Monthly Archives: March 2016

An Open Letter to a UCLA Alumna who confused anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism

28 Monday Mar 2016

Posted by in American Jewish Life, American Politics and Life, Ethics, Israel and Palestine, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History, Jewish Identity, Social Justice

≈ 6 Comments

This past week I heard a young UCLA alumna say on a radio talk-show (KPFK FM) that it is not anti-Semitism to say that the State of Israel has no right to exist.

The program was addressing the run-up to the upcoming decision of the UC Board of Regents related to the debate on campuses across the country concerning the Boycott, Sanctions and Divestment movement (BDS) against Israel. Following the talk-show program, the Regents adopted a statement condemning anti-Semitism on UC campuses.

I am increasingly concerned about what I believe is a growing attitude by many young people, including Jews, that is similar to this misguided and ignorant UCLA alumna. To her and to others, I make the following points:

[1] For you to suggest a separation between Zionism, the state of Israel and Judaism is a misreading of contemporary Jewish identity.

[2] Judaism is far more than a religion and to presume that it is only a religion is reductionist and inaccurate. The Jewish people is part of the longest surviving civilization anywhere on the planet (3600 years since the time of Abraham and Sarah) and embraces all the elements necessary to characterize a people as a civilization: history, land, language, law, custom, ethics, faith, religion, literature, art, music, and folk ways.

[3] The modern state of Israel (per Israel’s Declaration of Independence) was “based upon freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel” …[and] “…will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture.”

[4] Though the principles of the Declaration of Independence are part of the fabric of the nation itself, the Jewish people today acknowledges that Israel is an imperfect democracy, just as the United States is imperfect. Tragically, Israel has ruled for almost 50 years over an unwilling Palestinian population in the West Bank on land that Israel conquered  in a war of self-defense in 1967.

[5] It remains the hope of the majority of Israelis and the American Jewish community that a two-states for two peoples end-of-conflict agreement will one day be reached and implemented by Israel and the Palestinians, and that this agreement will settle all claims and usher in an extended period of peace and security for both peoples. Tragically, this goal has been thwarted time and again by extremists of different kinds on both sides of this conflict, including proponents of BDS who are overwhelmingly anti-Israel, anti-Zionist and proclaim, like you, that Israel should not exist.

[6] This is not only an anti-Israel and anti-Zionist position, it is the newest brand of anti-Semitism because it denies the right of the Jewish people to define themselves. It is not your definition that counts. It is ours. Every people has the right of self-definition, and the Jewish people is no different. That is the fatal flaw in your proclamation and the very basis of your modern anti-Semitism.

It is one thing to protest policies of the Israeli government. It is quite another to demand of no other nation except Israel that it live according to democratic and prophetic standards, and then to de-legitimize the Jewish state when it inevitably fails. This isn’t just anti-Zionism. It is anti-Semitism.

I wonder about those who focus obsessively upon Israel’s behavior and no one else.

Where were they while 250,000 Syrians were butchered and 3 million became refugees?

Where have they been as equal numbers of Iraqis were slaughtered in America’s wrong-headed escapade?

Where were their indignant voices when Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood was destroying Egyptian Christian communities?

And where are they as Syria’s Kurdish community is threatened with slaughter by the Islamic State?

What about North Korea, Ukraine, the Congo, Darfur, Somalia, and Eritrea?

Why is it that only Israel provokes their/your moral outrage and condemnation?

We haven’t heard a word from these people about any of these countries whose human rights violations are the most serious in the world, and a far cry from anything Israel has done – no protests in Paris and London, no BDS campaign against those countries, no calls for condemnation in the United Nations.

I am not one who equates every criticism of Israeli policy as anti-Semitism. Criticism from love represents the highest form of patriotism, and so it’s legitimate to criticize policies that are unjust. I do so as an American Jew that loves Israel. Israelis, however, are the ones who must decide how they are going to live because it is they who must live with the consequences of their decisions. Israel exists in a very bad and dangerous neighborhood that has little to do with what Israel says or does. So, those of us living here in comfort and security must necessarily defer to those living on the front lines. But we also have the duty to express our views because Israel’s security affects us here. Our identity is affected by her destiny. In very important ways, Israel’s and our destiny are linked.

Know this – We Jews are neither perfect nor guiltless when it comes to moral failure, cruelty and racism. But, we are self-critical, and that’s the beginning of improving our moral character and behavior.

Israeli racism is, thankfully, being addressed seriously by Israel’s Ministry of Education in programs to educate children in elementary, junior high and high school about tolerance and human rights. There are many Israeli NGOs and programs supported by American Jews and others that emphasize Israel’s “shared society.” Israel’s President Reuven Rivlin has condemned all expressions of intolerance and racism including that coming from extremist members of the sitting Israeli governing coalition.

The recent UC Regents statement condemning anti-Semitism on its campuses is a good statement, even though I believe it did not go nearly far enough. It should have included a clear condemnation of anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.

To this young woman who denounced Israel and claimed not to be anti-Semitic, I suggest that your ignorance of Jewish history, modern Jewish identity and the nature of the state of Israel, along with your arrogance in denying the Jewish people the right of self-definition, are all quite remarkable for an American college graduate who chose to go on the record (on radio) to speak about something you obviously know so little about.

