The World-Wide Media’s Mis-characterization of Israel’s Election Results

Tags

, , , ,

[The following is a letter I received from a friend, Glenn L. Krinsky, a long-time progressive Zionist, who I believe accurately, corrects the media’s mis-characterization of the 2015 Israeli election. I am posting Glenn’s letter by permission. Glenn L. Krinsky is a law partner in Jones Day – One Firm Worldwide in the Los Angeles office. I add some reflections following Glenn’s email.]

“It’s just amazing how the worldwide media, including the Israeli media, have so vastly mis-characterized the election results. 

In 2013, Bibi prostituted himself to Lieberman, and their combined Likud/Yisrael Beitenu slate won 31 seats. Naftali Bennett’s then-new party, Habayit HaYehudi, won 12 seats. So Bibi/Lieberman/Bennett won 43 seats.

This year, Bibi purposely shifted to the extreme right to cannibalize votes from Lieberman and Bennett to ensure that Likud was the largest single vote-getter and would be asked to form the coalition. The strategy succeeded in the sense that Bennett went from 12 to 8 and Lieberman was marginalized down to 6. But note, this year the Bibi/Lieberman/Bennett trio got 44 seats, only one more than 2 years ago.

What happened to the center/left? In 2013,Yesh Atid won 19 seats (but sold out and went into Bibi’s coalition). This year Yesh Atid got 11 (a decrease of 8). Labor went from 21 (15 for Labor plus 6 for Livni’s Hatnuah party) to 24, and Meretz went from 6 to 5. So, these parties won 46 seats in 2013 and only 40 in 2015.

Where did the other six seats go? Not to the right, since we saw that they went only from 43 to 44. Instead, they went to Kahlon (the former Likud-nik who moved from the right to the center) who got 10 seats, whereas in 2013, the former Likud-nik who moved from the right to the center–Shaul Mofaz–got only 2 seats. In other words, the ‘we want change but don’t want Labor or Livni’ vote stayed right at 21 seats (in 2013, 19 for Yesh Atid + 2 for Mofaz; in 2015, 11 for Yesh Atid + 10 for Kahlon).

The Arab parties went from 11 to 13 (because of the drawing power in 2015 of the 3 Arab parties consolidating into one joint list), and the ultra-Orthodox went from 18 to 13 (due to the split in Shas, which went from 11 to 7 seats since Yishai’s half of Shas barely missed the threshold which would have given it 4 seats, which would have matched exactly Shas’ 2013 results when added to Deri’s half of Shas in 2015). 

So, it’s clear that, with minor variations (the largest being Kahlon’s showing), the 2015 results are strikingly similar to the 2013 results.

The real story in 2015 was one of ‘expectations versus results.’ The opinion polls showed Herzog pulling away from Bibi in the last week, and everyone was conditioned for a Zionist Union victory. Instead, Bibi went so far to the right that far right-wingers didn’t feel the need to vote for Bennett or Lieberman. As set forth above, the right-wing trio merely went from 43 to 44. But Bibi took enough votes away from Bennett and Lieberman that Likud far outstripped Herzog/Livni as the largest party, which the media are characterizing as a ‘resounding’ or ‘striking’ win when it’s merely a reflection of Likud moving so far to the right that it cannibalized votes from Bennett and Lieberman.”

As I indicated, I believe Glenn has interpreted the election correctly. He alludes to the final weekend of the campaign in which PM Netanyahu appealed to the worst in the Israeli character. His racist and demagogic disenfranchisement of 20% of Israeli citizenry represented by the Arab population inside the Green Line has done serious damage not only to his credibility as the Prime Minister of all Israeli citizens, but his appeal to fear and hate is unbecoming to the nation state of the Jewish people.

Further, Bibi’s rejection this last weekend of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict sadly conforms to what many of us knew to be the truth even after the Prime Minister’s speech in 2009 at Bar Ilan University in which he said that he supported a two-state solution.

Reports emerged following the break-down in the American sponsored Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that Tzipi Livni, who served as Israel’s chief negotiator, was constantly undermined and second-guessed by Bibi’s lawyer who sat in (on orders of the PM) on every negotiation session and made Livni’s work next to impossible. In truth, as Bibi revealed to settlers after his Bar Ilan speech, he never intended to make a deal with the Palestinians for a state of their own in west bank territories.

Now, the challenge will be for all of us who love Israel, to continue to love her and support her, even as we insist that Israel’s future as a democratic and Jewish state depends on a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In truth, there is no other solution to this conflict, and we American ohavei m’dinat Yisrael have to join with half of Israel’s population in supporting them in advocating for an end to the conflict which will not only be in Israel’s best interest internally, but internationally as well.

The Morning After – Exchange with Jeremy Ben-Ami

Tags

,

As I went to sleep last evening, news was already reporting the six point spread between Likud and the Zionist Union, and that given the math, PM Netanyahu will be able to form a new government with all right-wing parties without needing to create a national unity government.

