disturbing development is the violent demonstrations Arab Israelis in support of the kidnappers.

It isn't terribily difficult to connect the dots. Negotiating with terrorists is an act of weakness that emboldens barbaric enemies and weakens allies. Since the Shalit prisoner swap, attacks on Israelis have continued. Why wouldn't they? His kidnappers won an immediate tactical victory. What Netanyahu, and the west that lauded the swap, refused to see was that the terrorists won a strategic victory as well. The bar of resistance against jihadist terror and the psychological warfare of kidnapping had been significantly lowered.

Over the past few days in Israel, support for the terrorist kidnappers has emerged among Arab-Israelis in violent demonstrations against the IDF's effort to find and rescue the abducted teenagers. Anti-Zionist Balad PartyMK Hanan Zoabi, who incredibly remains in the Knesset despite regularly supporting the effort to destroy Israel, justified the kidnapping and criticized the Palestinian Authority's cooperation to locate the boys. Because of a refusal to adopt an offensive posture to eliminate our existentially threatening enemies, jihadists roar and moderate Arabs remain silent. The latter will not risk their lives for futile gestures, no matter how noble those gestures might be. It is difficult to see how a society, or a civilization for that matter, can survive while it tolerates such challenges to its survival from within.

I was present at a rally on behalf of the kidnapped Israeli teenagers at the Boca Raton Jewish Center last Monday night. I'm disappointed to say that the tone smacked of a large measure of learned helplessness and some political posturing. It didn't help that none of the speakers had bothered to learn how to pronounce Eyal's name.

At one point a presenter rattled off the names of Democratic Party politicians who made statements of support for the kidnapped boys. That presenter apparently hadn't bothered to solicit such statements from a single Florida Republican supporter of Israel, such as Allen West or Marco Rubio. The presenter also declined to mention the efforts of Sen. Rand Paul, a couple of weeks before the kidnapping, to introduce a bill in the Senate cutting off all aid to the Palestinian Authority until it recognizes Israel as a Jewish state. No, such a hack would consider it to radical to actually stop paying people who regularly and violently challenge Israel's right to exist.

Israel's Consul to Florida and Puerto Rico only went so for as to urge people to participate in a Twitter #bringbackourboys campaign. Yes, the Israeli Consul believes that an internet social media petition made up of a hashtag will get under the skin of Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood's neighborhood proxy. Honestly, I was ashamed and embarassed of the utter fecklessness of these presenters. What sent me over the edge, though, was the end of the evening. Someone, perhaps a rabbi or a cantor, thought it fitting to lead the congregation in rousing renditions of "Oseh Shalom Bimromav" and "David Melekh Yisrael," songs of peace and celebration.

No, when three teenagers are lying somewhere captive, perhaps injured, perhaps starving, perhaps dead, it is not the time to talk of peace. It is not the time to sing proud songs of celebration. It is time to get angry. It is time to channel fear and outrage in deeds in the physical world. That means rallies in front of embassies and government buildings. That means telephone campaigns that at least gain the attention of government staffers. It means standing on busy street corners with banners. It might be inconvenient, it might require more than a few mouseclicks and keystrokes.

It is time to ask, why is the Palestinian Authority still getting American tax dollars? It is time to ask, how many more Israelis will be kidnapped because their government chose populism over real security. It is time to ask, why didn't the Senate even vote on the bill to defund the PA at the very time its president, Mahmoud Abbas, officially allied to share power with Hamas? It is time to support real efforts to deal effectively with our enemies, rather than demure because it might make a political conservative like Rand Paul look good.

Epilogue - 30 June 2014:

Naftali, Gilad, and Eyal, of blessed memory, have been found brutally murdered near Hebron. Now is a time of mourning for the Frankel, Shaer, and Yifrah families; may they never know such sorrow again. While Israelis and Jews around the world mark this time of sadness, the sovereign state of Israel has no such luxury; it must respond - decisively. Israel should immediately announce (a) the elimination of all restrictions on Israeli construction in the E-1 corridor adjacent to Jerusalem, (b) the authorization of three new settlements in Judea and Samaria, and (c) the resignation of Interior Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovich.

Limor Livnat, Cancel the Book Law Now

Limor Livnat, Cancel the Book Law Now

by Amir Weitmann

translated by J. Michael Jaffe

Original Hebrew version inThe Marker, Opinion Section, 30.06.2014
Available at http://www.themarker.com/opinion/1.2363150

About a year ago, I urged against the passage of the Law for the Protection of Literature and Authors in Israel, ("the Book Law;" "Open skies for the book market as well," May 2, 2013, The Marker), which restricts bookstores from selling books at discounted prices and whose stated purpose is to make books more expensive.

