Category Archives: Ethics

“INJUNCTION IS HEREBY GRANTED” – A First Amendment Establishment Clause Victory

10 Sunday Apr 2016

Posted by in American Jewish Life, American Politics and Life, Ethics, Jewish-Christian Relations, Jewish-Islamic Relations, Social Justice

≈ 3 Comments

On February 6, 2014, I joined with eight other plaintiffs representing Jewish, Christian and Muslim communities in the County of Los Angeles in a law suit against the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors alleging that the Board’s January 7, 2014 motion approving the restoration of a Latin cross to the official LA County seal violates the separation clause of the United States Constitution.

The nine plaintiffs include Reverend Father Ian Elliott Davies, Reverend J. Edwin Bacon, Jr., Shakeel Syed, Rabbi Harold M. Schulweis (z’l), Rabbi John L. Rosove, Reverend Tera Little, Reverend Peter Laarman, David N. Myers, and Rabbi Amy Bernstein.

The Federal Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion” or undertaking any act that unduly favors one religion over another, and we nine religious and community leaders were convinced that our rights as citizens of Los Angeles County and the rights of millions of LA county residents were being violated.

At the time, the LA County Board of Supervisors consisted of Gloria Molina, Mark Ridley-Thomas, Zev Yaroslavsky, Don Knabe, and Michael D. Antonovich.

The following is a review of events concerning the LA County seal, edited from the final court judgement:

On January 2, 1957, the Board of Supervisors adopted an official seal for the County of Los Angeles that depicted an image of the Hollywood Bowl, two stars, and an unadorned Latin cross. The Hollywood Bowl represented LA’s cultural tradition. The two stars represented the motion picture and television industries. It’s unclear whether the unadorned Latin cross was meant to represent “the influence of the church and missions of California,” or, more simply, religion.

In addition, the 1957 Seal depicted an image of Pomona, “the goddess of gardens and fruit trees,” to represent agriculture; the Spanish galleon San Salvador, which sailed into San Pedro Harbor on October 8, 1542; a tuna, to represent the fishing industry; the champion cow Pearlette, to represent the dairy industry; engineering instruments, to represent the County’s “contribution to the conquest of space”; and oil derricks, to represent oil fields discovered on Signal Hill.

The 1957 Seal served as the County’s official seal until 2004.

On May 19, 2004, the ACLU sent a letter to County officials stating that the presence of the cross on the 1957 Seal “reflects an impermissible endorsement of Christianity by the County” and was unconstitutional.

On June 1, 2004, the five members of the Board voted 3-2 to instruct County Counsel to “negotiate with the ACLU” to determine whether the ACLU would refrain from filing suit against the County.

On June 8, 2004, at one of several public meetings when the Board discussed potential revisions to the 1957 Seal, the Board heard testimony from members of the public, many of whom objected passionately on religious grounds to the removal of the Latin cross. Comments included the following:

“This is an attack on the body of Christ.”

“My Lord and Savior died on that cross and it would be horrible for me to just let it be erased.”

“The cross represents not just the passion that we are presenting today but the passion of Christ and [that] this is a Christian nation.”

“It’s a symbol of the love of Christ.”

On September 14, 2004, the County Chief Administrative Officer sent a letter to the Board recommending that it approve and adopt a proposed new County seal that (1) removed the Latin cross from above the Hollywood Bowl; (2) replaced the image of the oil derricks with a sketch of the eastern façade of the San Gabriel Mission, without any cross atop its roof; and (3) replaced the goddess Pomona with an image of a Native American woman carrying a basket.

During the public meeting, the County Administrative Officer stated that a “good figure” for the estimated cost of adopting the 2004 Seal throughout the County was $800,000. Ultimately, the Board voted 3-2 in favor of the proposed revisions, with Supervisors Burke, Molina, and Yaroslavsky voting to pass the motion, and Supervisors Antonovich and Knabe voting against it.

On October 26, 2004, the County Chief Administrative Officer sent the Board a final cost estimate of $700,000 to replace the County seal on County owned and leased facilities, decals affixed to County vehicles, and all computer applications, including websites, electronic letterhead, and software. Thereafter, the 2004 Seal was adopted throughout the County.

In 2009, a Latin cross was placed atop the eastern façade of the actual San Gabriel Mission. The original cross had been removed following an earthquake in 1989 (see motion below).