Yes – I am deeply disappointed, but I’m not down.

I am printing a letter below in its entirety from Jeremy Ben-Ami, the President of J Street, because my perspective matches his – though he and I debate personally whether or not there is a higher power. I believe there is, and he has his doubts.

After Jeremy’s letter, I will share an email I sent to him this morning appropriate for this moment, our J Street national convention beginning this motzei Shabbat in Washington, D.C., and our Pesach season that is fast approaching.

Here is Jeremy’s letter sent this morning to 200,000 supporters of J Street in the United States and Israel:

Benjamin Netanyahu’s victory is a deep disappointment to all who hoped that Israel might choose a new direction for the country in yesterday’s election.

The Prime Minister’s renunciation of the two-state solution and resort to a campaign grounded in fear and tinged with racism successfully moved 150,000 votes from other right-wing parties into the Likud column in the campaign’s final days. But we fear that the cost to Israel in the long-run will be steep in terms of support here in the United States and internationally.

The Prime Minister’s outrageous statements in the campaign’s final days may have pushed him from 19 percent in the polls before the election to 23 percent on election night and cemented his position as the leader of Israel’s right wing, but this was not a broad mandate in support of the direction in which the Prime Minister is leading. Seventy-two percent of Israelis on the eve of the election felt the country is headed in the wrong direction, and only one-third of Israel’s voters supported the hard-right represented by Likud, Naftali Bennett and Avigdor Lieberman, a number roughly comparable to last election. Even in the next Knesset, the blocs of the center-left and of the right wing will continue to be evenly balanced.

Without question, we respect Israel’s democracy and the outcome of the election. We celebrate the vibrancy of debate and dissent in Israel over essential matters that was on full display during the campaign. And – contrary to the Prime Minister’s panicked attack on the participation of Arab citizens in the election – we view their increased participation in this year’s election as a positive sign about the strength of Israeli democracy.

None of that can change our core belief, however, that the policies that the Prime Minister articulated in order to win – outright rejection of the two-state solution and territorial compromise – should and will be rejected by the international community, including the United States. Sadly, the results of this election will only deepen Israel’s growing isolation.

The manner in which the Prime Minister secured his victory – shredding the broad bipartisanship that underpins American political support for Israel and preying on fear and racism at home – also demonstrated that he willingly put his own political interests before his concern for Israel’s relationship with the United States and his commitment to Israel’s democratic character.

Moving forward, J Street will be unwavering in making the case that Israel’s security and survival as the democratic homeland of the Jewish people require a change in course, recognizing that the need for change is ultimately a matter for the citizens of Israel to debate in the years ahead.

Here, in the United States, J Street, however, has a clear role to play. We will stand up strongly and proudly in American political and Jewish communal debates for an end to occupation, for a two-state solution and for an Israel that is committed to its core democratic principles and Jewish values.

We will speak out on behalf of the majority of American supporters of Israel – Jewish and not – who support a two-state solution and oppose moves to limit the rights of any Israeli citizens or to deny the collective right of the Palestinian people to self-determination in a state of their own.

Faced with a return to power of a Prime Minister who has publicly demonstrated that he does not share those beliefs, we will advocate strongly that the American Jewish community must maintain and even more actively promote its commitment to the core principles and policies which have been bedrocks of the US-Israel relationship for decades.

We’re counting on your support as we continue that work.

– Jeremy Ben-Ami

My email to Jeremy:

Dear Jeremy:

Many express doubts about there being a higher power in light of this election – understandable, and I know many American Jews have altogether given up on there being a higher power.

Martin Buber would have said not that God doesn’t exist, but that God is “in eclipse” and has permitted the darker forces to run amok. Good people doing good work is evidence of God’s presence, I believe, and there is plenty of that around.

Remember the Midrash of Moses and the Israelites at the sea. While Moses prayed, Nachshon ben Aminidav jumped in the water and began to swim, essentially taking history into his own hands. The rabbis said that God was watching, and the combination of Moses’ prayer and Nachshon’s activism persuaded God to split the sea.

All metaphor, of course, but don’t give up on the existence of a higher force, just that too many people are disconnected from it and we need more  to transcend fear, which is a dark force that keeps us from higher vision, and carry on the good fight.

Ometz Lev (strength of heart),
John

In conclusion, Meirav Michaeli (Member of the K’nesset from the Zionist Union) said it well as quoted in the NY Times today taken from her tweeter feed:

“As difficult as it is, it’s just another round. We have to raise our heads, recover and start preparing for the next round. This is our country. This is our society. We are here to work for both.”

We in America that love Israel need to support those Israelis (Jewish and Arab citizens alike) with whom we share a common vision.

Kadimah!

While Waiting for Israeli Election Results – Thoughts on ‘Optimism’ and Important Articles to Ponder

Tags

, , ,

The only poll that matters is the one taken today, on election day. Then what matters is who President Rivlin will ask to form a coalition government and how the parties will line up, which could take weeks.