The article was part of a long campaign of activism against the law by the Israel Freedom Movement. Already in 2010, data and projected harms were presented to the public and legislators in a position paper written by Boaz Arad, a founder of the movement, as part of a JIMS (Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies) research framework. Since then, we've warned that the law will damage Israeli culture. Unfortunately, our efforts were in vain - and the law was passed by the Knesset. It was enacted on February 6 this year – a date we declared "Remembrance Day for Israeli Literature."

We said all along that without the excessive interference of politicians in an otherwise free, thriving, and growing market, the inability of publishers and stores to freely set prices would lead to rising prices of books, which are also subject to the laws of supply and demand. We communicated our warning via every possible platform, including the Knesset, that the law would lead to a crisis in an area that has cultural, intellectual, and spiritual significance for the state and its citizens. International comparisons showed that European countries which imposed restrictions on book pricing annually published 0.8 to 1.7 titles per 1,000 citizens, while countries without such restrictions published 1.14 to 5.8 books per 1,000 citizens.

Initiators and supporters of the bill, led by Culture Minister Limor Livnat, rejected our claims and said the impact on sales would be insignificant, and that eventually authors would benefit. Livnat - with the support of powerful lobbyists, including Steimatzky, which has since become embroiled in its own operating crisis – succeeded politically. The question, of course, is whether this political success translates into success or failure for Israeli culture.

Five months after the law took effect, we can already draw preliminary conclusions: as expected, the law indeed harmed the industry. In 2012, before the law's enactment, 7,487 books were published, an historic record in Hebrew book publication and an increase of 11% compared to 2011. In 2013, immediately after the law was passed, there was a decline in new book publication.

Even more worrisome, young and new writers are the main victims of the law to benefit authors. Sales of new books and the publication of author debut books saw a significant decrease – of at least 20% - since the law took effect, due to the increased business risk associated with publishing a new book. New authors found that books of theirs readied for publication had been frozen.

We warned that the number of titles per capita would decrease and, indeed, since the law took effect, the publishers have published much fewer books, illustrating the following - long-term damage to Israeli literary creativity, both in quality and quantity. We warned of dangers to the industry's profitability and, indeed, the law's enactment was accompanied by a decline in average bookstore receipts in significant percentages compared to last year.

In addition, public libraries are withering, and finding that their limited budgets now buy fewer new books in the absence of discounts. The director of the Nahal Sorek Regional Library, for example, writes, "the Book Law raises deep concerns about the ability of libraries to continue to serve as an effective, available, timely and free agency in the matter of books, "a fact that hurts the underprivileged population, of course.

To the Minister of Culture: There is no shame in admitting a mistake. It is possible and necessary to repeal the law immediately, before it is too late.

The author is a founder of the Israeli Freedom Movement.

Political Thuggery vs. Free Speech in Israel

Labor Party Thug-in-Chief Eitan Cabel

Over the past two months, the Knesset has been considering the "Bill for the Promotion and Protection of the Printed Media in Israel." The proposed law, introduced by Labor Party fixer-in-chief Eitan Cabel, states, "No person shall publish, or be responsible for the distribution of, a widely circulated daily newspaper free of charge (to the consumer), for a period exceeding six months from the start of its free-of-charge distribution." Anyone who believes in Israel's aspirations to freedom of speech and thought should be angered by the arrogance of such a proposal.

Cabel is no newcomer to abusing the government's media regulatory apparatus for political gain. As a former minister running the Israel Broadcast Authority, he demanded taxpayer funds to keep the quasi-commercial Channel 10 out of bankruptcy. Of course, it didn't hurt Cabel that Channel 10's content generally communicated a leftist, Labor-Party-friendly bias.

Arnon Mozes: criminalize the competition

No law can "protect printed media." Print is a technology which, in a free society, is easily accessible. In authentic Orwellian doublespeak, this bit of tyranny "protects" the interests of a narrow, elitist interest by falsely labeling the law an exercise in universal morality. The elite is personified by Yedioth Ahronoth owner Arnon "Noni" Mozes, whose family numbers among the dozen or so wealthiest, most connected and influential in the country. Before Israel Hayom broke onto the scene seven years ago, Yedioth Ahronoth dominated newspaper circulation. Today, Israel Hayom has either matched Yedioth Ahronoth or taken the lead in circulation. This law would thus criminalize Israel Hayom's business model of cost-free distribution to the reader and advertising-only-based revenue. 

