Purim Questions You May Have Wanted to Ask But Never Did – From the Very Basic to the Most Difficult of All

12 Wednesday Mar 2014

Posted by rabbijohnrosove in American Jewish Life, Divrei Torah, Ethics, Holidays, Jewish History, Jewish Identity

Tags

Who are the heroes and villains of the Purim story?

Depending on how you read the story and your values, your notion of what makes a hero might differ from others. Therefore: Possible Purim Heroes/Heroines = Esther, Mordecai (?), Ahashuerus (?) and Vashti (?); Possible Purim Villains = Haman, Ahashuerus (?), and Mordecai (?).

What kind of a document is the story of Esther?

Usually called a megilah (scroll), it is in fact an iggeret (letter) suggesting its impermanence, much like the Jewish people’s experience during our 2000 years of exile living around the globe until the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948.

What are the 4 principle mitzvot of Purim?

[1] To hear the story – Sh’miat Megilah/Iggeret; [2] To take pleasure in a festive meal – Hana’at Seudah; [3] Sending gifts – Shlach manot; [4] Giving gifts to the poor – Matanot l’evyonim.

What is the meaning of the Hebrew word “Purim”?

Purim means “Lots” and refers to “lottery tickets” used by Haman to determine the date for his planned destruction of the Jews of Persia.

Is the story of Esther historically true?

Probably not, though it is based on real experiences of Jews at the hands of their enemies over time. Some scholars hypothesize that Ahashuerus was Xerxes I, who ruled Persia from 486-465 BCE. Historical records, however, make no mention of Haman, Esther or Mordecai, nor do they refer to any of the incidents recounted in Esther.

How did the story of Esther come to be written?

Some say that Purim co-opted and Judaized popular pagan carnivals. Others say that Esther was written at the time of the Maccabean revolt (165 BCE). In the flush of victory the story reinforced the national mood of confidence in deliverance. A third theory opines that the Babylonian creation god Marduk and the fertility god Ishtar cast lots to determine each other’s fate. Then, elements of the pagan festival were borrowed, rewritten and transformed into Purim with Marduk becoming Mordecai, Ishtar becoming Esther and “Lots” (Purim) playing a pivotal role in the plot.

Why do we make noise when Haman’s name is said?

Exodus 17 describes a bitter battle between the Israelites and the soldiers of Amalek who sought to destroy the Israelites and humiliate the God of Israel. In response, God instructed Moses: “Write this for a memorial in the book…I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under the Heavens.” Haman is identified as a descendent of Amalek.

What is the basis of Jews getting drunk on Purim?

“Rava said: A man is obligated to become drunk on Purim until he can no longer distinguish between ‘Cursed be Haman’ and ‘Blessed be Mordecai.’” (Babylonian Talmud, Megilah 7b). Rabbi Yehiel Michel ben Aaron Isaac Halevi Epstein (19^th century) warned: “Those who cannot hold their liquor or are alcoholics should certainly refrain from the ‘requirement’ to drink.’”

What is likely the most overlooked “detail” in the story of Esther?

In chapter 9, after Queen Esther persuaded King Ahashuerus that Haman intended to murder all the Jews (based on intelligence she received from Mordecai), the King appointed Mordecai as his chief advisor/Prime Minister in the place of Haman. Mordecai then led a campaign of blood-vengeance that included the public impaling of Haman and his ten sons, the killing of 500 men in the town’s fortress, 300 men in the city of Shushan, and 75,000 men, women and children throughout the Persian Empire. No small wonder that Jewish tradition and Purim celebrations ignore the wanton brutality perpetrated by Jews against the Persians at the end of this story.

Why is this story so popular despite its brutal conclusion?

Perhaps, because the Book of Esther is the quintessential experience of exile (i.e. galut). For 2000 years, until the establishment of the state of Israel, Jews have been subject to the largesse both positive and negative of their rulers. Given the trauma of anti-Jewish hatred throughout our history, Purim offered the Jewish people emotional and psychological release. The danger for contemporary Jewry, though there are still those who hate the Jewish people and the state of Israel, is that we become embittered and hateful like our enemies. Judaism and the state of Israel revere prophetic and rabbinic values as well as democratic norms that promote justice, compassion and peace, and those values are a hedge against the hardening of the heart and the loss of one’s Jewish soul. One might read Rava’s Talmudic call to become so drunk that Haman and Mordecai are indistinguishable from one another in a different way – that these two men were, in truth, the same, each driven by unchecked murderous designs.