In the meantime, here are some thoughts about optimism and pessimism and a few articles I recommend.

The alternative to Hamas is Abbas. He is a serious man who has declared himself in favor of peace and compromise, of a demilitarized Palestinian state and against terror…There are always skeptics in life…To be an optimist you have to work very hard and have a lot of patience. It’s more natural to be a skeptic, be on the safe side…But in my experience in life I feel that being optimistic is wiser and more realistic…Optimists and pessimists die the same way. It’s how they live that’s different.” -Former President Shimon Peres addressing Israeli High School Students

“Some people see things as they are and ask why. I dream things that never were and say why not.” -Robert F. Kennedy

“A pessimist sees only the dark side of the clouds, and mopes; a philosopher sees both sides, and shrugs; an optimist doesn’t see the clouds at all – he’s walking on them.” -Leonard Louis Levinson, writer

“An optimist is the human personification of spring.” -Susan J. Bissonette, writer

“A pessimist finds difficulties in every opportunity; an optimist finds opportunities in every difficulty.” -President Harry S. Truman

“Part of being optimistic is keeping one’s head pointed toward the sun, one’s feet moving forward. There were many dark moments when my faith in humanity was sorely tested, but I would not give myself up to despair. That way lays defeat and death.” -Nelson Mandela

“B’Yisrael ye-ush lo optsia – In Israel despair is not an option.” -Yaron Shavit – past President of the Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism and military commander of Milluim in North Israel

5 Recommended articles:

1. The American Jewish Community Is Fracturing. What’s Causing It? Steven M. Cohen, The New Republic. Professor Cohen is among the most respected demographers of the American Jewish community. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121304/generational-divide-american-jews-israel

2. Amos Oz – Last Chance for a Jewish State,  The Los Angeles Jewish Journal. A landmark speech delivered before the eighth international conference of the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv. http://www.jewishjournal.com/opinion/article/transcript_of_amos_oz_remarks_to_inss

3. LIVE UPDATES: Some 26% vote before noon; Likud ‘worried by high Arab turnout’, Times of Israel. http://www.timesofisrael.com/ballot-stations-open-as-israelis-choose-new-leadership/

4. Israel’s New Political Center, New Yorker, Bernard Avishai. http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/israels-new-political-center

5. Bibi’s Opponent: ‘I Trust the Obama Administration to Get a Good Deal’, Atlantic. Jeffrey Goldberg notes in an extensive interview with Herzog that unlike Netanyahu, the Zionist Union head “is clever enough to talk about the US-Israel relationship with discretion and nuance.” http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/03/goldberg-isaac-herzog-interview-on-iran-and-obama/387628/?utm_source=btn-twitter-pin

The Final Week Before the Israeli Election – 3 Articles

Tags

, , , , , ,

Those interested in the Israeli election are no doubt following the news carefully in Haaretz, The Jerusalem Post, The Times of Israel , the LA Jewish Journal, The Jewish Daily Forward, and other news sources. The following three items encapsulate the dynamism of this election in Israel among Jews, Israeli Arabs and the American Jewish community.

Though anything can happen, as past Israeli elections have shown, I believe that this election may truly represent a sea-change. Polls indicate that in the closing week, Israeli opinion is solidifying. Here are two edited articles and a link to a third that reflects that dynamism and what this election means to Israelis, Arabs and American Jews.

[1] From a Letter of Rabbi Dow Marmur from Jerusalem. March 15, 2015. (edited)
Ari Shavit, whom the world reads nowadays more than ever thanks to the deserved success of his book, “My Promised Land,” suggested in his Ha’aretz column earlier in the week that the very possibility of a Herzog government has restored hope to many Israelis. They’re hoping, it seems, that:

*he’ll restore normal relations with the United States instead of siding with Republican extremists in Congress;

*he’ll see Israel’s security problems in the larger context than just Iran, something many experts in the field believe to be necessary;

*he’ll tackle the economic issues of the day, particularly the cost of housing which has soared because, according to one report, a third of all new homes have been bought by investors, not owner-tenants;

*he’ll stem the massive flow of funds and subsidies to the settlements;

*he’ll restart negotiations with the Palestinians and release the tax revenues which rightfully belong to the Palestinian Authority but that Israel is currently holding as retaliations for the Authority turning to the International Criminal Court.

[2] “Why I’m voting Meretz and not for the Arab ticket.” Salman Masalha. Haaretz. March 12, 2015. (edited)

The actions of the Joint List of Arab parties for the Knesset over the question of a surplus votes agreement with Meretz was the straw that broke the camel’s back for me. Meretz was willing to cancel its surplus votes agreement with the Zionist Union to sign such an agreement with the Joint List, just to prevent tens of thousands of votes from going to waste – but the Joint List refused….