The bill was co-sponsored by eight additional Knesset members: Yoel Razbozov (Yesh Atid), Robert Ilatov (Likud Beytenu), Elazar Stern (Hatnu'ah), Ariel Attias (Shas), and Ayelet Shaked (Habayit Hayehudi), Ilan Gilon (Meretz), Yitzhak Vaknin (Shas), and Yithak Cohen (Shas). These disgraceful individuals are not fit to serve as the "public's representatives" in Israel's legislature; members of their respective parties should be the first to condemn them. Perhaps sensing a growing outrage within their party constituencies, Vaknin and Cohen have since withdrawn their support for the measure.

These MKs, from parties on both the right and the left, share a political antagonism towards Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu has been constantly attacked by Yedioth Ahronoth and the other major, leftist, oligarch-owned newspapers. Israel Hayom, has arguably been the only nationally circulated newspaper that has presented positive coverage of Netanyahu, even in a balanced context.

Currently, it appears that the Bill for the Promotion and Protection of the Printed Media in Israel will not pass in the Knesset. It was heartening to read of a demonstration in Haifa opposing the bill, organized surprisingly by the Labor party and by pensioners. These are positive developments. It is troubling, however, that several MKs from both the left and the right have supported the bill. In effect, they are supporting the partisan suppression of political speech on the part of a newspaper. In the eyes of these MKs, has this become an acceptable norm for the purposes of political gain? If this type of political warfare is introduced on the part of the political opposition, does the tactic not become fair game for those in power? Do these MKs not believe that the principle of free speech is to be protected as an article of Israel's national identity as a democracy?

Unfortunately, government over-reach in controlling speech and business is still problematic in Israel, as evidenced by the passage last summer of the Law for the protection of authors and literature in Israel. That law regulates agreements between publishers and authors as well as sale of new books in Israeli bookstores. Authors may not negotiate a royalty rate lower than 8% and bookstores may not sell books at a discount for the first 18 months of a book's sale, regardless of whether authors are willing to make such concessions for the sake of getting their books into print. The greatest beneficiaries of that law are Steimatzky, Israel's largest chain of bookstores, and older, established authors. New authors will find it relatively difficult, as a result of the new law, to get signed by publishers. If the experience of other countries which passed similar laws is any indication, the number of book titles published per year will drop. Customers will pay more if they want to read newer books, which many will probably forego. Entrepreneurs with innovative strateigies, trying to provide value at lower prices, will find the bookselling sector more difficult to enter. Is it any wonder the law is known as "the Steimatzky Law?"

Israelis cannot expect their government to restrain itself until the citizens themselves demand this en-masse. That means a widespread cultural movement to promote freedom and responsibility. It means teaching Israelis that government is not the ultimate provider of material sustenance, but a necessary apparatus that must focus solely on providing vital governing services and nothing more. When government tries to manage the economy it fails, especially when it tries to stave off the complementary cycles of ecnomic growth and recession. In a free market, these cycles both drive healthy competition, which lead to innovation and true productivity. When they try to "protect" an industry, the end result is almost always to weaken that industry by making it less competitive and less productive.

Too many Israelis still expect and rely upon government handouts, but do not grasp how the system providing those handouts handicaps their potential to prosper. The more social benefits become legal "rights," the larger the government bureaucracy created to guarantee those "rights." Government grows and siphons wealth out of the marketplace just to sustain that bureaucracy. It is a decaying cycle that eventually reduces national productivity while increasing citizen dependency on government for even the most basic needs. Add to that the inevitable corruption feeding upon the power of unlimited taxation and money-printing, and the problem is even worse.

Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are basic rights that must be guaranteed, not restricted, by government. They constitute a red line to be defended if Israel is to be a country that is free and prosperous. Another message must also be made clear. No industry or individual has a right to manipulate the legal system in order to guarantee itself an advantage or an income, especially at the cost of another's freedom.

The author is a member of the Israel Freedom Movement. http://liberal.co.il/

The People of the Book or the People's Books?