Moses and God’s Tears – A Midrash for Parashat Vayikra

07 Friday Mar 2014

Posted by rabbijohnrosove in Divrei Torah, Inuyim - Prayer reflections and ruminations, Musings about God/Faith/Religious life, Poetry

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

D'var Torah, Faith, Poetry

So often God called upon Moses – / Three times they met; / first at the flaming bush, / then on Sinai amidst rock and stone, / and finally before the Tent of Meeting, / that Moses might intuit God’s mind / and soothe God’s broken heart / as a lover brings comfort to her beloved.

Since creation / God yearned to bridge the chasm / formed when the Creator pulled away / to open space for the universe.

Alone – exiled within the Divine Self / The holy Name, YHVH, / was divided from Itself as well / when the vessels holding the light shattered / and matter was flung to the far reaches of the universe – / the upper spheres were divorced from the lower, / male from female, / the primal Father from the Mother, / Tiferet from Malchut, / Hakadosh Baruch Hu from Sh’chinah, / Adonai from K’nesset Yisrael.

God yearned to restore what was once whole, / And not remain alone.

Before time and speech / and earth hurled into space / God appointed the soul of the Shepherd-Prince Moses as prophet / and endowed him with hearing-sight / and intuitive-wisdom / and integrated-knowledge.

No one but Moses / came so near to God / for all the rest of humankind / has inadequate vision and understanding.

Moses alone saw with his ears / and heard with his eyes / and tasted with his mind / to withstand the Light.

The prophet descended from Sinai aglow, / the primordial Light shielded through a veil / with divine ink-drops touched to his forehead / radiating everywhere / and illuminating the earth’s four corners.

Moses descended as if upon angel’s wings, / weightless cradling the stone tablets / in the eye of raging winds.

Despite his soaring soul, / the prophet was the aleph of Vayikra / most modest of all the letters / unheard – only seen, / to be known internally, intuitively, / as the most humble of anyone / ever to walk the earth.

Though Moses appeared as a Prince in Egypt / his destiny was to be a lonely shepherd / to gather his sheep and God’s people / to draw them by example / nearer to God.

There was so much God needed from Moses – / to bring the plagues / to overpower Pharaoh, / to liberate the people and lead them to Sinai, / to commune with God and pass along the Word, / to construct the Tabernacle and create a home for God / that divinity / might dwell within every Israelite heart / and thereby comfort God from loneliness.

After all God’s expectations and demands /we might expect Moses’ strength to be depleted, / that he would be exhausted to the bone / and ready to say; / “Enough! O Redeemer – find a new prophet! / I can no longer bear the burden / and be Your voice and create bridges! / You are Almighty God! / I am but flesh! / My strength is gone! / My time expired!”

“Nonsense!” proclaimed the YHVH. / “I am not yet ready for your retirement! / My world remains shattered, / My light obscured, / My heart still broken and aching? / I need you to teach My people / and instill in their hearts / a deep love that may heal My wound. / for I cannot do this for Myself.”

Alas, the Creator-Redeemer’s needs were clear – / to be close, so very close to Moses / that the prophet and Israel together / might wipe away God’s tears / and restore God’s heart / and heal God’s Name.

“Special Address by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – By Invitation Only”

06 Thursday Mar 2014

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

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

American Jewish Life, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History

This was how Prime Minister Netanyahu’s appearance was billed for a meeting this morning, Thursday March 6, at the Simon Wiesenthal Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles. Invited were leading community rabbis, politicians, American Zionist leaders, journalists, Hollywood executives, and business leaders. We were told to arrive at 7:30 AM, and that breakfast would be served.

Given PM Netanyahu’s visit earlier this week to Washington, D.C. to meet President Obama and address the annual convention of AIPAC activists, everyone with whom I spoke this morning expected that the PM would, at the very least, report on progress towards peace, as that was the main focus of his talks with the President.

I arrived dutifully at 7:15 am and entered a crowd of formally dressed men and women waiting to be checked in and pass through security. We entered the building at 7:45 am.