I admit that I boycotted recent elections, and that I recently used this platform to call for boycotting the present election too. I had many reasons in favor of a boycott. The reasons have not changed. The circumstances have.

When Islamist imams declare in the Arab media that a vote for the Joint List will bring down the rule of the right, yet the Joint List includes an Islamic Movement whose candidates live a polygamous life, I wonder which right they are talking about. Do they themselves not represent the very same thing just in a different costume, the sheitel or the hijab?

We must say clearly that the Joint List includes not only the equivalent of Yisrael Beiteinu of the Arab street, in the form of the Arab nationalism of Balad; but also the racist parallel of Habayit Hayehudi in the shape of the Islamic Movement.

…Here it turns out that the nationalists of Balad, who are fighting with all they have to enter the Knesset and swear loyalty to the “Jewish and democratic” State of Israel, are not willing to sign an agreement with Meretz based on the claim that it is a Zionist party, but when the time comes they embrace the racists from the “Habayit Haislami” (“Islamic Home”) of the Arab street.

Therefore, this is the time to disperse the fog and put everything on the table. I confess that I have never voted for Meretz. I always gave my vote to Hadash. But the time has come to voice a clear and pronounced civil Arab call: If the choice is between a vote that will give Meretz a Knesset seat or a vote that will give another seat to the Arabs from the Joint List who are the counterparts of Habayit Hayehudi or Yisrael Beiteinu, then the proper choice of every responsible citizen is clearly Meretz.

Every vote for Meretz is a sure vote for separating religion and state, for civil equality and equality between the sexes. Every vote for Meretz is a sure vote for social justice, cultural and national justice, freedom of expression and freedom of thought. And above all, every vote for Meretz is a certain vote for the peace we all aspire to. It is impossible to say all these things with certainty about any other party.

That is why, for a sane country and equal citizenship for everyone, I have decided to vote for Meretz.

[3] “Israel’s Debates Creep (Back) Into Our Bloodstream – American Jews Realize They Are Part of Election Drama.” JJ Goldberg. Jewish Daily Forward. March 13, 2015.

http://forward.com/articles/216514/israels-debates-creep-back-into-our-bloodstream/#ixzz3UHJ19DA4

Shabbat shalom!

The Back Story of the UCLA Judicial Anti-Semitic Incident

Despite every effort by the four original nay-voters to reverse themselves and clean up the mess they made in the recent vote against the nomination of the Jewish student, Rachel Beyda, to serve on UCLA’s student Judicial Board, and despite the UCLA Administration’s sincere efforts to deal appropriately with this matter, and despite the 12-0 vote of the UCLA Student Government to condemn anti-Semitism in all forms this week (see below), there is a back story that ought to be known.

That back story, published by the “Faculty Lounge: Conversations about Law, Culture and Academia,” shines a light on three of the four initial voters against Ms. Beyda. These three students have been activists in the Boycott, Sanctions and Divestment (BDS) movement against Israel at UCLA.

“For the past year, there has been a concerted effort at UCLA to rid the student government of anyone who might be insufficiently antagonistic toward Israel, which was seen as necessary to the passage of a BDS (boycott, divestment, sanctions) resolution. And as it turns out, at least three of the four anti-Beyda voters have been closely connected to that campaign. It is often said that the BDS movement is aimed only at Israel and not at Jews, but this incident shows just how easily anti-Zionism can give rise to what might be called Judeophobia – the assumption that Jews are politically suspect until proven otherwise.” http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2015/03/ucla-the-untold-backstory.html

Though it is possible to accept the right of the Jewish people to a nation state of our own and at the same time support limited-BDS in the occupied territories (a position I do not support because I believe it unfairly targets Israel and does nothing to further a negotiated two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians), the fact is that the main proponents of BDS deny the right of the Jewish people to a nation state on any part of our historic homeland. This position is not only anti-Israel and anti-Zionist, it is also anti-Semitic.

Yes, those three students changed their vote and apologized for offending Jews, but I question the sincerity of those apologies given these three students pro-BDS activism.

See story on UCLA Student Government resolution condemning anti-Semitism in all forms: http://www.jewishjournal.com/los_angeles/article/ucla_student_government_passes_resolution_condemning_anti_semitism1

New Israeli Feminist Ultra-Orthodox Party Runs in Election – Biz’chutan

If ever there was a time that ultra-Orthodox women need political, economic, and social power of their own in the state of Israel, now is the time.

For those who have seen the Israeli entry to the Academy Awards this year “Gett” (the third in a trilogy of films) by the brother-sister team of Ronit and Shlomi Elkabetz, you have witnessed how horribly insensitive and misogynist is the Hareidi rabbinic community in Israel.