“Defending Decency”

27 Sunday Mar 2016

Posted by in American Jewish Life, American Politics and Life, Ethics, Israel and Palestine, Israel/Zionism, Jewish-Islamic Relations, Social Justice

≈ 1 Comment

Dear Readers:

The following is a piece posted this morning by J Street called “Word on the Street – Defending Decency” written by Alan Elsner, Special Advisor to the President of J Street and veteran journalist, on the AIPAC Policy Conference, the ISIS terrorist attack in Belgium, Donald Trump’s latest indecency, and on the lessons we Jews confront every year during Purim. Alan also offers us a link to register our voices to stand up against bigotry (see below).

 

“Word on the Street – Defending Decency”

Last week, in quick succession, we saw Donald Trump get a huge ovation at the AIPAC Policy Conference, were shocked by the latest awful terrorist carnage in Europe and observed the festival of Purim.

Listening to the traditional reading of the Book of Esther. I was struck by a verse in Chapter Three:

And Haman said to King Ahasuerus, “There is a certain people scattered and separate among the peoples throughout all the provinces of your kingdom, and their laws differ from those of every people, and they do not keep the king’s laws; it is therefore of no use for the king to let them be.”

“When Israel labels all Palestinians as enemies; when Palestinians label all Israeli Jews as occupiers … and when Trump and Cruz label all Muslims as potential terrorists, they are all doing the same thing.”

The Brussels bombings the day before prompted Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz to suggest that law enforcement agencies should “patrol and secure” Muslim neighborhoods in the United States. He was swiftly followed by Donald Trump. Never mind that American Muslims — one percent of the population — are extraordinarily patriotic and productive members of our society.

Trump’s response to the attacks was characteristically to blame them on all Muslims. “I knew Brussels years ago,” he said in an interview with a British TV channel. “It was so beautiful, so secure and so safe. Now it’s an armed camp. It’s like a different world, a different place, there is no assimilation … Look at the cities where there’s been a large inflow and something’s different. There is very little assimilation for whatever reason … they want to go by their own sets of laws.”

In other word, “they do not keep the king’s laws. It is therefore of no use to the king to let them be.”

This was the same Trump who the previous day had received a rapturous ovation from many of the 18,000 delegates to the AIPAC Policy Conference, when he and his two Republican presidential rivals, taking their cue from one of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s favorite talking points, demonized the entire Palestinian people as a nation of terrorists with a “culture of death.”

John Kasich declared that “Palestinians cannot continue to promote a culture of hatred and death.” Trump said that Palestinian children are all “being taught to hate Israel and to hate the Jews.” Cruz talked of a “relentless campaign of incitement that has fostered genocidal hatred towards Jews.”

There’s no denying that incitement is a major problem in Gaza and the West Bank. When Palestinian leaders hail terrorist attackers as martyrs or murderers as heroes there is a problem. Responsible Palestinian leaders must confront this honestly. We cannot excuse incitement or violence, even as we also note that young Palestinians, like many young Muslims in Europe, feel hopeless, angry and frustrated and see no path to a better life. And yet, the vast majority of Palestinians do not dream of sending their sons and daughters to die in suicide attacks. It is their worst nightmare.

When Israel labels all Palestinians as enemies; when Palestinians label all Israeli Jews as occupiers, colonialists and oppressors; and when Trump and Cruz label all Muslims as potential terrorists, they are all doing the same thing. They are all scapegoating an entire community, religion or nation with one broad brush and giving their own supporters someone to hate. Hating others will not solve anyone’s problems. It will only create new ones.

This is a very old story — and Jews throughout our history have often been the victims. To give just one example, in 1919, Henry Ford began publishing a newspaper, The Dearborn Independent as an anti-Semitic mouthpiece. It blamed Jews for everything — strikes, agricultural depression, financial scandals and the decline of the dollar. “The International Jew: The World’s Problem,” blasted one typical headline on May 22, 1920.

Ironically, today Dearborn, Michigan is home to America’s largest Muslim community — which Trump and Cruz would no doubt fence off and subject to constant police surveillance and control.

We know where these things lead — and we have a duty to reject and oppose them — here at home, in Israel and in the occupied territory. We must stand together with other sane forces who favor dialogue and build bridges rather than walls.

While opposing terrorism and incitement and taking necessary and legal steps to combat them, we must defend our democracy, our decency and our humanity and band together with the vast majority of Israelis, Palestinians, Christians, Jews, and Muslims — who want to share our troubled world as peaceful neighbors and make it better for everyone.

– Alan

P.S. — Please add your name to stand up against bigotry. We know that Trump’s values are not the values of our community. If you agree, join thousands of others to demonstrate the real values our community stands for.

 

 

Condemning Donald Trump – One Rabbi’s Protest

23 Wednesday Mar 2016

Posted by in American Jewish Life, American Politics and Life, Ethics, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History, Jewish Identity, Social Justice

≈ 9 Comments

I’ve never before publicly urged that Jews not vote for a candidate for President of the United States. Nor have I publicly endorsed candidates for President (or any other office) because I don’t believe it’s my role to do so as a rabbi, teacher and religious leader who leads a large congregation. I have, however, advocated on behalf of certain policy issues from time to time from the perspective of Jewish values and tradition and what impact they may have on the quality of life for Jews and others, but I avoid voicing my opinion publicly about partisan candidates for political office. Not only do I have friends and congregants who are registered Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Democratic Socialists, and Libertarians, but I appreciate that each political orientation possesses some truth, that no one can claim a monopoly on goodness, and that there’s virtue to be found on every side of every issue. Further, who I support personally is my business and no one else’s.