On July 31st, Israel's legislature, the Knesset, passed the "Law for the Protection of Literature and Authors in Israel." The title alone should puzzle and worry freedom-loving people. Other than protect the freedom of expression, how does a government "protect literature" in a society where consumers have no restrictions on what they read? Why do Israeli authors need protection that is specifically different from that of other citizens and professionals? Why does the government of Israel, which ranks among the top 5 countries in the world for titles published per capita, need to "fix" a literary situation that is... pretty good as it is? Do the People of the Book need a law to promote literature and protect authors? What problem did this law supposedly correct?

According to the law's proposal, "... the book market has been dominated by a duopoly of two chains which control approximately 80% of the market, one of which is ... controlled by a large publishing house. This causes serious damage to the principle of free competition. The Ministry of Culture believes that ... there is no alternative other than to manage the market, even at the cost of intervention in the free market."

Has this "duopoly" translated into artificially high prices to consumers? Nope. The two major chains, Steimatzky and relative newcomer Tzomet Books, established as a discount chain, compete with one another using large economies of scale to sell books at attractive prices. Smaller book stores in Israel cater to niches, such as graphic novels (comics), used books, foreign language books, science fiction, specialty Judaica, to name just a few. These venues do not even try to compete with the "duopoly" on price alone. So, the current situation actually reflects a very healthy free market in which booksellers offer increasingly better consumer quality as a result of competition and improved customer service.

The law's proposal proceeds to describe its goals, "to ensure writers appropriate compensation for their work, to promote literature in Israel, to preserve cultural diversity in the publication and distribution of books in Israel, to provide readers an opportunity to choose from a wide variety of books according to their desires and tastes, and enable competition between publishers and booksellers regarding the quantity, variety and quality of books offered to the consumer." All of these goals reflect lofty ideals and yet all of them are already served in the current free market. Writers aren't coerced into agreements against their will and Israeli readers enjoy hugely diverse offerings, especially considering that Hebrew is spoken by relatively few people around the world. Somebody's trying to fix something that isn't broken.

So, what's the proposed "fix?" A "protection period" has been defined as the first 18 months from a book's first publication date, during which two sets of regulations apply. The first is a minimum rate of royalties to be paid to Israeli authors: 8% of the sales price (minus VAT) for the first 6,000 copies sold and 10% thereafter. The second is a prohibition against any bookstore selling a "protection period" book for less than the retail consumer price – except for during Hebrew Book Week and the weeks leading up to Rosh Hashanah and Passover, when booksellers can offer discounts of up to 10%.

The concept of minimum royalty rates might be fine for established authors, who have existing consumer fan bases – and therefore pose smaller risks for publishers. However, new authors present a large risk to publishers, and a minimum royalty rate eliminates any leeway to leverage increased risk with lower royalties. As a new author, I might be willing to substantially reduce my royalties for the chance of establishing myself in the literary world. Under the new law, I'm not permitted to do this. It is no wonder that 270 established authors and translators signed a letter supporting the law, which makes it harder for new authors to compete with them for the patronage of the reading public. It serves as protectionism for the established literary elite.

Any benefits of the prohibition on discounts during the protection period are questionable. According to the head of the Israeli Freedom Movement, Boaz Arad, this is the first time an Israeli law is prohibiting a financial discount to Israeli consumers. While the law assures that authors will receive higher royalties for every book sold, higher book prices will result in fewer books sold. Again, this might favor established authors, but it is likely that new authors will find it much harder to gain readers. Also, is it not possible for authors, especially established authors and publishers, to stipulate some contractual means of guaranteeing a minimum return on every book sold, without needing a law to do so?

The responses of the CEOs of Steimatzky and Tzomet Books to the law's passage were quite telling. Steimatzky CEO Iris Barel bragged that her company was the only one that supported the bill and thanked its sponsor, Minister of Education, Culture, and Sport Limor Livnat. Tzomet Books was established in 2002 as a competitive, discount alternative to the monopolistic Steimatzky. Tzomet Books CEO Avi Shumer did not comment on the new book law but, regarding price discounts, he said, "We respect all authors who would prefer not to be sold during sales." How interesting that a law supposedly designed to break a duopoly is supported by the former monopoly holder, but not supported by the discount-oriented bookstore chain. Price-fixing tends to favor established sector leaders, like Steimatzky, who prefer to avoid competing with hungrier business upstarts. 

What of other countries which have legislated book price-setting laws? A comparison of 14 European Union countries reveals that those with price-setting laws release significantly fewer book titles per 1000 citizens than do countries with either completely unregulated literary markets or those with non-legislated sector-wide agreements. Finland abolished its book law in 1971 and Great Britain did so in 1996. In both cases, the result was substantial growth in both countries' bookselling sectors. Both history and common sense indicate that this law will make books more expensive in Israel and damage the literary market. Fewer new titles will be published, fewer books will be sold, and fewer new authors will be published.

