Category Archives: Israel and Palestine

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.

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.

 

 

The Lessons of Purim and Pesach – Avoiding Naiveté and Cruetly

22 Tuesday Mar 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aspirational Zionism asks these questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Disconcerting Conversation with Avrum Burg

17 Thursday Mar 2016

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

≈ 2 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two Rabbis on Opposite Sides of the Israel Debate

12 Saturday Mar 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wrote back:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Friday Mar 2016

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

≈ 1 Comment

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

The lyrics are:

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

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

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

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

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

You decide who won!

http://jstreet.org/BenAmiBrooks

 

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

09 Wednesday Mar 2016

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

≈ 1 Comment

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

It’s about time!

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

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

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

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

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

• A demilitarized West Bank except for Palestinian policing;

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

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

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

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

• Shared water rights from the Jordan River;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!”

“Two States of the Jewish People”

26 Friday Feb 2016

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

≈ 1 Comment

Our 330 Israeli, American, Canadian, and European Reform colleagues of the Central Conference of American Rabbis after Shabbat will conclude a week of meetings in Israel. We’ve spent time in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv and have traveled far and wide around the country.

It’s increasingly my feeling that there are at least two “states of Israel” here: the “state of Jerusalem,” an inspiring, ancient and modern mess dominated by right-wing ultra-Orthodox and settlers movement Jews who want to establish a new Jewish kingdom to replace the democratic Jewish state of Israel to be  controlled by them, the most reactionary elements in Israeli society today.

The other “state of Israel” is the “State of Tel Aviv” composed of politically middle-left Israelis, propelled and sustained by the liberal spirit of democracy, openness, and inclusivity where differences between people and cultures are celebrated, where Palestinian citizens of Israel have equal rights, where LGBT Jews are accepted, where women are treated with respect and dignity, where Reform and secular Jews live and thrive as envisioned by Israel’s Declaration of Independence, and where the spirit of the nations also is embraced.

The common concerns of most Israeli Jews and Israeli Palestinians in both “states of Israel” are security on the one hand and social justice on the other.

The income gap has widened and the numbers in poverty are growing. Though there have been some gains since the 2011 social justice movement that brought hundreds of thousands of young and middle class Israelis to camp out in tents on Rhov Rothschild in Tel Aviv, the cost of living has risen and most Israelis are working harder and longer for less.

Israelis in the middle-left respect Zionist Union opposition leader Isaac Herzog as a decent and honest man, but believe that he will be successfully challenged for leadership in the next Zionist Union election. His proposal to separate Palestinians from Israelis while retaining the hope of a two-state solution reflects the Zionist Union’s recognition that security is the number one issue on Israeli minds. However, even those who like Herzog wonder where his moral voice is. Why, they ask, is he not talking about Palestinian suffering and only about Jewish suffering? Where is the universal thrust in his liberal Zionism? Why is he not calling for immediate negotiations for a two-state end of all claims resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as a matter of Israeli enlightened self-interest and as a moral necessity?

I spent a day and a half with colleagues visiting a High School in Lod that is dramatically improving educational achievement and bringing hope to more than 1000 Palestinian Muslim high school students. We visited the Arab Jewish Community Center in Jaffa that brings together Israeli Palestinians and Israeli Jews to learn about each other. It has numerous programs to assist unemployed Palestinian Arab women, and fights against the humiliation that comes with Arab security profiling. There are language courses in Hebrew and Arabic, choirs of Arab and Jewish children singing their hearts out, and classes teaching the Jewish and Arab narratives of the conflict. We visited the only Arab-Jewish preschool in the country located in Jaffa and created and led by a married Palestinian Sufi-Jewish couple in which 200 two-five year old children and their families learn together and develop community and friendship. We visited in Modin with leaders of the Reform movement who have formed bridges all over the country between Arabs and Jews.

Every time I visit Israel my hope in this grand experiment and miracle of the Jewish people is restored and strengthened. We hear so much bad news about what’s happening here in the media, and we who passionately support the peace movement and the two-state solution can become frustrated by the deterioration of conditions. In despair, many think to throw up their hands and turn away. But, there’s an expression – “B’Yisrael y’ush lo optsia – In Israel, despair is not an option.”

Not only that, but there’s still so much good here being done by so many people, causes, NGOs, Reform synagogues, foundations, and the Israel Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism that we need only to stay focused and strong for Israel’s sake.

To those who believe that Israel is a “failed experiment,” as I heard by one prominent and respected Jew in the pages of Tikkun this past week, I have this to say – you are tragically wrong. Israel is and will be our people’s greatest HOPE.