At 9:15 am we were asked to move from the lobby to the 400 seat theater of the Museum.

At 9:45 am, Rabbi Marvin Hier introduced the Prime Minister claiming that Bibi is the only Middle Eastern leader to have stated publicly that he is willing to go anywhere and anytime to talk peace. Palestinian President Machmud Abbas has said the same thing.

Rabbi Hier then said that Bibi “knows the difference between peace and appeasement,” after which the Prime Minister, at last, ascended the podium and began to speak at 9:37 am (2 hours and 25 minutes after I arrived).

He told us that he had just read a letter written in 1919 that promised the liquidation of the Jewish people in Germany. He compared the Nazis to the “true face” of the current Iranian regime, that we Jews have learned to take seriously the rhetoric of those who promise to destroy us and not ignore such threats, that the Nazi method was at once to be explicit and to deceive, and that yesterday’s Israeli seizure of an Iranian ship stocked with dozens of long-range missiles bound for Gaza and Hamas shows that history repeats itself and that we cannot stand idly by. The Prime Minister concluded by saying that that though we were at the Museum of Tolerance we “cannot be tolerant to the intolerant.”

He had spoken for ten minutes. No questions. No conversation. No dialogue with some of the most committed supporters of Israel in Los Angeles.

This “special address” took up most of the morning. Those around me were dumbfounded by the brevity of his remarks and the lack of any statement that would have lived up to the invitation that this would be a “special address” by the Prime Minister of Israel. One colleague quipped that the speech reminded him of Shakespeare’s “Much Ado About Nothing!”

Pragmatic Optimism vs Cynical Realism – Support The Kerry Peace Initiative

03 Monday Mar 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

American Jewish Life, American Politics and Life, Israel and Palestine, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History, Social Justice

In watching on-line a recent debate in Atlanta between J Street Founder and President, Jeremy Ben Ami, and Koret Distinguished Fellow at Shalem College in Jerusalem, Rabbi Daniel Gordis, I was struck both by their agreements and disagreements. (Their conversation begins at approximately 28 minutes into the video – http://www.livestream.com/templesinai/video?clipId=pla_89e743f2-cef2-47ab-8b6b-5b22b0eea84f)

Both recognize the need for a two-state resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to preserve Israel’s Jewish character and democracy.

Both believe that the treatment of Palestinians under Israeli military occupation in the West Bank is contrary to Jewish values and ethics.

Both respect and admire Israel’s accomplishments in a myriad of arenas following the darkest period in Jewish history.

They fundamentally disagree, however, about whether the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is solvable, whether there is a true negotiating partner on the Palestinian side, and about the greatest existential threat to the state of Israel.

Jeremy believes that not only is this conflict solvable, but the alternative is a nightmare leading to the end of the Jewish democratic state of Israel. The conflict is, in his view, Israel’s greatest existential threat.

Danny is convinced that this conflict is unsolvable because whereas Israel’s attitudes towards the Palestinians have evolved from Golda Meir’s statement that “There is no such thing as a Palestinian people” to PM Netanyahu’s acceptance of the existence of the Palestinian people and their right to a state of their own, the Palestinians, he says, have not evolved since 1948, and PA President Machmud Abbas’ most recent refusal to accept a “Jewish State of Israel” is proof positive that Israel is still fighting the 1948 war and that the Palestinian President is not a real peace-partner. He believes that Israel’s greatest existential threats are an uncertain Middle East and Iran’s nuclear threat.

Danny made three specific points: [1] Some problems cannot be solved, citing cancer and other international conflicts; [2] The trajectory of the Palestinian thinking about Israel (see above) makes it impossible for there to be real peace; and [3] Israel should strive just to make the life of Palestinians in the West Bank less difficult under occupation.

Regarding point #1 – many cancers are, in fact, treatable. However, that is a comparison between apples and oranges. When it comes to human-made problems, of which the Israel-Palestinian is one, JFK once said that problems human beings create can be solved also by human beings.

Regarding point #2 – The PLO, in truth, recognized the right of the state of Israel to exist in the early 1990s which enabled Prime Minister Yizhak Rabin and now-President Shimon Peres to enter into the Oslo Peace process. Last year Abu Mazen said he would like to visit his home town of Safed, but not live there because that is the state of Israel. He has consistently spoken of a two-state solution that settles all claims.

