Donate

Is God Riding on Clouds, through the Wilderness, or on Willows?

Aug. 28 2017

Psalm 68:5 describes God as rokheyv ba’aravot, or “riding upon aravot.” While the second word means “willows” in modern Hebrew and derives from a common Hebrew root with multiple meanings, its interpretation has puzzled exegetes since ancient times. Mitchell First discusses some of the possibilities:

Of all [the word’s usual meanings], the only one that might reasonably fit is “desolate, wilderness area.” Thus, one widespread translation [of the phrase is] “rides through the deserts.” . . . But God as a rider in a desolate area is still an unusual image. More importantly, rokheyv usually means mounting an [animal or vehicle] and not “riding through” something.

In a statement of [the talmudic sage] Reysh Lakish, the aravot were understood to be one of the seven heavens. . . . But aravot does not otherwise mean “heaven” in the Tanakh. . . .

[Another interpretation draws on] Ugaritic, an ancient Semitic language closely related to Hebrew. Ugaritic texts cover many centuries and predate the biblical texts. The discovery of Ugaritic has led to many new understandings of difficult terms in the Bible. Relevant to our context is that the phrase rokeyhv arafot with the meaning “charioteer of the clouds” appears fourteen times in various Ugaritic mythological texts as an epithet for [the] god, Baal. . . . And there are other examples of Ugaritic “p/f” becoming “b/v” in Hebrew. . . . Nowhere else in the Tanakh, however, does aravot have the meaning of “clouds.”

Read more at Jewish Link of New Jersey

More about: Hebrew, Hebrew Bible, Religion & Holidays

 

How Lebanon—and Hizballah—Conned and Humiliated Rex Tillerson

Feb. 21 2018

Last Thursday, the American secretary of state arrived in Beirut to express Washington’s continued support for the country’s government, which is now entirely aligned with Hizballah. His visit came shortly after Israel’s showdown with Hizballah’s Iranian protectors in Syria and amid repeated warnings from Jerusalem about the terrorist organization’s growing threat to Israeli security. To Tony Badran, Tillerson’s pronouncements regarding Lebanon have demonstrated the incoherence of the Trump administration’s policy:

[In Beirut], Tillerson was made to sit alone in a room with no American flag in sight and wait—as photographers took pictures and video—before Hizballah’s chief allies in Lebanon’s government, President Michel Aoun and his son-in-law the foreign minister, finally came out to greet him. Images of the U.S. secretary of state fidgeting in front of an empty chair were then broadcast across the Middle East to symbolize American impotence at a fateful moment for the region. . . .

Prior to heading to Beirut, Tillerson gave an interview to the American Arabic-language station al-Hurra, in which he emphasized that Hizballah was a terrorist organization, and that the United States expected cooperation from the “Lebanon government to deal very clearly and firmly with those activities undertaken by Lebanese Hizballah that are unacceptable to the rest of the world.” . . . But then, while in Jordan, Tillerson undermined any potential hints of firmness by reading from an entirely different script—one that encapsulates the confused nonsense that is U.S. Lebanon policy. Hizballah is “influenced by Iran,” Tillerson said. But, he added, “We also have to acknowledge the reality that they also are part of the political process in Lebanon”—which apparently makes being “influenced by Iran” and being a terrorist group OK. . . .

The reality on the ground in Lebanon, [however], is [that] Hizballah is not only a part of the Lebanese government, it controls it—along with all of the country’s illustrious “institutions,” including the Lebanese Armed Forces. . . .

[Meanwhile], Israel’s tactical Syria-focused approach to the growing threat on its borders has kept the peace so far, but it has come at a cost. For one thing, it does not address the broader strategic factor of Iran’s growing position in Syria, and it leaves Iran’s other regional headquarters in Lebanon untouched. Also, it sets a pace that is more suitable to Iran’s interests. The Iranians can absorb tactical strikes so long as they are able to consolidate their strategic position in Syria and Lebanon. Not only have the Iranians been able to fly a drone into Israel but also their allies and assets have made gains on the ground near the northern Golan and in Mount Hermon. As Iran’s position strengthens, and as Israel’s military and political hand weakens, the Israelis will soon be left with little choice other than to launch a devastating war.

To avoid that outcome, the United States needs to adjust its policy—and fast. Rather than leaving Israel to navigate around the Russians and go after Iran’s assets in Syria and Lebanon on its own, it should endorse Israel’s red lines regarding Iran in Syria, and amplify its campaign against Iranian assets. In addition, it should revise its Lebanon policy and end its investment in the Hizballah-controlled order there.

Read more at Tablet

More about: Hizballah, Israeli Security, Lebanon, Politics & Current Affairs, Rex Tillerson, U.S. Foreign policy