Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: chissa' se e' un caso

Chi si oppone alla circoncisione e' anche contrario alla integrita' della terra di Israele
 
---
 
Negating circumcision, shedding our identity
 
The ritual known as circumcision has been the source of endless chatter. There is no point in trying to persuade those who have been circumcised, nor should the uncircumcised be debated. Some 98 percent of Israel's Jewish families follow this tradition by circumcising their baby boys. The other 2% apparently have access to many microphones, to the point that one might think their objection is widespread. But that is hardly the case.
 
I won't elaborate on this ancient ritual, nor will I try to explain the covenant it represents and how a baby officially becomes a member of the Jewish people. The prohibition on circumcision originates in ancient times too. The pagans were against the ritual; the Romans, who had no qualms about letting people die in agony on the cross, reviled "genital mutilation."
 
Rather than talk about technical details, I will discuss the ritual's cultural and social aspects.
 
The first time circumcision appears as a commandment is in Genesis 17, when God instructs the first Hebrew, Abraham, to perform this ritual. In fact, our nation's birth was accompanied by a spate of covenants.
 
"And I will establish My covenant between Me and thee and thy seed after thee throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant," God says (Genesis 17:7). And then God continues, "And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land of thy sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession" (Genesis 17:8). Finally, God specifically orders Abraham to pass this tradition from one generation to the next. "Thou shalt keep My covenant, thou, and thy seed after thee throughout their generations," (Genesis 17:9).
 
"Every male among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of a covenant betwixt Me and you," the passage continues (Genesis 17:10-11). The promise of delivering the Land of Canaan to Abraham's descendants comes alongside the duty to circumcise -- and for good reason. These ancient words of wisdom could predict what would unfold down the road.
 
Do we know what motivates those people who want to abolish this tradition? Is it purely coincidental that those who would be more than happy to see our land sliced and diced at its core are the very people who want us to keep the flesh of the foreskin intact? Aren't these the very same people who would like us to opt out of our nation's age-old pact?
 
On Oct. 21 1997, then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu whispered in the ears of the late Rabbi Yitzhak Kaduri, "The Left has forgotten what being Jewish is all about; it thinks that our security could be handed over to the Arabs; that the Arabs will take care of things -- you give them part of the land and they will take care of us."
 
Netanyahu was obviously referring to the tendency to forget our bloody history in the Diaspora, when we had no choice but to trust the nations of the world to keep us safe. It turned out that we had faith in what the biblical prophets called "a bruised reed." But, sure enough, the propaganda machine worked overtime and made sure that Netanyahu's comments would be taken out of context. "The Left forgot what it means to be a Jew," read the headlines.
 
The "strong foundations of the earth" (Micah 6:2) were outraged and an attack on Netanyahu ensued. "How could he have second guessed the Jewishness of such good Israelis?" they lamented. The prime minister's attempt to set the record straight was a futile endeavor; the public was led to believe that he had denied the Left's ties to its Jewish roots, and this falsehood was seared into the public's collective memory.
 
Now, with everything on the table, one might wonder: Does the decision to shed this tradition pave the way for a pro-withdrawal stance and to an agenda that favors the accelerated destruction of the settlement enterprise in Judea and Samaria? The debate over circumcision speaks volumes on the debate over the future of the country.
 
Why? Because the territorial dispute is not about "territories." Nor is it about security arrangements or demography. It is not about "occupation." It is about the mother of all issues: the identity of the nation that has returned to Zion. Who are we? Judea and Samaria, and above all Jerusalem, are signifiers; they represent something great, they are a symbol that stands for something bigger: our ancient Jewish identity.
 
The Arabs in the region know what the conflict is all about. They have made that clear ever since Jews started returning to Zion. They have used deafening sounds that measure thousands of decibels to express their displeasure. Some of us are just unable to accept reality as it is and to appreciate just how intense this conflict is. They are wedded to the notion that one can square this circle; that one can have the Palestinians sign off on the partitioning of the land. And this, despite reality suggesting otherwise.
 
This futile rationalism has become a substitute for God; its followers are essentially practicing liberal paganism in which one worships his or her mind and disregards ancient traditions and belief systems that have been tried and tested over the years, having survived crucibles that only a few have experienced throughout history.
 
Those who want society to embrace circumcision because of some "rational" argument or because the newborn will "benefit" from it, are bound to fail. A wide gulf separates those who adhere to circumcision and those who, like some in our history, try to restore their foreskin and show it proudly to everyone, acting like true narrow-minded provincials.
 
A former leftist once told me, "It's like love; you can't quite explain it." Indeed, and those who do not understand this simply sever their ties with their people.
 
The rejection of circumcision stems from the destructive radicalization on the Israeli Left. Over the past several years, that part of the political spectrum has been the perpetual naysayer. It has been preoccupied with negating others: negating the so-called uneducated masses; negating the savage Jews who perform barbaric rituals and who cut their flesh as a sign of their covenant and who remain loyal to their homeland.
 
The most vociferous debate in Israeli society boils down to the two camps and their two overarching agendas. The anti-circumcision sentiment is inextricably linked to the efforts to disassociate oneself from the land and from the people.

 everlasting possession" (Genesis 17:8).
 
 
Sono riusciti a far parlare anche i minerali, somma follia, sempre sostenuto 
che quel libro e' opera di folli, e fonte di follia.