Regarding point #3 – Though much can probably be done to alleviate inconvenience on the West Bank, the fact of the occupation itself is a serious threat to Israel’s democratic traditions and an ongoing point of tension between Israeli settlers and Palestinians among whom they live that only a two-state solution can address completely.

Once all the primary issues are settled (e.g. borders, security, Jerusalem, refugees, water) I believe that the Palestinians will also acknowledge Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people just as Israel has acknowledged that Palestine will be the nation state of the Palestinian people. Let us remember that Bibi too has made categorical statements that Jerusalem will never be divided again and from the Palestinian side, that would doom negotiations.

What we have represented by Jeremy Ben Ami and Rabbi Daniel Gordis are two distinct approaches to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to world problems and even to life itself. One is pragmatic optimism (Jeremy Ben Ami), and the other is cynical realism (Rabbi Gordis). Yet, we have so many examples showing that what was once thought impossible became possible (e.g. Northern Ireland, South Africa, post-WWII Germany and Japan).

Robert F. Kennedy expressed the pragmatic optimistic approach when he said, “Some people see things as they are and ask why. I dream things that never were and say why not.”

And so did Israeli President Shimon Peres when he said: “There are always skeptics in life…To be an optimist you have to work very hard to maintain optimism with the people you lead 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…”

Judaism is, I believe, based on pragmatic optimism, as the Mishnah reminds us in the name of Rabbi Tarfon: “You are not required to complete the task, but neither are you free to withdraw from it.” (Pirkei Avot 2:21)

I would hope that those now at the AIPAC Conference in Washington, D.C. will support Secretary Kerry’s peace efforts and refrain from second guessing him, the President and the negotiations until they conclude, and that they avoid destructive rhetoric that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Two Recommendations on Israeli-Palestinian Peace Negotiations – One to Read and one to Watch/Hear

27 Thursday Feb 2014

Posted by rabbijohnrosove in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

Much is being written and said about Secretary Kerry’s diplomatic initiative with Israel and the Palestinians. Here are two of my strong recommendations that help to clarify the complexities involved beyond the headlines.

[1] To Read – “It’s not about Kerry. It’s about us” (Times of Israel) by Rabbi Donniel Hartman.

Rabbi Donniel Hartman is a modern Orthodox Rabbi, educator and writer, and serves as President of the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem. He is among the most intelligent and thoughtful of our people’s contemporary leaders.

In a wake-up call to Israelis, Rabbi Donniel Hartman says, “I have skin in the game… It’s not about Kerry; it’s about us: who we are and who we want to be. We need to reclaim this conversation and reposition it at the center of our national discourse, motivating and guiding our political policies.” http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/its-not-about-kerry-its-about-us/

[2] To Watch/Hear – Jeremy Ben Ami debates with Rabbi Daniel Gordis at Temple Sinai, Atlanta – an in-depth conversation from two articulate leaders on the future of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state in light of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and America’s engagement in negotiations.

Jeremy Ben Ami is the President and Founder of J Street, a pro-Israel pro-peace political and education organization in Washington, D.C., that has grown in 5 years to become the largest Jewish PAC in America. J Street is credited with having changed the American Jewish conversation about the meaning of pro-Israel support in the nation’s capital and has not only growing numbers of Jews and non-Jews as members, but increasing influence among members of Congress and in the Administration.

Rabbi Daniel Gordis, PhD, is Senior Vice President and the Koret Distinguished Fellow at Shalem College in Jerusalem, is a regular columnist for the Jerusalem Post, and a frequent contributor to the New York Times, in print and on-line.

Though Jeremy and Danny share some common goals, they differ fundamentally about whether there is, indeed, a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They discuss the appropriate role of the American Jewish community vis a vis the American and Israeli governments, how to best engage our college students, how to interact or not interact with the BDS movement, what they consider the existential threats facing the state of Israel, and their understanding of the Israeli and Palestinian logjams on the way to an eventual peace agreement.

