RUTHFULLY YOURS

The second Hebrew novelist was the first to imagine the pageantry and passion of life in ancient Israel—and thereby excited the dreams of emergent Zionists.

This essay is the second in a series of fresh looks by Hillel Halkin at East European Zionist or proto-Zionist writers and intellectuals of the 19th and early 20th centuries. The first, on the Galician Hebrew writer Joseph Perl, is available here.

I.

Avraham Mapu (1808-1867): the first Hebrew novelist.

Actually, not. That honor, we have seen, rightfully belongs to Joseph Perl. Yet it has almost always been accorded to Mapu. This was how he was read by his early readers, many of whom had never opened a novel in any language before discovering him. Such was the Hebrew poet and literary critic Ya’akov Fichman. At the age of twelve, as a pupil in ḥeder, the Jewish schoolroom of Eastern Europe, Fichman stole into the room of his teacher’s absent son, reputed to be a reader of secular Hebrew literature, and found there a copy of Mapu’s The Love of Zion. In a memoir penned long afterward in Tel Aviv, he wrote:

I looked at the book and was caught up from the first page in its bright, visionary net. I don’t know whether I grasped everything I read intellectually or emotionally. I only remember a blissful, wondrous day. The light in the room was rose-colored, and rose was the color that lit the pages of the book—the whole world was bathed in its freshness. . . . I sat in the room holding my breath for fear someone might notice I was missing, devouring its pages one after another. I was like a man lost many days in a wilderness who suddenly comes across a pure mountain spring. My heart stopped beating; my eyes saw only the book; the sounds of the world no longer reached me. . . . I read all day from morning to night, and when I stepped out of the room the sun was setting and the people around me were all strangers, as if I had returned from a distant land.

Many believe that wind and solar energy are essential, when the world “runs out” of non-renewable fossil fuels. They also believe that wind and solar are unique in providing energy that’s carbon-free, inexhaustible, and essentially without cost. However, a closer look shows that all three special features are based on illusions and wishful thinking. Nuclear may be the preferred energy source for the long-range future, but it is being downgraded politically.

Fossil fuels, coal, oil, and natural gas, are really solar energy stored up over millions of years of geologic history. Discovery and exploitation of these fuels has made possible the Industrial Revolution of the past three centuries, with huge advances in the living standard of an exploding global population, and advances in science that have led to the development of sustainable, non-fossil-based sources of energy — assuring availability of vital energy supplies far into the future.

Energy based on nuclear fission has many of the same advantages and none of the disadvantages of solar and wind: it emits no carbon dioxide (CO2) and is practically inexhaustible. Nuclear does have special problems; but these are mostly based on irrational fears.

A major problem for solar/wind is intermittency — while nuclear reactors operate best supplying reliable, steady base-load power. Intermittency can be partially overcome by providing costly “stand-by” power, at least partly from fossil fuels. But nuclear also has special problems (like the care and disposal of spent fuel) that raise its cost — and inevitably lead to more emission of CO2. Such special problems make any cost comparison with solar/wind rather difficult and also somewhat arbitrary.

Via The Telegraph:

Islamic State-linked terror plots are increasing with attacks on the West foiled or taking place at a rate of more than two a month, according to a new study.

Since the declaration of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’s (Isil) “caliphate” last year, nine attacks unfolded out of a total of 32 Isil-inspired plots, or 2.3 a month, the Henry Jackson Society (HJS) said.

The think tank’s latest study of Isil-related terror found that the extremist group’s slick media operation is contributing to the radicalisation and inspiring attacks in Europe and elsewhere.

Although the US is under greater threat of attacks, countries in Europe have seen a higher number of deaths resulting from attacks.

A disturbing new report obtained by Judicial Watch shows that the Obama administration has granted residency or asylum to 1,519 foreigners who supported terrorism at one time. Apparently, Obama’s Homeland Security chief determined that the recently admitted Islamists only participated in terrorist activities “while under duress.”

The Obama administration unilaterally eased restrictions on asylum seekers with loose or incidental ties to terror and insurgent groups in 2014. Prior to that, the foreign nationals would have been banned from the country for supporting terrorist causes.

Judicial Watch obtained the numbers from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) annual report to Congress on the DHS secretary’s application of discretionary authority.

The United States Army has created a new patch for soldiers who are fighting ISIS in Iraq.

USA Today reports that “the Army’s patch features crossed scimitars, a palm wreath and stars. The scimitars, short swords with curved blades, are meant to symbolize the twin goals of the U.S.-led coalition: to defeat the Islamic State, also referred to as ISIL, and to restore stability in the region, according to Army documents. The palm wreath is symbol of honor. While the stars and the buff-and-blue colors on the patch indicate the three-star command and the land, air and sea forces involved in the fight.”

Sure. Whatever.

AT readers, you be the judge. As featured at Atlas Shrugs, here is an image of the new patch on the right, next to an image of a Muslim Brotherhood symbol on the left.

