Speak Little and Do

by Rabbi Lior Engelman, translated by Hillel Fendel.

How would we feel if the government would send us to fight in Gaza with an end-goal of a Palestinian state there? That's how others feel when we talk about returning to Gush Katif. Consensus is not hard to reach.

At one of the gatherings between religious and secular Jews that I was privileged to take part in during the stormy days of the Judicial Reform controversy, one of the participants asked me: "Do you really believe that we should expel all the Arabs from Judea, Samaria and Gaza?"

I told him, "It doesn't really matter what I believe, or what you believe, because at some point – next week, next year, ten years from now, or even longer – they won't leave us a choice. It won't happen because I support it, or because a right-wing government decides to do it. I will happen because people like you will feel their evil up close. It will be the Arabs themselves who will convince you, through their actions, that we can't let them establish a state five minutes from Kfar Saba and Raanana."

I had no idea, of course, that the massacre of Oct. 7^th was just around the corner, and I never imagined that within such a short time the Arabs would give us a reason to demolish Gaza. I had no idea that so many "peace-loving" Israelis would speak out in favor of that option. I'll just mention one of the statements that I recall: "In this campaign, there can be no humanitarian aid. We have to tell them: 'Free all the hostages, or starve to death.' It's totally legitimate."

And the speaker was none other than Labor Party chief Yair Golan, one of the most extreme personalities in our country's left-wing. We can just imagine what others were saying.

Today, however, Yair Golan doesn't speak that way anymore, and the same for many others. Today their tune is one of ending the war in exchange for all the hostages, placing no other conditions on Hamas. This, even though they know this means the end of any chance to destroy Hamas, or at least removing them from power. And of course they no longer think about starving those who are holding our loved ones; such calls they now consider fascist.

What has brought about this change? It could be because they have become tired of the war, which all agree has taken too long, whatever the reasons for that might be. It could also be that they simply want to topple the Netanyahu government, or that they're more "now"-conscious than "future"-geared. It might be that nationalism is not as popular in certain circles as is individualism, or that being hooked to the media 24/7 is very weakening. It could be that all answers are correct.

In any event, there's not much we can do about any of these – but there is one possible answer that we can do something about. It has to do with the calls to resettle Gush Katif, i.e., the former Jewish communities in Gaza that were dismantled during Ariel Sharon's Disengagement of 2006.

Not all readers of Besheva are certain to agree with me when I criticize Finance Minister Betzalel Smotrich for saying the following at a recent convention: "I don't want to simply return to Gush Katif; that's too small. It has to be something much greater than that. With Gaza we can think big!"

I personally am in favor of returning to Gush Katif, and even on a large scale. Do I think it will happen soon? I don't know, but I do know that every speech like that one probably lessens the chances for the fulfillment of that dream. That type of speech is good for internal political gatherings, to enthuse supporters and even guarantee their votes. But in the real world, where many people are actually not particularly interested in Gush Katif, it does not serve the desired purpose.

Why is that? Because when leaders send their nations to war, the objectives have to be in the broadest consensus possible. In this case, we know that our nation is more than willing to fight so that those who carried out the atrocities of Oct. 7^th will not rule in Gaza, and so that the residents of the south can return home safely without fear of rockets, and certainly so that all the hostages will return home.

But when a flag is raised that is not in the consensus, then that flag becomes, for many, a black flag that prevents them from joining the war efforts. Many people on the left still believe that the "settlements" are not the solution, but rather the problem; they believe that it was not the Disengagement that led to Oct. 7^th, but rather that if not for the Disengagement, Oct. 7^th would have happened in Gush Katif! I don't agree, of course, but that's not the point. The idea is rather that it is hard for some Jews in this country to fight a war for the sake of resettling Gush Katif – and therefore boasting that this is the goal necessarily lowers their motivation to fight.

To make it clearer, let us hypothetically turn the situation around: How willing would we be to go to war in Gaza if the declared goal was to rid the area of Hamas and then build there a Palestinian state with its recognized capital in Jerusalem? Just as we would not be willing, so too they are not – and they therefore end up wanting to give up with barely a fight.