Their conversation is intelligent, respectful and civil. You can skip the first 25 minutes and begin with Jeremy’s initial statement followed by Danny’s, and then listen to the back and forth for the remainder of the 90-minute conversation.

http://www.livestream.com/templesinai/video?clipId=pla_89e743f2-cef2-47ab-8b6b-5b22b0eea84f

The Presbyterian Church USA Confronts an Extremist anti-Semitic Faction

25 Tuesday Feb 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Israel and Palestine, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History, Jewish Identity, Jewish-Cbhristian Relations

Yet again, anti-Semitic extremists within The Presbyterian Church USA have asserted themselves with the publication of a new “study guide” on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This “guide” was released by the “Israel/Palestine Mission Network of the Presbyterian Church (USA)” and is titled “Zionism Unsettled.” It comes with a companion DVD.

In its self-promotion, the Guide states its purpose this way:

“What role have Zionism and Christian Zionism played in shaping attitudes and driving historical developments in the Middle East and around the world? How do Christians, Jews, and Muslims understand the competing claims to the land of Palestine and Israel? What steps can be taken to bring peace, reconciliation, and justice to the homeland that Palestinians and Israelis share?

Zionism Unsettled embraces these critical issues fearlessly and with inspiring scope. The booklet and companion DVD draw together compelling and diverse viewpoints from Jews, Muslims, and Christians in Israel, Palestine, the US, and around the globe. By contrasting mainstream perceptions with important alternative perspectives frequently ignored in the media, Zionism Unsettled is an invaluable guide to deeper understanding.”

This is hardly a guide to deeper understanding because it outright rejects the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own, calls Zionism a “pathology”, “heretical” and “a doctrine that promotes death rather than life.” It accuses Israel of “ethnic cleansing,” calls it an “apartheid state” and charges that Israel, despite being the only democracy in the Middle East, is inherently discriminatory towards non-Jews.

The guide ignores historical context altogether and shows no sympathy towards the Jewish victims of war and terror, nor does it justify Israel’s legitimate security concerns based on one hundred years of hostility against it. The guide even says that Jews have no inherent right to defend themselves.

The same anti-Semitic faction that produced this guide attempted at the last national conference of the American Presbyterian Church to pass a resolution supporting the “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions” (BDS) movement, but failed by a small margin. This group intends to bring a BDS resolution again to the June national conference, not motivated as a protest against certain Israeli policies in the West Bank, but against the very existence of the state of Israel.

Thankfully, there are many fair-minded and decent Presbyterians who have condemned the guide, reaffirmed their friendship with the Jewish people, support for the state of Israel and for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Among Israel’s greatest defenders is The Revered Chris Leighton, who serves as the Executive Director of the Institute for Christian & Jewish Studies and is an ordained Presbyterian minister. He has heavily critiqued this guide in “An Open Letter to the Presbyterian Church” http://www.icjs.org/featured-articles/open-letter-presbyterian-church-0

He writes in part:

“The condemnation of Zionism, in all its forms, is not merely simplistic and misleading; the result of this polemic is the theological delegitimization of a central concern of the Jewish people… Even a cursory study of history reveals the varied and complex forms that Zionism has taken over the centuries. The yearning for their national homeland has been woven into the Jewish community’s daily life for millennia. The Torah (Deuteronomy) and the Tanakh (2 Chronicles) both end with images of yearning to return to the land; synagogues face Jerusalem; the Passover Seder celebrated annually concludes with the prayer, “Next year in Jerusalem.” To suggest that the Jewish yearning for their own homeland—a yearning that we Presbyterians have supported for numerous other nations—is somehow theologically and morally abhorrent is to deny Jews their own identity as a people. The word for that is “anti-Semitism,” and that is, along with racism, sexism, homophobia, and all the other ills our Church condemns, a sin.”

This guide does not contribute to dialogue or mutual understanding between American Christians, American Jews, American Muslims, or any of the parties in the Middle East because it is a vicious polemic against one of the principle actors in the Israeli-Palestinian drama and against the position of anyone who would support the fundamental right of the Jewish people to a state of their own.