This election season, however, has challenged me in ways I’ve never been challenged in my life as a congregational rabbi. Donald Trump’s speeches, demeanor and policy positions are so contrary to what I believe are fundamental Jewish values and democratic traditions that I cannot, in good conscience, remain silent.

Trump’s personal and vicious attacks on entire groups of people – Mexicans, Muslims, immigrants, women, POWs, the disabled, and every political competitor is contrary to the tenets of Jewish ethics that affirms each human being as created in the divine image and that God’s Unity is expressed through the great diversity that is the human condition.

It’s a given that many political figures lack humility; but Trump’s bombastic, self-centered, egoistic, materialistic, self-congratulatory, self-righteous,  distorted, and untruthful boasting about everything “Trump” is contrary to Jewish teachings about humility, respect for others, truthfulness, generosity, gratitude, and loving-kindness.

On Israel, Rabbi Eric Yoffie expressed my own views when he wrote recently: “I am a Zionist dove, and I don’t expect Presidential candidates to express lock-step agreement with the policies of Israel’s government. But I do expect a coherent, pro-Israel policy, rooted in a consistent and knowledgeable approach to foreign affairs and in a broad commitment to American leadership in the world. Trump has demonstrated none of these things and seems to know hardly anything at all about Israel, the challenges she faces, and how the Middle East actually works.”

In my lifetime, I’ve never heard expressed from a major candidate for President such racism, misogyny, hatred, bigotry, scapegoating, and incitement to violence as Donald Trump has done, his denials notwithstanding. That so many of the 18,000 delegates at the AIPAC national convention this week, most of whom are Jews, cheered wildly when Mr. Trump attacked President Obama was a shanda (shame) for the Jewish people and Jewish tradition. Thankfully, the AIPAC leadership apologized immediately to President Obama for the embarrassing display.

I’m proud of my Reform colleagues who attended the AIPAC Conference, led by Rabbis Rick Jacobs (President of the Union for Reform Judaism), Jonah Pesner (Director of the Religious Action Center of the Reform movement), Joshua Weinberg (President of the Association of Reform Zionists of America), and 50 to 60 others (a far too small number, in my opinion), who left the great hall protesting Trump’s appearance and instead  studied religious text as a way ethically and religiously to cleanse themselves from the toxicity of Trump mounting the podium.

Everything Trump says divides people, sows discord amongst the citizenry of the United States, between ethnic and religious groups, between neighbor and neighbor. His is a politics of fear, hate and rage. His scapegoating and appeal to populism and nativism is dangerous and reminds me that the words of Pastor Martin Niemoller in the Nazi context is relevant today: “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

I believe that Donald Trump is bad for a pluralistic America, bad for American democracy, bad for the Jews, bad for the Republican party, bad for the state of Israel, bad for understanding and alliances between nations, and bad for peace.

My hope is that Donald Trump will lose this year’s presidential election by a landslide vote not only so that the American people will reject his vicious rhetoric, base populism and ignorance, but also so that our nation will reclaim who we’ve always striven to be – a just, compassionate, welcoming nation founded in law, distinguished by civility and inspired by the dignity of every human being. I hope, as well, that no American Jew will vote for him.

Note: I speak only for myself and do not represent in these words my synagogue or any organization.

The Lessons of Purim and Pesach – Avoiding Naiveté and Cruetly

22 Tuesday Mar 2016

Posted by in American Jewish Life, American Politics and Life, Holidays, Israel and Palestine, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History, Jewish Identity, Social Justice

≈ Leave a comment

Yossi Klein Halevi, a journalist, writer and senior fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem, spent a morning recently with 200 Reform Rabbis teaching that two passages in the Hebrew Bible embrace two different ways of engaging the world for Jews. Each begins with the admonition Zachor-Remember.

The first is in Exodus 22:21: “Remember, you yourselves were once strangers in the land of Egypt.” The second is in Deuteronomy 25:17 – “Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you came out of Egypt.”

The first reminds us to avoid cruelty because we Jews have ourselves been the object of cruelty from Egyptian enslavement and throughout history. The second reminds us not to be naïve because when Amalek attacked our people from behind his intent was to destroy us.

Yossi noted that Pesach is the holiday when we’re called upon to avoid becoming cruel even in victory and especially towards our enemies, and Purim is the holiday when we’re reminded not to be naïve, and that security is of primary concern lest our enemies succeed in their goals to destroy us.

This past Shabbat we were betwixt Purim (which begins on Wednesday evening) and Pesach. Indeed, we live between these two holidays throughout the year.

Today’s Israel and the American Jewish community embrace both traditional Jewish streams. Both are authentic Jewish responses to our position in the world, and civility within our community is necessary to maintain our common purpose as a people and a nation.