So what do I propose? I favor saying only what is relevant. Messiah, settlements, Gush Katif – all that is not among the war objectives that we must declare at present. I am in favor of straight talk, emphasizing repeatedly that Hamas demands to remain in power in Gaza, no disarmament, the total rebuilding of Gaza, the release of hundreds or thousands of Palestinian terrorists and prisoners – and then they will agree to return all our hostages, alive or dead. Israel is squarely united against these terms, and therefore our "motivating" speeches must constantly harp only on that: We must defeat Hamas, period. And if one day Hamas is actually vanquished and we find ourselves ruling Gaza, then we can talk about Gush Katif. Not until then.

"Speak little and do much" is an important rule in warfare. With little talk, Syria disappeared, and the same with Hizbullah, and nearly the same with Iran and the Houthis. But Gaza is still standing, even with our tough talk about Gush Katif and "voluntary exile." War demands cleverness – including silence when necessary.

Game-Changer on the Temple Mount

by Ze'ev Kam, Besheva newspaper, translated by Hillel Fendel.

With the advent of Public Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir on the scene, the status of Jews coming to pray on the site of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem has improved unrecognizably.

In 1992, 16-year-old Itamar Ben-Gvir joined up with the original Temple Mount activist Gershon Solomon and his Temple Mount Loyalists movement. In those days, violent riots were a common sight on the Mount, in response to the Jewish visits arranged by Solomon's Loyalists. At one point, Solomon declared his intention to ceremoniously place a foundation stone on the Mount for the construction of the Third Temple. This prompted the police to forbid him to visit the Mount, and in fact greatly restrict Jewish presence there. The police forbade Jews even from "murmuring" there, for fear that they were actually, Heaven forbid, praying.

The situation became so absurd that even drinking water was banned, because the police suspected that the purpose would not simply be to quench thirst, but to recite a blessing over the water at Judaism's holiest spot on earth. The Spanish Inquisition couldn't have done it more efficiently.

During one of the visits, young Itamar asked the police why they were treating the Jewish pilgrims to the Mount so badly. The policeman said, "That's the decision of the Police Minister" – and then added, "When you become the Minister of Police, you can decide whatever you want."

This disparaging sentence was seared into the boy's head – and this week, 30-plus years later, he ascended to the Temple Mount, this time as Public Security Minister [the equivalent of the Police Minister then], and conducted a full-fledged prayer service, including singing of Kinot, on the fast of Tisha B'Av.

Let's go back two and a half years. In the midst of coalition-formation negotiations between the Likud and Ben-Gvir's Jewish Strength party, with the main points of the agreement essentially agreed upon, Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir sat down for a cup of coffee. The talks were taking place in the Leonardo Hotel, with a fantastic view of the Temple Mount plaza. Ben-Gvir pointed to it and stated, "Without understandings regarding the Mount, we can't come to an agreement." Netanyahu said, "What do you want? To build the Third Temple?"

Ignoring the cynicism, Ben-Gvir responded, "That's not a bad idea at all, but for now we can start with some smaller things."

Following this exchange, talks began between the parties regarding exactly that issue. Ben-Gvir made it clear that he would not accept a continuation of the manner in which Netanyahu had agreed to run the Temple Mount up to that point. Precisely then, Ayalah – Mrs. Ben-Gvir – walked in. After the sudden death of her younger sister some years before, Ayalah had begun to visit the Mount frequently to find solace – and took part in meetings with the police to find ways to make it easier for Jews to visit.

Her presence at this coalition meeting apparently did something to Netanyahu, who heard from her about the discriminatory and unfair treatment the Jewish visitors faced. Netanyahu also heard from the Ben-Gvir couple the words of Uri Tzvi Greenberg, a nationalist poet of pre-State days who was a close friend of Netanyahu's father, regarding the centrality of the Temple Mount. It became clear to all that something had touched the Prime Minister regarding the difficulties facing Jews who seek to visit their holiest site.

It's not that all of a sudden Netanyahu ordered an about-face in Jewish visits. Rather, he stopped fighting the changes that were sought, and he seemed to accept that things would no longer be the same on the Mount. Ben-Gvir, too, who generally fights for what he wants in a "here and now!" manner, understood that the changes would have to come slowly. And in fact, the first changes came exactly that way: Instead of 4.5 hours of Jewish visiting hours each day, including one hour in the afternoon, small additions were made here and there – and the situation today is that the Temple Mount is open for Jews for 4.5 hours in the morning, and 1.5 hours in the afternoon.