On December 31, 2013, Supervisors Antonovich and Knabe introduced a motion to add a Latin cross atop the depiction of the Mission on the 2004 County Seal.

Their motion read:

“The current rendering of the Mission on the seal is aesthetically and architecturally inaccurate. At the time that the seal was redesigned in 2004, the cross had been missing from the top of the mission since 1989 when it was taken down to retrofit the structure after damage from the Whittier Narrows earthquake. The cross was returned to the top of the Mission in 2009 after being lost for decades.”

The motion did not address the accuracy of the other images on the 2004 Seal, and Supervisors Antonovich and Knabe proposed no other changes to the seal.

On January 7, 2014, the Board held a public meeting and the ACLU opposed the motion saying:

“The government is returning a sectarian religious symbol to a seal less than ten years after its removal and one of the major objections to the removal in the first place [was] very strong religious objection.”

Zev Yaroslavsky, who a decade earlier had voted to remove the unadorned Latin cross from the 1957 Seal and to adopt the 2004 Seal, said:

“This is not just about history [aesthetics or architecture]; it’s about the cross.”

The Board voted 3-2 in favor of the proposed addition of the cross, with Supervisors Antonovich, Knabe, and Ridley-Thomas voting in favor, and Supervisors Molina and Yaroslavsky voting against.

Last week, on April 6, the Honorable Christina A. Synder of the United States District Court, ruled that the plaintiffs (i.e. the 9 representatives noted above representing Jewish, Christian and Muslim communities) have demonstrated that the addition of the cross to the 2004 Seal violates both the California and United States Constitutions, and that the County’s addition of the Latin cross to the 2004 Seal violates the No Aid and No Preference Clauses of the California Constitution as well as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and thus the court granted a permanent injunction against ever adding a cross to the LA County seal.

At long last this controversy is over, and I want to express my deep gratitude to Judge Snyder, the ACLU attorneys, former Supervisors Zev Yaroslavsky, Gloria Molina and Yvonne Burke, and my fellow plaintiffs.

This decision is a significant victory for First Amendment rights.

 

PM Netanyahu risks breaking faith and trust with world Jewry

04 Monday Apr 2016

Posted by in American Jewish Life, Ethics, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History, Jewish Identity, Musings about God/Faith/Religious life, Social Justice, Women's Rights

≈ 1 Comment

Anat Hoffman, Chair of Women of the Wall (WOW), told 330 Reform Rabbis at the end of February in Jerusalem, only weeks after an historic Israeli government compromise agreement that will create a separate egalitarian prayer space at the Southern Kotel Plaza to be administered by the Reform and Conservative movements and WOW, that the greatest danger is that ultra-Orthodox politicians would exert so much pressure on the Prime Minister that the agreement would never be implemented.

In Haaretz this week, Natan Sharansky, who PM Netanyahu appointed some time ago to bring all the parties together to craft a compromise agreement, said that the agreement is now being threatened. See http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.712614

Two ultra-Orthodox parties in the government, United Torah Judaism and Shas, which together hold only 13 Knesset seats out of 120 total, have threatened to leave Bibi’s coalition government of 61 seats if this agreement is implemented, and rather than lose his government and have to call for new elections that polls indicate would show a dramatic reduction in votes for the PM’s Likud party, Netanyahu appointed a representative to re-open negotiations. In other words, ‘Now that we have a deal let’s go back to the bargaining table and strike a new one!’

Natan Sharansky was quoted in Haaretz saying that major changes could “undermine the level of trust that has been established between the Prime Minister and the leaders of world Jewry,” and that reopening negotiations could jeopardize the entire plan. “Every word and principle in the agreement involved concessions…Once you start dismantling it, everything can fall apart.”

The ultra-Orthodox parties’ key demand is that the Conservative and Reform movements should not sit on the public authority that will oversee the new prayer space, as stipulated in the agreement. In other words, the ultra-Orthodox “Chief Rabbi of the Wall” would have the power to forbid any egalitarian service that would take place in the new Southern Kotel Plaza and insert his own ultra-Orthodox rabbis to monitor and oversee all prayer activity. That essentially would cancel this effort and deal a death blow to democracy and religious pluralism in the state of Israel, contrary to Israel’s Declaration of Independence that states that the State of Israel “will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language and culture” for all faith traditions, including the Jewish people and all religious streams, not just the orthodox and ultra-Orthodox.