Gila Yashar is a Hareidi wife and mother of 7 children who tells her heart-breaking story on the TLV1 broadcast aired on March 8. (see link below). Both the film “Gett” and this story about the women running for the Knesset on the Biz’chutan (“In Their Merit”) list, will shock you. If you are not a part of the Hareidi community or knowledgeable about the place of women in it, it is likely that you have no idea of the depth and breadth of the discrimination against women who stand up for their rights, nor of the dismissive attitude towards injustices they have sustained and which have been ignored by the all-male batei din (rabbinical courts).

I hope that this new political party Biz’chutan wins a necessary minimum (3.25%) of the Israeli electorate so that all four of the Hareidi women running for office – Ruth Culian, Noa Erez, Tami Bilui, and Gila Yashar – will be able to take seats in the next Knesset.

Their courage to defy the ultra-Orthodox Israeli Hareidi community has already given heart to many Hareidi women in similar circumstances who feel utterly alone and abandoned and as though no one cares about them.

Click here to hear this heart-wrenching and inspirational story: http://tlv1.fm/so-much-to-say/2015/03/08/going-against-the-grain-the-bizchutan-party/

B’hatz’lachen!

Zionism and Crisis – A Conversation

In late February I was invited to participate in a dialogue on the meaning of Progressive Zionism, Israel’s character as a Jewish homeland and democratic state, why Israel is important for American Jews, our role in US-Israeli politics, and our relationship with each other vis a vis the state of Israel.

I was questioned by Dr. Joshua Holo, Associate Professor of Jewish History and Dean of the Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion in Los Angeles, in a 45-minute conversation. Dr. Holo and I covered many of the most critical issues facing American Jewry in relationship to the state of Israel today. Our conversation can be watched at http://huc.edu/academics/learn/zionism-and-crisis.

This program, called “Zionism and Crisis – A Conversation,” is part of an on-going series of discussions led by Dean Holo on a wide variety of themes in a series called “THE COLLEGE COMMONS.” Currently, 20 Reform synagogues throughout the western United States from Seattle to San Diego and throughout the southwest are participating in a live-stream and real-time conversation followed by discussion in each synagogue led by their respective rabbis. Dr. Holo prepares study materials for those synagogue conversations.

There is no charge for synagogue participation. This is not what Josh calls “Pajama Torah,” meaning that you cannot access this conversation in real-time on-line from home. It must be done in community with others, and so synagogues are signing up and gathering congregants to watch, question the speakers and then discuss together these themes.

If you are interested in participating, ask your rabbis and adult learning chairs to contact HUC and schedule these events. They occur on Tuesday evenings and Sunday mornings four times annually. If you live in other communities around the country, you are welcome as well but note the time changes.

For more information see collegecommons@huc.edu. Also see http://huc.edu/campus-life/los-angeles/college-commons and http://huc.edu/academics/learn/theme/458

Upcoming Conversations include (all moderated by Dean Holo):

DEATH BY SUCCESS? WALKING THE TIGHTROPE OF IDENTITY: with Dr. Kristine Garroway and Rabbi Tali Zelkowicz
OUR JEWISH FUTURE: THE B’NAI MITZVAH REVOLUTION: with Dr. Isa Aron
REBIRTH IN GERMANY?: with Dr. Leah Hochman and Dr. Sharon Gillerman
THE MYSTERY OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS: with Rabbi Joshua Garroway, Ph.D
ARMED WITH SCRIPTURE: QUR’AN AND TORAH AS WEAPONS IN THE WAR OF IDEAS: with Rabbi Tamara Eskenazi, Ph.D

Past Conversations are now available on-line (above) for viewing from home:

BULLY PULPIT: TORAH WITH A POINT OF VIEW: with Rabbi Richard Levy
ANTI-SEMITISM: ROOTS AND REALITY: with David Lehrer
POLITICS AND THE PULPIT: with Rabbi Stephanie Kolin
HOW JUDAISM IS CHRISTIANITY?: with Rabbi Joshua Garroway
FROM ARAB SPRING TO ARAB SUMMER – OR WINTER? FAULT LINES IN THE ARAB AND MUSLIM WORLDS: with Rabbi Reuven Firestone, Ph.D
A FORUM ON THE 2013 PEW STUDY OF JEWISH AMERICANS: with Sr. Sarah Bunin Benor, Dr. Bruce A. Phillips and Dr. Steven Windmueller

This is an exciting new forum for synagogue learning with leading scholars and teachers. My own synagogue will be part of next year’s series.

I wish to express my gratitude to my friend Dr. Josh Holo for conceiving and initiating this forum and thereby bringing scholars and HUC faculty to our communities on a regular basis.

Anger Management and Leadership – Ki Tisa

Recently, I found myself sitting in a traffic jam in my supermarket’s parking lot. One driver decided (wrongly) that I was the one holding up movement, and so he rolled down his window and with a vulgar gesture cursed me crudely with such venom that I feared he was going to get out of his car and attack me. I rolled up my windows and didn’t look at him! He went away, thank God.

