Question

Hi Michi,
I told you about the connection I made with Major General Gershon Hacohen, and that he identified with my ideas, but at first I didn’t present the more provocative idea, which I think I haven’t presented to you until now:
Jerusalem as a sacrifice.
Jerusalem’s status in our consciousness was determined mainly because the Temple was located there. According to Chronicles, the Temple was built on Mount Moriah, the place where our forefather Abraham was prepared to sacrifice what was dearest to him at the command of the God to whom he clung. We see ourselves as his heirs, continuing Abraham’s path. The Binding of Isaac indirectly resonates with the commandment, “And you shall love the Lord your God.” This commandment is commonly interpreted literally. But the question always arises: how can one command love? After all, you can’t command an emotion, but you can command a person to give practical expression to commitment toward God. And it is well known that the very act of doing and investing creates an emotional bond with the object of that action. Therefore, commitment to God—love of Him—should be expressed in protecting the world that God created! We understand that safeguarding creation is what should be uppermost in our minds, even though we were not explicitly commanded to do so. Therefore, even before we join Greenpeace and save the Amazon forests, we must do everything in our power to protect the creation around us, and first and foremost human life. Therefore we must know what is essential and what is secondary in the way we wish to express our Judaism. If there is a solid concern that our insistence on control over the Temple Mount and East Jerusalem is the main cause of the continuing conflict with the Arabs [“the Arabs” is a complicated and very crude generalization!], then our Judaism obligates us to sacrifice our control over the Temple Mount and the Old City. A sacrifice similar to that of our forefather Abraham. Sacrifice, as distinct from surrender, is an act that stems from a position of strength!
This sacrifice must not be in vain! In return for this sacrifice, the Palestinians should sacrifice the right of return! In my opinion, the idea of the “right of return” is based on additional bluffs that people don’t discuss, but right now that doesn’t concern us! It is important to me to emphasize: ancient Jerusalem is precious to me, but our spiritual essence is more precious to me! It does not seem proper that the Jewish people should prefer attachment to a physical place over their commitment to be a treasured people.

So, Michi—this letter I sent on 1/1, after a relatively intensive correspondence over two days. When by 1/4 I still hadn’t received a response from him, I wrote to him as follows:
Your lack of response—is it a thunderous silence?
I assume that the reason for the lack of response to my presentation of these insights regarding the status of the Temple Mount and Jerusalem is your disagreement with my approach.
That’s okay—we still have much more in common than what separates us, and the tasks and challenges before us obligate us to join hands as much as we can, without giving up our truth.
Best regards and all the best.
He responded immediately:

Not a thunderous silence, just silence because I haven’t seen it yet. I’m really busy and I don’t go through emails every day. I’ll read it and respond.

Since 10 days have passed מאז, I assume that now his silence really is thunderous, and in my opinion perhaps there is room to praise him for that:
Does my explanation seem implausible to you—that if General Hacohen disagreed with my idea, he would say so plainly and directly, but perhaps he finds merit in what I say, yet because of his standing in the religious public he prefers not to go into this corner!
Or maybe he wants to think about the matter and let it cook inside him?!
And since I’m raising this issue of Jerusalem—what is your personal opinion?
All the best, and have a pleasant rest of the day.