For the complete story, see the Jewish Telegraphic Agency’s report in Ha-aretz (February 20, 2014) – http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.575067

When The Extreme Elderly Slip Away

23 Sunday Feb 2014

Posted by rabbijohnrosove in Uncategorized

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

Health and Well-Being, Life cycle

When I woke my nearly 97 year-old mother at noon one day last week, she was delighted with my presence. Leaning in closely so she could see me, despite her macular degeneration, and hear me, despite her near deafness, we talked about sweet nothings.

Her new normal is confusion. She didn’t know the time or where she was, but she knew me and that was enough. I just let her talk, about anything.

She was once keenly intelligent and aware, well read and engaged, social and interactive. She has lost much of those capacities to dementia and her disabilities, and what’s left is her generous spirit, sense of gratitude and deep love for family.

Her nine brothers and sisters have all died except one. Yet, in her imagination they are still very much alive. She “speaks” with them regularly, and I don’t disavow her fantasies.

She looked at me intently and said, “John – you look older!”

“Mom! I’m 64!”

Stunned, she asked, “Where did all the years go?”

“You’ve been here all along and haven’t missed a thing. You’ve just forgotten.”

She loves to reminisce about her early life, so I’m now hearing stories (true but confused) that might have taken place 80 and 90 years ago.

In the middle of a sentence she grimaced, “I feel pain.”

“Where?”

“Here, in my heart – pressure. It hurts.”

I called the nurse. Her blood pressure was elevated. The nurse asked if she should call 911.

“Call my brother first [he’s a doctor], and ask him what he thinks we ought to do.”

Michael and I had decided a year ago that due to our mother’s advanced age, disabilities and dementia that we would not send her to the ER unless she had broken a bone, was in intense pain or couldn’t breathe. Otherwise, on-site nurses would treat her.

While the nurse called him, Mom announced to me, “I’m not ready to die, but I don’t want to leave all of you; though I could die now and I look forward to seeing everyone and finding out about them and what they’re thinking.”

Stroking her hair, I was half-certain that this was it. I felt not yet ready to lose her, though so much of who she was has already dissipated into ether and she is but a shadow of her former self.

As it turned out, her pain was caused by acid-reflux (or heart-burn) which Michael diagnosed over the phone, and it passed quickly.

It’s very very tough to be her age. Roger Angell, a ninety-plus essayist and sports commentator, writes movingly in this month’s New Yorker of the experience of people in their nineties. For all very old people, he says

“Decline and disaster impend… Living long means enough already. …We geezers carry about a bulging directory of dead husbands or wives, children, parents, lovers, brothers and sisters … all once entirely familiar to us… (“This Old Man – Life in the Nineties,” February 17, 2014) http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/02/17/140217fa_fact_angell?currentPage=all

Years ago I read a piece written by a very old woman who complained that no one ever touched her any longer and that she missed dearly that most concrete of human interactions. Ever since, I made it a point to touch, hug or kiss the very old, for their need for human contact never abates. This is certainly true for my mother. She drinks in physical connection and emotional attention like water on the desert floor.

Mr. Angell said it well:

“Getting old…is our unceasing need for deep attachment and intimate love. We oldies yearn daily and hourly for conversation and a renewed domesticity, for company at the movies or while visiting a museum, for someone close by in the car when coming home at night….those of us who have lost…the sweet warmth of a hip or a foot or a bare expanse of shoulder within reach…whatever our age, never lose the longing.”

He writes of the extreme elderly’s invisibility and how insignificant they feel even at the hands of those who love them most: “Honored, respected, even loved, but not quite worth listening to anymore,” he mourns.

On birthdays we Jews say “To 120!” (The length of Moses’s years and therefore a blessing). However, the disabilities and losses suffered by the extremely old don’t seem to amount to much of a blessing.

“The Jewish State” or “The State of the Jewish People” – A Distinction with a Significant Difference

20 Thursday Feb 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

American Jewish Life, Israel and Palestine, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History, Jewish Identity, Social Justice

There are two ways to characterize the State of Israel in Hebrew. One is Ha-M’dinah Ha-Y’hudit (“The Jewish State”) and the other is M’dinato shel Ha-am Ha-Y’hudi (“The State of the Jewish People”). There is a significant difference between them that we ignore at Israel’s peril.