Sharansky said, “… everyone needs to stand behind their decisions, and he [the Chief Rabbi of the Wall] had many opportunities to go and discuss this with different rabbis and politicians. It’s important to stick to positions you’ve taken when you’ve signed something.”

Once again, the minority ultra-Orthodox political parties are striving to thwart a signed government agreement that fulfills the State of Israel’s own Declaration of Independence, that the religious rights of non-Orthodox Judaism be assured and affirmed everywhere in the Jewish state and especially, in this case, at the holiest site in Judaism – Jerusalem’s Western Wall.

 

 

 

3 Articles I recommend that you read right now

03 Sunday Apr 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Dear Readers:

Every so often I recommend articles written by others that, in my opinion, offer thinking and perspective that help clarify some of the difficult events that have occurred in recent weeks. Here are three such articles:

[1] Former Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts is keenly intelligent, clear thinking, honest, and decent. His many years of experience in Washington, D.C make for both refreshing and clarifying reads, even if you don’t agree with him, which may be the case here. Frank was interviewed by Slate below.

[2] Prime Minister Netanyahu recently appointed former Yesha leader (the settlement movement) Dani Dayan as the new Consul General in New York after Brazil rejected Dayan’s appointment as Ambassador from Israel because of his position against a two-state solution and his role in advocating for the building of settlements in the contested West Bank. Michael Koplow writes in the Israel Policy Forum what are the lessons in Dayan’s appointment as he seeks to represent the government of the State of Israel in New York, the largest Jewish community in the world outside of Israel

[3] Peter Beinart’s article about Trump’s appearance at the AIPAC conference and the reactions of many of those present – Though I believe that AIPAC’s invitation of Trump as a leading presidential candidate is justifiable, I also believe that AIPAC failed in its duty as a Jewish organization to officially distance itself specifically from Trump’s populist demagoguery, racism, misogyny, anti-disabled, anti-immigrant, anti-Latino and anti-Muslim rhetoric, and his constant incitement to violence. It was my hope that AIPAC members would have greeted Trump with silence when he entered the hall, silence when he spoke, and silence when he left the hall. Many AIPAC members did precisely this, and to them I say “Kol hakavod” (all respect). I have written a blog explaining why I, as a congregational rabbi, have spoken out against Trump, the first time I have ever done so against or for a political candidate – see https://rabbijohnrosove.wordpress.com/2016/03/23/condemning-donald-trump-one-rabbis-protest/).

Here are the three articles that I urge you to read:

[1] Barney Frank Is Not Impressed by Bernie Sanders – By Isaac Chotiner – Slate – March 30, 2016

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2016/03/barney_frank_is_not_impressed_by_bernie_sanders.html

“Bernie Sanders has been in Congress for 25 years with little to show for it in terms of his accomplishments and that’s because of the role he stakes out. It is harder to get things done in the American political system than a lot of people realize, and what happens is they blame the people in office for the system. And that’s the same with the Tea Party.” [Slate]

Isaac Chotiner serves as Executive Editor of The New Republic, LLC.

[2] Dithering Over Dani Dayan’s Diplomacy – By Michael J. Koplow – Israel Policy Forum – March 31, 2016

http://ottomansandzionists.com/2016/03/31/dithering-over-dani-dayans-diplomacy/

“…the real lesson of Dayan’s appointment is a deeper one. His appointment is the clearest message that the Israeli government has sent yet that it does not view its policies as a problem, but rather the way in which they are presented. Dayan will not pretend to be anything but a rightwing one-stater who views the two-state solution as naïve and unrealistic. He will perfectly represent the current Israeli government as an unapologetic realist who views the bulk of American Jews as out of touch with the reality of Israel’s situation and neighborhood. Yet, the Israeli government sincerely seems to believe that forcefully and consistently presenting this message will change minds here, and that American Jews will eventually come around. Dayan as consul general lets us know that the Israeli government is blind as a bat to the damage caused by its policies, and that it is the naïve party here by assuming that it has a messaging problem rather than a policy problem. Israeli diplomats don’t need to be more forceful in pushing their message; they need a different message to push.”

Michael J. Koplow is the program director of the Israel Institute and a Georgetown University Ph.D. candidate in Government specializing in the Middle Eastern politics and democratization.