Taking Charge

But of course, much more important than visiting hours is the question, "Who's in charge?" If in the past it was well-known that the police more or less disappeared during the Muslim prayers, and especially during the Friday mass prayers, today the story is quite different. Israeli policemen now actively arrest Temple Mount rioters and instigators – most notably, preachers who incite against Israel – even during the prayers. Add to this the fact that public Jewish prayer is now allowed on the Mount, complete with prostrations and singing, and it appears that a veritable revolution has taken place.

One thing remained unclear, however. Why did PM Netanyahu insist, after every well-reported visit by Minister Ben-Gvir to the Mount, on releasing a statement claiming that the status quo there remains stable and will continue as such in the future?

No Phones During the Prayers

The answer lies in a meeting of several people in the Knesset last year shortly before Tisha B'Av, on the topic of the Temple Mount. Ben-Gvir stated there that from his standpoint, as a member of the government, Jewish prayer is officially permitted. And in fact, that very year on Tisha B'Av, Jewish prayer was no longer held in a clandestine fashion, but quite openly. And thus, when Netanyahu says that the status quo is being maintained and will be maintained, he is quite correct, in that the nature of the status quo is determined by the government echelons – in this case, the Public Security Minister.

Sometimes, the status quo is determined by mistake or non-action. One day a few years ago, the Waqf decided unilaterally to open another mosque on the Mount, within the Mercy Gate compound on the eastern side. Israel found itself unable or unwilling to fight it. Interesting, none of those who today decry and protest the "changes" in the status quo, protested the Waqf's trampling then of the status quo…

Shabak Meddling

Let us return to Tisha B'Av of last year. The Shabak (General Security Service) was not happy with the Jewish prayers, and demanded that the Police Commissioner remove the public Jewish worshipers and stop them from "violating the rules." The commisioner responded, "Sorry, I have a Prime Minister and Public Security Minister who tell me what to do, and you can turn to them if you'd like." The Shabak contacted Netanyahu, who called Ben-Gvir, who at first did not answer. When he finally did answer, the Prime Minister asked him why he hadn't answered at first. "I was precisely in the middle of praying on the Temple Mount," he said.

After a few seconds of pregnant silence, Netanyahu said, "It's precisely about that that I wished to speak to you." After he explained, Ben-Gvir answered, "I told you at the very beginning that I will not allow apartheid against Jews at the holiest Jewish site in the world."

This past Tisha B'Av, a year later, Jewish singing could be heard vibrantly on the Mount. Just as Netanyahu's statement announced, the status quo there is being precisely maintained, exactly according to the outline set by the relevant Cabinet minister. And if there are some bleeding-hearts who want to turn up their noses at it, then, as the late Prime Minister Menachem Begin once said about those who reacted similarly to certain proactive Israeli moves, "let them have crooked noses."

The Exorbitant Price of Terrorist Releases

by Meir Indor, Chairman of the Almagor Association of Terrorist Victims, translated by Hillel Fendel.

Freeing terrorists in exchange for Israeli hostages, which Israel has done repeatedly over the years, encourages further kidnappings, weakens our deterrence, and leaves the families of terrorist victims out of the picture. The time has come to change direction and set clear red lines. 

The State of Israel has found itself, in recent decades and years, on a very worrisome track of normalizing the release of hundreds of terrorists, if not more, in the framework of a "deal" for hostages. 

Something that in the past was very infrequent and exceptional has become almost routine. This trend, supported at times by elements in the political, judicial, and media establishments, causes tremendous harm to Israel's deterrence, erodes the public trust, and encourages increased terrorism. 

INVITING KIDNAPPINGS

When the release of terrorists becomes known as an accepted means by which to deal with the problem of Israelis in captivity, the result is a direct incentivization for the terrorist organizations to step up their murderous activity. When Hamas and its ilk succeed in obtaining mass releases of terrorists from Israeli prisons, this proves to them how effective is their usage of kidnappings as a strategic tool. This model, which reached its climax in the Shalit deal of 2011 (1,027 Palestinian terrorists in exchange for soldier Gilad Shalit) – anchors in a dangerous construct: One Israeli hostage = hundreds of terrorists freed from prison.