The book business is not an easy one. The digital age has brought us Amazon, e-commerce, digital books, e-coupons, and instant price comparisons, disruptive technologies which pose major challenges to the publishers and booksellers. Government protectionism will not make these challenges go away, it will just reduce the incentive of these industries to adapt and thrive under new conditions. Besides, the provisions of this law do not meet the rhetoric of the law's declared justification. The law does not encourage the diversity, quantity, or quality of literary offerings. Writing is one of the hardest professions by which one might scratch out a living; very few authors sustain themselves on their books alone. But is this such a bad thing? The greatest authors of the past 200 years have not demanded government protections - they had day jobs. At this point, new authors might find themselves "protected" to the degree of being un-publishable.

The recent legislation seems less concerned with the health of the Israel's literary sector than with the interests of entreched players like Steimatzky and the established intellectual elite - who seem to think they are entitled to their positions of influence independently of the choices of the consumers who sustain them. The cause of literature and literary culture is served when a well-read public has easy, cheap access to a dynamic marketplace that presents the work of both established and new authors. The best way a government can serve such a cause is to stay out of the way.

Free markets clearly benefit consumers, by linking customer value and merit with business success. The apparent apathy of Israeli citizens over this government intrusion into the intellectual marketplace, which will end up hurting the Israeli book buyer, is cause for concern. The law was passed with 45 ayes, 3 nays, and 72 abstentions. Even disregarding the gaping disconnect between MKs and Israeli citizens, this legislation can hardly be considered as the will of the people. The People of the Book deserve better - but it's up to them to demand it. If you want to find common cause in liberty and limited government, join the Israeli Freedom Movement. Check them out at www.liberal.co.il.

http://www.haaretz.com/culture/books/authors-demand-protection-from-royalty-cutting-book-chains-1.431803

http://www.liberal.co.il

http://main.knesset.gov.il/News/PressReleases/pages/press310713h.aspx

http://www.liberal.co.il/%D7%97%D7%93%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/228-%D7%94%D7%A6%D7%A2%D7%AA-%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A7-%D7%9C%D7%94%D7%92%D7%A0%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%95%D7%94%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%99

A Fourth of July Letter to Children of Israel and America

To children, especially my own, whose parents brought them from America to live in Israel. The Fourth of July approaches, and I hope you'll mark the date.

As a child of the United States and modern Israel, you have a unique national heritage. You may be dual citizens; you may have connections to two very different lands, with two different governments and two different groups of citizens. Yet, the heritage to which you belong from both of these places can be considered as singular and coherent.

Early Americans, including the original Pilgrims and the Founding Fathers, identified strongly with the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt as well as the principles of living freely with individual rights. Eventually, they battled for independence from their own "Pharaoh," King George III, and set up a system of governance inspired by their understanding of the "Hebrew Republic," based largely on insights from the Torah and the books of the Hebrew Prophets. At times, the Pilgrims even referred to the American colonies as "New Israel;" to this day, throughout the United States, especially on the eastern seaboard, the names of towns, cities, and counties are taken from the Hebrew Bible.

Descendants of persecuted sects of Christianity in England, the American Founders were adamant that their new nation would be tolerant of diverse religions. They proclaimed freedom of religion as well as a prohibition against the establishment of any state religion in the very same Constitutional Amendment that guaranteed free speech. The most religious of the early Americans believed that true religious virtue was possible only in free societies, in which citizens exercised that virtue in the choices they made. This included freedom of thought. Thomas Jefferson went so far as to state, "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."

On the Fourth of July, 1776, the Declaration of Independence proclaimed that all men are created equal. This never implied that all people should have equal wealth or abilities; it was meant to declare that all people are born with unalienable rights given, not by governments, but by God. These include freedom of thought, speech, worship, property, and self-defense - which were clarified in the Constitution that followed. To this day, there is growing interest among historians and Constitutional scholars about how the document was significantly influenced by the Talmud.

Another major principle of the American Constitution, and a key reason for the American Revolution itself, was the maximization of freedom by means of limitations, not upon citizens, but upon government. This, too, was inspired by principles of the Hebrew Republic, in which the very concept of a monarchy is viewed with concern, and even religious antagonism. Some European political philosophers of the seventeenth century invoked the Hebrew Republic to argue for the abolition of monarchy itself.