Ted Cruz delivered an hour-long speech on the Senate floor that may be one of the most powerful indictments of the GOP ever spoken. He held nothing back and nailed point after point after point. Katie McHugh of Breitbart summarized some of his points:

The Democrats are “relentless” in pursuing their principles, Cruz said, which include ever-increasing government spending and unlimited abortion rights. They’re “willing to crawl over broken glass with a knife between their teeth to fight for their principles,” Cruz said.

Republican leadership “reflexively surrenders,” Cruz said. “President Obama simply has to utter the word shutdown and Republican leadership runs for the hills.”

Cruz explained three types of votes take place in the Senate: “show votes,” a limp-wristed attempt to placate voters by staging a pre-ordained surrender to Democrats; votes that simply grow government; “must-pass” votes that include continuing resolutions, appropriations bills, and debt ceiling raises.

The Texas senator compared GOP leadership to an NFL coach that declares “we forfeit” at every single coin toss. The “clean” continuing resolution rubberstamps Obama’s hard-left agenda.

At the beginning of his U.S. tour last week, China’s President Xi met with 650 U.S. business leaders in Seattle. Seattle was a natural place to visit. It is home to the factories of one of America’s largest great export industries – Boeing. It is also a center of America’s tech industry.

Xi came to woo them. He reassured them that China will not discriminate against foreign businesses. He announced a large new aircraft order, one which came with the customary quid pro quo. Just last week Boeing announced that it will build an aircraft plant in China.

We’ve seen this script before many times. Just a few months ago, GM made plans to import cars from China for sale in the United States. This follows many years of GM’s ‘collaboration’ with Chinese companies. Without doubt China has acquired much valuable industrial technology from the American firms that located factories in China.

China is also targeting tech. This week Cisco Systems announced that it would produce computer servers in China, sharing its world-class technology with Chinese server manufacturer Inspur Group.

“Who was worse: Hitler or Stalin?” It isn’t a parlor game, but rather the historical equivalent of “ISIS or Iran (or proxy Syria)?” You can play it either way, but “a plague on both their houses” didn’t cut it in 1941, and it doesn’t cut it in 2015.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 gave Hitler room to conquer Western Europe without fear of an attack on his rear. Stalin was a committed member of the pact until Hitler broke it, at which point Stalin brazenly pivoted to the Allies and demanded rights as a) a full partner and b) an aid recipient. FDR might have said, “Boy, watching Adolph and Uncle Joe battle it out would be great – fascists vs. communists, and no American boots on the ground.” But even before Pearl Harbor and Germany’s declaration of war against the U.S., FDR and Churchill set aside their disgust for Soviet internal behavior. They knew full well about the millions dead in the Stalin-engineered Ukrainian famine, even if Walter Duranty was keeping it from NYT readers. But they determined that Hitler was the greater immediate threat.

“Even as he concedes the growing world disorder, Mr. Obama still won’t admit that his policy of American retreat has created a vacuum for rogues to fill. He exhorted the U.N. on Monday that “I stand before you today believing in my core that we, the nations of the world, cannot return to the old ways of conflict and coercion. We cannot look backwards.”

One sotto voce argument the Obama Administration made for its nuclear deal with Iran is that Russia and Iran would return the favor by cooperating to settle the Syrian civil war. As so often in this Presidency, the opposite is turning out to be true.

Mr. Obama said the U.S. departure from Iraq in 2011 would reduce “the tide of war,” but war has returned with a vengeance. He said a “reset” would improve relations with Russia, but tensions are far worse than when he took office. He said the U.S. could safely wind down its military operations in Afghanistan, but on Monday the Taliban took control of the city of Kunduz from the Afghan government.

Even Mr. Obama, addressing the U.N. General Assembly on Monday, had little choice but to acknowledge the rising tide of disorder. “We come together today knowing that the march of human progress never travels in a straight line,” he said. “Dangerous currents risk pulling us back into a darker, more disordered world.” In particular, he added, “we see some major powers assert themselves in ways that contravene international law.”

Hillary Clinton posted on Twitter Sunday that Chinese leader Xi Jinping was “shameless” for presiding over a United Nations women’s rights meeting in New York while his regime persecutes feminists at home. She’s right, and Chinese state media condemnations of her “ignominious shenanigans” underscore Beijing’s sensitivity on the point. But where was this conviction when Mrs. Clinton was U.S. Secretary of State?

Hillary the presidential candidate wants to be seen as tough both on China and women’s rights. In April, after Chinese authorities detained five feminist activists during a political meeting in Beijing, she called the move “inexcusable.” The women were soon released on bail but remain under surveillance as “criminal suspects.”

In a June campaign video, Mrs. Clinton highlighted her tough 1995 speech at a U.N. conference in Beijing, the 20th anniversary of which was marked this weekend with Mr. Xi presiding. “It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food or drowned or suffocated simply because they are born girls,” Mrs. Clinton had said in 1995, referring to Beijing’s population-control measures. “Human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights, once and for all.”