Category Archives: American Politics and Life

DON’T EAT THE STORK!

01 Friday Apr 2016

Posted by in American Jewish Life, American Politics and Life, Divrei Torah, Ethics, Health and Well-Being, Jewish Identity, Musings about God/Faith/Religious life, Social Justice, Women's Rights

≈ 1 Comment

Is it true that ‘we are what we eat?’

Judaism says “yes!” That’s why, many commentators say, our consumption of animals of prey is prohibited (see citations below).

This week’s Torah portion Sh’mini (Leviticus 9:1-11:47) lists many of these non-kosher animals as well as other dos and don’ts of kosher eating. Though tradition acquiesces to what a number of sages acknowledge is a fundamental human weakness (i.e. the craving for meat), many of our kosher laws seek to counteract and contain our unchecked tendency towards avarice, cruelty and violence, and instead encourage us to cultivate greater sensitivity, empathy and compassion for animals.

The category of rabbinic law that concerns the suffering of animals is called Tza-ar ba’alei chayim. Many halachot (rabbinic laws) oversee our treatment of and care for animals. The kosher ideal is not for us to be omnivores. Rather, vegetarianism is the greater goal based on the standard of the first humans in paradise (the Garden of Eden) who ate only what was grown there.

Of all the kosher prohibitions listed in the book of Leviticus, one bird, however, is forbidden to eat, and it’s a curiosity given its name and the notion that we are what we eat. We read:

“The following you shall abominate among the birds – they shall not be eaten….the eagle, vulture, black vulture; kit, falcons, raven, ostrich, nighthawk, sea gull; hawks of all kinds; little owl, cormorant, great owl; white owl, pelican, bustard; stork, herons of all kinds, hoopoe, and bat.” (Leviticus 11:13-19)

These are birds of prey and are forbidden for human consumption lest, our sages teach, we absorb the animal’s predatory nature. If so, what is it about this particular bird, called chasidah (the stork or “graceful swan”) that’s so heinous? Why is it included in this list along with eagles, vultures and other carnivorous flying creatures?

Rashi, citing Rabbi Judah, also asked: “…why is it called chasidah?” He answered: “Because it acts with kindness (chasidut) towards its friends, sharing its food with them.” (Bavli, Hullin 63a)

Since the swan/stork is compassionate by nature, why shouldn’t it be kasher (lit. “fit to be eaten by Jews”)? Perhaps, because though the white stork is good and generous to its friends, it isn’t generous to strangers.

The stork is a bird apart – beautiful, inspiring flights of imagination in ballet, poetry, and Disney animated features (remember the storks in Dumbo delivering babies to families?!), but such qualities can also be accompanied by arrogance and disregard for others. Though empathetic to its own, the stork lacks greater empathy and understanding for those different from itself.

Torah tradition seeks to nurture within the human heart empathy for those who are like us and not like us, friend and foe. It’s easy for most of us to relate with patience and kindness to our families, friends and communities. A far more difficult challenge is for us to be understanding and empathetic towards the stranger, those different from us, who don’t share our language, values, goals, and aspirations; those down on their luck, the poor, the single welfare mother and her children, the disabled, the unemployed and under-employed, the immigrant, people of color, LGBTQ, the uneducated, the fearful and angry, the Palestinian, the Syrian and Muslim refugee, and on and on and on.

The non-kosher classification of the swan/stork reminds us who we are not supposed to be, and that it’s our moral obligation to push ourselves beyond our comfort zones and transcend our worlds for the sake of the “other” who is very different from us.

Shabbat shalom.

See also: Genesis 9:3-4 and Leviticus 17:10-12 (prohibition against the consumption of blood), Exodus, 12:14-15 (leaven during Pesach), 23:19 (boiling the kid in the milk of its mother) , Deuteronomy 12:20-25 (permission to eat meat and prohibition against the consumption of blood), 14:3-20  and Deuteronomy 14:21 (land animals and water creatures), Leviticus 22:28 and Deuteronomy 22:6-7 (compassion towards the mother animal), Bavli Gittin 62a, Berachot 40a, Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed Part III, Chapter 48 and Sefer HaChinuch Law 148 (rationale for keeping kosher),

 

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.

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

 

The Two-State Solution is Not Yet Dead!

15 Monday Feb 2016

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

≈ 4 Comments

Thomas Friedman’s NY Times op-ed (Feb 10 – link below) expresses his exasperation with Israel and the Palestinians and his conclusion that the two-state solution is dead. His piece stimulated a lot of debate and conversation this past week in American Jewish pro-Israel circles.