Despite historic abuses of power by Israel's kings, Hebrew kingdoms were not supposed to amass wealth, nor were they supposed to exist for the sake of providing for all the people's needs. They existed to defend against attack, to provide a national framework of governance, and to ensure that people were free and able to provide for themselves. In a system not unlike that of the states of the American union, the Hebrew tribes governed themselves in geographic localities.

The era of the American Revolution was also culmination of the movement of Christian Hebraism, when Protestant Christians sought to return to original Hebrew texts in trying to understand their roots. This didn't mean that, at the time, they loved Jews; it did reflect their growing respect for the origins of their concepts of justice, morality, and human dignity. The leaders of American institutions of higher learning, including Ezra Stiles of Yale, consulted and sometimes became close friends with rabbis in the area.

America has proven to be Israel's staunchest ally. But the relationship goes beyond geopolitical convenience and imperative. The values of individual rights and responsibilities, protected - but not dictated - by government is a legacy of Jewish thought. In this way, America arguably lays claim as embodying a legacy of Jewish governance. It's something Jews all over the world should be proud of. It's something Israelis should note, as an indication of how Israel's governance falls short when it tries, disastrously, to govern as a quasi-socialist welfare state, with its bloated, wasteful bureacracy, excessive taxation, and controlling over-reach into marketplaces and private lives.

The Fourth of July, 1776, coincided on the Hebrew calendar with 17 Tammuz 5536. The seventeenth of Tammuz annually marks the beginning of the three weeks leading up to the 9th of Av, period of mourning and somber reflection as Jews remember the destruction of the Temples and other tragic occurrences in Jewish history. I believe that this is no cosmic coincidence. It is said that in times of trouble, God provides solutions inside the problems themselves.

And so, sons and daughters of Israel and the United States, feel proud of your part in embodying this wonderful, shared legacy of the Hebrew Republic. May all of us, citizens of the modern State of Israel and citizens of that land across the ocean once called "New Israel," celebrate a happy Fourth of July.

Introducing the Two Israels Project

The English Calvinists who made the pilgrimage to early America, in order to practice tolerance and a faith denying the religious sanctioning of monarchies, considered themselves the New Israelites of their era. There are references to the colonies as "New Israel," and this is supported by the multitude of Hebrew biblical names of towns and counties. A few generations later, their descendants, the American Founders, expressed an affinity and identification with the ancient Hebrews, and King George III was widely characterized as the "Pharaoh" of the American Revolution.

On the heels of the Protestant Reformation, the 17th and 18th centuries were the highpoint of Christian Hebraism, the movement to understand the Hebrew, and sometimes even the Rabbinic, roots of Christianity. Anti-semitic beliefs and attitudes were common, but Hebrew itself was treated as a classic, seminal language for learning scripture, and prominent colleges in America required the study of Hebrew from its students. The Founders, and their political philosophical forebears in Europe, considered the governing principles mentioned in the Torah (the Five Books of Moses) and the books of the Prophets in the Old Testament as practical (, for some, even "perfect,") guidelines for the governance tof a free people.

The "Hebrew Republic" is the historical concept evoked by some American Founders, and previously by English political philosophers, when referring to the example of ancient Israel's governance. Today, two modern states, "Two Israels," may be considered philosophical legacies to the concept of the Hebrew Republic: the United States of America (, the geopolitical heir to the 250 year-old notion of "New Israel,") and the State of Israel.

In labeling the United States as one of the "Two Israels," I am not suggesting that the US has in any way replaced the Jews or the State of Israel as the embodiment of Israel. Very few Americans would even contemplate such a thing, despite the adoption by some Christian sects of "replacement theology," which argues that Christianity has replaced Judaism as the covenant of God's chosen people. I use the term only to express what might be a common philosophical inspiration, ancient Israel, in the governance of the two nations.

And so, I propose a project to discuss, explore, research, and document how the concept of the Hebrew Republic has influenced governance in Israel and the United State. What can the two grand experiments (as well as those of the individual 50 United States) teach each other? What values do they best serve? In what ways are they failing their missions and their peoples? How does an affiliation with the concept of a Hebrew Republic affect the American-Israeli alliance and navigation through geopolitics and global economics?

I hope that this "Two Israels Project" might be the start of a valuable and fruitful discourse, that we might discover and share insights which strengthen the bonds between Americans and Israelis, and which improve the value of governance in both countries.