בס”ד


Israel’s fringe of bi-​polar extremes: a national fore­skin ruling the body?


I awoke this past Yom Shish•i with a question: whether the superfluity of Israel’s primary two extreme fringes, who cooperate together to rule over Israel, might be compared to a national foreskin?

At the one extreme is the implacable and intolerant anti-religious fringe while, at the other extreme, is the equally and opposite implacable and intolerant ultra-religious fringe. Together, these two bi-polars, who combine to rule over Israel, constitute a kind of superfluity that negatively enshrouds the growth and well-being of the main body of Am Yisraeil – like a national foreskin? I remarked about this to my wife and we chuckled about it. There seemed to be some parallels. But that seemed to be the extent of it.

Contrary to those who think they are the exclusive “prayer-savior” intercessors of Israel, I don’t regard everything that pops into my head as a “vision” inspired by י‑‑ה. On the other hand, some have been. So, I’m often reticent about crediting such occurrences to י‑‑ה; and equally reticent about taking credit myself. I didn’t consciously derive this flash of insight from any combination of my own abilities and cannot claim credit. Being wrong about the ka•wân•âh and ruakh underlying such insights is the most dangerous minefield. No human is equipped with the Divine Insight to judge another’s ka•wân•âh and ruakh (i.e., the heart).

Later that morning, though, I began to also wonder: might the notion of a national foreskin then imply a kind of national Bᵊrit Mil•âhꞋ as remedy to unify a healthy national body, Am Ekhad?

Minutes later, when I read the morning’s news, what did I find? Science research about circumcision, corroborating, and lending quantification and precision to, exactly the questions I had been relating, on a national scale, to Am Yisraeil – whose national health is suffering from fragmentation, from not being Am Ekhad. Was this merely serendipitous anecdotal coincidence? Maybe. But do these research findings likewise have a parallel application to the body (moderate majority) of Israel on a national scale? “Half of uncircumcised males will contract an adverse medical condition caused by their foreskin… A risk-benefit analysis of conditions that neonatal circumcision protects against revealed that benefits exceed risks by at least 100 to one.” In Israel today, our national – antireligious-ultrareligious – foreskin is dictating to, and ruling over, the body of Israel.

Just how unhealthy and dangerous to Am Yisraeil is this national foreskin? Are we too attached to our national foreskin? Are we ignoring a national failure that Mosheh and ancient Yisraeil would have spotted immediately: the need for a national Bᵊrit Mil•âhꞋ, disenfranchising an implacable and intractable national foreskin of superfluous extremes? Certainly, Am Yisraeil is being abused by both extremes of this fringe. It can rightly be said that, at the moment, Israel’s national foreskin is ruling the body of Israel – increasingly imposing, intrusive and abusive.