Thankfully, many Israelis take seriously the tension between Israel’s humanitarian concerns and its security demands. There are no easy answers in navigating through these conflicting concerns, and we sitting here in America need to understand this and not presume that we know best and that somehow that Israel has sacrificed its morality. It’s not true.

If the conversation shifted from the crisis mode that’s motivated large portions of the Jewish people since the Holocaust, to a values mode, a new Zionist paradigm would emerge. We have had Herzl’s political Zionism, Ahad Ha-am’s cultural Zionism, Rav Kook’s religious Zionism, Zev Jabotinsky’s and Menachem Begin’s revisionist Zionism, and Avigdor Lieberman’s proto-fascist nationalist Zionism. Dr. Tal Becker, also of the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem, suggests a new kind of Zionism – “Aspirational Zionism.”

Aspirational Zionism asks these questions:

• How do Jewish values augment Israel’s democratic and pluralistic society?

• How do the moral aspirations of the Biblical prophet and the compassionate impulse of the rabbinic sages interface with contemporary ethical challenges?

• How do we Jews here, in Israel and around the world, fight the sinister intentions of our enemies bent on our destruction without sacrificing our moral sensibilities?

• How do we as a people genuinely pursue peace as a moral and quintessentially Jewish obligation in spite of the threat of war?

• And how do we support our Israeli brothers and sisters while also advocating on behalf of the equal rights and dignity of Israel’s minorities?

It’s distressing that inside Israel many pressing moral issues have been set aside by successive governments operating in the crisis mode. When pressed about the urgency of these other issues, they argue that the current crisis necessarily dictates the choices the government and security forces make.

Ironically, it seems that the Jewish world’s obsession with a crisis-based approach is creating its own crisis. The lack of sufficient attention to values is alienating too many Jews and is harming Israel’s image and legitimacy on the world stage. So often Israel’s supporters say, if only people knew the truth about Israel’s human rights record, its vibrant democracy and its commitment to the developing nations, people would understand, become less critical and more supportive and proud.

Purim is this week followed by Pesach next month. Each holiday speaks to us about fundamental values and life-lessons – not to be naïve on the one-hand, nor cruel on the other. That’s the tension in which the Jewish people lives and through which we Jews must navigate to both survive as a people and to maintain our tradition’s values.

A Disconcerting Conversation with Avrum Burg

17 Thursday Mar 2016

Posted by in American Jewish Life, Israel and Palestine, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History, Social Justice

≈ 2 Comments

As a Zionist, you will not like what Avram Burg has to say. I didn’t, and most of the people listening to him one evening this week didn’t either. But he’s smart, cogent and worth hearing nevertheless.

The New Israel Fund sponsored Burg in a series of speaking engagements in Los Angeles this week, and I was offered the role of questioning him in one living-room discussion.

Burg, 61, is the son of the National Religious Party founder, Yosef Burg, who served in every Israeli government from 1949 to 1999. Avrum is an activist in left-wing Israeli organizations, was a member of the Knesset in a number of left-leaning Zionist parties, served as Chairman of the Jewish Agency and the World Zionist Organization, was Speaker of the Knesset, and for 20 days served as President of the State of Israel after Ezer Weizmann resigned before the next President could be elected and installed by the Knesset.

Burg has now left the Zionist movement altogether declaring that “Zionism was the scaffolding that facilitated the transition [of the Jews] from the Diaspora to sovereignty. This scaffolding is superfluous now…Zionism is over.”

In the last Israeli election Burg made it official and voted for the Israeli Arab-Jewish party Hadash, now part of the joint Arab List, the third largest bloc in the Knesset. This next week he will be publishing an op-ed in Haaretz taking to task Hadash for its ties to Hezbollah.

He explained why he will not vote for a Zionist party again, that it’s taken him a long time to reach this point, but that he believes his thinking represents the future of Israel and the Palestinians. In 1948, he declared, the Zionist movement fulfilled its raison d’etre to rescue Jews from oppression in the Diaspora, and that it’s now the next stage in the Israeli evolution.

“In 20 years, the country will be in one of two places – either it will be a fundamentalist religious republic … or it will recover from the wars of the Jews over religion and state, and between the Jordan and the sea we will see the establishment of an Israel-Palestine confederation with open borders….Palestine will be ruled by a party that has managed to eradicate the occupation by means of a non-violent civil uprising, and the two countries will share a constitution. Both will also be part of a regional union that will include Jordan, Egypt, Turkey and Cyprus. Israel’s police, defense and foreign affairs ministers will come from the Arab community.” (Ynet News, January 15, 2015 – http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4615046,00.html)

Burg said to us that it was time to eliminate the “Law of Return,” that those who wish to live in Israel “should get in line and apply for citizenship just as you do in America. People fleeing anti-Semitism and oppression can apply for political asylum.”

Burg emphasized that the future must bring a new constitutional government with church-state separation. Jewish religious nationalism, he asserted, is by definition exclusionary and anti-democratic. It treats one class of citizens (i.e. Jews) differently than another (i.e. Arabs). Every individual in the new confederation must have equal rights, with one person having one vote. “The biggest injustice in the State of Israel is the civil injustice vis-à-vis Jews and Arabs,” he said.

Burg had supported a two-state solution, but he now believes that settlement expansion throughout the West Bank has made a contiguous Palestinian state nearly impossible, and he doesn’t believe that Israeli and Palestinian leadership have the will to come to a two-state agreement.