The former (“The Jewish State”) is exclusive to “certified Jews” (see below); the latter (“The State of the Jewish People”) is inclusive of Klal Yisrael (i.e. all of world Jewry, though Israeli citizens have duties, rights and privileges that Diaspora Jewry does not share) as well as of 1.5 million non-Jewish Israeli citizens, currently 20% of the population.

The former challenges Israel’s democratic principles; the latter enables democracy to flourish.

The former allows the State of Israel and “Greater Israel” (i.e. Biblical Israel) to be conflated as one; the latter allows for the establishment of two-states for two peoples on land both claim as their historic legacy.

The former gives license to ultra-Orthodox politicians to determine Israel’s religious standards, practices and character; the latter promotes freedom of choice and equal rights for Israeli Jews and Israeli non-Jews in matters of religious preference without the state’s interference or preference for one religion or religious stream over another.

Israel’s Declaration of Independence articulates clearly the state’s democratic principles:

The State of Israel …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; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions….”

Unfortunately, these values have been compromised. In a recent New Yorker article, Bernard Avishai observed:

“…neo-Zionist ideas and Ben Gurion’s rash compromises with rabbinical forces over two generations ago [resulted in] laws that have left Israel a seriously compromised democracy…. this Jewish state allocates public land … almost exclusively to certified Jews, creates immigration laws to bestow citizenship on certified Jews, empowers the Jewish Agency to advance the well-being of certified Jews, lacks civil marriage and appoints rabbis to marry certified Jews only to one another, founded an Orthodox educational system to produce certified Jews …, assumes custodianship of a sacred capital for the world’s certified Jews – indeed, this Jewish state presumes to certify Jews in the first place. …In Israel, having J-positive blood is a serious material advantage….a fifth (soon a quarter) of Israeli citizens are Palestinian in origin, and thus are materially, legally disadvantaged by birth:” (“The Jewish State in Question,” The New Yorker, January 2, 2014 – http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/01/the-jewish-state-in-question.html)

A “certified Jew” is that which ultra-Orthodox rabbis confer upon an individual whose mother and maternal line is Jewish going back generations, or upon converts who meet the approval of those same ultra-Orthodox rabbis.

“Non-certified Jews” include individuals born of a Jew whose Jewish status is questioned by those ultra-Orthodox rabbis, or who converts to Judaism with a Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, or Renewal rabbi, or even with most modern Orthodox rabbis in Israel and Diaspora communities.

“Non-certified Jews” cannot be married in Israel or buried in a Jewish cemetery in Israel even if they are Israeli-born, have served in the army, paid taxes, and were killed in battle or in a terrorist attack.

Ultra-Orthodox rabbis not only determine Israeli citizens’ Jewish status, but they have taken control of most Jewish holy sites including The Western Wall and Plaza, Rachel’s Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs in Hebron. They have sought to separate the sexes in public areas and on public transportation, to shut down government services on Shabbat and Holy Days, to grant draft deferments to “certified Jews” studying in their yeshivot, and to disburse large sums of Israeli tax-payer money to ultra-orthodox schools and synagogues.

Israel’s internal challenges are broadly three-fold; to maintain its Jewish majority, its Jewish character and its democracy.

For Israel to retain its Jewish majority there needs to be a two-state agreement so that 1.5 million West Bank Palestinian Arabs can be relieved of Israeli occupation and become citizens of a Palestinian state. Before Michael Oren became Israel’s Ambassador to the United States, he wrote that Israel needs at least 70% of its population to be Jewish in order to assure its Jewish majority over the long-term (Commentary Magazine, May 2009). This means that those advocating the annexation of the West Bank into Israel in a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are promoting a serious threat to Israel’s identity as the state of the Jewish people.

For Israel to remain a democratic society, it needs both a functioning judiciary and a Knesset that respects the separation of synagogue and state and assures equal treatment under the law for all Israeli citizens, Jewish and non-Jewish alike.

For all these reasons, designating Israel as a “Jewish State” compromises Israel’s democracy, Jewish majority and Jewish character.

To call Israel “The State of the Jewish people”, however, honors Israel’s Jewish diversity, preserves its Jewish majority and protects and sustains Israel’s democratic traditions.