Of course, his outburst had nothing to do with me. I have no idea why he was so angry. However, I got to thinking about how much rage plagues common discourse today, in our relationships with family, friends and colleagues, with people we don’t know, within the Jewish community, and between peoples and nations.

This week’s Torah portion, Ki Tisa, shines a light on Moses’ rage at his people. He had brought the tablets of the law down from Mount Sinai and en route learned from Joshua that the people were celebrating around a golden calf. As he descended the mountain he heard for himself the revelry and became enraged.

After all God had done for the people and after all he had done to facilitate God’s will in their redemption, the people were short-sighted and ungrateful. With righteous indignation Moses smashed the tablets, burned the golden calf, ground it to powder, mixed it with water, and force-fed the substance to the guilty Israelites. (Exodus 32:15-20)

Moses’ indignation went unabated and we read in the next chapter: “Now Moses would take the tent and pitch it outside the camp, at some distance from the camp.” (Exodus 33:7)

Rabbi Menachem Sachs, quoting from the Jerusalem Talmud (B’chorim 3:3), explained why Moses pitched the Tent of Meeting so far away:

…because he was tired of the people’s constant complaining and criticism. As Moses walked around the camp some would say ‘look at his thick neck, his fat legs – he must eat up all our money.’”

Insulted and exasperated, Moses moved the tent out of the people’s sight so that only those who really wanted to draw near to God would have to deliberately choose to do so and then make the effort to come to the meeting tent.

Watching disapprovingly, God appealed to Moses (Midrash Rabbah 45:2):

“I want you to change your mind, go back to the camp, and deal with the people face to face, as it says, ‘The Eternal would speak to Moses panim el panim – face to face, as one person speaks to another.’” (Exodus 33:11)

We can’t blame Moses for his weariness and impatience with the people. He had suffered their obstinacy since leaving Egypt. He was old and tired, and had had enough.

Tradition, however, reminds us that leading a community while angry is no way to lead. Once leaders lose their temper publicly and become impatient with the people whom they lead, they lose not just whatever argument is immediately before them, but the faith of the people in their leadership.

As a congregational rabbi and leader of a large religious institution, I’ve learned over a period of more than 35 years that the very worst thing a leader can ever do is to respond to individuals, to the community, to staff, and to strangers with impatience, condescension and anger. This is true in religious institutions and education most especially, but in business, non-profits, the arts, politics, diplomacy, and government as well.

Tradition says that Moses lost the right to enter the Promised Land when he hit the rock with his stick out of anger at the people, instead of speaking to it as God had commanded him (Numbers 20:11).

No less an equivalent consequence should be exacted from trusted leadership when they lose control, condescend, humiliate, and sow division amongst those they lead.

The Talmud says, “If a person loses his temper – If he is originally wise, he loses his wisdom, and if he is a prophet, he loses his prophecy.” (Bavli, Pesachim 66b).

Here are a few additional reflections about anger worth noting:

Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured.”
-Mark Twain

When angry you will make the best speech you ever regret.”
-William Ury, American author, academic, anthropologist, and negotiation expert

When the spirit of anger asserts itself over a person, the trait of mercy flees and cruelty takes over to shatter and destroy.”
-Orchot Tzaddikim, 15th century Germany

Shabbat shalom!

Remembering Leonard Nimoy – Eulogy

(What follows is a portion of my eulogy at Leonard’s funeral on Sunday morning, March 1. He was married to my first cousin, Susan)

Leonard shared with me after he and Susan married 26 years ago that he had never met a woman like her, never had he loved anyone so dearly and passionately, that she’d saved his life and lifted him from darkness and unhappiness in ways he never thought possible. His love, appreciation, respect, and gratitude for her transformed him and enabled him to begin his life anew.

Susan – you were a stellar, loving and brilliant life-partner for your Leib. He knew it and in loving you he learned how to love his own children and grandchildren more deeply, and he came to recognize that his family was his greatest treasure and gift.

At the moment Leonard’s soul left him on Friday morning, his family had gathered around him in a ring of love. Leonard smiled, and then he was gone. It was gentle passing, as easy as a “hair being lifted from a cup of milk,” as the Talmud describes the moment of death.

What did Leonard see? We can’t know, but Susan imagines that he beheld his beloved cocker spaniel Molly, an angelic presence in life and now in death.

My wife Barbara and I shared much with Susan and Leonard over the years, in LA and in so many spectacular places around the world – so many joys and not a few challenges, and through it all we grew to love Leonard as a dear member of our family and were honored that he felt towards us as members of his own family.

At his 80th birthday celebration three years ago, I publicly thanked him for all he’d meant to my family and me, for being the love of Susan’s life, and for bringing her so much happiness.

Kind-hearted, gentle, patient, refined, and keenly intelligent was he.

As I listened to NPR’s story of his passing on Friday, I was struck by how uniquely recognizable to the world was his voice, not only because of its innate resonance and gentle tone, but because it emanated who he was as a man and as a mensch.