 

[3] Trump at AIPAC: A Jewish Betrayal of the United States – By Peter Beinart – Haaretz – March 23, 2016

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.710489

Thank you, Donald Trump. Unwittingly, you’ve done something important. You’ve exposed AIPAC’s indifference to the well-being of the country in which it thrives. My country. The United States.

Once upon a time, the leaders of American Zionism divided their time. They struggled to establish, defend and improve the State of Israel because of their moral obligation to their fellow Jews. And they struggled to defend and improve the United States because of their moral obligation to their fellow Americans.

The foremost American Zionist of the 1910s and 1920s, Louis Brandeis, was also America’s foremost opponent of economic oligarchy. The foremost American Zionist of the 1930s and 1940s, Rabbi Steven Wise, was a lifelong activist for women’s rights, civil rights and the labor movement. In his book Jewish Power, J.J. Goldberg notes that in the 1920s, the presidents of both the American Jewish Committee and the American Jewish Congress served on the board of the NAACP. In the 1940s, the American Jewish Congress employed more attorneys working to end segregation than did the Justice Department. At the March on Washington, American Jewish Congress head Joachim Prinz, who had been a rabbi in Hitler’s Germany, said he had come to defend “the idea and the aspirations of America itself” against the sin of state-sanctioned bigotry.

That was then. Today, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish groups still do valuable work defending the rights of vulnerable Americans. But their influence is dwarfed by AIPAC, which enjoys more power in Washington than every other American Jewish organization combined. AIPAC is the only American Jewish organization that hosts virtually all the presidential candidates every four years. It’s the only one that boasts that its national conference is “attended by more members of Congress than almost any other event, except for a joint session of Congress or a State of the Union address.” It’s the only one that employed an official who boasted, “You see this napkin? In twenty-four hours, we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin.”

Politically, AIPAC has become the dominant institution in American Jewish life. Yet it takes no moral responsibility for anything that happens in America. It has only one mission: to ensure that the United States government supports the Israeli government unconditionally. Nothing else matters. AIPAC has repeatedly hosted speeches by Pastor John Hagee, who called Hurricane Katrina “the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans” because “there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came.” To AIPAC, it doesn’t matter. Hagee leads Christians United for Israel, which lobbies the United States government to support anything Benjamin Netanyahu does. 

This is why AIPAC had no choice but to let Trump speak. And it’s why, although some attendees protested, thousands of others cheered as Trump cycled through a familiar set of talking points about how Palestinians deserve all the blame for the fact that in the West Bank, they live as non-citizens, without the right to vote, under military law. The AIPAC members cheered because they have been conditioned to cheer. They have been conditioned to view American politicians solely through the prism of their Israel views. So thousands of Jews cheered for the country’s foremost purveyor of bigotry against religious minorities. Some journalists were surprised. They should not have been. The crowd had been taught well. Moral indifference to what happens inside the United States is the AIPAC way.

After the speech, AIPAC’s president condemned Trump for his personal attacks on President Obama. AIPAC opposes excessive partisanship because it threatens the bipartisan basis of support for Israeli policy. Banning Muslims from entering the United States, or calling undocumented Mexican immigrants “rapists,” or encouraging violence at political rallies, does not threaten that bipartisan support. So AIPAC remains silent.

It would be fascinating to see how AIPAC would react if a major presidential candidate demonized not American Muslims, but American Jews. In theory, the organization would react exactly as it has reacted to Trump. In theory, AIPAC—despite being a mostly Jewish organization—has a mandate to protect only Jews in Israel, not Jews in the United States.

In practice, AIPAC would never let such a candidate speak. The outcry from its members would be too great. So it’s not quite right to say that AIPAC accepts no moral responsibility for anything that happens in the United States. Rather, it accepts no moral responsibility for anything that happens to gentiles in the United States.

At the March on Washington, Rabbi Prinz said that, “When I was the rabbi of the Jewish community in Berlin under the Hitler regime, I learned many things. The most important thing that I learned under those tragic circumstances was that bigotry and hatred are not the most urgent problem. The most urgent, the most disgraceful, the most shameful and the most tragic problem is silence.” More than fifty years later, the most dangerous bigot and demagogue in modern American history is on the verge of claiming a major party’s presidential nomination. And America’s most powerful Jewish organization is silent because it was built to be silent. We American Jews owe our country better than that.