For Real Peace the PA Must Acknowledge that Judaism is More than a Religion

16 Sunday Feb 2014

Posted by rabbijohnrosove in Ethics, Israel and Palestine, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History, Jewish Identity, Social Justice

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Ethics, Israel and Palestine, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History, Social Justice

Nabil Abu Rudeineh, Palestinian Authority President Machmud Abbas’ official spokesman, said that the Palestinians would never recognize Israel as a “Jewish state”:

“We have no intention of dragging this conflict in a religious direction …The conflict between us is not religious. So why do you need our recognition that your state is Jewish? …We are telling you… the peace agreement will bring about the end of the conflict and the end of all claims. So what is all this nonsense you are saying that this proves we won’t accept the state of Israel?” (“PA Tells Kerry No to Framework Deal in Current Form”, Times of Israel, Avi Issacharoff, February 14, 2014)

Mr. Rudeineh’s statement seems reasonable, but it is based in the denial of the existence of the Jewish people as a nation, and that denial permits the PA to say that though it is ready to make peace, Israel remains an illegitimate usurper nation and Palestinian refugees have an absolute right of return to homes and land in Israel.

It is one thing for the Palestinians to recognize the existence of the state of Israel. It is quite another for them to recognize that Israel is the state of the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland.

On the one hand, Israel does not need an outside nation to grant her legitimacy. Yet, for the sake of long-term security and peace, Palestine must acknowledge at some point that Israel is the legitimate nation-state of the Jewish people, that Jews are far more than members of a religious community, that like all great civilizations the Jewish people has a long history in its ancestral land, a language, sacred literature, culture, legal and ethical traditions, all of which is corroborated by massive archaeological, extra-biblical and literary evidence. Palestinian denial of the legitimacy of the Jewish people’s identity, its Zionist expression, and the meaning of the founding of the modern state of Israel is not only contrary to fact but the source of Jewish Israeli distrust towards them.

Yes, former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin (z’l) and President Shimon Peres did not demand that Egypt and Jordan accept Israel as a “Jewish state,” and Egypt’s and Jordan’s recognition of “the state of Israel” was enough to enable two peace agreements to be signed and implemented.

However, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is fundamentally different from Israel’s conflict with other Arab nations. Neither Egypt nor Jordan claimed the land of Israel as part of its own territory. Uniquely, Israelis and Palestinians claim the same land as their heritage, and so mutual recognition of each other’s nationhood and mutual relinquishing of claims of Greater Israel and Greater Palestine are essential in any peace agreement. This means that west bank Jewish settlers and Palestinian refugees will have no claim on land that is outside their respective nation’s future agreed upon borders.

Though Israel’s leadership has accepted the legitimacy of Palestinian claims to a nation state of their own, the Palestinians still refuse to accept the Jewish people’s legitimacy as a nation, though they are willing to sign a two-state agreement and settle all claims.

Does it really matter that the Palestinians do not recognize a “Jewish state” or the right of the Jewish people to their national home? Israeli President Shimon Peres says that requiring such a statement from the PA is “unnecessary.” Many, including Mr. Rudeineh (above), say that at the end of the day all claims will be settled once and for all in a two-state agreement. Perhaps, nothing more is required than this.

However, according to current polls, 77% of Israeli Jews agree with Netanyahu, that the PA must acknowledge the legitimate rights of the Jewish people to our nation state. Even Yossi Beilin, an architect of the Oslo Accords and as far left on the Israeli political spectrum as one can be, agrees with Bibi, as does Ari Shavit, a middle-left journalist at Haaretz who just published “My Promised Land.”

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Israelis want symmetry and reciprocity when it comes to Israel and Palestine acknowledging each other’s legitimate national rights.

Perhaps, PA President Abbas will acquiesce once all the core issues have been settled. I pray that he does, because symmetry and reciprocity are the essential prerequisites before the two sides are able to make a deal. Deeper than this, they are prerequisites for each side to acknowledge their respective responsibility for the suffering endured by the other at their hands, to express regret for the other’s suffering, and to ask and receive forgiveness for that suffering.

If that were ever to occur, national t’shuvah (i.e. turning and reconciliation) between our two nations and peoples can be accomplished, and then there can be real and sustaining peace.

[Note: In my next blog, I will discuss why the term “Jewish state” is problematic for Israel, as opposed to Israel being the “state of the Jewish people.” In my view this is not a distinction without a difference.]