I asked Burg what he thought of the recent Pew Research poll showing 48% of Israelis supporting the policy of transfer of Arabs to other Arab countries. He said that he wasn’t surprised because this is what has come after all these years with Bibi at the helm. But, sounding an optimistic note, he noted that an equal number of Israeli Jews rejects authoritarianism.

Though he expressed deep concern about the anti-democratic trend in Israel, he said, “Look – this is what happens when you have one people oppressing another for almost fifty years.”

I asked him how he imagined security being handled in such a confederation with terrorism and instability all around Israel. “There’s no security now,” he said. “We have everything – a fence, iron dome, drones, and the most powerful military in the Middle East, but we can’t maintain security, nor stop the bombs and knifings.” He argued that when everyone, Arab and Jew, has a stake in a new political order, security will be handled.

Burg also told us that we American Jews have no real stake in Israel. “The only people who have a stake are the citizens and residents of Israel. Yes, I know you care about Israel. I care deeply about the United States. But I have no stake here, and you don’t there.”

Most of us were stunned by Burg’s views. We were, by and large, liberal American Zionists, advocates for a two-state solution, and for democracy for all citizens of the Israel, ala President Ruvi Rivlin and Likud MK Benny Begin. We believe that American Jews do, indeed, have a large stake in Israel’s survival as a Jewish and democratic state not only because Israel is the greatest accomplishment of the Jewish people in 2000 years, but the greatest opportunity our people has had to put into practice within the context of Jewish sovereignty our ethical tradition. Most in the room, I believe, thought that his idea of a new confederation is unrealistic and unworkable, given the region’s violence and political instability and other examples where this has been tried and failed – i.e. Bosnia.

Burg concluded by confessing that he’s actually an optimist and that one day a new political configuration will take hold for Israel because, he said, “there is no other way.”

Two Rabbis on Opposite Sides of the Israel Debate

12 Saturday Mar 2016

Posted by in American Jewish Life, American Politics and Life, Israel and Palestine, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History

≈ Leave a comment

As one of 2100 Reform Rabbis serving Jewish communities in America and around the world, I am a subscriber to a private list-serve called RAVKAV on which we rabbis discuss and debate just about everything of importance in Jewish life today. I post some of my blogs and other colleagues do the same when we wish to share ideas with one another. Often there is a long email chain of give and take. Our tone is always collegial, respectful and civil, though there are times when we disagree with one another strongly, as happened this week between me and a colleague on the east coast.

I posted one of my recent blogs on RAVKAV that I wrote in response to news reports that the White House is now debating what, if anything, President Obama will do concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the remaining year of his term (see – http://www.rabbijohnrosove.wordpress.com – “It’s about time! The President should lay out parameters for an Israeli-Palestinian End-of-Conflict Agreement Now.”).

My east-coast colleague challenged me and other rabbis who hold to the same views as I:

“I presume the RAVKAV reader needs no reminder that at the moment in Israel there is little interest in pursuing peace with the Palestinians. Managing the conflict is not only the policy of the ruling coalition, it is the view of Yitzhak Herzog, the leader of Labor. This isn’t for want of peace; rather, it’s because the matzav doesn’t present workable conditions. This will not be solved because Obama says so.

Which Israeli would wish on Israel a US-imposed peace agreement that would see a Hamas conquest of the West Bank?

Yet this is the continuing desire of J Street, that pro-Israel and pro-peace organization that naively believes it’s got the answers to life’s troubling questions, and is reflected in Rabbi Rosove’s recent blog post.”

I wrote back:

“I and J Street are under no illusion (nor is President Obama, Martin Indyk, Dennis Ross, Daniel Kurtzer, Secretary Kerry, Hillary Clinton and anyone who has been dealing seriously with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over many years) that a peace agreement is possible now in this environment….

J Street’s purpose in calling upon the Obama administration to state publicly its belief that an end-of-conflict agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is achievable based upon certain perameters is for one purpose and one purpose only – so that these perameters can be the basis for an end-of-claims two-state solution now or at some time in the future.

The charge that J Street’s and my position is naive, that we don’t understand Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran, that we are bleeding-heart liberals motivated by kumbaya campfire feel-good sentiments without a clue about the true nature of realpolitik in the Middle East is false and misleading about J Street generally and about achievable goals specifically.

I think it’s time that those who take this view stop and recognize that there are legitimate positions on this issue other than their own that are not naïve and that are based in concrete realities that may indeed have solutions, as difficult as that is to imagine.

No one in J Street denies that the way to peace includes first and foremost face-to-face negotiations between the parties, serious compromise on both sides, and public statements to our respective populations accepting the legitimacy of the other’s national existence and national rights. The second is the necessity that there be regional and international support for any agreement cut between Israel and the Palestinians. Perhaps a UN Security Council resolution first that states the Obama parameters, necessary compromises and need for mutual recognition is what is needed now in order to give support to and cover for Israelis and the Palestinians against the extremists in their populations who will do almost anything to undermine negotiations.

Re: Hamas taking over the West Bank – J Street too is deeply concerned about fundamentalist terrorist groups taking over the West Bank and continuing to operate unfettered in Gaza. All kinds of security guarantees will be necessary in a future agreement.