Peter Beinart is a contributing editor at The Atlantic and National Journal, an associate professor of journalism and political science at the City University of New York, and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation.

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.

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.

 

The Orchard of Abraham’s Children – Towards the Creation of a Shared Society

29 Monday Feb 2016

Posted by in Ethics, Israel and Palestine, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History, Jewish-Islamic Relations, Stories

≈ 8 Comments

There are at least three nursery schools in that have Jewish and Muslim children enrolled together. One is in Jaffa, a mixed Arab-Jewish town, alongside Tel Aviv.

One day this past week, I went to visit along with 30 American and Canadian Reform Rabbis as part of our CCAR annual meeting in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. We gathered in the school’s backyard garden and playground near a chicken coop with very raucous roosters. The school is aptly called “The Orchard of Abraham’s Children.”

Ihab Balha is the school manager, and he greeted us warmly. He’s in his early 40s, is tall with cascading long black-gray hair framing his handsome olive-colored face. He wore the long white robe of a Sufi mystic. He speaks beautiful Hebrew and he told us his unusual story about how this school came to be created.

Ihab grew up in the house in which the school welcomes the children each day. He is one of four or five children of a loving Palestinian Arab Muslim family. However, his father’s love only went so far. He hated Jews with an uncommon passion, and he taught his children to hate Jews as well.

When Ihab was 16, he attempted to fire-bomb a synagogue. When he was 20, he encountered Jews for the first time with a group of Palestinian friends. Each side took the opportunity to release their pent-up venom and rage toward the other. Something strange happened, however, in the verbal assaults. Ihab and the others (Jews and Arabs both) wanted more opportunities to be heard and to listen. Soon, they realized that their bigotry was not rationally based, that there was humanity in the other and that they shared far more than they had ever imagined. That realization launched them into a dialogue series that transformed them.

Ihab didn’t initially confide with his parents that he was participating in these conversations nor that his attitudes about Jews were changing. At long last he told his parents, but there was a serious fall-out with his father. They did not speak nor see one another for the next five years, a painful time for the entire family. For comfort and wisdom, Ihab turned to Islam and the Quran, and he became a Sufi mystic.

After the 2nd Intifada in 2002, Ihab attended a discussion between an Imam and a Rabbi, both of whom had lost children because of the violence. In 2006, Ihab helped to organize a conference of Muslims and Jews that was attended by 5000 Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews at Latrun on the road between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, the site of an historic battle in the War of Independence. Around that time, Ihab reconciled with his parents. In 2008, his family made pilgrimage to Mecca.

At the age of 35, Ihab met and fell madly in love with Ora, an Israeli Jewish woman. They married two days after they met, and he struggled with how to tell his parents. Because Jaffa is a small town and his family is well known, everyone knew that he had married but no one knew who was his bride.

Ihab and Ora decided to introduce her to the family without revealing that they were, in truth, married. He brought her home along with a group of Jewish and Palestinian Arab “friends,” the first time Jews had ever set foot in the Balha home. Ihab’s father told Ora and the other Jews how he hated and resented Jews who he believed had stolen so much from the Palestinians during the 1948 War. He did like Ora – a lot.

His parents kept asking Ihab why they had not yet met his bride and when that would happen. At last, when cousins came to visit from Holland, using them as a buffer, one of the cousins told his parents: “You have met Ihab’s wife. She is  there (pointing at Ora)!”

Ihab’s father exploded: “You Jews have stolen everything from us, and now you steal from me my son!?”

Ora said, “I love your son.”

Ora was soon pregnant with their first child, and she and Ihab decided that they wanted to raise their son with Israeli Jews and Palestinian Muslim Arabs. They envisioned starting a nursery school but needed a building. Ihab’s parents volunteered their house. Today, the school has 200 children who come every day . They call the school “The Orchard Of Abraham’s Children.” Ora is the Director and Ihab is the Manager. Ihab’s father visits the kids each day and is a loving “grandfather” to them all, Arab and Jew.

This story is remarkable in so many ways, most especially because it shows the transformation that can be experienced by enemies, and about what happens when we listen and seek to understand the “other.” It’s about learning the other’s narrative, and how empathy and compassion are critical in the building of friendship, community and a shared society.

After Ihab shared his remarkable story, I said to him: “Ihab – Your have experienced  great pain!”

“Yes,” he said, “but also great joy!”