Friedman’s argument comes in the wake of the apparent break-down of the Oslo peace process, months of knife-wielding Palestinian children and teens against Israeli civilians, a new proposal to deal with the terror by Israeli opposition leader Yitzhak Herzog who advocates building a fence that would separate the populations, and a proposal by Israeli President Ruvi Rivlin to create a confederation of two states under Israeli sovereignty.

However, before everyone takes any of these proposals too seriously, I believe it is still too soon to hammer the final nail in the coffin of a two-state solution. Shaul Arieli argues this point in his recent Haaretz op-ed: “The Settlement enterprise has failed,” (link below). Arieli’s cites the facts that because Jews comprise only 13.5% of the West Bank’s population and occupy only 4% of the land in the West Bank, that “the settlers have failed to create the appropriate conditions for annexing the West Bank.”

Then there’s Isaac Herzog’s security proposal made in direct response to Israeli fears of Palestinians attacking them everywhere. Though his proposal is a short-term panacea (the number of attacks this last month are significantly fewer than previous months), it is not a long-term plan. Herzog has affirmed that he still believes that a 2-state solution is the only way Israel can remain democratic, Jewish and secure. He offered his plan as a way simply to control the violence.

I get it. Israeli fear is palpable. I felt it myself in October when I was there for the World Zionist Congress. Terrorism terrorizes. That’s the entire point. It’s brutal and indiscriminate. But, Herzog’s proposal isn’t a solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It may even make a two-state solution more difficult to achieve because of the route the fence takes and what license it gives to settlers to build more settlements in areas that are contested, especially in Jerusalem. The benefit of his proposal, however, is that settlement construction outside the fence would cease.

President Ruvi Rivlin’s idea (he never believed in a two-state solution) is to create a confederation in which there would be two states, Israel and Palestine, with a defined border, two parliaments, two constitutions, security police in both, but one army, the IDF, that would control everything between the River and the Sea. There would be a shared infrastructure such as a common electricity grid and shared water resources.

Rivlin’s idea is, on the surface, appealing especially for many Jews and Israelis because it would eliminate the need to move large numbers of settlers from their settlements in the West Bank and maintain security over all the West Bank. Israelis living in the West Bank, wherever they are, would remain Israeli and vote in Israeli elections though living in Palestine, just as Palestinian Arabs would be citizens of Palestine and vote in Palestinian elections, but live in greater Israel under the complete sovereignty of the Jewish state.

President Rivlin’s plan is for an inherently unequal confederation. The problems in the plan include how to keep Jewish national zealots from building more settlements in the new state of Palestine, how to get agreement from the Palestinians to live under IDF control, what limitations would be placed upon returning Palestinian refugees, and what arrangements would be made in Jerusalem for Palestinians over their own population?

President Rivlin’s ideas, surprisingly, have attracted the support of the principle Oslo architect and left-wing former Deputy Prime Minister Yossi Beilin, among others.

There is also the position of the national religious settler movement led by Bayit Yehudi Leader Naftali Bennett. These people believe that Jews have the God-given right to settle anywhere in the land of Israel, that there is room only for one state between the River and the Sea, Israel, and that Palestinians can never be equal citizens of Israel.

There is no current viable solution on the table. The PA refuses to meet with Israeli leaders without international interlocutors. The Israeli government won’t meet with any Palestinian leader who demands agreement to preconditions.

What do we in the West do?

First, we have to continue to support the state of Israel, its people and its security needs. There are many Jews who are throwing up their hands and want to turn away. We can’t do it. Israel belongs to the entire Jewish people and what happens there effects us here. Israelis need us as we need them – we are one people!

Second, we have to continue to support Israel’s democracy and its commitment to equal rights for all its citizens, Jewish, Arab and other.

Third, we have to remind ourselves that anything that makes a two-state solution more difficult to achieve is a threat to Israel’s future viability, security, democracy, and Jewish character.

Hazak hazak v’nithazek! Be strong and let us strengthen one another!

The following articles discuss the various options confronting Israel and the Palestinians:

“The Many Mid-East Solutions” – Thomas Friedman, NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/10/opinion/the-many-mideast-solutions.html?_r=0

“Jeremy Ben Ami Responds to Thomas Friedman” – NY Times Letter to the Editor
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/opinion/the-only-mideast-solution-two-states.html?_r=0

“The Settlement enterprise has failed” – Shaul Arieli, Haaretz
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.685926

“Ruvi Seeks a Solution – The President stands up to the Prime Minister and charts a way out of the tribal morass engulfing Israel” – Leslie Susser, The Jerusalem Report
http://www.jpost.com/Jerusalem-Report/Ruvi-seeks-a-solution-443904