For those who want to “manage the crisis” indefinitely (that isn’t Herzog’s position, by the way – he wants to stop the stabbings, restore calm, and then renew negotiations for an end-of-conflict two-state solution), that is a prescription for endless war, violence and the eventual demise and unraveling of the democratic Jewish state of Israel.

To those who deny that this unraveling is possible I ask you where is your recognition of realpolitik in your position?

Two videos – one upon which to celebrate and one upon which to reflect

11 Friday Mar 2016

Posted by in American Jewish Life, American Politics and Life, Israel and Palestine, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History, Jewish Identity, Poetry

≈ 1 Comment

This first video will warm your heart and bring a smile to your face. It is a flashmob is at Mamila Mall leading to the Jaffa Gate of the Old City of Jerusalem. The song to which these Israelis, young and old, are dancing is a popular Israeli song from the early 70s with lyrics by Amir Gilboa and made popular by Shlomo Artzi.

The lyrics are:

Pit’om kam adam ba-boker
U-mar’gish ki hu am u-mat’chil la-le-chet
u-l’chol ha-nif’gash b’dar’ko koreh hu ‘Shalom.’ 

Suddenly a man wakes up in the morning
And He feels he is a nation and begins to walk
And to all he meets on his way he calls out ‘Shalom!’

http://www.youtube.com/embed/RzhQuQGyulA?hd=1

The second is a debate between Jeremy Ben Ami, the President of J Street, and Matt Brooks, the Director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, in Las Vegas. They discuss their very different perspectives on the Iran Nuclear Agreement, the 2-state solution, settlements, President Obama and his administration’s relationship with the State of Israel, BDS, Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.

The conversation shows as clear a differentiation between J Street and the RJC as I have heard – I encourage you to watch the entire 90 minute debate.

You decide who won!

http://jstreet.org/BenAmiBrooks

 

It’s about time! The President should lay out parameters for an Israeli-Palestinian End-of-Conflict Agreement Now

09 Wednesday Mar 2016

Posted by in American Jewish Life, American Politics and Life, Israel and Palestine, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History

≈ 1 Comment

The media yesterday was filled with reports that inside the White House, the President’s advisers, reflecting both President Obama’s and Secretary Kerry’s deep commitment to finding peace between Israel and the Palestinians, do not want to leave office without publicizing their own understanding of what a two-states for two peoples solution would include.

It’s about time!

I’ve long believed that though Israel and the Palestinians have to be the parties that come to an end-of-conflict agreement together that settles all outstanding issues between them including borders, security, refugees, Jerusalem, and water, Israel and the Palestinians are incapable of doing this on their own for lack of trust, fear and hatred. They both need regional and international support to go forward, and without American, EU, UN, and Arab League support, a deal cannot be achieved.

None other than Martin Indyk, who served as the special envoy for Israel-Palestinian peace negotiations under Secretary Kerry in 2013 and 2014 and is as close a friend to Israel as there is in American and international diplomacy, was quoted in today’s NY Times as saying:

“Obama and Kerry are looking at the very real likelihood that the two-state solution could die on their watch…Having tried everything else, I think they feel a responsibility, above all to Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state, to preserve the principles of a two-state solution.”

The essentials of the Obama parameters are nothing new and fairy well known:

• Secure borders roughly drawn along the 1967 “Green Line” with land swaps that would include within Israel 75% of the large Israeli settlements;

• A demilitarized West Bank except for Palestinian policing;

• Two capitals of Israel and Palestine in Jerusalem with clear and enforceable security guarantees for each nation;

• All Palestinian refugees to to return to the state of Palestine and not the state of Israel;

• Compensation paid to Palestinian refugees (and I would hope) to Jewish refugees who fled their Arab countries of origins in 1948 and whose property was nationalized by those countries at the time of their flight;

• Withdrawal of all Israeli settlements in Palestine beyond the borders established, unless those settlers and the Palestinian government agree that they could remain but live peaceably and securely in a Palestinian state;

• Shared water rights from the Jordan River;

• As guaranteed by the Arab League Peace proposal of 2002, full recognition and normalization of relations between all Arab moderate and pragmatic states with the state of Israel.

I would add one more item to the parameters – Just as the state of Israel recognizes the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people to a nation state of their own, the Palestinians will recognize in writing the legitimate rights of the Jewish people to a nation state of our own.

How the President ought to make his parameters known is the question – either in a Presidential speech, as have before him Presidents Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, Clinton, and G.W. Bush, or in a  UN Security Council Resolution, or in a looser agreement between the Quartet, EU, Arab League, and the US.

Martin Indyk “agreed that a Security Council resolution need not be punitive for Israel” (NY Times), and could be effectively modeled on a United Nations resolution adopted after the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, which called for Israeli forces to withdraw from occupied territories and for the establishment of a lasting peace.

I had hoped that after the failed talks between Israel and the Palestinians in 2014 that Obama/Kerry would have done this already. But, it’s never too late – and I believe they owe it to both Israel and the Palestinians to lay out on the table what they believe is doable, reasonable and fair for both sides, requiring significant compromise by both the state of Israel and the Palestinian leadership.