He was unflappably honest and warm-hearted. He embodied integrity and decency. He was humble and a gentleman. His sensitivity and intuition connected him with the world and offered him keen insight into the human condition. Whatever he said and did was compelling, inspiring and provocative. He strove always for excellence.

Leonard’s Hebrew name was Yehudah Lev, meaning “a Jew with a heart.” His interests and concerns were founded upon his faith and belief in the inherent dignity of every human being, and he treated everyone regardless of station, friend or stranger, with kindness and respect. His world view was enriched by his Jewish spirit and experience.

Leonard was nurtured in the Yiddish-speaking culture of his childhood on the West End of Boston, yet he transcended the particular categories with which he was raised. He cared about the Jews of the former Soviet Union, about Jews everywhere, and he was concerned for all people as well.

Because he grew up as a minority in his neighborhood, even sensing at times that he was an outcast living on the margins (which is what his Spock character was all about), Leonard ventured out from the conservative home and culture of his youth, courageously at a very young age, into the world where he sought greater truth and understanding. He was curious about everything and was a life-long learner.

Leonard appreciated his success, never taking his fame and good fortune for granted. He was generous with family, friends and so many good causes often contributing without being asked, quietly and under the radar, to individuals and causes selflessly, without need of acknowledgment or credit. In his later years, he learned that by fixing his name to some gifts, he could inspire others to give as well.

Over the years, from the time he performed in the Yiddish theater as a young actor, Leonard was particularly drawn to Jewish roles in film, television, stage, and radio. Most enduringly he brought the gesture of the Biblical High Priest to the world’s attention as an iconic symbol of blessing. He was amused that his fans unsuspectingly blessed each other as they held up their hands and said, “Live long and prosper!”

Most recently, Leonard created magnificent mystical images of feminine Godliness in his Shechinah photographs, one of which he gave to me as a gift graces my synagogue study and adds a spiritual dimension for me of everything I do in my life as a rabbi.

One year Leonard asked me what I thought of his accepting an invitation from Germany to speak before thousands of Star Trek fans. He told me that he’d been asked before but always turned the invitation down due to his own discomfort about setting foot in a country that had murdered six million Jews.

I told him that I thought it was time that he went, and that he take the opportunity to inform a new generation of Germans about who he was as a Jew and about the Jewish dimension of Spock’s personality and outlook. He liked the idea, and so on that basis accepted the invitation.

When he returned he told me that he had shared with the audience his own Jewish story and that Spock’s hand gesture was that of the Jewish High Priest blessing the Jewish community, an image he remembered from his early childhood attending shul with his grandfather in West Boston on Shabbes morning and peeking out from under his grandfather’s tallis at the Kohanim-Priests as they raised their hands in blessing over the congregation.

He told me that when he finished his talk he received a sustained standing ovation, an experience that was among the most moving in his public life.

There’s another incident worth recalling.

The Soviet Film Institute had invited Leonard in the mid 1980s to come to Moscow to speak about “Star Trek IV,” which he had directed. Leonard agreed to come on the condition that he be granted free passage to Zaslov, Ukraine to visit Nimoy relatives he’d never met. The Soviet officials refused, so Leonard declined. Then they had a change of heart and caved, and he and Susan visited the Ukrainian Nimoys thus reuniting two branches of his family tree divided eighty years earlier. Who else but Leonard Nimoy could stare down the former Soviet Union and win!?

Over time Leonard became one of the most positive Jewish role models in the world. He cared about all the right things, about promoting the Jewish arts, about peace and reconciliation between people and nations, and about greater justice in our own society.

He and I talked frequently about our love for Israel and its need for peace. He understood that a democratic Jewish state could survive only alongside a peaceful Palestinian state. He was disgusted by terrorism and war, disheartened by Israeli and Palestinian inability and recalcitrance to find compromise and a way forward towards a two-state solution and peace, and he was infuriated by continuing Israeli West Bank settlement construction and by both Islamic and Jewish fundamentalist extremism.

Though keenly aware of, knowledgeable about and savvy when it came to national and world politics and history, Leonard was at his core a humanitarian and an artist, and that was the lens through which he viewed the world.

Among his favorite quotations was that spoken by the 19th century actor Edwin Booth who claimed to have heard the solemn whisper of the god of all arts:

“I shall give you hunger and pain and sleepless nights, also beauty and satisfaction known to few, and glimpses of the heavenly life. None of these shall you have continually, and of their coming and going you shall not be foretold.”

Leonard did indeed glimpse the heavenly life in his artistic pursuits and in his love for his family and friends.

In thinking of him, I am reminded of Shakespeare’s words:

“Give me my Romeo; and, when he shall die,
Take him and cut him out in little stars,
And he will make the face of heaven so fine
That all the world will be in love with night
And pay no worship to the garish sun.”