Added to this problematic situation is the fact that various countries around the world support terrorism via funding, arms, or diplomatic backing. Not only that, but the imprisoned terrorists are treated to very favorable conditions, and even judicial support. All of these contribute to form an atmosphere that encourages more kidnappings, and further distances Israel from its goal of achieving stable deterrence. 

THE VICTIMS' FAMILIES ARE LEFT ON THE SIDELINES

This approach is very painful, in particular to the families of past terrorist victims. Not only did they lose their loved ones, but they also feel that they have been shunted away from the judicial and diplomatic channels. In the past, the families were able to file court appeals against the releases, but now this option has all been eliminated, in that the courts always reject it with the claim that these deals are "diplomatic" decisions. 

The fact that the Supreme Court makes its decisions about these types of deal at night, and sometimes even without inviting representatives of the families of victims, gives over a very grave message: "The memory of the victims, and the right of their families to present their position, are irrelevant."

For the terrorist organizations, this is another proof that Israel has accepted – even if not willingly – the system of kidnappings as a reality it must live with.

THE MEDIA'S CROOKED NARRATIVE

The way the media covers the issue also has a significant impact. In many cases, the families of the hostages receive extensive exposure, while other voices – such as "Tikvah (Hope) Forum," which opposes prisoner release deals – are almost completely silenced. The distorted narrative that is widely presented now, which suggests that every hostage, dead or alive, must be rescued "at any cost," is liable to disrupt the ethical and security balance of the State of Israel. 

There are even army officers who admit that the IDF is limited in how it conducts its battles in Gaza – and that these limitations stem from the presence of the hostages in (or under, to be more precise) the area of the warfare. Thus, soldiers are liable to be endangered, and their units do not have the necessary freedom of mobility to maneuver as they need.

WRONG MESSAGE TO THE ENEMY

An abrupt and massive release of terrorists sends a clear and sharp message to the enemy: Terrorism pays off. The murderers of our parents, siblings, and children become heroes in their society, and our army's deterrence capabilities are significantly compromised. There is a genuine fear that each deal comes with much worse terms than the one before it, and the vicious cycle will upend our essential national security. 

CHANGING THE PARADIGM

Israel need not give in to this phenomenon. A strong stand against terrorism is a success in and of itself. It buttresses our deterrence, our national confidence in the army and government, and our national image in the international arena. We must put a halt to these terrorist releases, and strive instead for clear victory that will prevent not the next exchange deal, but the next kidnapping. 

Only a clear and uncompromising policy that emphasizes that terrorism will not pay off will restore Israel's deterrence force and provide security for its citizens.

Syria's New President: A Real Change – or a Clever Trick Being Played on the West?

by former Ambassador Yoram Ettinger - researcher, diplomat, writer, lecturer and consultant to Israeli and US legislators, translated by Hillel Fendel.

Is the new president of Syria - Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa, better known by his nom de guerre Abu Mohammad al-Julani – still a bona-fide murderous terrorist now dressed in a suit, or has he truly left his past and now seeks to pragmatically rebuild Syria which has been torn apart tribally, ethnically, religiously, and ideologically? 

Just to be clear, the first option in more detail is that he is suspected to be tricking Western policy makers, who are frustrated with nearly 14 centuries of internecine Muslim wars in the bleeding Middle East, into believing that he actually wants and will bring peaceful co-existence guided by practical finances and diplomacy. 

Just as with other Middle East leaders, such as Mahmoud Abbas, long-time chairman of the Palestinian Authority, and Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran, the answer to the enigma of their beliefs and intentions can be found most authentically in their educational systems, Friday sermons in mosques, official media, and ties with terrorist organizations. 

 Given al-Julani's ISIS and Al-Qaeda jihadist background, any Western gesture towards him - such as suspending economic sanctions or renewing diplomatic relations - must be conditioned on the eradication of hate education, the anti-West bent of sermons and the media, and the severing of all ties with terrorist organizations. He must also explicitly and officially renounce the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood and of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, which calls for the overthrow of nationalist Muslim regimes, the subjugation of "infidels," and the installation of Islam as the world’s only legitimate religion.

If we want to be reality-based when dealing with al-Julani, we must learn from the precedents of other Middle East leaders who totally misled Western policy makers. For example, former Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, when he first took power, spoke with moderation and placed emphasis on his past as an ophthalmologist in Great Britain. The West was likely also fooled by his having married a British citizen of Syrian origin, his position as president of the Syrian Internet Union, and his ability to speak several languages. The apparently moderate Assad was hosted by the President of France during the Bastille Day Parade, and became a friend of senior U.S. Senator John Kerry and other American lawmakers. 