Those who argue against such a move are essentially arguing that it is better to maintain the status quo, and the status quo leading to a one-state solution is unsustainable and a recipe for continuing violence, terrorism and war. Further, it is a clear path to the eventual dissolution of and destruction of the nation state of the Jewish people as a democratic Jewish state.

There is nothing more important for the Jewish people and the state of Israel than that this be avoided, in spite of the risks. When weighing the risks of doing nothing and attempting to “manage the crisis” as PM Netanyahu has said he would rather do (and we see what “managing the crisis” means right now with stabbings all over the state of Israel – and setting clearly what the parameters for a secure peace agreement might be, the risks are far greater should Israel and the Palestinians do nothing.

The Israeli people, American Jews, and anyone who values, respects and loves the state of Israel must support the President and Secretary laying forward a clear pathway to an agreement now!

4 Different, Entertaining, and Frightening Pieces on Trump (i.e. Drumpf)

06 Sunday Mar 2016

Posted by in American Politics and Life, Ethics

≈ Leave a comment

Dear Readers:

You’ve no doubt been reading and watching the spectacle that is Donald Trump and his impact in the primaries.

You may have already had your fill – for me, I’m endlessly curious!

Regardless, here are four pieces that I’ve watched/read in the last week that address different sides of this phenomenon.

Watch John Oliver (if you haven’t already) for sheer entertainment coupled with sobriety. Either watch before you read the other items in order to put you in a good mood, or after you’ve read the other three to lift your spirits – or both!

The Lakoff piece is an important analysis by one of the keep observers of the American scene about who Trump appeals to and why.

Maureen Dowd is classic Maureen Dowd.

Leonard Pitts is also important, but in a slightly different way.

Only God knows where this is all going. I haven’t a clue!

Cheers?!

Drumpf – John Oliver – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpO_RTSNmQ

Why Trump? – Huffington Post –  George Lakoff, The Huffington Post – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/why-trump_1_b_9372450.html

The GOP’s destruction of its own party- Leonard Pitts Jr March 4, 2016 4:39 PM , Miami Herald – http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/leonard-pitts-jr/article64076442.html

Chickens, Home to Roost  Maureen Dowd, New York Times‎ – March 4, 2016 – http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/06/opinion/sunday/chickens-home-to-roost.html?_r=0

 

These are fighting words -Reform Jews Are in for More Humiliation at the Israeli Government’s Hands – Haaretz

04 Friday Mar 2016

Posted by in American Jewish Life, Ethics, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History, Jewish Identity, Women's Rights

≈ Leave a comment

I usually don’t print entire articles from other news sources in this blog, but this piece from Haaretz today is important for the Reform and Conservative movements in America and Israel to read. Unless you subscribe to Haaretz, you won’t see it. I encourage everyone to subscribe. Haaretz is Israel’s equivalent of the New York Times.

Secondly, please see my blog from Israel last week in which I review the experience of being part of a collective of nearly 300 Reform Rabbis from around the world who gathered at 7:00 am on Thursday morning for Shacharit and Torah reading at the new egalitarian prayer space at the Southern Kotel Plaza that the Israeli government approved several weeks ago.

Our leaders, Anat Hoffman (Chair of Women of the Wall and Executive Director of the Reform movement’s Israel Religious Action Center), Rabbi Gilad Kariv (Executive Director of the Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism) and Rabbi Rick Jacobs (President of the Union for Reform Judaism) were right when each urged us immediately after our service to keep the pressure on the Israeli government to fulfill its commitment to build this new space lest the reactionary religious and political forces in Israel, the right-wing and ultra-Orthodox political parties have their way and scuttle this historic agreement.

This piece in Haaretz today is demonstrable proof that they have already begun to battle the government’s agreement. We American Zionists who care deeply about Israel as a Jewish and democratic state must stand against them and insist on the rights of all Jews to pray as they wish at the holiest site in Judaism, and to abide by the principles of democracy that govern the Jewish state.

Reform Jews Are in for More Humiliation at the Israeli Government’s Hands

Unless the movement gains some influence in the Knesset, liberal Jews will never dislodge the ultra-Orthodox hegemony in Jerusalem.

By Anshel Pfeffer Mar 04, 2016 – Haaretz Correspondent

Last Shabbat was a rare moment of Israeli bliss for the Reform movement’s Central Conference of American Rabbis. In Israel for their annual convention, they spent the weekend in Tel Aviv, being feted in synagogues, meeting local dignitaries and attending a special morning service at the city’s museum. Pumped by the feeling of suddenly being part of the Israeli consensus, some of them even ran the Tel Aviv marathon.

The oldest mistake in Israeli politics – one made so often by non-Israelis and Israelis alike – is to think that the right-on progressive vibe of Tel Aviv reflects in any way the rest of Israel. But the U.S. Reform leadership has been here enough times not to make that mistake. Its weekend on the coast was welcome respite and looks great in a gushing press release, but the real question remains what happens in Jerusalem.

This time around, some of the leaders at least were lulled into thinking there may actually be a change afoot up in the Judean Hills. For the first time, their visit to the capital also included a festive prayer at the foot of the Western Wall – and there were no ultra-Orthodox protesters on hand to jostle female rabbis wearing tallitot and rainbow-colored kippot. For this visit came weeks after the eagerly anticipated agreement to establish a new progressive, egalitarian and mixed-gender prayer space at the southern end of the Kotel, separated from the Western Wall plaza and its ultra-Orthodox (or Haredi) hegemony.