“Romeo and Juliet,” Act III, Scene 2

I’ve never known anyone like Leonard – he was utterly unique. I loved him and will cherish his memory always.

Zecher tzaddik livracha – May the memory of this righteous man be a blessing.

Anti-Semitism at UCLA and College Campuses Nationwide and the Impact of BDS on Attitudes Towards Jews

The LA Jewish Journal this week reported that four of nine members of the UCLA student government’s highest judicial body “raised concern about a candidate for the board, Rachel Beyda, who could present a conflict of interest and make her unfit to serve impartially as a judge in the student government’s judicial branch.”

What was the problem with Ms. Beyda’s candidacy? She is Jewish, involved with UCLA’s campus Jewish community and therefore, they claimed, has a conflict of interest should the board vote on a Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) resolution targeting Israel.

Debra Geller, the chief administrative officer for student and campus life who oversaw the hearing, inserted herself after the vote and told these four board members that they did not appear to understand the difference between ‘conflict of interest’ and ‘perceived conflict of interest,’ and that virtually everyone, including them, could be seen to have a perceived conflict. The four then reversed their vote, and apologized – sort of.

They said: “We ask the Jewish community to accept our sincerest apology. Our intentions were never to attack, insult or de-legitimize the identity of an individual or people.”  (Daily Bruin, February 20)

The words sound right, but this incident reflects something deeper, more troubling, insidious, and pervasive not just at UCLA but on college campuses nationwide.

Though these four dissenters showed sincere remorse for their initial vote against Ms. Beyda, I question whether they and the UCLA administration understand adequately the nature of the problem.

I try not to speak with hyperbole. I am not one who sees anti-Semites lurking under every bed. I am not a fear-monger. I do not believe that all criticism of Jews or the state of Israel is necessarily anti-Semitic.

Yet, our inability to use the term anti-Semitism when it concerns Jews, when we don’t have a problem calling other forms of ethnic and religious bigotry what it is, raises disturbing questions about prevalent attitudes towards Jews, Judaism, Zionism, and the state of Israel.

It is likely that the four members of the UCLA board do not regard their initial position as anti-Semitic. But I believe that it was, and we should call it what it really is.

The multicultural agenda in American liberal circles, that I personally support, includes virtually all other minorities but excludes Jews who, it seems, have been reduced to being simply a successful white American religious group. This attitude belies a deeper understanding of what constitute Judaism, Jewish religious history, Jewish peoplehood, Zionism, and the meaning of the state of Israel in contemporary Jewish identity.

This reductionist Jewish definition has the effect of challenging Israel’s legitimacy and feeding the international de-legitimization movement against Israel. It is not only an anti-Israel and anti-Zionist position, but it is anti-Semitic because it is essentially an attack on the right of Jews to define ourselves, and it plays on classic anti-Semitic stereotypes without appreciating how hurtful and offensive these stereo-types are to Jews, and how damaging they are to the fabric of our American multicultural society.

De-legitimizers of Israel have worked very hard over a number of years to promote the belief that the existence of the state of Israel represents a moral injustice to the Palestinians and that even a two-state solution is morally unacceptable. This position is promoted not just at UCLA but on college campuses nationwide, and is having an effect on student attitudes towards Jews and Israel.

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported this week that 54% of American Jewish university students have experienced or witnessed at least one anti-Semitic incident during a single year. These experiences “strongly suggests that anti-Semitism is a nationwide problem,” according to the report.

The attitude of the UCLA administration about what is happening there reflects a national attitude as well. One UCLA official wrote: “My impression, when I speak with students, is that there is more ignorance/lack of sensitivity than racism – and I do try to be on the look-out for racism and other forms of bias.

Perhaps this is the case with many students, but not all. The problem is the successful conflation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism fed by the de-legitimization movement as it plays upon unsuspecting and uninformed college students and faculty, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, who believe that the perceived underdog, in this case the Palestinians, must be supported regardless of context, merit and truth.

There is a silver lining in this incident. This may create a space on campuses for students and faculty to learn more about Jews, Judaism, Zionism, and Jewish identity, and thereby come to a more inclusive, compassionate and fair understanding of who we are, what hurts Jews, and what kind of attitudes we need to evolve about each other.

Dr. Martin Luther King put it exactly right when he said: “People don’t get along because they fear each other. People fear each other because they don’t know each other. They don’t know each other because they have not properly communicated with each other.”

Obviously, this need to know each other works both ways. Jews need to understand Islam, Palestinians and other peoples just as they need to understand us. Now is the time for deeper self-understanding and self-knowledge, for better communication and better listening to the “other.”

Haaretz on Anti-Semitism on College Campuses – http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.644105

LA Jewish Journal – UCLA Judicial Board Questioned on Jewish Background in Apppointment – http://www.jewishjournal.com/los_angeles/article/ucla_judicial_board_nominee_questioned_for_jewish_background_in_appointment