Not long after taking office, however, Assad was revealed to be even more evil than his father. He slaughtered his own citizens and led a civil war that killed more than a half-million people, led to seven million refugees outside Syria, and another similar number displaced within the country. 

Let us consider Iran. In 1978, Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini surrounded himself with a bunch of young, brilliant, and articulate advisors, graduates of Western universities who spoke multiple foreign languages. He instructed them to brief American diplomats and journalists with (dis)information portraying an anti-Soviet, pro-American worldview, a focus on human rights for the Iranian people, the lack of desire and intent to export the Islamic revolution beyond Iran’s borders, and a commitment to peaceful coexistence with Sunni neighbors.

Then-U.S. President Jimmy Carter loved hearing these things, and his Administration was of the opinion that all was well: "Khomeini will deal with tractors, not tanks," and "he will be the same as Indira Gandhi." Carter exerted heavy pressure on the Iranian army, which objected to Khomeini's return from exile in France, thus helping facilitate the toppling of the Shah's pro-American regime. 

Again, this approach soon proved to be the opposite of the truth. Guided by a fanatical vision, Khomeini executed a large number of top army figures, took over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days (until the day of Ronald Reagan's inauguration). In the process, he transformed Iran from being “America’s policeman in the Gulf” into the world’s leading anti-American hub of terrorism, drug trafficking, money laundering, and weapons systems proliferation. This was quite a large-scale American misjudgment.

In 1993, Yasser Arafat similarly fooled the West. He made declarations of peace – whenever he spoke to Western and Israeli audiences, that is, but certainly not in Arab forums – that were precisely adapted to the addiction of Israeli and Western leaders to the alternate reality of "peace now" and a "new Middle East." While these leaders were focused on "progress" and "coexistence," and while Arafat was being laundered into a peace activist who was actually awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, his Palestinian populace was breaking out an unprecedented wave of murderous terrorism, known as the Intifada.

Back to al-Julani. The Muslim Brotherhood, the world's largest Sunni terrorist organization, sees his power grab in Syria as a tremendous inspiration for similar developments throughout the Arab world. Ever since the Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928, it has shown expertise in misleading the West, via a combination of religious, educational, social, charitable, and political activity, together with terrorism and subversion. Driven by a vision of the establishment of a universal society based on Islam as the sole legitimate religion, the Brotherhood mandates the overthrow of all nationalist Muslim regimes, as well as the subjugation of the "infidel" West. 

In contrast to the Western foreign policy establishment, which does not view the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, all moderate Arab regimes feel the blade of the Brotherhood at their throats.

Bottom line: While al-Julani could end up being a terrorist-turned-pragmatist, the West must learn from its past mistakes. In the words of John Jenkins, a leading British expert on the Muslim Brotherhood and the Middle East: "The West must overcome the temptation to interpret the Middle East using Western values and concepts…. The West is liable to be tempted to believe that the toppling of an evil Middle Eastern regime leads to the rise of a more positive regime. However, Middle East reality proves the opposite… Governmental violence does not get weaker, but rather returns…"

Good luck to us all!

Wanted: A Designer for the Beautiful National Service Garments

by Dr. Sarah Katan, gynecologist, teacher and author, translated by Hillel Fendel.

We are witness today to a small but growing trend in the religious-Zionist public of girls enlisting to serve in the army, and often in combat positions. Perhaps they feel a deep desire to take part in the same mitzvah that their male counterparts are engaged in when they leave the Torah study hall to wage the war of defense of Israel mandated by G-d in His Torah.

When a G-d-fearing young man puts on an IDF uniform for a mission of sanctity, it is like the garments of a Cohen (priest) in the Holy Temple. Is it the same for a young woman?

It would seem not. When a woman puts on male garments, this is a violation of the Torah's commandment not to cross-dress (Deut. 22,5). But does this apply to an IDF uniform?