But even if that morning made them feel like the paratroopers liberating the Western Wall in the Six-Day War, there was still a battle awaiting them in West Jerusalem. Their leaders had greeted the agreement as “historic” and, at last, a formal Israeli recognition of non-Orthodox Judaism. But the forces arrayed against them were formidable. They should have realized what they were up against when, three weeks earlier, Prime Minister and Likud chairman Benjamin Netanyahu hadn’t reprimanded his own party’s tourism minister, Yariv Levin, for describing Reform Jewry as “a waning world” and accusing them of responsibility for assimilation and the disappearance of American Jewry.

Netanyahu made do with an anodyne statement that Reform Jews “are part and parcel of the Jewish people.” Netanyahu, of course, received the rabbis cordially in his office but, tellingly, his press officers failed to release any photographs or press releases regarding the meeting.

Meanwhile, the rabbis and ultra-Orthodox politicians that Netanyahu relies upon to maintain his narrow, 61-member coalition afloat were ramping up the rhetoric on a daily basis. The Reform movement was accused of ruining Judaism, of selling out its values and of ultimately not being Jewish but “idolators” – as Rabbi David Yosef, a member of the Shas Council of Torah Sages, said this week.

When the prayer space deal was signed at the end of January, the assumption was that the ultra-Orthodox parties would strenuously object but not turn this into a coalition-busting issue. After all, the deal had left their domination of the main Kotel area – which had been contested for years by the Women of the Wall group – intact.

But on Thursday, Religious Services Minister David Azoulay (Shas) told a gathering of rabbis that as far as he is concerned, the matter is yehareg ve’al ya’avor – to be killed rather than transgress, the halakhic definition of a commandment that a Jew must be prepared to die for (usually reserved only for the sins of murder, idolatry and adultery/incest). Azoulay may have gone farther rhetorically than his political and religious masters wanted, but the signal was clear: Netanyahu will have to mollify them.

Some time in the next few days or weeks, rabbis and politicians will gather in the Prime Minister’s Office. The Reform movement will not be represented there. The Western Wall agreement will be amended so that the new prayer area will be defined as some general heritage enclosure for public use, with no formal religious or spiritual connotations. Gone will be any recognition of non-Orthodox streams of Judaism. The Haredim will be able to tell their public that they have seen off the Reform menace. In phone calls to the United States, ministers will try to explain to the Reform leaders that nothing has really changed and assure them that the new section of the Wall will still be at their disposal. It is still a “historic” achievement, they will say.

If they try to object, they will find very few allies. At most, a handful of Meretz and Zionist Union MKs will put out a weak chorus of protest, probably no more than a few posts on Facebook. The leaders of the center-left parties – Isaac Herzog, Yair Lapid and Moshe Kahlon – will remain silent. All of them know that to have any hope of replacing Netanyahu in the foreseeable future, they will need at least one of the ultra-Orthodox parties in their coalition, and there are simply no votes in supporting the Reform struggle to make such a gesture worthwhile.

The Reform leaders will be facing a difficult dilemma. Either accept the downgrading of “their” Western Wall, hand the ultra-Orthodox yet another victory and continue convincing themselves and their members that they can still turn the new site into a bastion of Jewish enlightenment in the heart of Jerusalem. Or reject the new formulation, thus opening up a formal breach between them and the Israeli government, and admit that for all their declarations of a “historic” achievement recently, they are as powerless as ever in Israel.

It doesn’t matter how many times the Reform movement has been humiliated by Israeli politicians: The frustration of the leaders of the largest Jewish movement in the United States remains as bitter as ever. “How do you ask Jews around the world to support Israel politically, economically, socially … and at the same time you have these ministers who say to our people, ‘You’re not really Jewish’ or ‘You don’t have a place here in Israel’? That incongruity is a real problem for us,” the exasperated Rabbi Steven Fox, the chief executive of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, told The Associated Press.

He knows the answer though. You continue doing so because the only alternative is to sever ties with Israel, its government and most of its society – who, despite decades of effort, have yet to warm to non-Orthodox Judaism. Outside of Tel Aviv, that is.

There are those whispering in Netanyahu’s ear that, actually, the Reform movement isn’t such a great lobbyist in Washington, either. Just look whose children are joining anti-Israeli groups like J Street, they say. They won’t stay loyal Jews anyway, much better to invest in those you can trust, like evangelical Christians. Netanyahu is a much more cautious politician than he’s given credit for; he won’t burn bridges, but he certainly won’t go out on a limb either. Ultimately, he will always give the ultra-Orthodox what they ask for.

So, after their all-too-brief “historic” moment, the political reality for the Reform movement is about to reassert itself in Israel. When Winston Churchill said in 1944 that the Vatican would object to the Soviet Union’s plans to dominate Roman Catholic Poland, Joseph Stalin retorted, “The Pope! How many divisions has he got?” The Reform movement, whatever influence it may have in the United States, has no fingers in the Knesset. Unless that changes, it will have no choice but to come back again and again for more humiliation in Jerusalem.