The IDF khaki has a magic about it that arouses general national pride and nostalgia. From back in the days of the Haganah and Palmach, when women fought shoulder to shoulder with their brothers in arms, they had perfect faith that they were fulfilling a historic mission. The romantic image of a smiling, female warrior with the sun on her face, with a pony tail, light shirt, and a Sten gun flung over her shoulder, is implanted deeply in our national memory. So, too, are exemplary role models such as Chana Senesh (a young Zionist pioneer captured by the Nazis while on an Allied mission) and the many unknown females who guarded their isolated villages under Arab fire, with courage and great dedication. The nostalgic image of a proud woman fighter standing together with the male soldiers became a national symbol.

By Order: No Women in Combat

However, at some point during the War of Independence, after several instances in which the Arabs specifically targeted female fighters, the IDF-in-formation adopted a standing order that women may not be sent into combat. This order was preserved for decades – up to the "victory of progress" in our generation.

When we peel away the layer of glory of military service, a complex reality is unveiled, one that must be studied calmly and professionally. Let me introduce you to Dana, a young female combat soldier whom I met in my clinic, after she had undergone four orthopedic operations for ligament tears in her knees and ankles. With tired eyes she told me how she had dreamt of being a combat soldier, and then how the dream collapsed around her: "I couldn't get myself up out of bed in the mornings, but I kept on pushing myself – until my body left me with no choice but to stop."

As a women's doctor who has accompanied many young girls, my professional opinion is this: Combat duty is not good for women. A woman's body is made, first and foremost, for pregnancy and birth, and is certainly not built for loads and strains, as is a man's body. Her pelvis is wider, the angle of the knees is sharper, and the proportion between her muscle mass and fat mass is different. A woman's muscle mass, on the average, is some 30% lower than that of a man of enlistment age. These and other factors render the woman's mobility vulnerable to damage when under high pressure and continued load-bearing efforts. Women tend to suffer more knee ligament tears, stress fractures in the tibia (shin bones), and pains in the hip joint caused by accelerated cartilage degeneration.

And if all that is not enough, bone mass is relatively low in women aged 18-21, which can contribute to compression fractures in the spinal vertebrae. Her hormonal system is much more vulnerable to physical and mental fatigue, and sometimes also mood swings due to stress and extreme efforts. The situation not only reduces quality of life, but also risks long-term health risks; future bone mass density is harmed, increasing the risk of osteoporosis.

The Ladder Aside the Wall

In addition, women's muscles and tendons do not react as men's do to intensive physical training. Heavy loads and the like contribute to a high propensity to chronic tendon infections, shoulder tears, and ongoing lower back pain. IDF studies have shown that women require medical evacuation at twice the rate of men during infantry training courses. This must give us pause. In recent years, more cases of injuries in the pelvic area have been documented for female soldiers, starting with bruises to the pelvic bones because of falls, and ending with injuries to the pelvic floor that are liable to lead impaired quality of life. Carrying heavy equipment, long runs, and repeated falls are all liable to cause future damage to these women.

Even young women who ostensibly meet the same physical requirements as men, in actuality don't fill them. The army actually bends its own rules in order to show results that will fit the progressives' needs. Remember the small ladder that was placed against the wall so that the girls could climb over it just like the boys? Incredibly, the officers in charge of that training exercise actually thought it was a good idea to make believe that the females had passed the test. By what right does the IDF promote moves that endanger the quality of combat?

Our female high school graduates must know and internalize: National Service – in hospitals, schools, communities, and the like – is not a lesser form of helping our country than is military service. National Service, called Sherut Leumi, provides a framework in which young women can contribute and assume responsibility to a high degree, without dangers of physiological harm.

And all this is without reference to the spiritual and Halakhic problems females face when serving the armed forces, from which they are largely saved in the various National Service frameworks.

In my opinion, the girls must be enabled and encouraged to make an intelligent choice, based on medical and other information. They must not be fooled into thinking that serving in the army will provide them with absolute equality. True equality, rather, is when each girl is given the opportunity to know and to choose.

Not to mention: Do we really want to be "equal?" Men and women are different in their very essence – and this is a good thing.

My heart skips a beat when I see you, soldier of Israel, adorned with a long beard and sidecurls, dressed in an IDF uniform, with a countenance of grace. It brings to mind the Yom Kippur prayer, "Truly how wondrous was the look of the High Priest when he emerged from the Holy of Holies after having atone for Israel." I'm now busy looking for a talented dress designer to fashion garments for the wife of the High Priest, for the girls of the National Service.